And Tribute to None?

Turkey wants a payment of over $52 billion to allow American troops to use their country as a base for attacking Iraq:

A senior Bush administration official said American aides told the Turks that the White House's offer of $26 billion — $6 billion in grants and $20 billion in loans — was "final."

Turkey requested more than twice that sum, the official said, but President Bush made clear that he would go no higher and that time for the Turks to make a decision was short.

The entire US military budget is 379 billion dollars. Our ally Turkey wants a fee amounting to 14% of our entire annual military budget, to allow us to use its bases.

That's $136 per American citizen, or $780 per Turkish citizen. Per capita GDP there is $6,700 (as of 2001), so the US would be giving the entire nation of Turkey a 12% raise--probably more like a 20% increase or more to wage-earners, since not everyone works.

I'm not sure over what period these loans take effect or what terms they have. This is putting the impact all in one year and considering it as a payment rather than loans. Though if Turkey wanted genuine "loans", I'm sure it could raise them in the capital markets by paying the prevailing interest rates. That's not what they're after here, clearly. In any case it's an enormous sum.

I think it may be about time for us to say buh-bye to the Eastern Hemisphere: declare our neutrality in mideastern affairs, remove our troops from Europe and the mideast, cut off aid to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, etc., and let those on the scene (Europe, India, Russia, Turkey) deal with their neighbors themselves.

America is not on the scene and does not have large Muslim populations in its cities. We're also somewhat less dependant on mideast oil than Europe. We can defect in this prisoner's dilemma in a way Europe and India cannot.

The era of America as occasional global cop may, by popular demand, be coming to a close. I suspect people may find they do not like the alternative, but they will have earned it.

France Threatens Eastern Europe

What's French for "condescension"?

French President Jacques Chirac launched a withering attack Monday on eastern European nations who signed letters backing the U.S. position on Iraq, warning it could jeopardize their chances of joining the European Union.

"It is not really responsible behavior," he told a news conference. "It is not well brought up behavior. They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet."

And Chirac issues a not-so-thinly veiled threat to toe the German/French line:

Romania and Bulgaria were particularly irresponsible to (sign the letter) when their position is really delicate," Chirac said. "If they wanted to diminish their chances of joining Europe they could not have found a better way."

Eastern Europe agrees with the bulk of the EU in supporting the war (Spain, UK, Italy, Portugal, and Denmark). But France may avenge itself on Eastern Europe by vetoing their membership. The impression I have is that any EU country can veto the admission of a new member. Typically gallic behavior: decrying threats and unilateralism, but using them liberally when it suits them.

But what is Eastern Europe supposed to do? It agrees with some EU members, disagrees with others, and everyone has a veto. France seems to have an underlying presumption that France and Germany, by rights, speak for Europe, no matter how badly they're outnumbered.

Can you imagine Bush telling Chirac and Schroeder they're "not well brought up" and "missed a good opportunity to keep quiet"? There'd be popped veins in foreheads! Heart attaques!

It's amazing the French can talk so breezily and often of American "arrogance", when their President talks to Eastern European countries as if he's lecturing a child.

Double standards on behavior continue. The only constant: Uncle Sam is an arrogant war-mongering cowboy we can all dislike. It's like c, the speed of light, constant under any experimental conditions.