'Really, if the lower orders don’t set us a good example, what on earth is the use of them?'
-- Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest

The week that included Valentine’s day seemed as good a week as any to put the world on notice. Not the entire world-only parts and, for that matter, one part was even given a reprieve.

On February 17, 2005, Donald Rumsfeld expressed great concern about what was going on in China with respect to arms buildup. He said that the U.S. was closely monitoring the growth of China’s navy and that intelligence estimates suggest China’s navy could be bigger than Mr. Rumsfeld’s navy within 10 years. He said the Chinese military budget had enjoyed double digit growth for the past few years thus posing a threat to world peace and, more especially, to the U.S. forces stationed in the area.

He might have said, but didn’t, that China was closely monitoring the growth of the United States’ defense budget that according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is 8 times larger than the Chinese budget/ Since 2000, budget requests by the U.S. military have gone from $288.8 billion to $420.7 billion thus posing, at least in the eyes of some, a threat to world peace. He probably thinks we can spend as much as we want on armaments but other countries should show restraint.

Echoing Mr. Rumsfeld’s concerns about China, Porter Goss told the Senate Armed Services Committee that: “Beijing’s military modernization and military buildup could tilt the balance of power in the Taiwan Strait. Improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region. “ He went on to observe that China had increased its ballistic missile forces and launched several new submarines and had developed survivable nuclear-armed missiles and increased conventional capabilities for use in regional conflicts. He did not suggest U.S. forces might leave the region if China continued to build up its defenses which might cause China to stop building up its defenses.

China wasn’t the only country to get the administration’s attention. On February 16, 2005, Mr. Bush proclaimed Syria “out of step” with democratic trends in the Middle East. At first one assumed he must have been thinking of the torture that country inflicted on people sent there by Mr. Bush-people like Maher Arar. Mr. Ahar is the Canadian citizen who was arrested at Kennedy Airport on September 26, 2002 and made to disappear until October 3, 2003. Mr. Bush sent him to Syria where he was subject to the kind of torture that the U.S. is much too civilized to inflict on its own territory.

Thinking of the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister assassinated in Lebanon by persons unknown but suspected by Mr. Bush to be inspired by Syria, and not of Mr. Ahar who is known to have been sent to Syria by Mr. Bush for torture, Mr. Bush said Democracy was on the move in the Middle East and Syria “is a country that isn’t moving with the democratic movement.” The democratic movement he thinks Syria should emulate is the one in Iraq, the country where hundreds of Iraqis and dozens of U.S. service personnel are killed each month but which is a success because it recently held an election. The fact that there are 60 attacks a day by militants this year compared with about 24 a day last year, does not mean the democratic movement is unsuccessful. It just means that Iraq is a country with a democratic movement no one given a choice would choose to live in at the present time.

It’s not clear how Mr. Bush intends to punish Syria for what he believes is its involvement in the assassination of Rafik Hariri. He has withdrawn his ambassador and may take other action. It was not a week of nothing but expressions of concern about the behavior of other countries. There was one country that got a bit of good news.

On February 18 Mr. Bush let a waiting world know that he has no present plan to invade Iran. Speaking to European journalists he said: “I hear all these rumors about military attacks, and it’s just not the truth. We want diplomacy to work.” Leaving a door open in case Iran misbehaved, however, when asked whether he would ever attack Iran he said: “Listen, first of all, you never want a president to say ‘never.’ But military action is certainly not-it’s never the president’s first choice. Diplomacy is always the president’s first, as least my first choice.” That is, until he gets really mad, like he did at Iraq. That probably makes the Iranians feel real good-at least for now. It may not have the same effect on the rest of us.

Christopher Brauchli can be reached at Brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu.

###