Here is a recent headline in the NY Times:
G.I.’s Forge Sunni Tie in Bid to Squeeze Militants
This definitely isn't the first time we have seen reporting on US military attempts to turn Iraqi Sunnis - including nationalistic Sunni insurgents - against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (the main Al Qaeda group in Iraq). And each time I see reports of this, a new hope grows in me. It is one of the only strategies that could actually work in Iraq.
I don't really buy into the talk that Iraq is just made up of different ethnic groups that can't live together. Our problem is that we haven't been able to provide security. And the main reason we haven't been able to provide security is our inability to pacify Sunni insurgents.
There is a lot of talk in Congress about political reconciliation and forcing the Iraqi parliament to make compromises. But that is all meaningless until Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is shown the door. We have proven incapable of doing that with the troop levels we have - even with the surge. So we need Iraqis to help us with this. Bush may be an idiot, but his military commanders are not. They have been trying to get Sunni nationalists to turn against Al Qaeda for a long time. Let's hope it really starts working.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Fawlty Logic
Summary:
President Bush's logic on commuting Libby's prison sentence is bunk. But Bill Clinton is the last person who should be criticizing him.
I have to say, what I am most upset about with Bush's commuting of Libby's prison term is that his logic is complete crap. First of all, Bush says that Libby's reputation is tarnished and the stiff fine ($250,000) and probation are strong enough. That is nonsense; any minute now a firm with ties to the far right will hire Libby because they are proud of what he did. And with the salary they will surely give him, he'll be able to pay off the fine in no time.
Worse than that though, is Bush's claim (here is his statement) that the sentence was too tough. He is either being dishonest, or doesn't actually know his administration's stance. As the NY Times points out, the Bush administration favors tough sentencing generally and has rejected these very same arguments (about first time offense and prior public service) when used by federal defendants. And all the evidence suggests that Libby's jail sentence was in line with similar cases.
It will be great if the article is right and defense attorneys start using Bush's reasoning in sentencing briefs before federal judges. I bet the Justice Department will soon issue a brief that says they still support tough sentencing and don't think prior public service should be considered during sentencing.
The point is, I would much rather Bush had just come forward and told the truth. All he has to say is that Cheney told him to do it - and since he takes orders from his VP, he had no choice. Or he could have just said that he lied when he said he would take the Valerie Plame leak seriously, and actually should have said that he would protect anyone involved in that because politics is more important than justice and consistent policy.
At the same time though, Bill Clinton has no right to criticize Bush on this. His Marc Rich pardon was never justified to the public as far as I know.
President Bush's logic on commuting Libby's prison sentence is bunk. But Bill Clinton is the last person who should be criticizing him.
I have to say, what I am most upset about with Bush's commuting of Libby's prison term is that his logic is complete crap. First of all, Bush says that Libby's reputation is tarnished and the stiff fine ($250,000) and probation are strong enough. That is nonsense; any minute now a firm with ties to the far right will hire Libby because they are proud of what he did. And with the salary they will surely give him, he'll be able to pay off the fine in no time.
Worse than that though, is Bush's claim (here is his statement) that the sentence was too tough. He is either being dishonest, or doesn't actually know his administration's stance. As the NY Times points out, the Bush administration favors tough sentencing generally and has rejected these very same arguments (about first time offense and prior public service) when used by federal defendants. And all the evidence suggests that Libby's jail sentence was in line with similar cases.
It will be great if the article is right and defense attorneys start using Bush's reasoning in sentencing briefs before federal judges. I bet the Justice Department will soon issue a brief that says they still support tough sentencing and don't think prior public service should be considered during sentencing.
The point is, I would much rather Bush had just come forward and told the truth. All he has to say is that Cheney told him to do it - and since he takes orders from his VP, he had no choice. Or he could have just said that he lied when he said he would take the Valerie Plame leak seriously, and actually should have said that he would protect anyone involved in that because politics is more important than justice and consistent policy.
At the same time though, Bill Clinton has no right to criticize Bush on this. His Marc Rich pardon was never justified to the public as far as I know.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Perish the Thought
This is a hilarious Opinion piece. Basically, it talks about how countries like China and Venezuela are providing aid to developing countries with only their interests in mind. Perish the thought.
Because the goal of these donors is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they seek to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda or even line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they aid.Sound a little hypocritical? That accurately describes the history of our foreign policy. While I understand that we are promoting democracy and transparency (sometimes), as compared to autocratic governments, we still continue to operate to benefit our interests. After all, why would fight to protect Kuwait, but not lift a finger in any disputes in Africa?
Sorry, More Friedman
This is an interesting column ($). I am not sure I completely agree, but it might end up being our only option. Friedman suggests that since the surge isn't working, our only other option is to move our troops into the Kurdish north. This would allow us to prevent the inevitable civil war from spreading outside the country, while using a democratic and peaceful "Kurdistan" as a model for the rest of the Middle East.
First of all, I am not sure Turkey would be as willing to go along as Friedman suggests. At the very least we would have to end the practice of Kurdish terrorist groups using Iraqi Kurdistan as a based to launch attacks against Turkey. I also wonder whether peaceful and democratic societies have any impact on the countries around them. I used to think they would, but I am growing skeptical.
Worse though is the decision to abandon the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. I know we might have to do that at some point in the near future. But I feel that the extent of the violence would pull us back in. Friedman also assumes that if we did pull out we would be able to prevent the violence from spreading outside the borders, which I don't think I agree with.
Friedman is spot on when he says that the Shiites and Sunnis both want to dominate the country. Neither really wants a pluralistic society right now (nor do the Kurds). So maybe I have to accept that there are no other options. At some point soon, we may have to leave the Sunnis and Shiites to their fate. God forgive us.
First of all, I am not sure Turkey would be as willing to go along as Friedman suggests. At the very least we would have to end the practice of Kurdish terrorist groups using Iraqi Kurdistan as a based to launch attacks against Turkey. I also wonder whether peaceful and democratic societies have any impact on the countries around them. I used to think they would, but I am growing skeptical.
Worse though is the decision to abandon the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. I know we might have to do that at some point in the near future. But I feel that the extent of the violence would pull us back in. Friedman also assumes that if we did pull out we would be able to prevent the violence from spreading outside the borders, which I don't think I agree with.
Friedman is spot on when he says that the Shiites and Sunnis both want to dominate the country. Neither really wants a pluralistic society right now (nor do the Kurds). So maybe I have to accept that there are no other options. At some point soon, we may have to leave the Sunnis and Shiites to their fate. God forgive us.
Another Mentor of Mine
So there are two people who have had a large impact on the development of my international perspective. You have already heard about Thomas Friedman; the other is Nicholas Kristof. In this column ($), he talks about civil conflict and instability as the greatest killer in Africa.
Mr. Collier [author of The Bottom Billion - a book I want to read as soon as the NYPL gets a copy], a former research director of the World Bank, notes that when the G-8 countries talk about helping Africa, they overwhelmingly focus just on foreign aid. Sure, aid has a role to play, but it’s pointless to build clinics when rebel groups are running around burning towns and shooting doctors.Sometimes I feel like the reason good governance and foreign aid are emphasized is because military intervention is much less popular. So we console ourselves by talking about how much money we send to developing countries. I think promoting good governance ($) is a joke when you are talking about somewhere like Congo (or Iraq) - stability is a definite prerequisite. But that won't happen until this country and its leaders make a serious decision to actually protect all the victims in war torn regions.
One essential kind of help that the West can provide — but one that is rarely talked about — is Western military assistance in squashing rebellions, genocides and civil wars, or in protecting good governments from insurrections. The average civil war costs $64 billion, yet could often be suppressed in its early stages for very modest sums. The British military intervention in Sierra Leone easily ended a savage war and was enthusiastically welcomed by local people — and, as a financial investment, achieved benefits worth 30 times the cost.
I Hate Agribusiness - and Congress too
Here is another example of what is wrong with our agriculture subsidies. Not only do they give us an unfair advantage in global trade (effectively keeping developing countries from actually developing), but they don't even go to the farmers that really need them. It is shameful to see how often Congress gets it wrong - how often they send money to powerful interests while cloaking it in language of helping those in need.
Hypocrisy
I love it when life circumstances show the hypocrisy in someone. Here, we see that Robert Bork, conservative judge with strong tort reform views, is now a tort plaintiff. Actually, instead of him being a hypocrite, this seems to support my hypothesis that often times conservatives are merely good people lacking imagination or empathy. In the past, Bork might have been unable to understand why someone would need to use the legal system to seek compensation for some wrong committed. Maybe now he understands. If only it would make him reconsider the rest of his conservative judicial philosophy.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Dear Bill
Bill Richardson for President
111 Lomas Blvd., NW, Suite 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Dear Governor Richardson,
Recently, I donated to your campaign for president. It was a small donation, but it was the first time I had given money to someone seeking political office. I didn’t do this lightly, but I was excited by the prospect of someone with your experience as an executive as well as your proven foreign policy credentials becoming president. Unfortunately, because of your stance on the Iraq War, I will no longer be able to donate to your campaign, and more importantly, you no longer have my support.
In the early stages of your campaign, I was thrilled to see you talking about Iran, North Korea, and most importantly, Darfur. Your positions were well thought-out and very reasonable. This is why I have been so surprised to see you calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The situation there is dire, and I believe that any informed person will realize that without a significant US troop presence, the violence will grow far beyond what we have seen so far. The fact is that the violence right now is no longer directed at US troops, but instead is between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Recent mosque bombings, as well as killings and threats to homogenize neighborhoods is evidence of this. Articles in the New York Times indicate that despite rhetoric from Shiite leaders like Moktada al-Sadr, they don’t actually want us to leave.
What particularly weighs on my conscience is the fact that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq. I know everybody wants to blame Bush, and he deserves his share, but the truth is that our invasion of Iraq was done legally according to our laws, and as a democracy we all share in the responsibility of our actions. It is my strong opinion that the only moral choice right now is to stay in Iraq. Our presence is doing much more good than harm, and we have an obligation to do as much good as we can for the Iraqi people.
It is in light of all this that I am particularly disappointed to have seen your current position. I want to believe that your beliefs are the same as mine, and that your position is actually the one that is more compassionate and well-reasoned. But right now I can’t see it, and to be honest, the skeptic in me thinks it is a political decision meant to separate you from the rest of the pack. I truly hope that is not the case. But either way, I will have to find someone else to vote for when the Democratic Primary comes to New York State. If you would like to respond, I would be glad to hear you out, so long as you don’t simply recycle your current talking points.
Sincerely,
Chainz
[I actually sent this letter. But I actually signed my real name. We'll see if I hear back. If I do, I'll be sure to post the response.]
111 Lomas Blvd., NW, Suite 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102
Dear Governor Richardson,
Recently, I donated to your campaign for president. It was a small donation, but it was the first time I had given money to someone seeking political office. I didn’t do this lightly, but I was excited by the prospect of someone with your experience as an executive as well as your proven foreign policy credentials becoming president. Unfortunately, because of your stance on the Iraq War, I will no longer be able to donate to your campaign, and more importantly, you no longer have my support.
In the early stages of your campaign, I was thrilled to see you talking about Iran, North Korea, and most importantly, Darfur. Your positions were well thought-out and very reasonable. This is why I have been so surprised to see you calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The situation there is dire, and I believe that any informed person will realize that without a significant US troop presence, the violence will grow far beyond what we have seen so far. The fact is that the violence right now is no longer directed at US troops, but instead is between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Recent mosque bombings, as well as killings and threats to homogenize neighborhoods is evidence of this. Articles in the New York Times indicate that despite rhetoric from Shiite leaders like Moktada al-Sadr, they don’t actually want us to leave.
What particularly weighs on my conscience is the fact that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq. I know everybody wants to blame Bush, and he deserves his share, but the truth is that our invasion of Iraq was done legally according to our laws, and as a democracy we all share in the responsibility of our actions. It is my strong opinion that the only moral choice right now is to stay in Iraq. Our presence is doing much more good than harm, and we have an obligation to do as much good as we can for the Iraqi people.
It is in light of all this that I am particularly disappointed to have seen your current position. I want to believe that your beliefs are the same as mine, and that your position is actually the one that is more compassionate and well-reasoned. But right now I can’t see it, and to be honest, the skeptic in me thinks it is a political decision meant to separate you from the rest of the pack. I truly hope that is not the case. But either way, I will have to find someone else to vote for when the Democratic Primary comes to New York State. If you would like to respond, I would be glad to hear you out, so long as you don’t simply recycle your current talking points.
Sincerely,
Chainz
[I actually sent this letter. But I actually signed my real name. We'll see if I hear back. If I do, I'll be sure to post the response.]
Friday, June 29, 2007
Just My Ramblings
It's another one of those posts where I examine our role in international affairs. Since I am in the middle of a number of articles and books (Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, Notes from the Hyenas' Belly - a memoir from Ethiopia, and this article in the NY Review of Books about Bush's presidency), it might be better to wait until I have finished. But I figure since the mood struck me now, then now I shall post.
I look through our history of involvement, and I see mostly chaos. Between us and the USSR, we ruined Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea. Iran is all our fault. And of course there is Iraq. And I have barely started Overthrow, which will talk about Hawaii, Panama and others). So while I will never be an isolationist, I have to accept that even when our intentions are good (which is pretty rare) we still don't do a good job. I feel that this is leading me in the direction of supporting only humanitarian interventions, supported by the military when necessary in cases like Rwanda, Serbia, Darfur and maybe even Palestine.
This may not sound too radical, but I think I even mean pulling back on much of our World Bank and IMF projects. We have tried using outside pressure to create systems that are accountable. It hasn't worked. So maybe we should step way back and let them figure it out. (I love Zambia, but since it is peaceful, I think they might solve their problems faster once everyone realizes we aren't going to be there to throw money at every problem.)
My problem is always that I am neither fully universalist nor relativist. I see some merit in both. For example, I think all people should have a role in choosing their government. But the more I read about Africa (from the perspective of black Africans), I see tribal systems headed by unelected chiefs as legitimate and a natural part of their culture and history. Where I start to go cross-eyed is when I think about how much damage we have already done and how impossible it would be to undo it - this includes everything from colonialism in Africa to the way we drew the maps and created countries and forced the idea of nation-states on people. There might be no way back.
I can tell that I am rambling. The point is that I used to understand where neo-conservatives were coming from. The desire to spread democracy the world over is well intentioned. Unfortunately, I think it is too idealistic even for me. I think I am leaning towards a broader tolerance of cultural differences even if it means accepting non-democratic governments (excluding of course strictly iron fist governments like Saddam Hussein).
I look through our history of involvement, and I see mostly chaos. Between us and the USSR, we ruined Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea. Iran is all our fault. And of course there is Iraq. And I have barely started Overthrow, which will talk about Hawaii, Panama and others). So while I will never be an isolationist, I have to accept that even when our intentions are good (which is pretty rare) we still don't do a good job. I feel that this is leading me in the direction of supporting only humanitarian interventions, supported by the military when necessary in cases like Rwanda, Serbia, Darfur and maybe even Palestine.
This may not sound too radical, but I think I even mean pulling back on much of our World Bank and IMF projects. We have tried using outside pressure to create systems that are accountable. It hasn't worked. So maybe we should step way back and let them figure it out. (I love Zambia, but since it is peaceful, I think they might solve their problems faster once everyone realizes we aren't going to be there to throw money at every problem.)
My problem is always that I am neither fully universalist nor relativist. I see some merit in both. For example, I think all people should have a role in choosing their government. But the more I read about Africa (from the perspective of black Africans), I see tribal systems headed by unelected chiefs as legitimate and a natural part of their culture and history. Where I start to go cross-eyed is when I think about how much damage we have already done and how impossible it would be to undo it - this includes everything from colonialism in Africa to the way we drew the maps and created countries and forced the idea of nation-states on people. There might be no way back.
I can tell that I am rambling. The point is that I used to understand where neo-conservatives were coming from. The desire to spread democracy the world over is well intentioned. Unfortunately, I think it is too idealistic even for me. I think I am leaning towards a broader tolerance of cultural differences even if it means accepting non-democratic governments (excluding of course strictly iron fist governments like Saddam Hussein).
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
My Mentor, Only He Doesn't Know it
When I read Thomas Friedman's columns, I see the same frustration in him that I have. I think we both have an underlying optimism and faith in humanity. But so often the news stories from the Middle East (and elsewhere too) knock us down, unable to catch our breath for a while. We soon recover soon after by latching on to a piece of good news as proof that progress is coming. At least, I get the impression that he feels this way too.
Freedman has probably had the most influence on the development of my foreign policy perspective. And while I think our underlying philosophies are similar, and our emotional reactions to the news run parallel, he is different in one major way. He always manages to describe the problem as one that the Middle East needs to solve. Since I have grown up in the age where America is the world's sole superpower, I naturally start from the position that we need to solve all the problems. And while I will always think we have a role in it (for example, we could start by not creating problems, ie installing the Shah in Iran, destabilizing Iraq, turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, giving Israel and blank check), Friedman is good at bringing me back to reality. We aren't going to solve the Middle East's problems. They will have to do it themselves; Friedman says they need to find a fourth way ($).
Freedman has probably had the most influence on the development of my foreign policy perspective. And while I think our underlying philosophies are similar, and our emotional reactions to the news run parallel, he is different in one major way. He always manages to describe the problem as one that the Middle East needs to solve. Since I have grown up in the age where America is the world's sole superpower, I naturally start from the position that we need to solve all the problems. And while I will always think we have a role in it (for example, we could start by not creating problems, ie installing the Shah in Iran, destabilizing Iraq, turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, giving Israel and blank check), Friedman is good at bringing me back to reality. We aren't going to solve the Middle East's problems. They will have to do it themselves; Friedman says they need to find a fourth way ($).
Screaming from the Minarets
This picture broke my heart. It is two pictures of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, Iraq. On the left is before two separate bombings a year apart. It is agonizing to know that everything beautiful is being destroyed in Iraq. Although I know that is part of war - so much beauty in the world has been lost due to past wars - I think this affects me so much because I feel that we are partly responsible for this. Although I know it is the nihilists who actually bombed the dome one year ago, and the minarets recently, we are still at fault for allowing it to happen. We (not just Bush - all of us) started a war without thinking about how to finish it. We went in unprepared to deal with insurgents. We ignored mounting evidence that more troops were needed.
What makes this even worse is knowing that the bombing of the mosque's dome started the civil war that Iraq has been in the middle of now for over a year. And every new bombing like this makes it more clear that things are not improving and may not improve. I don't mean to give the impression that I really thought the troop surge would create security, but I did hope for it. And each story like this makes me lose more hope, after thinking I have no more to lose.
My Trip to Zambia
Summary:
There is craziness in Lebanon every time I leave the country. After visiting Zambia, I have new thoughts on development. It is going to be a long road. Maybe what we should offer are the basics, and allow them to figure out the rest.
So it has been a really long time since I last blogged. I can explain. I spent two weeks in Zambia, and then have spent two weeks catching up on things and traveling more on weekends. Now that I have some time, I have a lot I want to say. First of all, why is it that every time I leave the country, violence erupts in Lebanon? Granted, I have only left the country twice. Last summer I went to Ireland with my girlfriend, and while we were there, Israel was bombing Lebanon. This time, I go to Africa, and while I am there, the Lebanese army is attacking a Palestinian militant group that is hiding in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon (which makes it clear why right of return is such a huge issue for everyone in the region). I almost feel like I can't leave the country anymore. I am not trying to be funny. It truly breaks my heart when I see more violence in Lebanon. And now I have an association between news reports of violence in Lebanon and airports.
Alright, now to Zambia. I hardly know where to start. We visited as the guests of a family my girlfriend knew while she was teaching in DC. The mother of the family works for the World Bank, and they live in the bush outside of Lusaka (the capital of Zambia). The family is great, and staying with them allowed us some amazing insights we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
I think development issues have been on my mind for a few years now. And to be honest, I think my next job will be more in that direction if possible. Up until my trip, all the issues were very academic to me. I read as much as I could, and tried to form educated opinions. The trip though completely overwhelmed me. When I thought about development in the past, it seemed easy to me. Get rid of our domestic agriculture subsidies, be more aggressive with authoritarian governments, and use the UN as a tool for good not another weapon to promote American interests and everything would work itself out. I thought I understood the basic problems and could see the solutions.
Going to Zambia didn't really change my mind on any of the issues I mentioned above. But I realize now that there are so many problems and complicating issues. Funding for education is inadequate by far, infrastructure is very limited, the economy is very weak and there is a lack of skilled workers. And these are just a few that I thought of (and they are very general too).
When seeing all of that, I realized that development is going to be a very long process - as indeed it was with us. My belief then is for us to focus on the big things, like money for basic health care, food and nutrients to prevent starvation and malnutrition, and protection of basic human rights. Outside of that, I think that our goal should be a form of empowerment mixed with reasonable expectations. The last part is important. We expect corruption can end as long as we insist on it loud enough. This ignores our long history with corruption, which only ended with the grass roots Progressive Movement at the turn of the century (I don't have it in me to discuss the differences between that movement, and the wing of the Democratic Party that uses the same title).
I want to stress that my theory of reasonable expectations isn't based on any sort of belief that there is a differences in the races. It is merely my understanding that change and improvement in any culture is slow. On top of that, I think there is much resistance to positive changes merely because pressure from the west feels like paternalism. Realizing this, groups like the World Bank sometimes try to do more work behind the scenes, allowing others to take the credit. In the end, growth will only occur from the inside. We should definitely help, but we should step back and let them find their way as well.
Now, while I think that we need to step back a bit and allow governments to work things out on their own, I do think that charity should increase. There is tremendous need in Zambia, and likewise in the rest of the developing countries. What they need while they grow and figure out how to protect their people is our compassion. This is even easier for me to say after having been there, because Zambia is an incredibly beautiful country, and after having been there I want to do all I can for it. Which, as a final note, is why tourism is so important. It helps promote cross-cultural understanding, and can help show foreigners why the country is so amazing.
There is craziness in Lebanon every time I leave the country. After visiting Zambia, I have new thoughts on development. It is going to be a long road. Maybe what we should offer are the basics, and allow them to figure out the rest.
So it has been a really long time since I last blogged. I can explain. I spent two weeks in Zambia, and then have spent two weeks catching up on things and traveling more on weekends. Now that I have some time, I have a lot I want to say. First of all, why is it that every time I leave the country, violence erupts in Lebanon? Granted, I have only left the country twice. Last summer I went to Ireland with my girlfriend, and while we were there, Israel was bombing Lebanon. This time, I go to Africa, and while I am there, the Lebanese army is attacking a Palestinian militant group that is hiding in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon (which makes it clear why right of return is such a huge issue for everyone in the region). I almost feel like I can't leave the country anymore. I am not trying to be funny. It truly breaks my heart when I see more violence in Lebanon. And now I have an association between news reports of violence in Lebanon and airports.
Alright, now to Zambia. I hardly know where to start. We visited as the guests of a family my girlfriend knew while she was teaching in DC. The mother of the family works for the World Bank, and they live in the bush outside of Lusaka (the capital of Zambia). The family is great, and staying with them allowed us some amazing insights we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
I think development issues have been on my mind for a few years now. And to be honest, I think my next job will be more in that direction if possible. Up until my trip, all the issues were very academic to me. I read as much as I could, and tried to form educated opinions. The trip though completely overwhelmed me. When I thought about development in the past, it seemed easy to me. Get rid of our domestic agriculture subsidies, be more aggressive with authoritarian governments, and use the UN as a tool for good not another weapon to promote American interests and everything would work itself out. I thought I understood the basic problems and could see the solutions.
Going to Zambia didn't really change my mind on any of the issues I mentioned above. But I realize now that there are so many problems and complicating issues. Funding for education is inadequate by far, infrastructure is very limited, the economy is very weak and there is a lack of skilled workers. And these are just a few that I thought of (and they are very general too).
When seeing all of that, I realized that development is going to be a very long process - as indeed it was with us. My belief then is for us to focus on the big things, like money for basic health care, food and nutrients to prevent starvation and malnutrition, and protection of basic human rights. Outside of that, I think that our goal should be a form of empowerment mixed with reasonable expectations. The last part is important. We expect corruption can end as long as we insist on it loud enough. This ignores our long history with corruption, which only ended with the grass roots Progressive Movement at the turn of the century (I don't have it in me to discuss the differences between that movement, and the wing of the Democratic Party that uses the same title).
I want to stress that my theory of reasonable expectations isn't based on any sort of belief that there is a differences in the races. It is merely my understanding that change and improvement in any culture is slow. On top of that, I think there is much resistance to positive changes merely because pressure from the west feels like paternalism. Realizing this, groups like the World Bank sometimes try to do more work behind the scenes, allowing others to take the credit. In the end, growth will only occur from the inside. We should definitely help, but we should step back and let them find their way as well.
Now, while I think that we need to step back a bit and allow governments to work things out on their own, I do think that charity should increase. There is tremendous need in Zambia, and likewise in the rest of the developing countries. What they need while they grow and figure out how to protect their people is our compassion. This is even easier for me to say after having been there, because Zambia is an incredibly beautiful country, and after having been there I want to do all I can for it. Which, as a final note, is why tourism is so important. It helps promote cross-cultural understanding, and can help show foreigners why the country is so amazing.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
On Israel and Palestine
Summary:
The governments in Israel and Palestine are weak and therefore unable to take the bold steps necessary for peace. We should realize this and while keeping the issue in the public attention know that we actually have limited influence over who is powerful and who is weak.
My mind has gone back and forth over the situation in Israel - especially how to deal with Hamas. This article in the most recent New York Review of Books on the issue clearly lays out the challenges to any progress. Here are some highlights, although I would of course recommend reading the entire article.
Here is a great summary of the situation in Israel:
In the end, there seems to be little hope of serious progress under the current circumstances. With a deficit of leadership in Israel (and here in the US) and a chaotic and fluid government in Palestine, it seems that nothing will happen until both countries get their own houses in order. In the meantime, maybe we should stop pressuring for it to go our way (knowing that our support for Abbas weakens him, and our isolation of Hamas strengthens them), and just make sure we keep active and let the world know we care about a just solution to the problem.
The governments in Israel and Palestine are weak and therefore unable to take the bold steps necessary for peace. We should realize this and while keeping the issue in the public attention know that we actually have limited influence over who is powerful and who is weak.
My mind has gone back and forth over the situation in Israel - especially how to deal with Hamas. This article in the most recent New York Review of Books on the issue clearly lays out the challenges to any progress. Here are some highlights, although I would of course recommend reading the entire article.
Whatever happens, the Palestinian movement will remain a fluid entity, as difficult to pin down as it will be to pressure or to deal with. The US and Israeli governments will be tempted to ignore the change, persisting in their attempts to isolate Hamas and deal only with non-Islamist members of the government. But it is only a matter of time before such fantasies come crashing down. One of the goals of the US and Israel may be to bolster Abbas, yet nothing has weakened the Palestinian president more than misplaced international attempts to strengthen him. If Hamas feels thwarted in its attempt to share power, it will do what it can—and it can do much—to torpedo Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. One cannot prevent the Islamists from ruling and then expect them to acquiesce in a political process from which they have been kept out.The fact is that neither Hamas nor Fatah have any real power or authority to make decisions, nor do they know what they are willing to sacrifice for their goals. The article talks about how Fatah is still overwhelmed with corruption and patronage, while Hamas has to decide whether it wants to be a legitimate political group or an armed resistance group. There are serious problems both internally and externally for the Palestinian government, but it is unclear who holds power.
Here is a great summary of the situation in Israel:
Corruption, no longer an aberration, virtually is a way of life. Less surprised than resigned, Israelis are disillusioned with politics and government. The scarcity of charismatic leaders and the new generation of run-of-the-mill politicians is another symptom of a system in crisis.The article goes on to also talk about the possibilities of a multi-party agreement that would include normalized relations between Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East, as well as American efforts in the region.
[Edit]
Israeli governments are often short-lived, subject to the vagaries of an anachronistic political arrangement, itself the product of an electoral system which often requires coalition governments and allows smaller parties to dictate their parochial wishes to larger ones or, alternatively, to oust them from office. A peace initiative threatens to upset the delicate political equilibrium and reduce the prime minister's term in office. The stubborn gap between the public's support for an agreement with the Palestinians and the leadership's inability to accomplish it is explained in part by this feature.
In the end, there seems to be little hope of serious progress under the current circumstances. With a deficit of leadership in Israel (and here in the US) and a chaotic and fluid government in Palestine, it seems that nothing will happen until both countries get their own houses in order. In the meantime, maybe we should stop pressuring for it to go our way (knowing that our support for Abbas weakens him, and our isolation of Hamas strengthens them), and just make sure we keep active and let the world know we care about a just solution to the problem.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Friedman for President
I have to say, one of my favorite formats that Thomas Friedman uses for his columns is when he writes a speech President Bush should give. If you have TimesSelect, definitely read this. If you don't, here is a highlight:
I want to take this opportunity to speak to the Arab and Muslim nations gathered here today and to the world at large. I begin with a simple message: I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I rushed into the invasion of Iraq. I honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I was wrong, and I now realize that in unilaterally launching the war the way I did, you all feel that I breached a bond of trust between America and the world. Not only did that alienate you from us, it made us less effective in Iraq. We had too few allies and too little legitimacy. I apologize — sincerely.If only Bush really had the humility to give this speech.
I’m most sorry, though, because my bungling of the war has prompted all of us to take our eye off the ball. I messed up the treatment so badly that people have forgotten the patient really does have a disease. Now that I’ve apologized, I hope you will stop fixating on me and look closely at what is happening in your backyard: the forces and pathologies that brought us 9/11 are still there and multiplying.
Bad Gore
Gore has been getting some criticism for his high energy usage. My first thought was that people were just using it to attack global warming. While I think that is the case, his critics still have valid points.
Gore's defense has been that he buys carbon credits to compensate for his energy usage. But the question is whether this is enough. This article in the NY Times looks into that. Basically, the article says that while it helps that money is being invested in alternate energy sources and plants that soak up carbon, overall it is a consumer-based solution that makes people feel better without having to change their behavior. (The article also says that there isn't yet a way to ensure that the carbon credits are offsetting as much as they say.)
I think this is a key point. People like Al Gore tell the world we need to change our behavior, but yet they aren't leading by example. Carbon credits aren't going to get us where we need to go to decrease carbon emissions. In the end, we are going to have to do a lot to change our behavior. This means that we can't just spend a little more money to feel better about our consumption habits; we will need to make real sacrifices. I think the loudest talkers should lead the way.
Gore's defense has been that he buys carbon credits to compensate for his energy usage. But the question is whether this is enough. This article in the NY Times looks into that. Basically, the article says that while it helps that money is being invested in alternate energy sources and plants that soak up carbon, overall it is a consumer-based solution that makes people feel better without having to change their behavior. (The article also says that there isn't yet a way to ensure that the carbon credits are offsetting as much as they say.)
I think this is a key point. People like Al Gore tell the world we need to change our behavior, but yet they aren't leading by example. Carbon credits aren't going to get us where we need to go to decrease carbon emissions. In the end, we are going to have to do a lot to change our behavior. This means that we can't just spend a little more money to feel better about our consumption habits; we will need to make real sacrifices. I think the loudest talkers should lead the way.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Olive Branch From Iran?
Summary:
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?
So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.
One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.
I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?
So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.
One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.
I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
Turkish Politics
This article about Turkish politics shows that sometimes religious groups can support modernization and promote a middle class. It also shows that Muslim countries have to deal with the role of religion in government just like we do. In fact, it seems to play out in similar ways with similar arguments.
Update:
Much more has happened since I last wrote. The story so far: a political Muslim was elected president by the Parliament (note: Turkey is constitutionally a secular country and is very serious about it). This lead to threats of a coup from the military (which was chastised by the EU but not the US) and a judicial ruling that the religious president cannot serve.
I think this situation points out two major hypocrisies of American conservative foreign policy. First, we have a policy of tolerating democracy only when it elects governments that we favor. I hate this more than anything, and we have a long history of it (see Iran pre-Shah). Secondly, conservative Americans don't like separation of church and state when it is a Christian government, but think it is crucial when it is a Muslim government. This I think hints at a bias against Muslims even if it is a moderate and pro-middle class version of Islam.
We should be able to support the new president and speak out against the military threat and the court's political decision. This is especially true since as far as I know we have nothing to fear of this candidate or his non-sectarian political party.
Update:
Much more has happened since I last wrote. The story so far: a political Muslim was elected president by the Parliament (note: Turkey is constitutionally a secular country and is very serious about it). This lead to threats of a coup from the military (which was chastised by the EU but not the US) and a judicial ruling that the religious president cannot serve.
I think this situation points out two major hypocrisies of American conservative foreign policy. First, we have a policy of tolerating democracy only when it elects governments that we favor. I hate this more than anything, and we have a long history of it (see Iran pre-Shah). Secondly, conservative Americans don't like separation of church and state when it is a Christian government, but think it is crucial when it is a Muslim government. This I think hints at a bias against Muslims even if it is a moderate and pro-middle class version of Islam.
We should be able to support the new president and speak out against the military threat and the court's political decision. This is especially true since as far as I know we have nothing to fear of this candidate or his non-sectarian political party.
Obama and Niebuhr
From a David Brooks column ($):
Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience or credentials of Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. In his book the Audacity of Hope, he is honest with his readers when he says he doesn't have a coherent foreign policy plan in his hip pocket. At the same time though, that doesn't matter to me as much when I see that his overall philosophy is one I completely agree with. So in the end, to feel good about Obama as president, I will have to be confident that he will make decisions that truly align with his ideals.
Out of the blue I asked, “Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr?”I have never read anything by Niebuhr, nor did I know much about him before reading this column. Brooks says that Obama's answer is a pretty good summary of Niebuhr's "The Irony of American History" - which you can bet I'll be reading soon. The above quote is probably the best and most concise statement of my foreign policy belief right now.
Obama’s tone changed. “I love him. He’s one of my favorite philosophers.”
So I asked, What do you take away from him?
“I take away,” Obama answered in a rush of words, “the compelling idea that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things. But we shouldn’t use that as an excuse for cynicism and inaction. I take away ... the sense we have to make these efforts knowing they are hard, and not swinging from naïve idealism to bitter realism.”
Obama doesn't have the foreign policy experience or credentials of Joe Biden or Bill Richardson. In his book the Audacity of Hope, he is honest with his readers when he says he doesn't have a coherent foreign policy plan in his hip pocket. At the same time though, that doesn't matter to me as much when I see that his overall philosophy is one I completely agree with. So in the end, to feel good about Obama as president, I will have to be confident that he will make decisions that truly align with his ideals.
I HATE AGRIBUSINESS
This is the kind of bullshit that makes me hate the world:
The agriculture / agribusiness lobby defends their decision by saying that there isn't a constituency for food aid unless all of it is coming from US farmers.
I get so enraged and depressed when I read stories like this because it reminds me that some people are this selfish and are influencing policy. But it just goes to show you that Bush isn't evil and isn't always wrong.
Hoping to forestall such a dire outcome [mass starvation], the World Food Program made an urgent appeal in February for cash donations so it could buy corn from Zambia's own bountiful harvest, piled in towering stacks in the warehouses of the capital, Lusaka.
But the law in the United States requires that virtually all its donated food be grown in America and shipped at great expense across oceans, mostly on vessels that fly American flags and employ American crews -- a process that typically takes four to six months.
For a third year, the Bush administration, which has pushed to make foreign aid more efficient, is trying to change the law to allow the United States to use up to a quarter of the budget of its main food aid program to buy food in developing countries during emergencies. The proposal has run into stiff opposition from a potent alliance of agribusiness, shipping and charitable groups with deep financial stakes in the current food aid system.
The agriculture / agribusiness lobby defends their decision by saying that there isn't a constituency for food aid unless all of it is coming from US farmers.
I get so enraged and depressed when I read stories like this because it reminds me that some people are this selfish and are influencing policy. But it just goes to show you that Bush isn't evil and isn't always wrong.
Monday, April 23, 2007
Primaries
There is an incredible interactive graphic on the NY Times site. It shows how much money the presidential candidates raised and where their support came from. Hillary and Obama look even stronger when you play around with the map. I am still holding out hope though that Richardson's experience can make up for it. Anyway, enjoy the interactive!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)