Obama’s Listless List

The foiled terrorist attack on Christmas Day served as a timely reminder that the U.S. remains vulnerable to plots from Al-Qaeda. As more details emerge about the security lapses that allowed Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to board his flight to Amsterdam and later to Detroit, President Barack Obama has come under intense criticism from opportunist Republicans over his handling of the so-called War on Terror. Yet instead of dodging the role as a partisan punching bag, Obama appears willing to engage in domestic squabbling, at great cost to his foreign agenda.

Obama’s announcement on January 4 that the U.S. was to introduce tougher airport screening for “security risk” countries underlined the air of desperation and ineptitude that has gripped the White House since December 25. The countries included on the list were Cuba, Iran, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen. While some of the countries are merely the usual suspects, the inclusion of Cuba seems anomalous. Its appearance is explained by its unfortunate presence on another U.S.-produced list: state sponsors of terrorism. Nevertheless, many experts believe its inclusion is anachronistic, given that there is no current evidence to support the theory that Cuba sponsors terrorists, especially not those linked to Al-Qaeda. Many Cubans hoped that Obama’s election would help restore diplomatic relations between the two nations, and indeed the Obama administration has made tentative steps to this effect. The guileless inclusion of Cuba on a “security risk” list needlessly hinders potential rapprochement.

Lockerbie Lingers

Months after the initial furor, the outrage over the early release of the man convicted of bombing Pan Am Flight 103 emerged again this week. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was allowed home to Libya during the summer by the Scottish government on compassionate grounds because the cancer-stricken convict had only three months to live. On November 20, that three-month period passed with Megrahi still alive, leading many of the 270 victims’ relatives, mostly Americans, to question the authenticity of the medical advice the Scots used when releasing the prisoner. Closer inspection of the decision would appear to legitimize the families’ anger.

The medical advice that the Scottish government consulted in order to make their controversial decision was provided by three doctors: two British and one Libyan. All three men were paid by the Libyan government and one of the British doctors has since commented that the three-month period was actually suggested by the Libyan government. Independent doctors had earlier calculated that Megrahi had more than a year to live, leaving him ineligible for release on compassionate grounds. To put their decision into perspective,  prisoner release on compassionate grounds has been used only seven times by the Scottish National Party since taking office in May 2007, with Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill responsible for all the decisions. Megrahi has already survived longer since his release than any of the other criminals, only one of whom was a convicted murderer.

Releasing Megrahi provoked anger on both sides of the Atlantic, with President Obama calling the move a “mistake”. While many Scots echoed the president’s sentiments, some saw irony in the U.S.’s pontification over prisoner treatment. MacAskill has long claimed that he was motivated purely by medical advice, yet commentators speculate that the move formed part of a trade deal between Libya and the UK. The reality is probably less complex and conspiratorial.

Nobel Laureate Muhammad Yunus Speaks at the University of Virginia

Sunday, September 20^th, the University of Virginia hosted a lecture by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.  I was lucky enough to be in the audience, sitting on several feet away from the legendary man.

Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006, Yunus is world renowned for his founding of the Grameen Bank, a micro-lending system which has subsequently lifted millions of people out of poverty.   His compassion and humility, however, are what warrant him to be held in such high esteem.  “Doing little made people so happy, why not do more?” Yunus remarked modestly in response to the rapid growth of his fame.   He has since expanded his micro-lending model and spearheaded new projects.

Like most micro-finance systems, the Grameen Bank has been critiqued for not reaching the poorest of the poor.  In response to this accusation, Yunus designed a program which would provide beggars specifically with loans.  Currently there are around 12 000 beggars in the program and over 16 000 former beggars have risen from the extremest poverty and no longer have the need to beg.

International Troop Commitments in Afghanistan

Afghanistan isn’t just America’s war – a total of 15 countries have military and/or reconstruction personnel in the country.  America isn’t the only one debating the  strategy and timeline in Afghanistan either -  popular support for the war has decreased in countries such as Italy and Germany as well.  Here’s a look at the current coaltion forces in Afghanistan from teh BBC:

Image originally posted Mon Sept 21 2009 at  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8266072.stm

News Brief: Changes in Afghanistan

Guest Post by Amanda Young with commentary from Laura Kavanaugh

Earlier this week, comments made by General McChrystal concerning the strategy in Afghanistan were leaked to the press. He called for a new strategy because he believes the current one will lead to mission failure (a strong statement that has raised concerns). The military has already begun to relocated troops from the sparsely populated mountainous regions that are difficult to cities. This move is in hopes that we can begin to rebuild cities, protect the Afghan people, and help strengthen the government.

After eight years in Afghanistan a mission focused on civilian protection, reconstruction, and strengthening the Afghan government that will lay the groundwork for a responsible exit sounds like the right plan, but the General believes more resources are needed for this strategy to succeed.  In this case “resources” means American soldiers. Many people speculate that the general will ask President Obama for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan today, even though President Obama made it clear during his interview on Meet the Press that, “Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there- beyond what we already have”. President Obama’s decision has become even more difficult now that current polls show that the majority of Americans no longer support the war.

Afghanistan has witnessed 30 years of war and America and its allies have an important responsibility to establish security and support the reconstruction of the country’s infrastructure and rule of law systems.  Many agree on this goal, but disagree on the correct strategy – will a troop surge further reconstruction efforts or fuel discontentment in the region and among Americans impatient to bring our troops home?  Are we repeating mistakes made in Iraq by burdening the military with reconstruction missions typically carried out by civilian specialists? How can we increase the capacity of USAID (still w/o an administrator) and the State Dept quickly to ensure that the military’s efforts are appropriately supported?

To learn more about General McChrystal’s recommended strategy and President Obama’s interview with Meet the Press click here:

General McChrystal: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8266072.stm
President Obama: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32935603/ns/meet_the_press//

Greenpeace Hangs Banner to Greet G20 Leaders

Post by John Deans, It’s Getting Hot In Here

Pittsburgh, United States — Greenpeace activists rappelled off of a Pittsburgh bridge (Wednesday) with a massive banner displaying our message to G20 leaders gathering for tomorrow’s summit. The banner takes the form of stylized “road sign” that warns of the political maneuvering and delay that have put a international climate treaty in jeopardy as the world enters the final stretch on the road to Copenhagen.

“It is imperative that developed world leaders do not fail again in Pittsburgh. They must put money on the table to support developing countries” said Damon Moglen, Greenpeace USA’s global warming campaign director. “It is also critical for G20 leaders agree to kick-start economic recovery through clean energy investment. Both of these elements are vital to achieve a good deal in Copenhagen and avert catastrophic climate change.”

Blog or Bust: Using Blogs as an Advocacy Tool

Previously this week, AID was invited to a discussion with Feministing.com blogger Ann Friedman, who provided some fundamental information on how to utilize blogging as a tool for advocacy. For anyone who is interested in guest posting on our blog, or starting your own social justice or advocacy blog, don’t be daunted! Though some of it may seem a bit self-evident, here are some basic ideas and tips Ann had for creating an interesting and relevant blog to engage supporters and advocates:

Iranians head to the polls!

As Iranians around the world head to the polls for a hotly contested presidential election, I thought I would post some of the most interesting stories and analysis I have seen…

The New York Times thinks that regardless of who wins this election, the democratic energy that has been rocking the country will leave its mark on the political process.  “If [Ahmadinejahd] wins a second term, many here are now asking what will become of the “green wave” — the name given to the vast crowds of people who have filled the streets in recent weeks dressed in the signature color of the Moussavi campaign, demanding change.”

There is expected to be record high voter turnout.  This could be extremely important, given the fact that Ahmadinejahd has strong support in the rural areas and Mousavi has mobilized urban voters.  The election could boil down to which demographic group shows up to the polls.

Foreign Policy has a photoessay covering the recent campaigning.  I find it interesting that so many of the photos feature women.  I wonder if this is representative of the campaigners: are women actually the majority of the crowd?  Or is this just because foreign journalists are fascinated by the idea that veiled women are politically active?

Global Voices Online has some great election coverage, including a piece on Iranian bloggers’ reactions to the televised debate between Ahamadinejahd and Mousavi.

Finally, and most importantly, Foreign Policy is already reporting that more than 70% of eligible Iranian’s voted and that some are already declaring Mousavi the winner.  We’ll have to wait to for the officical results, but what some have been calling the “Green Revolution” may have prevailed.

YELL FIRE! Dozens of Indigenous Protestors Killed Over US Free Trade Agreement

As many as 100 of indigenous protestors were killed early Friday morning in the northern Peruvian province of Bagua, as 600 Peruvian riot police were ordered to disrupt a peaceful road blockade launched in April as a part of a national protest against a new series of laws that would allow an unprecedented wave of logging, oil drilling, mining and mono-crop agriculture in the Amazonian jungle.

Police fired live ammunition and teargas into the crowd armed with indigenous spears.  Peruvian authorities report 22 police were killed and 2 missing, while the indigenous community says at least 40 people, including 2 children were killed.  If you think the numbers don’t add up, you’re right.  Police have been accused of burning indigenous bodies, throwing them in the river and removing wounded from the hospital in order to hide the real number of casualties.

A state of emergency has been declared in the region, a military curfew imposed, and police continue to patrol Amazonian towns.

I am reminded of an interview I had last month with rebel rocker and peace activist, Michael Franti. “Now is the time when we need to stand up and yell fire,” Franti said.  “If ever there was a time that we need to say something is happening, let’s deal with it, it’s now.”

BRIC House: Putin Edition

This week, Vladimir Putin was generous enough to provide me with a wealth of blog fodder in an interview with Japanese media (linked below).

Putin addressed two issues of major concern to U.S. foreign policy (before going on to suggest that he might have to become president again): the North Korean nuclear standoff and the European Missile defense shield.

North Korean Nuclear Standoff

Recently, North Korea conducted another missile test, launching a “satellite” into space via ballistic missile (with the quotes questioning both the existence of the satellite and the intent of it should it exist).  The nation, which has abandoned the six-party talks regarding its nuclear ambitions, is now planning yet another test (according to South Korea).

These tests violate UN mandates that bar North Korea from ballistic missile activity, and as such have received rebuke from the international community.  In response, Pyongyang threatens more missile tests, unless the UN will apologize for their rebuke of the initial missile test.  Round and round we go…

Putin has weighed in on the issue, declaring that everyone needs to calm down and return to the table so that we can work it out.  Coincidentally, this rosy position is shared with the U.S. administration.

The international community is right to try to bring North Korea back to the table.  Just as no one seems to consider the alternative, which would bring about a difference of opinion between the U.S., Russia, and China on necessary responses, it is also a slight blow to the legitimacy of the UN when its members continue to allow UN resolutions to be ignored.

The U.S. and the rest of the UN parties take a slightly harder-line approach, and intend to impose further sanctions on North Korea if it continues to stay away from the negotiating table while flouting international regulations.

European Missile Defense Shield

At the same time, Putin has presented the Obama administration with an “out” regarding the missile shield in Poland: make a new deal on nuclear proliferation, and we will allow the shield.

This, of course, makes sense for Russia, as it benefits from having the U.S. limit nuclear defense spending because Russia could not keep up.

But such a plan is also consistent with the ethos of the Obama administration, where a nuclear arms deal is seen as a positive step toward Russian reconciliation and long-term stability.

It seems that this change in policy could be a great opportunity for the administration, and do a lot to bring about the positive change in the temperament and attitude in foreign relations that Obama has pledged to provide in the long run.

*****

If you are interested in the entire interview, it is available here: