When Barack Obama delivered his policy-defining speech in Cairo last summer, the biggest cheer from the partisan crowd came when the American President stated that “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.” Five months on and the cheers have turned to chagrin as the U.S. administration capitulates to Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to freeze settlement building whilst rubbing salt into Palestinian wounds through Hilary Clinton’s comments last week where she praised Netanyahu’s obduracy, sycophantically stating that “What the Prime Minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements . . . is unprecedented.”

If by acquiescing to the Israeli government’s position Obama felt he could kick-start the peace process, then he is demonstrating the type of naivety that his critics so often accuse him of. The Obama administration had previously stated that peace talks would not take place until Israel froze the construction of settlements beyond the 1967 border. Yet Netanyahu and his colleagues have behaved contemptuously since taking office: Israel plans to double settler numbers in the West Bank, its ever-fulminating foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman has repudiated the 2007 Annapolis agreement that promoted a two-state solution, and Netanyahu has refused to include the creation of a Palestinian state in guidelines for peace talks.

While the Israeli government road-blocks the road map to peace and the U.S. watches on, Palestinians feel a mixture of anger and apathy. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’s announcement this week that he would stand down in January was another indicator that many Palestinians have already lost faith in the Obama administration’s peace credentials. Nabil Abu Rudeinah, a spokesman for Mr. Abbas, summed up the feelings of many by saying, “The negotiations are in a state of paralysis, and the result of Israel’s intransigence and America’s back-pedaling is that there is no hope of negotiations on the horizon.”

The new administration must show the world that Obama is not merely a talented orator with empty rhetoric. Israel’s refusal to freeze settlement construction is not simply a slap in the face for Palestinians; it is also a brazen attempt to undermine the U.S.’s role as peacemaker in the region. In 1991, George H.W. Bush withheld US$10bn in loan guarantees to Israel until it froze settlement construction. President Obama may not want to replicate many moves from the Bush playbook, but this should be the exception to that rule. Doing something of this nature will pour cold water on the incendiary “too late for two states” discourse which has begun to permeate Israeli politics and signal that he is ready to act on his Middle Eastern promise. It is time for the winner of the Nobel peace prize to live up to his title.

Michael Collins, November 2009

michael.mc.collins@gmail.com

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

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.

Healthcare reform was obviously the hot topic at the conference. Discussion focused on the current proposed legislation, why the opposition seems to be gaining ground in the debate, and how the progressive Netroots can take back the message and the debate surrounding healthcare reform. It seemed that the majority of the attendees agree that fighting for a strong public option is the best way to go, with some notable exceptions such as advocates for a single-payer plan (which I personally favor). However, I think Howard Dean best summarized why the progressive netroots need to back a strong public option and fight like hell to get it–the time for compromise is over because the public option IS the compromise! This statement received resounding applause from attendees, and I can guess why. Obama is giving too much ground. And that sentiment is growing beyond the health care debate. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and the continuation of indefinite detention policies were the other most often cited examples of progressive dissatisfaction with Obama thus far.

I can understand and even agree with this dissatisfaction to a certain extent. The issues that we face as a nation, and as a global populace, are daunting and critically important if we wish to move positively into the future. Issues that AID tries to address on a daily basis – global warming, reproductive health, disease prevention and treatment, resource management, sustainable and ethical economic development, and peacemaking/conflict resolution – often require dramatic policy shifts, which usually come about after a shift in perspective; and that is no easy thing to accomplish.

Fundamental changes in political thinking and public policy do not often happen overnight absent some dramatic or traumatic event. A political reality such as this requires an incrementalist approach if any movement is to be made on these issues of global and domestic importance, which is why I can only agree with progressives’ dissatisfaction to a point. With people’s lives hanging in the balance, such sternness is certainly called for. Yet it needs to be counterbalanced with the recognition that progress is progress.

I believe the Netroots Nation, with some exceptions, are at least cognizant of this difference in change-seeking methodologies. Additionally, the community of bloggers is becoming aware quite quickly of the difference between campaigning for change and legislating for change. However, I would say that these two goals do share a characteristic that will determine the success of creating change, just as it did in determining the success of a campaign, the people, and their desire for something better. It is the public that creates the political will for change to be realized, just as it is the people who campaign and support a particular candidate for office who get someone elected, as was true for Barack Obama. Therefore, if progressives truly want their dissatisfaction to be assuaged, then they need not look beyond their own communities (and computers in this instance) to discover the cure for their current ailment.

In other words, if I had to sum up my experience of Netroots Nation and provide a direction in which to go from here, it would be this: it is up to all of us to create the change we seek…so get typing!

*Netroots Nation used to be the Yearly Kos (founded by the Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas), an annual convention for progressive bloggers to come together and discuss/strategize for a progressive agenda for the coming year. The conference has grown at an impressive rate since its inception and for its fourth year, the organizers decided to hold the conference in Pittsburgh, which coincidentally is also the city where the G20 will be held in less than a month.

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?”

Like many politicians before him, President Obama lamented the failure of decades of foreign aid to improve living conditions or fuel sustainable development in Africa. In an interview with AllAfrica.com, just before his departure to Ghana, Obama described U.S. foreign assistance policy as fragmented and unfocused: “Our aid policies have been splintered among a variety of agencies, different theories embraced by different people depending on which administration, which party, is in power at any given time. Trying to create something steady and focused—and always basing our policies on what works and not on some ideological previous position—is going to be very important.”

Whether these statements will translate into concrete foreign assistance policy reform has yet to be seen. The President, now six months into his administration, has offered up few concrete plans for reform and is yet to name a top USAID administrator.

“Aid is not an end in itself,” Obama said on Saturday. “The purpose of foreign assistance should be to create the conditions where it’s no longer needed.” Healthcare infrastructure, education, support for small- and medium-sized businesses and technical assistance for farmers and workers are all examples of investments long-term sustainable growth. Slowing the brain drain on African medical staff, empowering people through worker-owned cooperatives, increasing aid for climate change adaptation, and allowing room for regional political and economic structures to develop are a few more. Though with little more than rhetoric coming from the administration, whether or not these initiatives actually emerge in the form of concrete U.S. policies is largely up to us and the pressure we put on our legislators to write them.

Obama has proposed a system of mutual responsibility in Africa’s development efforts, promising America’s continued assistance if Africans hold their leaders accountable and create a positive investment environment for US aid funds. But there’s much to be done on our own end, as well, in terms of figuring out what types of assistance are effective in supporting Africans to meet their own development objectives and what other policies we might have at play (ie. trade) that might adversely affect this development process.

In today’s hyper-connected world, issues of health, peace, and development in the developing world should be at the forefront of US policy discussions. As Obama puts it: “The 21st century will be shaped by what happens not just in Rome or Moscow or Washington, but by what happens in Accra as well.” Perhaps it’s time we started paying closer attention to the intricacies of our relationships with the developing world.

Watch the speech and read Obama’s interview with AllAfrica.com.

              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:

1. I encourage Ms. Pandith and the rest of the State Department to engage American youth in outreach.  The State Department does some great work involving students, so this shouldn’t be a problem.  She has a unique opportunity to create dialogue and understanding between American youth and Muslim youth, especially between Muslim-American youth and their foreign peers.  True change will occur when communities are interacting, not just governments.  In a recent special press briefing by Ms. Pandith, a reporter expressed concern that the heart of the problem lies with American foreign policy.[2]  Ms. Pandith seemed confident saying that Muslim youth are more eager to think about their interaction with the United States and within their communities.  I hope that she and the rest of the State Department recognize that many of these students are likely eager to interact with American youth, and vice versa.  Interacting with the U.S. government is enchanting and exploring sustainable futures for Muslim students is essential but lasting relationships between communities end prejudices, reflect positively on foreign policy, and raise awareness of any existing problem.

2. I hope that Ms. Pandith uses a lot of local art and music in her attempts at communication with Muslim communities.  She has stated that she plans to use the town hall model and the round table discussion model for dialogue, but I hope she realizes that these events attract a unique elite who probably already have much communication with the U.S. in the first place.  Using music and art as tools and demonstrating the accessibility of American music can jump start conversation and enthusiasm. 

3. Ms. Pandith and the State Department should broach difficult topics, like increasing tension between Muslim immigrants and their adopted home countries in Europe.  Judging from her statements, it is safe to assume that she already realizes the numerous controversial issues she will have to address.  She should not shy away from things that might upset one party or another.  She should let talks be dictated by what is important to the people she is talking with and by those who are entrusting her to do the talking.  We have the potential to learn a lot here, so let’s make it meaningful.

4. Finally, she should be open and honest with the press.  Hiding the Department’s concerns only makes her work seem less hopeful and less encouraging.  She should advise the press on strategies she plans to pursue.  Involving the media in her missions demonstrates the best of what is achievable through open communication with the Muslims.  Press briefings are awkward and, at times, downright unfortunate, but she would really strive to make the most of her work in front of the press.  Avoiding questions creates more doubts and concerns.  As our special messenger to Muslims around the world, she has the opportunity to show Americans that while there are problems, misconceptions, and maybe some hard feelings, there is also a lot of hope that these issues can be dealt with reasonably and easily.  Involving the press opens up communication to the people.

Ms. Pandith has the good fortune to educate a great many Americans on Muslim communities.  She has a chance to do great work similar to AIDemocracy’s mission.  This administration holds a lot of promise, hopefully it will continue to live up to the hope it inspired.

[2] Special Briefing by Farah Pandith, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/july/125561.htm, 1 July 2009

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:

Panelist Nader Mousavizadeh, whose story in The Washington Post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html, proposed option “Ignore Ahmadinejad,” in which he advises President Obama to acknowledge Iranian’s democratic aspirations but to largely ignore the words and actions of President Ahmadinejad.  The Iranian people wanted hope and democratic change, and they received quite the opposite.  He said that Iran has changed, citing Mir Hossein Mousavi ignoring the Supreme Leader’s ruling, and the world view of Iran has changed; America’s diplomacy with Iran cannot remain the same.

Expert panelist and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, Ken Ballen, focused more on poll numbers but gave valuable insight into the opinions of the Iranian people.  In his CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/ballen.iranian.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch), poll numbers indicated that a great majority of Iranians want more democracy and freedom.  Those who voted for President Ahmadinejad (most likely a majority, he says) and those who are not protesting wanted a free election.  The government’s actions only serve to isolate more than a majority of the people by completely denying free press and freedoms which should be guaranteed.  He served an important role on the panel, reminding us all that underneath the contested election, the genuinely open-minded Iranians want freedom.  As far as recommendations for America’s new direction, he advised that the Islamic republic of Iran may soon be unraveling with the younger generation holding different values.

Self-proclaimed realist Flynt Leverett seemed to be one of the most controversial on the panel, having written a Politico column with his wife, entitled, “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html).  He writes with great conviction that Ahmadinejad won and that the Obama administration should engage the existing administration.  He also argued that Iran will not undergo system change nor collapse, a point that he pushed even further in another article “Will Iran be Obama’s Iraq?,” released after the forum, almost directly contradicted Ken Ballen.  Leverett seemed convinced that the “Iran experts,” as well as Mousavi, rushed to declare the election a fraud, without looking at actual public opinion in Iran.  He told the forum attendees that he was writing to an American audience who must accept Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic as legitimate.  Punishing Iran is not the answer.

Panelist Steve Clemons disagreed with Leverett on his quick dismissal of the election protests , but did agree that Iran is not a U.S.-like democracy and should not be treated as such.  He pointed out that the U.S. has a strong history of dealing with dislikable leaders.  President Obama, he agreed, has done a fine job so far and he encouraged the U.S. to “let it play out.”

The final panelist Afshin Molavi speculated that Iran would need a reconciliation period, of sorts.  President Ahmadinejad, and others, he said, had crossed the line by insulting important players of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Meanwhile, other elites had crossed a line by disobeying the Supreme Leader.  Despite actions of Mousavi and some protesters, Molavi emphasized the power of Supreme Leader Khamenei and the importance of engaging Iran.  Like the other panelists, he thought that the White House should direct efforts toward the Iranian people, for the time being.

While many of us take issue with President Ahmadinejad and his government’s recent actions, it is frankly not up to Americans to decide who runs Iran.  We can take a stand against human rights violations, like we have, but we cannot ordain a new leader.  At a June 23^rd White House Press Conference, President Obama boldly stated that “the Iranian people can speak for themselves.”[2] New America Foundation panelists, U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, even President Obama cannot speak for them.  The question remains: what do we say now and who will we be talking to?

[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/

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:

Panelist Nader Mousavizadeh, whose story in The Washington Post can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/17/AR2009061702800.html, proposed option “Ignore Ahmadinejad,” in which he advises President Obama to acknowledge Iranian’s democratic aspirations but to largely ignore the words and actions of President Ahmadinejad.  The Iranian people wanted hope and democratic change, and they received quite the opposite.  He said that Iran has changed, citing Mir-Hossein Mousavi ignoring the Supreme Leader’s ruling, and the world view of Iran has changed; America’s diplomacy with Iran cannot remain the same.

Expert panelist and president of Terror Free Tomorrow, Ken Ballen, focused more on poll numbers but gave valuable insight into the opinions of the Iranian people.  In his CNN article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/16/ballen.iranian.democracy/index.html?iref=newssearch), poll numbers indicated that a great majority of Iranians want more democracy and freedom.  Those who voted for President Ahmadinejad (most likely a majority, he says) and those who are not protesting wanted a free election.  The government’s actions only serve to isolate more than a majority of the people by completely denying free press and freedoms which should be guaranteed.  He served an important role on the panel, reminding U.S. all that underneath the contested election, the genuinely open-minded Iranians want freedom.  As far as recommendations for America’s new direction, he advised that the Islamic republic of Iran may soon be unraveling as the disparity between the government and its people grows larger.

Self-proclaimed realist Flynt Leverett seemed to be one of the most controversial on the panel, having written a Politico column with his wife, entitled, “Ahmadinejad won. Get over it” (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23745.html).  He writes with great conviction that Ahmadinejad won and that the Obama administration should engage the existing administration.  He also argued that Iran will not undergo system change nor collapse, a point that he pushed even further in another article “Will Iran be Obama’s Iraq,” released after the forum, almost directly contradicted Ken Ballen.  Leverett seemed convinced that the “Iran experts,” as well as Mousavi, rushed to declare the election a fraud, without looking at actual public opinion in Iran.  He told the forum attendees that he was writing to an American audience who must accept Ahmadinejad and the Islamic Republic as legitimate.  Punishing Iran is not the answer.

Panelist Steve Clemons disagreed with Leverett on his quick dismissal of the election protests , but did agree that Iran is not a U.S.-like democracy and should not be treated as such.  He pointed out that the U.S. has a strong history of dealing with dislikable leaders.  President Obama, he agreed, has done a fine job so far and he encouraged the U.S. to “let it play out.”

The final panelist Afshin Molavi speculated that Iran would need a reconciliation period, of sorts.  President Ahmadinejad, and others, he said, had crossed the line by insulting important players of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.  Meanwhile, other elites had crossed a line by disobeying the Supreme Leader.  Despite actions of Mousavi and some protesters, Molavi emphasized the power of Supreme Leader Khamenei and the importance of engaging Iran.  Like the other panelists, he thought that the White House should direct efforts toward the Iranian people, for the time being.

While many of us take issue with President Ahmadinejad and his government’s recent actions, it is frankly not up to Americans to decide who runs Iran.  We can take a stand against human rights violations, like we have, but we cannot ordain a new leader.  At a June 23^rd White House Press Conference, President Obama boldly stated that “the Iranian people can speak for themselves.”[2] New America Foundation panelists, U.S. Congressmen and Congresswomen, not even President Obama can speak for Iranians, who have, in fact, done a remarkable job speaking for themselves.  The question remains: what do we say now and who will we be talking to?

[2] http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/The-Presidents-Opening-Remarks-on-Iran-with-Persian-Translation/

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.”

For 56 days, nearly 2,500 indigenous people have blocked roads, waterways and oil pipelines in opposition to new laws being fast tracked by Peruvian president Alan Garcia to facilitate the implementation of the US-Peru Free Trade Agreement, which came into effect February 1st of this year.  The Peruvian congress refuses to repeal laws, positioning the indigenous as against free trade and development.

Garcia, a free trade advocate, has defended police actions, stating that the nation’s 40,000 indigenous do not have the right to deny 28 million Peruvians the benefit of Amazonian resources.  Garcia has further been quoted as saying that anyone who attempted to impede access to the Amazon would lead Peru into “irrationality and a backward primitive state.”

Never mind the fact that indigenous rights to ancestral land are protected by UN International Labor Organization Convention 169, under which governments are required to take “coordinated and systematic action” to protect the rights of these peoples and to guarantee respect for their integrity.

In Peru, the total opposite is taking place, as indigenous peoples are literally and forcefully being removed from the path of corporate capitalism, so that private investment firms can go about their business without the troublesome task of consulting the communities who’s livelihoods depend on those resources.  Protestors are being portrayed in the national media as savage police killers, terrorists, and a nuisance to national development.

In essence, Alan Garcia and government of Peru are using the US FTA, which then presidential hopeful Barack Obama once held up as a model free trade agreement, to undermine indigenous rights.  Indigenous leader Alberto Pizango of the Peruvian Jungle Inter-Ethnic Development Association (AIDESP) has accused the government of indigenous genocide.  Pizango and other leaders are facing potential arrest on charges of rebellion.

YELL FIRE!

The Confederation of the Eagle and the Condor from Abya Yala North (North America) issued a statement of solidarity against the genocide on Monday:

“We demand accountability from the US Government, President Barack Obama and the US society as a whole for the issue of complicity with the ongoing genocide occurring throughout the Amazon Basin of Abya Yala South […]

We demand an immediate moratorium on all trade agreements hemispherically between the US and the government states of the OAS, until a comprehensive review and report on these compacts be undertaken by the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Peoples […]

Any such trade agreements among the states that do not integrate the recognition, respect and protection for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as referenced by the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples is hereby proclaimed illegitimate in our hemisphere of Abya Yala […]

The paradigm of social economic development driven by capitalist expropriation and exploitation of Indigenous lands and labor has come to an end.  It has died, with the blood of the jungle of the Peruvian Amazon the death certificate has been delivered to the world.  A new, yet ancient, global ecological-economic framework is emerging at great cost, but also with great promise to effectively address the global climate crisis.  The recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples is the first step […]

Now is the time for the realization of Integrity, integrating justice and dignity along with all of our fellow ‘Americans’ of this continent Abya Yala in a new world hemispheric policy of Self Determination and Reciprocity with Respect for the Rights of the Nations of the Indigenous Peoples at a continental level […]

The time has come to not only change but TRANSFORM our collective continental society of the Americas, breaking the chains of centuries of European-American racism and colonization, expropriation and exploitation […]

In pursuit of peace, and in solidarity with our relatives of the Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon of Peru, we deliver this message of conscience and call to justice.”

This week, Peruvian officials will meet with US Trade Representative Ron Kirk in Washington for discussions on the FTA implementation.  Now is the time to send a strong message to our government that we stand with the indigenous people of the Peruvian Amazon and reject the killing and destruction, which current U.S. free trade policies promote worldwide.

YELL FIRE!

What you can do:

1. The Quixote Center is circulating a letter to President Obama asking him to denounce the violence and call on USTR Ron Kirk to respect ILO Convention 169 and ensure that the US-Peru FTA conforms with these laws.
   
2. If you live in the Washington, D.C. area, Witness for Peace is organizing a protest at Peruvian Embassy, 1700 Massachusetts Avenue NW today, Thursday, June 11, at 3:30pm.  For more information, please call 202-403-1752.
3. Inform yourself about US trade policies and fair trade alternatives.  A list of resources with regard to this conflict appear at the end of this post.
4. Raise the issue on your campus and with your Congressional representatives.  Americans for Informed Democracy’s Global Development program is supporting students interested to launch trade-related campaigns in the Fall semester.  You can take up indigenous rights, labor rights, environmental protection, access to medicines, or your campus’ support for fair trade alternatives.  Contact Sarah@aidemocracy.org for more information.

Resources:

Democracy NOW:  http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/8/peruvian_police_accused_of_massacring_indigenous

Latin American Press:  http://www.lapress.org/articles.asp?art=5871

On the ground investigation from Amazon Watch: http://www.amazonwatch.org/

Webpage for the Peruvian Jungle Inter-Ethnic Development Association (AIDESEP):  http://www.aidesep.org.pe/index.php?id=5

An in-depth report from NACLA:  https://nacla.org/node/5879

Blog thoughts from Ben Powless, a Mohawk from Six Nations in Ontario, studying Human Rights, Indigenous and Environmental Studies at Carleton University in Ottawa:  http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/ben-powless/2009/06/peru-battle-lines-drawn-over-amazon

New York Times article, posted by Bilaterals.org:
http://www.bilaterals.org/article.php3?id_article=15312

2007 Press release from Oxfam America, expressing concern over the US-Peru FTA’s potential to deepen poverty:
http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/press_releases/archive2007/trade-deal-with-peru-fails-to-measure-up-for-development

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.

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.

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.