It appears that the prospects for peace in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo have increased recently. The violence (and epidemic of sexual violence) stemmed from four armed groups in the area with shifting alliances; the Congolese government troops, Hutu militants (those responsible for the genocide in neighboring Rwanda), Laurent Nkunda's Tutsi militants (supposedly there to protect Tutsis from the Hutu militants but with aspirations to take down the democratically elected government in DRC), and UN Peacekeeping troops (yes, they were there to keep the peace, but there were accusations that they too were contributing to the sexual violence while not effectively protecting the civilians).
Recently, Laurent Nkunda has been arrested by the Rwandan government and his militia is apparently disbanding. Jeffrey Gettleman's story says that there was a deal between Rwanda and Congo, where Rwanda would stop Nkunda, and Congo would let Rwanda go into Congo to attack the Hutu militias.
The only chance for sustained peace will be if Nkunda's militia does in fact disarm and no one steps into the vacuum (there are other rebel groups in the area, including Nkunda's former chief of staff, who is wanted for war crimes) and if the Hutu militia can be neutralized. Both of these are real challenges, but I am particularly worried about the later. The genocide happened in 1994 and the Hutu militants have been hiding in Congo since then destabilizing the region. Hopefully now is the time they are finally stopped. Unfortunately, stopping them may result in more bloodshed among the people living in Eastern Congo.
At the very least though, this new development brings hopes of peace to one of the most troubled regions in the world.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
I Don't Predict the Future
So my prediction was wrong. Although I was right that the governor didn't choose Kennedy or Cuomo. Well, if you believe the rumors it seems as though he was going to pick Kennedy. But I did mention Kirstin Gillibrand.
I still think he should have chosen Byron Brown. The Senate could use more African-American representation - one isn't really enough, especially when that one is Roland Burris (yes, he made a very bad first impression on me).
Even though I would probably have preferred Brown, I do like this choice. Gillibrand is moderate and will represent upstate New York well. And as much as I am a downstate snob, I think upstate needs good representation at statewide office.
Oh yeah, and former Senate Majority Leader Bruno was indicted. Yesterday was a crazy day for New York State. (The funny thing is that I am not sure which was the bigger news story: Bruno, Gillibrand, or Patterson's seeming lack of leadership.)
I still think he should have chosen Byron Brown. The Senate could use more African-American representation - one isn't really enough, especially when that one is Roland Burris (yes, he made a very bad first impression on me).
Even though I would probably have preferred Brown, I do like this choice. Gillibrand is moderate and will represent upstate New York well. And as much as I am a downstate snob, I think upstate needs good representation at statewide office.
Oh yeah, and former Senate Majority Leader Bruno was indicted. Yesterday was a crazy day for New York State. (The funny thing is that I am not sure which was the bigger news story: Bruno, Gillibrand, or Patterson's seeming lack of leadership.)
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The Inauguration
I don't have a lot to say about the inauguration except that I am excited. There is so much hope and possibility now with a smart and liberal president. I can't wait to see the new direction (or sometimes lack thereof?) in so many areas. My mind reals just thinking of the possibilities.
Overall, his speech was good. It started off somewhat dull but competent and ended really inspiring. His call for responsibility, hard work and sacrifice, and rising to meet challenges was such a breath of fresh air compared to Bush's "go about your business." Now we wait and see how the words transform into reality.
Also, I thought Aretha Franklin was great. So was the quartet piece written by John Williams.
And I made sure to watch Bush leave on the helicopter. I am glad Obama was respectful. But it was good to see Bush leave.
Overall, his speech was good. It started off somewhat dull but competent and ended really inspiring. His call for responsibility, hard work and sacrifice, and rising to meet challenges was such a breath of fresh air compared to Bush's "go about your business." Now we wait and see how the words transform into reality.
Also, I thought Aretha Franklin was great. So was the quartet piece written by John Williams.
And I made sure to watch Bush leave on the helicopter. I am glad Obama was respectful. But it was good to see Bush leave.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Portraits of the Future
The New York Times Magazine has a feature this week with portraits of Obama's top campaign / administration staff and top Democrats. The portraits are really well done. Check them out if you haven't already. This is our future people!
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Dynamic Duo: Bolton and Yoo
There was an opinion piece in the NY Times recently calling for treaties to be ratified by a 2/3rds vote of the Senate, as called for in the Constitution. Who wrote this opinion piece? John Bolton and John Yoo. John Bolton, you'll remember, was Bush's appointee as Ambassador to the United Nations. Coincidentally, he is the same person who does not think the US has much use for international bureaucracies. Apparently Bush wanted to appoint someone that would antagonize the UN, instead of work with it, but I digress. And John Yoo... who was he? Wait, wasn't he the guy who wrote those illegal torture memos that conservative lawyer Jack Goldsmith rescinded? Yes, that's him. So we are going to take legal advice from him?
The best part is that the two don't suggest that all treaties go through this process. They admit that trade treaties like NAFTA were passed with simple majorities by Congress, and they are fine with that. Basically, they argue that the Constitution requires only treaties they don't like (liberal treaties like ones that ban weapons that are the most dangerous to civilians, like land mines or cluster bombs, or treaties on human rights issues, or treaties that deal with global warming) to get 2/3rds support from the Senate while treaties which conservatives support do not need to.
I admit that I don't know all the constitutional and legal requirements about which treaties should have to go through Senate with 2/3rds support and which can be passed with simple majorities by Congress. But it disgusts me to see people profess to care about legal and constitutional arguments only when it serves them. If the Constitution requires that treaties need to get 2/3rds support in the Senate, than that includes trade agreements along with everything else.
Finally, can we please stop quoting the founding fathers as if everything they said still holds true? The international world was far different in the late 1700s than it is today. If we are going to venerate something Thomas Jefferson or George Washington said just because they said it, then we have to do that for everything. And that means eliminating political parties and more bloody revolutions.
The best part is that the two don't suggest that all treaties go through this process. They admit that trade treaties like NAFTA were passed with simple majorities by Congress, and they are fine with that. Basically, they argue that the Constitution requires only treaties they don't like (liberal treaties like ones that ban weapons that are the most dangerous to civilians, like land mines or cluster bombs, or treaties on human rights issues, or treaties that deal with global warming) to get 2/3rds support from the Senate while treaties which conservatives support do not need to.
I admit that I don't know all the constitutional and legal requirements about which treaties should have to go through Senate with 2/3rds support and which can be passed with simple majorities by Congress. But it disgusts me to see people profess to care about legal and constitutional arguments only when it serves them. If the Constitution requires that treaties need to get 2/3rds support in the Senate, than that includes trade agreements along with everything else.
Finally, can we please stop quoting the founding fathers as if everything they said still holds true? The international world was far different in the late 1700s than it is today. If we are going to venerate something Thomas Jefferson or George Washington said just because they said it, then we have to do that for everything. And that means eliminating political parties and more bloody revolutions.
Selfish Burris Helps Governor
I get no pleasure in writing a post like this, but I think it needs to be said. Rolland Burris seems to be more concerned with becoming a Senator and extending his political career than he is with doing what is best for Illinois. If he had anything other than his career in mind, he would see that the best thing for him to have done when Governor Blagojevich called would have been declining to accept the nomination and then politely advising the governor to step down.
Instead, Burris is empowering the governor and giving him back some legitimacy by helping the change the topic of discussion. His trip to DC today was a sham. While there is some debate about whether the Senate can in fact refuse to seat Burris, they cannot seat him until his appointment is certified by the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois. But he showed up to the Capital without the Secretary of State's signature and he did it as a political stunt. All of his speeches and circus antics help no one but the governor of Illinois (and maybe Burris himself).
Don't get me wrong, I also think that Obama's replacement should be a person of color. But to hear Burris and friends talk, you would think he is the only person of color in the state. I hope that Illinois and the US Senate are able to prevent Burris from joining the Senate, and then get a different appointment from a new governor. Burris should not be rewarded for his self-serving antics.
Instead, Burris is empowering the governor and giving him back some legitimacy by helping the change the topic of discussion. His trip to DC today was a sham. While there is some debate about whether the Senate can in fact refuse to seat Burris, they cannot seat him until his appointment is certified by the Governor and the Secretary of State of Illinois. But he showed up to the Capital without the Secretary of State's signature and he did it as a political stunt. All of his speeches and circus antics help no one but the governor of Illinois (and maybe Burris himself).
Don't get me wrong, I also think that Obama's replacement should be a person of color. But to hear Burris and friends talk, you would think he is the only person of color in the state. I hope that Illinois and the US Senate are able to prevent Burris from joining the Senate, and then get a different appointment from a new governor. Burris should not be rewarded for his self-serving antics.
I Predict the Future
I predict that Governor Paterson will name Byron Brown, Buffalo mayor, to fill Hillary's senate seat. I have no inside information; it is just my educated guess. Granted, he might choose a woman instead, and select Representative Carolyn Maloney (Congresswoman from New York City) or Representative Kirsten Gillibrand (Congresswoman from Albany). But I don't think he will choose Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo.
First, I think Paterson will want to select a person of color for the senate, especially with Obama's seat in flux (granted, by the time Paterson has to name his selection, Obama's seat may be resolved), so that points to Byron Brown. And Brown is from upstate (Paterson will be sensitive to selecting someone from upstate to state-wide office to help with his re-election in 2010), while Carolyn Maloney is from the city (as are Kennedy and Cuomo). Kristen Gillibrand is from upstate, but I think she is too new, just having been elected to Congress in 2006.
The only downside to Brown is that he doesn't have the name recognition, and therefore the obvious fund-raising ability, that Cuomo or Kennedy has. But I now think that is less important considering the senior senator from New York is good old Chuck Schumer, someone pretty good at fund raising.
First, I think Paterson will want to select a person of color for the senate, especially with Obama's seat in flux (granted, by the time Paterson has to name his selection, Obama's seat may be resolved), so that points to Byron Brown. And Brown is from upstate (Paterson will be sensitive to selecting someone from upstate to state-wide office to help with his re-election in 2010), while Carolyn Maloney is from the city (as are Kennedy and Cuomo). Kristen Gillibrand is from upstate, but I think she is too new, just having been elected to Congress in 2006.
The only downside to Brown is that he doesn't have the name recognition, and therefore the obvious fund-raising ability, that Cuomo or Kennedy has. But I now think that is less important considering the senior senator from New York is good old Chuck Schumer, someone pretty good at fund raising.
Sunday, January 04, 2009
Not Immune
As is becoming clear, Democrats are no more ethical than Republicans. Stories about Governor Rod Blagojevich in Illinois, Congressman Charles Rangel, and now a story that raises questions about the Clintons (Destiny USA? Talk about a blast from the past) and allegations against Bill Richardson are all over the news. For now, it does not seem to be sticking to the Democratic Party. But the party better get a handle on these things soon and hope there are no more waiting to break. Otherwise, we could see another midterm election that takes away a Democratic congressional majority from a sitting Democratic president.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
More on the Gaza Seige
Summary: Roughly 120 Palestinian civilians have died in 2008 as a result of Israeli raids, including the recent attacks. These attacks resulted from thousands of Hamas rockets, which have killed 5 Israeli civilians. Who is looking out for Palestinian civilians?
I want to spend some more time analyzing the current Israeli attacks in Gaza, which now include a ground invasion. Let's look first at what has caused the invasion: Hamas rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel in the last few years, including 300 between December 19th and December 27th of 2008. So as you might imagine, thousands of rockets will create an unacceptable level of fear among Israeli civilians.
However, during 2008 a total of five Israeli civilians have died as a result of Hamas rockets. Before the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, 420 Gazans had been killed, at least of fifth of them civilians, by Israeli raids. So even before the invasion, the numbers seem lopsided. If we include the recent attacks, where some 300 have been killed, including between 50 - 90 civilians, it looks even more lopsided.
If five Israeli civilian deaths are enough to cause Israel to kill an estimated 120 or more Palestinian civilians, than it gives the impression that Palestinian lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Israel, and the US in other conflicts, claim that they are trying to avoid killing civilians while their enemies are in fact trying to kill civilians. But trying not to kill civilians isn't the same as actually not killing civilians. Of course, Hamas seems to care as little about the civilians that die, except in using their deaths to rally support of their cause.
In the end, I suppose that is the biggest tragedy of this ongoing situation: nobody seems to care about the Palestinian civilians that die. Israel doesn't care enough to stop bombing or to let anything more than a trickle of humanitarian aid enter Gaza. Palestine doesn't care enough to stop their rocket attacks. And the international community doesn't care enough to get more involved and find a solution, consider that the solution is likely to be hard and costly.
The problem I face though in this analysis is that a major criteria for analyzing whether the attack is justified is whether Israel exercised all other options. I, and probably many others, do not know enough to come to a firm conclusion here. Maybe Israel could have opened the borders, but this would have allowed more rockets to come in. I cannot think of a different course for Israel - while I think five deaths is not enough to launch this war, at some point the rocket attacks have to stop. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to stop them - an Israeli invasion or some sort of internationally support peace or disarmament.
The Economist has some interesting articles on the war (much of my data and background info comes from these articles), and more discussion on whether the attack is justified and proportional.
I want to spend some more time analyzing the current Israeli attacks in Gaza, which now include a ground invasion. Let's look first at what has caused the invasion: Hamas rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel in the last few years, including 300 between December 19th and December 27th of 2008. So as you might imagine, thousands of rockets will create an unacceptable level of fear among Israeli civilians.
However, during 2008 a total of five Israeli civilians have died as a result of Hamas rockets. Before the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, 420 Gazans had been killed, at least of fifth of them civilians, by Israeli raids. So even before the invasion, the numbers seem lopsided. If we include the recent attacks, where some 300 have been killed, including between 50 - 90 civilians, it looks even more lopsided.
If five Israeli civilian deaths are enough to cause Israel to kill an estimated 120 or more Palestinian civilians, than it gives the impression that Palestinian lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Israel, and the US in other conflicts, claim that they are trying to avoid killing civilians while their enemies are in fact trying to kill civilians. But trying not to kill civilians isn't the same as actually not killing civilians. Of course, Hamas seems to care as little about the civilians that die, except in using their deaths to rally support of their cause.
In the end, I suppose that is the biggest tragedy of this ongoing situation: nobody seems to care about the Palestinian civilians that die. Israel doesn't care enough to stop bombing or to let anything more than a trickle of humanitarian aid enter Gaza. Palestine doesn't care enough to stop their rocket attacks. And the international community doesn't care enough to get more involved and find a solution, consider that the solution is likely to be hard and costly.
The problem I face though in this analysis is that a major criteria for analyzing whether the attack is justified is whether Israel exercised all other options. I, and probably many others, do not know enough to come to a firm conclusion here. Maybe Israel could have opened the borders, but this would have allowed more rockets to come in. I cannot think of a different course for Israel - while I think five deaths is not enough to launch this war, at some point the rocket attacks have to stop. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to stop them - an Israeli invasion or some sort of internationally support peace or disarmament.
The Economist has some interesting articles on the war (much of my data and background info comes from these articles), and more discussion on whether the attack is justified and proportional.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Gaza Under Fire
There have got to be better options for the situation in Israel / Palestine; this can't be the best possible scenario. It seems that no one does anything to stop Hamas and Hezbollah from attacks against Israel, which inevitably causes Israel to overreact (in my opinion).
Maybe I am particularly sensitive right now - I am reading Samantha Power's book Chasing the Flame (don't worry, once I finish I'll have another Book Report for you). But it seems that the international community (especially the US) is unwilling to dedicate the resources necessary for better temporary solutions to problems, so we end up with a status-quo that is completely unacceptable.
I was very opposed to Israel's invasion of Lebanon - the one in 2006, I was too young to oppose the one in the early 1980s - and the recent attacks on Gaza seem little better. It makes it hard for the US to criticize Israel however, since we aren't willing to do anything significant that would actually both protect Israel and protect civilians in Gaza (i.e. international peacekeepers and an end to settlements).
Right now, Obama is deferring to Bush. While I understand the desire to have only one president, I think someone needs to get Israel to calm down (or back down). Plus, I am anxious to see if Obama really moves our foreign policy in a different direction or continues our policy of refusing to ever criticize Israel.
Maybe I am particularly sensitive right now - I am reading Samantha Power's book Chasing the Flame (don't worry, once I finish I'll have another Book Report for you). But it seems that the international community (especially the US) is unwilling to dedicate the resources necessary for better temporary solutions to problems, so we end up with a status-quo that is completely unacceptable.
I was very opposed to Israel's invasion of Lebanon - the one in 2006, I was too young to oppose the one in the early 1980s - and the recent attacks on Gaza seem little better. It makes it hard for the US to criticize Israel however, since we aren't willing to do anything significant that would actually both protect Israel and protect civilians in Gaza (i.e. international peacekeepers and an end to settlements).
Right now, Obama is deferring to Bush. While I understand the desire to have only one president, I think someone needs to get Israel to calm down (or back down). Plus, I am anxious to see if Obama really moves our foreign policy in a different direction or continues our policy of refusing to ever criticize Israel.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Book Report: Paris 1919
It feels like I have been reading this book forever. Overall, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World was pretty good (although her writing and organization is a little confusing at times). I wish I had a map of Europe and the Middle East on hand as I was reading it as her descriptions of the boundary negotiations were quite detailed. And I also found I needed to brush up on my 19th Century European history as I was reading (good old Spark Notes).
It's amazing how much the World War I peace conference set up the world as we know it today - especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe - and therefore is the cause of many of the problems that we face.
One of the failings of the treaty was how it had to reconcile two different time periods. It was in some ways wedded to the past peace treaties that focused on imperialism, distributing spoils of war and punishing the losers. At the same time, it tried to also look to the idealism of Wilson's Fourteen Points of self-determination and equality (in some cases). So what we got was an imperfect treaty that often diverged from the Fourteen Points.
All of the decisions on the Middle East ignored the idea of "self-determination." The borders of the new countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq were based on imperialist aims, not on how best to divide up Kurdish, Persian, Arab and Turkish nations or Sunni, Shiite, Marionite Christians, Orthodox Christians, Druse, and secular religions. And the homeland for Jewish people in Palestine ignored whether Palestinians wanted an influx of European and Russian Jews.
The decision to unite Iraq was based on the British recognizing the value of oil in Mosul and its desire to protect its interests in India. It added Kurish populations to the new country just to add more territory. Lebanon was expanded to give the Marionite Christian population more land, dividing Syria and ignoring the fact that the extra land would include Muslims. At the time this book was written (2002), Syria was still occupying Lebanon.
It is also amazing to see how important personality was in the treaty discussions. Greece was often given its way because its representative was popular and charismatic, while Italy was largely spurned because its reps were tactless and unpopular. The support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine came from effective lobbying.
The bottom line is that the final treaty is obviously imperfect. It was a massive undertaking, but comes out inconsistent and sloppy in many ways. After reading this book however, I am not sure that I blame it for World War II or the conflicts in the Balkans. I do though blame it for some of the problems in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine).
It's amazing how much the World War I peace conference set up the world as we know it today - especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe - and therefore is the cause of many of the problems that we face.
One of the failings of the treaty was how it had to reconcile two different time periods. It was in some ways wedded to the past peace treaties that focused on imperialism, distributing spoils of war and punishing the losers. At the same time, it tried to also look to the idealism of Wilson's Fourteen Points of self-determination and equality (in some cases). So what we got was an imperfect treaty that often diverged from the Fourteen Points.
All of the decisions on the Middle East ignored the idea of "self-determination." The borders of the new countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq were based on imperialist aims, not on how best to divide up Kurdish, Persian, Arab and Turkish nations or Sunni, Shiite, Marionite Christians, Orthodox Christians, Druse, and secular religions. And the homeland for Jewish people in Palestine ignored whether Palestinians wanted an influx of European and Russian Jews.
The decision to unite Iraq was based on the British recognizing the value of oil in Mosul and its desire to protect its interests in India. It added Kurish populations to the new country just to add more territory. Lebanon was expanded to give the Marionite Christian population more land, dividing Syria and ignoring the fact that the extra land would include Muslims. At the time this book was written (2002), Syria was still occupying Lebanon.
It is also amazing to see how important personality was in the treaty discussions. Greece was often given its way because its representative was popular and charismatic, while Italy was largely spurned because its reps were tactless and unpopular. The support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine came from effective lobbying.
The bottom line is that the final treaty is obviously imperfect. It was a massive undertaking, but comes out inconsistent and sloppy in many ways. After reading this book however, I am not sure that I blame it for World War II or the conflicts in the Balkans. I do though blame it for some of the problems in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine).
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Jindal - Just Governor for Now
Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana and possible GOP presidential candidate in 2012 or 2016.
What I like: intelligent and competent (from what I have heard so far), not white (because it is good for the Republican party - the party where rumors of Obama as a Muslim spread too easily), and pragmatic (from what I have heard so far).
What I don't like: for all his intelligence, he believes in intelligent design and is against abortion in all circumstances.
As you can see, I don't know a ton about him. At least, he seems like a breath of fresh air after eight years of Bush and the possibility of Palin for our future. It will be interesting to see his career progress.
What I like: intelligent and competent (from what I have heard so far), not white (because it is good for the Republican party - the party where rumors of Obama as a Muslim spread too easily), and pragmatic (from what I have heard so far).
What I don't like: for all his intelligence, he believes in intelligent design and is against abortion in all circumstances.
As you can see, I don't know a ton about him. At least, he seems like a breath of fresh air after eight years of Bush and the possibility of Palin for our future. It will be interesting to see his career progress.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
UDHR: 60 Years
So today marks the 60th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One year ago today the volunteer organization I was a part of joined a campaign to raise awareness of the declaration and the approaching anniversary. We were to be a small part of the campaign, but we were excited about it. Our effort fell apart, and the bigger effort doesn't seem to have done much better. Granted, I am writing this post at the beginning of the day, so maybe I'll be surprised by the end.
Fighting for human rights seems destined to break your heart. While there are some signs of progress, it is slow and incomplete. And more often than progress we see new and continuing tragedies. Oh I wish I could come to this fight always upbeat and optimistic, but realistically speaking, progress is way too slow. Around the world we see ongoing violence that is little noticed in places like Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even violence that is more well noticed but still nothing is done in places like Darfur, Kenya and Zimbabwe. I myself often pay more attention to conflict, but throughout the third world people still die when more food and basic medical care would prevent their deaths.
Looking back over the last 60 years, it is hard to see positive examples of the world rallying to protect human rights.
I started volunteering for human rights issues over a year ago. After having expanded my reading and visiting Zambia, I decided I needed to do more. It wasn't right for me to go on living an easy life in the face of what I was seeing and learning about. I decided that my short term goal was to volunteer and my long term goal was to change careers to have a focus on more urgent international issues.
The volunteering didn't work out. I imagine those volunteering will disagree, but I found that we weren't having much of an effect. When the problems you cover are thousands of miles away and require money and political action to make an impact, spending a few hours a week just doesn't do much. This experience has lead me to continue volunteering at the local level, where the results are more tangible. I can spend two hours a week and help a student improve in math. I contrast this with spending two hours trying to take baby steps to raise awareness of issues that groups with more resources and reach are also working on to limited effect.
The volunteering has also changed how I feel about my long term goal. My career goal is to make the most impact I can on an urgent issue (or issues). For international issues, there seem to be few jobs but many people talented people who want those jobs. Domestically though, I sense that there are way more job opportunities than qualified candidates. I am leaving open the possibility of finding work impacting major human rights issues internationally. But I believe that one cam accomplish more when focused locally.
This doesn't mean that I think local issues are more important. Human rights need to be protected everywhere and I will take jobs where I feel I am needed. But mobilization and help is easier locally. So for now, that is where I will focus my time.
If I can't work / volunteer to help international problems, what can I do? This is what I am debating these days. I will continue to donate money to worthy causes. I know these donations help, but they don't ease my conscience; in no way do I feel that my paltry donations are all I need to do for these issues.
As for this blog, I am not naive enough to think that it is having an impact. It is more a place for me to express myself than to really raise awareness. I am looking to find ways to increase awareness, but I have no good ideas. When the group I was a part of hosted the Women and Youth Panel, I found that we were preaching to the choir. The people that showed up already cared about these issues. Probably the greatest obstacle to achieving human rights is reaching people who don't want to be reached.
For now though, it seems that I will have to live with disappointment, as the world ignores major human rights issues, and deal with my feeling of powerlessness. Happy 60th anniversary.
Fighting for human rights seems destined to break your heart. While there are some signs of progress, it is slow and incomplete. And more often than progress we see new and continuing tragedies. Oh I wish I could come to this fight always upbeat and optimistic, but realistically speaking, progress is way too slow. Around the world we see ongoing violence that is little noticed in places like Somalia and the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even violence that is more well noticed but still nothing is done in places like Darfur, Kenya and Zimbabwe. I myself often pay more attention to conflict, but throughout the third world people still die when more food and basic medical care would prevent their deaths.
Looking back over the last 60 years, it is hard to see positive examples of the world rallying to protect human rights.
I started volunteering for human rights issues over a year ago. After having expanded my reading and visiting Zambia, I decided I needed to do more. It wasn't right for me to go on living an easy life in the face of what I was seeing and learning about. I decided that my short term goal was to volunteer and my long term goal was to change careers to have a focus on more urgent international issues.
The volunteering didn't work out. I imagine those volunteering will disagree, but I found that we weren't having much of an effect. When the problems you cover are thousands of miles away and require money and political action to make an impact, spending a few hours a week just doesn't do much. This experience has lead me to continue volunteering at the local level, where the results are more tangible. I can spend two hours a week and help a student improve in math. I contrast this with spending two hours trying to take baby steps to raise awareness of issues that groups with more resources and reach are also working on to limited effect.
The volunteering has also changed how I feel about my long term goal. My career goal is to make the most impact I can on an urgent issue (or issues). For international issues, there seem to be few jobs but many people talented people who want those jobs. Domestically though, I sense that there are way more job opportunities than qualified candidates. I am leaving open the possibility of finding work impacting major human rights issues internationally. But I believe that one cam accomplish more when focused locally.
This doesn't mean that I think local issues are more important. Human rights need to be protected everywhere and I will take jobs where I feel I am needed. But mobilization and help is easier locally. So for now, that is where I will focus my time.
If I can't work / volunteer to help international problems, what can I do? This is what I am debating these days. I will continue to donate money to worthy causes. I know these donations help, but they don't ease my conscience; in no way do I feel that my paltry donations are all I need to do for these issues.
As for this blog, I am not naive enough to think that it is having an impact. It is more a place for me to express myself than to really raise awareness. I am looking to find ways to increase awareness, but I have no good ideas. When the group I was a part of hosted the Women and Youth Panel, I found that we were preaching to the choir. The people that showed up already cared about these issues. Probably the greatest obstacle to achieving human rights is reaching people who don't want to be reached.
For now though, it seems that I will have to live with disappointment, as the world ignores major human rights issues, and deal with my feeling of powerlessness. Happy 60th anniversary.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Feeling Moody about Moody's?
There is definitely a lot of blame to go around for the current financial crisis, where products were judged to be a good investment but have turned out to be seriously flawed. In lite of this, a large portion of the blame must rest with the rating agencies. They gave high ratings to securities that they later had to significantly downgrade. The question then is why were they so wrong?
There seem to be three possible reasons. One, maybe the loss of value was not something that could have been reasonably forecast. I don't believe that this was the reason. It just seems too obvious that many of these securities were more risky then their ratings showed.
Two, a conflict of interest may have influenced their ratings. That there was a conflict seems clear. Moody's for example, is a for-profit enterprise, and its revenue, since the 1970s, comes from the agencies issuing the securities. Therefore, it is in their interest to please the issuers by granting high ratings. The article suggests that as Moody's became more focused on profits, it lost its independence.
Finally, maybe they just didn't do their research, or didn't do it well. The Times article also gets at this, although only briefly:
The key though is more than just passing blame. There needs to be serious reform. Non-profit rating agencies are one answer. Changing the source of the rating agency's revenue is another - although that doesn't seem like it would work. And definitely improving their methodology is a must. Let's see if the public / politicians have the attention span to do this right.
There seem to be three possible reasons. One, maybe the loss of value was not something that could have been reasonably forecast. I don't believe that this was the reason. It just seems too obvious that many of these securities were more risky then their ratings showed.
Two, a conflict of interest may have influenced their ratings. That there was a conflict seems clear. Moody's for example, is a for-profit enterprise, and its revenue, since the 1970s, comes from the agencies issuing the securities. Therefore, it is in their interest to please the issuers by granting high ratings. The article suggests that as Moody's became more focused on profits, it lost its independence.
Finally, maybe they just didn't do their research, or didn't do it well. The Times article also gets at this, although only briefly:
Even though the standards at many lenders declined precipitously during the boom, rating agencies did not take that into account. The agencies maintained that it was not their responsibility to assess the quality of each and every mortgage loan tossed into a pool.It seems to me that Moody's failures are a combination of second and third possibilities I mentioned. I imagine though the difference between the first reason and the third reason is whether you think the things they used for the ratings were reasonable. And I argue that it wasn't reasonable. If they weren't assessing the quality of every mortgage what were they using to generate their rating?
The key though is more than just passing blame. There needs to be serious reform. Non-profit rating agencies are one answer. Changing the source of the rating agency's revenue is another - although that doesn't seem like it would work. And definitely improving their methodology is a must. Let's see if the public / politicians have the attention span to do this right.
Future for Afghanistan
I remember in the VP debate there was a back and forth over whether the strategy to pacify Iraq would work in Afghanistan. Biden remarked that the Iraq strategy wouldn't work - citing comments from the military leader in Afghanistan. At the time though, I didn't really know what they meant - which part of the Iraq strategy wouldn't work? Now I know.
Okay, so turning Sunni leaders against foreign Al Qeada in Mesopotamia fighters was far easier than getting Sunni tribal leaders who support the home-grown Taliban to support the new Afghan government. Is it hopeless?
It seems that it will just be much harder. We'll have to show that siding with the Taliban means joining the losing side and that through the government is the means to delivering real improvements to the people in their region. In other words, it will take real commitment, real resources (not just military) and time. This should have been the plan from the beginning. Well, hopefully now we have a president with a normal attention span who will see this through. The people of Afghanistan need it.
Okay, so turning Sunni leaders against foreign Al Qeada in Mesopotamia fighters was far easier than getting Sunni tribal leaders who support the home-grown Taliban to support the new Afghan government. Is it hopeless?
It seems that it will just be much harder. We'll have to show that siding with the Taliban means joining the losing side and that through the government is the means to delivering real improvements to the people in their region. In other words, it will take real commitment, real resources (not just military) and time. This should have been the plan from the beginning. Well, hopefully now we have a president with a normal attention span who will see this through. The people of Afghanistan need it.
Saturday, December 06, 2008
Nat Geo: An Amazing Thing
I finally realized that National Geographic is the most amazing magazine ever. So I subscribed. Here is what I have been reading about:Rural health workers in India (The article describes an amazing program that is using women in the lowest caste to improve health in the poorest areas.), King Herod as architectural genius (and brutal although its unlikely that he killed all newborn children as the Gospel according to Matthew claims), historical artifacts being looted in the power vacuum of the West Bank, right whales, bee-eaters (some of the most beautiful birds in the world, we saw them in Zambia - check the pictures and see for yourself), Neanderthals (did they exist at the same time as humans?), beautiful ancient Persian archeology in Iran, bush meat trade threatening primates, a good article about giant asteroids and earth, mountain gorillas in Virunga National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo and caught in the middle of the conflict as well as a profitable charcoal trade, two really good articles on the American West - one on fires the other on drying and droughts, coral reefs, black pharaohs (from Nubia) of Egypt, Hazaras the long-oppressed minority group in Afghanistan (I had never heard of them before reading Kite Runner, and so this article is great), and an article about the Sahel (border between the Sahara and the tropical areas of Africa) where the author was held prisoner by the Sudanese government and I think he will win a Pulitzer Prize for the article.
My favorites are probably the articles about the health workers in India, the Hazara people in Afghanistan, the story on the Sahel, and the gorillas in Virunga. And I am a sucker for clear pictures of whales.
You can see why I am so excited. And this list is from only seven of the year's issues. Amazing. Basically it is a perfect blend of articles on history, international affairs, and animal species and the environment. Oh yeah, there are pictures too.
My favorites are probably the articles about the health workers in India, the Hazara people in Afghanistan, the story on the Sahel, and the gorillas in Virunga. And I am a sucker for clear pictures of whales.
You can see why I am so excited. And this list is from only seven of the year's issues. Amazing. Basically it is a perfect blend of articles on history, international affairs, and animal species and the environment. Oh yeah, there are pictures too.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Natural Resources: More Harm than Good
The NY Times is doing a three-part series on how natural resource wealth contributes to conflict and inhibits growth in developing countries. This topic was a major theme in Paul Collier's book The Bottom Billion (I wrote about this book on my other short-lived blog on human rights but I realize I need to read it again to brush up on its main points). The first article was in this Sunday's Times and I think this is the main point:
There are a number of lessons to learn from this article. First, and probably most important is that "conflict diamonds" get the attention, but the truth is that there are many more conflict resources that we use unaware. Many things that we buy finance violence and suffering in the places where the resource comes from. The solution isn't necessarily to stop buying products with resources from the Congo, but to at least be aware that it is happening and demand change.
The second point is the role of multinational corporations. In this example, there is a multinational company that has rights to the mine, but are being prevented from accessing the mine because of the army unit. The multinational company of course says they were going to build schools and power stations and in other ways give back to the region. The problem is that in the past, these corporations haven't given back to the country. Instead, they have taken the resources out, fought to pay as little in taxes as possible, made themselves rich off the resource as the country continues to suffer in extreme poverty. The US government has a long history of supporting corporations who see nothing wrong with pillaging resources from developing countries. In fact our history with the Congo in particular is a testament to this.
The third point that comes out of this article is how conflicts that are ignored can continue to breed violence for decades as long as we continue to do very little to actually stabilize these situations. So much of the violence in the Congo stems from the continued presence of the Hutu militias that carried out the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Bill Clinton - and Hillary - talk about their regret for turning their back on that genocide. But their talk gives the impression that the event is over, when in fact we are still seeing its ongoing effects. If they really cared, they would have made sure this conflict was actually over before apologizing.
It is depressing beyond mention to see countries so rich in resources and beauty - the Virunga National Park is one of the most beautiful and diverse in the world but the region is too unstable for tourism - yet instead of getting rich and growing because of these resources, they remain in a state of poverty and conflict. Internal groups like the military unit in this story bear some of the blame. But so does a capitalist system that cares way more about profit than it does human rights and decency and an international governmental system that can do little to help those that suffer the most. Then again, you can't expect businesses to care, or international organizations to mobilize, about these things if the people that support them don't care either.
This is Africa's resource curse: The wealth is unearthed by the poor, controlled by the strong, then sold to a world largely oblivious of its origins.In the story the Times tells, one unit of the army controls a tin mine - tin is a major component of computers and mobile phones - and extracts "taxes" from all involved in the trade. The army is unable to control this unit, in part because of ongoing battles between a Tutsi rebel group, the Congolese Army, and Hutu militias left over from the Rwandan genocide.
There are a number of lessons to learn from this article. First, and probably most important is that "conflict diamonds" get the attention, but the truth is that there are many more conflict resources that we use unaware. Many things that we buy finance violence and suffering in the places where the resource comes from. The solution isn't necessarily to stop buying products with resources from the Congo, but to at least be aware that it is happening and demand change.
The second point is the role of multinational corporations. In this example, there is a multinational company that has rights to the mine, but are being prevented from accessing the mine because of the army unit. The multinational company of course says they were going to build schools and power stations and in other ways give back to the region. The problem is that in the past, these corporations haven't given back to the country. Instead, they have taken the resources out, fought to pay as little in taxes as possible, made themselves rich off the resource as the country continues to suffer in extreme poverty. The US government has a long history of supporting corporations who see nothing wrong with pillaging resources from developing countries. In fact our history with the Congo in particular is a testament to this.
The third point that comes out of this article is how conflicts that are ignored can continue to breed violence for decades as long as we continue to do very little to actually stabilize these situations. So much of the violence in the Congo stems from the continued presence of the Hutu militias that carried out the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Bill Clinton - and Hillary - talk about their regret for turning their back on that genocide. But their talk gives the impression that the event is over, when in fact we are still seeing its ongoing effects. If they really cared, they would have made sure this conflict was actually over before apologizing.
It is depressing beyond mention to see countries so rich in resources and beauty - the Virunga National Park is one of the most beautiful and diverse in the world but the region is too unstable for tourism - yet instead of getting rich and growing because of these resources, they remain in a state of poverty and conflict. Internal groups like the military unit in this story bear some of the blame. But so does a capitalist system that cares way more about profit than it does human rights and decency and an international governmental system that can do little to help those that suffer the most. Then again, you can't expect businesses to care, or international organizations to mobilize, about these things if the people that support them don't care either.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Auto Bailout? *Sigh*
I must say, I am surprised that one of Obama's first proposals is a bailout of the American auto industry. Not only did it seem to come out of nowhere, it also feels ill-advised. I guess I can see that the Democrats want to show that they can provide bailouts for blue collar workers - not just the white collar jobs in the financial sector. At the same time, it really seems like we have been bailing out the American auto industry for far too long. They have a history of building cars that don't last, they seem incapable of staying ahead of trends, and worse of all resist calls to improve fuel efficiency and move towards alternate fuel technologies and only do so after other firms (mostly Honda and Toyota) have beat them to the punch.
Instead, I really think we need to let these companies fail. In their place we could see American car manufacturers that put innovation - and greener technology - first. Now, if the Democrats want to allow for a soft landing of the car companies, and provide support for those who will be laid off, I can get behind that. In fact, maybe they could provide tax breaks for new American auto start-ups that will buy the old manufacturing plants and hire the former workers (this idea is definitely off the cuff - so it might prove unrealistic for new companies to start because of high fixed costs).
I really think this is where Democrats get a bad name. We want to help those of moderate or lower incomes, but we tend to choose policies that are more populist and less economic - policies that might help in the short run, but really hurt in the long run. This makes little sense from an efficiency standpoint and furthermore, it isn't the only option - or necessarily the best option - from a fairness standpoint. I know I won't agree with the Obama administration on everything, but I thought I would make it farther than this.
Note: Although I definitely have my favorite columnists, sometimes I feel like a hack by only printing their opinions instead of mine. It's hard though when they make the point so much better. Anyway, here is David Brooks' take on the auto bailout:
Instead, I really think we need to let these companies fail. In their place we could see American car manufacturers that put innovation - and greener technology - first. Now, if the Democrats want to allow for a soft landing of the car companies, and provide support for those who will be laid off, I can get behind that. In fact, maybe they could provide tax breaks for new American auto start-ups that will buy the old manufacturing plants and hire the former workers (this idea is definitely off the cuff - so it might prove unrealistic for new companies to start because of high fixed costs).
I really think this is where Democrats get a bad name. We want to help those of moderate or lower incomes, but we tend to choose policies that are more populist and less economic - policies that might help in the short run, but really hurt in the long run. This makes little sense from an efficiency standpoint and furthermore, it isn't the only option - or necessarily the best option - from a fairness standpoint. I know I won't agree with the Obama administration on everything, but I thought I would make it farther than this.
Note: Although I definitely have my favorite columnists, sometimes I feel like a hack by only printing their opinions instead of mine. It's hard though when they make the point so much better. Anyway, here is David Brooks' take on the auto bailout:
But the larger principle is over the nature of America’s political system. Is this country going to slide into progressive corporatism, a merger of corporate and federal power that will inevitably stifle competition, empower corporate and federal bureaucrats and protect entrenched interests? Or is the U.S. going to stick with its historic model: Helping workers weather the storms of a dynamic economy, but preserving the dynamism that is the core of the country’s success.
Navy I Wear to Work
A while ago I read The Woman at the Washington Zoo, which is a collection of columns by Marjorie Williams, a Washington Post columnist that died of cancer in 2005 three days after her 47th birthday. The title of the book refers to a poem by Randall Jarrell about women hiding part of their true selves to remain under the radar, and thereby achieve some success, in the professional world.
Williams wrote political columns as well as some excellent political profiles, including Jeb Bush, the Clinton and Gore White House, and Barbara Bush. Some of my favorite columns from the book are about politics and modern feminism. The columns are nuanced and very intelligent. Her writing was objective, and sometimes stood against the liberal opinions at the time. The strongest example of this is her writings during the Clinton sex scandal; she seemed to be one of the few who was criticizing Clinton by describing how this was a set back for feminism and sexual harassment in the workplace.
Williams' obvious talents are sorely missed, especially when comparing her to current columnists. Maureen Dowd for example also writes about feminism. But Dowd rarely seems as objective, thoughtful, or capable of nuance. Gail Collins and Judith Warner are both pretty good, but there is something missing in their columns as well.
By the end of the book you are heartbroken, not only because you wish she was still alive and writing, but because of what she went through. You feel for her family, husband and two children, who miss her far more than her readers ever can. And you feel for her because of how much of her rich life she will miss. So that politics is never ignored, she makes sure to show readers how medicine can do wonders, as well as where it falls short. Her treatment was so great because of her connections, and she reminds her readers that most people wouldn't get treatment half as good. So while we marvel at how much extra time she managed, we see that more needs to be done for those without her resources.
Read this book for her sharp writing and deep insights. Read it because you might not find a better columnist or political profile journalist for a long time. And read it because of how close you feel to her before it ends. I miss her and I didn't even know about her while she was alive.
Williams wrote political columns as well as some excellent political profiles, including Jeb Bush, the Clinton and Gore White House, and Barbara Bush. Some of my favorite columns from the book are about politics and modern feminism. The columns are nuanced and very intelligent. Her writing was objective, and sometimes stood against the liberal opinions at the time. The strongest example of this is her writings during the Clinton sex scandal; she seemed to be one of the few who was criticizing Clinton by describing how this was a set back for feminism and sexual harassment in the workplace.
Williams' obvious talents are sorely missed, especially when comparing her to current columnists. Maureen Dowd for example also writes about feminism. But Dowd rarely seems as objective, thoughtful, or capable of nuance. Gail Collins and Judith Warner are both pretty good, but there is something missing in their columns as well.
By the end of the book you are heartbroken, not only because you wish she was still alive and writing, but because of what she went through. You feel for her family, husband and two children, who miss her far more than her readers ever can. And you feel for her because of how much of her rich life she will miss. So that politics is never ignored, she makes sure to show readers how medicine can do wonders, as well as where it falls short. Her treatment was so great because of her connections, and she reminds her readers that most people wouldn't get treatment half as good. So while we marvel at how much extra time she managed, we see that more needs to be done for those without her resources.
Read this book for her sharp writing and deep insights. Read it because you might not find a better columnist or political profile journalist for a long time. And read it because of how close you feel to her before it ends. I miss her and I didn't even know about her while she was alive.
Hillary is Back
Remember when Hillary was getting as much news as Obama? And there was all the talk about whether she would be Obama's VP and if not whether she would campaign for him? Then in a few weeks, it didn't seem to matter. The country easily made the transition from Obama v. Hillary to Obama v. McCain.
Well, now Hillary is back in the news and apparently she is the front-runner for Secretary of State. When I first heard this, I was torn. I felt she had exaggerated her foreign policy experience during the campaign and so I wondered what made her qualified to head the State Department. At the same time, even though I think she is incredibly smart, I think this would be a better position than Supreme Court Justice.
As for the other contenders - I am surprised no one is mentioning Bill Richardson anymore. Maybe Timothy Noah convinced everyone else that it would be a bad choice. And I agree with Gail Collins that John Kerry would not be a very good choice. Frankly, I'm not sure what Kerry would be good for, except to stay on in the Senate. And nobody seems to be mentioning Edwards anymore - all because of an affair.
I think though that Hillary would be a good choice. Her role as first lady did include much time traveling as a dignitary of the US, which would be a large part of her role as Secretary of State. Where I think she exaggerated her experience was her level of involvement in decision-making. Here she would get that chance. The only worry is whether Obama could control her. I would like to think that in this role, it would be easier than if she had been VP.
Well, now Hillary is back in the news and apparently she is the front-runner for Secretary of State. When I first heard this, I was torn. I felt she had exaggerated her foreign policy experience during the campaign and so I wondered what made her qualified to head the State Department. At the same time, even though I think she is incredibly smart, I think this would be a better position than Supreme Court Justice.
As for the other contenders - I am surprised no one is mentioning Bill Richardson anymore. Maybe Timothy Noah convinced everyone else that it would be a bad choice. And I agree with Gail Collins that John Kerry would not be a very good choice. Frankly, I'm not sure what Kerry would be good for, except to stay on in the Senate. And nobody seems to be mentioning Edwards anymore - all because of an affair.
I think though that Hillary would be a good choice. Her role as first lady did include much time traveling as a dignitary of the US, which would be a large part of her role as Secretary of State. Where I think she exaggerated her experience was her level of involvement in decision-making. Here she would get that chance. The only worry is whether Obama could control her. I would like to think that in this role, it would be easier than if she had been VP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)