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
In Chinese author Lu Xun’s (魯迅) novella The True Story of Ah Q (阿Q正傳) — one of the earliest works of modern Chinese fiction, first serialized in 1921 — the story’s hapless protagonist, Ah Q (阿Q), is a poor itinerant worker from China’s peasant class, living during the part-feudal, part-colonial dying embers of the Qing Dynasty. Ah Q is a feeble and psychologically flawed individual who bullies the meek and cowers before the powerful. Despised and regularly mocked by villagers, after every episode of public ridicule and failure, Ah Q consoles himself that he has won a “spiritual victory.” Utterly
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) chairman Mark Liu (劉德音) said in an interview with CNN on Sunday that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would render the company’s plants inoperable, and that such a war would produce “no winners.” Not only would Taiwan’s economy be destroyed in a cross-strait conflict, but the impact “would go well beyond semiconductors, and would bring about the destruction of the world’s rules-based order and totally change the geopolitical landscape,” Liu said in the interview, according to the Central News Agency. Bloomberg columnist Hal Brands wrote on June 24: “A major war over Taiwan could create global economic
Washington’s official position on US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan is that nothing has changed: The US government says it is maintaining its “one China” policy, that Pelosi is free to arrange international trips with congressional delegations independent of the government and that she is not the first US official to visit Taiwan even this year. Yet there is no denying that the fact and the optics of the second-in-line to the US presidency speaking with lawmakers at the Legislative Yuan about inter-parliamentary discussions and learning from each other as equals are hugely significant, as were
Amid a fervor in the global media, US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her congressional delegation made a high-profile visit to Taipei. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) awarded a state honor to her at the Presidential Office. Evidently, the occasion took on the aspect of an inter-state relationship between the US and the Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan, despite no mutual state recognition between the two. Beijing furiously condemned Pelosi’s visit in advance, with military drills in the waters surrounding coastal China to check the move. Pelosi is a well-known China hawk, and second in the line of succession to
RSS