Laws and Landmines

Turns out the U.S. will continue to NOT take part in the International Mine Ban Treaty. Why? Partly due to the actual difficulty of ratifying international treaties.

First, the facts of the Mine Ban Treaty: conceived in 1997, 156 signatories, 37 non-signatories (including China, India, Russia). Now, while the treaty has been in existence for nearly twelve years, the U.S. has never signed it (even though they were a party in its creation) as it would conflict with official policy. As noted:

The United States refuses to sign the treaty because it does not offer a “Korean exception”, as landmines are said to be a crucial component of the U.S. military strategy in South Korea. According to the US government, the one million mines along the DMZ between North and South help maintain the delicate peace by deterring a North Korean attack.

Yet that doesn’t make the Obama administration’s announcement any less surprising—many were expecting a turnabout on par with the more prominent (albeit unsatisfied) promise to close Guantánamo.

But, as Drezner says, would a policy reversal even be possible? After all, a massive 67 Senate votes are needed to ratify any international treaty. Which isn’t a terribly bad rule; in theory, choosing to adhere to an international treaty could effect a great deal of future foreign policy legislation, moreso than any single law passed internally. A greater consensus should be required.

The real question is, could another type of defense mechanism replace the land mine in the DMZ? Finding an answer could be good news for both defense contractors otherwise worried about military cutbacks (hawks), as well as for anti-landmine types (the rest of the world). Until then, though, there probably won’t be much change to look forward to.

Deep Thought

Health care reform could be Obama’s Saddam Hussein.

- Do you mean to tell me that you’re thinking seriously of building that way, when and if you are an architect?
- Yes.
- My dear fellow, who will let you?
- That’s not the point. The point is, who will stop me?

Evolution Denial

Razib Khan points out that a healthy number of prominent politicians—potential U.S. presidential candidates, no less—are “rather frank Creationists”. Maybe the biggest problem is how this isn’t shocking to a lot of people.

He notes:

Creationism doesn’t really have the same valence as abortion as a “culture war” issue, but, it is useful in being a distinctive marker for social conservative candidates. Mitt Romney is now notionally as pro-life as the social conservatives, but it seems unlikely that he’ll flip his position on evolution since he expressed himself so explicitly in the 2008 debates.

And in a follow-up post, he adds:

Obviously a particular combination of policies and beliefs would lead to different assessments of a candidate’s viability to different individuals. Many of Ron Paul’s enthusiastic supporters backed him not because of 100% agreement with all his views, including his skepticism of evolution, but because of core substantive agreement with is policy prescriptions. On the other hand, some weird beliefs probably would serve as a way to filter out genuine loonies who rely on non-mainstream sources of knowledge.

For all the observant things said here, its unfortunate that his very last point is made so casually. Not due to fault on behalf of the author, but rather due to the reality that Creationism doesn’t live under the larger tent of “loonie-worthy concepts” in the greater public consciousness. Said otherwise, it’s incredible that Creationism isn’t a disqualifying factor in mainstream American politics.

Recently, researchers discovered Ardi, one of our 4 million-year-old bipedal ancestors. So, as yet another piece of evidence added to the theory of evolution, it is more than clear that the misinforming power of Creationism is eating away at what should be a straightforward, science-based history of humanity on Earth. Yet such a belief still stands front-and-center on politicians’ public platforms.

One of Khan’s commenters says “I don’t…grant that mormonism is that crazy; catholicism’s transubstantiation isn’t weird because it is widely held.” A good point—that wide acceptance of an idea can lead to cultural normalization.

However, with transubstantiation (the Catholic belief that the Eucharist is actually the body of Jesus Christ), the concept doesn’t necessary contradict decades of scientific research. If you choose to believe that you are consuming God, that is your choice. In the same way—it should be mentioned—that the idea of Intelligent Design doesn’t necessarily contradict the theory of evolution. If you believe that God “chose” a certain branch from the tree of humanity to become man as we know it today, that is fine. (Just don’t pretend it’s a scientific, since you can never actually test that belief of yours.)

But the problem with Creationism? It tries to contradict an exhaustively strong scientific theory. With no evidence to present on its own behalf. Such blatant denialism should have no place in a voting booth.

In stories, those who look back — Lot’s wife, Orpheus and Eurydice — are lost. Looking to the side instead, to gauge how our companions are faring, is a way of glancing at a safer reflection of what we cannot directly bear, like Perseus seeing the Gorgon safely mirrored in his shield

Iran: The Day After

Could someone please give a reason why an attack on Israel would be in Iran’s long-term interest? Because there really doesn’t seem to be one.

The anti-semetic rhetoric, the bellicose posturing, the internal surpression complimented by rape and torture—all of these elements have been essential in Ahmadinejad’s attempt to become a global political player. And people (like Bret Stephens) are worried. “What if they got the bomb?” we hear. Good question. But more importantly, what would Iran do they day after they got the bomb?

The Cold War stayed cold for one core reason: mutual assured destruction. And reason the Middle East will stay cold on a nuclear level is for one core reason: Iran-assured destruction. For all the outlandish words coming from the regime, there is very little evidence showing that they are happy to sacrifice their own existence for that of the destruction of Israel. Because that’s surely what would they would lose in the certain, swift counterattack by Israel itself along with whatever defense the US offered. So where’s the motive?

This situation leaves the regime with even less leverage than we envisioned. Their problems at home add to the West’s advantage. So all in all, it’s not hard to imagine  Ahmadinejad, the day after, quietly suffering from a severe case of “Be careful what you wish for”…

Congress and the Commons

One of the most admirable elements of British democracy is its incessent open-airing of thoughts, requests, and complaints. But Andrew Sullivan makes an essential point—in light of Joe Wilson’s interruption of Obama’s joint session—on the limits of such exchanges within this kind of legislative body:

[O]ne thing you are not allowed to shout in the Commons is that another speaker is a liar. A lot of circumlocutions evolved to bypass this - “terminological inexactitude” is my favorite (Churchill, of course) - but the ban is for a reason. Once the opposition starts yelling “You lie!” they have essentially abandoned the deliberative process, by questioning the good faith of a speaker. Without an assumption of good faith or a factual rebuttal, just calling someone a liar abolishes the integrity of the debating process. It ends a conversation. And parliament is about conversation.