As IF Times

link Analysis: Core Qaeda priority is survival, not succession | Reuters.

Survival is right.  With the death of Bin Laden also dies the financial benefactor of the Al Qaeda movement.  It’s well known that Osama was worth a few hundred million bucks, or at least was until he decided that the rich playboy lifestyle wasn’t enough stimulation.  Instead he opted to spearhead a higher calling and no doubt used a lot of his money to fund it.  And so he launched Al Qaeda with the intent of lobbing missiles, bombs, mayhem and terror upon the West.  As long as the troops and the bombs and guns were paid for, it was all tickety boo.   No doubt the World Trade Center bombings impressed lots of rabid supporters and most certainly his fund raising was helped by the new street cred.

He could buy protection from governments and pass out some bonus cheques to keep the recruits loyal.  Now that he’s gone, the payroll may be iffier to meet.  Think of it;  someone has to pay for food, weapons, housing, transportation and benefits.  I’m sure the recruits were not all dummies.  They could read about the rich pension and work benefits received by other workers elsewhere.   Even  here in B.C. the minimum wage went up yesterday.  It’ s going to be harder to convince families to give up their sons as suicide bombers  if there is no certainty as to being paid for it.    The funding uncertainty may be what kills Al Qaeda in the end.

Every organized war since men first began disagreeing depends on financing.  Even Coke versus Pepsi needs dough.  Now that the main benefactor is gone, either some state has to come to the table and guarantee the costs of running a worldwide terrorist organization, or else that organization shrivels and becomes only regionally effective.  Who would that state now be?  All middle eastern states are in disarray.  Even Ahmadinejad in Iran may be tossed out by their supreme Poohbah.  As psychologically important as it was to cut off the head of the snake, it was more important to cut off the flow of funds.  It doesn’t matter how charismatic the new guy is if he can’t write the cheques.  It’s possible the zealots will chase after someone with deeper pockets.  Yikes, global warming may get a whole new army!

Update: June 19th 2011:   http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iF3Qn-z3csL9aYAC9C8EDkXqodnA?docId=64989b1e8d634c01ba004f04c52b1b03

link Chinas UN diplomat in drunken rant against Americans – Telegraph.

Staff were quick to brush this over as merely a rant initiated by too much fortified grape juice.  Actually, this is the most illuminating story to come out of the useless U.N.  in decades, if not ever.  It’s a poorly hidden secret that diplomacy is all about smiling in the face of your enemies until you can find a rock big enough to hit them over the head with. 

At the outset, the goal of the UN was to provide a civilized, structured forum for resolving issues between nations versus the historic option of waging war and destruction.  As some may know, this organization arose from the ashes of the precursor League of Nations, formed after WW1 in order to prevent world war from happening again.  This group disbanded upon the onset of WW2.  Since that didn’t work too well, the UN is actually the second attempt to play nicely among world nations.   At the end of WW2, the founding nations came together to create the structure we know today.  They included China, Russia, France, the UK and of course the United States.  The U.S. of course had the most money and military might at the time, so therefore the most influence.

Fast forward 65 years later and we notice that the peace loving founders find themselves at odds on many major policy issues, sort of like siblings that begin to resent each other.  Rather than work collectively for ‘world peace’ as per the original intent, they found themselves working to forward the best interests of their own nation states.  Resentment of the U.S.’s disproportionate power and financial influence has become more apparent as nations developed economically and increasingly flex their political muscle.   Except of course in the case of France.  They had resentment from the git go. 

So in this new atmosphere of increasingly equal national powers, the US has commensurately become isolated in their votes on major and minor policy issues.  The most notable dissension arises from the Americans’ support of Israel.  As of now, there is not so subtle competition going on for the world’s resources as everyone maneuvers to gain access to oil, commodities and markets.  Underneath the diplomatic veneer of civility at the UN are fierce battles to get or retain key strategic markets by all nations, notably by China and Russia.  The recent outburst by Sha Zukang is a diplomatic gaffe but lays bare the  resentment for the U.S. that is shared by all UN members.  

Here’s a suggestion.  Why don’t they serve drinks at all UN meetings?  Make it mandatory.  In this way, you can circumvent the charade of diplomatic negotiations and get to the nub of the matter.  You know the old Latin saying, ‘ in vino veritas’.  They’ll more quickly find out the various viewpoints and it won’t be couched in verbal gibberish.  This guy Sha has set new ground in political negotiations; he’s a no spin zone guy.  If you serve booze at the meetings instead of after, you’d likely have much more lively debates and quicker resolutions.   Plus, you wouldn’ t need armies of clerks, secretaries and interpreters to decipher what was said and what was meant.  

At the moment, the only people who are honest and candid about their intents are the ‘bad guys’ like Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong, etc.  They make their positions clear.  Ahmadinejad says, ‘we want to nuke Israel’: the west responds with, “well let’s see if we can find some middle ground’.  Kim Jong sinks a South Korean ship: the west responds with, ‘well it’s an accident, anyone could have done it’.    If we brought booze into all UN meetings, you’d bring back some realism to political debate.  In the 60’s, the Soviet’s Nikita Kruschev achieved notoriety for banging his shoe on his desk at a meeting to get attention.  It’s unknown whether he was over-refreshed at the time, but it’s time we brought back some sincerity to political debate.

You may get the odd fist fight a la Taiwan’s parliament, but better at the UN than in the real world.