George Handlery about the week that was. A new source of energy has been discovered: harness the hot air of a politician. Paris Hilton gets out of bed to enter politics. Some enemies let you prevail without any friends. Unlike some her opponents, Iran remains consequent. Dictators do not comprehend how freedom works. The difference between 2008 and 1936 is not 72.
 
1. The dictator‘s tantrum 2nd edition. Last week Duly Noted reported that Hannibal Gadhafi got problems with Swiss justice because he and his spouse deigned to trash two (Arab!) personal servants. (On the basis of the denunciation of the hotel‘s employees, the Gadhafis were arrested by Geneva police and then released on bail. Once they were back in their kingdom, some Swiss enterprises in Libya were closed, two Swiss were arrested and fuel deliveries to Switzerland were blocked.) The typical case got, like Rambo films, a sequel added. Libya demands an apology. Oh, in case you are naïve, not from Hannibal but from the Swiss. The Swiss “negotiate”. The demand – called an “expectation” – of an apology is, to Berne, a sign of “success” of these negotiations. Furthermore, Tripolis expects that the case against their majesties will be dropped. If concluded, the shameful deal might be sealed by a member of the Swiss government who is “expected” to visit Gadhafi for that purpose. There are problems. The federal government might find it difficult to comply with Libya’s “expectations”. Those who live in a genuine federation will understand why. The charges against Hannibal were raised by the Kanton/State of Geneva. The famous author of the Green Book might have difficulties to grasp this, but Switzerland has no legal way to force Geneva to drop the charges. A way out might be that, for a lot of money, the servants withdraw their case. Even so, the alleged crime is one in which, independently of the victim‘s wishes, the state is obligated to prosecute.
 
2. The leaders of authoritarian and centralized systems have a difficulty to understand how democracies and democratic federations function. Tripolis will hardly be able to comprehend that Switzerland’s central government has no way to pressure an autonomous member of the federation to comply with a politically motivated order to ignore its laws.
 
3. We often hear the term “under the law.” If we do not give it much thought to its meaning it is because the idea is to us self-evident. Well, self-evident it is not. Nor is the concept a negligible phrase. All being subject to THE law is a key component of freedom. This is a condition which is, if you measure the UN’s members by its standard, not a natural one either. In Libya’s case, the Gadhafis are not under the law nor are they above the law. They are the law. The conditioning caused by analogous practice makes comparable clans, regardless of nationality, culture or religion, unable to comprehend the functioning of established democratic systems. The conflicts that are apt to arise because of such incompatible views have a potential to complicate international relations.
 
4. In case that Obama is elected to be “the whatever,” the decision will be interpreted abroad to prove many things. A popular indication will be one that the official pundits will notice but decide to ignore. Obama’s success will settle a scientific – economic question. Is wind power suited to cover the energy needs of industrialized societies? With Obama prevailing it will become clear that winds, at least if they bring hot air, represent winning propositions.
 
5. Good news for McCain. Paris Hilton is publicly and officially against him. (This is the first useful thing PH has done since her birth.) With enemies like this McCain does not need any friends. He is charged with having wrinkles. (Will accusations regarding guts and decency?) Keep this filed and apply the criterion to PH in ten years. By then she will be looking like an old newspaper that served as a wrapper for a catch of fish.
 
6. Equal and comparable luck seems to be working for Obama, too. Having Jesse Jackson among his critics would make even King Kong electable. The only reason why the buoying effect on the Obama hot air balloon might be limited is that some voters might be weary of the measures he could take to pacify the Jesse Jacksons in his camp.
 
7. When to withdraw from Iraq? This is the only issue that separates the GOP‘s real platform from the Democrats’ official one. If the average American applies the skills he uses in bargaining on used-car-lots, he will come to a conclusion. It is that it is foolish, having entered the lot, to announce, “I must buy a jalopy here and now. Therefore, let us begin to haggle over the price of the blue one over there.”
 
8. If one would not know any better, the discussion about withdrawing from Iraq, Afghanistan (and “you name it”) can create the wrong impression. This erroneous impression is that anyone is left who would not be eager to leave ASAP. The debate actually centers on the “P”, the possible. Some advocates of retreat suggest a point in time that is “impossible.”
 
9. A few days ago, I noted: by now, the major powers only ask Iran to curb its enrichment program. Meanwhile Iran tells the concerned world that to overcome the conflict, only diplomacy can be of any use. (Remember the mantra “war does not solve any problems.”) At the same time, Tehran makes it clear that it is willing to discuss everything except the central issue of concern. This is a hardening of Iran‘s position while she advises her insolent Godless critics to whisper softly. Unless “insulted,” the Mullahs claim to be interested in „serious“ talks. In this case, diplomacy serves only one purpose: it buys time. Playing the game by its rules lets Iran be the winner.
 
10. On July 4/5 the world has, after a delay, finally received Iran’s official response to what was claimed to be essentially the “last” appeal before new, invigorated, sanctions are imposed. Missing the deadline is not accidental. So it is hardly surprising that Tehran does not even discuss the proposal (a bit less enrichment for generous rewards) submitted by the “P5+1.”
 
11. Some nations want from good government the solution of diverse problems burdening the individuals that make up society. Others communities wish primarily that government maintain order and public security and that it enforce contracts. They also expect from good government that accepted law shall define public order and that the government protect and stay out of their private sphere.
 
12. The arrest and delivery of Karadzic for trial at The Hague has filled the front pages of the international press. Numerous good stories are embedded in the news. One is that Hollywood might do a B (bad) movie using the practical insights gained from Karadzic’s recipe to alter successfully the exterior of a wanted criminal. Much interesting but devoid-of-hard-facts talk about “who might, nevertheless, have known about the trick” is possible and warranted. Speculation about diverse Serbian governments trading their mass murderers for political-economic concessions is also unavoidable. In this case, Belgrade, possessing a large number of polit-criminals, has a long way to go and much to attain. The “capital,” consisting of a deep pool of incriminated (whether charged or not) persons, is large. Furthermore, the situation that is so successfully exploited suggests that, it makes sense to practice genocide. For one thing, it might work – as it will apparently in the case of Tibet. If the policy fails, the player will have many chips in his pocket to make profitable deals. The world loves political criminals who  moderate their activities in exchange for acceptance, immunity and “aid.” So, “phyongyanging” oneself is likely to be a technique of the future.
 

13. Ponder this. Since 1945, the US defended Europe to a larger extent than Europe’s own actions protected the Continent. This caused much anti-US resentment. (Wanting not only to bite but also to chop off the hand that feeds one is a natural reaction and not a fluke.) This resentment was – and this is the unnatural component of the story – not paired with a growing willingness to take local control and responsibility for Europe’s security.
 
14 To conclude, now a nearly obligatory word about the Olympics. The parallels 1936 and 2008 limp. When Berlin was picked no one could know what sort of a system Germany would have when it hosts the games. Moreover, in ’36 the evidence on the Nazis was not yet in. Neither of these qualifications fit the case of the Peking games. The implications are not meant to raise an unfulfillable demand for a boycott of the games. What would have been possible would have been a diplomatic stomach-flu epidemic among the heads of state and heads of government. Sending a top sport functionary to the opening and closing ceremony would have been quite sufficient. (Note: Albeit attending, Bush had the backbone to articulate “undiplomatically” his concerns about the way government power is being used in China.)