Slipping Stances on World Oppressors

"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. ... All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." - GW Bush, 2nd inaugural address, Jan 2005

What words of hope he spoke back then. Standing with the oppressed. Of course, he was referring to our imminent success in Iraq, our "mission accomplished" in helping the Iraqis stand against their oppressor Saddam Hussein. However, these days our stance seems more like the Texas two-step than a strong mission statement.

A lot of words has been exchanged about the recent turmoil in Pakistan. For those who might not know yet what is going on, I'll give you a quick recap: Faced with a promise he made of giving up his military post, and of Presidential elections in which most polls declared he'd be wiped out by opposition parties, "President" Pervez Musharraf has couped against his own presidency, declaring marshal law, dissolving the Constitution, placing several members of the Supreme Court under house arrest when they refused to go along with him, and jailing thousands of lawyers and other protesters for demonstrating against him. Oh, and he is silencing major independent news organizations.

The worst part of all this is the international community is doing nothing than muttering under its breath about the situation. Especially in the United States, where this administration has made a world-wide campaign against those who might use tyranny to further injustice and terror. We have invoked sanctions or traded harsh words with several nations who we consider to be conducting activities we deem anti-democratic. For examples, see Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, and Iran. In all those places, we have tried to bring our pro-democracy rhetoric to bear with some force, usually economic, to try and effect changes in how they do business with their own people.

However, now, when one of our "most important non-NATO" allies goes and shreds any hope of democratic reform, we sit idly by. We have even made excuses for General Musharraf's actions (as he is acting more a general than a president). "Oh, he has the bomb... we don't want to antagonize him" ... "Well, he's still fighting the war on terror for us, we don't want to disrupt him" ... "if he goes, Pakistan will only have anarchy and could fall into the hands of extremists." All of these are practically bullshit.

** Bomb - yes, Pakistan has the bomb. However, we have not shrunk from admonishing other nations with fully-fledged nuclear capabilities (China, North Korea). It is even more dangerous because Pakistan's nuclear engineers were responsible for helping North Korea develop it's own arsenal. This should be even more of a reason why the army should not be in control all the time ... they clearly do not have the mental or moral capacity to determine when to hold onto to their state secrets.
**Terror - Pakistan has made few contributions to the war on terror recently, and indeed seems to be taking some steps backwards. The same day he swept democratic precepts aside, Musharraf also released 28 Taliban prisoners in a prisoner-soldier swap with militants on his border. Some of those included bomb makers and transporters. Where are they headed now? Not to protest with the lawyers; they're most likely headed over the border into Afghanistan, where the Taliban is on a rebound and has posted several new leads this year, pushing close to Khandahar and other cities as they struggle to regain their grip on the country. And Pakistan's army is not fighting them. Not to mention how thousands have been called from the front line to fight and arrest the protesters, as if these people are the most dangerous threat to the country's future.
**Anarchy - This whole charade was well-timed to offset the elections and Supreme Court decisions, all of which were suspected to go against Musharraf. In a poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, Musharraf has a lower approval rating than recently-returned oppsition leader Benazir Bhutto (38% to 63%). It is widely believed that her party would sweep Musharraf from office in the elections (which have now been postponed indefinitely), and she has signaled support for the United States as a part of her moderate stance.

None of the arguments hold water. The end result is that we are supporting some modicum of short-term stability for democracy, lending credence to a dictator who is actively oppressing his people rather than step in and try to aid the people of Pakistan, in some way, with their struggle. It seems strange, as we have taken much effort to try to establish democracy in other portions of the world. Indeed, with hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into Iraq, trying to prop up a democracy and create a "model state" in the Middle East. If we value stability over democracy, why depose Saddam in the first place? He was very stable, we were keeping an eye on him so he was pretty pinned down (still no WMDs found), and was not in league with the Taliban, Iran, or other terrorist groups. Yet we brought him down to promote democracy. Cuba has been stable to the rest of the world for decades. Yet just last month President Bush stood beside Cuban exiles and railed against Cuba's denying of freedom to its people.

I am not urging we march into Pakistan as we did Baghdad. For one, we do not have the military means or public support to initiate such an endeavor. Also, perhaps Iraq has taught us that military force is not always the best way to effect "regime change" in a country. However, to let Pakistan stumble down this road without demonstrating that we will not stand for this type of behavior, even from our allies, is unconscionable. When 53% of Pakistanis believe that one of their top priorities as a nation is "Free elections, free press, and an independent judiciary" we should pay attention. When only 18% approve of suicide bombings, we should realize this is a society not filled with radicals, yet, but rational people who desire the means and ways to make their life better in the future, for them and their children. However, our image is tarnished there, whether beyond hope is debatable. How might things change if we were to help promote democracy in a peaceful way? One that is not seen as militaristic, or anti-Islamic, but moderate, accepting, progressive yet understanding? It is a tall order, but don't we owe it to our credibility in the region, nay across the world as a country whose defining purpose is to promote democracy, as it is the surest way to repeal terror and oppression around the world?

Consider also this hypothetical future: 53% of people disapproved of Musharraf even before this weekend's shenanigans. If he retains power, under the auspices of fighting terror and keeping stability, it is altogether possible that those young people who he claims to be protecting will only be further marginalized by his draconian measures. When free press and free courts do not offer people a legitimate avenue to redress their concerns with the government and each other, where will they turn? Madrassas, sharia law, militants, tribal organizations that can help give them what the "stable" government of Pakistan can not. Do you doubt this? Consider what happened when the Shah of Iran lost touch with his people, and used all means necessary to stay in power after he was returned to office in 1953. Where did the people turn, but to a small religious leader named Ruhulla Khomeini? And how did that example turn out, and how did it effect our world in terms of security, human rights, terrorism? Would we really want to sandwich Afghanistan between two of the same? Do we really want another Iran, this time with already developed nuclear capabilities?

To end this, I'll leave with another quote, used by GW Bush in his inaugural address, but also resonating into this conflict:

"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." --Abraham Lincoln, from the April 6, 1859 letter to Henry Pierce

After those who deny freedom are no longer in power, how will what we have done (or not done) while they were in control affect what happens when they no longer retain it?

Finally, Someone's Thinking

It was slow in coming, very slow. The solution to the Iraq, problem, as I have stated previously, was in the partition of the country into various slices, mostly likely upon ethnic/sectarian lines. It is unfortunate that it should come to this, but keep in mind that the country borders of Iraq and much of the Middle East was constructed not by their own people, but by the colonial powers that contained power over the area at the early point of the 20th century. France and England were the principal participants, and when they were forced to give up power and return the land to the people of the region after WWI, they drew arbitrary lines and left it at that. They have a reputation of this, for the colonial powers did the same thing in Africa, which was one reason that led to the genocide in Rwanda so recently.

And, as it has been proven time and time again in the news and reports on the ground, the majority of the violence has been intra-sect homicide. These are three sets of people, with apparent intractable differences which prohibits them living together in one nation. There is nothing wrong with that; there are incompatible people all across the world. However, when forced to live under one flag, one border, conflicts can arise quickly. Can they ever get over this hatred? The optimist in me wants to say yes, but that is not easy or quick to achieve, and cannot be looked upon as a solution in the near future.

So, why divvy up the country? Well, the partition method also has some historical success. In Bosnia, when faced with factions that were at constant war and genocide, was broken into partitions in the 1990s, and has had considerable success since then. It may not be the popular thing to do right away, but it certainly can separate the factions into their respective corners, so to speak.

With the U.S. so bogged down here, with the troop surge generating mild if any successes, it is wise to look to a new direction. Senator Joseph Biden, D-Del, has been the chief sponsor of a plan to start a power-sharing partition plan in Iraq. It would de-centralize the government, putting more power in regional centers controlled by Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd forces. What is even more impressive is that the U.S. Senate approved the non-binding resolution. This is a powerful statement that the direction must change with respect to our plan in Iraq, even more than just removing troops, as senators have repeatedly suggested. I'm glad that someone is finally looking forward and in a "outside-the-box" fashion. Well done Senator Biden.

Of course, there are those who oppose it. The Iraqi central government condemned the resolution, with prominent Iraqis calling it a "flagrant interference in Iraq's internal affairs." This is to be expected; even though historical inequalities led to the government being formed, the people at its stead have the desire to keep the status quo going, even if it is not the best thing for its people. They do not want to see their own power diminished, so they will fight this plan however they can. The United States Embassy, which is beholden to the executive branch, also decried the resolution. However, partition for them, and our President, would only look like some sort of "defeat" in their eyes, even if it might be a more proactive, stabilizing direction to move. They also have things to lose: prestige, votes, finances, party loyalty. All that petty politics seems to drive men to do great or horrid things.

I urge you all to read that resolution, and think honestly about the implications it has for the country, for our country, and for the future of stability in the Middle East. For isn't it better to have three smaller, stable countries operating and peaceful, than one larger quagmire of destruction and misery?

I'm Back ... for now

Yet again, another pause in the uploading of articles and idle pondering about the world around us. I have begun graduate school at the University of Illinois, pursuing a degree in ethnobotany (at least an MS, very likely a PhD). I also disappeared from the country for three weeks into Central America, having a lot of fun and exploring the Mayan Ruins there.

But I'm back, and looking forward to perusing the universal load of bullcrap that is paraded out for the public all the time. With the changing nature of grad school, I cannot promise these reports will come out with a regimented schedule, but I'll try to get something out when I can. And as always, feel free to read, make comments, and enjoy.

My blogs up until now have ranged over a broad range of topics... environmental issues are very prevalent, with politics, the war (what blog doesn't deal with the war), education, and social issues coming in as well. I think the general format will continue for now at least. I might tighten it up in the future, but not right now.

I want to thank my dear friend Ansley Weller, for reminding me about how and why I write, and for bringing me back into the blogging world. Thank you Ansley.

John Glen said what?

I received an email recently recounting some statements regarding Iraq and the War on Terror (btw, always put Terror in capitals... otherwise the Terrorists win). They were reported to come from John Glen, US Senator and former NASA astronaut and pilot. Whether or not they are actually from him, I found the quotes hilariously wrong in a number of ways. They represented an obtuse point of view that so often is perpetuated without critical thought. Some of my rebuttals are posted here, along with the comments in thier entirety. The original comment is in italics; my thoughts are in regular text.

When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:
a. FDR led us into World War II.
b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, an average of 112,500 per year.
-->There is substantial evidence that the two sides, Japan and Germany, were collaborating on how to divide the world between them. There was a fair amount of communication going on, even if there was no explicit cooperation. And while Germany never formally declared war on the USA, before our entrance into the war there were numerous attacks on civilian ships and supply vessels in the Atlantic that today would garner the term “terrorist.” These attacks were against the United States, and it is wrong to say that Germany never attacked us.

1939 - Sept 3 . Submarine U-30 torpedoes British passenger liner Athenia without warning in the belief that she is an armed merchant cruiser; 28 American citizens are among the dead.
Sep 10. U.S. freighter Wacosta, bound from Scotland to New York is stopped by German submarine for three hours.
1941 - Jan 30. Germany announces that ships of any nationality bringing aid to Great Britain will be torpedoed.
May 21. Unarmed U.S. freighter Robin Moor, en route to South Africa and Mozambique, is stopped and sunk by German submarine U-69 (torpedo and gunfire) about 700 miles off the west coast of Africa. First American merchantman sunk by a U-boat in World War II. Crew given food and directions by submarine.
Sep 7 . SS Steel Seafarer bombed and sunk in Red Sea.
Oct 17. Kearney (DD-432) escorting a convoy was attacked by U-boat off the coast of Iceland with 11 killed.
Oct 19. Unarmed U.S. freighter Lehigh is torpedoed and sunk by German submarine U-126 off Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Oct 28. Oiler Salinas (AO-19), in convoy ON 28, is torpedoed by German submarine U-106 about 700 miles east of Newfoundland.
Oct 31. Reuben James (DD-245), an older destroyer on convoy duty west of Iceland, was sunk by U-boat with loss of 115 men.
Oct 31. DuPont (DD-152) is attacked by U-boat, but missed.
Dec 2 . German submarine U-43 torpedoes and sinks unarmed U.S. tanker Astral and her 37 man crew.
Dec 3 . Unarmed U.S. freighter Sagadahoc is torpedoed and sunk by German submarine U-124 in South Atlantic.

Information gratefully found at http://www.ww2pacific.com/bellacts.html

Not attacked eh????

c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost an average of 18,334 per year.
d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.
e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, an average of 5,800 per year.
-->The whole of the Cold War can be summed up in one word: mistake. Our strategy was mistaken, our motivation was incorrect, our reasoning flawed. The projections we created never panned out. I think it is a common belief now that our involvement in Vietnam was not warranted, undesired by the Vietnamese, and ultimately was a waste of time.

f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.
-->There was genocide happening on a rather large scale. It was evident that this needed to be done to help pacify the situation. (As we should be considering doing in Darfur, Sudan right now.) The UN swiftly came into the situation, as did NATO, to help negotiate a long-standing peace-keeping mission. I don’t see NATO or the UN offering to come in and aid in “peace-keeping” in Iraq. Also, Bush 41 was very hesitant to help the Kurds out, when the gassing was going on. If we had gone in then, with that clearly defined mission of helping stop a genocide, we would have garnered more support around the world. A decade late does not help your image.

He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.
-->The history of Osama bin Laden is large and varied. Yes, Clinton missed an opportunity to get him early on. But then again, it was the Reagan era that first trained and equipped this man (not entirely unlike Hussein himself), so there is plenty of blame to go around.

g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North
Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
-->"Liberated" is such a loose term. Afghanistan is still without some basic necessities, and there are substantiated reports that the Taliban is becoming stronger, bolder in the South and Eastern provinces. The chaos that is engulfing Iraq would hardly be called a “liberated” area of the world. The inspectors, while a good step forward, have hardly been able to arrest the progress that Iran and N. Korea have made in their nuclear programs. Bush lamblasted UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 when making the decision to invade Iraq. Does he hope now that they will be more effective in even more extreme countries?

Here are links to very recent articles detailing the increase in attacks by Taliban.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP216676.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501622.html

The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.
-->Yes, however you must also take into account the severity of casualties that have resulted from each decision. The Branch Davidian compound was a stand-off, where the lives of 27 children were weighed against the benefits of running in, guns blazing. There was a large effort to try and negotiate a way out of that situation before resorting to combat methods. It was not war. The US went into Iraq without the regard for the Iraqi army or civilians that the FBI displayed when trying to release the Davidians at the compound. The FBI ended up killing 76 Davidian members, including their leader. Since January 2005, over 19,000 Iraqi civilians have died. The comparison is erroneous.

Midterms for all

It is quite amazing how these elections can reverberate around the world, and it reinforces how important American politics and policies are to the rest of the global population. With the take-back of the House (and perhaps the Senate... still seeing how a couple races end), the Democrats have offered a lot of hope to a great number of people.

In the Middle East, where in pro-Western Jordan, a newspaper editor said many Arabs "are delighted that the American voters have at least disassociated themselves from [President Bush's] dangerous policies."

At the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), some of the participants at a climate conference pointed to the midterm elections as a sign that positive changes might come about in the U.S.'s environmental attitude. "President Bush still has two more years in office so it's very unlikely that the U.S. negotiating posture will change," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. He added that the fact that Democrats, many of whom support emissions caps, took control of the House means climate and energy issues will be prominent in the 2008 presidential campaign.

It also has highlighted the need for a strong bipartisan (damn I hate that word; it just sounds like politician-speak for elections) work to keep the influence of America strong. Some around the globe worry that a rift in the power scheme of our legislature, coupled with a lame-duck second-term president might stall progress on international issues by weakening much-needed American influence. In other parts of the world:

"We hope American foreign policy will change and that living conditions in Iraq will improve," said 48-year-old engineer Suheil Jabar, a Shiite Muslim in Baghdad.

In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush's values. He referred to the president as "that cowboy."

In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.

Only time will tell if the Dems can capitalize on their success and translate it into real domestic and international policy development. They have been given a chance to prove that they are different, along with a time-line: 2 years to show something, or forget about the Presidency in 2008. Time to get moving.

And while you’re at it, you might want to look under your bed too…

There is nothing worse than playing boogey-man politics. And, unfortunately, September 11, 2001 gave this administration the greatest boogey-man imaginable: secretive, exotic, filled with unmitigated hate, powerful, able to strike and disappear in a second, only to reappear months or years later. With the joint attacks on that day, the united states launched its “war on terrorism” to safeguard America in this vast, chaotic world we live in. And if you listen to this administration, they would trumpet the fact that there has been so significant repeat of the terrorist acts since 9/11. However, they fail to mention that in the 200 years before that infamous date there had also been no significant terrorist attack. Quite a track record they’re developing.

But they do not want you to know that. They do not want you to focus on where your jobs are going, why your children are not as educated as Chinese children, why our environment is degrading, why we’re in debt, fat, overworked and underpaid. No, no, no, those are questions for another time. BUT LOOK!! The evil terrorists are at it again! You must vote for us because only we can keep you safe! And if we are not super, 1000% vigilant (damn fuzzy math), then they will get us. We need to “fight them there, or we fight them in the supermarkets and streets here,” according to Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) on CNN.

This is not to discount the fact that there are terrorists out there, bad ones (speaking of the war on terror, how is Bin Laden doing?). But they are hyperboleed up to the highest level as if our very next breath is tainted with their chemicals, their microbes, unless our valiant Republican party is at the helm to stop them.

Every time they are worried that they will lose an election (and you know who I mean when I say “they”), they pull out their supposed trump card of terrorism. Ratcheting it up to scare us and make our hands shake at the ballot box, clicking “Republican so-and-so” just so we feel reassured that we’re safe again, with them in power. Puhhhlease. I can only hope that we are not as easily deluded as they think we are. We outgrew monsters in our closets when we were 8 years old.

I cannot believe...

It never ceases to amaze me how people can behave like Neanderthals sometimes. This story out of Maryland demonstrates that principle clearly. A man, deciding to protest a Muslim candidate to the state’s House of Delegates, has staged a one-man “protest” outside of the candidate’s home, wearing a shirt that says, “Islam Sucks.” His reasoning for his protest? “I had heard that Muslims were generally intolerant of views other than their own, and so I thought I would put it to the test.” By insulting the person? By insulting his personal religion? Who would not be tempted to strike back, talk back, against such statements? The man has been warned of being prosecuted for trespassing. However, if this man were to happen to have a sign saying “Judaism Sucks” in front of a Jewish candidate’s house, you had better believe he’d be slapped with more than just trespassing. Hate crimes, bigotry, all sorts of labels would be associated with him. But since it is a Muslim candidate, then he’s only trespassing. To his credit, the candidate has not dignified the man with a response, saying there is nothing constructive about his dialogue. What true words!

The double-standard that is appearing, and the whole culture which resides behind this single man’s attitude is sickening. What sweeping ignorance has paved his path to arrive at this candidate’s front door. Such wide, blunt brushes he paints other cultures with. We paint cultures with. I thought as a nation we had progressed beyond such thing. We should be ashamed that this happens here in our country of the free. And do not bring to me the argument that it is free speech. The man himself defends his actions, saying they are not hateful, merely expressing an opinion. But the cultural connotations of his words transcend mere opinions into the realm of hate-driven expressions.

If I had chose a person I’d want as a neighbor, a fellow citizen, my decision would rest solely with the Muslim, rather than allow such a blunt-minded hypocrite to share my country with. This man repulses me to my core.

Adieu, Les Pommes Frites de la Liberté – Et Bonjour aux Pommes Frites “Françaises”

It was with little fanfare recently that the “Freedom Fries” at the cafeteria of Congress reverted to their more familiar name, “French Fries.” This marked the end of a curious era for the lovable potatoes, and settled a good amount of the identity problems they had been going through.

In all seriousness though, the whole Freedom/French Fry thing might be a broader signal of the change of politics we can only hope is coming to our nation’s capital. The changing of the name was ridiculous at best, giving many a chance to – rather than poke fun at the French – ridicule our Congress, who should have better things to do than to try to influence what people call their deep-fried potatoes. It was a rash act, one that has now been rectified.

But rash acts were a symbol of this administration for a long time, full of bravado and brash statements, and in the end very little content. The “war” in Afghanistan, which is still plodding along amongst rumors of increased Taliban activities, as well as enormously large opium crops (didn’t we wipe that out when we “won” the war in 2001/2002?) is only one example. The total list is beyond this server’s capacity to upload.

Along with these positions goes with the unilateral feeling of the administration, lampooning allies when they weren’t totally with us, while forging relationships with foreign powers we were soon to try and reverse (gee, that doesn’t sound familiar, does it? See: Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and Osama bin Laden for more information). So, haraunge the French when they opposed our war in Iraq, but now we realize they might be crucial to any sort of peace talk in Lebanon, not to mention the Darfur region.

So perhaps we are seeing a more multi-lateral form of politics emerging, a spirit of contrition and willingness to work with others, rather than just stick it alone. That would be a big change in policy from our “decider” President. Talk about flip-flopping on issues. Fries are just the beginning.

The World with US Blinders

The war on terrorism that the United States has been waging since September 11, 2001 has taken a great many guises. The multinational invasion and “liberation” of Afghanistan in late 2001/2002, the unilateral “pre-emptive” strike against Saddam Hussein in 2003, new priorities in both domestic and foreign relation programs in the United States. However, one wonders if we have strayed too far in that direction. After all, while the loss of life was regrettable and abhorrent, and there certainly is at least one faction of radicals in the world who are determined to see the United States fall by any means necessary, there are far more pressing, and relevant, issues at hand in the world today. And the United States, by making the war on terror our #1 utmost priority, we have given way in many other areas, and one could make the case that we are losing our dominant edge in the influence over the future direction of the world.

The examples are evident enough. It was reported in this blog in May 2006 of the movements of many Latin American countries to the socialist left, headed by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. While Peru and (for now) Mexico have stalled his agenda, it remains that he is a strong, central influence in the regions politics and economies. This is a region the United States spent decades, and billions of dollars, to help grow to its own desire, as some bonsai that needed constant pruning, shaping, and feeding. It didn’t work out as we had planned, as the repressive tactics that were utilized merely succeeded in spreading corruption and a widening poverty disparity. Coupled with our new apathy towards the region, as it is not a hotbed of terrorism, the people have responded by veering in a new direction, completely independent of America’s recommendations.

The same sort of independence is being seen in Asia. As our collective vision lies elsewhere, China, Russia, and India look to create a regional dominance in politics and economics, becoming the major influences in that part of the world. China and Russia have already asserted themselves in the cases of North Korea and Iran, two arguments that the United States wishes it had more solidarity on. The United States has been the dominant power in that region since the conclusion of WWII, and is now slipping in the face of new self-confident giants of regional policy.

While this is not inherently a bad thing, as the United States makes up a small portion of the world, it is certainly something to take note of. We would do well to build strong, multi-governmental bodies where we can work as a part of a team to help direct policies in these regions of the world. Not as a majority voice, nor as a major deciding factor, but playing as one of the team. That has not always been our strongest suit as a nation, and it would not be easy now to shift from strong-man in the group to team player. But this kind of shift is becoming increasingly necessary as we are so distracted in our own pursuit of physical stability against these “terrorists.” We have sought strictly bilateral agreements with select partners, in lieu of other stronger, more central treaties. A prime example is our vacillation over the nuclear proliferation with India versus with other nations, most notably the more unstable, but also “strategic” partner of Pakistan. A more inclusive solution, which might also help foster better relations between the two, would have been a preferred solution. But we chose not to.

We are not popular in the world, not by any means. Our policies, mostly generated by this administration, but not exclusively, have set a tone that many of the world perceives as unilateral, super-capitalist, and uncaring of more social concerns. If more regional bodies begin to exclude the United States out of negotiations, trade agreements, political disputes, then one can only wonder where the United States will lie in the final judgment. Would American businesses be cut out of the loop of new trade agreements? Could we stop a war when our voice is not considered relevant to the argument or region at hand? Would we be asked to help in times of need, or congratulated in times of prosperity? Life with the blinders on, as we have pursued recently, has its consequences. The beginning of which is only now starting to play out.

Good to Remember

Today, a brief selection from Thomas Jefferson's inagural address on March 1, 1801. Consider how these quotes relate to our own political reality today, both in a positive and negative sense.

"We have passed through a hard year of bitter struggle between two political parties. We have shown the world that in America all can speak, write, and think freely. The debate is over. The people have decided. Now is the time for all of us to unite for the good of all. The majority of the people have won the contest. But we must always remember that there is a minority. True, the majority must rule. But the rule of the majority must be just. The rights of the minority are equal to the rights of the majority, and must be protected with equal laws."

"The rights of man will be of the highest importance in this government. Information, knowledge, and opinions must move easily and swiftly. We will support freedom of religion...freedom of the press...freedom of the person protected by the habeas corpus...and the right to trial by juries that are chosen fairly. These are the freedoms that brought us through a revolution and that made this nation. Our wise men wrote these freedoms. Our heroes gave their lives for these freedoms. They are the stones on which our political philosophy must be built. If we make the mistake of forgetting them, let us return to them quickly. For only these rights of man can bring us peace, liberty, and safety."

"I know that I shall make mistakes. And, even when I am right, there will be men who will say that I am wrong. I ask you to forgive my mistakes which, I promise, will at least be honest mistakes. And I ask you to support me when I am right against the attacks of those who are wrong. Always, my purpose will be to strengthen the happiness and freedom of all Americans . . . those who do not agree with me, as well as those who do. I need you. I go to my work as president of the United States, ready to leave that position when you and the American people decide that there is a better man for it. May the power that leads the universe tell us what is best, and bring to you peace and happiness."

Such prescient words, from one of our foremost patriots and leaders. As relevant today as they were 200 years ago, perhaps even more relevant, as our country is no longer a decade old. Take a moment to reflect upon them, what they mean to you as a person, to you as a citizen, to us as a nation.

Red Scare or Red Herring?

With the energy crisis that is rapidly speeding towards America, indeed the whole world, there is a rush to politicize fossil fuels, as well as mounting international competition for those resources. Energy security and energy politics are the new buzzwords for governments everywhere. Russia was recently accused by Vice President Cheney of using their energy reserves as “tools of manipulation or blackmail.” Evo Morales, Bolivia’s new President, decided to nationalize their natural gas reserves, calling it, “a historic day in which Bolivia retakes absolute control of [Bolivia’s] natural resources.” For the United States, however, there is a single, primary competitor in the world of energy resources. The world’s largest fossil fuel user, it seems, is entering a direct confrontation with China, the world’s fastest-growing fossil fuel user. This competition is setting the stage for energy policies for decades to come, and unfortunately there exists a blindness associated with this duel that makes for bad politics, grandstanding, and a deflection from some of the real issues and solutions. Politicians have used China’s recent energy-gathering measures as a kind of new scare of Communist domination, when 1) China is merely playing the US’s game, and winning; and 2) there are more important solutions to be focused upon for our energy issues.

The first salvo fired in the energy wars between the two behemoths occurred last year, when the Chinese firm CNOOC Ltd. put in a bid for an American oil company, Unocal Corp. The bid, in good capitalist fashion, beat out a competitive offer from Chevron Corp. by over $2 billion. However, the deal was squashed. Why? Pressure from American politicians, worrying about the implications that China may be consolidating oil futures for itself, construed the take-over bid as a hostile maneuver against American national security. It drew immediate fire from politicians of all sorts, even prompting a threat of an investigation by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), a secretive committee designed to investigate whether or not foreign takeovers and investments constitutes a threat to our national security. This would have been the first time CFIUS would be reviewing a natural resource company. Skeptics wondered about the true threat the bid posed. James Lewis, a technology transfer expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said “From a security perspective, it’s as much of a threat as when the Japanese purchased [New York’s] Rockefeller Center.” There was nothing untoward about the deal from the Chinese company (which was ultimately withdrawn in the face of such pressure). In reality, it was just good capitalism that was squashed by protective political maneuvers. This is not such new news for the United States, as protectivism has been documented in this administration towards the Vietnamese fishing industry, international steel industry, and others.

The rhetoric escalated this past week when Cuba announced that it was opening up a portion of its territory on the Florida Straits to offshore drilling – with China being one of the main bidders to attract the contract. China was not the only country negotiating the leases to drill off of Cuba’s coast; India, Spain, and Canada were also represented in the company’s agreements. This land is thought to hold a fair amount of oil and natural gas, commodities that are undoubtedly important given the instability in the Middle East, decreased American domestic production of oil, and rising demand worldwide. Politicians in the United States were quick to jump on the anti-China protectionist bandwagon. Senator Larry E. Craig, R-ID, even made a compliment which smacks of Cold War fear-mongering, saying “Red China should not be left to drill for oil within spitting distance of our own shores without competition from US industries.” Red China? Excuse me? Are we still stuck in the 70s here?

The rising concerns over energy, its availability and its pricing, has led politicians to use this as a new weapon to attack other governments, especially China. Yet nothing that China is doing is so unlike what other nations, the United States included, has done in the past to secure energy futures. Britain spent decades trying to subvert efforts for Iran to become a free nation with U.S. assistance. The companies of the United States hold oil development land rights across the globe, including Libya (not exactly the most U.S.-friendly nation), Venezuela, Australia, and more. China is asserting itself on the global scale now; they are stepping up and trying to secure their energy to ensure their future development. To use such trite phrases to intimidate them, or to spur anti-competitive action, is childish at best.

No, these observations are inherently counterproductive to developing a cohesive national energy policy. The anti-competitive statements merely prejudice our public and shift their attention away from viable solutions, of which protectivism is not one. Trying to bully China away from drilling in Cuba will not save the US from our energy woes either. Indeed, trying to form some anti-Chinese competition by drilling our own Florida Straits region is an equally undesirable answer. There is not enough oil residing there to last the U.S. more than 15 years, most likely in the range of a dozen; are we willing to allow their political grandstanding to set us back a decade or more in energy development and management, at which time we will have no reserves left and an even larger energy demand?

Fostering these sentiments and creating this antagonism is very easy politically for it requires no major input or sacrifice by the public, merely stirring up protectivist and nationalistic fervor among the public. But it doesn’t solve the underlying issues at hand. To achieve that, America needs to look at the more difficult, but entirely plausible, solutions of alternative fuels, conservation, and higher efficiency. These solutions are available to us; look at the new GM plan of the E85 standard, which uses a blend of 85% ethanol with 15% regular gasoline. Imagine cutting our transportation fuel usage by 85%. The world would be dumbstruck. Or the hybrid line of fuels which is gaining in popularity. Another efficient, gas and cost saving measure. CAFE standards are another option, used by Carter in the 70s to great positive effect, could be resurrected to help force the changes we all want to see. Smarter urban planning which allows for improved public transportation (or even non-motorized transportations, like walking or biking [gasp!]). These options are here for us to utilize, if only the politicians, our leaders, would get behind them and breathe life into them for a truly positive change in this country. The benefits are beyond comprehension. Instead, they seem to be focused merely on blowing a lot of hot air around. I hope there’s a change in the winds soon.

Is America Falling to the Left?

It is unmistakable the swing to the left that Latin American politics has taken of late. Beginning roughly eight years ago with the election of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, leftist leaders have popped up in a variety of countries, including Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and recently Morales’ election in Bolivia. And with elections in Peru, Mexico, and Nicaragua, even more Latin American countries could fall under leftist sway.

The large question is how did this come to pass? Not making any judgments on the merits or detractions of left governments in place in Latin America, but merely how did a segment of the political spectrum that the United States spent decades arduously striving to keep out of power return so confidently and abruptly? The United States used a multi-faceted campaign in Latin America to keep leftists, who were suspected of joining Cuba or the USSR, from coming to power. For example, the Chile Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (1976) details the interference perpetrated by the United States in Chile from 1963 to 1973. Included in its findings, the United States spent millions on covert intervention in Chilean politics from 1970-1973. The money financed such operations as planted “news” stories in Chilean magazines and newspapers; propaganda; and political activities among workers, students, women’s groups and other civic organizations. President Nixon, with Henry Kissinger, even developed and executed a highly secretive coup to prevent Salvador Allende, Chile’s Marxist leader, from ascending to power after the 1970 elections. The coup failed, so the US used various economic and propaganda methods to discredit Allende and foster hostility against him. These included cutting off access to international loans and stimulating local capital flight; feeding misinformation to Chilean military officers to engender fear of Cuban subversives working in Chile; and financing opposition groups, including terrorist right-wing movements. This method of approach was not unique to Chile either; America spent a great deal of money and energy to keeping leftist movements under the rug in Latin America. So why have we seemingly surrendered so easily now?

One could make the argument that, not that the Cold War is over, there is little to no threat of leftist governments making deals with Communists to become a “danger” to America. This is largely true. While Castro remains in power, Cuba’s Communist threat pales in comparison to the USSR of yesteryears. However, this lack of ideological enemy does nothing to diminish the fact that there is a lot at stake in this for America, indeed all of the Americas.

Latin America’s shift to the left has been precipitated from decades of mismanagement, interference, and neglect by the West, most centrally the United States. The emergence of Communist Cuba brought the US to abandon the Monroe Doctrine and actively begin direct and indirect interference in Latin American politics and economies. What arose from decades of such intervention was a mutant form of US-bred capitalism. This system consolidated power into the hands of right-wing governments and perpetrated the spread of rampant cronyism. The majority of the populace did not see an up tick in their relative stations in life, nor was there an improvement in basic governmental services. The result? Distrust for the American way of doing politics and economics.

These rebellions against American hegemony have become increasingly visible. The Summit of the Americas last fall is a perfect example, with major demonstrations against the United States, and the election of a non-US-backed candidate to the Organization of American States. Venezuela’s nationalizing of its oil programs has led Bolivia’s president-elect to begin nationalizing his country’s natural gas resources. The list goes on and on.

What does that mean for us as a country? Plenty. If the socialist agendas espoused by these new leftist leaders begins to succeed, and it brings up the majority of impoverished peoples in terms of their quality of life, then the American methodology of economics as a model to the rest of the world is compromised. Countries have a viable alternative that excludes the United States completely. While it is not necessary for everyone to follow the US’s method of development, it has been a doctrine, enforced by our capitalist business method, that we have enforced for decades, and has helped make us a very profitable nation. Thus, this could also shut out American business interests, as these countries would be more likely to work with other socialist countries or countries that are merely not the United States. And since American business has depended on developing nations to provide labor, land, and materials for so long, their loss of VIP status in such regions of the world could have drastic repercussions in the American economy.

There are other areas where we could fall as well. Politically, we would be undermined by this ideology of social equality and justice, should it succeed where our efforts to extinguish it have failed. We lose face, and also compromise the ability to have an effective input into the decisions of other regional leaders. Isolated. And, taken to an extreme, the socialist movement could find its way back to our own soil. Last winter, Venezuela’s president decided to subsidize heating oil to the poorer residents of New England, a move that was wise politically for him, as it also bolstered his image in the United States. However, it also gives some segment of the US population a taste of what socialism might hold for us. It is not a perfect system; not by any means. But there has not been a large socialist movement since the early part of the last century. If it were to gain momentum, due to partly the actions of these neighbor governments, there could be some major policy changes, both domestically and internationally, for the United States.

And not let us forget the drug war, that pest of American foreign policy. I have been against the war since I was old enough to make up my mind about it. But it has been a cornerstone of america’s foreign policy, particularly in regards to Latin America. But the left’s ascendancy has the potential to recreate our allies and stances on the war. Morales in Bolivia recently promised to legalize coca, the main plant used in forming cocaine, and Mexico’s government recently legalized the possession of small amounts of a variety of drugs, from marijuana to ecstasy. These changes, so openly in contrast to American desires, flaunts the left’s newfound power, and might force some reckoning by the United States to arrive at a compromise.

Now a lot of this is speculation, some of it far-fetched. But it represents a possibility of what can happen if the United States remains apathetic to the changes that are transpiring around us. These are the dangers that lie in being too complacent over what is happening to our neighbors. I would not advocate for a second moving back to the contras and coups which defined our policy towards Latin America for a long time. However, there are great implications that could arise from what is taking place down south in its drive to the left. And I hope these countries succeed; I would not wish destitution on any nation, and socialism has a great deal of advantages to it; some of which we would be wise to heed for our own citizens. But this is a warning to our own country that our policies are not as powerful, as embraced, as they once were (or as we hoped), and their fall, without an alternative, could prove disastrous to this country. America would do well not to interfere, but to listen to what these countries are saying, acknowledge their messages, and work together to form a better future for all of us.

No Short Cuts to Democracy

A lot has been made of President George Bush’s new plan to spread democracy across the globe. This push started as a re-casting of the war in Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was taken down and it was revealed he was not as large a threat to our national security as had once been promised. So, in a very smooth PR transition, we were no longer hunting for WMDs, but were promoting democracy to this oppressed nation. All in all, a very noble objective for Americans to undertake, especially as it has come, and is still coming, at such a high cost to our own country both in terms of raw dollars as well as human costs.

However, in a larger sense, it has brought me back to considering the basics of democracy itself. This post is not about our President per se, nor about the war in Iraq. It is about democracy, that part of our country that some have called “our noblest export.” And it is truly a good thing. But, what are the conditions for democracy? What does it take for a country to move towards a democratic future?

Whenever I think of the onset of democracy in a country or region of the world, I often think back to Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series. In it, there was a series of socio-economic mathematics developed that could predict, with varying degrees of accuracy, the course of a civilization. A most ingenious and interesting idea, that statistical analyses can work together to provide a model for future empires, rebellions, market changes, etc.. Fun in the science fiction arena, unfortunately it does not exist in the real world.

There comes a time in the history of any civilization that the people desire to make more of themselves. They desire to become citizens rather than subjects, rulers as opposed to the oppressed. Whether this democracy they form is the final form of government or not is irrelevant (it is often not; even our own country has undergone numerous changes to its democratic foundations – we continue to augment it still). The underlying principle that becomes evident is that democracy is an evolutionary process. As such, it takes both a significant pressure to force change as well as an environment conducive to respond to that pressure and begin the necessary change. This environment is a social and mental state of the people, rather than any physical attribute they (or their enemies) may possess (or lack).

But, as an evolutionary process, democracy is not going to be easy. It will put up a fight, especially as there is usually a considerable amount of forces arrayed against its maturity. There are times it will fail, and then must be resurrected in the future when the environment is more receptive. Or it may gain headway, then be pushed aside by despotism or foreign invasion, which are always a threat. Again, it is not destroyed altogether, merely delayed. But in virtually no case is achieving democracy easy.

America’s example is very illustrative. A colony of the mighty British Empire, Americans felt consistently marginalized and subjugated by the imperial power. Finally the dam broke, and the loosely-enjoined colonies rose up against that empire. Through sheer willpower and drive to be free, we defeated the British and took control of our own destiny. But to get through to that point, we endured a lot – militarization, taxes, tariffs, poor representation and reception from the main government – many of which we attempted to solve with the Articles of Confederation, then the Constitution. It is not perfect, but it is functional.

The point of our own sojourn to democracy is that we, the people, wanted it and made it happen. As Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” In that one statement, Dr. King accurately encapsulates all that is wrong with the American agenda. I would take King’s statement even further, adding that freedom cannot be given by anyone, oppressor or liberator. Democracy, and the freedoms that lie within its protective borders, is one of the greatest boons to society imaginable. But these boons, like any reward, must be earned by the people. It takes a will to change, a resolve to see it through, and the vision to plan out a new democratic future. The will arises from the evils of unfair government, tyrannical leadership, economic hardships, or other socio-economic factors that pressure the people until they are unwilling to be subject to that treatment anymore. The resolve is needed to follow through, as usually the oppressor is better equipped to put down movements that attempt democracy and has a desire not to lose its own “vaulted” status in the country and on the world stage. Most important is the vision, a symbiosis of various disciplines that are needed to create the new government out of the old, sometimes starting from scratch. This vision must also balance (in this modern day) global influences, cultural differences, historical pressures, and future directions. Not an easy task. Putting these three together and you have the beginnings for what might be a successful revolution.

However, these qualities must be an organic part of the populace; they cannot be supplied from outside. For a country to approach democracy, it takes years, sometimes decades or even centuries, to cultivate these organic attitudes and mentalities and to forge them into a cohesive revolution. For another country to supply these elements from the outside, or to prematurely “liberate” the country before these facets are in place, leads to a country which requires intensive support, as we are finding out in Iraq. In that, it is not unlike a premature baby. The liberator then becomes the life support, trying through artificial means to keep the country alive until its democratic organs develop from within. And yet there is no guarantee that the IVs put in place will carry out their intended function. Whereas a “natural” democracy has a good chance of achieving stability, one that is sown by another has a high chance of debilitating problems, including civil war, anarchy, fractionation, feudalism, or totalitarianism. And those could set back the onset of democracy even further than if no intervention had been attempted in the first place.

Giving a people democracy prematurely, while a good idea in theory, fails to take into account the necessity for a country to earn its freedoms. It if is merely handed to them, they will not possess an appreciation for what it means, having not had to endure the trials and tribulations associated with gaining democracy. This lack of appreciation can lead to numerous other futures other than a democracy; some of the more unpleasant ones are listed above. The truth is, it takes a long time of introspective growth to reach democracy. There are no shortcuts. It is an unfortunate truth, especially seeing some of these arduous steps (including a civil war) that we had to wade through repeated elsewhere. It is tough to stand by and watch the process in action, as it can be a slow process. Some of the countries in Africa are finding this out the hard way, complicated by years of civil wards, despots, genocides, and other horrible pressures put upon the people. You want to jump in and help, being one of the strongest nations in the world. But do not forget that in the midst of our own civil war, France was poised to step in and aid the Confederacy, but refrained. Had they butted into our affairs, being a powerful empire with large resources, imagine what this country would look like today. Thus, perhaps we should assist in ideas, financial assistance where needed, but allow them to move forward through the flames of their own democratic processes. It may seem inhumane, or unfair, but it is in this fire that strong democracies are forged. Anything less is too brittle to withstand the forces of time.

A Return to Citizenship

I was listening to the news of the memorial service of Rosa Parks last week. It was a momentous occasion, the laying to rest of a huge icon of the civil rights movement. Among the speakers at this memorial service was Rev. Al Sharpton, a man with whose views I often disagree with. I imagined some bland well-wishing for Rosa and her family, some trite tribute to the legacy she left behind, much as the words of other “dignitaries” had attempted to encompass something greater that they could not grasp a hold of. The reverend is a man I do not agree with much, yet this time my ears perked up in happy disbelief. He was issuing a challenge to the audience, a challenge to take up Rosa Park’s work and carry it onwards. Insulting at times, he called the African-American community ungrateful for the sacrifices that Rosa and others made for them in order to bring them the equal right to vote, end segregation, and start the long road to equality in this country. With vivid detail he portrayed the suffering of the civil rights protestors, and opined that Rosa would be ashamed of them now, to see how they had to be begged, entreated to vote, when once dogs and pitchforks could not stand in their way to their civil privilege. Afterwards, National Public Radio asked Sharpton about his comments. He said, “Saluting her would be a huge mistake. Rosa Parks actively pursued social justice, and never stopped challenging us and never stopped challenging the issues of justice, and I think she would have been absolutely been dishonored and displeased if she thought that all we did was make great memorials to her, and not challenge people to do what she did.”

That struck me as remarkable. Especially his words on voting, and the apathy that Americans demonstrate towards their cherished, and hard-won gift. Not just African-Americans, as he was railing against, but Americans in general, have taken the opinion that voting is a bother, a bureaucracy, something not worthy of their time. This has long been a galling attitude in America. Not just Rosa Parks, but what would George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ben Franklin, all those great leaders in history who had the foresight to see what a great thing this representative democracy could be, and the strength to fight over all odds to see that it came to fruition, say when they saw that the best we could do is mid 40s in voter turnout? I think they’d roll over in their grave and wish they had stayed with ole’ Georgie across the pond.

It is absolutely disgusting how low Americans hold their gift, their rights, their responsibility in this country. They have the power, whether they realize it or not, to challenge any laws, change anything they desire about this country in which they live. But they squander it, they throw it away, they ignore it, and in doing so open up a deluge of problems that we can only imagine. [all those horrors that are slowly materializing before us constitute other pages, yet to be written] Democracy, true democracy, was once an ideal worth fighting for, worth laying down your life so your fellow citizens could enjoy the right to elect who they wanted to lead them, to vote up and down measures that affected them in every walk of life. Now we can’t even get them to walk 2 blocks and push a screen or punch out a chad. Disgusting. When I see the pictures of new elections in other parts of the world, like Africa, and people stand in the savanna for hours waiting to vote, even knowing they can’t read, knowing that it is probably corrupt and the results fixed weeks or months before the ballots were printed, I can’t help but get a sense of pride. THAT is the democratic ideal right there, and those are people who are devoted enough and wanting it so badly that they will go to all lengths to claim their hard-won right to vote. Americans should take note.

How does a country re-ignite the citizen’s fire that used to burn so brightly? What will it take for people to appreciate the rare and wonderful gift they have been given with over two centuries of hard-won freedoms? You could take an extreme viewpoint, and say that to appreciate it, you need to take it away. A spate living under Stalinist Russia, Hussein’s Iraq, or the Catholic Inquisition would give you a good viewpoint from which to enjoy all that we take for granted. Indeed, if we do not stand up and take notice of this lapse in our responsibility to the government that was, at one point, at our whim, we might very well find ourselves residing in one of those despotic realms. And it would be no fault other than our own. I, for one, do not want to see that come to pass in this nation.

So, on this day of mourning, which inevitably leads to introspection and questioning, let us not memorialize, not pontificate over the life of a truly remarkable woman. Instead, let her funeral be a time of renewal to the phoenix of our representative government. Let’s resolve to be better citizens.

Hypocritical Congress

I find it shocking, how the Congress has seemed to react with a disproportionate lack of emotion regarding the cleaning-up of New Orleans and the obvious botching that occured on many levels. They are usually so reactionary with their statements, calling for commissions, special investigations, hearings, that I thought they would jump on the chance to investigate a real system malfunction in the aid of emergency victims. They jumped on the cable and radio people when Janet Jackson bared herself during the Super Bowl. The senators howled in digust and rattled cages, making impassioned speeches about indecency. Again with Terri Schiavo, they came back on a Sunday to hold special sessions, opine about the sanctity of life and how to best preserve it, on what was clearly not a federal issue. Ditto with the steriod scandal in baseball, calling Jose Canseco to testify along with all the big stars. Not to even mention the Clinton scandal of a few years back.

So, with thousands of dead, this seemed like an even more important time to investigate the failures of the government at all levels, from mayoral to federal. Especially with another hurricane bearing down on the South. But not. Despite the fact that there appears to be padding on the resume of Brown, the now-former FEMA director. Despite the fact that aid from several other nations and agencies were turned down in the hours and days immediately following the hurricane, while there was great need of them. There is quiet murmuring, but it seems like the whole thing has been pushed back to the burner as damage control from the White House comes into full play. Now they're the humanitarians, trying to rebuild the great city and save the people. There is so much that burns me here, so much blame to go around to all parties involved. Deservedly so too. But to have Congress sit on their butts and pass the appropriations and then do nothing, when there is real problems that need fixing. What a hypocritical thing to do. When there are people in need, and to prevent this from occuring again in the future. Shame on you Congress. It's time to get a little perspective.