A bit more on Turkey’s E.U. Future from Javier Solano. In effect, he’s laying down the conditions:
(a) A new package of democratic reforms
(b) Acceptance of the UN Cyprus settlement plan
If Turkey delivers on these, it’s hard to see how the EU can avoid opening negotiations. Giscard’s appeal to religious bias has clearly backfired, by narrowing the space for ambiguous evasions.

UpdateA long and well thought-out update on this from Nathan Lott. It appears at this stage, the most likely outcome is a ‘date for a date’. That is, the EU will commit to re-examine Turkey’s case in 2004, and if democratic reforms have been made, to start talks in 2005. This kind of compromise won’t please anyone, but the Turks may as well get used to it, since it’s the way Europe works. For that matter, it’s the way democracy works.

I’ve never paid a lot of attention to Steve Bracks, but it appears from this report that he’s going to keep a promise even though it reduces his power.

Bracks says he will introduce a proportional representation system for the Victorian Legislative Council (=Senate) and reduce its term to four years. On the plausible assumption that Labor will win the next election with a reduced majority in the lower house, this implies that minority parties will hold the balance of power in the upper house, whereas Labor now has a majority in both. If this actually happens, Bracks will rise greatly in my estimation.

It’s time for cards on the table as regards Iraq, and it’s clear that someone has been bluffing. The Iraqi government has delivered a declaration, which, it says, denies the existence of any weapons of mass destruction or any current program for producing them. It’s voluminous (11 000 pages) but as a number of people have pointed out, in an era of high-speed scanning and optical character recognition, this shouldn’t account for more than the week or so that has been allowed for the inspectors to go over the material. Then it’s time for the US to declare its hand. As Andrew Sullivan says, the Washington Post has it pretty much right.

The right course, in the event of a clearly false declaration, will be for the administration to immediately lay before the Security Council evidence of the Iraqi arsenal. “Any country on the face of the earth with an active intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,” Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said last week. If that’s the case, then top secrets from the CIA shouldn’t be necessary; the facts available to all those other intelligence agencies will do. One place to start is the United Nations’ own evidence, including the official reports of the last inspection mission. These cited 360 tons of chemical warfare agents, 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, growth media sufficient to produce more than 25,000 liters of anthrax and 30,000 munitions for the delivery of chemical and biological agents that Iraq failed to account for before 1999. If this weekend’s report does not cover those materials, then the Security Council’s resolution has been breached.

Given that the Iraqi government has shown no signs of being suicidal thus far, it seems reasonable to assume that the declaration includes a claim that all the items previously discovered have been destroyed or converted to peaceful uses. It also seems reasonable to suppose that the Iraqis don’t believe that there is anything left that the inspectors can easily find, with or without US help.

The US response seems equally straightforward. The US government has steadily claimed direct knowledge about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and, as noted, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld repeated the claim last week. Now the Iraqis have put the noose around their necks by denying any weapons. All the US has to do is to advise the inspectors where to look and keep some surveillance planes ready to detect truckloads of equipment trying to escape, suspicious fires etc. Then they have their material breach, the UNSC will sign on or be bypassed, the Gulf states will come on board, and it’s on to Baghdad.

Obviously, these plausible accounts of US and Iraqi strategy can’t both be right. Someone is bluffing, but who?

While I’m on this topic, the NYT has an excellent discussion of The Liberal Quandary Over Iraq

Also I should note that I’m in the unusual position of agreeing with two posts in a row by Sullivan* – the Iraq post is followed by one denouncing the despicable Trent Lott and his retrospective endorsement of Strom Thurmonds racist “Dixiecrat” presidential campaign of 1948.

(*At least I think we agree. Sullivan says that the declaration shouldn’t form the basis of a new round of inspections, but I assume that he means by this that once an undeclared program has been verified, inspection should stop, not that an unproven assertion by the US that Saddam is lying should form a basis for war).

Here it is! Your chance to have your say on any subject you like in a comments thread read by thousands. Well, hundreds. Well, me, the other Ozploggers and maybe a few dozen onlookers. Go ahead and try it ! (Rules: Civilised discussion and no coarse language).

Update Another big day for comments, with insomniac bloggers discussing native and feral pets, purchasing power parity and guns and butter, among other things. And there’s quite a few new contributors – a big welcome to all, and another invitation to ‘lurkers’ to join the Great Debate.

Thomas Friedman lays out a coherent alternative to the Bush administration’s Iraq policy, including the obvious but apparently unthinkable step of imposing the Clinton peace plan on Israel and Palestine. It’s clear now that, even if there is a successful war in Iraq, there is no Bush strategy going beyond that. Fantasies of using Iraq as a basecamp and oil reserve for the liberation of Saudi Arabia are just that.

(Those who don’t follow the minutiae of American politics may be puzzled by the reference to a ‘Sister Souljah speech’. I barely recalled that Sister Souljah was a radical black rapper who Clinton attacked. He won lots of support, but risked alienating Jesse Jackson. Apparently this is now code for the idea that Bush should break with the Republican far-right.)

The Economist focuses on what is, in many ways, the biggest single geopolitical question facing the world today – will Turkey be admitted to the EU. As The Economist notes:

the trickiest conundrum for Europe’s leaders when they meet next week in Copenhagen. That is the question of whether Turkey, a Muslim country of nearly 70m souls, which is already part of NATO, should be invited, with real intent provided that the applicant meets rigorous conditions, to join Europe’s top civilian club too. It is a massive question, because it raises the issue of where the geographical boundaries of the EU should end. Might Russia itself, one day, be included? Could Morocco ever make the grade? Indeed, if Turkey joined, why not, one day, its neighbour, Iraq?

I made almost exactly the same points in the Fin a little while ago:

The admission of Turkey, likely by 2010, would give the EU borders with Iraq, Iran and Syria, fundamentally changing the geopolitics of the Middle East. The entry of Turkey, along with a few European stragglers, would complete the process of European unification in traditional geographical terms, with the exception of European Russia. But traditional geographical terms are already being revised.
A string of North African and Middle Eastern countries, including Morocco, Egypt and Jordan, have signed association agreements with the EU. The entire region has now been renamed by the EU as the ‘South and East Mediterranean’. In the light of recent history, the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership and the Euro-Mediterranean Free Trade Area must be seen as the precursor to a Greater Europe encompassing the entire classical world.
The ideological implications are even more striking. The success or failure of Europe in integrating Muslim countries, beginning with Turkey, will do more to determine future relations between Islam and the West than any military expedition.

As an antidote to the kind of absurd declinism promoted by Karl Zinsmeister and endorsed by lots of American bloggers, it’s worth considering a triumphalist view of European expansion in which, within 25 years, the United States of Europe will extend from Cork to Kamchatka and from Stockholm to the Sahara, arbitrating disputes that the former imperial power had tried and failed to resolve. No doubt nothing as magnificent as this will happen – the new Europe is a land of messy democratic compromise rather than imperial grandeur. But success with Turkey would be a big step, including as a first course, resolution of the intractable Cyprus dispute and extending to a relationship with the Muslim world very different from that envisaged by the cultural warriors of the West.

Interestingly, the US is pushing hard for Turkish admission to the EU, and the hardest push is coming from advocates of war with Iraq. It’s unclear whether they are simply doing what’s convenient in the short term, are so confident of American supremacy that they have no concern about the rise of a European counterweight or are generously supporting a project which promises to make the world the better place.

Electrolite posts extracts from a Louis Menand review of Pinker’s Blank Slate. I’ll do the same with yet another extract from my own draft review. Comments most welcome:

The ‘evolutionary psychology’ model put forward by Pinker is essentially a rebadging of the human sociobiology model launched with great fanfare in the 1970s. The basic innovation in sociobiology, as opposed to earlier Darwinian models of society, was a central focus on reproductive strategies, rather than on adaptations associated with the struggle for food and survival. Since sex and reproduction are central human concerns at all times, the application of sociobiological analysis to humans promised to find a genetic basis for central institutions of society such as marriage and the family.

Moreover, a focus on reproduction implies a focus on genes rather than organisms. The ‘interest’ of genes in reproducing themselves does not coincide with any obvious notion of the interests of organisms. Moreover, the ‘genes-eye’ view focuses attention on conflicts of interest between mates, between sibling and, most strikingly, between mothers and children. Using this perspective, sociobiologists promised to resolve many long-standing controversies about family structure, sex roles and so on.
There were some obvious difficulties with this enterprise. Unlike other animals, human societies display a bewildering variety of familial and social arrangements. Moreover, most humans see themselves as conscious agents pursuing a wide range of goals, of which reproduction is commonly not the most significant. Most saliently, there is the widespread occurrence of homosexuality and celibacy, behaviors not apparently conducive to the dissemination of one’s genes.

A further difficulty was that, unlike with other animals, there was no satisfactory empirical data on which to base the model. If sociobiology is correct, human behavior today reflects optimal reproductive strategies in the prehistoric societies of the African savannah. But those societies are long extinct, leaving little behind from which to make inferences about the selection pressures they faced.

Hence, it is necessary to rely on observations of the cultural organisation of the hunter-gatherer bands that survived to the modern era, invariably in marginal environments that were slow to attract the attention of those with more advanced technology. Anthropologists rarely reach such bands before their traditional organisation has commenced radical change as a result of earlier contact with the advance parties of Western civilisation and the goods and diseases that accompany them.

In the first flush of enthusiasm, the advocates of human sociobiology promised that these difficulties would be overcome. Homosexuality and celibacy were to be explained by hypothetical ‘helper’ genes, which reproduced themselves by assisting the reproductive success of family members.

Pinker sees this enterprise as having been highly successful, and certainly some of the more extreme critics look silly today. Nevertheless, there is a striking difference between the confident claims of human sociobiology and the relatively modest offerings of evolutionary sociobiology. On homosexuality, Pinker frankly concedes that we have no idea why some people are homosexual and others are not.

Similarly, with regard to the heritability of behavioral traits, Pinker suggests that about 50 per cent of the observed variation in individual character traits within modern societies is genetically determined. (This proportion is conditional on the amount of variation in environment for the population being considered, and would be much lower for comparisons between societies.) Pinker views this as a triumph over nurturists like Leon Kamin who asserted in the 1970s that there was no evidence to justify a non-zero estimate for heritability (not the same thing as saying the heritability is equal to zero). Pinker does not mention the fact that, at the same time, leading naturists like Eysenck and Jensen were claiming 80 per cent heritability, and makes Kamin look silly by not mentioning his main point, which was to show that the twin studies of Sir Cyril Burt, on which Eysenck and others relied relied, were almost entirely fraudulent, being based on fabricated data collected by non-existent collaborators.

Looking for Leadership. I approached this with some foreboding – ‘Leadership’ is one of those words that has me feeling for the safety catch, especially after Paul Keating adopted it as the slogan for his doomed 1996 election campaign (I was especially irked by the superfluous full stop in banners reading “Leadership.”). And while I’ve very much liked a lot of Horne’s work, elder statesmen can start to take themselves too seriously.

But my fears were ill-founded. This is an excellent book, thoughtful and, while very critical of Howard, not a diatribe against him. I particularly liked a point Horne stresses, that the Commonwealth of Australia is unique in the way it was created by a popular vote (corrections welcome -put them in the comments thread). It’s not a bloodstained national myth of the kind that was considered appropriate in the 19th and 20th centuries, and was therefore overshowed by the Anzac legend, but it’s just right for the world of the 21st century and to the ideas of social democratic internationalism (my alternative to the pejorative “Transnational Progressivism‘) .

I’m also reading The Tie That Binds by Kent Haruf. It’s a family tragedy set in the high plains of Colorado. The blurb makes comparisons to Cormac McCarthy and Alice Munro, which seems about right. I sometimes find McCarthy a bit portentous, but Haruf’s prose is simple and unpretentious. Another obvious comparison is to Willa Cather, whom I haven’t read for years, but should dig out again.

Nick Denton has also been blogging on the EU-US spats going on the blogosphere and elsewhere. He notes

Some people wrote in to complain about the American arrogance typified by Glenn Reynolds. That’s not the point at all. The current criticism of Europe is far from arrogance; it’s chippy cultural cringe, more akin to the way Australians thought of England last century. Embarrassing, coming from the superpower.

I agree, though the comparison with Australia had not occurred to me. The cultural cringe regarding England was pretty much killed off by the early 70s. It dominated the attitudes of the age-cohort of people like Germaine Greer, Clive James and Donald Horne, many of whom ended up as expats in Britain. By the time I was an adult, Australia’s crucial relationship was clearly that with the US. Although often fraught, this relationship never involved the same cultural ‘chip on the shoulder’ as that with England.

In June last year, I observed the change in the tone of US discussion of Europe. [This piece was written before S11, but the fact that it needs no real change is striking. Just about everyone in the world has taken S11 as proof that they were right all along] Here is a condensed version:

Bubbles can be filled with all sorts of noxious gases and, when they burst, the resulting smell can be unpleasant. This point was illustrated by the bursting of the Japanese bubble of the 1980s, which was accompanied by a good deal of breastbeating about ‘the Japan that can say no’ and chauvinistic revisionism about World War II. We have seen similar effluvia from the rapidly-deflating US economic bubble…

Trans-Atlantic verbal sniping has been going on ever since the Declaration of Independence. What is remarkable is the rancour with which American commentators have responded to European criticism of US policies on such issues as global warming, missile defence and the death penalty…During the boom of the late 1990s, US commentary on Europe was characterized by a tone of complacent triumphalism, while European discussion of the US bordered on panic….All of this has changed in 2001. While European discussion of Bush has been condescending, even patronising, American commentators have been almost apoplectic…

This change in tone may be explained by the fact that sentiment about national performance is closely attuned to the ten-year business cycle. Over the last decade, the US economic cycle has led that in Europe by two or three years. So while GDP per person in the US is already declining, the European business cycle is just beginning to turn down….

In addition to timing differences, the amplitude of the current business cycle in the US has been very high. An exceptionally strong boom has been followed by a very rapid deceleration. The resulting shift from absurd optimism to renewed pessimism has clearly soured many tempers.

Eighteen months later, the cycle has moved on but only a little. The European downturn I noted then is well under way, but the US economy has bumped along, with neither a sustained recovery nor a further downturn becoming evident as usual. The result is that tempers are now frayed on both sides.

The songbooks haven’t been unpacked yet, and everything is a bit rushed, so I’ll just give you the opening verse and chorus of a song I wrote celebrating the Country Party (now the National Party). The other verses were about politicians who are now long-forgotten so you’ll just have to make up your own, if you can think of a good rhyme for “Anderson”

When I was young and easily led,
And all the go was baiting Reds,
I thought I’d take up kicking heads,
And join the Country Party
Chorus
Toora-loora-loora-loo
Horse and dog and kangaroo,
And if I was a thug like you,
I’d join the Country Party

As with Bobby, I hardly knew you, the original tune is an Irish anti-recruiting song, Join the British Army