With one exception -- the actual military "victory," which looks increasingly Pyrrhic -- US President George W. Bush's Iraq adventure has been marked by repeated failures. Scant signs of weapons of mass destruction have been found, and, according to David Kay, the US' former chief arms inspector, the stockpiles either never existed or were destroyed years ago. So Bush simply ignored the data, gathered by former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix, and the evidence on which he based his case for war seems to have been largely fabricated. \nWorse still, it is now clear that Bush never had a plan for when the war ended. Instead of moving toward peace and democracy, the situation in Iraq remains so dangerous that Paul Bremer, the American occupation leader, is using instability as his rationale for avoiding democratic elections this year. \nOf course, the US tried to keep real order in some places, revealing a lot about what it truly valued in Iraq. When Baghdad fell, the oil ministry was quickly protected, while museums and hospitals were allowed to be looted.? \nIf there was not outright corruption in the US$7 billion in contracts awarded to Halliburton, whose former chairman was US Vice President Dick Cheney, there was undoubtedly a strong whiff of crony capitalism. Halliburton and its subsidiaries have been ensnared in charges of war profiteering since, and have had to pay back millions of dollars to the US government. \nNow, everyone agrees, the most important task -- beyond creating a democratic state and restoring security -- is reconstructing the economy. Blinded by ideology, however, the Bush administration seems determined to continue its record of dismal failures by ignoring past experience. \nWhen the Berlin Wall fell, the countries of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union began transitions to a market economy, with heated debates over how this should be accomplished. One choice was shock therapy -- quick privatization of state-owned assets and abrupt liberalization of trade, prices, and capital flows -- while the other was gradual market liberalization to allow for the rule of law to be established at the same time. \nToday, there is a broad consensus that shock therapy, at least at the level of microeconomic reforms, failed, and that countries (Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia) that took the gradualist approach to privatization and the reconstruction of institutional infrastructure managed their transitions far better than those that tried to leapfrog into a laissez-faire economy. Shock-therapy countries saw incomes plunge and poverty soar. Social indicators, such as life expectancy, mirrored the dismal GDP numbers.? \nMore than a decade after the beginning of the transition, many post-communist countries have not even returned to pre-transition income levels. \nWorse, the prognosis for establishing a stable democracy and the rule of law in most shock-therapy countries looks bleak. \nThis record suggests that one should think twice before trying shock therapy again. But the Bush administration, backed by a few handpicked Iraqis, is pushing Iraq towards an even more radical form of shock therapy than was pursued in the former Soviet world. Indeed, shock therapy's advocates argue that its failures were due not to excessive speed -- too much shock and not enough therapy -- but to insufficient shock. So Iraqis better prepare for a brutal dose. \nThere are, of course, similarities and differences between the former communist countries and Iraq. In both cases, economies were pervasively weakened before they collapsed. But the Gulf War and sanctions weakened Iraq's economy much more than communism weakened the USSR's. \nMoreover, while both Russia and Iraq are heavily dependent on natural resources, Russia at least possessed demonstrated abilities in some other areas. Russia had a highly educated labor force, with advanced technological capabilities; Iraq is a developing country. \nTo be sure, Russians survived decades without opportunities to exercise entrepreneurship, while Baathist rule did not suppress Iraq's merchant class and entrepreneurial spirit in any comparable way. But Iraq's location puts it at a distinct disadvantage compared to Russia and many post-communist states: none of Iraq's neighbors is doing particularly well economically, while many post-communist countries sat next door to the EU during the 1990's boom. \nMost importantly, ongoing instability in the Middle East will deter foreign investment (other than in the oil sector). \nThese factors, together with the ongoing occupation, make quick privatization particularly problematic. The low prices that the privatized assets are likely to fetch will create the sense of an illegitimate sell-off foisted on the country by the occupiers and their collaborators. \nWithout legitimacy, any purchaser will worry about the security of his property rights, which will contribute to even lower prices. \nFurthermore, those buying privatized assets may then be reluctant to invest in them; instead, as happened elsewhere, their efforts may be directed more at asset stripping than at wealth creation. \nIf prospects are as dismal as my analysis suggests, international contributions to the US-driven reconstruction effort is likely to be little more than money flushed down the drain. \nThis does not mean that the world should abandon Iraq. \nBut the international community should direct its money and other resources to humanitarian causes, such as hospitals and schools, rather than backing American designs. \nThe World Bank and other institutions considering assistance through loans face even greater difficulties. \nPiling more debt onto Iraq's already huge obligations will only make matters worse. If Iraq's economy falters as a result of a misguided economic reconstruction program based on shock therapy, the country will be further indebted with little to show for it. \nThe dream of Iraq's American invaders was to create a stable, prosperous, and democratic Middle East. \nBut the US' economic program for reconstructing Iraq is laying the foundations for poverty and chaos. \nJoseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, is professor of economics at Columbia University and was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to former US president Bill Clinton and chief economist and senior vice president at the World Bank. His most recent book is The Roaring Nineties: A New History of the World's Most Prosperous Decade. \n Copyright: Project Syndicate
YUSHA
At a time when China continues its assertive policy toward its neighboring countries, the regime of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Bhutan last month to resolve a longstanding border dispute. However, this is not the first time China and Bhutan have taken such efforts on this issue. Over the years, China has expanded its claim over territory in Bhutan. China claims over 764km2 of Bhutan’s territory, which includes Doklam, Sinchulung, Dramana and Shakhatoe in the northwestern region and the Pasamlung and Jakarlung Valleys in the central part of Bhutan. Although the two sides held
Russian President Vladimir Putin is an expert at bluffing and keeping the West on its toes, pushing relations to the edge before pivoting without warning. However, hemmed in and fuming, he is deadly serious about being heard on Ukraine. Those close to the Kremlin said that the Russian president does not want to start another war in Ukraine. Still, he must show he is ready to fight if necessary in order to stop what he sees as an existential security threat: the creeping expansion of the NATO in a country that for centuries had been part of Russia. After years of disillusionment
Among the voices expressing concern for Chinese tennis player Peng Shuai (彭帥) over the past two weeks, one was barely audible — that of her long-time former doubles partner Hsieh Su-wei (謝淑薇). Following their defeat in the WTA Finals championship match in Mexico on Nov. 18, Taiwan’s Hsieh and her Belgian partner Elise Mertens fielded questions via a Zoom call. Chinese state media had just released an incredibly suspicious e-mail, purportedly from Peng, and Canadian tennis Web site Open Court broached the issue. With the entire tennis world chiming in, seeking Hsieh’s opinion seemed obvious. However, the Web site’s reporter prefaced her question
At the Sixth Plenary Session of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) 19th Central Committee, held earlier this month, attendees passed the “Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party Over the Past Century.” The resolution divides the CCP’s rule of China into three historical phases. The first phase was led by Mao Zedong (毛澤東), who enabled Chinese to “stand up.” The second phase occurred during the tenure of Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), who enabled China to “become rich.” The third phase began with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), who
RSS