Rightank

Recently, Russia’s President Vladmir Putin said that he (and Russia) welcomed Hamas as the “legitimate” electoral “choice of the Palestinian people.” The choice that the Palenstinians made was to elect a terrorist organization hell-bent on destroying Israel and imposing Islamic law. The election of a party of Islamofacists does not legitimize the election for freedom-loving democracies. Heck, even South Korean’s Kim Jong-il is the “democratically” elected President of North Korea. Does Putin also believe that the spectacled Jong-il is the leader of a “legitimate” government?

Unfortunately, is some countries representative democracy, instead of empowering the citizens with freedom of religion, movement, and dignity, has metamorphised into an aegis of the dictator state that repels critcism from true representative democracies (e.g., United States, Great Britain, and Australia). For many dictators, creating a democratic republic is a form of legitimatizing their totalitarianism among their own people as well as in the eyes of the United Nations. The democratic emphasis, especially at the United Nations, is placed on the voting “process” rather than the outcome of that process. The election of terrorists and dictators is not a democratic victory for freedom–it is a triumph of oppression.

Democracy does not always produce freedom. However, freedom can only be found in democracy. This is moralistic quandry that the United States (and the coalition allies) have seen in Iraqi elections. The democratic transition in Iraq had gone remarkably well. However, if Islamic law is allowed to predominate in any fashion–particularly in the Iraqi constitution–the effort to democratize Iraq could turn out poorly in the long run. Because of that possibilty, it is essential to for the United States to support factions within Iraq that allow freedom of religion and speech and who openly oppose the radicial Iraqis who would rather blow up children than express their opposing viewpoint in a more humane manner.

The eminent director of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the U.N.’s international agency responsible for overseeing Iran’s compliance with the NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons). In a recent interview with Newsweek, ElBaradei’s demonstrates why Iran is in a position to quickly develop a nuclear weapon.

Embarassingly, ElBaradei admits that he needs more time to verify Iran would produce nuclear material for peaceful purposes:

For the last three years we have been doing intensive verification in Iran, and even after three years I am not yet in a position to make a judgment on the peaceful nature of the [nuclear] program.

Three years is an awful long time to determine the “peacefulness” of the Iranian nuclear program. Maybe ElBaradei believes he can earn another Nobel Prize if he sits on his hands for another two years. Ultimately, ElBaradei gets at the rub of his pusillanimity:

I still would like to be able to avoid escalation, but at the same time I do not want the Agency to be cheated; I do not want the process to be abused. I think that is clear.

ElBaradei believes his monkeying around with the Iranian mullahs deserves international approbation. Granted, the Nobel Committee and others have not hesitated to throw their encomiums at ElBaradei’s feet. Yet, ElBaradei seems to imply that bureaucratic success (meaning the IAEA) trumphs nation-state concerns about Iran’s capability to swiftly compile and produce nuclear material to weaponize their own missile or to sell to Al Qaeda-type terrorist organizations. In other words, Israel and the United States should sit on their hands and wait until the IAEA bureaucrats resolve any questions regarding Iran’s nuclear intentions. ElBaradei wants the credit–this is his stage. He does not want to allow Israeli and U.S. concerns regarding Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s intent to foil his diplomatic success.

The only reasonable conclusion for the lengthy inspection process is that ElBaradei wants the IAEA to clear Iran of any malignant intent. At what cost? ElBaradei laments:

[I]f I say that I am not able to confirm the peaceful nature of that program after three years of intensive work, well, that´s a conclusion that´s going to reverberate, I think, around the world.

Yeah, there will be a reverberation alright: a nuclear warhead courtesy of the Iranian mullahs. ElBaradei’s selfish quest imperils the security of the Middle East and any credibility left at the U.N.

In conjunction with the WSIS summit in Tunis, the U.N. Working Group on Internet Governance has released a book: Reforming Internet Governance:Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance. In the book, different authors elucidate on the framework of the Working Group, as well as their rationale on why one nation (the United States) should not be permitted to control the internet. Abdullah A. Al-Darrab, a member of the U.N. working group, argues in his chapter “The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight”:

Since the Internet is a global network which knows no national boundaries, and the security of the Internet is of concern to all States and impacts their national security, it is not reasonable for one Government to undertake the oversight role on behalf of all the Governments of the world.

Thus, Al-Darrab has two reasons why the U.N. should remove the U.S. from internet governance: First, the internet is a world-wide phenomenon; Second, international security (including the hated spam).

It is indeed the case that the internet (aka world wide web) is accessible across the globe. However, any multi-national corporation (e.g., Microsoft and Coca-Cola) qualifies as “global network[s] with no national boundaries.” Moreover, doesn’t the availability argument circumvent the intellectual property rights (not to mention the taxpayer investment) that the United States acquired designing, building, and launching the internet?

The international security argument doesn’t work either. How should the United States (or any nation) believe that the post-Oil for Food U.N. can properly handle the security issues that will fall under its jurisdiction? Isn’t the international security argument really about the ability to prohibit unwanted sources of democratic thought from entering into countries who are ruled by dictators and thugs?

The U.N.’s quest for digital rule is not because the United States and ICANN are doing a paltry, disorganized job. Rather, it is the sensational organizational success of the internet that drives this international quest for monopolization–which as with all America’s successes, is difficult for the liberal internationalist intelligensia to swallow.

I’m sure you’re very excited for today’s opening of the World Summit on the Information Society (”WSIS”) in Tunis. At Tunis, nations will be encouraged to adopt the Tunis Commitment. This document is hilarious. If you thought the WSIS is a digital coup d’etat, think again. It’s really about lifting up the world’s poor and minorities:

9. We reaffirm our resolution in the quest to ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunities that ICTs [Information and Communicative Technologies] can offer, by recalling that governments, as well as private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organisations, should work together to: . . . foster and respect cultural diversity.

11. Furthermore, ICTs are making it possible for a vastly larger population than at any time in the past to join in sharing and expanding the base of human knowledge, and contributing to its further growth in all spheres of human endeavour as well as application to education, health and science. ICTs have enormous potential to expand access to quality education, to boost literacy and universal primary education, and to facilitate the learning process itself, thus laying the groundwork for the establishment of a fully-inclusive and development-oriented Information Society and knowledge economy which respects cultural and linguistic diversity.

13. We also recognise that the ICT revolution can have a tremendous positive impact as an instrument of sustainable development. In addition, an appropriate enabling environment at national and international levels could prevent increasing social and economic divisions, and widening the gap between rich and poor countries, regions, and individuals—including between men and women.

18. We shall strive unremittingly, therefore, to promote universal, ubiquitous, equitable and affordable access to ICTs, including universal design and assistive technologies, for all people, especially those with disabilities, everywhere, to ensure that the benefits are more evenly distributed between and within societies, and to bridge the digital divide in order to create digital opportunities for all and benefit from the potential offered by ICTs for development.

20. To that end, we shall pay particular attention to the special needs of marginalised and vulnerable groups of society including migrants, internally displaced persons and refugees, unemployed and underprivileged people, minorities and nomadic people, older persons and persons with disabilities.

23. We recognise that a gender divide exists as part of the digital divide in society and we reaffirm our commitment to women’s empowerment and to a gender equality perspective, so that we can overcome this divide. We further acknowledge that the full participation of women in the Information Society is necessary to ensure the inclusiveness and respect for human rights with in the Information Society. We encourage all stakeholders to support women’s participation in decision-making processes and to contribute to shaping all spheres of the Information Society at international, regional and national levels.

32. We further commit ourselves to promote the inclusion of all peoples in the Information Society through the development and use of local and/or indigenous languages in ICTs. We will continue our efforts to protect and promote cultural diversity, as well as cultural identities, within the Information Society.

38. Our efforts should not stop with the conclusion of the Summit. The emergence of the global Information Society to which we all contribute provides increasing opportunities for all our peoples and for an inclusive global community that were unimaginable only a few years ago. We must harness these opportunities today and support their further development and progress.

This hoiler-than-thou document exemplifies how the international liberal mindset uses the poor, women, disabled, and the ever expanding list of minorities in an abusive and manipulative manner in order to sound caring, sensitive, and compassionate. The internationalists anguish acts as a protective cover to further their shady goal of wresting the internet DNS from U.S. control. The world’s “marginalised and vulnerable groups of society” are the internationalists scapegoat. The “Tunis Commitment” makes me puke.

U.N. Ambassador John Bolton on the United Nations:

[The U.N.] has got to be a place to solve problems that need solving, rather than a place where problems go, never to emerge.

In the United States, there is a broadly shared view that the U.N. is one of many potential instruments to advance U.S. issues, and we have to decide whether a particular issue is best done through the U.N. or best done through some other mechanism. . . .

Isn’t great to have an ambassador to the U.N. who believes the U.N. doesn’t qualify as the only international instrument to advance our interests? Moreover, he describes the current U.N. mindset as a “culture of inaction.” Blunt and true. Hopefully Bolton can lower the number of U.N. workers it takes to turn a light bulb during the next two years.

Best of all, he has his priorities straight:

My priority is to give the United States the kind of influence it should have.

Finally, someone at the U.N. who puts United States interests’–not the international community–first.

In less than a week, the second World Summit on the Information Society “WSIS”) will be held in Tunis. Guised as a dialogue among nations, this consequential gathering is a blanket attempt by France, Iran, Russia, other technological allies to wrest control of the internet from the United States. Primarily, the other nations want to take away the Domain Name System or (”DNS”) authority:

The Domain Name System (DNS) helps users to find their way around the Internet. Every computer on the Internet has a unique address – just like a telephone number – which is a rather complicated string of numbers. It is called its “IP address” (IP stands for “Internet Protocol”). IP Addresses are hard to remember. The DNS makes using the Internet easier by allowing a familiar string of letters (the “domain name”) to be used instead of the arcane IP address. So instead of typing 207.151.159.3, you can type www.internic.net. It is a “mnemonic” device that makes addresses easier to remember.

Ignacio Ramonet, writing in the english version of Le Monde diplomatique, sums up why he thinks the United States should cede the internet:

Challenges to US control of the worldwide network are getting louder and stronger.

. . .

Though not always for the same reasons, Brazil, China, India and Iran all share the EU’s position in opposing the US on this. Some countries are even threatening to create their own national regulation bodies, which could lead to a disastrous fragmentation of the net. The disagreement has a geopolitical dimension. In an ever more globalised world, communication is a precious strategic resource. . . . Its role is fundamental in an economy so dominated by the non-material. So control of the net could put whoever holds it at a decisive strategic advantage. In the 19th century control of sea routes (“ruling the waves”) was at the heart of the British empire’s enormous power.

In theory, hegemony over the net gives the US the power to limit anyone’s access to any site in any country. It can also block emails anywhere in the world. So far, it has never done this. But technically it could, and a number of countries are worried by this potential. So this is the time to demand that ICANN cease to answer to Washington. Instead, it should be turned into an independent organisation under UN supervision.

According to Ramonet, because the U.S. is a hegemonic power (both in internet and political terms), could potentially block a European’s email communication with Santa Claus, and other nations are making noise like Iran and Russia, the internet should be handed over to an “independent” organization under the auspices of the U.N. (maybe they could get Kojo Annan to run it!). A mere possibility that the U.S. could block a electronic communication or world unity aren’t very convincing arguments for an overhaul of the internet governing structure.

Admittedly, the U.S.’s position of controlling the DNS is advantageous. However, we built it. It’s our government dollars at work. Moreover, I don’t want an international body of terrorist nations controlling the DNS because when you control one thing governmentally, you end up controlling ten things tangentially. Control fo the DNS is a precursor to control of the internet’s content. I sure as heck don’t want the Iranian mullahs controlling the political or social content of the internet. Do you?

It looks like Ted Turner’s welfare recipient, the United Nations, desires to create more international harmony by taking over the internet from the United States. The UN Report on Internet Governance, authored Chateau de Bossey, argues that the UN’s right to internet governance rests on the prevention of restrictions on freedom of speech and the dearth of multilingualism. Certainly Saudi Arabia, China, and Egypt–members of the Working Group–will assure the full participation of all citizens regardless of their polticial viewpoint or religious belief and allow political commentators like myself full reign and access on the internet.

Yeah right.

I’ve been able to listen to the vast majority of the Judge Roberts hearings these past two days. Likely, if you have no background in the law much of the content of the hearings is mired in legalese and case law that you much rather watch Barney with your kids. Well, not quite that boring.

I believe that the Democratic Senators chummed along (and Senator Specter) humming the abortion tune or rather “a woman’s right to choose.” Also, the Democratic Senators seem to feel, particularly Senators Schumer and Biden, that the Nation’s civil liberties lie in a radical interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than the text of the Constitution itself. The placement of the American citizen’s liberty in the Judiciary instead of the Constitution sheds light on what branch of government the Liberals place their political faith.

It is vitally important that Republicans ferret out more fully Judge Robert’s judicial philosophy. In the hearings today, some good things came out regarding Judge Roberts. In my view, Senators Kyl (R-AZ) and Senator Graham (R-SC) were the best questioners, especially Senator Graham.

Role of International Law

Senator Kyl asked Judge Roberts “What, if anything, is the proper role of foreign law in U.S. Supreme Court decisions?” Judge Roberts responded as follows:

[A]s a general matter, . . . there are a couple of things that cause concern on my part about the use of foreign law as precedent. As you say, this isn’t about interpreting treaties or foreign contracts but as precedent on the meaning of American law. The first has to do with democratic theory. Judicial decisions: In this country, judges, of course, are not accountable to the people, but we are appointed through a process that allows for participation of the electorate. The president who nominates judges is obviously accountable to the people. Senators who confirm judges are accountable to people. And in that way, the role of the judge is consistent with the democratic theory.

If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge. And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country. I think that’s a concern that has to be addressed. The other part of it that would concern me is that, relying on foreign precedent doesn’t confine judges. It doesn’t limit their discretion the way relying on domestic precedent does. Domestic precedent can confine and shape the discretion of the judges. Foreign law, you can find anything you want. If you don’t find it in the decisions of France or Italy, it’s in the decisions of Somalia or Japan or Indonesia or wherever. As somebody said in another context, looking at foreign law for support is like looking out over a crowd and picking out your friends. You can find them. They’re there. And that actually expands the discretion of the judge. It allows the judge to incorporate his or her own personal preferences, cloak them with the authority of precedent–because they’re finding precedent in foreign law–and use that to determine the meaning of the Constitution. And I think that’s a misuse of precedent, not a correct use of precedent.

Judge Roberts’s view on international law is comforting, particularly as the most recent, radical decisions from the Court have relied on international law as a basis for its decision (Lawrence v. Texas comes to mind). International law should play no role at all in the Supreme Court’s decision-making regarding what our Constitution means. As Judge Roberts articulated today, a justice’s reliance on international law allows him or her to cloak their own personal policy preferences as legitimate by citing tailored international law that fits their interpretative rationale. A Supreme Court Justice’s reliance on international law weakens our democracy and subverts our national sovereignty.

Strict Constructionist

Senator Graham’s questioning was particularly acute and probing. His approach to questioning is one which I would have liked to have seen more by the Republicans. Although the transcript is not yet available, I remember him asking Judge Roberts whether he was comfortable being described as a strict constructionist by President Bush. Judge Roberts said “Yes.” This is important, as Judge Roberts never has characterized himself, in speaking of judicial philosophy as a “strict constructionist.” According to Judge Roberts, his philosophy does not fit a particular label but is a “practical” jurist. It appears, thanks to Senator Graham, that Judge Roberts will adhere to the text of the Constitution rather than making up his own on a whim. That is good news.

What did trouble me in listening to Judge Roberts’s testimony was his opinion regarding substantive due process and the “right to privacy.” However, if Confirm Them is right, Roberts went one better that Thomas by discarding the penumbral approach of Justice Blackmun as judicial blather. Good for him.

Endlessly, the Democrats and their liberal media accomplices have been demanding additional Bolton documents in order to prove his dangerousness as the Bush-appointed Ambassador to the UN. Truthfully, all the requests for documents or tearful blathering of Senators like Voinovich are is a smokescreen to stall and tempt Bush to either re-nominate someone “more qualified” or make a public gaffe.

Bolton is so strenously fought against precisely because of his potential to rectify the problems within the UN by asserting American interests above the UN and withdrawing from the multilateral bullcrap and internationalist prism that bogs down the UN (in addition to the unfettered corruption).

In 1997, John Bolton authored an article on UN reform that is reflects the raison d’etre for the Libs hate and remonstrance toward his nomination. The article entitled “The Creation, Fall, Rise, and Fall of the United Nations” was part of a collaboration by a Cato Institute scholar called “Delusions of Grandeur: The United Nations and Global Intervention.” Bolton’s article reflects a sharpness of tongue and blunt manner that must have sent a few internationalists into a fit of global rage.

Bolton begins his article: “American foreign policy must be based on identifying our vital interests and then advancing and defending those interests around the world.” Bolton’s premise–that American interests are supreme–reverberates throughout his article. Bolton refuses to accept the UN as a moral leader and accuses the UN of “trash[ing] our values.” Bolton also gallantly asserts that some nations votes are carry less weight than others. In other words, the vote of the U.S. should not carry the equivalent weight as Madagascar’s.

Most important, Bolton defines the proper role of the UN: an instrument–not a source–of U.S. interests. “The UN [is] an instrument of U.S. policy, not the policy itself.” And to top it off, Bolton says that the role of the UN Secretary-General does not include “Mr. Friend of the Earth.” These qualities of clarity and statemanship are impeding Bolton’s progress. In other words, by verbalizing an “America First” approach, Bolton is U.N enemy number one. Heaven forbid that the U.S. Ambassador profess love of his country’s interests above those of the world community (which includes terrorist dictatorships and socialist quagmires). Bolton concludes as he begins:

The UN . . . is not worth the sacrifice of American troops, American freedom of action, or American interests.

Sadly, boldly declaring American interests is Bolton’s handicap. Regardless of the outcome, Bolton’s nomination illustrates that the Senate Democrats–and the Democratic Party in toto–prefer a UN Ambassador with a internationalist communitarian approach and not a pro-America, “America First” approach. Bolton is a true American–not some Frenchy-French substitute.

John Bolton’s nomination to the UN failed to attain enough votes for cloture again today, even with Voinovich’s help (he actually voted for Bolton).

The Bolton vote epitomizes the raging debate in Congress on UN reformation. Representative Henry Hyde, the venerable statesman from Illinois, has authored a bill that strips half of the funding for the UN unless the UN makes some drastic changes in its management and organizational structure. The bill has passed the House and now moves on to the Senate.

Brett Schafer of the Heritage Foundation authored an excellent analysis of the UN Reform Act of 2005. Any reform focused on greater accountablility and transparency for the UN would be a step in the right direction. and Rep. Hyde’s bill is such a step. Too bad the bill wasn’t entitled the “Kick out Kofi UN Reform Bill.”

Hopefully, Bolton will get a fair shake. However, that fair shake will not happen until the constitutional option is exercised. Senator Frist, it’s time to throw down the gauntlet and force the constitutional option to a vote. Now.