I hardly know how to classify this post. However, at the moment I feel as if I—and the rest of the world—are characters in a novel. The President of the United States lumps together a cluster of countries into an "axis of evil"; two of these are allies of the People's Republic of China (Iran and North Korea). His associates speak of a moral obligation to spread democracy and end terror, and accuse the doubters of "moral temporizing." Governments with long-simmering disputes with the US government wonder if they risk the armed wrath of a superduperpower.

About the same time, Jiang Zemin, outgoing president of China, announced that China would recover the island by 2020 (Guardian). A few months of mounting tensions, and then: Bush declares he will not invade Iran (WP), then the Chinese Parliament declares it will use force "only as a last resort" (Reuters, China Daily):

"Peaceful reunification and one country, two systems" has been our basic policy in achieving a solution to the Taiwan question. A reunification by peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of all Chinese people, the Taiwan compatriots included, as it is conducive to fostering a warm affection among compatriots on both sides, to peace and stability in the Taiwan Straits and the Asia-Pacific region as a whole and to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The "one country, two systems" formula [...] allows a high degree of flexibility by taking into full account Taiwan's past and present circumstances. The draft legislation,[...] provides for [...] peaceful reunification of the country [...]. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification. And after the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.

Additional developments in world diplomacy: John Robert Bolton (Disinfopedia), Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security since May '01, has been nominated to be US Ambassador to the UN. As a fellow at the AEI, he penned this editorial at the WP demanding that the Bush Administration renege on the ICC Treaty. RightWeb profiles him thus:

John Bolton, George W. Bush's undersecretary of State for arms control and international security, is the administration's designated treaty killer. Since his nomination (which was opposed by Secretary of State Colin Powell), Bolton's reputation as a rabid opponent of international agreements and loose-lipped critic of foreign regimes has become the stuff of legend, at times hampering the State Department's ability to undertake negotiations. In July 2003, during the run up to the six-nation talks with North Korea, Bolton described Korean head of state Kim Jong Il as a "tyrannical dictator" of a country where "life is a hellish nightmare." North Korea responded in kind, saying that "such human scum and bloodsucker is not entitled to take part in the talks. ... We have decided not to consider him as an official of the U.S. administration any longer nor to deal with." The State Department sent a replacement for Bolton to the talks

[...]

At a 1994 panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association, Bolton claimed, "There's no such thing as the United Nations," saying that ''If the U.N. secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference.''

Bolton told the Wall Street Journal that signing the letter informing the U.N. that Washington was renouncing the Rome Treaty to create the ICC "was the happiest moment of my government service."

This is a little more detail than I meant to include about Bolton, but for those interested in his role as a "market mover" of the neoconservatives' stock in the White House, but this does furnish a good excuse to post a link to the Seymour Hersh article (New Yorker; hat tip to Angry Bear, who also does a pretty good job of summarizing its contents). Bolton is the most prominent example in Hersh's story of stovepiping:

A few months after George Bush took office, Greg Thielmann, an expert on disarmament with the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, or INR, was assigned to be the daily intelligence liaison to John Bolton[...] [Thielmann said:] “We were going to provide him with all the information he was entitled to see. That’s what being a professional intelligence officer is all about.”

But, Thielmann told [Hersh], “Bolton seemed to be troubled because INR was not telling him what he wanted to hear.” Thielmann soon found himself shut out of Bolton’s early-morning staff meetings. “I was intercepted at the door of his office and told, ‘The Under-Secretary doesn’t need you to attend this meeting anymore.’” When Thielmann protested that he was there to provide intelligence input, the aide said, “The Under-Secretary wants to keep this in the family.”

Eventually, Thielmann said, Bolton demanded that he and his staff have direct electronic access to sensitive intelligence, such as foreign-agent reports and electronic intercepts. In previous Administrations, such data had been made available to under-secretaries only after it was analyzed, usually in the specially secured offices of INR. The whole point of the intelligence system in place, according to Thielmann, was “to prevent raw intelligence from getting to people who would be misled.” Bolton, however, wanted his aides to receive and assign intelligence analyses and assessments using the raw data. In essence, the under-secretary would be running his own intelligence operation, without any guidance or support.

PART 2—ADDED 17 March '05: Also apropos of moving in formation: David Carr (Samizdata) posts on Britain's very own analogue to the USA PATRIOT* Act:

No, the weapon of the revolution to come is made only of paper and it is called the 'Civil Contingencies Bill', due to become law next year.

Envisaged, ostensibly, as a means of giving the government sufficient emergency powers to deal with terrorist threats (as if they do not already have enough powers), the actuality is a lot darker and goes a great deal further than that.

The effect of the Bill, once passed into law, will enable any senior government minister to declare that an 'emergency' has happened or is about to happen and, entirely at his own discretion, enact any regulations he wishes for the purpose of:

• protecting human life, health or safety
• treating human illness or injury
• protecting or restoring property
• protecting or restoring a supply of money, food, water, energy or fuel
• protecting or restoring an electronic or other system of communication
• protecting or restoring facilities for transport
• protecting or restoring the provision of services relating to health
• protecting or restoring the activities of banks or other financial institutions
• preventing, containing or reducing the contamination of land, water or air
• preventing, or mitigating the effects of, flooding
• preventing, reducing or mitigating the effects of disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life
• protecting or restoring activities of Her Majesty’s Government
• protecting or restoring activities of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Northern Ireland Assembly or of the National Assembly for Wales, or
• protecting or restoring the performance of public functions.

In other words, regulations for any purpose whatsoever.

And that is just the beginning. The Bill goes on to set out just what those ministerial fiats can do:

• provide for or enable the requisition or confiscation of property (with or without compensation);
• provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation);
• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, movement to or from a specified place;
• require, or enable the requirement of, movement to or from a specified place;
• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, assemblies of specified kinds, at specified places or at specified times;
• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, travel at specified times;
• prohibit, or enable the prohibition of, other specified activities;

The Bill will also enable said minister to abolish any law or statute at the stroke of a pen.