Wavepacket Blog

<

Wavepacket Blog
only displaying 'geopolitics' posts

Wed May 6 22:41:32 2009 Is Torture Worth It? The Economics of Collateral Damage
Good investments? Image courtesy of Crux (wiki) Lately, the torture memos have been making news (and see more information about the memos at the ACLU's website). The left claims that torture is immoral, the right claims that Bush kept us safe. I have no intention or desire to write a political blog, so I'll stay out of that. But a state's decision to use torture has economic (game theoretical) implications, and it's worth considering those. And it's more than just torture: how far do you go to respect human rights? For instance, we have killed a lot of civilians in the Iraq war alone, and just today we apologized to Afghanistan for killing so many of their citizens in airstrikes. Here is one thought experiment: suppose a large terrorist faction hides people and material in a large United States city. The government discovers that the faction exists in the city, but doesn't know exactly where. Is it okay if the government bombs city blocks it suspects may contain terrorists, but isn't sure, even if there are a lot of innocent US civilians also there? I don't think the government would do such a thing. I'm guessing risking US civilian lives would not be an option at all. However, a different standard clearly applies for non-US citizens. We bombed large sections of Baghdad, killing hundreds of civilians, based only on rumors of Saddam Hussein's whereabouts. (In the end, all those civilian deaths were in vain, since Saddam was captured without a shot in Tikrit). And we continue to shell Afghan villages with less safety checks than we would use for US towns. Game-Theoretical reasons the US should not respect human rights: It may save lives. There are arguments against this (see below), but it is possible that risking the deaths of non-US civilians could save the lives of US civilians and military personnel, just because discounting civilian lives opens up more options against the enemy and allows for faster decision-making. It's cheaper. Respecting human rights is very expensive. Can you imagine if we treated every Iraq airstrike request as if it was occurring within the US? There would be endless confirmations, approvals up and down the chain of command, verifications and re-verifications of targets, etc. US laws don't apply. You can't be sued for wrongful death, since the attacks aren't happening on US soil. Those civilians aren't protected by the US Constitution anyway. And that saves a lot of court cases. Deters would-be terrorists. There are arguments against this (see below), but if the US says it will torture or generally maltreat all enemy combatants, that may scare away people who would otherwise be tempted to take up arms against us. Most of the above reasons are only valid in the short run. If an "abandon all human rights" policy prolongs or intensifies the conflict, then any short-term savings in lives or money are likely to be swamped by the costs (in money and lives) of a longer or more intense conflict. And #4 (would-be terrorists will think twice) assumes that terrorists are rational, and they almost always aren't. I don't think a strategy will get very far if it assumes terrorists are rational. A better (and probably safer) strategy is to assume that terrorists aren't rational, except in a twisted way that they want to inflict as much damage as possible. For those sorts of worst-case terrorists, #4 (promising them punishment) won't help. Instead, the approaches should focus on the people who are rational. These are typically the civilian populations that house, feed, and supply terrorists, and the politicians in those areas. The civilians involved are either coerced or sincerely believe they are doing the right thing by helping the terrorists. Politicians as a whole are shrewd calculators and strategies that open up political advantages to cracking down on or disavowing terrorism will likely yield results. Game-Theoretical reasons the US should respect human rights: It protects our own military and civilian personnel. By upholding the Geneva Conventions for all of our enemies, terrorist or not, we have a better chance of having our own personnel and civilians so treated. Given the mindset of terrorists, it's not clear how much this would sway their treatment of our civilians, but it would likely sway the greater foreign populations which house and (indirectly) support those terrorists. And that leads to the next point: It lays claim to high moral ground. Again, terrorists may be beyond reasoning, but most of the world's population is not terrorists, and will never be. If the majority of a country's population is on your side, whoever you are, it is far less likely to support or even harbor terrorists against you. For these sorts of asymmetric conflicts, claiming the moral ground may actually be a key to winning. Our short-term costs, in terms of money and time, may be higher (and we may have to spend more money to protect lives!) but over the long run, this is the approach that will win allies and even the terrorists' host populations. Any strategy that antagonizes the host populations runs the risk of prolonging the conflict, and any strategy that antagonizes the host populations and our allies is almost certainly doomed to failure in the long run. So based on what I hope is a relatively dispassionate consideration, respecting human rights is the best long-term way to win the conflict. And by "respecting human rights," I'd recommend treating every civilian on the planet as if they were a US citizen, at least when considering military options. It makes military operations much more complex and expensive to plan, but has the best chance of keeping the conflict short and winning many allies. This argument does assume one thing: that there is a moral high ground. If all morals are relative, then none of this applies and we're back to a most-aggressive-combatant-wins strategy. And in that case, "terrorist" is also a relative term. So I'll stick with my assumption that there is a moral high ground. Comments	Related: economics > geopolitics < Unrelated: books energy environment lists mathematics predictions science

Thu May 1 21:18:45 2008 Al-Jazeera Cameraman Sami al-Haj is released after 6 years.
In Reporters Sans Frontieres I mentioned the al-Jazeera cameraman who had been imprisoned at Guantanamo for the past 6 years. I learned about him only in passing, since his imprisonment was one of the reasons that Reporters Without Borders ranked the US fairly low in press freedoms relative to the rest of the world. Today I saw in the headlines that Sami al-Haj has been freed. He was apparently bundled up on a plane and flown to the Sudan. No explanation for his years of detention has been given. I can only assume that his unnannounced and unexplained release, coming so soon after my entry, is due to the impact of my blog. Perhaps now that he was released our Press Freedoms ranking will climb a bit! The US State Department should release a Guantanamo prisoner each year, to boost our rank. Comments	Related: > geopolitics < Unrelated: books economics energy environment lists mathematics predictions science

Sun Apr 13 22:38:47 2008 Other Freedom Rankings Comparing countries' various rankings.
I was thinking of other country rankings. I quote the Reporters Without Borders press freedom ranking below, but there are other rankings! 2006 Economic Freedom Ranking - Fraser Institute Image courtesy of Arthur Gunn (wiki) There is the index of economic freedom from the Heritage Foundation. I have no idea what the Heritage Foundation stands for, but some quick surfing on their site indicates it is a right-wing think tank. Check out some of their positions listed here. So take their biases into account, but their ranking methodology isn't bad. That's just economic freedom. There is a basic freedom ranking published by Freedom House, which is a nonprofit organization (founded by Eleanor Roosevelt!) which promotes freedom around the world (take a look at their mission statement). Their freedom ranking focuses on political rights (electoral process and government), and civil liberties (freedom of expression, rule of law, individual rights). They combine those subscores into an average per-country rating, with the summary listed here. What is the most free country in the world? No one seems to agree. Hong Kong tops the Heritage Foundation's ranking for Economic Freedom, but Freedom House lists it as only "Partly Free" (in the "Territories" section, sincie it isn't an independent country). China, to which Hong Kong belongs, is counted "Not Free" by Freedom House. Iceland and Norway are tied for the top spot in RSF's ranking of Press Freedoms, and both are in the top grouping for Freedom House's combined rankings. However, the Heritage Foundation says Iceland is only "Mostly Free" economically, while Norway is just "Moderately Free." So there is no one country that aces all the rankings. 2008 Freedom House World Map (green is good, red is bad) Image courtesy of Freedom House (wiki) How does the United States rank? Economic Freedom: number 5 in the world, although we barely qualify as free (Heritage Foundation counts you as free if you rank from 80-100 on their scale, and only 7 countries qualified). Political and Civil freedoms: we are in the top group with a ranking of 1. Press freedoms: number 48 in the world. So we are at least in the better half of the world. Canada does well: it is ranked as Free by the Heritage Foundation, in the top group of Free countries from Freedom House, and is 18th on RSF's very tough press freedoms ranking. Russia does poorly: Heritage Foundation ranks it as economically repressed, Freedom House ranks it as "Not Free" (although in a group above China), and it is near the bottom of RSF's list at 144. China does even worse: although only "Mostly Unfree" from an economic perspective, it is "Not Free" from a political and civil perspective, and is a bottom-dweller of RSF's list at number 163. The United Kingdom? It is "Mostly Free" from an economic perspectve (just 0.5 short of "Free"!), in the top "Free" group from a political and civil perspective, and is a respectible 24th on the RSF list. As I mentioned below, I am a big fan of Tunisia, but it does poorly in these rankings. It is "Mostly Unfree" from an economic perspective, "Not Free" from a political/civil perspective (same ranking as Russia), and it ranks below Russia on the press freedoms index. Another country I've visited a few times is Chile. Chile ranks fairly well: it tops the list of "Mostly Free" countries from an economic perspective, is in the top grouping for political and civil freedoms, and is number 39 on the press freedoms ranking, ahead of the US, Israel, and South Africa, just to name a few. Comments	Related: > geopolitics < Unrelated: books economics energy environment lists mathematics predictions science

Science Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Technorati Profile

Strange Attractor