American foreign policy is controlled by fools. What else can one conclude from the bipartisan demand that the U.S. intervene everywhere all the time, irrespective of consequences? No matter how disastrous the outcome, the War Lobby insists that the idea was sound. Any problems obviously result, it is claimed, from execution, a matter of doing too little: too few troops engaged, too few foreigners killed, too few nations bombed, too few societies transformed, too few countries occupied, too few years involved, too few dollars spent. As new conflicts rage across the Middle East, the interventionist caucus' dismal record has become increasingly embarrassing.
While Serbia has made great strides towards integration in the EU, it still has a long way to go before it can achieve economic compliance with EU standards and shed the reputation of intolerance and radical nationalism, personified by Seselj, that has tarnished the country since Milosevic's ascension to power.
There is a fundamental difference between the privacy of banking accounts and hiding beneficial ownership in order to commit crimes. The benefits of tracking organized crime, terrorism financing and tax evasion far outweigh the risks to privacy and secrecy of accounts, which is already adequately protected by rule of law nations.
The morning of June 28, 1914 dawned bright for most Europeans. By sunset a geopolitical cataclysm loomed. World War I demonstrated the importance of saying no. Any of the great powers could have stopped the march toward war. America could have refused to join the parade after it started. The world would have been a better place had one or all done so. Today, Washington is filled with routine proposals for new interventions: bombing campaigns, foreign invasions, and military occupations. Most seem unlikely to trigger a new world war. But a century ago no one expected an assassination in a distant Balkan province to do so either. That is reason enough for Americans to make war truly a last resort.
War more likely in the Balkans or sex in Brazil, turned into an unexpected UN Security Council debate. Is promiscuity for conflict, sex or soccer something embedded in our genes, culture or environment? Some stereotypes perhaps are better, or more accurately less harmful, but in the end they become a hurdle.