Medvedev's Russia Takes Progressive Steps

By Sue Gloor

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has decided to change the way Russia approaches nonprofit groups. Traditionally, Russia’s political system has not made accommodations for nonprofits and its civil sector has not been particularly focused on charity or donations, unlike other countries such as the United States.

This is probably because Russia’s history of socialism at least partly accounted for societal needs. When the Soviet Union was powerful, social provisions that are normally within the scope of nonprofit organizations were taken care of by the Communist Party.

For instance, equal rights in healthcare and the workplace were once solely promoted or restricted by the Russian government, but are now the subject of many civilian-based initiatives.

Under Medvedev’s predecessor Vladimir Putin, these types of initiatives were repressed and sometimes punished.

But President Medvedev has proven to be uniquely attentive to the benefits of groups that advocate for human rights, positive policy changes and election reform, for example, stating that Russia needs to “stimulate philanthropy” and motivate volunteers in this arena.

To meet this end, he has relaxed governmental requirements for nonprofit operation and spoken out to attract more attention to these causes.

This is an extremely progressive step for a country that has barely erased its “oppressive” label leftover from its Communist height a couple of decades ago. If Medvedev wants to change the international view of his East European country, he is going about it the right way. Activity by nonprofit groups can stimulate the poverty-stricken nation’s economy and help establish it as more liberally forward-thinking.

In a new global climate where Russia is attempting to more closely negotiate with advanced countries, like by pursuing disarmament agreements with the US, this type of progressive and open activity can only help. Russian citizens will be able to have at least some effect on their nation’s actions and will be able to express their own opinions productively and thoughtfully.

Reverse Flow of Remittances Signals Deepening of U.S Economic Recession

By Noquel A. Matos


Renowned figures in the financial world like Larry Spinelli, nominated president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) by President Obama this past January, believe that increasing bonuses in banks might be a sign of improvement in the current economic recession. However, a reverse flow of remittances from Mexico to the United States might tell otherwise.

Within this last year with the deepening of the mortgage fiasco induced economic recession, Mexican immigrants that usually sent 80% of their salaries to their family, have not being able to send no money at all. High unemployment rates have cost many of these day workers that did not enjoy a stable job their source of income. Family members back in Mexico have had to carry the burden.

As a result an unusual phenomenon without precedents have started, where a country where half of its population lives under the poverty line sends money to its migrants living in the world’s dominant power. The phenomenon hard to measure, because of its novelty and informal networks of remittances delivery however does not represent a complete shift in the flow of remittances. The number of remittances going from the United States into Mexico is still very significant with a record $16.4 billion for this year.

Nevertheless, in Chiapas, one of the Mexican districts’ with the largest population of immigrants in the United States, there is actually more remittances being sent by Mexicans to the US than Mexican immigrants in the US to their families in Mexico according to a small Chiapas banker.

This counter flow of remittance when Mexico’s situation is not particularly better than that of the United States with a predicted decline of 7.5% next year tells of the benefits of a different live style where one is self-sufficient and the importance of having a unified family. The families in Mexico that send money to their children in the US are poor peasants that they live in rural areas where they own their own land, and harvest their food.

All in all this might be the lesson in this phenomenon of reverse remittances that promises to be temporary, that in economic difficult times what matters is not abundance, but might.

In Search of a Velvet Revolution

By Fae MacArthur Clark

As a year which begun with cautious hope that a new US president might bring a new approach to Israel-Palestine negotiations draws to a close, the world seems increasingly to be coming to the realization "that the peace process has no clothes". For many this has been evident for quite some time but, with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas essentially throwing up his arms in a statement to that effect, even the most optimistic anylists are finding it hard not to concede the point.

This year, however, does not merely mark the inauguration of a new US president and, perhaps, the end to the term of an old Palestinian one. Twenty years ago this month, the Berlin Wall was disregarded and dismantled by the very people whom it had separated for nearly three decades. Historically, this event is connected with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via the chains of cause and effect which followed WWII and led both to the creation of the Berlin Wall and the state of Israel, two otherwise entirely unconnected spaces. However, some Palestinians would point to another connection - a second wall - the most recent link in the chain which created Israel itself. On the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Palestinians and foreign peace activists staged a timely reminder that there are still dividing walls around the world*. On two separate occasions, activists dismantled sections of the Israeli-built "separation wall" which ostensibly serves to protect Israel from attacks from within the West Bank. The wall, of which only 15% follows the "green line" which officially separates Israel and the West Bank, cuts through Palestinian settlements, cordoning off sections of the West Bank in which Palestinians must obtain permits to remain in their homes and from which they face difficulty accessing the remainder of the West Bank. The wall has been ruled illegal by both the International Court of Justice and the UN has passed several resolutions demanding its removal. Like its German counterpart, the "separation wall" serves as a graffiti canvas for protests against Israel and the wall itself. In stark contrast to the events of 1989, however, this year's activists were dispersed with tear gas and rubber bullets. Several were arrested.

These two protests, while small in scale and largely unnoticed by the international community, might give us some idea as to where the peace process might turn if political routes prove to be entirely exhausted. If such a people's response to this issue could prove as peaceful as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the Velvet Revolution (the twentieth anniversary of whose first demonstration we celebrate today), and other events of 1989 then we might see some hope yet for this conflict. The question is, are these activists on the one side and the shministim and their allies on the other a sufficient movement to bring about such change? At this point, almost certainly not. In the future, however? One can hope.



* The wall between Isreal and the West Bank is not the only current wall likened to the Berlin Wall. Other such walls still in existance include the Korean demilitarized zone, the Wagah border crossing between India and Pakistan, the US-Mexico border fence, and, in virtual terms, the great fire-wall of China.

How the Falling Of The Berlin Wall Gave Me Life

By Noquel A. Matos

20 Years ago, the Berlin wall was knocked down on November 9, 1989. While it significance it is still debated, popularly we can agree that for Germans it symbolized the unification of their country, and for the rest of the world it signified the beginning of the end of communism and the Cold War. For anyone living at the world at this time, the falling of the Berlin Wall marked a paramount historical moment that carried the promised of freedom into the century to come, and for those who were not alive and did not presence the falling of the wall, the event’s legacy lives on with their generation inhabitant of a free democratic world. Hence, no matter who you are there is some way that this event that happened 20 years ago relates to you.

I like to think it relates to me in an extra-special way. I was born August 17, 1990, nine month after the falling of the wall. I can’t help imagine that my parents conceived me in the mist of this celebration. It’s very much possible. It’s not only the theory of relativity but the place they were when it occurred.

On November 2009 , my parents lived in the great city of New York. My mother had come to the United States on 1986 and my father on 1973 fleeing the repressive government of Joaquin Balaguer. Not Unlike many Latin American countries at the time, Balaguer was the strong man put in power in the Dominican Republic by the United States to ensure it did not become communist. When the Berlin Wall fell, and my parent’s neighbor and the television celebrated for the end of communism, my father celebrated the end of the Cold War. After 16 years of having left his country with fear he could look back and hope to return. I like to think that the happiness he felt on that night brought about my conception. That is how the Berlin Wall gave me life.

Freedom by Accident: Why the Wall was Supposed to Remain

By Sue Gloor

In the wake of the anniversary of perhaps one of the greatest indirect US victories—the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of a communist stronghold in Europe—Mary Elise Sarotte points to the fact that the whole event was never supposed to occur in such a sweeping and symbolic manner.

Sarotte writes in The Washington Post that exactly twenty years after the breakdown of the barrier between East and West Germany, much of the world is still unaware about the specific circumstances surrounding that fateful day.

Apparently, the wall was never supposed to come down that quickly—a period of a few hours was all it took for some raucous and rebellious East Berliners to climb their way to freedom—or even at that point in time.

But the East German Politburo, the executive committee for the communist party, had already decided to pacify its repressed citizens by developing more “lenient” travel standards. It delegated a spokesman to explain the reforms during an international news conference.

The reforms were barely significant at all, and rather merely suggested freedom within a “fine print” context riddled with East Germany’s characteristic regulations. The spokesman, Guenter Schabowski, skimmed the new standards before holding the conference and mistakenly led the journalists present to believe that the wall was about to come down.

The ensuing breaking news stories in West Germany were all that was needed to exacerbate the misunderstanding, and soon the great physical divide was no more. It is strange that in an age where news broadcasts are considered the most trusted form of communication worldwide, we are reminded of how falsely reported news once changed the course of history.

It may be true that the Berlin Wall would have come down sooner rather than later in 1989, but the fact that its actual demise was stimulated by a muddled answer to the press is quite remarkable.

Lost in Translation? - How Military Might Can't Win in Afghanistan

By Fae MacArthur Clark
Photo is a work of the US Federal Government

We've been hearing for ages that translators are thin on the ground in the key areas of conflict in which the US is engaged. What we haven't been hearing much about is how this shortage of available translators opens the doors for candidates with less than adequate fluency in the languages in question. Recently, however, allegations that faulty translations of prisoner statements by Canadian military translators have led to false accusations of Taliban involvement have come hand in hand with similar worries about US military translators.

So, the translation question is back on the table. But what's the military supposed to do about it? It's not like the US has an abundance of Pashto and Dari speaking citizens just waiting to heed the call of the military. The only significant source of people speaking Afghan dialects that we have access to is Afghanis and, if Iraq is any indicator, the US military doesn't do such a great job of working together with locals on the ground.

Even if the US military could muster together a significant supply of Afghan translators in its employ, learn to trust them, develop their trust, and really learn to utilize their knowledge of Afghani language and culture, they would still represent, at best, a very small part of the US military presence. The vast majority of US soldiers would still face insurmountable difficulties in communicating with the Aghanis they are supposed to protect. Furthermore, the language barrier makes the oft-trumpeted "winning hearts and minds" a virtual impossibility. Just ask Air Force Maj. John Loftis, one of the rare Pashto speaking US troops in southern Afghanistan, speaking the language certainly helps smooth out the rough edges inherent in trying to ensure security.

This is something which isn't so frequently put into the context of the argument about US troop involvement in Afghanistan. On the one hand, US troops are certainly superior to their Afghan counterparts in terms of training and equipment. On the other, Afghan troops know the language, culture, and history of the country they're fighting for and have a personal investment in its success. The debates over how many troops for how long seem to dominate the discussion in the US and yet the miriad of other questions, each of undeniable importance to the future of Afghanistan, are largely pushed to the background. Talk of the Afghani military replacing US troops are presented as a way to get US troops out, even if this is at the cost of stability in the region, rather than a necessary move towards that same stability.

In the mean time, 40 or 20 thousand more troops may not be the central question the Obama administration faces. Both the US and Afghani militaries need more training and while that training is underway they need to utilize the fact that their strengths are complimentary.

Hondurian Agreement Sets Precedents

By Noquel A. Matos

Happy crowds in Tegucigalpa celebrated the signing of an agreement between Honduras De Facto government and ousted President Manuel Zelaya this past November 29th that promised the restitution of the overthrown president. The agreement negotiated by U.S officials, after 4 months of political stalemate, ensures Zelaya’s return to power if congress approves the agreement.

While the deal it’s a “historic agreement” as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, it should not be taken as a call for victory.

The congress that is to decide whether Zelaya returns to power or not, it’s the same congress that decided to strip him of his presidential powers four months ago. This is not to mention that the president of congress, Jose Alfedo Saavedra, it’s government De Facto acting president Roberto Micheletti’s personal friend.

Some speculate, however, that the fact that Zelaya would only be in power for 3 months if re-instituted and would not be able to pose as a candidate for the next presidential elections, just as Roberto Micheletti, would make Congress approve the deal to reinstate legality to the country. Nevertheless, this is yet to be seen and it is not clear when Congress will be carrying out the process.

“At this time, nobody, absolutely nobody can impose deadlines or terms on Congress,” President of Congress Saavedra stated in the wake of the events.

With the future’s uncertainty as our premise we can’t be sure of what to expect to develop in Honduras, however we can be sure to expect this agreement to hold a very special place in Western Hemisphere Political History. The Honduran coup was the first coup of the post-Cold War era and it seems it will be the first violence-free coup in Latin American history. Also, this agreement will remain a testament TO America’s progressive leadership in a New World Order.

Drawn-out Election Results in Default to Karzai

By Sue Gloor

On Nov. 1, main opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah announced his withdrawal from the Afghan election, effectively handing the presidency to incumbent Hamid Karzai.

This move comes as a vague surprise, as during the over-two-month interim between the Aug. 20 election and now the Afghan political scene has been riddled with allegations of Karzai’s fraud, ballot recounts and talk of a new, fairer runoff election between the top two candidates.

This period of time has involved many conflicts, including a spat between UN Mission to Afghanistan officials and longtime friends Kai Eide and Peter Galbraith (which resulted in the firing of Galbraith and his disgruntled return to the US), increased Taliban insurgency activity in the region, uncertainty about holding a runoff during the winter and US distress over its reputation for supporting an openly-dishonest presidential candidate.

Now, after all this, Abdullah has withdrawn and forfeited the second election that so many have toiled to provide.

Obama’s advisors stated that Abdullah’s choice “would not greatly affect American policy and was in line with the Afghan Constitution,” but this seems simplistic. In the somewhat haphazard recount of ballots from the initial election, officials from Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission threw out nearly one million fraudulent votes for Karzai. Presumably, even more votes could have been discarded and brought Karzai’s impressive 56% lead down considerably.

So how could Abdullah’s pulling out have no potential effect on America? If the US’s next partner in Kabul was headed by a new candidate, not the incumbent, who is a member of a different tribal party, wouldn’t this significantly change the US’s policy toward Afghanistan? If nothing else, its approach would have to be altered to address the shifting political environment there.

It is unfortunate that the fraudulent fiasco in Afghanistan was never remedied with a more legitimate runoff election. Hopefully that despite his dishonesty, Karzai will work with the US to establish the credibility and fair representation in Afghanistan that the country drastically needs.

Acknowleding the Green Revolution: Is It Time to Reassess US Policy Towards Iran?

By Fae MacArthur Clark

Days after an article in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that "there's still a revolution going on in Iran" and challenged Obama to reassess his approach to Iran, the annual Iranian news expo in Tehran has become a locus of ongoing opposition demonstrations.

The expo, which usually attracts only small crowds, showcases Iranian news media and international outlets with offices in Iran. This year the expo has been the site of heavy tensions between large crowds of opposition supporters and representatives of the largely state-owned media predominant in Iran. Opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi and Ali Reza Beheshti, a top aide to the favored opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, are both reported to have been roughed up at the event by pro-government supporters with a video of a disheveled Karroubi leaving the expo amid calls of "long live Karroubi" and "may Mousavi endure" circulating on Youtube. Mr. Mousavi himself is reported to have been prevented from entering the expo after unrest accompanied rumors of his imminent arrival.

The Wall Street Journal article calls for increased support from the US for democratic resistance in Iran and pulls together examples of pulled or redistributed funding by the US government for programs supporting democracy in Iran, alongside Obama's discussions with officials from Tehran, to paint a picture of hostility, or at least ambivalence, from the Obama Whitehouse towards the demonstrators. An article from the British newspaper the Guardian, published during the original opposition demonstrations, points to another side of the coin. Maybe Iranians don't want foreign intervention.

Indeed, I wrote an editorial on just this topic last week over on Bard Politik's online journal. When promoting US intervention in Iranian democracy we must always remember that this sort of intervention has a history which Americans may have forgotten but Iranians certainly have not. It was arguably the US supported overthrow of democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq back in 1953 which set Iran, by way of 20 more years under the Shah, on the path to the Islamic Revolution of 1978.

Still, even without US support, the Green Revolution in Iran is an important force which cannot be ignored in Iranian politics. On this count, the Wall Street Journal article is correct. Obama cannot afford to stick with policies he drafted and articulated prior to taking office, when it was still believed Iran harbored no significant opposition forces, without taking into account the events of this summer. It is a fine line for him to tred. The waiting game is not an option unless we resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran. On the other hand, simply working with Ahmedinejad's officials ignores changes and developments on the ground. The third, hopefully highly unlikely, option of an invasion of Iran is also further complicated by the presence of the dissidents and would be highly likely to nip the demonstrations in the bud before they have any real chance of developing further.

All of this said, Obama's current policy of negotiations with Iranian government officials may truly be the preferable option. In this way he leaves open the ability to adapt our policy if and when conditions in Tehran change while still, hopefully, stalling the possibility of a nuclear Iran. This policy, however, hinges on an awareness that things are changing on the ground in Iran and US policy will likely need to continue to adapt to accomodate this.

A Reality Check for Rio

The 13th Olympic Congress was held on Oct. 3, 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

By Sue Gloor

Barely after Brazil’s ecstasy died down over being chosen to host the 2016 Olympic Summer Games three weeks ago, the country’s chronic drug trafficking problem reared its ugly head in Rio de Janeiro, the capital.

Drug traffickers wielding a “large-caliber weapon,” according to police, shot down a police helicopter during a larger clash which killed 26 people overall. The attack was a shock even to Brazilians, who have long since accepted the prominence of drug violence in their increasingly economically disparate capital city.

This violence has been ever-present throughout Brazil for decades, and is exacerbated by the police’s neglect of favelas, the shantytowns that border the wealthy neighborhoods of Rio. The flow of weapons into these criminal strongholds, and the absence of any true action to stem it, is a factor that helped enable the recent event to occur.

Eduardo Paes, the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, was quick to admit that Brazilians have never attempted to hide the city’s drug problems, and will not do so now even with the new decision to host one of the largest competitions in the world. Still, direct action must be taken if Brazil wants to remain the host of the Olympics in 7 years.

Brazilian President da Silva seems to have finally turned his full attention to the situation. He has vowed to address the drug problem by providing extra federal funds to combat drug violence and increase security in the years leading up to the Olympics. A community policing effort will be established which will give police a greater presence in the favelas, and housing and road-building projects are being considered to aid in eliminating violence.

Though Rio de Janeiro is not the first Olympic city to have to deal with prominent violence after receiving its bid (after the decision in 2005 to host the 2012 summer games in London, the city experienced deadly terrorist attacks on its public transportation system), it is a problem that cannot be ignored away.

Brazil will have to step up to show the international community its determination to provide a safe venue for the world’s athletes.

Iraqis Live in Fantasy World Amidst the Reality of Guesome Violence

By Shaan Sachdev

It seems unlikely that a country sporting the infection of a stale war, pickling in the displacement and death of millions, can still tend to ordinary problems. As schools in the developed world are still being closed and re-opened due to swine flu scares, nearly 2,500 schools have been shut down in Iraq due to rumors about a swine flu influx.

Dr. Ihsan Jaafar, general director of the Public Health Directorate in the Health Ministry, attributed such panic to "irresponsible announcements", insisting that Iraq has been relatively unaffected by the pandemic. Indeed, Iraq has only seen 121 confirmed cases of swine flu, a remarkably small number in comparison to its neighbors and other states.

Still, parents seem paranoid, ensuring that their children wear surgical masks and stay at home. Some children, like Zahra Ahmed, seem perturbed by such hysteria. "I miss my teachers and friends from school," says Zahra, a sixth grader who has been forced to stay at home for nearly a week.

For a moment one might be tricked into believing that Iraq has returned to normalcy, once again able to worry about issues that the rest of the world shares. Upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that Iraqis are either living in a fantasy world or are so dulled by the atrocities of war that minor issues have become more worthy of their reaction.

For as schools shut down around the country because of swine flu scares, others do so for graver reasons. Mustansiriya University, a prestigious university in northeast Baghdad, closed its 24,000-student campus after a violent gang called the Students League assaulted a professor.

The Students League, a politically-motivated group of armed Shiites, have murdered, tortured, and raped several students, and shot three professors to death. The beating of this particular professor finally caught the country's attention after he personally went to Prime Minister al-Maliki's office, "wearing his bloodied clothes and with untreated gashes on his face and head".

More than 335 students and staff members have been killed at Mustanisiriya University since 2007, due to bombings and such attacks, and yet the institution had remained open, unwilling to submit to the products of instability. It is darkly ironic that schools around Iraq are reacting vehemently to a swine flu scare, as the murder and torture still raging around them have become old news.

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.

Afghanistan and the Need for a Credible Leadership

By Fae MacArthur Clark

Last night, Afghanistan's
Independent Election Commission ordered a run-off election between the two main contenders, Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. This morning Afghani President Hamid Karzai accepted the commission's findings, calling them a "step forward". The run-off has been scheduled for November 9th.

This announcement comes in the wake of comments by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on CNN's "State of the Union", Sunday. Emanuel stated that the primary concern of the administration was whether they had "a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need."

The comments made by Rahm and other key officials have faced responses from some critics which point to the argument for credible Afghani leadership as an "excuse[] for dangerous delay" on the question of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

This deliberation, however, has much to commend it. Democratic Senator John Kerry's recent statement in a CNN satellite interview from Kabul that "it would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country, when we don't even have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we're working in" certainly has a lot to recommend it. Whatever our strategy in Afghanistan over the coming years, the Afghani leadership is going to have a significant affect upon whether it achieves its goals and what Afghanistan looks like when the US finally withdraws.

Still, a further delay in making a plan for Afghanistan risks allowing the situation to deteriorate between now and November. If President Obama is going to wait until after the coming election to make a final decision about US policy in Afghanistan in the coming years, then he at least needs to have an interim policy in place until that comes into effect which includes a policy towards the process of the elections themselves.

The current White House debate on Afghanistan is a black box, absorbing information and allowing very little out by way of an indication as to what direction US policy there might take. We cannot afford to continue with this lack of information. The White House needs to make a decision and tell it to the American and Afghani people, even if that decision is simply "we will not commit further US troops to a nation which lacks a credible government and the ability to effectively protect its citizens when US troops do leave. Consequently we will pursue X policy until the conclusion of the coming elections at which point we will reevaluate whether a continued or increased US presence in the country of the sort which General McChrystal has proposed is a feasible option. If a credible Afghani government is not formed then we will need to radically rewrite our policy towards our involvement in that country."

Darfur Joins the "Never Again" List

By Shaan Sachdev

One of the most prominent humanitarian crises of this century briefly regained the spotlight this week when the Obama administration announced the details of its stance on the Sudanese government. It seems as though Obama will recognize Omar al-Bashir’s administration while advocating “a tougher approach”.

The genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur in 2003 remain an unresolved issue. The conflict still continues, embodied in sporadic violence, displacement, and starvation.

The conflict began on a relatively simple level—Darfur has always been divided between Islamic and African tribes. Khartoum’s continual neglect of Darfur only increased such divides.

Colonel Gaddafi of Libya’s decision to arm Islamic militias throughout North Africa (in an attempt to unify Muslims) incited violent conflict between Muslims and other Darfurian tribes that started in 1987 and continued onwards.

To quell what became a revolution, Omar al-Bashir’s administration sent in the Janjawiid and the genocide of Darfur followed. After 2004 the conflict complicated greatly as various rebel groups rose to power and the presence of aid organizations largely influenced the movement of tribes.

Why was there no effective international intervention? America was exhausted from the massive diplomatic effort extended in ending the war in south Sudan. France was too busy preserving stability in Chad. Russia did not want to instigate an arms ban on Sudan (to whom they sold plenty of MiG’s each year) and China was not keen on banning Sudanese oil exports (for equally obvious reasons). The burden thus went to the African Union, who were ill-equipped and whose mandate didn’t allow the use of force.

Six years later, after the International Criminal Court has repeatedly called for the indictment of Omar al-Bashir due to his committal of war crimes and genocide, Barack Obama’s newly-established stance on Sudan may indicate the extent to which America is willing to intervene in international crises that actually exist.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both failed miserably in preventing humanitarian crises (at least on time), contradicting America’s constantly-repeated pledge to ensure no repeat of the Holocaust.

Barack Obama has already been accused of being too soft in his approach toward international relations. There are differences, however, between effective diplomacy and the legitimization of war criminals. The decision to negotiate with Ahmadinejad of Iran may hold validity because, despite his fraudulent election and oppressive tendencies, he has not killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and he is not a war criminal.

The tired analogies to Hitler and Milosevic and Pol Pot seem almost useless at this point because however pertinent it may have been to maintain stability in Germany, Yugoslavia, or Cambodia, the prospect of diplomatic relations with such criminals today seems outrageous.

Yet Omar al-Bashir, who has been accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, accompanied by pretty damning evidence, has not been entirely dismissed by the “leaders of the free world”. Instead, they have decided to be a little stricter.

Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., says that “Engagement is not a reward. To definitively end the killing and dying ultimately requires a solution the government is willing to implement. There’s no way around it.”

Some argue that this has not been America’s policy in the past. Some argue that Obama’s position as president of the world’s most powerful country would allow him to pressure the Security Council into cornering Khartoum until al-Bashir relinquishes power.

With a state department unwilling to release specific information on how the United States plans to be harder on Sudan, might Obama be heading in the same direction as his genocide-friendly predecessors?

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.

A Dangerous New Challenge Arises for Immigrants

By Sue Gloor

Despite the American financial crisis and the resulting stem in the flow of migration to the United States, people from Mexico and other Latin American countries continue to attempt to cross the border into the North. In fact, the heightened economic tension may be a factor stimulating the development of a lucrative new business—the kidnapping of these migrants for ransom.

Recently in Mexico the kidnapping of desperate and poverty-stricken migrants has increased. These people might not have extensive funds themselves, but they are usually carrying the phone numbers and email addresses of a number of relatives who have already made it to the US and can be forced to pay large sums for the safe return of their traveling loved ones.

The con artists, usually from Mexico, lure immigrants by promising them help crossing the border and small jobs to gain much-needed money, for example. Once alone, the criminals beat the immigrants and demand their US contacts. Raping and even killing are also tactics which are sometimes used if the immigrants do not comply with the demands of their kidnappers.

Up north in the US, family members get calls or emails for huge amounts of money for the release of the kidnapped, which they usually pay in order to ensure the safety of the victim.

Unfortunately, the problem of kidnapping illegal immigrants is hard to pinpoint and address, since many of the incidents go unreported. Immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, don’t know the Mexican area well and are afraid of being deported back to their home countries if they tell law enforcement officials. Sometimes the Mexican police are actually working with the kidnappers.

Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission estimates that 9,758 migrants were kidnapped as they tried to cross from Mexico into the US between September 2008 and February 2009 alone—a period of just six months. Given the difficulty of recording the incidents, this is most likely a modest figure.

Halloween Costume Exacerbates Stigmas Against Immigrants

By Noquel A. Matos

Among the many distasteful costumes that sale prior to Halloween there’s a particular one causing disdain among the immigrant population: the “illegal immigrant.”
The custom that appeared in Targets online sale this last week with the following description: “He’s got his green card, but is from another planet! Sure to get some laughs, the Illegal Alien Adult Costume includes an orange prison-style jumpsuit with 'Illegal Alien' printed on the front, an alien mask and a 'green card," has alarmed immigration rights groups.

Angelica Salas from the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights of Los Angeles has asked Minneapolis-based group to remove the “distasteful, mean-spirited and ignorant of social stigma” costume. Other social action groups as United Farm Workers have also urge their supporters to send complaints to the stores that sale the dehumanizing costumes.

Although Target has responded positively to the complaints and has agreed to remove the costume from its online offers, this is just represents a small triumph.
There is at least five other online stores of the size of Target that sale the costume. The costume can be found in toyrus.com, amazon.com, meijer.com, Walgreens.com, and buycostumes.com.

The illegal alien costume aims at stigmatizing undocumented immigrants. Most like minstrel shows, it aims to ridicule an underrepresented community to further marginalize it. In times where this country chooses to look at the other side when it comes to the immigration debate or bluntly enforce overly inflexible immigration law, this costume stands as a retreating step from a desired fair immigration reform; it perpetuates the already existent xenophobic feelings present at the core of the immigrant debate and it slows it down.

By any way or principle this costume should not have a place in the America market. It negates the humanity of 12, 000 people that help run this economy.

Losing the Myth of Chinese Homogeneity

By Fae MacArthur Clark

Six people were sentenced to death this week for their roles in the riots in the Xinjiang province of China in July of this year. The six were convicted of murder as well as lesser crimes of "arson, leading mobs and causing 'economic loss'."

The riots had the effect of shattering widely held myths in both China and the West about Chinese social harmony and ethnic homogeneity respectively. The argument that China has grown so quickly because of the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of its population is not an uncommon one. However, it is highly inaccurate.

While the Chinese population is officially over 90% Han, the term Han itself encompasses a variety of differing ethnicities and cultural traditions. Furthermore, China has a history of ethnically and culturally motivated unrest particularly in Tibet and Xinjiang (the site of this year's riots). It is also worth noting that a large part of the 9% of the population considered non-Han are concentrated in areas of significant natural resources.

Even without the question of control of resources, any consideration of China's approach to Tibet and Taiwan (a non ethnically motivated example) shows a distinct aversion to seperatist movements which likely derives from fears that such demonstrations of unrest make China appear less powerful to its own citizens. For a government which gains legitimacy from its ability to grow the Chinese economy and raise China to a position of power in the world, any such unrest is highly troubling.

That said, ethnic unrest is certainly unlikely to cause the toppling of China any time in the near future. However, it does have two clear effects. Firstly, it forces us to reconsider the argument that China's success stems from some fictitious cultural unity and consider other ways of understanding its rise. Second, it undermines China's own ability to project an image of social harmony both at home and abroad which is essential to its ability to wield that power effectively.

A Move in the Right Direction

By Noquel A. Matos

PHOENIX- The Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency finally limited Maricopa Country Sherriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies’ ability to enforce federal immigration law. The department equipped with 160 federally trained deputies to conduct immigration arrests, the largest in the country, have widely terrorized the local immigrant community with high levels of racial profiling, for which it’s under investigation by the Justice Department division of Human Rights.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio known for being a fierce enforcer of immigration law in his county says the decision will not deter his mission of deporting undocumented immigrants. If necessary he’ll take them to the border himself, he stated.

The decision to limit the immigration hardliner’s power to perform immigration arrests comes from the White House. Most likely as Obama’s response to a letter sent by the Hispanic Immigration Caucus denouncing the abuses committed under this program that allows local officers to enforce immigration law.

However, this is not a call to victory yet, it’s just a move in the right direction.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio as many others biased officials with special interest in carrying out deportations still hold uncheck power to have their way. They still have room to carry on with their invested private interests under state laws.

“Let them all go brag, they took away the Sheriff’s authority. Let them all do that. That doesn’t bother me. I don’t have an ego. I will continue doing the same thing,” Sheriff Arpaio warned upon finding the federal agency decision to cut his notorious program.

Although, Arpaio’s deputies’ power to make field arrest was limited, they still have the power to question inmates in jail about their immigration status, which concerns immigrant right advocates that know the Sheriff investment in cleansing his county of undocumented immigrant or anyone who look like them:

''All he has to do [now] is get people to the jail, rather than being able to question them about their immigration status on the street,'' Joan Friedman, immigration policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, predicted.

Until a federal immigration reform is passed in Congress that overhauls immigration law enforcement nationally, we’ll keep seeing abuses of power in immigration law enforcement on xenophobic and racist states.

Pakistan Thunders

By Shaan Sachdev

The attack on the World Food Program office in Islamabad on Monday, for which the Taliban has already claimed responsibility, added more questions to a transitory period in Afghanistan’s future. As the American government decides on the question of sending more troops to Afghanistan, it is becoming impossible to ignore Pakistan any longer.

Pakistan has remained almost too difficult to think about in the last decade of America's "War on Terror". Afghanistan seemed to be an obvious attacking point, as the blatant host of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, after 9/11. Iraq seemed almost completely idiotic to most, even before the invasion’s inception. Yet Pakistan has never provoked a particularly opinionated consensus, despite the high concentration of Islamic militants swarming the Swat Valley.

Perhaps this is because Pakistan is more powerful than either Iraq or Afghanistan, presided over by a government less dispensable than those of Saddam’s or the Taliban’s. Yet could the existence of instability, manifested in both consistent insurgent attacks throughout Pakistan and a firmly entrenched terrorist presence, alongside an allegedly functioning government present a greater threat than governments functioning with no pretense? Legitimacy, after all, provides much greater access to the international arena.

The first question regards legitimacy itself. While President Zardari of Pakistan has committed to cracking down on militants inhabiting the north, most Pakistanis are unwilling to trust a man who has been sent to jail several times on corruption charges. More importantly, Zardari’s sporadic crackdowns in the Swat have not accomplished enough to deter the Obama administration from considering a greater presence in Pakistan.

The next question consequently addresses the extent of American presence in Pakistan. While the number of troops operating in Afghanistan is as accessible as Obama’s approval rating, the American public’s knowledge of investment in Pakistan remains shadier.

Congress consented to an aid package of $7.5 billion over the next five years, intended to assist Zardari’s government in driving out terrorist groups and “to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian politics,” according to Jane Perlez of The New York Times.

In addition, the Obama administration is planning for the construction of a massive American embassy in Islamabad. The embassy will naturally be accompanied by various high-security trinkets, some of which have already been flown in to the capital.

Armored vehicles and private military contracting companies are among the changes Pakistanis are witnessing as American diplomats prepare for a greater presence. Among such companies is DynCorp, which has already been the subject of accusations of civilian abuse.

Such activities have served as early warning signs for many Pakistanis, who have been quick to predict Pakistan’s subjugation to an Iraqi-style invasion. The presence of Blackwater hasn’t deterred such parallels.

Similar attitudes of independence exist in more remote areas. Jamal Nasir, mayor of Swat, has assembled a private militia of thousands of villagers who intend to protect the valley after the Pakistani army leaves. The villagers inhabiting such regions have been exposed to more civilian casualties than anyone and are tired of Taliban dominance.

Such approaches have occasionally demonstrated successful results—the corpses of Taliban associates strewn about the Swat countryside have been more frequent finds in the last few months.

Should a certain amount of autonomy be left up to these more or less independent villages, capitalizing on their interests to achieve a similar goal?

Should the Pakistani peoples’ voices be heard, and authority be left to the country’s incompetent government and military?

Or should the United States add another battle to its plate, perhaps the most complex yet, given its history of an inability to fight wars without mass civilian atrocities and very little progress? The steps taken in the next few weeks might answer such crucial questions.

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.

Iran: An Iranian Perspective

By Fae MacArthur Clark

The French newspaper Le Monde published an interesting little article this week in the wake of long awaited talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China). The article comes from an interesting angle that appears to have been largely missing from the English language media coverage: an Iranian perspective. Le Monde interviewed five individuals of Iranian origin and otherwise diverse backgrounds about their views on Iran's nuclear program.

The resulting short essays make quite an interesting read (unfortunately google's translation of the page is abysmal so I'll do my best to translate the relevant parts below).

Ali Rastbeen, founder and president of the Paris Academy of Geopolitics, writes about US-Iranian political relations, pointing to disagreements over nuclear energy as only part of the relationship. He writes "Since 1979 Washington has used nothing but demonstrations of force towards resolving its differences with Iran. The Iranian regime who, by their nature, have need of a pretext to turn public opinion away from questions of domestic policy, have never ceased to play with this political struggle against the US."

Jaleh Bradea, presenter of the French television show "Women's Destinies", takes a different approach. She writes "I dream that my two small sons, half French, born in France, will one day have the choice to live in a democratic Iran, one which perhaps we might help in building. A democratic country who, if all the other countries keep their nuclear weapons, will also have that right. For its securitye, their security... I think of the mother of Neda (the symbol of the recent protests by the Iranian people) and of all the young people killed or tortured for an ideal Iran for which they fight at the cost of their lives... They do not care about nuclear power, they would just love a bare minimum of liberty and security... I am always afraid that in all the geopolitical discourse, economic and strategic interests, and relations between Iran and the international community, we forget what counts most in my eyes: the Iranian people."

Ehsan Emami, president of the telecommunications company Mediaserv, comes from an altogether different angle, stating "I remember still the beautiful pictures the secret service so skillfully painted of bunkers in the Afghan mountains filled with the most modern and destructive weapons. And what did they find? Some caves several meters deep, without technology, without water, without electricity." And pointing similarly to the predictions of WMDs in Iraq.

Ramin Parham, author of The Secret History of the Iranian Revolution, quotes Mohsen Makhmalbaf, one of the spokespeople of the recent "Green Revolution" in Iran, "The Iranian green movement does not want an atomic bomb!" and places his hopes in the the green revolution.

Ataollah Mohajerani, former minister of culture under Iranian president Khatami, completely rewrites the basis of contention. This is not the US and the international community vs. a nuclear Iran, it is Iran vs. a unipolar US. He recommends that anyone troubled by current events "take a visit to the Museum of Peace at Hiroshima", but his argument does go beyond this sort of rhetoric. "The principle question is this," he writes, "is the American attitude commensurate with that of the international community?"

These arguments each differ in varying degrees from those most commonly bandied about in the US media. However, they do each have something interesting to bring to the table. Perhaps empassioned pleas to think of the Iranian people, and excessive confidence in the potential of the Green revolution will not have amazing affects upon the shape of policy towards Iran, but they do make us think of aspects of Iranian and world politics that must be taken into consideration in any plans to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[All quotes are in translation and subsequently not direct quotations. I am not a professional tranlator. All translation is approximate.]

Chicago's Lost of Olympic Host Title, Benefitial Or Not?

By Noquel A. Matos

President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and celebrity host
Ophra Winfrey flew to Copenhagen, Denmark to lobby for their hometown
Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic Games. The attempt reinforced with a
charged emotional speech from the first lady reminiscing about how
inspiring it was to watch Olympic Games in the lap of her sick father
and President Obama’s speech on the great qualities of the city of
Chicago was not enough to get their city the host title. Brazil with a
heavy bid of US$240 billion knocked out the passionate warriors on the first
round, along as with other contesting cities, Madrid and Tokyo.

Chicago that was expected to win the hosting privilege because of President Obama’s exclusive support was the first to lose. The defeat came as a strong blow to the city that had spend $50 million in the last four years to get to host the event; by the time that Brazil was announced winner the charismatic supporters of Chicago had already left the room in Lebron James fashion, knowing they were already eliminated from the hosting title race.

With the current economic crisis unfolding in this nation one cannot help but wonder
if this wasn’t for the better. Historically, we have seen how expensive is to host a sporting event of the magnitude of the Olympic Games. Athens, for example, that hosted the 2004 Olympic ended spending 10 times its estimated budget. In addition, to millions of dollars more to maintain the large state of the arts stadium that it does not even utilize.

On the other hand there are those who argue that it is rewarding to host an event that sparks tourism, which in turn revives the economy. However, one is tempted to ask if increased tourism in Chicago could have helped bring the United States out of its economic recession.

Tell us what you think. Is it more beneficial for the United States to actually not host the 2016 Olympics than to have hosted it?

Post your opinion!

Obama's Not Quite Up to the Challenge

credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Sue Gloor

Though President Obama pledged on his inauguration day to close the terrorist detention center Guantánamo Bay in one year, the path toward achieving this goal has proven to be riddled with obstacles. Now, officials are saying this timetable will likely not be followed, as 220 suspects are still currently detained.

The hardest suspects to address are probably the Yemenis, who account for nearly half of the total number of detainees at Guantánamo.

For example, Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, a man from Yemen, was detained for 7 years without formal charges, and was released just last week after a long-awaited trial. American officials dug their heels in sending him back to Yemen, hoping instead to enroll him in a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia in order to curb any terrorist tendencies he might have picked up while in prison.

Officials are worried that even detainees who have been proven not guilty may have been radicalized against Americans while being detained at Guantánamo, and thus might join an insurgency after being released.

This is especially a fear with regard to Yemen, a country with a growing presence of al-Qaeda operatives. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it has no rehabilitation program in place to pacify the suspects once they return home.

Add to this the idea that Yemen is soft on terrorism after the outbreak of 23 suspected terrorists there in 2006, and American officials are becoming increasingly hesitant to dispatch suspects to the country, even after they are classified as “not dangerous.”

What this means for Obama’s promise is becoming increasingly apparent: a little over 300 prisoners have been released from Guantánamo, but over 200 also remain. It’s clear that the closing of the detention center is farther off than Obama promised, especially since 97 of those remaining are Yemenis.

The Obama Doctrine?

By Fae MacArthur Clark

With leaders from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi, and now Burmese Prime Minister Thein Sein looking to talk with Obama, and Obama, for the most part, willing to talk back, US foreign policy seems to be taking off in a decidedly different direction from at least the last eight years. And it's not only talk, changes to US policy in Afhanistan and Somalia also point to a new approach to foreign policy.


This hasn't gone unnoticed within the US on the left or the right alike. Nile Gardner, Director of the Heritage Foundation's Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom wrote in an article for the British newspaper, the Telegraph entitled "The UN Loves Barack Obama Because He Is Weak," "His appeasement of Iran, his bullying of Israel, his surrender to Moscow, his call for a nuclear free world, his siding with Marxists in Honduras, his talk of a climate change deal, have all won him plaudits in the large number of UN member states where US foreign policy has traditionally been viewed with contempt. Simply put, Barack Obama is loved at the UN because he largely fails to advance real American leadership. This is a dangerous strategy of decline that will weaken US power and make her far more vulnerable to attack."


Others commend the move towards multilateralism, with Jacob Heilbrunn of the Huffington Post writing "instead of standing aloof and sulking in the corner, as the U.S. has for years, it's starting to wield its influence. For too long, Bush allowed America's foes to dictate events by refusing to engage them. Obama is taking the opposite approach. Just as the economy needs to be jump-started, so does foreign policy. Obama has recognized that. The revitalization of American diplomacy and power has begun."


But what does this actually mean for US relations with the rest of the world and is the Obama doctrine one of "weak[ness]" or a "revitalization of American diplomacy and power"? It rather depends on how one understands the dynamics of global power play. In a model in which US power is maintained by force and the fear of the use of it, Gardiner's comments make a great deal of sense and Obama's attempts at multilateralism seem like clear expressions of weakness. In one in which US power is both restrained by and most effective in cooperation with other states, Heilbrunn's argument is more persuasive. In reality, there is probably a certain degree of both present in global politics. Consequently, both sides will likely find fodder for challenging and applauding Obama's foreign policy. What will be most telling are the material ramifications in key areas such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran.

Obama Falters Over Deadline to Close Guatanamo Bay

By Noquel A. Matos

This past Monday White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs announced that President Obama might not be able to deliver on his promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center by the pronounced January 22, 2010 deadline.

Obama that made clear during his campaign speech that if he became President he will close the infamous detention center seemed to deliver his promised when only two days after being sworn president, declared a deadline for the closing of the prison. However, as the words of White House Press Secretary convey the President might have miscalculated the prospects to close the detention center.

Now the priority on closing the detention center has shifted from when to close it to how to close it. Mr. Gibbs claimed that the deadline was not the main concern, but how go about moving the prisoners to secure prisons.

Several senators from different states have already expressed concerns regarding these prisoners considered of the worst kind to be hosted on their state prisons. With the controversy that is sure to cause the imprisonment of 9/11 alleged plotters and other terrorist in U.S territory prisons Obama’s administration is trying to maintain the destination of these prisoners confidential.

With all of these factors to take into account in such a delicate issue with the international attention that Guantanamo Bay receives, it’s smart for President Obama to take his time to plan the closing of the prison. Although a question of time remains important into the considerations that go into closing the detention center, the question of effectiveness shall bare more importance.

The American public should be happy that the government is taking a responsible approach to its policy. It has not shied away from the responsibility of acknowledging its challenges and shortcomings.

One shall not think that hesitation is a sign of weakness.

The fact our new elected President is able to be transparent about the possibility of not meeting a deadline three months before that deadline is due and not two weeks before does not tell us he is not firmed on his decisions but that he is thoughtful about them. The decision has never changed; the prison is still getting close, just not hurriedly, at the right time.

URL LINK: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/politics/29gitmo.html?ref=americas

New HIV Vaccine Hails from Thailand

Prat Boonyawongvirot, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand, addresses a high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS at the United Nations in New York. Credit UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz

By Sue Gloor

A ground-breaking experiment in Thailand has led researchers to be optimistic about a vaccine to prevent HIV.

The experiment is the largest-ever HIV vaccine trial, and combined the administration of two HIV vaccines, both used previously with no results. The vaccines target the B and E strains of HIV since those strains are predominant in Thailand. The C strain, most prevalent in Africa, was not tested.

The subjects of this trial were 16,395 HIV-negative men and women from all over Thailand between the ages of 18 and 30. Half of the trial’s participants were given the vaccine, and half were given the placebo, after which they were all counseled in HIV prevention. Over the course of three years, the participants were tested for HIV every six months. The experiment resulted in a startling finding that has yet to be supported by additional trials, though it is promising just the same.

Of the subjects who received the placebo, 74 contracted HIV over the three-year period. Of the vaccinated participants, 51 became infected with HIV in the same period. This translates to a 31.2% decrease in HIV infection with the vaccine.

Though a direct causal relationship between the vaccine and diminished HIV infection has not been substantiated, the World Health Organization and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS hailed the study as successful.

Even Dr. Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet Medical Journal, stated that the findings “may have been due to chance,” and while they are encouraging, they cannot be relied on yet.

Studies of this nature are particularly difficult to employ, since some of the volunteers receive an un-tested vaccination comprised of a very harmful and serious virus. If the vaccine is not weak enough, it could potentially trigger the infection of HIV itself rather than prevent it.

However, the new experiment from Thailand seems to be on the right track.

With President Zelaya Back, First Post-Cold War Coup Could Turn Violent

By Noquel A. Matos

TEGUCIGALPA-Three months ago on June 28, the Honduran military kidnapped President Manuel Zelaya into Costa Rica removing him from government and proclaiming a de facto government led by Roberto Micheletti. Micheletti’s government, disapproved by the international community, came to power in response of President Zelaya attempts at passing a referendum this past June. They claim that the referendum looked to undermine the Honduran Constitution by allowing President Zelaya to re-elect. Despite international economical sanctions in the way of embargo towards the coup leader, Roberto Micheletti has stood fast in his position of not giving up the presidential seat.
Honduras in its current state of political instability with the army patrolling the streets, it’s only going to get more chaotic. Yesterday, President Zelaya secretly sneaked back into the country. The disposed President made arrangements with the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa to let him take refuge in their premises. Roberto Michelli, who at first denied the presence of President Zelaya in the country, ordered the Brazilian Embassy to give him up so he could face the 18 charges against him.
President Zelaya who has being open for dialogues however will not give himself in. The President has denied any attempt alleged by de facto government of under minding the constitution. Actually, President Zelaya said he never planned to run for re-elections.
With the leaders of the world just meeting North from this developing conflict, and for its nature of being the first attempt to oust a president by force in the Post-Cold War era this conflict is predicted to gain the world’s attention in the United Nations. Nevertheless, the prospect of a peaceful solution does not look plausible. Roberto Micheletti has been resiliency on his position of staying in government and Manuel Zelaya grows impatient to return to his Presidential seat.
Now, with President Zelaya back in Honduran territory things could grow violent as Roberto Micheletti keeps pressuring to convict the President elected.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/world/americas/22honduras.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=zelaya%20is%20back&st=cse

Where to in Afghanistan?

By Fae MacArthur Clark

With the world's political leaders all gathering together in New York for the 61st session of the UN Assembly, President Obama looks set to have his plate full pushing the peace process with those who aren't that interested in talking and avoiding those that are. However, a nation whose ruler isn't going to be there is likely also garnering a good deal of Obama's attention.


Three weeks ago the media picked up on a new report coming out of Afghanistan calling for a new strategy there and last week the Washington Post got a hold of a copy of the confidential report. The report, the work of Obama's newly appointed leading General in Afghanistan, Stanley McChrystal, reads in no uncertain terms “failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible” and calls for more troops to be sent to the region. It is not, however, simply a call for more men and guns. McChrystal's report provides a detailed assessment of the status of the insurgency in Afghanistan and proposes a strategy more concerned with protecting civilians and training Afghani troops and police.


The report also pulls no punches in its critique of the Afghani government. “The weakness of state institutions, malign actions of power-brokers, widespread corruption and abuse of power by various officials, and ISAF's own errors, have given Afghans little reason to support their government” explains McChrystal. But what does this mean for the US?


In light of this summer's allegations of election fraud, this further indightment of the Afghani government, and the increasing unpopularity of the war at home, Obama may find it hard to justify extending the troops and resources General McChrystal requests. On the other hand, pulling out would likely raise accusations of cutting and running from a mess that we made and would leave the Afghani people largely unprotected in the face of a well organized Taliban. Finally, a compromise presents itself as perhaps the worst of the three options, likely leaving those US troops currently in Afghanistan in an increasingly dangerous position without achieving any of our goals there.


It seems, perhaps, that we are in a situation with only one real way forward and it isn't an appealing one. Cutting and running or continuing an ineffective presence, however, seem distinctly less favorable. Obama has shown some tacit support in the past for continued intervention in Afghanistan by stating he would not commit more troops and resources to Afghanistan without “absolute clarity about what the strategy is going to be.” But with a strategy, such as McChrystal's, perhaps that is what we are going to see.

Obama initiates Israel/Palestine Discussion

By Sue Gloor

On Tuesday, September 22, President Obama will meet with Israeli and Palestinian officials to discuss the current inroads and future plans for the situation in the Middle East. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be representing Israel at the talks, and President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad will jointly speak for Palestine.

Even though previous talks among the three powers have resulted in little headway in the conflict, and even though the recently-convened General Assembly will also address the Israel/Palestine issue this week, Obama believes that additional, separate attempts at negotiation will be beneficial.

Among the Palestinian grievances to discuss are the new settlements by Israelis in the region, such as the building of infrastructure on land that may eventually be conceded to Palestine.

Netanyahu is hesitant to commit to a course of action, saying that he can’t make concessions (like agreeing to stop the settlements) until the negotiations have started. This is why extensive talks with a third party such as the US can help bolster compromise.

Israel, on the other hand, is most preoccupied with blocking and/or halting the nuclear proliferation of Iran and North Korea, which Israel deems inappropriate and potentially harmful.

It’s not surprising that Israel feels threatened by Iran’s increasing nuclear capabilities. In fact, Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak admitted that “he removes no option from the table,” alluding to the fact that Israel sees a military attack on Iran as a viable option.

Barak also pointed the US in the direction of addressing North Korea’s nuclear capabilities, since this issue is weighing on the minds of Israelis as well. Still, Barak remains adamant that Israel can protect itself should it be necessary.

This leaves the impression that Obama should prepare himself not only for a mediating roll in the talks, but also to be challenged about compromises the US can make to help the situation.

Link to Article, Sorry! (Noquel)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/world/americas/13venez.html?ref=americas

The "Palestinian Question": Why We should Watch This Spot

By Fae MacArthur Clark

During my very short trip to Egypt and Lebanon this summer, the first topic of discussion with regard to US - Middle East politics wasn't Iraq, it wasn't Afghanistan, it was Israel.

In the shadow of conflicts in which we are actively involved, the US public has a tendency to view US policy towards Israel as a less than defining aspect of US relations with the "Muslim World"*. However, the Israel-Palestine conflict should probably garner a little more of our attention for three reasons.

First: People in the Middle East think it is important. The 2008 Arab Public Opinion Poll [warning: this links to a download] by the Anwar Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland found that 86% of Arabs (surveyed in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE) considered the “Palestinian question” as one of their top three issues and 42% responded that the possibility that “continuing trouble in Iraq will divert attention from other issues such as the Palestinian question” was one of their top two biggest concerns as to the consequences of the Iraq war.

Public opinion in the Middle East is important to the US on the most simplistic level because of its effect upon the availability of recruits to groups like Al Qaeda. But it is also important, in a far more complex and perhaps more consequential sense, because of its general effect upon the possibility of healing the rift between the West and the Middle East and the consequences that this entails such as the forging of increased diplomatic ties and the possibility for change considered “Western” such as more diplomatic political systems and more freedom for women.

Second: The Israel-Palestine situation is changing. We have a tendency to focus upon Israel only when violence breaks out, however, despite the lack of a major Israeli (or Palestinian) offensive currently, we might do well to keep an eye on the politics and the much softer exertion of power by Israel through settlements in the occupied territories (and the debate between Israel and the Obama Whitehouse on this topic). Yes, this has been going on for decades, but with a new US president pushing Israel for change and a growing appreciation both internationally and within Israel that the whole situation is heading towards a two-state solution, these power postures may have a greater effect than their earlier counterparts.

Third: The solution to Israel-Palestine issue has the potential to be a very unstable one in a region with no need for further political instability. US policy in the region over the next few years has the opportunity to have a great affect upon the forging of this solution and upon the eventual stability of the fledgling Palestine likely to emerge from it.

The events in Israel and Palestine over the next year as well as the part the Obama administration plays in them could very well turn out to be defining points in US - Middle East relations.



*The term "Muslim World" is a thoroughly inadequate descriptor which is highly misleading as to the nature of the nations involved, however, there is a distinct lack of a better term that encompasses the region in question.

Edited to add a title.

Western Hemisphere Missile Crisis?

By Noquel A. Matos

This last Friday on the anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11 the President of Venezuela Hugo Chavez announced it will buy short range missiles from Russia. Chavez clarified that the purpose of the missiles were only for defense against an attack or invasion and that Venezuela was not planning an attack against another country.

However, the purchase of the missiles with enough range to strike American military installations in Colombia, Curacao and the Island of Aruba are suspected to be Chavez's response to America's plan to increase its military presence in Colombia. Chavez's decision of purchasing the missiles might bring conflict with the United States. The United States might read Chavez's move of purchasing these weapons as the leader's intention of following his fellow nation leader Fidel Castro's steps. During the Cuban missile crisis in 1961 Fidel Castro placed Soviet Union's (Russian) missiles in its mountains in response to United States' placing of missiles in Turkey.

Alarm in Washington over President Chavez's transaction with Russia is to be expected. On this last decade, Hugo Chavez has come to replace Castro as the most outspoken anti-American leader in the Western Hemisphere. Also, Chavez has openly accused the United States of backing the military coup that temporarily removed him from government in 2002. Moreover, more than once Chavez has denounced plans of the United States to assassinate him.

If any country in the Western Hemisphere has the motive and the capability to attack the United States is Venezuela. The United States should take this seriously because if a conflict were to prevail the loses will be equally as high in both sides since Venezuela is the fourth largest supplier of American oil and Venezuela's economy depends heavily on America's petrodollars.

Obama attempts to remedy past Bush blunders

By Sue Gloor

The Obama administration has begun to make marked changes in the United States’ approach to dealing with alleged terrorists, the New York Times reports. Especially under focus is the Bagram prison near Kabul, Afghanistan, which is known for using “heavy interrogation” methods that have so far killed two detainees.

The Pentagon has come up with several changes to current detention center operating procedures, which will hopefully be more in compliance with human rights legislation:

--Assign an official to each of the 600 detainees at Bagram, who will then be responsible for aiding the detainee in pleading his case before a military-appointed review board. The official will be able to gather documents, find witnesses and review classified information, for example, to help the detainee challenge his detention.

--Close the old Bagram prison and replace it with a new, more “modern and humane” 40-acre complex.

--The U.S. military will release the identities of detainees held in some prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan to the International Committee of the Red Cross, something it has refused to do previously.

--Pentagon officials will be more sensitive to the conditions under which detainees are held, will try to separate the extremists from the moderate militants and will determine treatment accordingly.

Some people, especially advocates from human rights groups, are unsure that the new detention standards will be enforced enough to actually affect the detainees. They believe that some of the guidelines, like acquiring enough government officials to assign each detainee his own representative, will be difficult to put into practice.

Pentagon officials are confident, though, that the proposed changes will increase the fairness and morality surrounding the detention of the suspects. Obama still wants to keep the Bagram prison open and working, since it is one of the few places that terrorism suspects captured outside of Afghanistan and Iraq can be detained.

Fall 09's Blog Gets Rolling

The fall BGIA Writing on International Affairs blog will appear in this space soon. Tune in ....

British Press Uncovers Financial Scandal

By Jaya Spier

In a startling announcement in England today, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin has stated that he will be stepping down next month and resigning from his position as MP. Martin is the first Speaker to quit in 300 years. The last time this happened “Sir John Trevor was found guilty by the House of a "high crime and misdemeanour" for accepting a bribe in 1695” (Birminghampost).

This announcement came after British Press discovered the recent scandal concerning many MPs expenses earlier this week. The Labour and Conservative Chiefs, Mr. Nick Brown and Mr. Patrick McLoughlin respectively, have been accumulating thousands of pounds over the year claiming the money was spent on food and other frivolous expenses. Neither one believes that they have done anything wrong. They are only two out of many who claimed similar expenses.

“The Telegraph says that Mr Brown's claims, which he made public himself a few days ago, totalled £87,708 between 2004 and 2008. This included £18,800 for food, with regular claims of £400 per month during the recess. Until recently, MPs were able to claim up to £400 a month for food without providing receipts.” (BBC)

Martin has claimed that he is stepping down to preserve unity in the government. “Since I came to this House 30 years ago, I have always felt that the House is at its best when it is united…In order that unity can be maintained, I have decided that I will relinquish the office of Speaker on Sunday June 21. This will allow the House to proceed to elect a new Speaker on Monday June 22.” (Telegraph)

Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has also stated that no MP who has been found breaking the rules of the Commons expenses would be allowed to participate in elections for Labour Party candidate.

Soon after Mr. Martin’s announcment, Commons Leader Harriet Harman said in a written statement, "Michael Martin’s resignation today as Speaker is an act of great generosity to the House of Commons that Members of Parliament from all parties will respect.
"Michael Martin has served the House as Speaker with distinction. The House will have an opportunity to pay its own tribute to him before he leaves the Chair. As someone who has been in the House of Commons with him for over 25 years, I know that his passionate commitment to the House is beyond doubt. The House owes him a great debt of gratitude." (Timesonline)

This scandal has reached out and touched all corners of England’s population. During these hard economic times as the common mans’ lives are falling apart with the loss of jobs and homes such a betrayal is almost unbearable and the government must act competently so as not to further infuriate its fragile public.