PASSING OF AHMADOU KOUROUMA
I was saddened to learn of the passing of the great writer Ahmadou Kourouma at 76 years. Native of the north of Cote d'Ivoire, he lived in exile after having angered the regime of the late Felix Houphouet-Boigny and more recently, of the current head of state Laurent Gbagbo, Houphouet's sworn enemy. His first work is considered one of the great classics of African literature. Published in 1970, Le Soleil des indépendances (The Sun of the Independances) addressed the sensitive topic of what had become of the newly sovereign African states. He also received literary prizes for his excellent book En attendant le vote des bêtes sauvages (Waiting for the Vote of the Savage Beasts) which skewered the autocratic party-state system and for the powerful Allah n'est pas obligé (Allah is Not Obliged) on the tragic life of a West African child soldier. I strongly recommend all three.

GREEN NEARLY ELECTED MAYOR OF SAN FRANCISCO
Interesting story from northern California. Democrat Gavin Newsom was narrowly elected mayor of San Francisco is a tight runoff with Green Party candidate Matt Gonzalez, who heads the city's board of supervisors. The near-win by Gonzalez, who reportedly got a majority of votes cast on the actual runoff Election Day, is amazing considering what he was up against.

San Francisco is an overwhelmingly Democratic city with about 54% of registered voters belong to that one party. Gonzalez spent about 1/9 of the $3.6 million spent by the Democrat. Newsom received ensorsement from both of the city's major newspapers, the outgoing Democratic mayor and nearly every high ranking Democratic official in California as well as Bill Clinton and Al Gore. But despite Greens only accounting for 3% of San Francisco's population, Gonzalez received 47% of the total vote and, as mentioned earlier, a majority of votes cast on the actual day of the vote.

Christopher Scheer, of AlterNet, wondered, How many times must the public send the message before the Democratic Party decides to stop shooting the messenger? The Gore-Bush contest of 2000, the 2002 mid-term elections, the California recall, and now the astonishing near-defeat of Gavin Newsom in San Francisco's mayor's race, each contain the same crystal-clear message: choosing Republican Lite-weights to represent the Democratic Party makes a lousy political strategy.

But the Democratic establishment would rather blame Nader and the Florida freaks. Blame Arnold and the Recall Repubs. Blame last-second progressive S.F. mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez and his hipster horde. Blame "Mean" Dean and his Internet machine. Blame 9/11, late-night GOP roll-call votes ... anybody, in fact, but itself.

The sad, mostly unacknowledged fact is that in the shadow of Bill Clinton's enormous charisma and political brilliance, the Democratic Party has been steadily receding in influence across this country for more than a decade. Congress, gubernatorial races, city elections – you name it, and they've lost it. And the reason is simple: because the Democratic Party is too busy raising money to connect with the American people.

Gonzalez's near win in one of the most overwhelmingly Democratic cities in the country certainly puts a large dent in the myth that Greens should make themselves disappear from the political spectrum because are "unelectable."

In a related note, a USA Today/Gallup poll released in October found that 23% of those surveyed felt that Ralph Nader should run for president in 2004. The same poll also found that 52% rejected the idea that Nader's 2000 run cost Democrat Al Gore the election (vs 41% that agreed) and that 28% said they've voted for an independent or third party candidate for president. I'm sure some will focus on whether Nader should run in 2004 and others, especially Democrats, will continue to look backward and whine about 2000, but this is missing the bigger picture.

Assuming the representativity of the poll (which is always questionable), this suggests that about 1/4 of voters feel the need to look outside the two biggest parties. 1/4 feel that smaller parties have something to offer that Democrats and Republicans do not. Instead of smearing these people or minimizing their relevance like the Democratic Leadership Council types would do, perhaps the two major parties would do better listening to the views of these folks.

LESS PREACHING, MORE LISTENING
I see now that the US government is now going to formally ban from reconstruction in Iraq businesses from any country that didn't fully support the conquest. This just proves how much the Bush administration doesn't get it.

Deputy Secretary of War Paul Wolfowitz said that contracts were being restricted to protect America's "essential security interests." Which is as believable as when the movie theaters ban you from taking in backpacks for "security" reasons.

From a purely emotional standpoint, this is sensible. I mean, they didn't lick the president's boots, so why should they get any part of the booty? But as with most things, the administration is penny-wise and pound foolish (or cutting of its nose to spite its face; you have your pick of aphorisms).

This could be a perfect opportunity for the administration to show American magnamity. To show that Bush is not the bloodthirsty warmonger so many people in all parts of the world think he is. To show we didn't conquer Iraq to enrich American corporations.

(I wonder how banning companies from bidding on contracts fits in with the adminstration's free trade ideas)

But although the snitfit may be emotionally satisfying, it's infinitely counterproductive.

-It does nothing to boost anyone's trust that the conquest was done for benevolent reasons and gives a further boost to those, especially Arabs, who say the motive for the invasion were purely economic.

-When the Bush administration pleads for international cooperation in re-building Iraq or addressing the humanitarian, what incentive are "dissenting" countries going to have to listen? Canada, a large contributor to Iraq reconstruction, has already said it would be difficult for them to keep donating money if such a ban remains. To exclude Canadians just because they are Canadians would be unacceptable if they accept funds from Canadian taxpayers for the reconstruction of Iraq noted the country's deputy prime minister.

-When the Bush administration pleads for more non-American troops in Iraq, what incentive are "dissenting" countries going to have to listen? There's talk of bringing NATO into Iraq to relieve the burden on American troops. But governments of key NATO members France, Germany and Turkey all raised questions about the manner of the invasion.

-When the Bush administration pleads for more international cooperation and non-American troops for Afghanistan (remember that place?), what incentive are "dissenting" countries going to have to listen? Do you think the Germans appreciate how much they've been smeared on the Iraq question after they dutifully contributed large number of troops to the Afghanistan cause at the request of President Bush? I wonder how Germans can be ok for American security in Afghanistan but not Iraq?

-When the Bush administration demands cooperation on fighting international terrorist groups, will "dissenting" countries return the snub back to Washington? For example, has the government in Paris received any kudos from either Washington hawks or the sensationalist press for the numerous arrests of al-Qaeda suspects in France? No, but the French arrested the suspects anyway. Fortunately, they weren't put off by the 1st grade level insults from the other side of the pond but the administration's legendary ability to lose friends and influence people against it does not bode well for it or for us.

The people of this administration just don't get it. They gratiutiously piss off our allies then have the audacity to ask those same allies for help. They preach "the spread of democracy" to the Arab world but rage against European governments for representing the democratic will of their people. They limit contracts to cohorts and then get indignant when anyone suggests it amounts to conquest for plunder. They anger the rest of the world with obtuseness, bluster and self-righteousness and then are truly surprised at the anti-Americanism that ensues.

So much of our foreign policy ills could be rectified if we did a little less preaching and a lot more listening. We don't do that very well. Maybe we should learn.

NOVEL IDEA FOR ISRAEL-PALESTINE, MORE CHICKEN LITTLES AND RALPH NADER
-An article in the Israeli daily Haaretz reported on the visit to the country of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) for his role in the May 1968 general strike in France. Anyways, "Danny the Red" offered an intriguing idea for the seemingly intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to him, The United Nations should vote on the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, deploy an international force in the region and make Israel part of NATO.

To me, this seems like reasonable The real question is whether those opposed to a fair resolution (notably Israel's far right and most Arab states, both of whom need scapegoats) will continue to hold sway.


-Since the hasty adoption of the USA PATRIOT act by most Congressmen who didn't even read the bill, the legislation has been under fire from civil liberties groups who question the very constitutionality of many of its provisions. These critics have been derided as 'chicken littles' and 'unwitting terrorist appeasers' by some and as 'decrying phantoms of lost liberty' by the attorney general of the United States. However, the latest 'chicken little' to express concerns about the government's anti-terrorism policy is none other than the chief architect of the Patriot act, a former top assistant to Attorney General John Ashcroft.

- A poll published in October reported that nearly a quarter of those surveyed wanted Ralph Nader to run again for president in 2004. The 23% number is surprising since Nader received only 3% of the vote in the 2000 election. Although it's doubtful all 23% would actually vote for Nader but it suggests that many voters are looking for someone else to vote for besides Democrats and Republicans. The poll also reported that a majority rejected the notion that Nader's 2000 candidacy cost Al Gore the election. 28% of those surveyed said they'd voted for independent or smaller party candidates, thus demonstrating that a notable percentage of voters appreciate having more than two choices.

'MOST PRESCRIPTION DRUGS DON'T WORK ON MOST PEOPLE' ADMITS GLAXO VP
An article in the British paper The Independent carried a startling admission. A senior executive of GlaxoSmithKline, one of the world's largest pharamaceutical giants, has admitted that most prescription medicines do not work on most people who take them.

Dr. Allen Roses noted The vast majority of drugs - more than 90 per cent - only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people. I wouldn't say that most drugs don't work. I would say that most drugs work in 30 to 50 per cent of people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don't work in everybody.

Most pharmaceutical giants defend their huge price increases, which go up much, much faster than the rate of inflation, by saying they saying they need to recoup the cost of research and development (even though they reportedly spend far more on advertising). This is also the same reason big pharmaceuticals oppose the development of reasonably priced generic AIDS drugs to fight the greatest scourge of humanity. Sadly, Dr. Roses' admission may bolster domestic African critics who say AIDS drugs do more harm than good or that they're a waste of money.

So this begs the question, if most drugs don't work on 50-70 percent of the people, then how effective is this R&D? And why are the prices so high for something that's so ineffective?

A WASTE OF TIME IN ABUJA
So the present meeting of the Commonwealth (former British colonies) in Abuja, Nigeria, is being dominated by the question of Zimbabwe. The Southern African state was suspended from the organization last year because of rigged presidential elections.

Although it's land "re-distrbution" policies (which seizes land owned by white farmers and gives it to high-ranking officials of the ruling party) has gotten more press in the west, its the least of most Zimbabweans' concerns compared to the government's horrific human rights' record. Church leaders in the country have accused Robert Mugabe's regime of running "re-education" camps and harassing those religious leaders who speak out. It also stands accused of using food aid as a political weapon. Its attacks on protest marches, its war (literally, not just figuratively) on what remains of a domestic free press and its banning of foreign journalists seem mild by comparison to these other things.

Whatever decision is taken on Zimbabwe's Commonwealth status is going to have no impact on the appalling conditions in the country. Suspending it hasn't changed anything. Southern African leaders' "softly softly" approach of flattering the rogue only massages his huge ego and hasn't changed anything either. Mugabe has said he would rather leave the Commonwealth than cede any of Zimbabwe's independence (ie: his absolute personal power).

Although I understand no one likes their neighbor to be criticized by outsiders, Southern African leaders vehement defense of Zimbabwe's apartheid state is shameful. They should be in the forefront of pressuring the dictatorship since it is their countries, not Britain or Australia, who are most directly impacted by Zimbabwe's collapse into chaos. How can these leaders demand the west do more to help suffering Africans (AIDS, peacekeeping interventions, malaria) if they serve as apologists for a brute like Mugabe whose causes a great deal of suffering for Africans?

THE POWER OF SYMBOLISM
An article in British paper The Observer noted, "Israel has been described as the top threat to world peace, ahead of North Korea, Afghanistan and Iran, by an unpublished European Commission poll of 7,500 Europeans, sparking an international row. The survey, conducted in October, of 500 people from each of the EU's member nations included a list of 15 countries with the question, 'tell me if in your opinion it presents or not a threat to peace in the world'. Israel was reportedly picked by 59 per cent of those interviewed."

It's not often that a news article can leave me truly speechless, but this one did. You don't have to agree with the policies of the Israeli occupation or the Sharon government, and I detest both. But for 59% of Europeans polled to think that Israel represents a threat to world peace is dumbfounding. And a telling example of the power of symoblism, rhetoric and political exploitation. This is how what's really nothing more than a local territorial dispute far less bloody than dozens of conflicts elsewhere in the world has become THE worldwide cause celebre and conduit for the fury of those thousands of miles away.

No wonder a siege mentality envelops Israeli society. It's one thing to deal with hatred stoked by neighboring autocracies. It's another to learn of such a staggering level idiocy in the self-professed heart of the "enlightened" western world (in contrast to a crude gorilla like the US or provincial backwaters like Australia).

This might not be a manifestation of anti-Semitism but it certainly defies belief. And it shows that ignorance is truly the greatest threat to peace in the world.

THE GREATEST MENACE TO HUMANITY
Today is World AIDS day. It's a day to inform people about the pandemic which represents by far the greatest threat to humanity. Over 39 million people are presently infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. About 14,000 are infected every day.

Susan Hunter, former consultant for the organization UNAIDS, has compared AIDS to the black death that swept across Europe centuries ago, though AIDS has already killed numerically more people. In a radio interview, Hunter did demographic studies which showed that only two other events in the last 2000 years provoked as cataclysmic a loss of life as the present AIDS pandemic: the black death and the European conquest’s eradication of the Native American populations.

Nearly 3,000,000 people have died of the disease this year alone; the Holocaust took several years to achieve death of that magnitude. To put it another way, twice as many people died of AIDS every single day this year as died in the 9/11 attacks. That’s three millions people in a single year eliminated by a disease that’s manageable, if not curable.

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan noted that many governments had described AIDS as a security threat but had devoted barely a fraction of the resources used to fight terrorism or search for weapons of mass destruction. I feel angry, I feel distressed, I feel helpless... to live in a world where we have the means, we have the resources, to be able to help all these patients - what is lacking is the political will.

Annan also ripped some African leaders who he said were too timid or embarrassed to confront the disease head on.

Click here for access to a plethora of stories on the topic.