Tag Archives: Germany

LOST approval urged by global goverment advocates

August 31, 2005Frank Gaffney, Jr.

As concern grows that the United Nations is intent on replacing what the National Security Guidance calls “an orderly arrangement of sovereign states” with a proto-world government – complete with the ability to impose international taxes, a new push is being made for a treaty that would advance that purpose: the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

This sovereignty-sapping agenda is at the heart of a dispute now playing out in Turtle Bay, where U.S. Permanent Representative John Bolton is resisting an initiative pushed by governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) who are hostile to the United States and/or champions of a supranational government. Amb. Bolton is being savaged by the latter for wisely seeking over 500 changes to a draft Outcome Document envisioned for signature by heads of state and government at a High-Level Plenary Meeting of the UN General Assembly next month.

Yesterday, French President Jacques Chirac underscored his government’s intention to push forward with one such tax – on international airline travel, both as a unilateral initiative and together with Germany, Spain, Algeria, Brazil and Chile at the UN meeting. According to the Associated Press, “French authorities said a tax of about $6 per passenger worldwide, with a $25 surcharge for business class, would generate about $12 billion a year. The contribution could be adjusted in poorer countries, so passengers there were not penalized.”

The Establishment Strikes Back

It is against this unlikely backdrop, that a group of prominent former and present officials released today a letter to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging him to facilitate the “expeditious” ratification of a treaty that would help establish precedents useful to opponents of the Bush Administration at the UN and elsewhere: the Law of the Sea (LOST).

Despite the highly generalized praise for LOST offered by its proponents in the letter dated 31 August, the Treaty is problematic in a number of respects. For example, its governing body would be empowered to impose what amount to international taxes on resources extracted from the ocean floor and subsurface. Parties to the accord, moreover, are compelled to submit to what will, inevitably, be politicized tribunals like the World Court, whose decisions are binding and unappealable. It contains sweeping environmental obligations that make those entailed in the Kyoto accords pale by comparison – especially insofar as the Law of the Sea Tribunal has established that it believes its jurisdiction extends to activities on land and in the air if they might affect the world’s oceans.

Perhaps most worrisome is the fact that LOST was shaped by individuals, NGOs and regimes that have sought to use such international agreements governing the so-called “common space” to constrain America’s freedom of action and military power. This could be accomplished, were the United States to become a party to LOST, by the use of the Treaty’s tribunal and/or arbitration panels to encumber U.S. intelligence collection and submarine activities, by insisting upon the transfer of militarily significant technology and information, and even by prohibiting the interdiction of vessels believed to be engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Second Opinions

Opponents of the Law of the Sea Treaty have their own roster of influential figures who can go toe-to-toe on the implications of this accord with those who lent their name to the letter to Senator Frist. In fact, earlier this year, an array of organizations and individuals representing virtually the entire conservative movement joined a press conference at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to release their own letter to Sen. Richard Lugar, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Among those who participated were Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee; Ambassador Jeanne Kirkpatrick; David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union; Patrick Buchanan, author and commentator; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform; Fred Smith, President, The Competitive Enterprise Institute and Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy.

Incredibly, the voices of such critics were not afforded an opportunity to be heard when, in the Fall of 2003, the Foreign Relations Committee last considered the Law of the Sea Treaty and approved a resolution of ratification. In the intervening period: serious opposition has emerged; the Treaty was returned to the Foreign Relations Committee with the end of the last session of Congress and must be considered by that panel, and others, afresh; and the Bush Administration has had to confront new realities. Of these, the most immediate is the fact that the sorts of problems inherent in this Treaty are of a piece with those it is currently confronting in the draft Outcome Document for the UN General Assembly meeting next month.

The Bottom Line

For these reasons, if Senator Frist feels the need to respond to the LOST proponents’ new letter, it should be with an assurance that any further consideration by the Senate of this flawed treaty will be done in a manner that assures its defects as well as putative merits are carefully and deliberately examined. And, just as the United States must oppose global taxes and world-government-advancing programs at the UN this fall, it should do as Ronald Reagan did in 1982 – namely, reject the Law of the Sea Treaty.

Orgs oppose ‘globotaxes,’ give Bolton recess appt

July 21, 2005Frank Gaffney, Jr.

The Center for Security Policy today released an open letter to President Bush commending him for his nomination of John R. Bolton to become the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations – and urging a recess appointment be made to ensure Mr. Bolton is in place before the UN tries in September to impose international taxes on American citizens.

The letter states, in part:

In our judgment the Nation can ill-afford further delay of action on the BoltonGiven the momentous nature of that agenda – and the danger that some of its items may pose for American interests and sovereignty – we urge you to ensure that you are represented in New York at the earliest possible time by a man who enjoys your confidence and trust, and ours. nomination. As you know, the United Nations has a very full agenda this Fall.

Of particular concern is the prospect that the upcoming high-level plenary meeting of the UN General Assembly from September 14-16 will be used to implement various ideas for international taxes. As you know, such proposals are not new. In fact, these initiatives have long been seen as a means of underwriting world government, or at least diminishing this country’s ability to influence the United Nations by dint of its granting (or withholding) of large sums in annual dues.

What is new, however, is that some believe the United States now must agree to the imposition of one form or another of global taxation….We are sure that you share our unalterable opposition to the imposition of international taxes on American citizens and entities by unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats. As things stand now, however, our only hope of avoiding such ominously precedential "solidarity contributions" – whether they be imposed on airline tickets, currency transactions, international commerce or the internet – is for your view to be faithfully, articulately and effectively represented at the UN. (Emphasis added throughout.)

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, which circulated the open letter, said upon its release: "The Bush Administration is on notice: Millions of Americans represented by the forty-one signatories of this letter will not support the imposition of ‘globotaxes’ on them and their countrymen. It is time to draw a firm line against what the UN euphemistically calls ‘innovative funding mechanisms’ and John Bolton is the man to do it on the East River."

The U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday unanimously adopted an amendment offered by Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) opposing globotaxes. It would require, among other things, that:

United States representatives at the United Nations shall (1) use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to vigorously oppose any effort by the United Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies to fund, approve, advocate, or promote any proposal concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United States person in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or any such agency; and (2) declare that a United States person shall not be subject to any international tax and shall not be required to pay such tax if such tax is levied against such person.

For more information about the UN’s plans for international taxation – and the negative repercussions such globotaxes would have for American sovereignty, security and interests, see Smoking Gun: Shocking Truth Uncovered About U.N. Taxation Plan; U.S. Citizens Targeted for Trillions of Dollars by the International Bureaucrats and Insider-Trader George Soros, a newly released study by America’s Survival, Inc. (www.usasurvival.org).

Among the signatories and organizations represented on the open letter to President Bush are the following: David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America; Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values; Fred L. Smith, Jr., Founder and President, Competitive Enterprise Institute; Colin A. Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring, Inc.; Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President, Eagle Forum; Mariam Bell, National Director of Public Policy, The Wilberforce Forum; Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste; Alan Keyes, Chairman, Declaration Alliance; Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Move America Forward; Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association; and Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform.

July 21, 2005

Hon. George W. Bush
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We write to thank you for selecting John R. Bolton to become the next U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Like you, we are appalled at the delay in getting Mr. Bolton on the job, and share your displeasure with the mistreatment of this outstanding public servant by partisan critics of your Administration and its policies.

In our judgment the Nation can ill-afford further delay of action on the Bolton nomination. As you know, the United Nations has a very full agenda this Fall. Given the momentous nature of that agenda – and the danger that some of its items may pose for American interests and sovereignty – we urge you to ensure that you are represented in New York at the earliest possible time by a man who enjoys your confidence and trust, and ours.

What is new, however, is that some believe the United States now must agree to the imposition of one form or another of global taxation. They contend that, pursuant to agreed Millennium Development Goals contained in the Report of the International Conference on Financing for Development (dubbed the "the Monterrey Consensus"), the United States and other developed nations are obliged to provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income in foreign aid (also known as Official Development Assistance or ODA).

According to Kofi Annan’s special advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, the United States has only provided 0.15 percent and, therefore, would be short by some $65 billion each year from 2002 to the target year of 2015. The aggregate shortfall would amount to $845 billion above and beyond what the U.S. provides in ODA – a sum neither any President nor any Congress is likely to approve.

Hence, we are told, there is a need for "innovative funding mechanisms" (a euphemism for international taxes) such as "solidarity contributions on international plane tickets." On February 6, 2005, France, Germany, Chile, Brazil, Algeria and Spain formally issued a "Berlin Declaration" that proposed to use such involuntary "contributions" to raise revenues to "combat hunger and poverty and finance global sustainable development, inter alia health programs including the fight against HIV/AIDS and other pandemics." Other schemes include the so-called "Tobin Tax" on international currency transactions that could raise an estimated $13 trillion for the United Nations and other international purposes.

Unfortunately, international tax proposals have now made their way little-noticed into Annex II of the Gleneagles G-8 meeting communiqu?, a section entitled "Financing Commitments." It states, in part, that: "A group of countries above [evidently a reference to the UK, France, Germany and Italy] firmly believe that innovative financing mechanisms can help deliver and bring forward the financing needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals" – namely, more Overseas Development Assistance.

We are sure that you share our unalterable opposition to the imposition of international taxes on American citizens and entities by unelected, unaccountable international bureaucrats. As things stand now, however, our only hope of avoiding such ominously precedential "solidarity contributions" – whether they be imposed on airline tickets, currency transactions, international commerce or the internet – is for your view to be faithfully, articulately and effectively represented at the UN.

For these reasons among many others (including the opportunity to secure systemic UN reform, the need to get to the bottom of the Oil-for-Food scandal, etc.), we call upon you, if possible, to reach prompt agreement with the bipartisan Senate leadership to enable a final vote on John Bolton’s nomination before the August recess. Failing that, we respectfully urge that you enable Mr. Bolton to get to work at long last by conferring on him a recess appointment as soon as Congress adjourns next month.

Sincerely,

David A. Keene, Chairman, American Conservative Union

Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions for America

Gary L. Bauer, President, American Values

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., President, Center for Security Policy

Fred L. Smith, Jr., Founder and President, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Colin A. Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring, Inc.

Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President, Eagle Forum

Mariam Bell, National Director of Public Policy, The Wilberforce Forum

Tom Schatz, President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Alan Keyes, Chairman, Declaration Alliance

Melanie Morgan, Chairman, Move America Forward

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman, American Family Association

William J. Murray, Chairman, Religious Freedom Coalition

Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform

Ron Shuping, Senior Vice President of Programming, The Inspiration Networks

Jim Backlin, Vice President of Legislative Affairs, Christian Coalition of America

William Greene, President, RightMarch.com

Andrea Lafferty, Executive Director, Traditional Values Coalition

Beverly LaHaye, Founder and Chairman, Concerned Women of America

William Levi, CEO and President, Operation Nehemiah Missions International

Richard Falknor, Executive Vice President, Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Chuck Muth, President, Citizen Outreach

Robert B. Carleson, Chairman, American Civil Rights Union

Paul Caprio, President, Family-PAC Federal

Stephen Stone, President, Renew America

Cliff Kincaid, President, America’s Survival. Inc.

Kay Daly, President, Coalition for a Fair Judiciary

Rev. Russell Johnson, Chairman, Ohio Restoration Project

Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, Chairman, Traditional Values Coalition

Steven Mosher, President, Population Research Institute

John J. Karch, Executive Director, Slovak League of America

C. Preston Noell III, President, Tradition, Family, Property Inc.

Tom Shields, Chairman, Coalition for Marriage and Family

Bruce Chapman, President, Discovery Institute

Nancy C. Purcell, Field Representative, Global Bridges

George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom

Ann Buwalda, Esq, Director, Jubilee Campaign USA

Kristin Wright, Executive Director, Stand Today

Ron Pearson, President, Council for America

Jeff Gayner, Chairman, Americans for Sovereignty

Erping Zhang, Executive Director, Association for Asian Research

Deborah Weiss, Blogsforbush.com; GOPbloggers.com

House votes to oppose ‘globotaxes’!

July 19, 2005Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Today, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) introduced an amendment to the H.R. 2601, the State Department authorization bill that would block efforts the United Nations is expected to initiate this September to impose international taxes on U.S. citizens. The Center for Security Policy applauds Rep. Blunt’s leadership and the adoption without objection of his amendment to spare Americans the financial burdens such "globotaxes" would represent and the ominous strategic implications of affording the UN and other international institutions revenue streams independent of their nation members.

In a column published in today’s Washington Times, Center President Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. warned:

"If the United States goes along with [proposed global financing arrangements], it will allow a precedent to be set for taxation without representation that would send America’s Founders spinning in their graves. It can forget about the modest constraint its ability to withhold ‘dues’ has exercised on U.N. behavior. It can be sure real U.N. reform will not be in the cards."

If accepted by the Senate and signed into law, the Blunt Amendment would make it:

The policy of the United States to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to vigorously oppose any international or global tax that is or may be considered or promoted by the United Nations, its specialized or affiliated agencies, its Member States, or United Nations-recognized nongovernmental organizations.

In addition, the Blunt Amendment would require that:

United States representatives at the United Nations shall (1) use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to vigorously oppose any effort by the United Nations or any of its specialized or affiliated agencies to fund, approve, advocate, or promote any proposal concerning the imposition of a tax or fee on any United States person in order to raise revenue for the United Nations or any such agency; and (2) declare that a United States person shall not be subject to any international tax and shall not be required to pay such tax if such tax is levied against such person.

Upon the adoption of the Blunt Amendment, Mr. Gaffney declared: "Roy Blunt deserves the gratitude of all those who oppose the imposition of taxes without representation, who recoil from the idea of the United Nations and similar institutions being able to generate and use revenues without adult supervision and in particular the further, egregious infringement on American sovereignty that the approval of ‘globotaxes’ would represent. It now behooves the Senate to find an appropriate vehicle for enacting the Blunt Amendment into law before the August recess, thereby making it less likely that the UN will be able to get away with its plan to impose such taxes at the September plenary meeting of the General Assembly."

Globotaxes
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., The Washington Times, 19 July 2005

Most Americans have come — correctly, if reluctantly — to the conclusion the United Nations has been a failure. Sixty years ago, the U.N.’s founders envisioned it as an engine of freedom, an international mechanism in which sovereign nations would come together to protect liberty and to facilitate its spread throughout the world.

Instead, for most of its life, the "world body" has been dominated by the unfree. Under their influence, the U.N. has morphed into a protection racket for the world’s despots and, effectively, an abettor of those who would supplant liberty with corrupt authoritarianism, or worse.

Others in the Secretariat have engaged in embarrassing personal and official misconduct. The bureaucracy is notoriously bloated and inefficient. The agenda remains dominated by anti-Israel and anti-American initiatives. And the reputation of U.N. peacekeeping operations around the world has been sullied as some of the foreign troops assigned to them have turned into rape squads and sex-traffickers.

Against this backdrop, even the United Nation’s most assiduous supporters have been obliged to pronounce they favor "reform" of the organization. But it would appear what most have in mind is little more than reshuffling the proverbial deck chairs.

For example, proposals advanced to date by Mr. Annan would perpetuate the fundamental problems arising from the pre-eminence of nations hostile to the United States and/or freedom and the malfeasance, if not malevolence, of the U.N.’s largely unaccountable staff.

History shows there is only one way to effect constructive change at the United Nations: By the United States exercising the power of the purse.

Each year, the U.S. is obliged to pony up a quarter or more of the United Nation’s roughly $2 billion budget — far more than any other member state. This represents, by the way, just the contribution for which America gets credit. In addition, we provide untold billions worth of support (notably, that of the U.S. military for logistical and other assistance to U.N. peacekeepers) which is neither acknowledged nor reflected in calculations of what we "owe" the organization.

In light of past experience and present problems with the United Nations, the U.S. House of Representatives recently endorsed by a wide margin the recommendation of the distinguished chairman of its International Relations Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican. It makes future U.S. payments to the "world body" contingent upon U.N. adoption of a set of sensible and wide-ranging reforms.

The U.N. is determined to deny the United States such leverage and to insulate itself from further American pressure for systemic change. On Sept. 14-16, the U.N. General Assembly is scheduled to hold a high-level plenary meeting to consider the implementation of "Millennium Development Goals" contained in the report of the U.N.’s 2002 International Conference on Financing for Development. According to this so-called "Monterrey Consensus," the United States and other developed nations are obliged to provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income in foreign aid (also known as Official Development Assistance or ODA).

Secretary-General Annan’s special adviser, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, contends the United States has only provided 0.15 percent of its GNI. Mr. Sachs and his friends at the United Nations maintain we therefore "owe" the international community $65 billion each year from 2002 to the target year of 2015, for a total of $845 billion in additional foreign aid.

Since no one in their right mind expects either this president or any other — let alone any foreseeable U.S. Congress, to provide these vast amounts in notoriously ill-spent foreign aid, the U.N. types have come up with an alternative means of making Americans pay their huge "debt" to the undeveloped world: international taxation (hereafter known as "globotaxes").

Incredible as it may seem, a Bush administration viscerally opposed to raising taxes has not shown the sort of vehement resistance to this initiative that it should.

In fact, Annex II of the Gleneagles G-8 communique (titled "Financing Commitments"), reveals the U.S. agreed to create a working group proposed by France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain to consider carrying out "innovative financing mechanisms" to "help deliver and bring forward the financing needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals."

Among "financing mechanisms" to be weighed is a "solidarity contribution on [international] plane tickets." French President Jacques Chirac has declared he believes this "small levy" would bring — presumably into U.N. coffers — at least $3 billion.

If the United States goes along with this arrangement in September, it will allow a precedent to be set for taxation without representation that would send America’s Founders spinning in their graves. It can forget about the modest constraint its ability to withhold "dues" has exercised on U.N. behavior. It can be sure real U.N. reform will not be in the cards. And it can expect other globotaxes will soon be proposed.

The mother of all globotaxes is an idea that has been kicking around the East River for some time and named after the Yale Nobel Laureate who first proposed it, Dr. James Tobin. The "Tobin tax" would theoretically raise an estimated $13 trillion — yes, trillion — from a small levy on international currency transactions. Imagine what the One Worlders and U.N. bureaucrats could do to our sovereignty and interests with that kind of wherewithal.

If the Bush administration is unable or unwilling to resist such globotaxes, it will fall to the Congress to do so. With the August recess looming and the U.N. fund-raiser coming right after Labor Day, there is no time to waste.

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times.

Globotaxes

July 18, 2005Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Decision Brief No. 05-D 34 2005-07-18

(Washington, D.C.): Most Americans have come – correctly, if reluctantly – to the conclusion that the United Nations has been a failure. Sixty years ago, the UN’s founders envisioned it as an engine of freedom, an international mechanism in which sovereign nations would come together to protect liberty and to facilitate its spread throughout the world.

A Disaster, Not Just a Disappointment

Instead, for most of its life, the “world body” has been dominated by the unfree. Under their influence, the UN has morphed into a protection racket for the world’s despots and, effectively, an abettor of those who would supplant liberty with corrupt authoritarianism, or worse.

In recent months, evidence of how far the United Nations has strayed from its original purpose has steadily leached into plain sight. The staggering Iraq Oil-for-Food scandal has implicated senior members of the UN leadership including, it would appear, Secretary General Kofi Annan. Others in the Secretariat have engaged in embarrassing personal and official misconduct. The bureaucracy is notoriously bloated and inefficient. The agenda remains dominated by anti-Israel and anti-American initiatives. And the reputation of UN peacekeeping operations around the world has been sullied as some of the foreign troops assigned to them have turned into rape squads and sex-traffickers.

Against this backdrop, even the United Nation’s most assiduous supporters have been obliged to pronounce that they favor “reform” of the organization. It would appear that what most have in mind, however, is little more than a reshuffling of the proverbial deck chairs.

For example, under proposals advanced to date by Mr. Annan, the fundamental problems arising from the preeminence enjoyed by nations hostile to the United States and/or freedom and the malfeasance, if not malevolence, of the UN’s largely unaccountable staff will be perpetuated.

America ‘s Leverage

History shows that there is only one way to effect constructive change at the United Nations: By the United States exercising the power of the purse .

Each year, the U.S. is obliged to pony up nearly a quarter of the United Nation’s roughly $2 billion annual budget – far more than any other member state. This represents, by the way, just the contribution for which America gets credit. In addition, we provide untold billions worth of support (notably, that given by the U.S. military for logistical and other assistance to UN peacekeepers) which is neither acknowledged nor reflected in calculations of what we “owe” the organization.

In light of past experience and present problems with the United Nations, the U.S. House of Representatives recently endorsed by a wide margin the recommendation of the distinguished chairman of its International Relations Committee, Rep. Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois. It makes future American payments to the “world body” contingent upon a set of sensible and wide-ranging reforms being adopted by the United Nations.

The UN’s Strategy for Eliminating U.S. Leverage

The UN is determined to deny the United States such leverage and to insulate itself from further American pressure for systemic change. On September 14-16, the UN General Assembly is scheduled to hold a high-level plenary meeting to consider the implementation of “Millennium Development Goals” contained in the report of the UN’s 2002 International Conference on Financing for Development. According to this so-called “Monterrey Consensus,” the United States and other developed nations are obliged to provide 0.7 percent of their gross national income in foreign aid (also known as Official Development Assistance or ODA).

Secretary General Annan’s special advisor, Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, contends that the United States has only provided 0.15 percent of its GNI. Sachs and his friends at the United Nations maintain we therefore “owe” the international community $65 billion each year from 2002 to the target year of 2015, for a total of $845 billion in additional foreign aid.

Since no one in their right mind expects either this President or any other – let alone any foreseeable U.S. Congress, to provide these vast amounts in notoriously ill-spent foreign aid, the UN types have come up with an alternative means of making Americans pay their huge “debt” to the undeveloped world: international taxation (hereafter known as “globotaxes”).

‘No New Taxes’?

Incredible as it may seem, a Bush Administration viscerally opposed to raising taxes has not shown the sort of vehement resistance to this initiative that it should. In fact, Annex II of the Gleneagles G-8 communiqu? (entitled “Financing Commitments”), reveals that the United States agreed to create a working group proposed by France, Germany, Italy and Great Britain to consider implementation of “innovative financing mechanisms” that can “help deliver and bring forward the financing needed to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.”

Among the “financing mechanisms” to be considered is a “solidarity contribution on [international] plane tickets.” French President Jacques Chirac has declared that he believes this “small levy” would bring – presumably into UN coffers – at least $3 billion.

The Bottom Line

If the United States goes along with this arrangement come September, it will allow a precedent to be established for taxation without representation that would send the Founders’ bodies spinning in their graves. It can forget about the modest constraint its ability to withhold “dues” has exercised on UN behavior. It can be sure real reform of the UN will not be in the cards. And it can expect that other globotaxes will shortly be proposed.

The mother of all globotaxes is an idea that has been kicking around the East River for some time and named after the Yale Nobel Laureate who first proposed it, Dr. James Tobin. The “Tobin tax” would theoretically raise an estimated $13 trillion – yes, trillion – from a small levy on international currency transactions. Imagine what the one-worlders and UN bureaucrats could do to our sovereignty and interests with that kind of wherewithal.

If the Bush Administration is unable or unwilling to resist such globotaxes, it will fall to the Congress to do so. With the August recess looming and the UN’s fundraiser coming right after Labor Day, there is no time to waste.

Broken treaty

May 2, 2005Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Decision Brief No. 05-D 20 2005-05-02

(Washington, D.C.): Starting this week, the United Nations will engage in one of the activities that has caused the organization to fall into disrepute and prompted the Bush Administration to insist on its systemic reform: the quintennial review conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Past as Prelude?

If past practice is any guide, the conferees will refuse to acknowledge, let alone address, the obvious – the NPT is failing to stop nuclear wannabes from getting the Bomb. They will once again studiously try to ignore the fact that the Treaty itself has helped enable such proliferation. Its central bargain – which President Bush has charitably called a “loophole” – is that if manifestly untrustworthy states like North Korea and Iran promise not to pursue nuclear weapons, the industrialized world will provide all the technology and know-how needed to acquire such weapons under the guise of cooperation on “peaceful” uses of nuclear energy.

Instead of correcting this fatal flaw and taking to task those who have exploited it, the RevCon’s participants will likely use the occasion to rail against the United States for its alleged failure to disarm fast enough to suit its enemies and other critics. They will press for fresh commitments from Washington that would make it still harder for the U.S. to maintain, let alone to update, its aging nuclear arsenal.

A Bill of Particulars

Recent events underscore the absurdity of such a conclave and its topsy-turvy agenda. Consider the following:

North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT and is moving forward with a now-acknowledged nuclear weapons program. A few weeks ago, Pyongyang shut down another reactor and apparently has begun mining its plutonium to build more bombs. There are indications it may soon conduct a test of a nuclear device. And Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, the head of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, revealed last week that Pyongyang has the capacity to mate nuclear warheads on its ballistic missiles – one of which was flown near Japan on Sunday. The DIA assesses that some of these are already capable of reaching parts of the United States.

Iran has not yet formally followed North Korea out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty but it is clearly preparing to do so. For nearly twenty years, Tehran has concealed from international inspectors the full scope and character of its nuclear program, parts of which have been conducted in a large number of dispersed facilities, a number of them covert sites that have been buried deep underground in hardened shelters.

The mullahs are skillfully employing the techniques of the bazaar to buy time to complete their weapons program. Negotiations that three European states – France, Germany and Britain – hope will induce Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions in exchange for political, economic and technological concessions are going nowhere. In fact, assorted Iranian spokesmen keep announcing that nothing is going to prevent the regime from realizing the “right” to nuclear power to which it is entitled under the NPT. Only the most na?ve or self-deluded believe the “power” to which the mullahs aspire is purely civilian.

Worse yet, evidence continues to accumulate that both North Korea and Iran are interested in a nuclear weapons application that poses a particular and extraordinary danger to the United States: a ballistic missile-delivered warhead that would cause an electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) capable of inflicting what a blue-ribbon commission recently called “catastrophic” damage to the electric grid and electronic systems across the country.

Former Soviet experts in EMP effects are said to be in North Korea, where they may be advising not only Kim Jong-Il’s regime but prospective terrorist clients about how such an attack might be accomplished.

Not to be outdone, Iran has, according to testimony before Senator Jon Kyl’s Terrorism Subcommittee in March, performed mid-air detonations over the Caspian Sea using ship-launched ballistic missiles – a flight profile consistent with an EMP attack. Worse yet, WorldNetDaily reports that an Iranian military journal has published an article entitled “Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars,” which “explains how an EMP attack on America’s electronic infrastructure, caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high above the U.S., would bring the country to its knees.”

Incredibly, in the face of these emerging threats, the United States continues to neglect its nuclear deterrent. Unlike North Korea (and probably Iran), it has no active production line for manufacturing modern nuclear weapons. Unlike North Korea, it could not conduct an underground nuclear test anytime soon. America’s thermonuclear arsenal is relatively large but it is obsolescent, having been subjected to over a decade of malign neglect that has rendered our deterrent less safe, reliable and credible than we can make it – and than it needs to be.

The Bottom Line

The appalling state of the U.S. nuclear weapons program makes all the more absurd the harsh criticism to which it and this country will be subjected by the NPT conference. The United States is well on its way – through a process the former Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Floyd Spence, once called “erosion by design” – of: systematically eviscerating its deterrent; dissipating the talented workforce and eliminating the industrial infrastructure needed to ensure its viability; and compounding the Nation’s vulnerability to electro-magnetic pulse attacks by failing to conduct tests necessary properly to understand the threat and our vulnerabilities to it.

America is a legal nuclear power under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Review Conference needs to be told we intend to do what we must to remain one, including the development and testing of the sorts of nuclear weapons needed to deter nations who have exploited a broken treaty in order to threaten us.

The Eurofaustians

March 14, 2005Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Decision Brief No. 05-D 12 2005-03-14

(Washington, D.C.): “The advance of hope in the Middle East…requires new thinking in the capitals of great democracies – including Washington, D.C. By now it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating tyranny, in the pursuit of stability, have only led to injustice and instability and tragedy. It should be clear that the advance of democracy leads to peace, because governments that respect the rights of their people also respect the rights of their neighbors. It should be clear that the best antidote to radicalism and terror is the tolerance and hope kindled in free societies. And our duty is now clear: For the sake of our long-term security, all free nations must stand with the forces of democracy and justice that have begun to transform the Middle East.”

-George W. Bush, National Defense University March 8, 2005

Even as President Bush was drawing this lesson from the past, Europe’s leading nations – Britain, France and Germany – were inveigling his Administration to join them in the latest example of great democracies “excusing and accommodating tyranny” in the pursuit of what passes for “stability.” Within days of the President’s powerful address at NDU, the Eurofaustians had induced him to join their effort to do a deal that would, as a practical matter, legitimate, perpetuate and enrich the despotic mullahocracy of Iran.

What Change in Policy?

To hear Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley tell it, there has been no change in U.S. policy toward Iran. Rather, the United States has – in the interest of getting the Iranian regime to abandon its nuclear ambitions – simply “withdrawn its objections” to Europe’s paying Tehran with currency we control (Iranian entry into the World Trade Organization and access to spare parts for aging 737 airliners).

In exchange for these seemingly modest concessions, we are assured that new, common “red-lines” have been drawn with the Europeans. If the Iranians don’t agree to give up their nuclear weapons ambitions, we can now count on the so-called EU-3 to join us in taking the matter to the UN Security Council for action.

Welcome to the Casbah

We should be clear, however. We have entered the bazaar and the offer on the table should be understood by everyone to be but the opening bid. The mullahs have already responded by saying they will not abandon their uranium enrichment program, seed corn for nuclear weaponry. Clearly, they expect more Western offers will be made to induce them to be more tractable.

Unfortunately, it is predictable that the Europeans will be all-too-willing to make such further offers, in the interest of “keeping the dialogue going” and avoiding a rupture with Tehran that would be seen as clearing the way for the Iranian bomb. (A similar logic is impelling the Eurofaustians to resume arms sales to Communist China, even as the PRC inexorably moves forward with its plans to re-annex Taiwan, by force if necessary.)

The futility of the Eurofaustians’ deal-making is assured, however, since there is no way to ensure that Tehran is complying any more fully with future promises to freeze its nuclear weapons program than it has with previous ones. For example, we recently learned that part of the vast Iranian covert nuclear weapons complex involves facilities in hardened tunnels half-a-mile underground. It is roughly as difficult to know what is going on inside such sites as it is to destroy them.

Worse yet, the process of deal-making with a repressive, dishonest and aggressive Iranian regime buys the mullahs the one thing they need most: Time. Time to complete their covert nuclear program. Time to mate nuclear warheads with Iran‘s growing arsenal of longer and longer range ballistic and cruise missiles. Time to ensure that Iran‘s Chinese and Russian friends will thwart any Security Council resolution the United States might actually be able to persuade the EU-3 to support.

Fatal Harm to the Bush Doctrine?

Arguably even more insidious is the prospect that the Bush Administration will be seen by the Iranian people as having decided, at least implicitly, that doing a deal with the Iranian regime is more important than “standing with the people” of Iran, who yearn for freedom from the mullahs. This is all the more regrettable since it not only calls into question the President’s central organizing principle for the war on terror; it would also seem to preclude, or at least greatly to impede, the only tool that might actually prevent Iranian nuclear armament: regime change in favor of freedom.

In a meeting with the Washington Times editorial board last Friday, Secretary Rice confirmed this dilemma: “Our challenge is to continue to speak to the aspirations of the Iranian people even as we deal with near-term issues like the Iranian nuclear program. And the President is determined to do that, determined not to lose the emphasis on the rights and the aspirations of all people, including the Iranian people, to live in freedom. We don’t want to do anything that legitimizes this government – the mullahs – in a direct way. And so there isn’t any indication here of ‘warming of relations.'”

The Bottom Line

The problem is that, even if Dr. Rice is correct and – despite all appearances and, frankly, expectations – these European-led negotiations do not wind up euchring the United States into legitimating the regime and abandoning the aspirations of the Iranian people, they will make it more difficult to do something about those aspirations. We need to wage political warfare against the mullahocracy if there is to be any chance of freeing its people and denying terror’s friends the Bomb. And neither time nor the Eurofaustians will be on our side in waging such warfare.

Arsenals of Tyranny

February 21, 2005Frank Gaffney, Jr.

Decision Brief No. 05-D 09 2005-02-21

(Washington, D.C.): At the end of 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a powerful “fireside chat,” one that is a fitting backdrop to the visit to Europe being made this week by his successor, George W. Bush. In his radio address, FDR summoned a reluctant America to make the sacrifice necessary to produce the arms urgently needed by freedom-loving people in Britain and elsewhere at risk of being overrun by Nazism and other forms of tyranny. He called the United States “the great arsenal of democracy.”

In the course of his travels, Mr. Bush will be meeting with the leaders of a number of countries whose national survival in World War II depended critically upon the industrial output of democracy’s indispensable arsenal. His purpose will be to restore relations with these allies strained in recent years by disagreements over the liberation of Iraq and other matters.

Friends Like These

Unfortunately, the President’s “fence-mending” efforts with Russian President Vladimir Putin and his French, German and British counterparts seem likely to founder over the fact that these states are increasingly becoming arsenals for tyranny.

Take Russia. Since the end of the Cold War, the old Soviet military-industrial complex has been kept a going-concern largely as a result of sales of its products to Communist China and other regimes unfriendly to freedom.

Putin’s Russia has approved the sale of a vast array of advanced aircraft, missile systems, submarines, other seagoing vessels and armored equipment. Worse yet, the Russians have in many cases transferred not only end-items but manufacturing know-how, enabling the Chinese to produce even larger quantities of such sophisticated equipment in the future – for its own use and for sale, in turn, to other despotic regimes.

Mr. Putin’s list of client tyrannies does not end with China. Just last week, he reaffirmed his decision to allow the Iranian mullahocracy to complete construction of a Russian-designed and -supplied nuclear power plant at Bushehr. In so doing, he blithely dismissed American and other concerns that this facility will be used by the Iranian regime to amass fuel for nuclear weapons.

Putin has been no more responsible with respect to appeals to forego the sale of advanced surface-to-air missiles to the Syrian despot, Bashir Assad. Such weapons may well make their way into the hands of the terrorist Hezbollah organization that enjoys safe-haven and sponsorship from Syria and its patron, Iran. The effect would be greatly to escalate the risk of conflict between Israel and Syria and the possibility that Russian-made weapons are used to try to shoot down American pilots operating in and from Iraq.

In addition, the Kremlin has recently agreed to sell as many as 100,000 AK-47 assault rifles to one of this hemisphere’s most worrisome, and ambitious, despots: Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. These arms will be used by Chavez to equip his allies in fomenting anti-American revolutions throughout Latin America – including, notably, in Nicaragua, where the Sandinistas appear poised to retake power.

Europe and the China Arms Embargo

If Mr. Bush’s Russian interlocutor is indifferent to appeals for greater restraint in such sales to freedom’s enemies, so it appears are France’s Jacques Chirac, Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder and Britain’s Tony Blair. The Three EU Musketeers seem determined to end the arms embargo the European Union imposed on the PRC in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre, thereby allowing Europe’s military-industrial capacity also to be put in the service of China’s ever-more offensively oriented armed forces.

The sorts of technology transfers that could flow from the EU’s arsenal to the Chinese are particularly troubling, insofar as they would complement nicely the formidable weapon systems already provided by Russia. As the American Enterprise Institute’s Daniel Blumenthal and Thomas Donnelly pointed out Sunday in an op.ed. article in the Washington Post: “The missing pieces of the People’s Liberation Army puzzle are exactly the sorts of command and control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems that the Europeans are getting ready to sell.”

The negative consequences such sales would have for U.S.-European relations are hard to exaggerate. Chinese military doctrine holds that conflict with the United States is inevitable. Preparations now being made by Beijing are not compatible with mere self-defense or even threatening Taiwan. China’s blue-water navy capabilities, long-range ballistic and cruise missiles and space-control technologies would, if combined with command and control and other equipment designed to NATO standards, be much more threatening and greatly increase the chances that such gear will be used in the future to kill Americans.

The Bottom Line

In the “Arsenal of Democracy” address sixty-five years ago, Franklin Roosevelt warned his countrymen: “Frankly and definitely there is danger ahead – danger against which we must prepare. But we well know that we cannot escape danger, or the fear of danger, by crawling into bed and pulling the covers over our heads.” He argued that only by arming the British and others fighting the fascists could America prevent “the danger” from afflicting us directly.

Today, it is no less important that we confront the danger posed to us by actual or prospective enemies, this time being armed by those we previously helped secure their freedom. President Bush may be reluctant to remind his hosts in Europe this week that they are “either with us or against us.” But if they serve as arsenals for tyranny, the Europeans and Russians should understand that Americans will clearly see them for what they are: “Against us.”

From Bucharest to Baghdad

January 19, 2005Center for Security Policy

(Washington, D.C.): Last December, the people of Romania elected a new president, as opposition leader Traian Basecu claimed victory over outgoing Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, who graciously conceded defeat. The election and orderly transition of power, though it received little attention from the Western media, was a tribute democracy and the champions of freedom. Only 15 years ago, after all, Romania was ruled by one of the most corrupt and brutal dictatorships in the world. The police state of Nicolae Ceasescu terrorized its own citizens and plundered the economy. That Romania emerged from this darkness in such a short period is truly remarkable.

The Romanian success story provides us a guide as we move forward in Iraq – a case forcefully made in the January 13 edition of the Wall Street Journal by U.S. Ambassador to Romania, J.D. Crouch II. “Like the Securitate,” Crouch explains, “the Fedayeen Saddam terrorized the people of Iraq. Like the communist nomenklatura, the Baath Party appropriated resources of the nation for its benefit and exploited sectarian and ethnic tensions.”

Today, Iraqis are beginning to recover from this nightmare, much as Romanians did a decade and a half ago. In a rebuke to those who suggest the current turmoil is evidence that Iraq’s liberation was a fool’s errand, Crouch counsels that “patience exercised by the world’s free nations 15 years ago in Romania needs to be applied to Iraq.”

“Democracy will succeed in Iraq,” the author concludes, “but only if the free nations of the West stand with the Iraqi people, support and help them the way we did the people of Romania.” In Crouch, a long-time member of the Center for Security Policy’s Board of Advisors and distinguished former Assistant Secretary of Defense, liberty has found a sensible and powerful voice.

From Bucharest to Baghdad
By J.D. Crouch II
Wall Street Journal, 13 January 2005

The people of Romania went to the polls last month and elected a new president. Once the votes had been counted, outgoing Prime Minister Adrian Nastase graciously conceded and opposition leader Traian Basescu claimed victory. The parties formed a new government, a process that will effect an orderly transition of power.

All this has garnered little press coverage in the West because, 15 years after the democratic revolutions of 1989, the once-remarkable spectacle of a peaceful democratic transfer of power in Central and Eastern Europe has become something quite commonplace. Some countries in the former East Bloc are further along in their democratic transitions than others (as we are seeing today in Ukraine) and Romania’s young democracy is still a work in progress. But today Romania is a NATO ally, heading into the European Union, and making important contributions to security and stability in Europe – as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just 15 years ago this December, the situation in Romania was quite different. Romanians lived under one of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. Millions were terrorized by the regime’s secret police, the Securitate, while many others were compromised by collaboration with it. The regime exercised pervasive control over every aspect of people’s lives, and suppressed deep ethnic and religious tensions between Romanians, Hungarians, Germans, Roma, and Serbs to maintain communist orthodoxy. The Romanian economy was plundered by the Soviet-style nomenklatura, and by the corrupt family of Romania’s cruel, idiosyncratic dictator, Nicolae Ceausescu.

The effects of the one-party system Ceausescu built are still being felt today. But the mentality of Romanians is on the mend. Younger Romanians, who have grown up in a free society and studied and worked in the West, are beginning to return to the land of their birth, bustling with entrepreneurial energy and new ideas. Corruption, still a problem, was once accepted as the “grease of commerce” here. It is now criticized across the political spectrum and was the issue that proved decisive in the election of the new president.

Looking at Romania’s remarkable transformation up close, I am stunned by the rampant pessimism today over the democratic future of Iraq. Iraq in 2003 had much in common with the Romania of 1989. Like the people of Romania, the Iraqi people are emerging from a police state. The Hussein family exploited the human and natural resources of Iraq for their own purposes, and their cruelty is burned into the consciousness of two generations of Iraqis. Iraq was once among the richest, most educated, and sophisticated of Arab societies.

Like the Securitate, the Fedayeen Saddam terrorized the people of Iraq. Like the Romanian communist nomenklatura, the Baath Party appropriated the resources of the nation for its benefit and exploited sectarian and ethnic tensions among Sunni, Shia, Kurd and Turkomen. Like the Ceausescu family, Saddam Hussein and his sons plundered the wealth of the Iraqi people to build for themselves vast, extravagant “palaces,” many of which were used only one day a year.

Today, Iraqis are emerging from this brutality. Despite the brutal campaign of intimidation being waged, Iraqis are taking hold of their country. Sovereignty has been transferred to an interim government. Iraq has a transitional administrative law that serves as an interim constitution, with a bill of rights guaranteeing freedoms to Iraqis unheard of 18 months ago. A free press is operating with more than 200 newspapers. Schools are open, even in remote villages, and enrollment for girls is increasing. A new currency is in circulation without Saddam’s face on it and is being administered by an independent central bank. After three decades of a state-run economy, there is an operating stock market, and the beginnings of a free market, with thousands of new businesses opened since liberation.

Iraq is, in many ways, where Romania was years ago. True, Romania did not have to deal with an armed resistance and foreign terrorists, but it had its challenges. The revolution of December 1989 was followed in 1990 by many setbacks, including the infamous and bloody miner’s assault on the peaceful, democratic demonstrations organized in Bucharest in June.

The patience exercised by the world’s free nations 15 years ago in Romania needs to be applied to Iraq. Three American presidents nurtured Romanian democracy. President Clinton and President Bush paid historic visits here, instilling confidence in the Romanian people to stay the course. NATO, through the Partnership for Peace program, brought Romania successfully to full membership. EU countries and the Commission itself have worked assiduously to keep Romania on the path to EU accession. This commitment was not just to Romania, but also to all of the East European states that have dedicated themselves to a democratic future.

Iraq is now just 18 months free of its despot, and on the verge of holding the first free elections in Iraqi history. Over 7,000 candidates and 400 candidate lists have applied to run in 20 separate elections. By the time of the election, thousands of Iraqis will have been trained to man polling centers. A recent survey shows that more than 80% of the Iraqi people intend to vote on Jan. 30, even though three-quarters expect violence will increase in the election run-up.

Some critics say the Iraqi people are not capable of democracy. Many said the same of Romanians in the early 1990s. On the contrary, Democracy will succeed in Iraq — but only if the free nations of the West stand with the Iraqi people, support and help them the way we did the people of Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, the Baltics, and now Ukraine.

The people of Romania know that the road to a free society is long and it is tough. But as they will tell you on the streets of Bucharest today, democracy is the only way to go. If the world’s free nations show the same steadfastness in Iraq that we showed in Central Europe 15 years ago, the people on the streets of Baghdad today will have the same opportunity to start their journey.

Mr. Crouch is U.S. ambassador to Romania

False friends

December 27, 2004Frank Gaffney, Jr.

(Washington, D.C.): During the recent presidential campaign, Senator John Kerry assailed President Bush for alienating key U.S. allies, evidence he maintained of the incumbent’s lack of foreign policy acumen and an arena in which the challenger insisted he could “do better.” Implicit in this critique was the belief that such allies — notably, the French — were anxious to be our friends, if only they were not mistreated by America’s leader.

‘Rebalancing’ at U.S. Expense

In fact, it is increasingly clear that the government of France under Jacques Chirac is bent on policies that are antithetical to U.S. interests. They are not simply anti-Bush, they are anti-American and anti-Atlanticist. The latest example is Chirac’s determination to have French and other European weapons manufacturers arm Communist China as part of what he has called “a necessary rebalancing of the ‘grand triangle’ formed by America, Europe and Asia.”

This is, of course, hardly the first time that French policy towards the United States has been defined by balance-of-power considerations. Indeed, the decisive assistance France gave to the American revolutionaries did not reflect affection for those bent on ending royal misrule — a phenomenon its own king would be murderously subjected to in short order. Rather, the motivation was to weaken France’s age-old rival, Britain, by helping to cut loose her American colonies and sapping her wealth in a costly war to bring them to heel.

Just a few years later, though, weakening the United States seemed in France’s interest. The latter engaged in predatory acts against American shipping and subversion here at home, culminating in the so-called XYZ Affair that roiled Franco-American relations during this country’s earliest days. In the nineteenth century, the French helped Southern secessionists and would have recognized their independent Confederacy had timely and decisive Union victories not made it clear which side would prevail.

Nearly a hundred years later, President Charles de Gaulle repaid U.S. help in the liberation of France by cultivating close ties with the Soviet Union and expelling NATO headquarters from Paris. Jacques Chirac was no less troubled by notions of alliance solidarity when the French government reportedly assured Saddam Hussein that it would oppose any UN authorization of the use of force against his regime.

Seen against this backdrop, Chirac’s calculation that Europe must strengthen China militarily at America’s expense is not just a one-off betrayal of an ally. It is part of a geostrategic tradition that renders France, at best, an unreliable partner in international affairs and, at worst, what the French call a “faux ami,” or false friend.

Destroying Trans-Atlanticism in Europe

Unfortunately, as the Center has noted repeatedly in recent months, France is striving to impose its strain of anti-Americanism on other European states that have traditionally preferred the trans-Atlantic partnership to French or Franco-German domination of their continent’s affairs. The principal vehicle for enforcing the latter over unwilling states — notably, Great Britain and the nations Don Rumsfeld has described as “New Europe” — is the newly minted European Constitution.

If this draft constitution is ratified by voters in Britain, France and half a dozen other countries, the European Union will be granted the authority to “define and implement a common foreign and security policy, including the progressive framing of a common defense policy.” The United States can forget about “special relationships” and strong bilateral ties, let alone “coalitions of the willing,” with states bound by such a compact.

Arming China

Even before such an authority gets conferred upon unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, Paris is working on a dress rehearsal: its bid to “rebalance” American power by augmenting that of Communist China. France and the EU’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, are pushing hard for the lifting of an embargo on arms sales to the PRC imposed after the Tiananmen Square massacre. All other things being equal, the French and Germans expect, with help from a double-dealing British government, to dispense by next Spring with opposition to such a step from the Netherlands, New European states like Lithuania and the European Parliament.

The implications of European weapons manufacturers joining Russia in arming China to the teeth are quite worrisome. Thoughtful observers, like acclaimed author Mark Helprin, warn of China’s rising application of its immense accumulated wealth to strategic advantage. The latter include: neutralizing U.S. dominance in space and information technology (Chinese acquisition of IBM’s personal computer division is not an accident); moving aggressively to dominate the world’s critical minerals and other resources (especially those relevant to its burgeoning energy needs); establishing forward operations in choke-points and other sensitive areas around the globe (including, in our own hemisphere, in Cuba, the Bahamas, the Panama Canal, Brazil and Venezuela); and acquiring financial leverage by purchasing vast quantities of United States debt instruments.

Retaking Taiwan is an immediate target of such power. Dominance of Asia and the Western Pacific are in prospect. And China aspires to exercise global superpower status in due course, if not short order.

The Bottom Line

For years, Washington has paid lip service to — and often actively promoted — European unification. If, however, the upshot of unity is going to be, as seems likely, a continent whose policies are dominated by anti-Atlanticist France and Germany and contribute to emerging threats elsewhere, the U.S. must make discouraging such developments an explicit part of its foreign policy.

Jacques Chirac’s determination to provide weapons that may be used to kill Americans in the event China decides to attack Taiwan should be a wake-up call. False friends are not allies. They should not be entitled to the preferential treatment accorded the latter. Mr. Bush is right that democracies traditionally don’t fight democracies. But when they equip authoritarian regimes to do so, they must expect to pay a real cost.

Kasparov warns of Putin’s threat to freedom

December 22, 2004Center for Security Policy

In the 1980’s, World Chess Champion Garry Kasparov used his enormous prestige in the former Soviet Union to help bring down the Communist regime and to free the people it had enslaved. For his courage in defying the Kremlin and rallying opposition to it both inside the USSR and throughout the West, the Center for Security Policy in 1992 proudly conferred upon him its prestigious "Keeper of the Flame" Award.

Today, Mr. Kasparov is once again warning of the danger to the Russian people and to the wider world of a Kremlin bent on crushing freedom and expanding its authoritarian reach to the so-called "Near Abroad" and beyond. Most recently, he penned a powerful op.ed. column in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal entitled, "Say It in Russian: ‘Caveat Emptor.’"

Among Mr. Kasparov’s most compelling observations were the parallels he perceives between Vladimir Putin’s agenda and that of previous emerging totalitarians. For example, he warned:

Those who think they can influence Mr. Putin’s course by supporting him will see that accommodation won’t be any more successful here than giving the Olympic Games to Berlin was in 1936. Treating dictators kindly doesn’t soften a regime; it only makes it more arrogant and aggressive.

Particularly noteworthy is Garry Kasparov’s clarion call about the fascistic tendencies of the Putin regime – and their implications for Western behavior:

In March, 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush and his European counterparts were still supporting Mikhail Gorbachev’s futile domestic endeavors. I wrote then that if we were left alone we would soon have no Gorbachev and no communism. Now we need to say no to Vladimir Putin and no to fascism. If the United States and the European powers are not willing to help us in this new fight, at the very least they should stay out of the battle and stop giving aid to the forces of fascism. (Emphasis added throughout.)

Say It in Russian: ‘Caveat Emptor’
By GARRY KASPAROV
The Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2004

If the West won’t stand up for basic human rights and democratic principles in Russia, one last hope was that it would come to the aid of free enterprise. But the only voice of protest against this weekend’s auction of Russian oil giant Yukos’s main asset came from Texas, and it wasn’t George W. Bush — it was a bankruptcy court in Houston. Needless to say, the auction of Yuganskneftegaz went forward on Sunday in Moscow despite the court order.

With the Russian state gas company Gazprom in a potential legal tangle over the injunction, the auction was won by a completely unknown entity from the Russian hinterlands that just happened to have $9.3 billion cash on hand. This company will soon prove to be the outer layer of a Russian matryoshka doll. We’ll find a Gazprom doll inside of that one and, like every matryoshka today, at the center will be Vladimir Putin.

* * *

If you are looking for a guide to the future of Russia, you need only listen to the words of President Putin. Listen carefully — and then take it for granted that the exact opposite will happen. One of the more lurid ways in which Mr. Putin’s Russia is coming to resemble ’30s-era Germany is this Orwellian doublespeak.

Adolf Hitler’s improbable mantra was "We want peace." Mr. Putin’s recent statements have proven equally truthful. "We won’t touch the Constitution" has been followed by one antidemocratic power grab after another. Elected regional governors have been abolished in favor of Kremlin appointees. Now even more power is being centralized as the nation’s natural resources are being put under direct federal control.

In case the changes to the constitution aren’t enough to satisfy the Kremlin, there is now a law moving forward that will allow the constitution to be suspended at will by the FSB — which is proudly showing its KGB roots — if they assert that there is threat of a terrorist attack. To criticism they say that America is "doing the same." Do not think for a moment that this is a fair comparison; equating the recent actions of the Russian parliament with the Patriot Act is like saying that chopping off your hand is similar to trimming your nails.

At the start of the Beslan terrorist crisis, Mr. Putin said in a meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah that the well-being of the children was the top priority. A day later security forces attempted an assault and hundreds died. Mr. Putin likewise said that the government had no intention of letting Yukos go bankrupt.

Even more shameful is how little the so-called leaders of the free world have said and done in response to these attacks on the truth. While polls inside Russia can’t be trusted, Mr. Putin can count on votes of confidence from Silvio Berlusconi, Tony Blair, George Bush, Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder. Perhaps Mr. Schr?der and the others are afraid of losing their visas under another new law being contemplated by the parliament that will allow them to deny entry to any foreigner who "shows disrespect" for Russia. Meanwhile, Mr. Bush stubbornly called "Vladimir" his "good friend" at a press conference yesterday.

Capital is traditionally shy of joining such dubious enterprises as this weekend’s dismantling of Yukos. To participate in this state-run racketeering operation is no better than investing in the Chicago Mafia of Al Capone. Let us name the names of the Western entities that saw fit to fund Gazprom’s bid and thus endorse the looting of Yukos: Deutsche Bank AG, ABN Amro Holding NV, BNP Paribas SA, Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

But at least their employees are safe, unlike those of Yukos, dozens of whom are currently being persecuted — either in jail, under investigation, or on the run. All of this to settle a Kremlin vendetta against Yukos head Mikhail Khodorkovsky and to send a message to other industry leaders that they had better toe the line if they want to keep their businesses and remain free.

The latest example of this trend is the harassment of Russian mobile-phone operator VimpelCom. They are being targeted much in the same way as Yukos. The company has been hit with tax bills totaling over $450 million dollars. It comes as no surprise that the owners of Megafon, one of VimpelCom’s main competitors, have close ties to Mr. Putin.

The message that Western banks and companies should be receiving is that doing business in Russia is a risky proposition. Everything depends on loyalty to Mr. Putin. This loyalty is dubious morally and it is also weak strategically. When an agreement has been negotiated in a lawless environment there is no guarantee as to the future safety of that investment.

Western institutions must keep in mind the inherent dangers of dealing with dictators. The day will come when we won’t need a court in Houston to establish justice in Russia. When law and order is restored to my land, those who put their faith and money in Mr. Putin’s cronies will come to regret their profiteering as these cases are revisited in the light of day.

In democracies, incoming governments rarely reverse the commercial decisions of their predecessors. But when Mr. Putin’s regime collapses under its own brutality, arrogance and incompetence, change will be sudden and the consequences will be dire. It will be too late to cry foul, to say that the law doesn’t apply to foreigners.

So supporting dictatorships has a practical as well as moral downside. Western leaders keep their mouths shut and Western banks keep their wallets open for Mr. Putin. Plans continue for a G-7 meeting in Moscow in 2006 that will transform the group into the G-8, something that will stand as an insult to democratic nations around the world. This meeting will be the final nail in the coffin of Russian democracy.

Perhaps Western leaders agree with last week’s New York Times editorial that made the stunning assertion that "a fascist Russia is a much better thing than a Communist Russia." I hope I am allowed to order something not on that menu. I am not ready to throw up my hands and surrender to the Putin dictatorship. It is still possible to stand up to the dictator and to fight for democracy.

* * *

Mr. Kasparov , the world’s leading chess player and chairman of the Free Choice 2008 Committee in Russia, is a contributing editor at the Journal.