Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly apologized to the leaders of Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and other Middle East countries for his previous comments that they had, perhaps inadvertently, supported Sunni extremists in the Syrian civil war. The uproar occurred because Biden had stated that Turkey, Qatar, and the UAE had given “billions of dollars and tens of thousands of tons of weapons” to Syrian Sunni fighters seeking to overthrow Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Those governments, he charged, had been willing to give aid to “anyone who would fight Assad. Except that the people who were being supplied were al-Nusra and al-Qaeda and the extremist elements of jihadis coming from other parts of the world.” 

It is unfortunate that Biden felt the need to retract those comments, because his criticism was quite accurate. As I point out in a recent article on Aspenia Online,  the rise of ISIS is the latest phase of a regional struggle for power between Sunnis and Shiites. The primary arena is Syria, where a fight rages between largely Sunni insurgents and Assad’s governing coalition of Alawites (a Shiite offshoot), Christians, and other religious minorities who are petrified about possible Sunni domination. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and the UAE enthusiastically backed the insurgents, and although the Obama administration might prefer to forget its role in the rise of ISIS, the United States provided aid to them as well.

The other, closely related, arena is Iraq with its continuing sectarian animosity. Eliminating Saddam Hussein’s rule ended decades of Sunni domination of that country’s politics and economy. The new Shiite-led government was in no mood for conciliating the displaced elite that had stifled their faction for so long. Instead, the regime seemed to go out of its way to marginalize and humiliate the Sunni minority. Iraq has seethed for years because of sectarian hatred, drifting to the brink of civil war in 2006 and 2007, and finally exploding into a full-blown internecine conflict this year. Some Iraqi Sunnis may harbor worries about the extremist nature of ISIS, but they also see the group as the one entity capable of mounting a serious armed challenge to the Baghdad government. 

Although the Saudi, Turkish and Gulf governments now refuse to admit their role, they did heavily back Sunni forces in both Syria and Iraq that subsequently went rogue and formed the core of ISIS. Saudi Arabia’s involvement was especially malignant, since Saudi aid to Syrian and Iraqi factions was channeled primarily to the most radical elements. That development was hardly accidental or surprising, given the Saudi government’s long-standing promotion of the extremist Wahhabi strain of Islam. Saudi leaders may now realize that they helped create a Frankenstein’s monster, but Washington’s belief that Riyadh, as a member of the anti-ISIS coalition, will work to strengthen “moderates” in Syria and elsewhere is extraordinarily naïve. The Saudi government will more likely try to back other hard-line Sunni elements that, perhaps for sufficient financial inducements, might be willing to break with ISIS and take guidance from Saudi patrons. 

Biden was undoubtedly under pressure not to antagonize members of the ramshackle international coalition that President Obama has assembled to combat ISIS. But truth is truth. And the vice president’s original comments about the deleterious role that Riyadh, Ankara, and other capitals have played were the truth.

Bulgarians will go to the polls on October 5^th to elect new members of its parliament and thus a new government. Before casting their votes, voters should reflect on the economic records of Bulgaria’s governments since 1995.

Every country aims to lower inflation, unemployment, and lending rates, while increasing gross domestic product (GDP) per capita. Through a simple sum of the former three rates, minus year-on-year per capita GDP growth, I constructed a misery index for each of Bulgaria’s six governments since 1995 (see the accompanying table).

The first government documented in the table is that of Zhan Videnov’s socialist government. It was a disaster. Hyperinflation occurred on Videnov’s watch, with the monthly inflation rate reaching 242% in February 1997. The misery index soared by 529% during Videnov’s short-lived reign.

Bulgaria clearly lacked an “economic constitution”—one that would provide fiscal discipline and monetary stability. So in the midst of the turmoil of the 1996–97 hyperinflation episode, Bulgaria took an important first step toward what would become an economic constitution.

As an adviser to President Stoyanov, I played a role in ending Bulgaria’s hyperinflation nightmare. Six short months after I presented my blueprint for a Bulgarian currency board to the president, the currency board was born (July 1997). With the currency board in place, Bulgaria’s misery index fell like a stone, falling by 97% during the conservative Kostov government’s tenure. Fiscal discipline and monetary stability were finally established.

Since the Kostov years, Bulgaria has had four governments and the misery index has fluctuated around a reading of 20. The currency board has clearly given Bulgaria fiscal discipline and monetary stability. The misery index readings in the table attest to that fact. The other thing that the misery index readings make clear is that the socialist-led governments in Bulgaria have delivered misery (Videnov 1995–97, Stanishev 2005-09, and Oresharski 2013–14).

President Barack Obama is channeling George W. Bush in launching a new Mideast war. Why is Washington involved? 

The Islamic State is evil, but the organization’s raison d’etre is establishing a Middle Eastern caliphate, or quasi-state, not terrorizing Americans. In fact, grabbing territory provided the United States with a target for retaliation in response to any attack, something lacking with al-Qaeda. 

The murder of two Americans captured in the region was horrid but opportunistic. Morally abominable, yes. Cause for war, no.

Washington has never had much success in fixing the Middle East. The United States has been bombing Iraq since 1991. ISIL would not exist but for America’s 2003 invasion. 

Washington has been battling al-Qaeda since 2001. While the national organization is largely kaput, the group has spawned multiple national off-shoots.

The Bush administration justifiably overthrew the Afghan Taliban as punishment for hosting al-Qaeda. But 13 years of nation-building has been far less successful.

Three years ago, the Obama administration declared that Syria’s Bashar al-Assad had to go. Since then, “moderates” have lost ground. The Islamic State’s capture of the city of Raqqa created a base for attacking Iraq.

Washington joined European states in ousting Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi in the name of the Arab Spring. Today the country is in collapse. Yemen, the subject of a lengthy and heavy drone campaign, appears headed in a similar direction.

Now Washington plans to rid the world of ISIL.

Targeting the “caliphate” removes the most important deterrent to terrorist attacks by the Islamic State. If it finds its conventional ambitions frustrated by Washington, the group might switch direction and cooperate with groups such as al-Qaeda.

The administration almost certainly will be drawn ever deeper into the conflict. Pinprick aerial bombing won’t wipe out ISIL adherents. 

U.S. policy in Syria, the scene of the group’s initial success, is bound to fail. The administration intends to step up efforts to train and arm the “moderates,” some of whom cooperate with ISIL. The likelihood of these groups defeating both Assad and Islamic State is small. While American bombing will hamper the latter’s efforts, the organization has been adapting and advancing. The administration could end up helping ISIL plant its flag in Damascus.

The administration’s campaign is particularly misguided because there are so many other candidates to take on the Islamic State. The organization is essentially at war with every major country in the Middle East. 

ISIL’s territorial claims directly threaten Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, as well as autonomous Kurdistan. The group’s stance as self-proclaimed Sunni guardian challenges Iran and Israel. ISIL’s Sunni radicalism targets Saudi Arabia and the smaller Gulf kingdoms, as well as assorted Islamist and secular insurgents in Syria. 

No doubt, Washington’s allies prefer that the world’s superpower take care of the problem. But they obviously are capable of acting. Indeed, since its spectacular summer successes, the Islamic State has lost momentum and the element of surprise.

However, the United States is determined again to “lead.” Other countries will help out a little, but most coalition members are likely to do only as much as they believe necessary to limit Washington’s kvetching.

America should leave ISIL to its neighbors. Only they can create stability. As I wrote on Forbes online, “they must adopt economic and political reforms to satisfy discontented publics, nurture popular loyalties to thwart triumphal ideological and theological movements, and employ competent militaries to suppress security threats.” 

Obviously, such a regional effort would take time. But administration officials are saying the same for the American-led campaign against an enemy that has not seriously threatened America.

Washington has made a hash of the Mideast. Yet President Obama is continuing Washington’s policy of endless war in the Middle East. As Yogi Berra said, it’s “déjà vu all over again.”

Before becoming prime minister, India’s Narendra Modi was barred from receiving a visa to visit the United States. A rising leader in the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), he was tied to deadly sectarian violence. But now he leads one of Asia’s most important powers and the Obama administration is rolling out the red carpet.

India long was ruled by the dynastic India National Congress Party, which enshrined dirigiste economics as the state’s secular religion. Eventually, however, reality seeped into New Delhi. The Congress Party liberalized the economy. The BJP broke the Congress monopoly on power. 

New Delhi appeared ready to follow the People’s Republic of China to international superstar status. But then enthusiasm for economic reform ebbed, economic growth slowed, and conflict with Pakistan flared. 

However, on May 26, Narendra Modi became prime minister. He is visiting the United States to speak before the United Nations and meet with President Barack Obama. The trip could yield rich benefits for both countries.

Of course, there was that embarrassing visa ban, the only one ever issued for that reason by Washington. While serving as the chief minister of the state of Gujarat in 2002, Modi was implicated in Hindu riots which killed more than 1200 people, mostly Muslims. However, Modi escaped responsibility and the matter has been quietly forgotten in Washington.

The prime minister’s visit to America offers an opportunity for a reset in bilateral relations. The George W. Bush administration improved ties by accepting New Delhi’s development of nuclear weapons, but little progress has occurred during the current administration. Indeed, trade and diplomatic controversies have put the two governments at sharp odds.

The result is a lost opportunity for both nations. India, which trails only America and China economically in purchasing power parity, performs far below its potential.

Modi naturally hopes to expand his nation’s commercial ties throughout Asia, which increasingly is the world’s economic center of gravity. But America remains the most important single state—with the largest (depending on measure), most sophisticated, and wealthiest economy. 

Geopolitically, India has yet to play the international game as well as possible, though the new prime minister embarked upon an ambitious travel schedule abroad. New Delhi’s most persistent foreign antagonist is Pakistan. In the long term, New Delhi’s desire to develop international counterweights to China, even while cooperating economically, is most important.

The greatest prize for New Delhi would be the strengthening relations with the United States. The prime minister recently cited the improvement in bilateral relations and explained: “Our ties have deepened. India and the United States of America are bound together, by history and by culture. These ties will deepen further.” 

Washington is thinking in similar terms. When Secretary of State John Kerry visited New Delhi in July, he said he wanted the two nations to become “indispensable partners.”

No one expects a formal military alliance, which would be in neither nation’s interest. And important issues will continue to divide the two capitals. But friendlier political relations, increased security cooperation, and enhanced trade and investment would remind the PRC that its growing power is matched by that of its wary neighbors. 

India has further to travel than China to geopolitical greatness, but it still matters today. New Delhi will matter much more tomorrow, especially if Prime Minister Modi commits his political capital to eliminate barriers to entrepreneurship, investment, and growth.

The 21^st century will be the Asian century, with a major assist from the United States. Most analysts presume Chinese dominance, but India could prove them wrong. As I wrote in Forbes online: “If Barack Obama and Narendra Modi make a serious effort to overcome past differences, their governments could find themselves, like Rick and Captain Renault in the movie Casablanca, at the ‘beginning of a beautiful friendship’.”

Hundreds of thousands of protesters are marching in Hong Kong under the banner of “Occupy Central for Love and Peace.” Have I got a book for them!

Cato Senior Fellow Tom G. Palmer has just edited Peace, Love, & Liberty, a collection of writings on peace. This is the fifth book edited by Palmer and published in collaboration with the Atlas Network, where he is executive vice president for international programs, and Students for Liberty, which plans to distribute some 300,000 copies on college campuses.

But don’t write this book off as a student handout. There’s really impressive material in here. Palmer wrote three long original essays: “Peace Is a Choice,” “The Political Economy of Empire and War,” and “The Philosophy of Peace or the Philosophy of Conflict.” These are important and substantial articles. 

But his aren’t the only impressive articles. The book also includes:

• Steven Pinker on why we’ve seen a decline in war
• Eric Gartzke on how free trade leads to peace
• Rob McDonald on early Americans’ wariness of war
• Justin Logan on the declining usefulness of war
• Radley Balko on the militarization of police
• Emmanuel Martin on how we all benefit if other countries prosper
• Chris Rufer on a businessman’s view of peace
• Sarah Skwire on war in literature
• Cathy Reisenwitz on what individuals can do to advance peace

Plus classic pieces of literature including Mark Twain’s “War Prayer” and Wilfred Owen’s “Dulce et Decorum Est.”

And all this for only $9.95 at Amazon! Or even less from Amazon’s affiliates. If you want to buy them in bulk — and really, you should, especially for your peace-loving friends who aren’t yet libertarians — contact Students for Liberty.

As I argued in a piece over at Forbes yesterday, western sanctions to roll back Russian action in Ukraine have been largely ineffectual. These sanctions — including asset freezes and visa bans – are ‘targeted’ at those suspected of having influence on Putin. Yet the sanctions, designed to be minimally painful for European states, are toothless — the majority of individuals sanctioned have only a minimal role in policy – and they won’t fix the long-term problem.

Over 150 individuals have been sanctioned by the United States and European Union, including 65 Ukrainian rebels, whose inclusion is presumably intended to inhibit their ability to wage conflict. The remainder are Russian, but most have no access to the corridors of power. Anatoly Sidorov, for example, the Commander of Russian military units in Crimea, is likely uninvolved in the policy formulation process. Other names are stranger, such as Ramzan Kadyrov, head of the Chechen republic. No doubt, he’s a trenchant proponent of the rebels, but he doesn’t influence Russian policy. In all, I estimate only a small proportion of those included in joint sanctions are actually involved in high-level decisionmaking.

The sanctions also vary in impact. Vladislav Surkov, suspected mastermind of Russia’s Crimea strategy, joked with reporters that sanctions didn’t worry him, as his only interest in the United States was Tupac. His point is valid: for those with no assets in Western Europe or the United States, sanctions are merely inconvenient.

Newer sanctions on companies certainly carry some more bite, restricting the ability of Russian banks to raise capital on Western markets. But they still don’t touch Russia’s key source of government revenues, an estimated 50–70% of which come from oil and gas sales. Unfortunately, Russia supplies one-third of Europe’s natural gas, and several countries (e.g., Estonia, Latvia) are entirely dependent on Russian energy. An immediate stop to imports is simply not possible, especially at the start of winter.

In the long-run, however, the most energy-dependent countries are also those most worried about Russia for security reasons. Now is an excellent time for these countries to begin to slowly divest themselves of Russian gas and oil. Dependence is a two-way street, after all: Russia is dependent on European payments for energy, and it will be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive for Russia to find alternate buyers for its resources.

The United States can help Europe with this process. The global energy market is being reshaped by innovations like fracking and liquified natural gas (LNG) transports. Thanks to shale gas, the United States is now one of the world’s largest producers of LNG, with shipments set to leave ports as early as 2015. Indeed, House Speaker John Boehner argued in March that the United States could help to curb Russia’s influence by encouraging natural gas exports to Eastern Europe. But for the sake of their own security, European states must begin the long process of shifting away from Russian energy supplies, and turning off the spigot of energy wealth that keeps the Kremlin afloat. 

BEIJING—China’s university system is growing. However, the People’s Republic of China still lags behind the U.S. and other Western nations. Chinese students increasingly are heading to America for higher education. 

While recently playing tourist in Beijing I spoke to a number of young Chinese. They were bright and inquisitive, ambitious and nationalistic. They worried about finding good jobs and were irritated by government restrictions on their freedom. 

Beijing’s global influence depends upon domestic economic growth and political stability. And that ultimately depends upon China’s young. 

The PRC’s university students today are most likely to become the country’s leaders tomorrow. The number of college graduates has increased to seven million, a four-fold jump over the last decade. 

While the number of universities in China is growing, few have national, let alone international, reputations. Undoubtedly that will change over time. Today, however, competition for the few available spots at top schools is extraordinary. 

For instance, Peking and Tsinghua Universities are the only Chinese universities among the world’s top 100. They have space only for 6000 new students a year. 

Obviously, far more Chinese students could succeed, indeed thrive, at fine universities. So more than 400,000 young Chinese are heading abroad every year. 

The Chinese government increasingly accommodates students who desire to study overseas. Indeed, in 2011 President Hu Jintao admitted: “While people receive a good education, there are significant gaps compared to the advanced international level.” The daughter of his successor, President Xi Jinping, attended Harvard University. 

The U.S. remains the favored destination of Chinese students. There were 235,000 Chinese students in America during the 2012–2013 school year. In the past most Chinese students were in graduate school, but the share of undergraduates has been increasing—up more than ninefold from 2005 to 2012. 

U.S. universities offer a greater variety of courses, making it easier to specialize. They also provide an education more attuned to the global economy in which China is expanding its role. 

A foreign degree is particularly helpful for the three of ten Chinese students who remain overseas. Chen Yuyu of Peking University observed: “High-end jobs that should have been produced by industrialization, including research, marketing and accounting, etc., have been left in the West.” 

Foreign companies doing business in China also desire employees with a Western-oriented education. Even Chinese students destined to work in China gain an advantage from schooling that sets them apart. 

Of course, while many Chinese students are capable of succeeding at foreign universities, many find foreign study difficult. Some prospective applicants turn to private companies to help them prepare.

The Chinese educational surge is good for America. Chinese students deliver $24 billion to the U.S economy. 

Moreover, educating many of China’s future leaders is more likely to lead to better bilateral relations and a more peaceful future. Attending American colleges won’t turn Chinese into Americans, but will yield many personal friendships and business relationships. 

A common educational experience also may encourage a more liberal international vision. Western schooling certainly does not guarantee humane views, but as I wrote in Forbes online, “a U.S. university education is more likely to reinforce the independent impulses evident in so many Chinese students today.”

They still will be Chinese patriots (and likely quite nationalistic in the eyes of most Americans). But Western-educated Chinese may be more likely to appreciate if not share U.S. worldviews and objectives. At least, the possibility is there.

The U.S.-China relationship is the most important bilateral relationship of the 21^st Century. Both nations must work through the inevitable disagreements and make cooperation rather than confrontation the hallmark of their relationship. While there’s no panacea to make that happen, the growing number of Chinese attending U.S. universities is a hopeful sign.