Friday, August 29, 2003
Thank you, come again!
The Republicans' fundraising machine has outsourced its cold-calling operations to a call center in India. Is this George W. Bush's idea of making it up to the Indians after 2 years of cozying up to the Pakistanis? And isn't there something called CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM that makes all this if not illegal then at least ethically questionable? C'mon, why not hire a call center in, say, Texas? Oh I forgot. The Republican party doesn't give a damn about the working class. Anything for a buck.
Oh sure, I know Ashley, Alex, and Schlick may beg to differ, but do y'all think Karl Rove wakes up in the middle of the night to ponder something as insignificant as, say, the unemployment rate? By the way, don't let that rosy 3.1% economic growth rate fool you. Unemployment is still over 6%. And no matter what the economic forecasts might say, joblessness is something tangible with which voters can connect. I'm nowhere near Leo on my economics studies, but I still think the old rule holds true: it's the economy, stupid.
Oh sure, I know Ashley, Alex, and Schlick may beg to differ, but do y'all think Karl Rove wakes up in the middle of the night to ponder something as insignificant as, say, the unemployment rate? By the way, don't let that rosy 3.1% economic growth rate fool you. Unemployment is still over 6%. And no matter what the economic forecasts might say, joblessness is something tangible with which voters can connect. I'm nowhere near Leo on my economics studies, but I still think the old rule holds true: it's the economy, stupid.
Thursday, August 28, 2003
Is that a Taepodong in your pocket or are you just glad to see me?
Whoa.
North Korea is gonna declare nuclear status as a prelude to actual weapons tests. Is this just a clever negotiating tactic? Sure. But the threat nevertheless must be taken seriously. It's one thing for John Bolton and Kim Jong-Il to trade verbal bitch-slaps, it's quite another for actual bombs going off in some testing range. Something's gotta give, and I think Bush is gonna have to swallow some kind of non-aggression pact like the North wants. Well maybe not an outright policy declaration that we won't go to war against the North, since that undermines our security posture in South Korea and Japan. Perhaps a joint communique calling for disarmament of the North and a return to pre-2001 status quo in America's Korea policy. The thing is, I don't know how nuclear inspections are gonna play out this time - the North's got Yongbyon, and they're out of NPT. Maybe we're looking at that "Japanese operation" I hatched back at MUN boot camp in December. Remember that op, Schlick? Anyone think it's gonna come to that?
North Korea is gonna declare nuclear status as a prelude to actual weapons tests. Is this just a clever negotiating tactic? Sure. But the threat nevertheless must be taken seriously. It's one thing for John Bolton and Kim Jong-Il to trade verbal bitch-slaps, it's quite another for actual bombs going off in some testing range. Something's gotta give, and I think Bush is gonna have to swallow some kind of non-aggression pact like the North wants. Well maybe not an outright policy declaration that we won't go to war against the North, since that undermines our security posture in South Korea and Japan. Perhaps a joint communique calling for disarmament of the North and a return to pre-2001 status quo in America's Korea policy. The thing is, I don't know how nuclear inspections are gonna play out this time - the North's got Yongbyon, and they're out of NPT. Maybe we're looking at that "Japanese operation" I hatched back at MUN boot camp in December. Remember that op, Schlick? Anyone think it's gonna come to that?
Re: The 10 Commandments and Roy Moore
It's gone. Well it's still in the building, just away from public view. If there's one thing we can take away from all this fuss, it's that the issue isn't religion, it's law. Religion might have been a motivating factor in Moore's decision to commission and install the monument in the first place. But he must have known that such a large display would generate controversey. So Moore and his people go on this whole business that the monument represents free expression of religion rather than the establishment thereof. They knew the First Amendment liberals would cry bloody murder and go on about the Establishment Clause and separation of church and state. And Moore wanted to rock the boat - get his name in the paper, strike one for the God-fearing man. He gambled. He lost. And in losing, Roy Moore's stubbornness made him violate his oath to the law.
I remember at a press conference Moore said something about how federal judges don't make laws in this country. But it's the federal judges' job to interpret the law, and it's Roy Moore's job (as a jurist) to uphold the integrity of our legal system. Not the natural law of God, for Moore is not a priest, but the laws of man. For a judge to defy a court ruling is unconscionable. It's like a doctor not scrubbing up before surgery or a musician not tuning his instrument before a concert. You just don't do that if you want to be a professional. If Moore was just a lawyer and not a chief justice, how fast would he have been disbarred over this? Held in contempt and fined and possibly jailed?
By undermining the system through which the law is applied, Moore not only jeopardizes the secular law which he had sworn to uphold but also the natural law which he supposedly holds in higher esteem. As the Beliefnet article states, if Moore really wanted to keep fighting the good fight, he should resign as chief justice of Alabama's supreme court. His role as chief justice is to represent all the people of Alabama. However, his idolization of this monument is personal and should not be played out at the expense of the concept of rule of law.
I remember at a press conference Moore said something about how federal judges don't make laws in this country. But it's the federal judges' job to interpret the law, and it's Roy Moore's job (as a jurist) to uphold the integrity of our legal system. Not the natural law of God, for Moore is not a priest, but the laws of man. For a judge to defy a court ruling is unconscionable. It's like a doctor not scrubbing up before surgery or a musician not tuning his instrument before a concert. You just don't do that if you want to be a professional. If Moore was just a lawyer and not a chief justice, how fast would he have been disbarred over this? Held in contempt and fined and possibly jailed?
By undermining the system through which the law is applied, Moore not only jeopardizes the secular law which he had sworn to uphold but also the natural law which he supposedly holds in higher esteem. As the Beliefnet article states, if Moore really wanted to keep fighting the good fight, he should resign as chief justice of Alabama's supreme court. His role as chief justice is to represent all the people of Alabama. However, his idolization of this monument is personal and should not be played out at the expense of the concept of rule of law.
Europe's Muslim Identity Crisis
UPDATE: American Outlook, another pretty conservative pub I don't usually read, has an article exploring some common-sensical reforms on both Israeli and Palestinian sides.
..........
I don't usually read Tech Central Station since most of their conservative ranting is anathema to a good liberal like me. But this caught my attention: what would a European Muslim look like in 50 years? Nobody doubts that Arab, South Asians, and Africans, many of which are Muslims, will grow demographically in the next few decades. However, the development of these peoples could go one of three ways.
One, Muslims can continue down the current path of cultural marginalization, leading to even bigger ghettos than, say, "Le Zone" around Paris today. Not only is this bad racial politics, it's also a significant threat to domestic security (imagine Watts, only exponentially worse) and an unsustainable drain on the national economies of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the UK. Health and social services will be stretched to the breaking point while crime rates will spiral out of control. I'm not saying that a large presence of Arabs equals more crime, but rather a mass of poor people living at the margins of society cannot be good for the gendarmarie. Altogether a rather bleak picture.
Second, Muslims can assimilate into European culture while retaining a reformed Islamic faith. We're talking "American dream" style integration - the house, the car, an Oxford degree, 2.5 kids, and a pension. That would mean having the great majority of Europe's Muslim minority moving out of the ghettos and into the middle class. This is what I think most cultural elites on both sides of the Atlantic want to see, but there needs to be a major shift in current economic and social policies to make this rosy picture happen. Europe will probably have to swallow a general amnesty and citizenship for undocumented immigrants. And then there's the racial discrimination issue. But perhaps the biggest obstacle for Europe's Muslims is for them to embrace a secular vision of Europe even in places with established religions (like England).
The third way, as the TCS article suggests, is a new Islamic-Christian fusion. Back in the early days of the Ottoman Empire, nobody gave much of a hoot if a bureaucrat was Christian or Muslim (or Jewish). Only when the Turks threatened to break down the gates of Vienna - that is, when conquest became official policy - did Islamicism become a big deal. But since the Ottomans are no more and we've got the fuzzy-wuzzy EU, there shouldn't be any obstacle in the way of such cultural fusion. What would drive such a renaissance? Birthrates and demographics. As in 40% of the European labor force being Muslim in the next 50 years. The article predicts that natural co-mingling of Muslim and Christian, and yes even intermarriage, will result in a new hybrid Euro-Muslim culture. Neither Muslims living in European cultural hegemony nor Muslim-Europeans (the way we have hyphenated Americans like Italian-American), but an entirely new ethnographic definition. Quite a leap of faith given Europe's current racial politics.
For either the second or the third outcome, there needs to be something more fundamental. An immigrant culture, any immigrant culture, cannot help but look back on the land they left behind. For some groups, such awareness takes the form of nostalgia. African-American parents naming their children Kofi or Kwame. Taiwanese-American parents sending their teenage kids off on "love boat". But just as the fate of Jewish immigrants seems inextricably tied to what's going on in Israel, so too does the fate of Muslim immigrants seem inextricably tied to the Middle East and Palestine. Granted, a Moroccan Muslim living in France might be more worried about Morocco than Palestine, but no one can deny that aside from Iraq and Afghanistan (which are relatively recent issues), Palestine (an issue simmering for over 50 years) remains the sine qua non grievance most Muslims hold dear.
And that's the keystone to everything. Solve Palestine, solve Israel, and the world will be a quieter place. Taking some of the religion out of international relations will allow statesmen to go back to the secular rationalism of classical diplomacy. And it would allow for a more reform-minded agenda for Europe's (and America's) Muslim community. One that can be more at ease with itself and more introspective about how best to develop as a people. Not one that's narrowly focused on the politics of Ramallah.
So what does this mean for Europe? First, it's going to have to take a bigger role in the Palestinian question. Sure it's part of the "quartet," but the US is still the largest provider of funding for UNRWA, the UN aid agency in the occupied territories. Sure the groundbreaking Oslo Accords were a product of European diplomacy, but that's pretty much no longer worth the paper it's printed on. The UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy need to redefine their place at the negotiating table. Working with the US, they need to help bolster moderate voices within the Palestinian community like Mahmoud Abbas. They need to steer Palestine away from Hamas and toward real democratization with real alternatives to Yasser Arafat.
Europe - well at least pan-European leftist elites - wants Europe to be a counterweight to the US. But to be such a counterweight means more than just criticizing American policy. It also means getting its hands dirty in places like Palestine and Iraq and "Le Zone". It means having a sense of responsibility to the world. This I think is the crucial element that's missing in European politics today. Rhetoric against the US and Israel is one thing. Genuine action taken to better the lot of Palestinians, and Muslims within Europe, is quite another. Sure, demographic changes mean that an opportunity will open up for European Muslims to become more active in European society. Still, reform requires one side to nudge and the other side - entrenched "Euro-culture" - to budge.
..........
I don't usually read Tech Central Station since most of their conservative ranting is anathema to a good liberal like me. But this caught my attention: what would a European Muslim look like in 50 years? Nobody doubts that Arab, South Asians, and Africans, many of which are Muslims, will grow demographically in the next few decades. However, the development of these peoples could go one of three ways.
One, Muslims can continue down the current path of cultural marginalization, leading to even bigger ghettos than, say, "Le Zone" around Paris today. Not only is this bad racial politics, it's also a significant threat to domestic security (imagine Watts, only exponentially worse) and an unsustainable drain on the national economies of France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and the UK. Health and social services will be stretched to the breaking point while crime rates will spiral out of control. I'm not saying that a large presence of Arabs equals more crime, but rather a mass of poor people living at the margins of society cannot be good for the gendarmarie. Altogether a rather bleak picture.
Second, Muslims can assimilate into European culture while retaining a reformed Islamic faith. We're talking "American dream" style integration - the house, the car, an Oxford degree, 2.5 kids, and a pension. That would mean having the great majority of Europe's Muslim minority moving out of the ghettos and into the middle class. This is what I think most cultural elites on both sides of the Atlantic want to see, but there needs to be a major shift in current economic and social policies to make this rosy picture happen. Europe will probably have to swallow a general amnesty and citizenship for undocumented immigrants. And then there's the racial discrimination issue. But perhaps the biggest obstacle for Europe's Muslims is for them to embrace a secular vision of Europe even in places with established religions (like England).
The third way, as the TCS article suggests, is a new Islamic-Christian fusion. Back in the early days of the Ottoman Empire, nobody gave much of a hoot if a bureaucrat was Christian or Muslim (or Jewish). Only when the Turks threatened to break down the gates of Vienna - that is, when conquest became official policy - did Islamicism become a big deal. But since the Ottomans are no more and we've got the fuzzy-wuzzy EU, there shouldn't be any obstacle in the way of such cultural fusion. What would drive such a renaissance? Birthrates and demographics. As in 40% of the European labor force being Muslim in the next 50 years. The article predicts that natural co-mingling of Muslim and Christian, and yes even intermarriage, will result in a new hybrid Euro-Muslim culture. Neither Muslims living in European cultural hegemony nor Muslim-Europeans (the way we have hyphenated Americans like Italian-American), but an entirely new ethnographic definition. Quite a leap of faith given Europe's current racial politics.
For either the second or the third outcome, there needs to be something more fundamental. An immigrant culture, any immigrant culture, cannot help but look back on the land they left behind. For some groups, such awareness takes the form of nostalgia. African-American parents naming their children Kofi or Kwame. Taiwanese-American parents sending their teenage kids off on "love boat". But just as the fate of Jewish immigrants seems inextricably tied to what's going on in Israel, so too does the fate of Muslim immigrants seem inextricably tied to the Middle East and Palestine. Granted, a Moroccan Muslim living in France might be more worried about Morocco than Palestine, but no one can deny that aside from Iraq and Afghanistan (which are relatively recent issues), Palestine (an issue simmering for over 50 years) remains the sine qua non grievance most Muslims hold dear.
And that's the keystone to everything. Solve Palestine, solve Israel, and the world will be a quieter place. Taking some of the religion out of international relations will allow statesmen to go back to the secular rationalism of classical diplomacy. And it would allow for a more reform-minded agenda for Europe's (and America's) Muslim community. One that can be more at ease with itself and more introspective about how best to develop as a people. Not one that's narrowly focused on the politics of Ramallah.
So what does this mean for Europe? First, it's going to have to take a bigger role in the Palestinian question. Sure it's part of the "quartet," but the US is still the largest provider of funding for UNRWA, the UN aid agency in the occupied territories. Sure the groundbreaking Oslo Accords were a product of European diplomacy, but that's pretty much no longer worth the paper it's printed on. The UK, France, Germany, Spain, and Italy need to redefine their place at the negotiating table. Working with the US, they need to help bolster moderate voices within the Palestinian community like Mahmoud Abbas. They need to steer Palestine away from Hamas and toward real democratization with real alternatives to Yasser Arafat.
Europe - well at least pan-European leftist elites - wants Europe to be a counterweight to the US. But to be such a counterweight means more than just criticizing American policy. It also means getting its hands dirty in places like Palestine and Iraq and "Le Zone". It means having a sense of responsibility to the world. This I think is the crucial element that's missing in European politics today. Rhetoric against the US and Israel is one thing. Genuine action taken to better the lot of Palestinians, and Muslims within Europe, is quite another. Sure, demographic changes mean that an opportunity will open up for European Muslims to become more active in European society. Still, reform requires one side to nudge and the other side - entrenched "Euro-culture" - to budge.
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Meanwhile, on K Street...
With the "West Wing" now basically required watching among political junkies (despite reports of sagging ratings and storylines, and Sorkin's departure), HBO is entering the mix with a new Steven Soderbergh-backed drama, "K Street". Take a fictional DC lobbying firm, mix in real-life political cameos (like John McCain in a pilot episode), add cuts of real talk shows and Congressional hearings, and what you get should look something like "The War Room". According to the NY Times, HBO didn't hesitate one bit before green-lighting the project. Series premieres September 14. Damn I wish I have HBO... stupid basic cable...
I guess after "K Street," there's really not much more new ground left to cover. Politics is entertainment ("West Wing") and entertainment is politics (Schwarzenegger, Reagan). We already live in a political climate where "Wag the Dog" is not only possible, it's become cliché. Game Show Network is even doing "Who Wants to be Governor of California?". Perhaps it's jumping the gun to think that we may have reached a plateau (high or low, you decide) in American politics. But with the way Bush and his minions spin the media, I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we get is "bread and circuses". Oh wait, I forgot. Just circuses. Republicans don't believe in giving the peasantry bread.
I guess after "K Street," there's really not much more new ground left to cover. Politics is entertainment ("West Wing") and entertainment is politics (Schwarzenegger, Reagan). We already live in a political climate where "Wag the Dog" is not only possible, it's become cliché. Game Show Network is even doing "Who Wants to be Governor of California?". Perhaps it's jumping the gun to think that we may have reached a plateau (high or low, you decide) in American politics. But with the way Bush and his minions spin the media, I wouldn't be surprised if the next thing we get is "bread and circuses". Oh wait, I forgot. Just circuses. Republicans don't believe in giving the peasantry bread.
Re: US News Rankings Out
I'm sure many CUNY and Hunter students are in the same boat as the students quoted for the article below. Not having enough classes (or class sections) available means students end up paying more for college while getting shortchanged in their education. For some courses, especially languages, losing a semester means that both the student and the professor have to waste valuable class time on review instead of new material. Cutting class offerings also artificially lowers the 4-year graduation rate which I believe is still used in part to calculate the US News rankings. While we may not put much stock in these rankings, they're nevertheless popular (why else would US News now charge for access to them?) and a reality that CUNY must deal with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times
As State Colleges Cut Classes, Students Struggle to Finish
August 24, 2003
By GREG WINTER
The moment registration opens, Michele D. Hannah dives for courses with the fury of a fifth-year college student vexed by a constant riddle.
"When will I get the classes I need to graduate?" said Ms. Hannah, Class of "I have no idea" at the University of Iowa.
Classes have gotten so tight, or so scarce, that Ms. Hannah says she trolls the university's Web site like a day trader, checking every few hours for the stray course opening that might suddenly appear.
But it probably will not. At many public universities, grappling with record budget cuts and enrollments at the same time, the classroom is no longer being spared. After whittling away at staff, coaxing faculty members to juggle more classes, stripping sports teams and trusting aging roofs to hold out a few years longer, many public universities have reluctantly begun chopping away at academics, making it harder for students to graduate on time.
-snip-
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/national/24COLL.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York Times
As State Colleges Cut Classes, Students Struggle to Finish
August 24, 2003
By GREG WINTER
The moment registration opens, Michele D. Hannah dives for courses with the fury of a fifth-year college student vexed by a constant riddle.
"When will I get the classes I need to graduate?" said Ms. Hannah, Class of "I have no idea" at the University of Iowa.
Classes have gotten so tight, or so scarce, that Ms. Hannah says she trolls the university's Web site like a day trader, checking every few hours for the stray course opening that might suddenly appear.
But it probably will not. At many public universities, grappling with record budget cuts and enrollments at the same time, the classroom is no longer being spared. After whittling away at staff, coaxing faculty members to juggle more classes, stripping sports teams and trusting aging roofs to hold out a few years longer, many public universities have reluctantly begun chopping away at academics, making it harder for students to graduate on time.
-snip-
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/24/national/24COLL.html
Saturday, August 23, 2003
40th Anniversary of "I Have a Dream"
Thursday, August 28, marks the 40th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. It's as powerful an oratory today as it was then. You can read the full text (with audio!) here.
Sergio Vieira de Mello up for Nobel Prize?
Brazil's former president wants to nominate the late UN envoy for the Nobel peace prize. It would, according to the Australian Broadcasting Corp., require the Nobel committee to make a rule change, but I think it's appropriate given de Mello's work in Kosovo, East Timor, and Iraq. Still, Kofi Annan and the UN system won the prize just two years ago so I don't know if the committee will want to award the prize to another UN figure so soon. It's not a particularly meritorious way of looking at things, but I'm sure the same thoughts will be discussed in Norway during the selection process especially if there's any sort of rule change involved for posthumous awards.
You and what army? -- Norway's!
Kids, here's your weekend reading assignment:
When you think about big military spenders, you think of the US, China, Israel, the UK, and some other ass-whuppers. But Norway? A country that hasn't exactly threatened anybody in the last 300 years? Why yes. Norway's charismatic defense minister is transforming her country's defense-oriented military into a niche fighting force aligned with the Pentagon. And yes, Kristin Krohn Devold isn't just one of only two female defense ministers in NATO, she snowboards and is certified to jump with Special Ops paratroopers. Mad sexy. But she has a point: in today's US hegemony, the only way small countries can get respect is to ''identify what you are good at, and concentrate on it." It's not entirely without risk, as greater perceived alignment with the US brings with it a greater chance of being targeted by al Qaeda. Just look at the Jordanian embassy bombing in Baghdad.
Rome used plenty of "auxiliaries" to fight its wars alongside its venerable legionnaires. Is the US heading in the same direction? Time will tell. In the short run, though, Norway's Devold may be on the short-list to replace the UK's Lord George Robertson as Sec-Gen of NATO. Not bad for ski troops.
When you think about big military spenders, you think of the US, China, Israel, the UK, and some other ass-whuppers. But Norway? A country that hasn't exactly threatened anybody in the last 300 years? Why yes. Norway's charismatic defense minister is transforming her country's defense-oriented military into a niche fighting force aligned with the Pentagon. And yes, Kristin Krohn Devold isn't just one of only two female defense ministers in NATO, she snowboards and is certified to jump with Special Ops paratroopers. Mad sexy. But she has a point: in today's US hegemony, the only way small countries can get respect is to ''identify what you are good at, and concentrate on it." It's not entirely without risk, as greater perceived alignment with the US brings with it a greater chance of being targeted by al Qaeda. Just look at the Jordanian embassy bombing in Baghdad.
Rome used plenty of "auxiliaries" to fight its wars alongside its venerable legionnaires. Is the US heading in the same direction? Time will tell. In the short run, though, Norway's Devold may be on the short-list to replace the UK's Lord George Robertson as Sec-Gen of NATO. Not bad for ski troops.
Friday, August 22, 2003
EPA fudged NYC air quality data post 9/11 -- at White House request
The EPA's inspector-general has issued a report saying that the agency deliberately downplayed air quality risks in lower Manhattan following 9/11. The reason? The Bush White House claims fudging the info was "justified by national security".
Whaaaaa???
According to the AP article, public statements by the EPA regarding New York's air quality were to be cleared by both White House advisors and for some reason, the National Security Council. The NSC??? What could possibly be so dangerous about telling New Yorkers the real facts about their air quality? Sure, there were legitimate national security concerns regarding the WTC site. But how could disclosing the real contaminant level of asbestos be a threat? It's the EPA's job to monitor that stuff. The EPA inspector-general's report is the latest evidence of the Bush administration putting face-saving secrecy above the health and safety of ordinary Americans. First arsenic in the water, and now this. There's nothing compassionately conservative about lying to the public.
UPDATE: Congressman demands answers
Whaaaaa???
According to the AP article, public statements by the EPA regarding New York's air quality were to be cleared by both White House advisors and for some reason, the National Security Council. The NSC??? What could possibly be so dangerous about telling New Yorkers the real facts about their air quality? Sure, there were legitimate national security concerns regarding the WTC site. But how could disclosing the real contaminant level of asbestos be a threat? It's the EPA's job to monitor that stuff. The EPA inspector-general's report is the latest evidence of the Bush administration putting face-saving secrecy above the health and safety of ordinary Americans. First arsenic in the water, and now this. There's nothing compassionately conservative about lying to the public.
UPDATE: Congressman demands answers
Thursday, August 21, 2003
NEWSFLASH: "Wide Angle" program on Italy's Berlusconi tonight!
Channel 13's "Wide Angle" program takes a look at Italy's PM Silvio Berlusconi, the controversial businessman-politician. Check it out tonight at 9pm EDT (or check your local PBS listings).
More on Berlusconi...
More on Berlusconi...
Nelson Mandela waived from terrorist watch list
From the "So Stupid It Must Be True" Department: Nelson Mandela - anti-apartheid leader, elder statesman, Nobel Peace Prize winner - was listed as a terrorist by the US State Department due to the time he spent jailed up by the Man in South Africa. In fact he and some other ANC people are still on the list of people who'll be automatically be denied a visa to enter the US. Bush is giving them a 10-year waiver. No word yet on when they'll be taken off the watch list for good.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
NEWSFLASH: Massive truck bomb blows up UN's Baghdad HQ
It's ironic to think that UN workers in Iraq were probably safer working there under Saddam than now when the US is in charge. CNN reports 13 casualties from this latest terrorist bombing but that number will, sadly, probably go up. It's also reported that Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the top UN official in Iraq, is somewhere alive in the rubble.
The coalition will have some questions to answer, specifically with regard to "soft targets" like the UN HQ. Remember, the UN's only mission in Iraq is humanitarian assistance - they've been shut out of the WMD search and peacekeeping. So for remnant Baathists to target the UN makes little sense, unless it's part of some scorched-earth policy where anything's game. Is it time for a readjustment of the forces deployed to beef up security at aid workers' offices and other civilian buildings? We've already seen the bungled handling of security at the Baghdad museums. Perhaps this bombing will serve as a wake-up call to the Bush administration that they need to get more people to Iraq to guard more places. Fast.
UPDATE: de Mello's dead
The coalition will have some questions to answer, specifically with regard to "soft targets" like the UN HQ. Remember, the UN's only mission in Iraq is humanitarian assistance - they've been shut out of the WMD search and peacekeeping. So for remnant Baathists to target the UN makes little sense, unless it's part of some scorched-earth policy where anything's game. Is it time for a readjustment of the forces deployed to beef up security at aid workers' offices and other civilian buildings? We've already seen the bungled handling of security at the Baghdad museums. Perhaps this bombing will serve as a wake-up call to the Bush administration that they need to get more people to Iraq to guard more places. Fast.
UPDATE: de Mello's dead
Saturday, August 16, 2003
Free Trade in China Will Cost You Plenty
Yes I'm sober and blogging at 2:30am on a Saturday, when in all good sense I should be well sloshed at this hour. I've got billable hours to accumulate, dammit.
The Economist is running a piece on the latest mega-tycoon to come under arrest. He's Zhou Zhengyi, a Shanghai land developer, who's #11 on last year's Forbes 100 richest in China list. His crime? Officially, it's got something to do with fraud, but unofficially it's the way he (and other nouveau-sino-rich like him) throws around his bourgeois money. China still does, after all, claim marxism as its official ideology. Curiously enough, no co-conspirators in the government have been uncovered and no mention has been made of the Zhou case in the official media since his arrest.
Well of course it's not all that curious. For all the lip service paid toward embracing capitalists in the "three represents," China's ruling elite is still freakishly afraid of the power of the free market. American policy toward China has, for a long time, been centered on the idea that by opening China's economy to market liberalism, democracy for the Chinese people can't be far behind. After all, the thinking goes, once people become rich, they'll have the time and money to demand more freedoms. A load of crap if there ever was one. It's been more than a decade since Deng Xiaoping began the economic reform process that's led us to where we are today. Yet the Chinese Communist Party has as firm a grip on power as ever. There is still very little in the way of free speech and habeas corpus, and multi-party elections are a pipe dream.
A series of events over the last 12 months prove my point. First, the detention and subsequent criminal conviction of Yang Bin, supposedly on charges of land fraud. Maybe it was just a coincidence that Yang was arrested just days before he would've taken up a post as head of North Korea's first ever free-trade zone (an appointment that Beijing apparently had no input over). Then again, most likely not. Next came the controversial Beijing-backed Hong Kong security bill that thankfully was withdrawn before it became law. And now the arrest of Mr. Zhou. Both Yang and Zhou were accused of fraud relating to various land deals - giving bribes, etc. But technically all the land in China still belongs to the state and thus all land developers must first get government approval before starting construction. Maybe it was just a coincidence that no members of the government, which we must acknowledge has ultimate decision power over land deals, have been investigated for taking bribes, etc. Then again, most likely not. See where I'm going with this?
In their greed to get rich off the Chinese market, both domestic and foreign investors seem willing to accept the (Communist) party line as a new gospel of wealth. They've chosen to overlook the human rights abuses, the extreme rural poverty, and corruption at all levels of government. But for genuine observers of the Chinese political economy, we should never forget the monk's advice to Bruce Lee in "Enter the Dragon": The enemy has only images and illusions behind which he hides his true motives. Destroy the image and you will break the enemy.
The Economist is running a piece on the latest mega-tycoon to come under arrest. He's Zhou Zhengyi, a Shanghai land developer, who's #11 on last year's Forbes 100 richest in China list. His crime? Officially, it's got something to do with fraud, but unofficially it's the way he (and other nouveau-sino-rich like him) throws around his bourgeois money. China still does, after all, claim marxism as its official ideology. Curiously enough, no co-conspirators in the government have been uncovered and no mention has been made of the Zhou case in the official media since his arrest.
Well of course it's not all that curious. For all the lip service paid toward embracing capitalists in the "three represents," China's ruling elite is still freakishly afraid of the power of the free market. American policy toward China has, for a long time, been centered on the idea that by opening China's economy to market liberalism, democracy for the Chinese people can't be far behind. After all, the thinking goes, once people become rich, they'll have the time and money to demand more freedoms. A load of crap if there ever was one. It's been more than a decade since Deng Xiaoping began the economic reform process that's led us to where we are today. Yet the Chinese Communist Party has as firm a grip on power as ever. There is still very little in the way of free speech and habeas corpus, and multi-party elections are a pipe dream.
A series of events over the last 12 months prove my point. First, the detention and subsequent criminal conviction of Yang Bin, supposedly on charges of land fraud. Maybe it was just a coincidence that Yang was arrested just days before he would've taken up a post as head of North Korea's first ever free-trade zone (an appointment that Beijing apparently had no input over). Then again, most likely not. Next came the controversial Beijing-backed Hong Kong security bill that thankfully was withdrawn before it became law. And now the arrest of Mr. Zhou. Both Yang and Zhou were accused of fraud relating to various land deals - giving bribes, etc. But technically all the land in China still belongs to the state and thus all land developers must first get government approval before starting construction. Maybe it was just a coincidence that no members of the government, which we must acknowledge has ultimate decision power over land deals, have been investigated for taking bribes, etc. Then again, most likely not. See where I'm going with this?
In their greed to get rich off the Chinese market, both domestic and foreign investors seem willing to accept the (Communist) party line as a new gospel of wealth. They've chosen to overlook the human rights abuses, the extreme rural poverty, and corruption at all levels of government. But for genuine observers of the Chinese political economy, we should never forget the monk's advice to Bruce Lee in "Enter the Dragon": The enemy has only images and illusions behind which he hides his true motives. Destroy the image and you will break the enemy.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
The Times of Harvey Milk, Indeed
Dammit I had this entire post ready to publish just as the frickin' power went out in NJ... So naturally I'm gonna hafta rewrite from memory what I had down before... Erg.
Anyway, heard a report last night about a lawsuit being filed by a New York state senator who's teamed up with a conservative advocacy group, hoping to block the expansion of New York City's Harvey Milk High School. There are a number of things that are fishy about this lawsuit. The Harvey Milk School is supposed to be a safe place for queer teens to learn, and this year it was supposed to be expanded to a 170-student public stand-alone school. Ruben Diaz, the state senator (a black Democrat no less) leading the lawsuit, alleges that to set aside a school just for gay kids would violate the state's desegregation policy, based of course on Brown v. Board of Education. The thinking goes that putting public money toward the Harvey Milk School would deprive minority (and straight) kids a decent education.
Hmm. Curiously though, Diaz is an ordained minister in the conservative Tennessee-based Church of God, which in 1996 adopted a resolution on the "sanctity of marriage between man and woman," calling homosexuality a "sinful practice." A little conflict of interest there maybe, Reverend Senator? More curiously, the conservative legal group Diaz has teamed up with is Liberty Counsel, which (surprise, surprise) has close ties with none other than Jerry Falwell. So the plot thickens - according to an article in Gotham Gazette, the same people who filed this lawsuit are also the same people who a) oppose homosexuality in and of itself and b) oppose the "multicultural" education that would have mainstreamed gay kids in school (and thus negating the raison d'être of HMHS in the first place). Civil libertarians indeed.
Now I don't buy into the whole desegregation argument regarding the Harvey Milk School. We've got a public all-girls school in East Harlem. We've got alternative schools nationwide for troublemaking kids, with an emphasis on teaching discipline. Aren't these schools also "separate but equal"? It's funny that the Harvey Milk program has been around since 1985, but only now is someone making a big fuss. Bandwagoning on the recent backlash on gays? Ya think. If New York City can have a public all-girls school so that girls can learn without the distraction and intimidation of boys, why can't gay kids have a similar place to learn without the distraction and intimidation of homophobes? Besides, at 170, the enrollment's far too small to accomodate all kids who will need the school's services. And straight kids (with gay parents) have gone to Harvey Milk as well.
This Harvey Milk business, for now, is much ado about nothing. But maybe the mainstreaming of homosexuality will become, along with the economy and Iraq and terrorism, the key issues of the 2004 election. Something to watch out for.
Harvey Milk was the first openly gay City Supervisor of San Francisco, back in the '70s. His short political career and eventual assassination are covered quite nicely in the film The Times of Harvey Milk.
Anyway, heard a report last night about a lawsuit being filed by a New York state senator who's teamed up with a conservative advocacy group, hoping to block the expansion of New York City's Harvey Milk High School. There are a number of things that are fishy about this lawsuit. The Harvey Milk School is supposed to be a safe place for queer teens to learn, and this year it was supposed to be expanded to a 170-student public stand-alone school. Ruben Diaz, the state senator (a black Democrat no less) leading the lawsuit, alleges that to set aside a school just for gay kids would violate the state's desegregation policy, based of course on Brown v. Board of Education. The thinking goes that putting public money toward the Harvey Milk School would deprive minority (and straight) kids a decent education.
Hmm. Curiously though, Diaz is an ordained minister in the conservative Tennessee-based Church of God, which in 1996 adopted a resolution on the "sanctity of marriage between man and woman," calling homosexuality a "sinful practice." A little conflict of interest there maybe, Reverend Senator? More curiously, the conservative legal group Diaz has teamed up with is Liberty Counsel, which (surprise, surprise) has close ties with none other than Jerry Falwell. So the plot thickens - according to an article in Gotham Gazette, the same people who filed this lawsuit are also the same people who a) oppose homosexuality in and of itself and b) oppose the "multicultural" education that would have mainstreamed gay kids in school (and thus negating the raison d'être of HMHS in the first place). Civil libertarians indeed.
Now I don't buy into the whole desegregation argument regarding the Harvey Milk School. We've got a public all-girls school in East Harlem. We've got alternative schools nationwide for troublemaking kids, with an emphasis on teaching discipline. Aren't these schools also "separate but equal"? It's funny that the Harvey Milk program has been around since 1985, but only now is someone making a big fuss. Bandwagoning on the recent backlash on gays? Ya think. If New York City can have a public all-girls school so that girls can learn without the distraction and intimidation of boys, why can't gay kids have a similar place to learn without the distraction and intimidation of homophobes? Besides, at 170, the enrollment's far too small to accomodate all kids who will need the school's services. And straight kids (with gay parents) have gone to Harvey Milk as well.
This Harvey Milk business, for now, is much ado about nothing. But maybe the mainstreaming of homosexuality will become, along with the economy and Iraq and terrorism, the key issues of the 2004 election. Something to watch out for.
Harvey Milk was the first openly gay City Supervisor of San Francisco, back in the '70s. His short political career and eventual assassination are covered quite nicely in the film The Times of Harvey Milk.
US to UN: "No soup for you!"
The UN Security Council could vote later today on a resolution recognizing Iraq's new US-backed government and setting up an "assistance mission". However, it seems that Rummy's not gonna let the UN help out with peacekeeping. So, instead of having more troops keep the peace in Iraq, the US is gonna just let the current 139,000 or so out there stay even longer. I mean, Rummy must be thinking that if the current casualty levels are tolerable to the public, why pull them back now?
Seriously, though, Rummy's thinking is that if the UN moves in peacekeepers, it will constrain the ability of US forces to operate freely. Rubbish. Look at Afghanistan. ISAF has a UN mandate, is now run by NATO, and doesn't constrain US forces at all. Until NATO took over ISAF, American forces were entirely outside its mandate. What Rummy's really grousing about is the fact that the French, Russians, and now the Indians won't play by US rules - they want a UN mandate if they're gonna commit their boys. And that pisses off the geniuses at DoD.
The fact is everyone (outside Bush's private circle) said the US couldn't do it alone in Iraq. And they were right. The UN's already in Iraq in a limited capacity helping the relief effort. As discussed on this blog regarding the whole idea of reviving the mandate system, turning over Iraq to the UN not only gives the whole mess "international legitimacy," it'll help expand the brain trust that's running the country and help deflect any negative sentiments away from the US. For American forces, I think it's a good deal - when something screws up, there's someone else besides Americans to blame (and shoot at). For that reason alone we should welcome Kofi and Sergio's help.
Seriously, though, Rummy's thinking is that if the UN moves in peacekeepers, it will constrain the ability of US forces to operate freely. Rubbish. Look at Afghanistan. ISAF has a UN mandate, is now run by NATO, and doesn't constrain US forces at all. Until NATO took over ISAF, American forces were entirely outside its mandate. What Rummy's really grousing about is the fact that the French, Russians, and now the Indians won't play by US rules - they want a UN mandate if they're gonna commit their boys. And that pisses off the geniuses at DoD.
The fact is everyone (outside Bush's private circle) said the US couldn't do it alone in Iraq. And they were right. The UN's already in Iraq in a limited capacity helping the relief effort. As discussed on this blog regarding the whole idea of reviving the mandate system, turning over Iraq to the UN not only gives the whole mess "international legitimacy," it'll help expand the brain trust that's running the country and help deflect any negative sentiments away from the US. For American forces, I think it's a good deal - when something screws up, there's someone else besides Americans to blame (and shoot at). For that reason alone we should welcome Kofi and Sergio's help.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Politics is Dead... (re: California recall)
Sorry, Schlick, but this just might be funnier than your UN guns story. Or just sad, I dunno. A harbinger of the death of democracy as we know it? Washington and Jefferson must be spinning in their graves so hard we can hook 'em up and generate electricity. So much for having only the "best men" be elected for office. "Synergy" as Hollywood would call this. "Synergy" my ass.
Re: Liberia, Congress and Intervention
So Charles Taylor's finally out of the picture (for now), and Nigeria's sent in peacekeepers. This should pave the way for the main US intervention force to come ashore as per Bush's original terms. But as pointed out on this blog and elsewhere, American forces are spread too dangerously thin. Indeed, morale among those soldiers deployed in Iraq is already starting to crack under the strain of possible 12-month tours of duty, though the Pentagon is implementing a plan to provide some needed R & R. All this goes back to the original question of how the military (specifically the Army) can back up Bush's National Security Strategy with effective man- and fire-power.
While many of the support duties such as building "tent city" barracks or fixing tanks and trucks have been turned over to private companies such as the Halliburton unit Kellogg, Brown, & Root, there is still a critical need for well-trained and well-armed fighting men and women to take care of peacekeeping's less glamorous tasks. In the worst-case scenario, as in Iraq, the military occupation forces have to take over all aspects of government while the locals try to decide how they'll eventually form a new political system. For example: securing the release of hostages and POWs. Law enforcement against street crimes. Directing traffic. Checking customs at borders, ports, and airports. Clearing landmines. Among other duties. Wouldn't it be more efficient to unburden the Army of these tasks so they can devote more resources toward the hunt for Saddam or bin Laden?
Enter the idea of a corps of the American military dedicated toward peacekeeping (and "peace-making") operations. Commanded by American officers, they could in effect become the critically-needed but slow to materialize rapid reaction force that's often talked about at the UN. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright calls for such a force in the peacekeeping section of her recent article in Foreign Policy. It's an idea that's being quietly discussed for now, but I think it's within the realm of possibility for this decade. Already, libertarian and far-right-wing commentators are taking the "American foreign legion" idea seriously. To my knowledge, the conservative Washington Times has published two separate articles supporting the formation of an American force permanently forward-deployed for peacekeeping missions.
Now we liberals may grouse at the double standard this kind of force sets up, with American boys getting the glory while legionnaires (almost entirely non-US citizens) do the heavy gruntwork. This doesn't necessarily have to happen. Nobody in their right mind will join a military force of this kind without some kind of compensation: good pay, expedited US citizenship at the end of the service commitment, and full veterans' benefits. Veterans of France's Foreign Legion get about as much for their trouble and we should be able to provide the same. Politically pragmatic liberals (as opposed to total anti-war pacifists) must recognize that a foreign legion-type force will help offset the peacekeeping demands placed on the current war-oriented Army, while simultaneously boosting America's ability to conduct humanitarian intervention (Rwanda, Liberia, Kosovo, etc). Being led by American officers, such a force would go only where authorized by Congress and the President (and hopefully also taking a UN mandate along), avoiding the pitfalls of using private mercenaries or weaker regional forces. Making the force a part of the Pentagon's command structure, but distinct from the Army or the Marines, will help ensure that it follows the same doctrines of professional conduct we expect any soldier who wears an American unform to follow.
America is a hegemon, there's no getting around that fact. But in order to behave like a responsible hegemon, America must have forces capable of not only defending its territory but also ensuring peace and order around the world. Why do we have to be the ones to play "global cop"? Tony Blair probably put it best in his speech to Congress: "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do."
While many of the support duties such as building "tent city" barracks or fixing tanks and trucks have been turned over to private companies such as the Halliburton unit Kellogg, Brown, & Root, there is still a critical need for well-trained and well-armed fighting men and women to take care of peacekeeping's less glamorous tasks. In the worst-case scenario, as in Iraq, the military occupation forces have to take over all aspects of government while the locals try to decide how they'll eventually form a new political system. For example: securing the release of hostages and POWs. Law enforcement against street crimes. Directing traffic. Checking customs at borders, ports, and airports. Clearing landmines. Among other duties. Wouldn't it be more efficient to unburden the Army of these tasks so they can devote more resources toward the hunt for Saddam or bin Laden?
Enter the idea of a corps of the American military dedicated toward peacekeeping (and "peace-making") operations. Commanded by American officers, they could in effect become the critically-needed but slow to materialize rapid reaction force that's often talked about at the UN. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright calls for such a force in the peacekeeping section of her recent article in Foreign Policy. It's an idea that's being quietly discussed for now, but I think it's within the realm of possibility for this decade. Already, libertarian and far-right-wing commentators are taking the "American foreign legion" idea seriously. To my knowledge, the conservative Washington Times has published two separate articles supporting the formation of an American force permanently forward-deployed for peacekeeping missions.
Now we liberals may grouse at the double standard this kind of force sets up, with American boys getting the glory while legionnaires (almost entirely non-US citizens) do the heavy gruntwork. This doesn't necessarily have to happen. Nobody in their right mind will join a military force of this kind without some kind of compensation: good pay, expedited US citizenship at the end of the service commitment, and full veterans' benefits. Veterans of France's Foreign Legion get about as much for their trouble and we should be able to provide the same. Politically pragmatic liberals (as opposed to total anti-war pacifists) must recognize that a foreign legion-type force will help offset the peacekeeping demands placed on the current war-oriented Army, while simultaneously boosting America's ability to conduct humanitarian intervention (Rwanda, Liberia, Kosovo, etc). Being led by American officers, such a force would go only where authorized by Congress and the President (and hopefully also taking a UN mandate along), avoiding the pitfalls of using private mercenaries or weaker regional forces. Making the force a part of the Pentagon's command structure, but distinct from the Army or the Marines, will help ensure that it follows the same doctrines of professional conduct we expect any soldier who wears an American unform to follow.
America is a hegemon, there's no getting around that fact. But in order to behave like a responsible hegemon, America must have forces capable of not only defending its territory but also ensuring peace and order around the world. Why do we have to be the ones to play "global cop"? Tony Blair probably put it best in his speech to Congress: "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do."
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Walls of Jericho?
Palestinian militants keep getting around Israeli security and blowing things up. A pathology of desperation seems to be pervasive in the Palestinian territories, one that perversely makes mothers and fathers proud to send their sons and daughters off to die horrific deaths. Israel's solution? Build a giant fence. In theory, it's a valid idea - build a physical and psychological barrier to separate the two sides, then guard it religiously (no pun intended). But apparently the wall (or fence, whatever) idea is hitting a few snags. Among them, the Bush administration isn't too gung-ho about it and may even cut loan guarantees to punish Ariel Sharon. The Palestinians naturally are none too pleased with Israel's fence-building. Like it or not, though, the fence/wall is going up, and the best we can probably hope for is a short-term reduction in both suicide bombings and Jewish settlement-building. As detailed in a new report from STRATFOR, building the wall has its political and strategic flaws, but might in the end be the least of all evils.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal thinks the wall is a bad idea.
UPDATE 2: The wall is a good idea that's been corrupted by Sharon, sez the NY Times. More.
UPDATE: The Wall Street Journal thinks the wall is a bad idea.
UPDATE 2: The wall is a good idea that's been corrupted by Sharon, sez the NY Times. More.
Monday, August 04, 2003
Barbara Crossette: The UN Beat
Is anybody in UN HQ or Congress reading Barbara Crossette's columns in UN Wire? As a former reporter for the NY Times covering the UN, Crossette has a unique perspective on the goings on at 1st Ave. and 46th St. Her columns for UN Wire have shed light on the nitty-gritty details of everyday work both at UN Headquarters and in the field. The question is: are the key decision makers (the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kofi Annan, etc.) taking any of this seriously? Ideological positions aside, everybody agrees that the UN is an imperfect organization even on a practical, managerial level. And everybody agrees that the UN can use all the reform it can get. Kofi Annan certainly wants to help - he was first elected as Secretary-General as a reformer. But absent a commitment from top administrators and the member states (particularly the US as a major contributor), the UN will remain the glorified debating society as it's ridiculed in such rags as National Review or Weekly Standard. This is where Crossette comes in. Her "UN Notebook" column could potentially spur renewed interest in UN reform both in the US and elsewhere. It just needs wider dissemination to get the ball rolling, I think. We're talking about regular dispatches with compelling writing from an alumna of the NY Times. Sadly, not even UN Wire has a complete archive of Crossette's work in one place.
So, as a public service, here are Crossette's articles for UN Wire, beginning with her first UN Notebook column from January 2003 through July:
Jan. 21, 2003 U.S. Out Of Race For First ICC Judges
Feb. 3. 2003 Keeping the Security Council Door Ajar
Mar. 3, 2003 Village In Vietnam A Test Case For U.N. Development Work
Apr. 7, 2003 Last Chance For Khmer Rouge Trials?
May 5, 2003 Nation-Building, U.N. Style
May 19, 2003 Candidates To Succeed Annan Beginning To Emerge
Jun. 2, 2003 What The U.N. Can - And Can't - Do In Iraq
Jun. 9, 2003 Peacekeeping's Unsavory Side
Jun. 16, 2003 Fixing The Security Council
Jun. 23, 2003 AIDS, Other Trends Give New Prominence To U.N. Population Division
Jun. 30, 2003 U.N. Still Battered By U.S. Action On Iraq
Jul. 7, 2003 A New Step For The U.N. -- An Ombudsman
Jul. 14, 2003 Guess Who's Sustaining Iraq
Jul. 21, 2003 Academic Council On U.N. System Leaves U.S. For Canada
Jul. 28, 2003 Ahead Of Information Summit, U.N. Should Examine Itself
Now go read and be informed.
UPDATE: Aug. 4, 2003 Equal Rights For Homosexuals Contentious At U.N.
Aug. 11, 2003 Bush Close To Backing $1 Billion Loan To U.N.
Aug. 18, 2003 The Wrong Kind Of American Exceptionalism
Sep. 2, 2003 UNICEF In The Crosshairs
Sep. 8, 2003 Human Rights At U.N. Obscured By The Shadow Of Politics
Sep. 15, 2003 German Teacher Provides Much-Needed Guide To The U.N.
Sep. 22, 2003 For Countries Big And Small, A Diplomatic Marathon
Sep. 29, 2003 Fighting AIDS By Changing Attitudes In Africa
Oct. 6, 2003 Testing The U.N. In Afghanistan, With Iraq In Mind
Oct. 14, 2003 U.S. Rebuffs To Neighbors Should Raise Concerns
Oct. 20, 2003 AIDS, Asian Values And States Of Denial
Oct. 27, 2003 U.N. And U.S. In Iraq: Nobody Won This Round
Nov. 3, 2003 Leveraging Private Money For The United Nations
Nov. 10, 2003 A New-Look Security Council: What Makes a Winner?
Nov. 17, 2003 Oil for Food: A Great Experiment Ends
Nov. 24, 2003 Saving Congo, One Woman At A Time
Dec. 1, 2003 Sixteen Wise People And The Future Of The U.N.
Dec. 8, 2003 Too Soon To Count The U.N. In On Iraq
Dec. 15, 2003 Book On U.N. Creation A Welcome Reminder Of Early Lessons
Dec. 29, 2003 Refugees In Limbo Where The U.N. Isn't Welcome
Jan. 5, 2004 IAEA Chief Out Front On Arms Control
Jan. 12, 2004 Breathing New Life Into An Old Federation
Jan. 20, 2004 Challenging Year For U.N. Brings Renewed Media Attention
Jan. 26, 2004 Much Of World's Conflict Fueled By Small Arms
Feb. 2, 2004 Those U.N. Inspectors Were Not Wrong About Iraq
Feb. 9, 2004 The Cost Of U.N. Whistleblowing
Feb. 17, 2004 As Chile Reaches High Development Level, U.N. Shifts Strategy
Feb. 23, 2004 Saving The U.N. From Utah
Mar. 1, 2004 Arab Women Leaders Exerting Growing Influence At U.N.
Mar. 8, 2004 Putting ECOSOC Back In The Loop
Mar. 15, 2004 Afghanistan Prepares To Choose A Government
Mar. 22, 2004 Banker Plans To Put U.N. Show On The Road
Mar. 29, 2004 Sri Lanka On The Edge Again
Apr. 5, 2004 The U.N.'s Real Blunder In Iraq
Apr. 12, 2004 Corruption's Threat To Democracy
Apr. 19, 2004 Oil-For-Food: Where Was The Security Council?
Apr. 26, 2004 Losing Faith In Democracy: A Warning From Latin America
May 3, 2004 Reducing Poverty Takes More Than Just Money
May 10, 2004 No Simple Place To Pin Blame For Iraq Oil-For-Food Problems
May 17, 2004 Millions Of People Worldwide On The Move
May 24, 2004 A University In A Class By Itself
Jun. 1, 2004 Low-Tech Solutions Often Key To Third World Problems
Jun. 7, 2004 McAskie One Of U.N.'s Few Women Special Representatives
Jun. 14, 2004 When Peacekeeping Turns To Despair
Jun. 21, 2004 Changing Mindsets And Fortunes In the Poorest Nations
Jun. 28, 2004 Out Of School And Cleaning Toilets: Kids In Domestic Servitude
UPDATE: As of July 1, the UN Notebook archives will be here.
So, as a public service, here are Crossette's articles for UN Wire, beginning with her first UN Notebook column from January 2003 through July:
Jan. 21, 2003 U.S. Out Of Race For First ICC Judges
Feb. 3. 2003 Keeping the Security Council Door Ajar
Mar. 3, 2003 Village In Vietnam A Test Case For U.N. Development Work
Apr. 7, 2003 Last Chance For Khmer Rouge Trials?
May 5, 2003 Nation-Building, U.N. Style
May 19, 2003 Candidates To Succeed Annan Beginning To Emerge
Jun. 2, 2003 What The U.N. Can - And Can't - Do In Iraq
Jun. 9, 2003 Peacekeeping's Unsavory Side
Jun. 16, 2003 Fixing The Security Council
Jun. 23, 2003 AIDS, Other Trends Give New Prominence To U.N. Population Division
Jun. 30, 2003 U.N. Still Battered By U.S. Action On Iraq
Jul. 7, 2003 A New Step For The U.N. -- An Ombudsman
Jul. 14, 2003 Guess Who's Sustaining Iraq
Jul. 21, 2003 Academic Council On U.N. System Leaves U.S. For Canada
Jul. 28, 2003 Ahead Of Information Summit, U.N. Should Examine Itself
Now go read and be informed.
UPDATE: Aug. 4, 2003 Equal Rights For Homosexuals Contentious At U.N.
Aug. 11, 2003 Bush Close To Backing $1 Billion Loan To U.N.
Aug. 18, 2003 The Wrong Kind Of American Exceptionalism
Sep. 2, 2003 UNICEF In The Crosshairs
Sep. 8, 2003 Human Rights At U.N. Obscured By The Shadow Of Politics
Sep. 15, 2003 German Teacher Provides Much-Needed Guide To The U.N.
Sep. 22, 2003 For Countries Big And Small, A Diplomatic Marathon
Sep. 29, 2003 Fighting AIDS By Changing Attitudes In Africa
Oct. 6, 2003 Testing The U.N. In Afghanistan, With Iraq In Mind
Oct. 14, 2003 U.S. Rebuffs To Neighbors Should Raise Concerns
Oct. 20, 2003 AIDS, Asian Values And States Of Denial
Oct. 27, 2003 U.N. And U.S. In Iraq: Nobody Won This Round
Nov. 3, 2003 Leveraging Private Money For The United Nations
Nov. 10, 2003 A New-Look Security Council: What Makes a Winner?
Nov. 17, 2003 Oil for Food: A Great Experiment Ends
Nov. 24, 2003 Saving Congo, One Woman At A Time
Dec. 1, 2003 Sixteen Wise People And The Future Of The U.N.
Dec. 8, 2003 Too Soon To Count The U.N. In On Iraq
Dec. 15, 2003 Book On U.N. Creation A Welcome Reminder Of Early Lessons
Dec. 29, 2003 Refugees In Limbo Where The U.N. Isn't Welcome
Jan. 5, 2004 IAEA Chief Out Front On Arms Control
Jan. 12, 2004 Breathing New Life Into An Old Federation
Jan. 20, 2004 Challenging Year For U.N. Brings Renewed Media Attention
Jan. 26, 2004 Much Of World's Conflict Fueled By Small Arms
Feb. 2, 2004 Those U.N. Inspectors Were Not Wrong About Iraq
Feb. 9, 2004 The Cost Of U.N. Whistleblowing
Feb. 17, 2004 As Chile Reaches High Development Level, U.N. Shifts Strategy
Feb. 23, 2004 Saving The U.N. From Utah
Mar. 1, 2004 Arab Women Leaders Exerting Growing Influence At U.N.
Mar. 8, 2004 Putting ECOSOC Back In The Loop
Mar. 15, 2004 Afghanistan Prepares To Choose A Government
Mar. 22, 2004 Banker Plans To Put U.N. Show On The Road
Mar. 29, 2004 Sri Lanka On The Edge Again
Apr. 5, 2004 The U.N.'s Real Blunder In Iraq
Apr. 12, 2004 Corruption's Threat To Democracy
Apr. 19, 2004 Oil-For-Food: Where Was The Security Council?
Apr. 26, 2004 Losing Faith In Democracy: A Warning From Latin America
May 3, 2004 Reducing Poverty Takes More Than Just Money
May 10, 2004 No Simple Place To Pin Blame For Iraq Oil-For-Food Problems
May 17, 2004 Millions Of People Worldwide On The Move
May 24, 2004 A University In A Class By Itself
Jun. 1, 2004 Low-Tech Solutions Often Key To Third World Problems
Jun. 7, 2004 McAskie One Of U.N.'s Few Women Special Representatives
Jun. 14, 2004 When Peacekeeping Turns To Despair
Jun. 21, 2004 Changing Mindsets And Fortunes In the Poorest Nations
Jun. 28, 2004 Out Of School And Cleaning Toilets: Kids In Domestic Servitude
UPDATE: As of July 1, the UN Notebook archives will be here.
Sunday, August 03, 2003
Why Liberia Matters
The Atlantic Monthly's website has a collection of articles going all the way back to 1922 detailing America's "special relationship" to Liberia. It's a good read for anyone interested in knowing why the place is as messed up as it is, and what that has to do with the US.
Our Liberian Legacy starts off with a general overview and links to the archived articles on Liberia.
Our Liberian Legacy starts off with a general overview and links to the archived articles on Liberia.
Re: North Korea Agrees to Talks
Is John Bolton (finally) becoming a liability for the Bush administration? Apparently the North Koreans have responded to his "hellish nightmare" remark by demanding that he be excluded from the US delegation to the proposed 6-party nuclear talks.
Some choice quotes from the NYTimes:
-a North Korean spokesman called Bolton "human scum and bloodsucker"
-the North will no longer consider Bolton as an official representative of the US
-Bolton has actually called for talks on North Korea's nuclear program in the UN Security Council, though I think his motivation for saying this is suspect (as is everything he's ever done concerning the UN).
So does that mean Jesse Helms' "Mr. Armageddon" will be the odd man out at the Bush royal court? Probably not. The thing that sets Bolton apart from other Bushyites like Condi Rice or Paul Wolfowitz is that he says the things that they're all thinking, but that most are too politically-correct (or politically-astute) to say out loud. No, I think Bolton will serve as Undersecretary of State through the end of Bush's term, be it in 2005 or 2009. That may be infuriating not only to the North Koreans but to just about every clear-thinking person in America as well. But, public and Congressional pressure has already forced 2 pro-Bush Cold Warriors (Richard Perle and John Poindexter) out of office. Maybe if Bolton continues to display completely irresponsible political behavior, some upstanding congressman will call for his resignation. Maybe then I'll have my faith in Congress restored just a little.
Some choice quotes from the NYTimes:
-a North Korean spokesman called Bolton "human scum and bloodsucker"
-the North will no longer consider Bolton as an official representative of the US
-Bolton has actually called for talks on North Korea's nuclear program in the UN Security Council, though I think his motivation for saying this is suspect (as is everything he's ever done concerning the UN).
So does that mean Jesse Helms' "Mr. Armageddon" will be the odd man out at the Bush royal court? Probably not. The thing that sets Bolton apart from other Bushyites like Condi Rice or Paul Wolfowitz is that he says the things that they're all thinking, but that most are too politically-correct (or politically-astute) to say out loud. No, I think Bolton will serve as Undersecretary of State through the end of Bush's term, be it in 2005 or 2009. That may be infuriating not only to the North Koreans but to just about every clear-thinking person in America as well. But, public and Congressional pressure has already forced 2 pro-Bush Cold Warriors (Richard Perle and John Poindexter) out of office. Maybe if Bolton continues to display completely irresponsible political behavior, some upstanding congressman will call for his resignation. Maybe then I'll have my faith in Congress restored just a little.
Saturday, August 02, 2003
California dreaming
I'm sorry, something just ain't right with a state that can possibly let Larry Flynt run for governor against Arnold Schwarzenegger. Now I'm all for Larry's free speech work, but even Jerry Springer has some political experience as mayor of Cincinnati.
Again, only in America...
Again, only in America...
Friday, August 01, 2003
Suddenly, Canada's cool?
No South Park jokes please. =)
Remember when lots of Gore voters vowed to emigrate to Canada on Inauguration Day 2001? Well now there's even more incentive to do so. Canada not only stayed lukewarm in its support for the Iraq war, but now it's also legalized gay marriage and decriminalized marijuana. Word has it that Ken Sherrill, chair of my college's polisci department, is heading north in the fall to get married to his partner. So, is Canada, the country perpetually in search of an identity distinct from the USA, finally showing some backbone?
Not so fast, sez Naomi Klein, anti-globalist and the Economist's perpetual thorn in the side. In The Nation, Klein reasons that Jean Chretien's recent moves to please the left is just a whole lotta lame-duck politicking. In short, making up for his previous cozying up with the US on NAFTA while sticking his likely successor, Paul Martin, with the fallout of helping to usher in "Soviet Canuckistan".
Now, I think I'm gonna give Chretien the benefit of the doubt on gay rights and marijuana. Why? Because what's going on in Canada now is, I think, simply an extension of what's been going on in "Old Europe" for a while now. Decriminalizing reefer is nothing new, and the gay marriage debate is a worldwide issue (just ask an Anglican). Since Canada's usually been a bellwether of European trends shifting to North America, I think the timing in this case is just a coincidence. The chips falling in place at the right time, not some pre-engineered political coup. Though the politics of it are admittedly brilliant - Chretien's a political goner anyway, so why not do some legacy-building? That "legacy" thing (almost) worked for Bill Clinton...
Remember when lots of Gore voters vowed to emigrate to Canada on Inauguration Day 2001? Well now there's even more incentive to do so. Canada not only stayed lukewarm in its support for the Iraq war, but now it's also legalized gay marriage and decriminalized marijuana. Word has it that Ken Sherrill, chair of my college's polisci department, is heading north in the fall to get married to his partner. So, is Canada, the country perpetually in search of an identity distinct from the USA, finally showing some backbone?
Not so fast, sez Naomi Klein, anti-globalist and the Economist's perpetual thorn in the side. In The Nation, Klein reasons that Jean Chretien's recent moves to please the left is just a whole lotta lame-duck politicking. In short, making up for his previous cozying up with the US on NAFTA while sticking his likely successor, Paul Martin, with the fallout of helping to usher in "Soviet Canuckistan".
Now, I think I'm gonna give Chretien the benefit of the doubt on gay rights and marijuana. Why? Because what's going on in Canada now is, I think, simply an extension of what's been going on in "Old Europe" for a while now. Decriminalizing reefer is nothing new, and the gay marriage debate is a worldwide issue (just ask an Anglican). Since Canada's usually been a bellwether of European trends shifting to North America, I think the timing in this case is just a coincidence. The chips falling in place at the right time, not some pre-engineered political coup. Though the politics of it are admittedly brilliant - Chretien's a political goner anyway, so why not do some legacy-building? That "legacy" thing (almost) worked for Bill Clinton...
