Europe’s Zombie Constitution
The French and the Dutch both rejected the European Union (EU) constitution this year. Back to the drawing board for Europe, right? Wrong. Brussels isn’t letting pesky voters get in the way of European integration. Daniel Hannan, a member of the European Parliament who is skeptical of the promises of integration, has identified 12 significant parts of the constitution that are being implemented despite the French and Dutch results—including the establishment of the European Defense Agency, a European Space Programme, and an EU diplomatic corps. European Commission spokesman Mikolaj Dowgielewicz says charging ahead isn’t a problem because “these are not the things why people voted against—or in favor—of the constitution. People did not vote against the constitution in France and the Netherlands, or in favor in Spain, because of the Space Agency.” Europeans should have seen this coming when, in June—after the votes were counted—EU President Jean-Claude Juncker said, “I really believe neither the French nor the Dutch rejected the constitutional treaty.” Maybe he missed the stories about the “no” votes, too?

The New Coalition of the Willing
Private security firms in Iraq are hiring an increasing number of ex-guerrillas and soldiers from Colombia, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Chile. A recent ad on Iraqijobcenter.com, for example, offered the services of “a thousand Colombian combat-trained ex-soldiers and policemen” for security work in Iraq. This year, U.S. security firm Halliburton employed Colombians to protect oil installations in several Iraqi cities. Blackwater, another private security firm, has had a group of soldiers who once served for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on the payroll. Recruits often come from militaries known for human rights abuses or paramilitaries with ties to narcotrafficking. So why are U.S. contractors hiring Latin American mercenaries? “If a contractor is killed,” says Peter Singer, an expert on private military firms at the Brookings Institution, “it is less likely to make the news [than if it’s a U.S. soldier]. If it’s a contractor from another country, it is even less likely.”

Recipe for Successor
Ever since Kim Jong Il replaced his father as North Korea’s leader in 1994, Korea watchers have speculated over who would succeed him. The subject is such a hot topic that Kim has banned all discussion of succession in North Korea. But this year offered the biggest clue to date. On October 28, Chinese President Hu Jintao dined with Kim and the dictator’s second son, Kim Jong Chol. Because China is the Hermit Kingdom’s chief patron, the decision to seat Kim Jong Chol at the table would not have been taken lightly by Pyongyang. The 64-year-old Kim has said he would like one of his three sons to be his heir, but thus far it’s been unclear which one. Little is known about the 24-year-old Jong Chol, except that he studied in Switzerland and is a big fan of NBA basketball. But experts say that until the super-secretive Kim officially announces his choice, no candidate will be a slam dunk.

Hot Air’s Shifting Winds
When it comes to emitting greenhouse gases, the United States is usually seen as the bad guy, content to belch out fumes at its pleasure. But reports released in late November show that U.S. emissions have fallen for the first time in more than a decade. Between 2000 and 2003, U.S. emissions fell by 0.8 percent. By contrast, global goody-two-shoes Canada saw a 24.2 percent increase in 2003 from its 1990 levels. Even the sanctimonious Europeans are set to miss their Kyoto targets by 6.4 percent. Uncle Sam’s emissions dropped partly because U.S. firms introduced clean coal technologies and reduced their methane emissions. So, is the United States turning into the Green Giant? Hardly. The most important reason for its drop in emissions was the migration of heavy manufacturing to industrializing countries such as China, the world’s second-biggest emitter.

Rumsfeld’s Slip of the Tongue
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld seemingly revised America’s “One China” policy with one word. At an August press conference, when asked how important it was for Taipei to conclude an arms purchase from the United States, Rumsfeld referred to Taiwan as a “sovereign” country. The secretary replied, “You know, I’ve always believed that countries—sovereign nations—have to do what they decide to do. It’s up to them to do it.” Considering Beijing’s sensitivity to any statements about the independence of Taiwan—which it considers a renegade province—it’s surprising that Rumsfeld would be so semantically careless. “The Taiwan Strait issue is very theological. It has its sacred texts. Officials who speak publicly without the necessary training often rue the day they did not learn the proper nuance and subtlety,” says Richard Bush, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the former head of the de facto U.S. embassy in Taiwan. “[Rumsfeld’s] use of the word ‘sovereign’ was probably a bit radioactive because it does mean different things to different people.” Was it on purpose? Kenneth Lieberthal, a political scientist and former China adviser on the National Security Council, doesn’t believe so. “I think it was a slip of the tongue.” Fortunately, neither the Chinese nor Taiwanese governments made political hay out of Rumsfeld’s lapse in jargon. They know the script so well, they can probably spot an honest mistake when they see one.