You are currently browsing the monthly archive for September 2007.
The American populace is increasingly publicly wondering and debating whether or not Bush and/or members of his administration have intentions of making Iran country #3 that America has invaded during the past two presidential terms. Bush’s, Cheney’s, Rice’s, and, up until his recent resignation, Rumsfeld’s rhetoric towards Iran has run the gamut from threatening military response against members of the Axis of Evil (of which Iran is obviously a member) in the 2002 National Security Strategy to stating that the US will not even talk to Iran about compromising until Iran compromises first (which doesn’t make sense for Iran to adhere to, which is another blog for another day).
Steven Clemons, Director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation, recently posted an op/ed on Salon.com debating this issue and ultimately concluding that Bush will not attack Iran. He delves into great detail describing how the US administration’s threats would lead one to think that Bush is seriously considering an invasion, but that in fact his military and intelligence advisors have warned him of the problems with this plan (not the least of which is America’s quickly deteriorating popularity in the Muslim world), making Cheney and his neoconservatives unsuccessfully try ever harder to convince Bush and the public of the necessity of an invasion. However, Clemons mentions only briefly the possibility of an "accidental" confrontation.
The scenario of a covert attempt to create war deserves much greater thought than Clemons included in his article, despite his mentioning that it is worth worrying about. When considering Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s past roles in using fake memos from Niger to drum up a war in Iraq, blatantly ignoring the intelligence community’s cries that the sources were questionable, why would they not repeat a similar scandal for war with Iran? This time, however, it is likely that they will not use the public to vet their phoney intel, but will instead quietly put ants in Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s pants until he lashes out, giving the administration something to respond militarily to with the full support of the public, who will think they know the whole story – simply an angry Muslim country attacking the US, yet again.
Pakistan’s Ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani was to give an update and insight as to the current political at George Washington University’s Elliot School on Tuesday, September 18, 2007, and did for the most part, but he mainly focused on Pakistan’s discontent with the anti-Pakistan rhetoric being spouted by Washington officials including presidential hopefuls, Barack Obama and John Edwards. The US has had a long relationship with Pakistan dating back to when it was part of British India, and today Pakistan is revered as an “ally against the war on terror”. But the relationship has a love-hate cycle. In one breath, President Bush will exalt Pakistan as a true partner in combating terrorism, but in the next breath accuse Pakistan for harboring “terrorist” in rural villages, he’s even proclaimed that Bin Laden could be in Pakistan. By saying that Pakistan, the country that is, is harboring terrorist, he is implying that it is somehow sanctioned by the Pakistani government, which it is not. This was exactly one of the Ambassador’s points, and he called the US out on it publicly. In addition, he argued that Pakistanis’ dislike the US for its policies in the Middles East, most notable Israel-Palestine, and Iraq. He openly attributed many problems including spike in political unrest and violence, are due to the influx of Al-Qaeda fighters and others fleeing Iraq. It was interesting to hear his take on the situation as he looked in retrospect recommending that the US should have remained focused on Afghanistan instead of taking on Iraq at the same time.
Indeed it is the “only when we need you” policy that has hurt the US’s relationship with Pakistan. Pakistan could be an ally with whom the US could work more closely with, if the US were willing to change some of its policies in the Middle East and engage Pakistan on a deeper level. The US is obviously not going to make any progress with the Middle East with the insanity of the Bush administration. Hope lies in the future and the next election. Interestingly, Ambassador Durrani briefly mentioned that poverty is an important factor in recruiting young men to Al-Qaeda and other militia groups. However, poverty, unemployment, and lack of basic human rights have to be brought to the forefront as opposed to being briefly mentioned. What type of cooperation can the US and Pakistan engage in to lift people out of poverty and give them viable alternatives?
For my first blog I want to focus on what is the most reprehensible foreign policy decision by the United States in the past seven years. I submit that it is not the war in Iraq, but the overthrow of the democratically elected President of Haiti. This post is not meant in any way to diminish the colossal disaster that is the invasion of Iraq. However, the removal of a democratically elected leader of a country is a violation of the most basic notions of sovereignty and morality.
The overthrow of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide did not begin with an incursion by irregular forces from the Dominican Republic. Instead, it began with a systematic effort to undermine the Presidency of Aristide. This is not to say that President Aristide did not deserve some legitimate criticism for some of his policies, but he was elected by the Haitian masses.
In February 2000, Haiti held legislative and local elections in which Aristide’s Lavalas party won positions at all levels of power. The OAS stated that the election was "flawed" due to the process by which the votes were counted. The constitutionally mandated electoral board in Haiti, the CEP, chose to count the votes of the top vote getters and not the votes of all candidates who may have ran for a particular position in determining whether a run-off should be held. In the end opposition groups challenged eight Legislative seats where run-offs were not held. Seven of those seats were held by Lavalas party members.
In November 2000, Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected to his second term as President. Aristide’s former Prime Minister, Rene Preval, was President when the February elections took place. Nevertheless, criticism for the "flawed" election focused upon Aristide even though after his election as President, Aristide convinced the seven Legislators to resign their seats. The U.S. government would claim the elections were "fraudulent."
Shortly after the election, the U.S. Executive Director of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) used the United States’ influence in the IDB to block the disbursement of four humanitarian loans. The Bush administration then used the International Republican Institute (IRI) to undermine efforts to calm the growing political crisis and even held trainings for opposition parties in the neighboring Dominican Republic.
Perhaps the most troubling accusations against the United States is that it actually armed and directed the group of insurgents that crossed from the Dominican Republic into Haiti with sophisticated weaponary. The insurgent group never made it to the capital of Port au Prince, in fact the closest they ever came to Port au Prince was their initial crossing point into Haiti. While the well armed group was terrorizing innocent civilians in rural Haiti, the Bush administration was telling President Aristide that it would do nothing to protect him. On February 29, 2004, President Aristide and his wife boarded a United States plane, surrounded by armed U.S. Special Forces units and officials from the U.S. Embassy. Without knowing where they were going, the President and his wife arrived in the Central African Republic. President Aristide says that he never wanted to leave and that he was "kidnapped" by the United States. Evidence also shows that Aristide never submitted a resignation letter as alleged. In fact those who saw the original letter say that it was edited from its original form when given to the media.
The overthrow of a democratically elected President by another nation is a bold accusation and not one to be made lightly. There is not enough space in this blog to present all the evidence that points to United States’ complicity or even outright involvement in the removal of President Aristide. However, when viewed historically the removal of Aristide in 2004 is just another continuation of the U.S. policy towards Haiti predicated on suppressing the mass popular movement that began in 1804 when the black slaves overthrew the French slave owners.
This blog is intended only to bring to the attention to readers this event that has been wholly ignored by the media and U.S. law makers for far too long. For those interested in reading more on this issue I would suggest:
Randall Robinson, An Unbroken Agony (2007)
and the upcoming book: Peter Hallward, Damming the Flood, Haiti, Aristide, and the Politics of Containment, (London, Verso, 2007)
The recent return, and subsequent arrest, of ousted former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his native lands turns the spotlight on a on a problem that has been a thorn in the side of our troops in Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. If Pakistan is so unstable that it cannot even solidify its borders and maintain a legitimate government, how can we hope for them to be an adequate partner in the war on terror?
To understand the particular mess that is Pakistani politics as this time, let us take a look at the two major leaders Pakistan has had to bear in recent history; Sharif and current president, General Pervez Musharraf. Active in politics all his life, Sharif had his last taste of governmental power in 1999 when he was overthrown in a bloodless military coup and sentenced to exile while being barred from entering Pakistani politics. To supporters, he was a true democrat fighting to maintain the separation of government and military, and this is what his downfall in the end was. To his critics he was corrupt and never really minded the military dictator he was under when he first assumed the position of Prime Minister. After his forced departure, he went to Saudi Arabia where he lived in luxury.
The majority of Pakistani people were not terribly upset by Sharif’s leaving, however with the country slowly in decline in the past few years, Sharif is not looking to shabby in comparison with the alternative.
Enter Pervez Musharraf. He had little choice but to agree to enlist in Bush’s war on terror when the US attained sweeping moral legitimacy after the attacks that occurred 6 years to this day. Unfortunately for Musharraf, even for the most competent of leaders, calming and securing all of Pakistan is a tall order. Pakistan sits between volatile Afghanistan and its traditional enemy India. On the northern Afghani border the real authority is in the various tribes that live there. The government f Pakistan does not so much govern them as co-opt them. Musharraf is in a particularly precarious position of being pressured by the United States to put more military pressure on the terrorists who reside there, while constantly under the threat of alienating the tribes with those very troops. Additionally his commitment to democracy is lacking as he has dismissed or forced retirement of many in government. “One was his effort to fire the Supreme Court Chief Justice, Iftikhar Muhammed Chaudhry, which backfired badly first by sparking months and months of protest, and second because the Supreme Court turned him down.” (New York Times, Aug 8th)
The United States cannot hope to mount a serious offensive against the Taliban and Al Queda cells present in Pakistan without Pakistani approval, but conversely Pakistani support is distracted at best. Pakistan has far too many internal issues to deal will to effectively be a partner on the “War on Terror”, and Washington cannot expect too much out of them. It makes one wonder how much easier this all could have been if we had finished the job in Afghanistan instead of getting distracted by some crackpot in Iraq.
For more information on Pakistan I suggest the following New York Times articles. (you will need to login, but registration is free.)
I recently came back from a visit and tour of the Mayan heartland of Mexico, the Yucatan Peninsula which is known for its pristine beaches, unique ecosystems, archaeological wonders, and of course, vacation hot spots such as Cancun and Cozumel. The resort city of Cancun is where I will first focus my attention, for I have never been more startled at such a physical manifestation of globalization, and N.A.F.T.A, and their affect on a city when combined in one package, set amidst a tropical paradise.
Initially a fishing village, modern day Cancun was founded in the late 70’s and began to expand throughout the 80’s to cater to what the corrupt government of former Mexican president Luis Echeverría Álvarez called the “New Havana”, citing the former status of that city as the playground for the wealthy and renowned of the U.S.A. The Mexican government, responding to a strong tourism demand from the United States, as well as taking advantage of the turquoise waters and distinct Mayan culture of the area, began pumping tens of millions of dollars into the region throughout the late 80’s and 90’s. The result, a city of 700,000 people with 7 million tourists annually, as well as massive ecological damage, cultural clashes between indigenous Mayans and incoming Mexican laborers, and what I call touristic imperialism in the form of U.S. and European owned hotels and real estate.
Despite creating a high demand for laborers and hotel employees, most people that benefited from Cancun were from mainland Mexico, and not the impoverished Mayan heartland where Cancun is located, a region where many of the people do not even speak Spanish. In addition, the many laborers that built the resort city lost their jobs, yet never left to their home towns, contributing to a rising poverty rate as well as providing assistance to organized crime and drug cartels. Drug Cartels are certainly no stranger to as many Mexicans insist that of the small percentage of Mexican owned hotels in the city, almost all are owned by powerful drug barons. This theory also includes the city’s government.
What is particularly troubling about the whole situation is the trend Mexico is taking as a whole, under the constricting reign of N.A.F.T.A and current conservative President Felipe Calderon. Calderon, like his predecessors, has continued to allow the Americanization, or better yet, Cancunization of the entire country, under the semi false but also semi correct façade of Globalization. Like Cancun, Starbucks, Pizza Huts, and Wal-Mart’s are popping up in many places, from more expected places such as the suburbs of wealthy Monterrey, or the less expected places: a Wal-Mart super center across from the largest Pyramid in the world outside Mexico City, Tenochtitlan, or a Subway restaurant across from the renowned Mayan archaeological site of Tulum in the Yucatan.
Now I am not going to condemn Globalization outright, for there are some positive and progressive aspects of this phenomenon, but I will condemn it coupled with free-trade agreements that strip away the sovereignty of another nation. Now social tensions are simmering across Mexico, both against the ruling elites that benefit from the influence of the “gringos”, as well as the current conservative government who barely have a mandate to govern after winning by less than 1 million votes.
In many ways, Cancun is a microcosm of Mexico’s current and near future problems: powerful drug cartels operating in and around American owned businesses, ecological destruction from mass tourism, a despised city government, poverty, spring breakers, and a deteriorating security situation as indigenous southern Mexico pushes for autonomy…all set amidst an “occupied” Mayan paradise.
As I’m sure you have heard by now, Osama bin Laden released a new videotape.
There are a number of theories in play at the moment as to his primary goal, some of which I will discuss below in addition to my own views on the matter.
The message serves a number of purposes. First and foremost, it confirms his continued existence for both his followers and adversaries. There has been speculation in various circles pertaining to his health and ability to elude those who are looking for him. The image he presents is younger and more vigorous then those in the past, bolstering the resolve of his organization and perhaps twisting the thorn in the side of the United States and its allies. That is the primary goal of this tape, and there are there other secondary objectives, which come into play but may not be readily apparent.
Why he is doing it at this point in time remains a key factor in current news cycle. The timed release of this tape has strategic importance for what he intends to accomplish and is critical to his secondary objectives. With General Petraeus and top military advisers ready to deliver their findings on the situation in Iraq this week, the conflict and the Middle East will remain in the spotlight. The continued voice of the mastermind behind 9/11 will never be far from discussion. It’s a key underlying factor that needs to be recognized: he is releasing this tape now to capitalize on the media coverage of Iraq and the Middle East.
Within the tape itself he mentions Iraq in addition to bringing up the pain and suffering of the 9/11 attacks. The inflammatory commentary is designed with two distinct possibilities in mind, which merits further discussion, and would serve to support his organizations long-term goals. These are what I feel best summarize his goals with the release of the video:
It is his hope and in the best interests of his organization for the United States to remain in Iraq and continue to pour its resources into the conflict to the point of destabilizing the nation at home. As much as Bin Laden may criticize the United States, capitalism, and the West; he is highly educated and has an in depth understanding of his adversary and how to strike at them. Think back to the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City. In addition to tragedy and pain they caused the nation, they also represented the financial heart of country.
By the United States remaining in Iraq and the Middle East it would serve as a rallying point around his cause. If you take out the U.S. presence it would detract from his ability to point to the “Great White Satan” and their continued violation of The Holy Land. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the military and American presence in Iraq has actually served to increase his credibility and standing in the Islamic world as opposed to striking at the enemy that attacked the country.
If the videotape plays again and again over the course of the week and the media discusses Osama Bin Laden at great length, then his objectives would have been achieved. He would have manipulated the American media into carrying out his own agenda and spreading his message to organizational members and the world.
The height of ironies: Osama Bin Laden using freedom of speech within the United States of America.
If leadership in the United States really wants to focus on handcuffing Bin Laden as much as possible, they should publicly ignore the videotape and give it virtually no airtime. Do not discuss it in press briefings and implore the major media outlets to play it as little as possible or not at all.
The successful strategy to combating violent extremism in the world today is to isolate credibility. The information saturated media environment we exist in is determined by whom we see and hear. By giving Bin Laden an international stage and platform to use, it will only undermine the national security and stability of the United States.
In the long run, the way to combat extremism is by portraying reactionaries and violent individuals for where they are: outside credibility and outside the civilized world.
Hey guys,
Just thought I’d draw your attention to a new web-based radio station that has been getting quite a bit of press here in the UK. It’s called ‘Salaam Shalom’ and it describes itself as "an online radio station broadcasting a mixture of music and speech and focus on the many aspects of Jewish and Muslim life and allow two cultures which have been linked for thousands of years to talk together and share their experiences."
Salaam Shalom is run by young Jews and Muslims and claims to speak on behalf of the ‘moderate majority’, whose voices are rarely heard in a mainstream media.
Here’s the website if you want to check it out www.salaamshalom.org
One of the greatest victims of humanity’s rush to progress has been our environment. From local watersheds to global warming our impact on this earth has not always been a good one. However, with expensive costs to clean pollution or update to more earth-friendly machinery, and little or no direct money to be made from conservation efforts, there is little wonder that industrialization in general has taken a heavy toll on our planet and until recently there have been very few incentives for businesses to clean up their act and conserve.
Today people all over the world are coming to understand humanity’s impact on our world, and business analysts are no exception. Environmental damage does not harm just the cute panda bears and Amazon rain forests, the challenges we look to face in the future hurt humanity in general. As sea level rises due to melting ice caps, companies and factories located in the low laying north-east will be forced to relocate, if they can. Companies that utilize rivers to transport goods will have to deal with drying up as global warming continues, and of course the ever present threat of increased hurricanes benefits nobody. As a result, there is hope. Companies do have a self-preserving interest in improving their policies to manage the environment.
After reading Jared Diamond’s book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” I felt a very good point had been made. We have done a lot of harm, but through pressure and awareness, we are starting to at least try to turn things around. Our cars run more cleanly, paper products often sport that “recycled” label, and this is largely thanks to that self-interested business policy of doing what it takes to make the most profit. Environmentally friendly consumers push for more regulated products using their purchasing power, and some businesses are looking into the long term future and understand that in order to continue making money they will need to sustain their resources. However, when reading the August 20th issue of ICIS Chemical Business magazine Weather Changes to Impact Chemical Production I was reminded of the fact that a business’s commitment to the environment was a balancing act. Many companies understand that their business will be hurt by oncoming weather changes, but according to this article, as we have already damaged the environment so much, companies must look to adaptation in the new environment. “’Even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions today, we’d still see over the next 100 years an increase in the temperatures of the atmosphere and oceans,’ warns Bernd Eggen, ‘That’s why it’s important to look at migration issues –reducing greenhouse gasses- and adaptation issues – preparing for extreme weather events and rises in sea level.’” If one day it costs a company less to build higher levees than to cut down on emissions to lessen global warming and thereby decrease storms, the company will opt for the levies. Once a company had prepared for the worst of climate change, they may lose their incentive to continue with prevention, regardless of the people they displace or the cancers they are indirectly responsible for. Where would the profit be in that after all?
We as consumers, advocates, humans, however, need to make sure we never get lax on our pressure on business and government to reduce emissions and sustain our resources, because they will take short cuts if they can. Because business is focused on profit, and only environment indirectly, if it becomes clear that money can be better made in other ways, they will change their policies unless we take a stand. We only have one earth.
Fourteen reprisal killings of Russian journalists since 2000 (when current president Vladimir Putin entered office) have had a chilling effect on Russia’s increasingly fearful and watched free press. International outcry about the plight of Russia’s journalists has built slowly but is now reaching a crescendo, with the EU, Council of Europe, OSCE and many, many human rights and press freedom NGOs slamming the Russian Government for its silence and perpetuation of impunity in response to the spate of journalist murders.
Four days ago, the first sentences in seven years were handed down in a case of the murder of a Russian journalist. It’s a crumb of justice, but I can’t help but suspect that even this much is, at least partially, a response to outside pressure.
Russian court convicts 7 in journalist’s killingFriday, August 31, 2007MOSCOW: A Russian court has convicted seven men in the 2000 murder of journalist Igor Domnikov — one of more than a dozen cases of journalists being killed during President Vladimir Putin’s years in power.
The Domnikov case represented the first time suspects were prosecuted in a journalist’s killing since Putin became president in 2000.
Domnikov, who wrote extensively on official corruption for the newspaper Novaya Gazeta, died two months after being repeatedly hit in the head with a hammer outside his Moscow apartment building.
On Wednesday, a court in the city of Kazan sentenced four men to life in prison, and three others to prison terms ranging from 18 to 25 years after finding them guilty of killing 23 men, including Domnikov, and of eight kidnappings, regional court official Enza Galiulina said.
The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists says at least 14 journalists have been killed since 2000 in reprisal for their reporting. Freedom of press has shrunk notably under Putin, with the government establishing control over all major television channels.
A free, safe, and responsible press is vital to any liberal state. It’s absence, or disappearance, is almost always a sign of darker things to come. These are bad times for the Russian press. For my part, I’ll do everything I can to show solidarity, and add my voice to the chorus calling for greater freedom for, and protection of, journalists in Russia.
