No Justice for Russian Journalists

It was a quintessentially cold night in Moscow when Anna Politkovskaya arrived back at her flat with her shopping on October 7, 2006. As she took the elevator down for the last bag of groceries, she was confronted by a gunman who shot her twice in the chest and once in the head. She died instantly. Ms. Politkovskaya’s murder sparked worldwide outrage because she was a prominent journalist and an outspoken critic of Vladmir Putin, the Russian government and its polices in Chechynya. Her death has come to personify the long, lamentable list of journalists killed in Russia, whose murders remain unsolved.

It is estimated that over 300 journalists have died or disappeared in Russia since 1993 as a result of their work.  This figure is all the more shocking when we consider that the impune murder of journalists is acknowledged as a sign that a country does not observe the fundamental right to freedom of speech and is the reason that Russia is ranked by the CPJ (Committee to Protect Journalists) as the third-deadliest country in the world for journalists. Despite the fact that current Russian President Dimitri Medvedev came to power last year promising to end the legal nihilism that peremeates the country’s judicial system, the Russian government’s unwillingness to prosecute many of the cases has persisted. While justice lags, the murders continue unabated, as demonstrated by the murder this year of Stanislav Markelov, and Natalia Estemriova.

The international community has reacted in typically futile fashion. The EU keeps its mouth closed for fear that Russian criticism will adversely affect its gas supply, something Ukraine experienced last winter. Meanwhile, the Obama adminstration is eager to reset relations with Russia and is therefore reluctant to make demands, given that it needs Russia’s cooperation on Iran and nuclear proliferation. On a trip to Russia last month, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton was pushed by Russian journalists to make a statement on the Russian Government’s refusal to comprehensively investigate the murders of their colleagues. Clinton responded by commenting that the situation “is a matter of grave concern”.

Yet it is clear that merely paying lip service to human rights groups will not be enough to end this wanton wave of violence. It is high time that the U.S. and the E.U. pressurized Russia into taking action on this matter. Medvedev, Putin and co. must realize that while they may not be pulling the trigger, they are ultimately responsible for the failures of the justice system. Although the days of Gulags and communist repression are long gone in Russia, blood remains on the hands of those in the Kremlin.

Michael Collins, November 2009

michael.mc.collins@gmail.com

---

The Netroots: Post- “Greatest Election Ever!”

By Patrick McDermott, Legislative Aide (PA Senate) and Activist

Twitter: twitter.com/pdmcdermott

Facebook: facebook.com/pdmcdermott

First things first: my greetings to you, fellow AIDemocracy Bloggers and readers!

Although this is my first time writing for The World InSight, I am not entirely unfamiliar to AIDemocracy. I was an intern for the Peace and Security Program a little over a year ago and look back with fondness on that experience. When I began looking for a way to get back involved in the advocacy/organizing field, because of that positive experience I had with AIDemocracy, I contacted them. As luck would have it, Netroots Nation* was coming up, and with it, my opportunity to get back into the foray of  building awareness and advocacy efforts around issues of global importance. And it couldn’t have come at a better time.

After the election of President Obama, there was obviously a sense of euphoria and satisfaction knowing that the countless hours and unyielding resolve that went into electing him to the highest office in the land were not in vain. And although there is still much hope and optimism about what can and should be done, it is now infected with a sense of timidity and cautiousness. Part of the blame is certainly owed to the “townhallers” and their provocateurs (i.e. right-wing media) and financiers who will stop at nothing to ensure the status quo remains in place, for whatever reason. However, the Netroots were quick to point out that part of the blame lay at the President’s feet as well.

“Africa’s future is up to Africans”

Somewhat unexpectedly for many Africans, America’s first African American president offered the continent rather tough love in his first official visit. Amidst the usual political fluff, President Obama’s recent speech, delivered in Ghana this Saturday, contained some very pointed comments, including a controversial assertion that the time to blame colonization and Western exploitation for Africa’s problems has ended.

While the development crisis in Africa can be difficult to talk about in the United States, no matter how well-informed, traveled, or racially-sensitive one might be, President Obama leveraged his African background to tell Africans point-blank that their problems stem from weak government structures, traditions of corruption and nepotism, and the people’s failure to insist upon accountability. Though I personally feel that colonial policies and institutions have plenty to do with modern African instability, corruption, and ethnic conflict, I’m pleased to hear Obama demanding more of Africans—especially young Africans. Such demands from John McCain or Hillary Clinton could not have held the same weight.

Obama’s controversial statements have, somewhat predictably, inspired bickering and finger-pointing on countless internet forums. I can’t help but feel that something has been lost amid these arguments. In all likelihood, Obama is more acutely aware of the historical injustices Africa has suffered than any of his predecessors. His speech in Accra was not meant to deny these, but to signal that the time has come for Africa to move forward. Unending arguments about historical responsibility aside, Africa and the West should be able to agree on one point: African development solutions must come from Africans from here on out.

As I learned while living in Kenya last year, African artists, entrepreneurs, and civil society organizations are ready for that responsibility. The question then becomes, “How do we empower these solutions?”

U.S. has great potential in new Muslim community envoy

              The United States has taken a big step in U.S.-Muslim relations… we hope.  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed the very first State Department envoy to Muslim communities—Farah Pandith. [1]   This follows President Obama’s promising speech in Cairo, Egypt which was lauded by Muslims, Europeans, and many Americans. People continue to have high hopes in this administration’s dedication to reach out to the naitonal and worldwide Muslim communities. 

For what it’s worth, the following is my wish list for Ms. Pandith; I hope she does not let this awesome opportunity slip away.  She could do an outstanding job by doing this and more:

To meddle or not to meddle…

Americans are having trouble believing it—their president is not making regrettable statements about the Iranian election.  Millions of facebook networkers, twitter users, and bloggers responded to what was immediately called an unfair election and its brutal aftermath.  Politicians and political junkies on both sides of the aisle chastised the great Obama for not taking a stand on the contested outcome and sequential outcome.  President Obama responded appropriately and thoughtfully.

As a huge Obama fan, I’m unapt to begin criticizing our President without all the facts.  He has responsibilities to his own people, to those who came before him, to the Iranian people, to the world’s people.  Completely isolating and insulting either Mahmud Ahmadinejad or his challengers could prove disastrous later in international affairs.  Illegitimating the unfavorable outcome of the election in Iran, a nation that had so hoped for a fair election, did not really feel right, especially while we were all still a little high on HOPE.  The appalled president condemned the actions of the Iranian government in a timely manner, but did not take the stand that so many Americans still thought was necessary

He still walks a “tightrope,” as CNN called it.[1] Jon Stewart joked that America can’t win and that seems to be true… or at least, Obama can’t win.  He was criticized by almost everyone when he didn’t say much and then was called a meddler and compared to President George W. Bush when he called for the violence to stop.  America got in trouble for meddling in 1953 and again in 1979, and now that we’re not meddling, suddenly we’re not doing enough.

I thought I was crazy or ignorant for being proud that Obama was taking the time to mull things over and react wisely.  My qualms were soothed after attending the June 22 New America Foundation forum on the Iran Election.  Most of the expert panel agreed that Obama was for the most part, doing the right thing:

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.”

Obama Administration Makes Iran A Priority

The past ten days or so have been a busy period for news on the future of US-Iranian relations.  Here’s a brief summary of what’s been happening:

The New York Times reported on March 2nd that President Obama has sent a letter to Russian President Dimitry Medvedev.  This letter offered the possibility of an exchange: in return for Russia’s help in pressuring Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, the United States will not continue to pursue its missile defense system in Eastern Europe.  American officials have since clarified that this letter was not offering a deal as much as it was explaining that the U.S.’s need for missile defense would be decreased by a diminished chance of a nuclear Iran.

The letter was a subject of discussion in Secretary of State Clinton’s meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on Friday, March 6th.  Russian officials are apparently open to cooperation and some have even suggested that Russia’s delayed delivery of the long-range S-300 missiles that it has sold to Iran are a gesture of goodwill toward the Obama administration.

Secretary of State Clinton has also recently suggested that Iranian officials will be invited to a conference on Afghanistan that will be taking place at the end of this month.  This would be the first face-to-face meeting of American and Iranian officials since Obama’s election.  Iran has not yet stated whether or not it will be attending the United States and Iran share many common interests in Afghanistan and there is hope that these common interests could be the starting point for a constructive dialogue.

Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan has also offered to work to ease the tension between the U.S. and Iran.  Babacan met with Secretary Clinton on Saturday, March 7th and will be attending an Economic Cooperation Organization meeting in Tehran later this week.  Turkey will not be acting as a mediator, as it recently did for Israel and Syria, but will rather be working to promote a “better understanding” between the two countries, according to Babacan.

The Obama administration has also finally announced the appointment of Dennis Ross as “Special Advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia”, a position that will include advising on dealings with Iran.  Many, myself included, have expressed varying degrees of doubt about whether or not Ross is the right person for the job.  Omid Memarian of the Huffington Post, however, has an interesting take in the appointment.  He notes, “Clearly, the appointment of Dennis Ross has more of a domestic consumption for the administration than an actual affect on what Obama’s approach towards Iran” and observes that two other officials, William Burns and Lee Hamilton, will likely play roles any Iran policy.

The Obama administration is clearly making relations with Iran one of its top priorities.  Those hoping for a Nixon-China-style détente will probably be disappointed, but it is encouraging to see that the administration is using a variety of diplomatic methods to tackle this important issue.

Opening Dialogue with Iran-A Citizen’s Account

The current rift between the US and Iran is argued to be based on false perceptions and speculated intentions of the other.  For the last four years, the Iranian government has chosen to pursue uranium enrichment without international inspectors overseeing its production and ensuring that it is for peaceful purposes of producing energy.  The reason for the Iranian government to refuse the IAEA to enter its nuclear facilities is where the speculation begins and political inferences and agendas are crafted.  Clearly, communication is the first step to clear the air of speculation and reconcile this highly politicized and vulnerable schism, but who will actually do something about it?

US President Barack Obama has already taken the first steps of extending an olive branch to the country very strategic for US interests.  Both on Obama’s first television interview and at Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s first meeting last week on the matter with the world’s major powers, the Administration made it clear that there is a shift in US policy to Iran.  Obama is willing to directly speak with Iranian officials to find a resolution to the tumultuous relationship that has escalated since 2005.

In the US, peace organizations and activists are holding Obama under the limelight to ensure he follows through with the promises of his campaign.  Not only are activists pressuring government officials and legislators to be true to their word, they have even taken the matter in their own hands and have sent several peaceful delegations to Iran to meet with Iranian citizens there.  These delegations aim to promote citizen diplomacy and build bridges over the lack of communication that have plagued the two governments for the last few years.  As a country that largely expressed its support for the victims and their families of September 11th, Iranians’ sense of humanity is remarkable despite differences between their government and foreign governments.  Acknowledging their vast amount of similarities and empathy for the American community is a first step to reconciling a relationship for which each country has been starving.

The Iranian government, specifically President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made many similar public statements of wanting to open dialogue and build this bridge of peace.  Without the pressures of being recorded, broadcasted, and having public demonstrations against his policies, I attended a meeting with Ahmadinejad last September where he repeated his sentiment for the need for open dialogue.  When we brought up the issue of permitting more Americans to visit Iran, he even concurred and pressed the Iranian officials present to address that issue.  This was a bold and reassuring step in my mind that he was willing to be proactive about the situation but I was also not going to hold my breath.

Thank God I didn’t.

I originally had plans to be on one of the citizen diplomacy delegations to Iran this past August 2008.  Unfortunately, the entire delegation’s visas were denied, which is one main reason why we confronted him with this issue in September.  I was rescheduled to go on a similar delegation this month but, alas, had my visa denied again.  I was a bit worried about this happening since not only was a US women’s badminton team had their visas denied a couple of weeks ago after being invited by Iran but also because a British organization that promote cultural and education ties have also been under scrutiny lately.  These events are contradictory to Ahmadinejad’s statements.  I can only speculate as to why the Iranian government has chosen to tighten down on foreign visas into Iran, but I am sure that it is the wrong direction for Ahmadinejad.  Barring communication and interactions between the two countries will prolong a unnerving relationship already on the rocks with false perceptions and speculations.  I can only ask for Ahmadinejad to uphold his convictions he convincingly portrayed five months ago and open the Iranian borders for others to witness the beauty of Iran and its people…the lasting effects will be priceless.

U.S. to Launch Comparative Effectiveness Research with Stimulus

On Tuesday, Barack Obama is expected to sign into law the $787 billion economic stimulus package in Colorado according to this AP press release. With this action, the bill will bring many new spending initiatives along with the tax breaks negotiated during the House and Senate conference sessions. As expected, health care in the U.S. will receive a hopeful boost from this economic stimulus package.

A couple important areas that will receive this new source of funding include $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and $1.1 billion for comparative medical studies research. The New York Times details well the process of how Senator Arlen Spector, a survivor of cancer twice and open-heart surgery, secured NIH such a boost in funding in an article. However, what I would like to focus more on is the second funding initiative as described in the NYTimes. One prevalent issue in health care today is the debate over whether wide-scale research studies should be conducted to test whether a drug, surgery, medical device, or other strategy work to cure a specific sickness better.

To answer this longstanding question, the bill will create a “council of up to 15 federal employees to coordinate the research and to advise President Obama and Congress on how to spend the money.” Charged with administering and evaluating the usage of the newly appropriated $1.1 billion, this group will oversee a research process that will primarily address two issues. First, the study will answer many of the long-standing questions that doctors have over the value of certain treatment courses, medications, procedures, etc. Second, it will attempt to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these procedures in regards to their success rates. The hope is to not only provide better treatment to patients, but to do so at a reduced cost by eliminating extraneous treatments. In the U.S., we currently spend over $2 trillion per year, accounting for 16% of the national GDP. With this money to be distributed over the years, government officials hope to answer many of these complex questions.

However, with the new-found money and vast opportunities for comparative effectiveness research comes many concerns about its results. First, the Congressional Black Caucus expressed their reservations with the program because it will, “‘be based on broad population averages that ignore the differences between patients.’” This was supported by some leaders have expressed reservations that the studies will overlook differences in how drugs and treatment affect a patient, especially because they do not include enough women, blacks, or Hispanics. Congress did put in language to try to include women and minority groups, but the aforementioned leaders remain skeptical. Secondly, many legislators and professionals feel that this will represent an intrusion of the patient-doctor relationship by the government. They believe the government, with the results of these studies, will set mandates and treatment protocol that will intrude on personal health care choices. The results of this new research initiative will remain to be seen, as it has been met with mixed opinions when tried in Europe.

Afghanistan: The Good War?

News coverage of Afghanistan has skyrocketed over the past few weeks. Reporters everywhere from CNN to PBS have regularly invited policy analysts to offer their opinions on the best strategies for Afghanistan.

Throughout his campaign, President Obama repeatedly articulated his desire to proverbially “win” the war in this country. Last July, he wrote an op-ed calling for withdrawal of troops from Iraq and a more fortified military presence in this South Asian nation:

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more non-military assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Many analysts argue the United States has lost much credibility in Afghanistan after air assaults left legions of Afghani citizens dead.  In an interview with Robert Frost on Al Jazeera, President Hamid Karzai reiterated this sentiment, citing haphazard night raids into Afghan homes and other military mishaps as reasons for mistrust of the American military.

Some  argue that President Obama’s current policy proposal to implement a surge of troops in Afghanistan would essentially be an extension of Bush administration policies. The New York Times reports that the proposed 30,000 troop increase would still leave troop levels at 200,000-400,000 less than in Iraq during the troop surge.

So, is military intervention an appropriate solution? Should President Obama embark on a military strategy that foreign policy experts allege may be inherently flawed? Should we implement a troop surge to mimic the Iraq model? If we’re not careful, this inherited war could easily become the “Iraq” of the Obama presidency.

As many Americans grow weary of continued investment in failed enterprises abroad, this may be exactly what we need to “win” Afghanistan. Yet, US government aid and development policies crucial to any success in the country have been woefully inefficient at best, and avariciously conducted at worst.

Andrew Bacevich, an international relations professor at Boston University, stated in the New York Times:

My understanding of the larger objective of the allied enterprise in Afghanistan is to bring into existence something that looks like a modern cohesive Afghan state. Well, it could be that that’s an unrealistic objective. It could be that sending 30,000 more troops is throwing money and lives down a rat hole.

What exactly does Bacevich mean by “rat hole”? Phillip Hilts, former New York Times health and science correspondent and author of the 2005 book, “Rx for Survival,” addresses the myth of the “rat hole.” Arguing against commentators who assert the need for “trade not aid,” Hilts claims that smart aid. such as investment in human capital and private domestic businesses, produce more results than hierarchical, wasteful corporate projects. Hilts argues that smart aid is what has propelled the development of East Asian countries.

In other words, post-conflict reconstruction in Afghanistan has failed primarily because of inherent flaws in funding allocation. Oxfam reports that much of USAID funding to Aghanistan has been funneled through US private contractors, who develop projects at sky-high, easily avoidable costs. Astoundingly, nearly half of USAID funds are allocated to private companies; much of this money is later lost in the quagmire of corporate profits.

This set-up represents both the inefficiency of US strategy to develop Afghanistan, as well as the utter lack of outreach to involve Afghanis in the process of nation-building. Should the United States wish for a sustainable, lasting peace in the region, many more localized and entrepreneurial development projects must be undertaken.

As we have all heard before, Afghanistan is at a crossroads right now. Facing a mounting humanitarian disaster, food shortages, deaths from inadequate heating, and a rapidly deteriorating security situation, the country is on the brink of collapse. Should the United States wish to alter Afghanistan’s future, current policies must be re-evaluated. The United States must recognize that any lasting peace in the country will only be achieved through collaboration with the Afghani people. A blind shipment of troops and extension of Bush-esque aid paradigms will only damage the country’s already tenuous security crisis.