A Swiftly Melting Planet - New York Times
Is it me, or doesn't it seem that, in spite of Al Gore and Co. raising awareness about global warming, we continue to whistle past the graveyard? So the Arctic ice cap is melting faster than anticipated. Not a shock to me. And I've got plenty of friends and relatives who, in a change from 2-3 years ago, now list global warming as an urgent problem we need to address. Then they hop in their SUV or fail to buy more energy efficient light bulbs or appliances. Or to switch the electricity supplier to a green alternative (I'm able to get my electricity through a "green" ConEd option using wind and water power). They drive their kids to school instead of having them take the bus. They refuse to car pool. They pay little or no attention to the presidential candidates' positions on global warming or energy policy.
Time for us to hold ourselves and each other accountable. Time to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. Time to start acting like global warming and our addiction to oil are real problems we need to address now, not just paying lip service to sound like we care.
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Monday, October 01, 2007
Friedman does it again...
9/11 Is Over - New York Times
Tom Friedman continues to be one of the best at seeing the big picture and having some kind of vision. This column calling for a vision for America that looks beyond the 9/11-centric politics of the Bush Administration (which Giuliani seeks to ride to the White House) should be required reading for all the presidential hopefuls.
I have been thirsty my whole life for a politican with real vision. I have never really voted "for" a candidate - I've voted against the opponent. Most politicians don't treat the voters with respect - they play to the lowest common denominator and fear the voters wouldn't really understand or appreciate the real issues and challenges of the day. the one exception, interestingly enough, was Ross Perot, who, in a modern day version of FDR's firside chats, would buy time on network TV to explain the danger of exploding deficits and fiscal irresponsibility to the voters. Perot believed - correctly - that if you treated the voters with respect and didn't talk down to them or play to their worst instincts, they would understand and vote accordingly. As a result, Perot, in spite of his eccentricities, garnered almost 20 % of the vote and his crusade against deficits was adopted by Bill Clinton and Republicans in Congress in 1993. By the end of the 1990s, the budget had been balanced.
We need a politician today who will provide some real "straight talk" to the American public. Someone who will explain, again, why annual deficits and a debt over $9 trillion are irresponsible and limit our ability to deal with current and future challenges and crises and to invest properly for the future. Someone who will make clear the urgency of developing and deploying new energy technologies in the face of global warming and peak oil. Someone who will shine the light on the challenges and opportunities of the "flat" world Friedman wrote about so powerfully, making it clear that if we are to compete in the 21st century we will need to finally redress the inequities in education and provide a real path out of poverty while fixing our health care system. Someone who will help Americans see that foreign policy is more than fighting terrorism and deaing with Bush's failed war in Iraq.
That's a tall order, I know. I'll take someone who can provide a clear and compelling vision on one or two of those issues, I suppose. Oh, and I'd like some charisma, if possible. And character does matter - I'm tired of Presidents who lie about sex with interns and WMDs.
Too much to ask? No! This is the United States of America - a country that aspires to be the greatest on the planet and has only begun to tap into the enormous potential it's incredible citizenry possess. We deserve the best leadership possible. We deserve a candidate we are proud to vote for.
Tom Friedman continues to be one of the best at seeing the big picture and having some kind of vision. This column calling for a vision for America that looks beyond the 9/11-centric politics of the Bush Administration (which Giuliani seeks to ride to the White House) should be required reading for all the presidential hopefuls.
I have been thirsty my whole life for a politican with real vision. I have never really voted "for" a candidate - I've voted against the opponent. Most politicians don't treat the voters with respect - they play to the lowest common denominator and fear the voters wouldn't really understand or appreciate the real issues and challenges of the day. the one exception, interestingly enough, was Ross Perot, who, in a modern day version of FDR's firside chats, would buy time on network TV to explain the danger of exploding deficits and fiscal irresponsibility to the voters. Perot believed - correctly - that if you treated the voters with respect and didn't talk down to them or play to their worst instincts, they would understand and vote accordingly. As a result, Perot, in spite of his eccentricities, garnered almost 20 % of the vote and his crusade against deficits was adopted by Bill Clinton and Republicans in Congress in 1993. By the end of the 1990s, the budget had been balanced.
We need a politician today who will provide some real "straight talk" to the American public. Someone who will explain, again, why annual deficits and a debt over $9 trillion are irresponsible and limit our ability to deal with current and future challenges and crises and to invest properly for the future. Someone who will make clear the urgency of developing and deploying new energy technologies in the face of global warming and peak oil. Someone who will shine the light on the challenges and opportunities of the "flat" world Friedman wrote about so powerfully, making it clear that if we are to compete in the 21st century we will need to finally redress the inequities in education and provide a real path out of poverty while fixing our health care system. Someone who will help Americans see that foreign policy is more than fighting terrorism and deaing with Bush's failed war in Iraq.
That's a tall order, I know. I'll take someone who can provide a clear and compelling vision on one or two of those issues, I suppose. Oh, and I'd like some charisma, if possible. And character does matter - I'm tired of Presidents who lie about sex with interns and WMDs.
Too much to ask? No! This is the United States of America - a country that aspires to be the greatest on the planet and has only begun to tap into the enormous potential it's incredible citizenry possess. We deserve the best leadership possible. We deserve a candidate we are proud to vote for.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Global Warming and Darfur - More of the same...
On Warming, Bush Vows U.S. 'Will Do Its Part' - washingtonpost.com
President Bush's comments this week on global warming - acknowledging that it is a major challenge and caused by "human activities" while resisting any mandatory goals for reducing greenhouse gases - echoes his record on the genocide in Darfur. Bush has been great - at least when compared to former President Clinton's lies in Bosnia - about calling the atrocities in Darfur a genocide. But he's done little to actually live up to our obligations under the Genocide Convention to stop the mass murder, rapes, and expulsions.
Like peak oil - which is on its way - global warming demands immediate and dramatic investments in alternate fuel technologies, improved federal fuel economy standards, tax incentives for consumers and businesses to go "green," and major diplomatic efforts to bring China and India along as well. We all must come to realize that this is a matter of national security and an opportunity. New energy technologies and greater efficiency and conservation will reap major economy and security benefits for the U.S. and any other country that embraces these challenges rather than ignoring them...
President Bush's comments this week on global warming - acknowledging that it is a major challenge and caused by "human activities" while resisting any mandatory goals for reducing greenhouse gases - echoes his record on the genocide in Darfur. Bush has been great - at least when compared to former President Clinton's lies in Bosnia - about calling the atrocities in Darfur a genocide. But he's done little to actually live up to our obligations under the Genocide Convention to stop the mass murder, rapes, and expulsions.
Like peak oil - which is on its way - global warming demands immediate and dramatic investments in alternate fuel technologies, improved federal fuel economy standards, tax incentives for consumers and businesses to go "green," and major diplomatic efforts to bring China and India along as well. We all must come to realize that this is a matter of national security and an opportunity. New energy technologies and greater efficiency and conservation will reap major economy and security benefits for the U.S. and any other country that embraces these challenges rather than ignoring them...
Sox clinch home field!
Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com
Well, it al came together this weekend - finally! After some serious anxiety the past month as th Sox allowed their lead over the Yankees to dwindle, the Sox secured the division and then home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Phew! Now it's on to the dance...
Dice-K appears to have been demoted to the #3 slot in the rotation, with Schilling moving up to #2. In a short series, that's a great 3-man rotation, especially if Dice-K and chill pitch like they did their last outings. And the Angels have been hurting lately - lots of players banged up or coming off injuries. And even JD Drew is on fire! Now that's a good omen! :-)
October baseball in Boston... it has meant so much to me. I went to my first Sox game the last game of the '67 Impossible Dream year - and my dad and grampy went to the home games of the Series - have two of the tickets hanging in my house! The end of the '75 series was the first time I saw my father cry. I was at the Bucky Dent playoff game in '78 - and had been at every game of the horrific September Massacre that led up to that nightmare. The Buckner '86 Series I was living in Mexico, so it was a bit surreal and cloudy for me - thankfully.
The 1999 playoffs were incredibly exciting - rejuvenating my love of the game. 2003 was the worst experience since '78. I was in a bar in NYC with a Yankee fan friend watching game 7 of the ALCS. Screamed when Grady Little left Pedro in the game - I still can't beliee it. And felt my heart being crushed in a staggering case of deja vu, with Aaron Boone playing the role of Bucky Dent.
But then came 2004. Redemption. Rebirth. that season felt special from early on. Things had changed in the fall of '03. Fans no longer fell silent when the chips were down - they got on their feet! '04 began to take on a feeling of a new destiny. The old Shakepearean tragedy or late season collapses was no longer to be. When then Sox swept the ALDS, I WANTED the Yankees in the ALCS! I wanted revenge. I wanted to beat the best. I wanted all the questions answered, all the doubts erased.
Falling 0-3 to the Yankees in the ALCS tested all of our faith, but it seemed like every at bat from game 4 on was like new blood coursing through the collective veins of Red Sox Nation. Looking back, this was the way it as meant to play out - the way it had to play out. To show the Sox fans and the world that the Sox no longer were destined to fall short, ripping out the hearts of their faithful. A new era had been born. The Yankees were the ones to choke, to fall jut short of nirvana. The Sox would prevail.
After that ALCS, the momentum was palpable. A sweep almost inevitable. My friend Martin, who was living in China at the time, called me after the ALCS and asked where I was watching game 1 of the WS. When I told him I'd be right there in my living room, he said it wasn't true: I'd be at Fenway! He had secured tickets to every game and was flying back to Boston. And I was the lucky person who would accompany him to see history being made - game 1 of the first WS the Sox would win in 86 years!
Yawkey Way was incredible! I got there very early to soak it all in. I collected every free thing - signs, magazines, newspapers - people were giving away to commemorate this historic occasion. Martin still gives me crap about all the crap I had in my arms that night. There was so much electricity. If ever I had doubted that the universe is really just made up of eneergy and that we humans can control our own energy, that night should have put it to rest. It felt like Red Sox Nation could power an entire country that night.
We moved inside the Park and found our seats. So there I sat - next to WEEI's Glenn Ordway and his family, right behind the Sox dugout!!! It was a cold, but that didn't matter. I was sitting in the same Park where my grandfather had sat when he watched the Sox win in 1918. I felt like some kind of cosmic family circle was now being completed. My father had lived his whole life and never seen his team win it all. But I would - right here, right now.
Game 1 was by far the most exciting - and high scoring, high energy game. From the introductions on, it felt like a unique moment in time and space. And it was.
The rest, as they say, is history. I passed on going to game 4 in St. Louis (money was tight) and watched at home as the Sox finished the sweep. I couldn't believe it. I cried, I screamed. My cousin Carolyn - who is my Red Sox soulmate - and I spoke on the phone. I was euphporic and a bit sad - my father had never known this joy and relief.
Carolyn and her daughter Tricia and I went to the parade together - extending the joyous celebration.
So here we are - sorry for the long trip down memory lane! But it's amazing what gets triggered when the Sox return to October baseball. Full of hope and possibility. Play ball!
Well, it al came together this weekend - finally! After some serious anxiety the past month as th Sox allowed their lead over the Yankees to dwindle, the Sox secured the division and then home field advantage throughout the playoffs. Phew! Now it's on to the dance...
Dice-K appears to have been demoted to the #3 slot in the rotation, with Schilling moving up to #2. In a short series, that's a great 3-man rotation, especially if Dice-K and chill pitch like they did their last outings. And the Angels have been hurting lately - lots of players banged up or coming off injuries. And even JD Drew is on fire! Now that's a good omen! :-)
October baseball in Boston... it has meant so much to me. I went to my first Sox game the last game of the '67 Impossible Dream year - and my dad and grampy went to the home games of the Series - have two of the tickets hanging in my house! The end of the '75 series was the first time I saw my father cry. I was at the Bucky Dent playoff game in '78 - and had been at every game of the horrific September Massacre that led up to that nightmare. The Buckner '86 Series I was living in Mexico, so it was a bit surreal and cloudy for me - thankfully.
The 1999 playoffs were incredibly exciting - rejuvenating my love of the game. 2003 was the worst experience since '78. I was in a bar in NYC with a Yankee fan friend watching game 7 of the ALCS. Screamed when Grady Little left Pedro in the game - I still can't beliee it. And felt my heart being crushed in a staggering case of deja vu, with Aaron Boone playing the role of Bucky Dent.
But then came 2004. Redemption. Rebirth. that season felt special from early on. Things had changed in the fall of '03. Fans no longer fell silent when the chips were down - they got on their feet! '04 began to take on a feeling of a new destiny. The old Shakepearean tragedy or late season collapses was no longer to be. When then Sox swept the ALDS, I WANTED the Yankees in the ALCS! I wanted revenge. I wanted to beat the best. I wanted all the questions answered, all the doubts erased.
Falling 0-3 to the Yankees in the ALCS tested all of our faith, but it seemed like every at bat from game 4 on was like new blood coursing through the collective veins of Red Sox Nation. Looking back, this was the way it as meant to play out - the way it had to play out. To show the Sox fans and the world that the Sox no longer were destined to fall short, ripping out the hearts of their faithful. A new era had been born. The Yankees were the ones to choke, to fall jut short of nirvana. The Sox would prevail.
After that ALCS, the momentum was palpable. A sweep almost inevitable. My friend Martin, who was living in China at the time, called me after the ALCS and asked where I was watching game 1 of the WS. When I told him I'd be right there in my living room, he said it wasn't true: I'd be at Fenway! He had secured tickets to every game and was flying back to Boston. And I was the lucky person who would accompany him to see history being made - game 1 of the first WS the Sox would win in 86 years!
Yawkey Way was incredible! I got there very early to soak it all in. I collected every free thing - signs, magazines, newspapers - people were giving away to commemorate this historic occasion. Martin still gives me crap about all the crap I had in my arms that night. There was so much electricity. If ever I had doubted that the universe is really just made up of eneergy and that we humans can control our own energy, that night should have put it to rest. It felt like Red Sox Nation could power an entire country that night.
We moved inside the Park and found our seats. So there I sat - next to WEEI's Glenn Ordway and his family, right behind the Sox dugout!!! It was a cold, but that didn't matter. I was sitting in the same Park where my grandfather had sat when he watched the Sox win in 1918. I felt like some kind of cosmic family circle was now being completed. My father had lived his whole life and never seen his team win it all. But I would - right here, right now.
Game 1 was by far the most exciting - and high scoring, high energy game. From the introductions on, it felt like a unique moment in time and space. And it was.
The rest, as they say, is history. I passed on going to game 4 in St. Louis (money was tight) and watched at home as the Sox finished the sweep. I couldn't believe it. I cried, I screamed. My cousin Carolyn - who is my Red Sox soulmate - and I spoke on the phone. I was euphporic and a bit sad - my father had never known this joy and relief.
Carolyn and her daughter Tricia and I went to the parade together - extending the joyous celebration.
So here we are - sorry for the long trip down memory lane! But it's amazing what gets triggered when the Sox return to October baseball. Full of hope and possibility. Play ball!
Saturday, September 29, 2007
The Ugly Side of the G.O.P. - New York Times
The Ugly Side of the G.O.P. - New York Times
Wow... Bob Herbert has taken off the gloves with a provocative and hard-hitting reaction to Republicans blocking the bill that would have given DC representation in Congress.
Herbert not only condemns today's Republicans in the Senate but also the decades-old "Southern strategy" Republicans have followed to secure the elections of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush presidents. It's a powerful piece, but perhaps the most striking evidence of long-standing GOP bias is a quote from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
Wow. I shouldn't be so surprised or shocked, I imagine, but it is stunning to see Atwater admit this so explicitly. Add in Herbert's reminder that Reagan launched his 1980 campaign at the site of an infamous Civil Rights era slaying of three civil rights activists, proclaiming in slightly veiled language that he supported "states' rights." Reagan was essentially telling wite voters that he opposed the federal government's interventions to protect blacks against state-sponsored segregation and racism. The stuff we forget...
I wish we could find a way to have a more honest and open conversation/debate about race and poverty in this country. People like Jonathan Kozol and bob Herbert are trying. But until we do, the politics of avoidance will continue. Democrats who fail to confront the realities of life for African Americans trapped in the legacy of Jim Crow or the growing gap between rich and poor (blacks, white, Latinos, and all poor Americans) are as complicit as the Republicans - even if the Dems don't court white bigots. They do, however, have a track record of 40 years of broken promises to blacks and the poor.
Other than John Edwards, who has made a serious attempt to address these issues?
Wow... Bob Herbert has taken off the gloves with a provocative and hard-hitting reaction to Republicans blocking the bill that would have given DC representation in Congress.
Herbert not only condemns today's Republicans in the Senate but also the decades-old "Southern strategy" Republicans have followed to secure the elections of Nixon, Reagan, and both Bush presidents. It's a powerful piece, but perhaps the most striking evidence of long-standing GOP bias is a quote from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘Nigger, nigger, nigger,’ ” said Atwater. “By 1968, you can’t say ‘nigger’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things, and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites.”
Wow. I shouldn't be so surprised or shocked, I imagine, but it is stunning to see Atwater admit this so explicitly. Add in Herbert's reminder that Reagan launched his 1980 campaign at the site of an infamous Civil Rights era slaying of three civil rights activists, proclaiming in slightly veiled language that he supported "states' rights." Reagan was essentially telling wite voters that he opposed the federal government's interventions to protect blacks against state-sponsored segregation and racism. The stuff we forget...
I wish we could find a way to have a more honest and open conversation/debate about race and poverty in this country. People like Jonathan Kozol and bob Herbert are trying. But until we do, the politics of avoidance will continue. Democrats who fail to confront the realities of life for African Americans trapped in the legacy of Jim Crow or the growing gap between rich and poor (blacks, white, Latinos, and all poor Americans) are as complicit as the Republicans - even if the Dems don't court white bigots. They do, however, have a track record of 40 years of broken promises to blacks and the poor.
Other than John Edwards, who has made a serious attempt to address these issues?
ODAC-Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
ODAC-Oil Depletion Analysis Centre
One of the issues I am most consumer with is peak oil. This web site is for a British organization dedicated to educating the public on oil depletion and related issues. I just took a quick look around, but I saw it referenced in n article I read recently. Supposedly, they issued a report this year with analysis indicating that peak oil production could come in the next 4 years!
The article that really turned me onto this issue was this one by Peter Maass in the NYT in 2005:
http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=124&magtype=1
Peter's always been a favorite of mine and his lengthy analysis on this topic is important and gripping. We do seem to be whistling past the graveyard. I have not heard a major presidential candidate address this in any serious fashion. Yet, if peak oil - or the point where demand outstrips supply - is just over the horizon, we are already far behind where we need to be in terms of deeloping affordable alternate sources of energy. We cannot change our economy from oil-based to something else overnight. The economic disruptions could be dramatic. Add to it the other fundamental economic challenges - $9 trillion federal debt, weak dollar, mortgage and housing crisis, personal debt crisis, infrstructure that needs repiar and replacing (bridges, electrical grid, water and sewage systems), etc. and our ability to deal effectively and efficiently with the peak oil "breaking point" could be quite limited.
So where's the leadership and vision on this issue?
One of the issues I am most consumer with is peak oil. This web site is for a British organization dedicated to educating the public on oil depletion and related issues. I just took a quick look around, but I saw it referenced in n article I read recently. Supposedly, they issued a report this year with analysis indicating that peak oil production could come in the next 4 years!
The article that really turned me onto this issue was this one by Peter Maass in the NYT in 2005:
http://www.petermaass.com/core.cfm?p=1&mag=124&magtype=1
Peter's always been a favorite of mine and his lengthy analysis on this topic is important and gripping. We do seem to be whistling past the graveyard. I have not heard a major presidential candidate address this in any serious fashion. Yet, if peak oil - or the point where demand outstrips supply - is just over the horizon, we are already far behind where we need to be in terms of deeloping affordable alternate sources of energy. We cannot change our economy from oil-based to something else overnight. The economic disruptions could be dramatic. Add to it the other fundamental economic challenges - $9 trillion federal debt, weak dollar, mortgage and housing crisis, personal debt crisis, infrstructure that needs repiar and replacing (bridges, electrical grid, water and sewage systems), etc. and our ability to deal effectively and efficiently with the peak oil "breaking point" could be quite limited.
So where's the leadership and vision on this issue?
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Boston Sports Blog - Boston.com
Boston Sports Blog - Boston.com
Eric Wilbur has a great blog entry about the Sox not wanting the division badly enough - I think he's dead on (see my post below). I've been one of those people talking about how the Cards and Tigers folded last season only to rise again in the playoffs. Hope the Sox can find some of that magic this year!
Eric Wilbur has a great blog entry about the Sox not wanting the division badly enough - I think he's dead on (see my post below). I've been one of those people talking about how the Cards and Tigers folded last season only to rise again in the playoffs. Hope the Sox can find some of that magic this year!
Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com
Boston Red Sox - Red Sox - Boston.com
It's amazing how the Red Sox can bring either euphoria or that feeling of impending vomit. A 14 game lead down to 1 1/2. No sense of urgency or energy behind winning the division and/or securing home field advantage. It's not a winning mentality. If it were quiet confidence I would get it. But it's more like indifference or arrogance at best. And then there's Gagne, who perhaps cares too much and has forgotten how to pitch like a closer. He's just trying to throw heat - and throwing too hard while forgetting about his change-up. He' a mess. And his ineptitude sems to be contagious - Papelbon has caught it!
I am the eternal otpimist, however, and believe that as long as the Sox can get hot in the playoffs all will be well. But that means the bullpen finding it's earler dominance and at least some bats getting hot again.
Soon - please, soon!
It's amazing how the Red Sox can bring either euphoria or that feeling of impending vomit. A 14 game lead down to 1 1/2. No sense of urgency or energy behind winning the division and/or securing home field advantage. It's not a winning mentality. If it were quiet confidence I would get it. But it's more like indifference or arrogance at best. And then there's Gagne, who perhaps cares too much and has forgotten how to pitch like a closer. He's just trying to throw heat - and throwing too hard while forgetting about his change-up. He' a mess. And his ineptitude sems to be contagious - Papelbon has caught it!
I am the eternal otpimist, however, and believe that as long as the Sox can get hot in the playoffs all will be well. But that means the bullpen finding it's earler dominance and at least some bats getting hot again.
Soon - please, soon!
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Iraq and The Surge - The Democrats' Dilemma
The Democrats are in quite a bind right now. Bush's policy in Iraq has clearly failed thus far. Iraq is increasingly less stable politically, violence is increasing, and civil war seems increasingly inevitable.
But Iraq is not yet lost. A full-blown civil war has, amazingly, yet to explode. Most Iraqis still seem to be holding out for a better future. Islamic extremists have not taken over the government. While Iran and Syria seem to be intervening by supporting allies inside Iraq, the long-feared regional conflict is still but a possibility.
The dangers of losing Iraq have been extensively discussed and are generally acknowledged by Bush's supporters and critics alike.
So what to do? Bush's escalation seems ill-conceived. It involves too few troops, though sending more troops seems to be not an option. Many military analysts say that the US military is "broken" and we are limited in terms of available combat troops. So we are left with Bush sending 21,000 plus combat troops, plus additional support troops, to attempt to secure Baghdad and, perhaps, one additional province. It is possible that the troops will succeed in the short term, but the surge seems unlikely to change the political landscape in Iraq or to enable the Iraqi Army to finally take over security for its own country.
Moreover, even though Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz and Feith are gone, it is difficult to imagine the Bush Administration suddenly finding the ability to be competent in Iraq - or anyplace, for that matter. Why allow this commander-in-chief to send even one more soldier into harm's way after the way he has mismanaged this war, the war in Afghanistan, Katrina, etc.?
But if not the surge, then what?
That's the Democrats' - and the sane Republicans' - dilemma. We can't afford to lose Iraq. But we can't trust Bush to save it. The Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage Iran and Syria in regional talks is worth trying - what's there to lose? - but it would be naive to think that Syria or, certainly, Iran will suddenly shift it's priorities in Iraq just because Condy Rice asks them to. It is worth trying to engage Iran in serious talks about a range of issues - its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its involvement in Iraq, etc. - but let's not bet everything on Iran suddenly becoming a partner for peace and stability in the region, much as it might benefit from such an outcome.
In terms of trying to broker an internal political arrangement in Iraq, that remains our best bet, but I can't help but think that if Zal Khalilzad couldn't pull it off during his tenure as our ambassador to Iraq, it's unlikely that even an experienced diplomat like his successor, Ryan Crocker, will find success any time soon.
So here we are, back to the dilemma. Handed the majority in Congress by an electorate seen to be fed up with the failures of existing Iraq policy, the Democrats need to find some way to apply pressure on the Administration to change course without assuming responsibility for what increasingly seems like an inevitable disaster. Compelling a hasty withdrawal or cutting off funding for the existing troop deployment or the surge could lay that failure squarely on the laps of the Democrats in Congress. But passing a non-binding resolution against the surge while approving the funding to make the surge possible could make them seem complicit should the surge fail in its objectives and result in even more American body bags coming home.
Perhaps the least bad option would be to deny funding for the surge - if you think it's the wrong thing to do, how could you vote to fund it? - and then throw it back on the President's desk. Make it clear that this is his mess and that the American people voted clearly in November for a new approach - not more of the same failed approach. Tell the President he's just going to have to do better with the troop levels he already has.
Otherwise, the Democrats will be left with, at best, a symbolic non-binding resolution against the surge and waiting to see if it work in the short term. If by the fall the situation in Baghdad is not considerably better and a political settlement is not in place, then the Democrats can say they gave Bush one last try, but the voters may see that as having been a violation of the trust they invested in the Democrats last November.
But Iraq is not yet lost. A full-blown civil war has, amazingly, yet to explode. Most Iraqis still seem to be holding out for a better future. Islamic extremists have not taken over the government. While Iran and Syria seem to be intervening by supporting allies inside Iraq, the long-feared regional conflict is still but a possibility.
The dangers of losing Iraq have been extensively discussed and are generally acknowledged by Bush's supporters and critics alike.
So what to do? Bush's escalation seems ill-conceived. It involves too few troops, though sending more troops seems to be not an option. Many military analysts say that the US military is "broken" and we are limited in terms of available combat troops. So we are left with Bush sending 21,000 plus combat troops, plus additional support troops, to attempt to secure Baghdad and, perhaps, one additional province. It is possible that the troops will succeed in the short term, but the surge seems unlikely to change the political landscape in Iraq or to enable the Iraqi Army to finally take over security for its own country.
Moreover, even though Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz and Feith are gone, it is difficult to imagine the Bush Administration suddenly finding the ability to be competent in Iraq - or anyplace, for that matter. Why allow this commander-in-chief to send even one more soldier into harm's way after the way he has mismanaged this war, the war in Afghanistan, Katrina, etc.?
But if not the surge, then what?
That's the Democrats' - and the sane Republicans' - dilemma. We can't afford to lose Iraq. But we can't trust Bush to save it. The Iraq Study Group's recommendation to engage Iran and Syria in regional talks is worth trying - what's there to lose? - but it would be naive to think that Syria or, certainly, Iran will suddenly shift it's priorities in Iraq just because Condy Rice asks them to. It is worth trying to engage Iran in serious talks about a range of issues - its nuclear program, its support for Hezbollah and Hamas, its involvement in Iraq, etc. - but let's not bet everything on Iran suddenly becoming a partner for peace and stability in the region, much as it might benefit from such an outcome.
In terms of trying to broker an internal political arrangement in Iraq, that remains our best bet, but I can't help but think that if Zal Khalilzad couldn't pull it off during his tenure as our ambassador to Iraq, it's unlikely that even an experienced diplomat like his successor, Ryan Crocker, will find success any time soon.
So here we are, back to the dilemma. Handed the majority in Congress by an electorate seen to be fed up with the failures of existing Iraq policy, the Democrats need to find some way to apply pressure on the Administration to change course without assuming responsibility for what increasingly seems like an inevitable disaster. Compelling a hasty withdrawal or cutting off funding for the existing troop deployment or the surge could lay that failure squarely on the laps of the Democrats in Congress. But passing a non-binding resolution against the surge while approving the funding to make the surge possible could make them seem complicit should the surge fail in its objectives and result in even more American body bags coming home.
Perhaps the least bad option would be to deny funding for the surge - if you think it's the wrong thing to do, how could you vote to fund it? - and then throw it back on the President's desk. Make it clear that this is his mess and that the American people voted clearly in November for a new approach - not more of the same failed approach. Tell the President he's just going to have to do better with the troop levels he already has.
Otherwise, the Democrats will be left with, at best, a symbolic non-binding resolution against the surge and waiting to see if it work in the short term. If by the fall the situation in Baghdad is not considerably better and a political settlement is not in place, then the Democrats can say they gave Bush one last try, but the voters may see that as having been a violation of the trust they invested in the Democrats last November.
Monday, August 28, 2006
China reflections...
I may take weeks or months for me to fully digest the trip to China earlier this month. Some initial reactions:
- Even having read and seen so much in recent years about China's economic growth and the success some there now enjoy, it still came as a bit of a shock to see the extremes of wealth and poverty there. Outside Xi'an, we visited a family that has lived in a cave for 5 generations. The next day, we were experiencing the enormous wealth and rapid pace of construction in Shanghai - a truly breathtaking contrast.
- Every Chinese I spoke with was more sober and cautious about China's future than I was. they see the enormous challenges that lie ahead and understand how China still has so far to go to become a major economic power on a scale with the US. Per capita, they are right. And China has enormous challenges ahead - educating the masses, improving healthcare and other infrastructure, dealing with the rampant destruction of its environment, the growing poverty gap, unrest in the provinces, etc. But I couldn't help but be impressed by how every educated Chinese I spoke with saw this as a path China is on and that they get what they need to do on every level.
- The people we met in high-tech companies - Lenovo and Augmentum - were very impressive, young, and ambitious. They seem to be blending the best of Western/American business practices with the best China has to offer. They are great at graphic design and high-tech manufacturing. They still lack the innovation that is America's strength - but they know that and are trying to train/educate/empower the next generation to be innovators. How will that mesh with a still very authoritarian regime politically? Great question...
- There are so many opportunities for cooperation with China - alternate sources of energy, environmental protection, urban planning, etc. - that could help us economically and politically avoid seeing each other as threats only. It may well be inevitable that a rising China and the US will see each other as rivals - in Asia and globally - but that does not have to preclude finding areas of mutual interest and cooperation, too.
- We encountered no anti-Americanism. Quite the opposite - in spite of the Chinese government's nationalistic/China First rhetoric over the past years, we found everyone to be very inviting and friendly and eager to help us. Many Chinese tourists in Beijing wanted to take pictures with our students. People in the cities seem to embrace signs of American and Western businesses as evidence of the "international" character of those cities and new economic opportunities, not a cultural/economic invasion.
- The pollution is terrible - did not see a blue sky while I was there. It is tragic that they are destroying their country like they are.
- Traffic in Beijing is bad but not like the worst of Boston or NYC. But it will only get worse as they add so many more cars each day.
- I got the sense that many Chinese in the cities see China's rise as its reemergence. For thousands of years China was a great civilization. After a brief interlude, it is back! China as an advanced and great power is seen as China's normal state and destiny, not a new phenomenon. Shanghai is clearly on its way to becoming the commercial and financial center of Asia - and China is intent on making that happen.
- The poor farmers living in the cave are so disconnected from the "new" China. When asked about the economic changes and growth - with the nearby highway construction as evidence - one woman said, "It has nothing to do with us."
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Bush on Darfur - Still too little, still too late...
President Bush is doing a great job of sounding concerned about Darfur without actually doing anything that will stop the genocide. On March 29, he said:
Clearly, the African Union force in incapable of stopping the bloodshed. Merely sticking UN blue helmets on the heads of the AU soldiers and giving them a NATO taxi service is unlikely to turn them into the peacemaking force they need to be. Bush's statement seemed to echo a recent NATO statement that virtually ruled out a NATO "bridging force" that would intervene until a capable UN force could be deployed.
Bush has much to gain by showing real leadership on Darfur. Understanding that his legacy will largely be determined by the long-term outcome in Iraq, that legacy could be significantly enhanced by a successful initiative that stops the genocide in Darfur.
After speaking with Eric Reeves the other day, it seems clear to me that what is needed is a clear goal - or set of goals - and the forces to accomplish those goals. Operationally, these goals might sound like:
- Seal the border with Chad so that refugees fleeing Darfur are not pursued across the border.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes in safety.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes and resume farming so that they might be able to feed themselves over the long-term.
Each of those goals would require a different force in terms of size and capabilities. Moreover, the duration of each mission would likely vary, perhaps considerably.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) suggests in a recent report that "monitoring" the Chad-Sudan border, protecting civilians, and enforcing a ceasefire could be done with 15,000 UN troops, provided the bulk of the troops comes from a militarily capable NATO member, like France.
Putting aside, for a moment, the legacy of French blue helmets in Bosnia (who allowed the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister under their protection to be executed by Serb forces, among other failings), President Bush's recent statement clearly falls short of endorsing even such a modest proposal from the ICG. Yet, in comparison to his fellow heads of state, Bush could be seen as leading the way on Darfur.
The question of French troops does, however, underscore the point that there are few countries with the military capabilities of intervening in a genocide like Darfur. As with Bosnia, however, the real question ultimately comes down to political will. Who has the political will to actually intervene and stop the genocide? Clearly President Bush does not. He's willing to call it a genocide and, possibly, give someone else a lift if they want to go stop it. But saying you'll support a UN mission without sending your own troops starts to sound like then-President Clinton hiding behind the failed UN mission in Bosnia. It is difficult to convince other countries to risk their troops if you're not willing to do the same. That does make it convenient, however, if what you ultimately want is an excuse for your failed diplomacy.
That's why, even though political "realities" in the the U.S., Sudan, and at the UN Security Council may render it moot, Bush has two options for getting other countries to step up to the plate:
- Bush could state publicly that he is willing to send U.S. troops as part of a NATO mission to stop the genocide. Then he could turn to other countries and ask them to join us in making this "sacrifice" in order to stop these crimes against humanity. In the end, U.S. troop participation might prove politically impossible, but he would have demonstrated that we are not interested in stopping a genocide only when others put their lives on the line. Or,
- Bush will need to engage in a diplomatic full-court press that involves lots of public and private diplomacy to secure a NATO mission - even if those NATO troops are wearing blue helmets - to stop the genocide. The U.S. likely will need to participate by providing logistics, intelligence, and airlift capability. But President Bush will need to act forcefully to make sure that our allies provide the troops necessary to make the ground forces credible and capable. In all likelihood, this means a NATO rapid reaction force between 5,000 and 15,000 troops that can respond quickly and decisively to any assault on civilians or gathering of militarily-significant forces. Without making a similar commitment for U.S. forces, Bush will need to bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear - something he has thus far been unwilling to do.
Those who truly support an end to the genocide in Darfur need to hold Bush accountable. Bush has been content to merely doing more than his counterparts. He "spoke out about genocide" - others have refused to use that term. But does calling for a UN force that is incapable of stopping the carnage demonstrate that he "meant it"?
Let's say what we want - clear goals, as I have outlined above - and understand what it will take to accomplish them. Until Bush stands behind that agenda - and is taking clear, concrete steps to accomplish those goals - let's all make it clear: he doesn't mean it.
I'm deeply worried about the human conditions in Darfur. Ours is a government
that spoke out about genocide, and we meant it. I thanked President
Obasanjo
for the AU presence in the Sudan. I told him, however, I did not think the
presence was robust enough. I do believe there needs to be
a blue helmeting
of not only the AU forces, but additional forces with a NATO overlay. And the
reason I believe that NATO ought to be a part of the operation is twofold:
One, to provide logistical and command and control and airlift capability, but
also to send a clear signal to parties involved that
the West is determined
to help a settlement -- to help affect in a settlement, that this is serious
business, that we're just not playing a diplomatic holding game, but that when
we say, genocide, we mean that the genocide needs to be stopped.
Clearly, the African Union force in incapable of stopping the bloodshed. Merely sticking UN blue helmets on the heads of the AU soldiers and giving them a NATO taxi service is unlikely to turn them into the peacemaking force they need to be. Bush's statement seemed to echo a recent NATO statement that virtually ruled out a NATO "bridging force" that would intervene until a capable UN force could be deployed.
Bush has much to gain by showing real leadership on Darfur. Understanding that his legacy will largely be determined by the long-term outcome in Iraq, that legacy could be significantly enhanced by a successful initiative that stops the genocide in Darfur.
After speaking with Eric Reeves the other day, it seems clear to me that what is needed is a clear goal - or set of goals - and the forces to accomplish those goals. Operationally, these goals might sound like:
- Seal the border with Chad so that refugees fleeing Darfur are not pursued across the border.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes in safety.
- Provide security so that refugees may return to their homes and resume farming so that they might be able to feed themselves over the long-term.
Each of those goals would require a different force in terms of size and capabilities. Moreover, the duration of each mission would likely vary, perhaps considerably.
The International Crisis Group (ICG) suggests in a recent report that "monitoring" the Chad-Sudan border, protecting civilians, and enforcing a ceasefire could be done with 15,000 UN troops, provided the bulk of the troops comes from a militarily capable NATO member, like France.
Putting aside, for a moment, the legacy of French blue helmets in Bosnia (who allowed the Bosnian Deputy Prime Minister under their protection to be executed by Serb forces, among other failings), President Bush's recent statement clearly falls short of endorsing even such a modest proposal from the ICG. Yet, in comparison to his fellow heads of state, Bush could be seen as leading the way on Darfur.
The question of French troops does, however, underscore the point that there are few countries with the military capabilities of intervening in a genocide like Darfur. As with Bosnia, however, the real question ultimately comes down to political will. Who has the political will to actually intervene and stop the genocide? Clearly President Bush does not. He's willing to call it a genocide and, possibly, give someone else a lift if they want to go stop it. But saying you'll support a UN mission without sending your own troops starts to sound like then-President Clinton hiding behind the failed UN mission in Bosnia. It is difficult to convince other countries to risk their troops if you're not willing to do the same. That does make it convenient, however, if what you ultimately want is an excuse for your failed diplomacy.
That's why, even though political "realities" in the the U.S., Sudan, and at the UN Security Council may render it moot, Bush has two options for getting other countries to step up to the plate:
- Bush could state publicly that he is willing to send U.S. troops as part of a NATO mission to stop the genocide. Then he could turn to other countries and ask them to join us in making this "sacrifice" in order to stop these crimes against humanity. In the end, U.S. troop participation might prove politically impossible, but he would have demonstrated that we are not interested in stopping a genocide only when others put their lives on the line. Or,
- Bush will need to engage in a diplomatic full-court press that involves lots of public and private diplomacy to secure a NATO mission - even if those NATO troops are wearing blue helmets - to stop the genocide. The U.S. likely will need to participate by providing logistics, intelligence, and airlift capability. But President Bush will need to act forcefully to make sure that our allies provide the troops necessary to make the ground forces credible and capable. In all likelihood, this means a NATO rapid reaction force between 5,000 and 15,000 troops that can respond quickly and decisively to any assault on civilians or gathering of militarily-significant forces. Without making a similar commitment for U.S. forces, Bush will need to bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear - something he has thus far been unwilling to do.
Those who truly support an end to the genocide in Darfur need to hold Bush accountable. Bush has been content to merely doing more than his counterparts. He "spoke out about genocide" - others have refused to use that term. But does calling for a UN force that is incapable of stopping the carnage demonstrate that he "meant it"?
Let's say what we want - clear goals, as I have outlined above - and understand what it will take to accomplish them. Until Bush stands behind that agenda - and is taking clear, concrete steps to accomplish those goals - let's all make it clear: he doesn't mean it.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
DARFUR: Bad news from NATO...
This from Reuters today:
This contradicts publlic statements made last week by NATO's Secretary General that suggested that NATO might well be prepared to provide troops for a UN mission in Darfur. The harsh reality is that the African Union - even with NATO transportation, logistical support, and other assistance is still unlikely to be able to mount a serious force that can significantly reduce the violence in Darfur any time soon.
Clearly a political solution is necessary for the long-term, and economic and political sanctions are, perhaps, the best tools available to compel the Sudanese government to cooperate in any such solution. But, in the meantime, someone needs to put some troops in Darfur to protect these people. If not NATO, then who will and who can? It is a matter of both political will and military capabilities. right now, NATO and the US have the capabilities but not the will...
Separately, NATO said it had agreed to a request by U.N. Secretary General
Kofi Annan to look at how it could provide support to troops there, but said
there was no question of it intervening on the ground.
"No one is discussing, planning or considering a NATO force on the ground in Darfur. That is not one of the options," NATO spokesman James Appathurai told a regular
briefing.
This contradicts publlic statements made last week by NATO's Secretary General that suggested that NATO might well be prepared to provide troops for a UN mission in Darfur. The harsh reality is that the African Union - even with NATO transportation, logistical support, and other assistance is still unlikely to be able to mount a serious force that can significantly reduce the violence in Darfur any time soon.
Clearly a political solution is necessary for the long-term, and economic and political sanctions are, perhaps, the best tools available to compel the Sudanese government to cooperate in any such solution. But, in the meantime, someone needs to put some troops in Darfur to protect these people. If not NATO, then who will and who can? It is a matter of both political will and military capabilities. right now, NATO and the US have the capabilities but not the will...
Monday, March 27, 2006
UN's idea of "quick" action...
The UN Security Council Friday put an April 24 deadline on the development of options for the UN in Darfur. So now we wait another month, while more people are killed and more women are raped. Another month for UN bureaucrats to "plan" a mission that has been discussed over and over again, a mission that should have been planned and implemented long ago. And once the options are fully developed, the Security Council will take them under consideration and more time will be needed for more diplomacy - diplomacy that so far has failed to secure even Egypt's support for a UN mission in Darfur! Someone needs to explain to me why the Bush Administration cannot get Egypt - which has received well over $50 billion in US aid over the past thirty years! - to support a UN mission to save Muslims from genocide. Wonders never cease to amaze...
Don't get me wrong - the Bush Administration is making some effort to push the UN and possibly NATO toward a more robust intervention than the African Union can muster on its own. But if President Bush really wanted to make this happen, he would bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening.
And so we wait...
Don't get me wrong - the Bush Administration is making some effort to push the UN and possibly NATO toward a more robust intervention than the African Union can muster on its own. But if President Bush really wanted to make this happen, he would bring the full force of U.S. diplomacy to bear. So far, that doesn't seem to be happening.
And so we wait...
NY Times Sudan Supplement - Taking $$$ from Genocidal Regime!
Like many others, I got this e-mail from the Save Darfur Coalition today:
On Thursday we asked you and your fellow Darfur activists to write letters to the editor of the New York Times protesting their decision to take a million dollar advertisement from the Sudanese government - a government the paper's own reporting recognizes as genocidal.
Since Thursday, you and others have sent over 3,600 letters to the editor of the Times!
Yet amazingly, the Times has not run yet a single letter about their decision to profit off of a government that is systematically killing and displacing its own people - either objecting to or defending their decision!
The Times needs to hear from you today. Not only did they make the wrong decision by taking the Sudanese advertisement, but they have ignored all of your letters.
Can you email the New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, right now?His email address is public@nytimes.com.
The public editor is the readers' representative at the New York Times and is charged with responding to reader queries and complaints - and getting answers!
Email the public editor today. Let him know that you object to the Times' taking blood money from the Sudanese government to run an eight-page advertising insert and that you are shocked that despite the outcry, the New York Times has not run a single letter to the editor about it!
You can reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com.
If you hear back from the public editor, or you see your letter in print, please send us a copy at nytresponse@savedarfur.org.
Thank you,
DavRubenstein, Save Darfur Coalition
I sent the following to Mr. Calame at the Times tonight:
I am writing to express my concern that the New York Times, to which I subscribe and trust as the newspaper of record and integrity in this country, has yet to address its decision to accept money from the Sudanese government - which, as the Times has reported, supports if not orchestrates the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Indeed, the advertising supplement in last week's paper would have Times readers believe there is no genocide and that the violence in Sudan is over.
The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, reported this week that Harvard is divesting in a company doing business with Sudan:
A Harvard Corporation statement yesterday said the university was concerned with Sinopec's role in oil production in Sudan.
''Oil is a critical source of revenue and an asset of paramount strategic importance to the Sudanese government, which has been found to be complicit in what the US Congress and US State Department have termed 'genocide' in Darfur," the statement said.
I would have thought that the Times would reject any money from a regime sponsoring genocide.
Moreover, in spite of thousands of letters to the Times - like mine sent earlier this week - expressing outrage over this decision, no letters have been printed in the Times and no mention of the decision has been made in the paper.
Please do whatever is necessary to make sure that this issue is publicly addressed as soon as possible and that the Times makes a statement about its policies regarding accepting money from genocidal regimes.
Thank you for your prompt attention.-- Steve Walker
On Thursday we asked you and your fellow Darfur activists to write letters to the editor of the New York Times protesting their decision to take a million dollar advertisement from the Sudanese government - a government the paper's own reporting recognizes as genocidal.
Since Thursday, you and others have sent over 3,600 letters to the editor of the Times!
Yet amazingly, the Times has not run yet a single letter about their decision to profit off of a government that is systematically killing and displacing its own people - either objecting to or defending their decision!
The Times needs to hear from you today. Not only did they make the wrong decision by taking the Sudanese advertisement, but they have ignored all of your letters.
Can you email the New York Times' public editor, Byron Calame, right now?His email address is public@nytimes.com.
The public editor is the readers' representative at the New York Times and is charged with responding to reader queries and complaints - and getting answers!
Email the public editor today. Let him know that you object to the Times' taking blood money from the Sudanese government to run an eight-page advertising insert and that you are shocked that despite the outcry, the New York Times has not run a single letter to the editor about it!
You can reach the public editor, Byron Calame, at public@nytimes.com.
If you hear back from the public editor, or you see your letter in print, please send us a copy at nytresponse@savedarfur.org.
Thank you,
DavRubenstein, Save Darfur Coalition
I sent the following to Mr. Calame at the Times tonight:
I am writing to express my concern that the New York Times, to which I subscribe and trust as the newspaper of record and integrity in this country, has yet to address its decision to accept money from the Sudanese government - which, as the Times has reported, supports if not orchestrates the ongoing genocide in Darfur. Indeed, the advertising supplement in last week's paper would have Times readers believe there is no genocide and that the violence in Sudan is over.
The Boston Globe, owned by the Times, reported this week that Harvard is divesting in a company doing business with Sudan:
A Harvard Corporation statement yesterday said the university was concerned with Sinopec's role in oil production in Sudan.
''Oil is a critical source of revenue and an asset of paramount strategic importance to the Sudanese government, which has been found to be complicit in what the US Congress and US State Department have termed 'genocide' in Darfur," the statement said.
I would have thought that the Times would reject any money from a regime sponsoring genocide.
Moreover, in spite of thousands of letters to the Times - like mine sent earlier this week - expressing outrage over this decision, no letters have been printed in the Times and no mention of the decision has been made in the paper.
Please do whatever is necessary to make sure that this issue is publicly addressed as soon as possible and that the Times makes a statement about its policies regarding accepting money from genocidal regimes.
Thank you for your prompt attention.-- Steve Walker
Sunday, March 26, 2006
More thoughts on the Darfur Action Agenda
While the advocacy campaign for Darfur clearly presents more challenges at first glance than the Bosnia campaign did, that should not be reason to abandon hope!
While George W. Bush is not complicity in the Darfur genocide in the same way Bill Clinton was complicit in Bosnia - Bush, after all, is not tying the victims' hands through an unjust and illegal arms embargo and is not pressuring the victims to surrender (when will Clinton answer for his complicity???) - he has made two statements that should commit him to further action. First, he apparently noted in the margins of a report on the Rwanda genocide, "Not on my watch." Does he want his legacy, which surely will be first and foremost determined by whatever happens in Iraq, to include yet another U.S. failure to stop a genocide? Second, his administration has actually called Darfur a genocide, thereby invoking the Genocide Convention and its commitment to prevent, stop, and punish genocides.
What is needed at this point?
1. People need to call their representatives in the US House of Representatives and demand that they publicly support and vote for H. Res. 723, which calls for the creation of a NATO bridging force in Darfur until a UN peacekeeping force can be fully deployed.
2. There must be a drumbeat of awareness-building activities on Darfur, at local and national levels. Nicholas Kristof has been virtually a one-man-show trying to create such a drumbeat, but there are signs of hope that the drumbeat can grow in volume and intensity. From Joey Cheek, the Olympic speedskater who donated his Olympic winnings to the Darfur cause, to Ann Curry's recent reporting from her trip with Kristof to the region, we're witnessing a spike in Darfur-related news coverage. The upcoming Rally to Stop Genocide on April 30 in DC is
another step in the right direction, provided it leads to more coordinated activities across the country, like candlelight vigils, lobbying campaigns, and speaking tours for Darfur activists and experts.
3. We need leading members of Congress - especially Republicans - to join the drumbeat, even though during an election year there may be limited incentives - and even some disincentives - to doing so. This may require some targeted lobbying and support activities, including the preparation of briefing materials and commissioning of experts to examine specific issues, including the military requirements for stopping the genocide and the possible diplomatic solutions that might provide a lasting solution once the carnage has been halted.
While George W. Bush is not complicity in the Darfur genocide in the same way Bill Clinton was complicit in Bosnia - Bush, after all, is not tying the victims' hands through an unjust and illegal arms embargo and is not pressuring the victims to surrender (when will Clinton answer for his complicity???) - he has made two statements that should commit him to further action. First, he apparently noted in the margins of a report on the Rwanda genocide, "Not on my watch." Does he want his legacy, which surely will be first and foremost determined by whatever happens in Iraq, to include yet another U.S. failure to stop a genocide? Second, his administration has actually called Darfur a genocide, thereby invoking the Genocide Convention and its commitment to prevent, stop, and punish genocides.
What is needed at this point?
1. People need to call their representatives in the US House of Representatives and demand that they publicly support and vote for H. Res. 723, which calls for the creation of a NATO bridging force in Darfur until a UN peacekeeping force can be fully deployed.
2. There must be a drumbeat of awareness-building activities on Darfur, at local and national levels. Nicholas Kristof has been virtually a one-man-show trying to create such a drumbeat, but there are signs of hope that the drumbeat can grow in volume and intensity. From Joey Cheek, the Olympic speedskater who donated his Olympic winnings to the Darfur cause, to Ann Curry's recent reporting from her trip with Kristof to the region, we're witnessing a spike in Darfur-related news coverage. The upcoming Rally to Stop Genocide on April 30 in DC is
another step in the right direction, provided it leads to more coordinated activities across the country, like candlelight vigils, lobbying campaigns, and speaking tours for Darfur activists and experts.3. We need leading members of Congress - especially Republicans - to join the drumbeat, even though during an election year there may be limited incentives - and even some disincentives - to doing so. This may require some targeted lobbying and support activities, including the preparation of briefing materials and commissioning of experts to examine specific issues, including the military requirements for stopping the genocide and the possible diplomatic solutions that might provide a lasting solution once the carnage has been halted.
Looking for a Darfur Action Agenda...
Forging an action agenda for the campaign to stop the genocide in Bosnia was simple in comparison. When over 100 grassroots groups gathered in Washington, DC, in December, 1993, they formed the American Committee to Save Bosnia with an ambitious agenda, which included:
- US/NATO airstrikes to stop the shelling of civilians until the Bosnian government could defend itself.
- Lifting of the US arms embargo against Bosnia so that Bosnia could get weapons to defend itself.
- Punishment of the war criminals responsible for orchestrating the genocide.
- Preservation of Bosnia's territorial integrity (no partition along ethnic/religious lines).
The central goal was the lifting of the arms embargo. On one level, it seemed obvious and simple: let the Bosnians defend themselves and we won't have to send our troops to do it for them. The issue, however, was complicated because the UN Security Council had passed a resolution - at Milosevic's initial suggestion - placing an arms embargo on the whole of Yugoslavia prior to Bosnia's independence. Bosnia's independence and the Belgrade-led genocide had rendered the UN embargo moot with regard to Bosnia; every country has an inherent right to self defense, recognized by the UN Charter. But arguing that point sounded to many like legalistic mumbo-jumbo, as former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger complained to me on CNN's Crossfire in 1995. Many with more lobbying experience than I had (none at the time), including a former leading House Democrat supportive of the Bosnian cause, told me we were well-intentioned but naive to think that we could get Congress to lift the embargo.
Even so, in the summer of '95, we were able to get a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress to pass binding legislation lifting the US embargo. that incredible act of congressional leadership is part of what prompted Clinton, after vetoing the legislation while Congress was in recess, to launch the initiative that led to the Dayton Accords ending the Bosnian genocide.
In comparison, Darfur offers little of the clarity in terms of a clear action agenda or public support that Bosnia did at the time. Many Americans still had fond memories of the Sarajevo Olympics of 1984 and the warm and endearing Bosnians we saw on TV. We could watch some of the horrors of Bosnia on TV at night, though the so-called "CNN effect" cut both ways: it brought the war to our living rooms on a regular basis, but it numbed and confused us as often as it enraged us. The Bosnian government and army offered a proxy for US intervention - arm the Bosnians and our troops can stay home. Bosnia was in Europe, and the risk of a broader conflict involving NATO allies was a constant source of concern, as was the image of a slaughter in Europe just a short train ride from hundreds of thousands of US and NATO troops in Europe.
Darfur offers none of those "advantages" the Bosnian genocide offered those of us agitating for some kind of response. With the exception of Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, there has been little regular reporting from the region and few TV images. The apparent US quagmire in Iraq has soured many Americans who might have favored a military intervention in Darfur, either because they have little or no confidence in this administration's ability to carry it out successfully or they are concerned about the backlash from another US military mission in another Arab country.
Kristof, writing in the February 12 Times, offered this menu of options for President Bush:
Here are some grown-up steps Mr. Bush could take: He could enforce a no-fly zone to stop air attacks on civilians in Darfur, lobby Arab leaders to become involved, call President Hu Jintao and ask China to stop protecting Sudan, invite Darfur refugees to a photo op at the White House, attend a coming donor conference for Darfur, visit Darfur or the refugee camps next door in Chad, push France and other allies for a NATO bridging force to provide protection until United Nations troops arrive, offer to support the United Nations force with American military airlift and logistical support (though not ground troops, which would help Sudan's hard-liners by allowing them to claim that the United States was starting a new invasion of the Arab world), make a major speech about Darfur, and arrange for Colin Powell to be appointed a United Nations special envoy to seek peace among Darfur's tribal sheiks.
With a president obviously too distracted or apathetic to take action on his own, activists are left to seek support and leadership in Congress, just as we did during the Bosnia genocide. There is nothing, however, so "simple" as an arms embargo to lift with the passage of a law. Short of declaring war on Sudan, Congress cannot force President Bush to do anything on Kristof's list. Legislation has been proposed that calls for a NATO "bridging force" that would provide some relief to Darfur's victims until a UN peacekeeping force can be "fully deployed." H Res. 723, and its previously-approved Senate version, is not binding legislation - it would not compel President Bush to act.
Moreover, it remains unclear what a "fully deployed" UN force would need to look like or who would provide the troops. Various current and former UN officials have estimated anywhere from 10,000 to 50,000 or more troops would be necessary to stop the genocide in Darfur. A serious analysis of what is needed - and who could provide those assets - is needed. NATO's Secretary General indicated on his trip to DC last week that NATO would stand ready to participate if asked. That will require some arm-twisting on Bush's part, at least to get France to sit passively by and not block such a deployment. Such a force would probably require US logistical, intelligence, and transportation assistance - but because of Iraq and the other concerns noted above, US ground troops would not likely be involved.
And that is the real problem. It is difficult to ask others to make sacrifices you cannot - or will not - make yourself. It requires real leadership. That's one of many things we seem to be running a deficit in these days...
Saturday, March 25, 2006
Ann Curry and Nicholas Kristof on Today
Click the title of this post for a good update on Darfur and discussion of the crisis, including the use of rape as a means of genocide. Kristoff has been amazing as, perhaps, the most vocal and eloquent advocate on Darfur. There also are other videos that Ann filed from the region:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?g=9128c056-e41-4973-ba66-e8a04c695504&f=00
Darfur
After some time away from blogging, I'm going to give it another go. The spark for this new blogging is the ongoing genocide in Darfur, though I will feel free to blog about other subjects as they arise.
When I closed down the DC office - which housed the triple-headed American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council for Peace in the Balkans/Balkan Institute operation - in 1998, I built a fairly high wall between me and that experience. My work on Bosnia and the Balkans had become an obsession, and I had been willing to make virtually any sacrifice during those years. I needed some distance and perspective if I was to be able to build a new life and career in New York.
As the Darfur genocide evolved, I kept an emotional distance from it, as well. I did not want to get sucked into another obsessive quest to stop a genocide. Thanks, largely to the passion and interest of my students, however, this is no longer possible. While my time and energy are limited because of my personal and professional obligations, I want to - need to - help address the genocide in Darfur.
I have not decided how best to engage, other than by supporting my students' efforts. I am open to suggestions. I guess my first hope is to find an existing organization that is playing the role the American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council did during the Bosnia genocide: to coordinate the awareness-building and lobbying efforts of organizations around the U.S. and to shape the common action agenda for that national campaign. Clearly, there are many organizations involved with the Darfur cause. Someone needs to make sure everyone is singing the same song, in the same key. Otherwise, it sounds like noise and nothing significant will be accomplished. But if that kind of coordination is provided, much is possible. Is there a single organization playing that role?
I would love to hear from anyone who can provide some insights as to which organizations are playing which roles so far, that would be great. I know there is a rally planned by some for the end of April - I am hoping to bring some students!
When I closed down the DC office - which housed the triple-headed American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council for Peace in the Balkans/Balkan Institute operation - in 1998, I built a fairly high wall between me and that experience. My work on Bosnia and the Balkans had become an obsession, and I had been willing to make virtually any sacrifice during those years. I needed some distance and perspective if I was to be able to build a new life and career in New York.
As the Darfur genocide evolved, I kept an emotional distance from it, as well. I did not want to get sucked into another obsessive quest to stop a genocide. Thanks, largely to the passion and interest of my students, however, this is no longer possible. While my time and energy are limited because of my personal and professional obligations, I want to - need to - help address the genocide in Darfur.
I have not decided how best to engage, other than by supporting my students' efforts. I am open to suggestions. I guess my first hope is to find an existing organization that is playing the role the American Committee to Save Bosnia/Action Council did during the Bosnia genocide: to coordinate the awareness-building and lobbying efforts of organizations around the U.S. and to shape the common action agenda for that national campaign. Clearly, there are many organizations involved with the Darfur cause. Someone needs to make sure everyone is singing the same song, in the same key. Otherwise, it sounds like noise and nothing significant will be accomplished. But if that kind of coordination is provided, much is possible. Is there a single organization playing that role?
I would love to hear from anyone who can provide some insights as to which organizations are playing which roles so far, that would be great. I know there is a rally planned by some for the end of April - I am hoping to bring some students!
Thursday, April 08, 2004
The 9/11 Debate - Clarke Hits the Mark
The ubiquitous Richard Clarke has sparked an intense debate over the Bush Administration's attitudes and policies toward terrorism before and after 9/11. Clarke, in my opinion, hits the mark on two counts:
* It seems clear, based on the public record to date, that the Bush Administration did not treat terrorism and the al Qaeda threat as seriously as it should and could have prior to 9/11. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. targets overseas on several occasions - and apparently was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center - and there was significant evidence that a major attack - possibly here on our own soil - was imminent in 2001. Whether or not going to "battlestations" - regular cabinet-level meetings, a Presidential directive to make our counter-terrorism efforts a top priority, existing and additional intelligence gathering and analysis resources being tasked to those efforts - would have prevented 9/11 will never be known. But clearly our chances of preventing it were greatly diminished by not going to "battlestations."
* The Bush Administration's immediate focus on - if not obsession with - Iraq after 9/11 was ill-timed and diverted resources and attention from the war on terror. Senior Bush Administration officials - it seems quite evident - forced a linkage between Iraq and the War on Terrorism, and even strongly encouraged the bureaucracy to find a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, find Bin Laden, and diminish Al Qaeda's capabilities have obviously been limited by the diversion of our military and intelligence assets to Iraq.
Where Clarke misses the target is with regard to the Clinton Administration's record. Al Qaeda attacked us several times on Clinton's watch, yet "battlestations" for the Clinton team meant meetings, pin-prick airstrikes in Afghanistan, and little more. Did Clinton do more than Bush II? Yes. Did Clinton take it seriously enough? No.
That should not be used to absolve Bush of his failures. Two wrongs never make a right. But let's make sure Clinton does not get a passing grade, either. That's important for history and it's important in terms of analyzing what went wrong and how we can try to avoid making the same mistakes again.
Clarke's other problem is that he is an easy target for the Bush smear campaign. He's not terribly pleasant, his book publication was clearly timed to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings, and he is getting more TV exposure than Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." Plus, his buddy is Kerry's national security advisor. But no matter what they say about Clarke and his motives or agenda, the bottom line is whether or not what he says rings true and if the Bush Administration can credibly refute what he says. So far, Clarke seems to have hit his mark, and all the Bush Administration can do is attack him - not refute what he charges.
* It seems clear, based on the public record to date, that the Bush Administration did not treat terrorism and the al Qaeda threat as seriously as it should and could have prior to 9/11. Al Qaeda had attacked U.S. targets overseas on several occasions - and apparently was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center - and there was significant evidence that a major attack - possibly here on our own soil - was imminent in 2001. Whether or not going to "battlestations" - regular cabinet-level meetings, a Presidential directive to make our counter-terrorism efforts a top priority, existing and additional intelligence gathering and analysis resources being tasked to those efforts - would have prevented 9/11 will never be known. But clearly our chances of preventing it were greatly diminished by not going to "battlestations."
* The Bush Administration's immediate focus on - if not obsession with - Iraq after 9/11 was ill-timed and diverted resources and attention from the war on terror. Senior Bush Administration officials - it seems quite evident - forced a linkage between Iraq and the War on Terrorism, and even strongly encouraged the bureaucracy to find a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attacks. Our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, find Bin Laden, and diminish Al Qaeda's capabilities have obviously been limited by the diversion of our military and intelligence assets to Iraq.
Where Clarke misses the target is with regard to the Clinton Administration's record. Al Qaeda attacked us several times on Clinton's watch, yet "battlestations" for the Clinton team meant meetings, pin-prick airstrikes in Afghanistan, and little more. Did Clinton do more than Bush II? Yes. Did Clinton take it seriously enough? No.
That should not be used to absolve Bush of his failures. Two wrongs never make a right. But let's make sure Clinton does not get a passing grade, either. That's important for history and it's important in terms of analyzing what went wrong and how we can try to avoid making the same mistakes again.
Clarke's other problem is that he is an easy target for the Bush smear campaign. He's not terribly pleasant, his book publication was clearly timed to coincide with the 9/11 Commission hearings, and he is getting more TV exposure than Janet Jackson's "costume malfunction." Plus, his buddy is Kerry's national security advisor. But no matter what they say about Clarke and his motives or agenda, the bottom line is whether or not what he says rings true and if the Bush Administration can credibly refute what he says. So far, Clarke seems to have hit his mark, and all the Bush Administration can do is attack him - not refute what he charges.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)