My Beauty Best Teacher

From the WSJ comes this impressive and timely post about how we USED to deal with the pirate issue compared to how we deal with it now, and it once again shows that as we try to be more politically correct and more fair, we create a world that is both more unfair and less right. With some editing, here is the article (try this link too), by Bret Stephens:

Year-to-date, Somalia-based pirates have attacked more than 90 ships, seized more than 35, and currently hold 17. Some 280 crew members are being held hostage, and two have been killed. Billions of dollars worth of cargo have been seized; millions have been paid in ransom. A multinational naval force has attempted to secure a corridor in the Gulf of Aden, through which 12% of the total volume of seaborne oil passes, and U.S., British and Indian naval ships have engaged the pirates by force. Yet the number of attacks keeps rising. Why?

The view of senior U.S. military officials seems to be, in effect, that there is no controlling legal authority. Title 18, Chapter 81 of the United States Code establishes a sentence of life in prison for foreigners captured in the act of piracy. But, crucially, the law is only enforceable against pirates who attack U.S.-flagged vessels, of which today there are few.

What about international law? Article 110 of the U.N.'s Law of the Sea Convention -- ratified by most nations, but not by the U.S. -- enjoins naval ships from simply firing on suspected pirates. Instead, they are required first to send over a boarding party to inquire of the pirates whether they are, in fact, pirates. A recent U.N. Security Council resolution allows foreign navies to pursue pirates into Somali waters -- provided Somalia's tottering government agrees -- but the resolution expires next week.

As for the idea of laying waste, Stephen Decatur-like, to the pirate's prospering capital port city of Eyl, this too would require U.N. authorization. Yesterday, a shippers' organization asked NATO to blockade the Somali coast. NATO promptly declined.

Then there is the problem of what to do with captured pirates. No international body similar to the old Admiralty Courts is currently empowered to try pirates and imprison them. The British foreign office recently produced a legal opinion warning Royal Navy ships not to take pirates captive, lest they seek asylum in the U.K. or otherwise face repatriation in jurisdictions where they might be dealt with harshly, in violation of the British Human Rights Act.

In March 2006, the U.S. Navy took 11 pirates prisoner, six of whom were injured. Not wanting to set a precedent for trying pirates in U.S. courts, the State Department turned to Kenya to do the job. The injured spent weeks aboard the USS Nassau, enjoying First World medical care.

All this legal exquisiteness stands in contrast to what was once a more robust attitude. Pirates, said Cicero, were hostis humani generis -- enemies of the human race -- to be dealt with accordingly by their captors. Tellingly, Cicero's notion of piracy vanished in the Middle Ages; its recovery traces the recovery of the West itself.

By the 18th century, pirates knew exactly where they stood in relation to the law. A legal dictionary of the day spelled it out: "A piracy attempted on the Ocean, if the Pirates are overcome, the Takers may immediately inflict a Punishment by hanging them up at the Main-yard End; though this is understood where no legal judgment may be obtained." Severe as the penalty may now seem (albeit necessary, since captured pirates were too dangerous to keep aboard on lengthy sea voyages), it succeeded in mostly eliminating piracy by the late 19th century -- a civilizational achievement no less great than the elimination of smallpox a century later.

Today, by contrast, a Navy captain who takes captured pirates aboard his state-of-the-art warship will have a brig in which to keep them securely detained, and instantaneous communications through which he can obtain higher guidance and observe the rule of law.

Yet what ought to be a triumph for both justice and security has turned out closer to the opposite. Instead of greater security, we get the deteriorating situation described above. And in pursuit of a better form of justice -- chiefly defined nowadays as keeping a clear conscience -- we get (at best) a Kenyan jail. "We're humane warriors," says one U.S. Navy officer. "When the pirates put down their RPGs and raise their hands, we take them alive. And that's a lot tougher than taking bodies."

Piracy, of course, is hardly the only form of barbarism at work today: There are the suicide bombers on Israeli buses, the stonings of Iranian women, and so on. But piracy is certainly the most primordial of them, and our collective inability to deal with it says much about how far we've regressed in the pursuit of what is mistakenly thought of as a more humane policy. A society that erases the memory of how it overcame barbarism in the past inevitably loses sight of the meaning of civilization, and the means of sustaining it.

This is a pretty good article, and matches my thoughts on it. I really do think that what we need is an awesome pirate war to clear out all that bothers us- a good old fashioned butt-whooping of real bad guys. Let's see the liberals spin that as a bad thing! As Commodore Decatur declared "We shall offer them liberal and enlightened terms, dictated at the mouths of our cannons." That's how we should take care of this problem. Here is what a liberal is going to say- we're being mean terrorists. William Eaton, commander of the Marines' march to Tripoli, said this about dealing with real terrorists: "There is but one language that can be held to these people, and this is terror." Chew on that.

Bill Gates talks to the WSJ about 'Creative Capitalism':

Arah Childress writes in the WSJ:

Democracy is making gradual gains in sub-Saharan Africa. The trend is driven by a cadre of activists, armed with little more than determination and cheap cellphones, who are outmaneuvering Africa's ruling strongmen...The democratic gains across sub-Saharan Africa come amid the fastest economic growth the region has seen in three decades. Foreign investment is flooding in on the back of soaring prices for the oil, metals and minerals that are plentiful across the continent. The boom, coupled with the region's democratic progress, offers some hope that after a period of post-colonial turmoil, sub-Saharan Africa may be slowly emerging into a more peaceful and prosperous era.[continue reading]

In the FT:

Nigerians have not seen their president for more than two months and tensions are mounting, with huge security implications for the oil-producing giant and the wider region. If Abuja does not resolve the impasse over its leadership and return governance to a clear constitutional track very soon, it will spell disaster.

More here

Related articles by Zemanta

• Over 300 Died in Nigerian Clashes (online.wsj.com)

National commentators are picking up on what I've been blogging about on here for a while- that Michigan is a good example of what the whole nation will look like if Obama takes control of our government. I wrote here about how Michigan is all about hope and change. Here I wrote about how in a time of crisis in Michigan, we pass a 'bipartisan' energy plan that raises energy prices and does nothing to provide mroe energy for our citizens.

In this post I wrote about Michigan's government job creation program and how poorly run it is. Back in July, I wrote a post that compared Obama to Granholm and predicted that the results for our nation would be similar to what happened in Michigan.

Now the national media is picking up on this. Phil Gramn wrote this piece for the WSJ, and it's a good one- if you like Michigan's economy, you'll love Obama's. And the latest numbers from Michigan are shocking- by every economic measure, Michigan's economy is sinking compared to the rest of the nation. Our raising of taxes, increasing government regulation, 'green energy,' and government created jobs programs has resulted in wrecking Michigan. Good luck rest of nation when Obama brings this show to you.

UPDATE: Okay, so while Michigan's economy is collapsing, what does a Democrat-controlled government do? It tries to ban smoking. Not joking. Democrats are going to try over and over and over again to ban smoking in Michigan. They feel that is an appropriate action to do while our economy slips farther and farther into the hole. Don't kid yourself- after Obama is President, and we get attacked by terrorists, and our economy falls into the pits, he is going to do the same thing- in the name of health and the environment, he will try to ban smoking too. Mark my words.

UPDATE TWO: Ah, another columnist has picked up on how the rest of the country is becoming 'Detroitified'- that is, the rest of the country is starting to point and blame businesses for a declining economy, and starting to warm up to increasing regulation and taxes, and ignores all the real culprits and instead blames others.

The WSJ reports:

Western multinationals may have pioneered cross-border mergers, but the latest chapter in globalization is being written by a new breed of deal makers from places like Russia, China, Brazil and the Mideast with an appetite for acquisitions in the developed world...The recent deals mark a fundamental change from only a few years ago, when nearly all the investment flow went from the developed world to the developing one. This year could be on pace to be the first ever in which companies and investment funds based in developing countries spend more on mergers and acquisitions in the developed world than vice versa.

In the FT:

Africa’s top 40 companies are emerging as competitors on the global stage, propelled by economies whose performance now rivals the Bric nations, according to new research by the Boston Consulting Group.
According to the study, to be published on Tuesday, 500 African companies have been growing at more than 8 per cent a year since 1998. The report selects the top 40 among them, ranging in size from $350m (€285m, £240m) to $80bn, and argues that these companies, already regional players in mining, consumer industries and services, are now well positioned to “spread their wings and look beyond the continent”...[continue reading]

Echoing my post from yesterday comes the following article by the Wall Street Journal. As I put it in my post, the ouster of Dingell in favor of Waxman was "another great day for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party of America, but probably another bad day for America," and the WSJ also has picked up that the Waxman election shows that the Democratic Party is now thoroughly a tool of the far left environmentalists. Traditional liberals (Dingell), traditional Democrats (Lieberman), moderates (increasingly marginalized), and conservatives (long gone) no longer have a home in the new Democratic Party.

Quoting from the Wall Street Journal article:

John Dingell's fall from power yesterday is an important inflection point in the history of the modern Democratic Party. The House purge marks the final triumph of the Congressional generation that came of political age during the 1970s over the last lion of New Deal liberalism, and it is symbolic of the party's change in culture and policy priorities in the Barack Obama era.

That fissure neatly separates the Waxman Democrats from the old vanguard that Mr. Dingell represents. He was first elected in 1955 and has always tried to protect his hometown Detroit auto makers from the eco-mandates that ultimately helped to land them in their present predicament. Mr. Dingell's rough-hewn candor about the realities of "doing something" about climate change also helped to make him a green pariah. He knows that carbon regulation and taxes will fall most heavily on domestic manufacturing and Midwest states that rely on coal-fired power. His sympathies lie with the people who work near (or in) factories and drive Fords or Chevys.

Mr. Waxman, speaking for the upscale precincts of Beverly Hills, wants to phase out coal and cars that use gasoline. The coastal elites who now dominate Democratic politics will happily trade the blue collar for the green collar.

The irony is that Democrats have found, in Mr. Waxman, an even more extreme antibusiness tribune, who will no doubt use his new powers to go after any concern that turns a profit but refuses to pay his party the obeisance of campaign cash and regulatory submission.

Again, the removal of Dingell means that if you or anyone you know votes Democrat, they need to realize that they are empowering a party that is against industry, against Midwestern values, against energy production, and does not believe in a limited government. Voting Democrat means putting in power a party that resembles the parties of the rest of the world- a party that uses the power of government to redistribute wealth to its friends. The Democratic half of America is no longer exceptional- one can only hope that the Republican Party rediscovers its exceptionalism and the exceptionalism of America.

In The Banker Africa Export Import Bank's Jean-Louis Ekra states:

Creating more wealth through local entrepreneurs producing goods that are value added will produce local wealth.
Once you diversify away from commodities you are less subject to volatility. If more and more African countries produce finished goods then we can trade among ourselves and new markets would open up.
China has become a market today but 20 years ago people were saying it would never have any [internal] purchasing power. What has happened in-between is that China created wealth and that is what Africa needs to do.

More here
Related article: "Medvedev blasts Russia's resource based economy"-WSJ

More hype about Africa's consumers in the WSJ no talk about the continent's lack of a manufacturing base:

David Wessel writes in the WSJ:

In his recent book, "Africa's Silk Road: China and India's New Economic Frontier," World Bank economist Harry Broadman argues, "China and India have a growing middle class, with increasing purchasing power and with an increasing appetite for imported goods" -- from Africa. The Asian giants offer Africa more than markets, though. He says Chinese and Indian companies are beginning to expand beyond oil and mining in Africa to telecommunications, food processing, textiles and construction...the importance of the explosion of South-South trade and investment goes far beyond this year's outlook. It could be the opening of a new epoch of globalization -- one in which the global economic might of big U.S. and European companies is challenged like never before, one in which the remarkable success of China and other Asian economies in lifting their people out of poverty is spread -- finally -- to other poor continents.

David Wessel discusses this phenomenon:

The WSJ reports:

Unreliable power poses a major constraint on the region's economic development. Much of sub-Saharan Africa still operates largely on the margins of the global financial markets, isolating it from the economic turmoil buffeting the developed world. Booming commodity prices of the past few years, however, have made the region attractive to foreign investors. Now the electricity crisis is damping their enthusiasm.
"It's one of the biggest concerns for the business community," says Vivien Foster, the World Bank's lead economist on sustainable development in Africa

PSD Blog reports on the WSJ's coverage of Africa's Bull markets:

The continent's so-called frontier markets, such as Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana, Mauritius and Botswana, are up an average of 26% so far this year in dollar terms, according to Liquid Africa. By comparison, the MSCI Emerging Market Index, which includes just three African countries -- South Africa, Egypt and Morocco -- has risen 9.5% during the same period.

If you haven't heard this story, it's because the numbers are still small. The London Stock Exchange is five times as big as all African stock markets combined. And South Africa's exchange is 2/3 of the African total.

The WSJ writes:

The global credit crunch has shaken the kaleidoscope of the world economy. As sub-prime lending problems ricochet around the world, capital is seeking new places to grow. And it is looking farther afield than ever before -- not just to the well-established emerging economies of China or India, but to "emerging emerging" markets in Africa...Their success has been driven by getting the fundamentals right. Nigeria has benefited from banking and pension reform, a crackdown on corruption, debt relief based on sound fiscal policy and the high oil price. Perhaps more remarkably, Ghana has achieved its success without oil windfalls. A strong technocratic team in the top ministries has pushed through a homegrown reform program which has rationalized the electricity sector, led the development of a domestic debt market, and freed up capital controls. There is nothing to stop the rest of Africa following this lead. And the signs are encouraging: The IMF expects sub-Saharan Africa to grow 6.1% in 2007 and 6.8% in 2008.

Amar Bhide and Carl Schramm write in the WSJ:

Mr. Yunus's ameliorative entrepreneurship however is very different from the transformative entrepreneurship that Mr. Phelps argues has been central to modern capitalism. Indeed, most of the ventures funded by microloans in Bangladesh (read Sub-Saharan Africa) are activities that were marginalized by modern entrepreneurs: They don't involve any economies of scale or scope or the use of new technologies capable of producing significant advances in overall productivity and incomes.
Economic development does wonders for peace, but what does microfinanced entrepreneurship really do for economic development?... A few small port cities or petro-states aside, there is no historical precedent for sustained improvements in living standards without broad-based modernization and widespread improvements in productivity brought about by the dynamic entrepreneurship that Mr. Phelps celebrates...In principle, microfinance does not preclude modern entrepreneurship. But in practice, we wonder if the romantic charm of the former might distract governments in impoverished countries from undertaking reforms needed to foster the latter.

via NextBillion

The WSJ asks "What Makes an Industrial Revolution?" Gregory Clark author of a 'A farewell to Alms' posits:

The lessons are that growth requires a combination of social culture, and half-decent institutions, but culture dominates. The right culture can compensate for poor institutions -- as in Sweden. Look at China now. Not a democracy, rife with corruption and nepotism, no respect for law -- yet spectacular growth.
Further foist the institutions of the West on countries with the wrong cultural background -- as the World Bank has attempted -- and the formal institutions of democracy, rule of law, public education, transparency, get corrupted into nepotism, looting, and faction. How can we transform the economic cultures of poor societies to be more like rich ones?

While James Robinson contends:

African countries suffer from terrible political and economic institutions. These are difficult to change because they reflect the underlying structure of political power in these societies. This means that simple-minded institutional advice will fail. The most important thing in solving the problem of underdevelopment, however, is to get the right diagnosis.

The WSJ reports on how the appetite for returns is leading investors to markets in Africa and beyond :

Frontier markets offer opportunities to participate in some of the world's fastest-growing economies. Parts of Africa, Central and Eastern Europe and the Middle East have been clocking growth of about 6% or more in recent years.
That trend is largely projected to continue through at least 2009, far outpacing developed-economy growth of about 1.3%.
Yet, frontier economies are some of the most volatile financial markets around. Kenya's stock market, rocked by political strife, lost more than 11% in just 10 days earlier this year...[continue reading]