JOHN KERRY'S CRIME
President Bush has launched an attack ad targetting his presumptive Democratic rival in November Sen. John Kerry.
In it, an announcer begins, "A president sets his agenda for America in the first 100 days. John Kerry's plan: To pay for new government spending, raise taxes by at least $900 billion."
This is Kerry's main crime in the eyes of the Bush people. He would have the government, gasp, PAY FOR NEW GOVERNMENT SPENDING rather than running up huge deficits for future generations to deal with (plus interest). I know paying for spending as you go is not a virtue the administration is familiar with.
Then again, if you consider college and car loans, mortgages and credit cards, most Americans aren't either.
Of course, the Bush administration can't even claim to be shrinking the size of government, like most conservatives supposedly prefer.
Kerry launched his own attack ad. today. It slammed the president for running negative ads.
You can expect a lot of this in the upcoming campaign. Lots of ads with the theme, "My sleazebag opponent should present a positive vision for the future like I am. The warmonger/taxlover should avoid the negative campaigning and trashy mudslinging he's currently poisoning the airwaves with."
Friday, March 12, 2004
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
SANCTIONS AGAINST SADDAM: A PROGRESSIVE INTELLECTUAL TRADITION BETRAYED?
I am certainly to the left of the political center, at least here in the United States. I have many friends and acquaintances who are left of center. But sometimes, they profoundly confuse me.
For example, people on the left of center tend to hold the following positions on human rights:
-Human rights is a good thing, is universal and should not be made subservient to economic considerations. Progressives like to think of themselves as being in the forefront in the fight for human rights, in contrast to those amoral pro-business types.
-Human rights must be defended aggressively. Declarations on pieces of paper mean nothing if they’re not enforced. Human rights violators should be punished in some way.
They also tend or tended to hold the following positions on Iraq:
-Saddam had a horrific human rights’ record dating back to the 1980s when he was chummy with the Reagan administration.
-Sanctions against the Saddam regime during the 1990s was bad. Some called it genocidal and claimed that western leaders “were responsible” for the deaths of every Iraqi who ceased living during that period.
-Foreign-sponsored ‘regime change’ against the Saddam regime was a bad idea. America should never be in the regime change business as it inevitably has counterproductive effects.
-Invading Iraq to remove Saddam was illegal, immoral and done solely for oil. In short, a horrendous idea with horrendous consequences.
This is what leaves me confused. Sanctions against Saddam’s regime were bad. Regime change was bad. Invasion was bad. Then what COULD the international community do to express its disapproval of the way Saddam flagrantly violated both Iraqi domestic law and international law?
Isolationists would say “Nothing.” They contend that it’s not our business to solve everyone else’s problems. This is perfectly logical in following with the isolationist tradition. They are being intellectually consistent.
But for a progressive to say “we shouldn’t do anything” is antithetical to the progressive tradition on human rights that I noted above. If progressives believe human rights is universal and must be defended aggressively, then saying “tough luck Iraqis brutalized by Saddam” is not an option.
Neo-conservative imperialists seized on this intellectual paralysis by insisting, “Well since Saddam’s evil and sanctions are supposedly bad, then we must ‘liberate’ Iraqis by invasion.” Progressives were unable to offer a pro-active alternative to sanctions, invasion or laissez-faire.
Two interesting things about sanctions. First off, it was Democratic legislators (the slightly left of center party in the US) who lead efforts to impose sanctions on the Saddam regime during the late 80s after its genocide against the Kurds.
Second, a great many of the people who called 1990s sanctions against Iraq a “crime against humanity” were the same as those who insisted that 1980s sanctions against South Africa were indispensible in bringing down the apartheid regime.
What’s the difference? American and British conservatives generally opposed sanctions against apartheid in South Africa and supported 1990s sanctions against Saddam. Many progressives are reflexively opposed to anything advocated by conservatives.
Frankly, if the Occupation regime in Iraq were to decree equal rights for women, universal health care and mandatory public and secular education, I'm sure many on the American and European left would still find a way to criticize it.
This is how sanctions against a monster became a bad thing in the eyes of many progressives. Intellectual tradition be damned.
I am certainly to the left of the political center, at least here in the United States. I have many friends and acquaintances who are left of center. But sometimes, they profoundly confuse me.
For example, people on the left of center tend to hold the following positions on human rights:
-Human rights is a good thing, is universal and should not be made subservient to economic considerations. Progressives like to think of themselves as being in the forefront in the fight for human rights, in contrast to those amoral pro-business types.
-Human rights must be defended aggressively. Declarations on pieces of paper mean nothing if they’re not enforced. Human rights violators should be punished in some way.
They also tend or tended to hold the following positions on Iraq:
-Saddam had a horrific human rights’ record dating back to the 1980s when he was chummy with the Reagan administration.
-Sanctions against the Saddam regime during the 1990s was bad. Some called it genocidal and claimed that western leaders “were responsible” for the deaths of every Iraqi who ceased living during that period.
-Foreign-sponsored ‘regime change’ against the Saddam regime was a bad idea. America should never be in the regime change business as it inevitably has counterproductive effects.
-Invading Iraq to remove Saddam was illegal, immoral and done solely for oil. In short, a horrendous idea with horrendous consequences.
This is what leaves me confused. Sanctions against Saddam’s regime were bad. Regime change was bad. Invasion was bad. Then what COULD the international community do to express its disapproval of the way Saddam flagrantly violated both Iraqi domestic law and international law?
Isolationists would say “Nothing.” They contend that it’s not our business to solve everyone else’s problems. This is perfectly logical in following with the isolationist tradition. They are being intellectually consistent.
But for a progressive to say “we shouldn’t do anything” is antithetical to the progressive tradition on human rights that I noted above. If progressives believe human rights is universal and must be defended aggressively, then saying “tough luck Iraqis brutalized by Saddam” is not an option.
Neo-conservative imperialists seized on this intellectual paralysis by insisting, “Well since Saddam’s evil and sanctions are supposedly bad, then we must ‘liberate’ Iraqis by invasion.” Progressives were unable to offer a pro-active alternative to sanctions, invasion or laissez-faire.
Two interesting things about sanctions. First off, it was Democratic legislators (the slightly left of center party in the US) who lead efforts to impose sanctions on the Saddam regime during the late 80s after its genocide against the Kurds.
Second, a great many of the people who called 1990s sanctions against Iraq a “crime against humanity” were the same as those who insisted that 1980s sanctions against South Africa were indispensible in bringing down the apartheid regime.
What’s the difference? American and British conservatives generally opposed sanctions against apartheid in South Africa and supported 1990s sanctions against Saddam. Many progressives are reflexively opposed to anything advocated by conservatives.
Frankly, if the Occupation regime in Iraq were to decree equal rights for women, universal health care and mandatory public and secular education, I'm sure many on the American and European left would still find a way to criticize it.
This is how sanctions against a monster became a bad thing in the eyes of many progressives. Intellectual tradition be damned.
Monday, March 08, 2004
WESTERN EFFORTS TO REHABILITATE GADAFFI HIT ROADBLOCK
The chief prosecutor for the UN special court for Sierra Leone made some diplomatically sensitive and totally accurate comments today. David Crane today reminded the world that Libyan strongman Muammar Gadaffi developed and implemented a detailed plan to destabilize the entire West African region and implant new leaders beholden to him.
The plan effectively destroyed the countries of Sierra Leone and Liberia, spilt over into Cote d’Ivoire which was engulfed by civil war and at one time threatened to consume Guinea as well. The lives of tens of millions of West Africans were ruined by the machinations of Gadaffi and his henchmen like the former Liberian dictator (and indicted war criminal) Charles Taylor.
"We know that, specifically up until last year, that there was a 10-year plan to take down Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, then move to Guinea and then elsewhere as the situation developed," Crane said. “The 10-year plan was to put in surrogates who were beholden to Muammar Gaddafi,"
The prosecutor did not rule out the possibility that Gadaffi himself might be indicted by the court.
These comments come as absolutely no surprise to followers of West Africa. The Libyan leader’s hand in West Africa’s tragedies has been an open secret for years. But it certainly causes discomfort to the Americo-British efforts to rehabilitate Gadaffi, particularly since Britain and the US have been the strongest backers of the Sierra Leone court.
The chief prosecutor for the UN special court for Sierra Leone made some diplomatically sensitive and totally accurate comments today. David Crane today reminded the world that Libyan strongman Muammar Gadaffi developed and implemented a detailed plan to destabilize the entire West African region and implant new leaders beholden to him.
The plan effectively destroyed the countries of Sierra Leone and Liberia, spilt over into Cote d’Ivoire which was engulfed by civil war and at one time threatened to consume Guinea as well. The lives of tens of millions of West Africans were ruined by the machinations of Gadaffi and his henchmen like the former Liberian dictator (and indicted war criminal) Charles Taylor.
"We know that, specifically up until last year, that there was a 10-year plan to take down Liberia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, then move to Guinea and then elsewhere as the situation developed," Crane said. “The 10-year plan was to put in surrogates who were beholden to Muammar Gaddafi,"
The prosecutor did not rule out the possibility that Gadaffi himself might be indicted by the court.
These comments come as absolutely no surprise to followers of West Africa. The Libyan leader’s hand in West Africa’s tragedies has been an open secret for years. But it certainly causes discomfort to the Americo-British efforts to rehabilitate Gadaffi, particularly since Britain and the US have been the strongest backers of the Sierra Leone court.
Friday, March 05, 2004
WE CAN’T CHANGE LEADERS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WAR? CAN WE AFFORD NOT TO?
The American electorate is fortunate President Bush has run these re-election ads exploiting the few thousand men and women killed during the 11 September attacks.
These ads perfectly encapsulate the cheap fear-mongering that has marked the last two and a half years. Some of us have known for a long time that the people in charge of the country have no shame. Now, a lot of others are learning it as well.
I heard one of the ads. Bad things happened [insert images from ground zero], Americans responded, strong leadership. Politicians habitually use such non-sequiturs in self-promotion but most don’t exploit the worst terrorist act in American history in doing so. The political world is home to many unpleasant things but there are lines that we expect even politicians shouldn’t cross.
Essentially the ad’s message was, "Something terrible happened on my watch. Americans responded magnificently to the challenge. I had nothing to do with this but I'll try to take credit anyway."
The ads were condemned by many families of 9/11 victims. The International Association of Fire Fighters was equally scatching, “We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders [emergency services],"
Supporters and apologists say that the reminding people terrorists attacks is a legitimate device. 9/11 was a "a defining moment” in the course of the administration’s policies, noted the president’s spokesman.
The Iraq invasion was the other hugely pivotal event in the course of the administration’s policies. Will the Bush team run ads showing images of coffins coming back from Iraq? Or of soldiers rehabilitating after losing a limb? Or how about Secretary Powell’s speech to the UN “proving” that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but that these mythical WMDs were so potentially dangerous we had to invade?
I'm glad this tempest has erupted. Americans are finally be showing that such crass manipulation may no longer work.
The American electorate is fortunate President Bush has run these re-election ads exploiting the few thousand men and women killed during the 11 September attacks.
These ads perfectly encapsulate the cheap fear-mongering that has marked the last two and a half years. Some of us have known for a long time that the people in charge of the country have no shame. Now, a lot of others are learning it as well.
I heard one of the ads. Bad things happened [insert images from ground zero], Americans responded, strong leadership. Politicians habitually use such non-sequiturs in self-promotion but most don’t exploit the worst terrorist act in American history in doing so. The political world is home to many unpleasant things but there are lines that we expect even politicians shouldn’t cross.
Essentially the ad’s message was, "Something terrible happened on my watch. Americans responded magnificently to the challenge. I had nothing to do with this but I'll try to take credit anyway."
The ads were condemned by many families of 9/11 victims. The International Association of Fire Fighters was equally scatching, “We're not going to stand for him to put his arm around one of our members on top of a pile of rubble at Ground Zero during a tragedy and then stand by and watch him cut money for first responders [emergency services],"
Supporters and apologists say that the reminding people terrorists attacks is a legitimate device. 9/11 was a "a defining moment” in the course of the administration’s policies, noted the president’s spokesman.
The Iraq invasion was the other hugely pivotal event in the course of the administration’s policies. Will the Bush team run ads showing images of coffins coming back from Iraq? Or of soldiers rehabilitating after losing a limb? Or how about Secretary Powell’s speech to the UN “proving” that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction but that these mythical WMDs were so potentially dangerous we had to invade?
I'm glad this tempest has erupted. Americans are finally be showing that such crass manipulation may no longer work.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
DUMB JOCKS? NOT ON MY TEAM!
One of the best parts of coaching is the fascinating kids I meet (and the stories they provide me with).
For whatever reason, the soccer program in my school tends to attract kids that are really smart. I like to think the reason is that smart kids naturally gravitate toward good coaching, but I could be biased.
To use an arbitrary measure, over 90% of the kids on the two middle school soccer teams made honor or merit rolls in the year’s first marking period (during the season). Ironically, I’ve been told by several parents that their sons actually do better academically during soccer season than in the off-season.
But like I said, some of the kids are really fascinating. A lot of them have huge reservoirs of curiosity and creativity. They are fortunate that such qualities manage to survive the relentless pressure caused by society’s deification of statistics.
New York state’s educational system is run by fundamentalist believers in the God of the standardized test. The premise for this is that if it can’t be quantified, it doesn’t exist. Learning how take tests has overwhelmed the learning of content, with emphasis on critical thought and the flexible mind being relegated to Dennis Kucinich-like status. Fortunately, some kids still manage to maintain their curiosity in spite of the standardized test fetishists’ best efforts.
Such inventiveness was on display last weekend.
Although the competitive soccer season is in the fall, I run unofficial pickup sessions more or less every week between the New Year and the end of the school year. Obviously, our current sessions are indoor, in the gym. Near the ceiling, there is a long, rectangular ventilation something or other. During each of the last two weeks, balls got stuck on top of the ventilation thingie. You couldn’t try to knock the ball over the back because there was a little wall in the back (making an L shape) preventing this. I pretty much figured the balls were lost to humanity, absent janitorial intervention.
One of my kids didn’t accept this. Instead, Zack (age 13) came to the most recent session and declared that he had an invention that was going to get the balls down. It was a long rope with a golf visor tied to the end. I laughed and said, “I hope this invention doesn’t end up with me calling an ambulance for you.”
He shrugged me off and insisted it would work. “If you get both of the balls down, I’ll buy you a Gatorade,” I said, confident that my wallet wouldn’t be affected but also wanting to challenge his legendary stubborn streak.
He and another 8th grader spent 10 minutes or so vainly trying to toss the visor up to the ventilation thingie. It was too light. Both of them are in Odyssey of the Mind, a program that provides creative problem-solving opportunities for students (that emphasis on creative problem-solving is a separate program for a few rather than integrated into the general curriculum backs up my earlier assertions).
As a result, I wasn’t surprised that this failure motivated, rather than deterred, them. They then attached to the end of the rope about half a dozen little plastic discs used in soccer drills. That added enough weight. After 10 more minutes of trial and error, they were able to get the rope up on top of the ventilation system and used the visor to drag one of the balls over the edge. A few minutes later, they got the other one down.
I’m out three bucks for the Gatorades, but it was worth it just to be impressed by this manifestation of creativity and persistence.
One of the best parts of coaching is the fascinating kids I meet (and the stories they provide me with).
For whatever reason, the soccer program in my school tends to attract kids that are really smart. I like to think the reason is that smart kids naturally gravitate toward good coaching, but I could be biased.
To use an arbitrary measure, over 90% of the kids on the two middle school soccer teams made honor or merit rolls in the year’s first marking period (during the season). Ironically, I’ve been told by several parents that their sons actually do better academically during soccer season than in the off-season.
But like I said, some of the kids are really fascinating. A lot of them have huge reservoirs of curiosity and creativity. They are fortunate that such qualities manage to survive the relentless pressure caused by society’s deification of statistics.
New York state’s educational system is run by fundamentalist believers in the God of the standardized test. The premise for this is that if it can’t be quantified, it doesn’t exist. Learning how take tests has overwhelmed the learning of content, with emphasis on critical thought and the flexible mind being relegated to Dennis Kucinich-like status. Fortunately, some kids still manage to maintain their curiosity in spite of the standardized test fetishists’ best efforts.
Such inventiveness was on display last weekend.
Although the competitive soccer season is in the fall, I run unofficial pickup sessions more or less every week between the New Year and the end of the school year. Obviously, our current sessions are indoor, in the gym. Near the ceiling, there is a long, rectangular ventilation something or other. During each of the last two weeks, balls got stuck on top of the ventilation thingie. You couldn’t try to knock the ball over the back because there was a little wall in the back (making an L shape) preventing this. I pretty much figured the balls were lost to humanity, absent janitorial intervention.
One of my kids didn’t accept this. Instead, Zack (age 13) came to the most recent session and declared that he had an invention that was going to get the balls down. It was a long rope with a golf visor tied to the end. I laughed and said, “I hope this invention doesn’t end up with me calling an ambulance for you.”
He shrugged me off and insisted it would work. “If you get both of the balls down, I’ll buy you a Gatorade,” I said, confident that my wallet wouldn’t be affected but also wanting to challenge his legendary stubborn streak.
He and another 8th grader spent 10 minutes or so vainly trying to toss the visor up to the ventilation thingie. It was too light. Both of them are in Odyssey of the Mind, a program that provides creative problem-solving opportunities for students (that emphasis on creative problem-solving is a separate program for a few rather than integrated into the general curriculum backs up my earlier assertions).
As a result, I wasn’t surprised that this failure motivated, rather than deterred, them. They then attached to the end of the rope about half a dozen little plastic discs used in soccer drills. That added enough weight. After 10 more minutes of trial and error, they were able to get the rope up on top of the ventilation system and used the visor to drag one of the balls over the edge. A few minutes later, they got the other one down.
I’m out three bucks for the Gatorades, but it was worth it just to be impressed by this manifestation of creativity and persistence.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
THE REAL MUSLIM-HATERS
I certainly oppose the American occupation of Iraq but when I hear the steady drumbeat of how Americans or the American government hates Muslims or is anti-Muslim, it annoys me.
Where were the "Americans are anti-Muslim" cries when Americans tried to feed the Somalis or intervened in favor of the Bosnian Muslims or in favor of the Kosovar Muslims?
And now, some terrorists fired mortar rounds into a mosque in Baghdad as Shia Muslims celebrated the holiest day of their year. At least 50 were killed and over 100 injured. Hundreds of people were in the main mosque at the time. After the blast, thousands of worshippers' shoes and sandals were strewn across the street outside, reports the BBC.
But Americans are the real Muslim-haters...
I certainly oppose the American occupation of Iraq but when I hear the steady drumbeat of how Americans or the American government hates Muslims or is anti-Muslim, it annoys me.
Where were the "Americans are anti-Muslim" cries when Americans tried to feed the Somalis or intervened in favor of the Bosnian Muslims or in favor of the Kosovar Muslims?
And now, some terrorists fired mortar rounds into a mosque in Baghdad as Shia Muslims celebrated the holiest day of their year. At least 50 were killed and over 100 injured. Hundreds of people were in the main mosque at the time. After the blast, thousands of worshippers' shoes and sandals were strewn across the street outside, reports the BBC.
But Americans are the real Muslim-haters...
Monday, March 01, 2004
DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED VS DEMOCRATIC
This weekend, Haitian leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide fled the country, for temporary exile in the Central African Republic. (That a deposed leader who was arguably democratically-elected, but thoroughly undemocratic went into exile in the CAR is an irony surely not lost on anyone familiar with the central African country’s recent history)
Not surprisingly, the events provoked a firestorm of criticism by those with an axe to grind with President Bush. Though I am hardly a fan of the president, he is not to blame for everything and the bad weather. His critics need to beware of the ‘boy who cried wolf’ syndrome.
Predictably, Democrats were at the president’s throat. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi insisted that “actions should have been taken to end the violence before it spread to Port-au-Prince." [Always beware when politicians use the passive voice].
Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry surprised no one by stating, "This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier.”
More pap! Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Kerry are suggesting that international troops should’ve been sent to Haiti while the uprising was in full swing. History has shown that international peacekeepers work only when there’s a peace to keep. They work only when both/all warring parties consent to outside intervention. If they go into a situation where’s not even a cease-fire, then they are almost always adding to the problem, rather than solving it.
This is why the president was right not to intervene earlier in Haiti and why, as much as I wished otherwise, he was right not to intervene in Liberia while the fighting was still going on. Such intervention should only be done if it’s likely to actually improve the situation. Intervention must never be done solely to assuage our conscience. “We must do something,” scream some. “Not if it will make things worse,” I maintain.
Essentially, the administration’s position was to not take sides. This was the right position considering the situation. Which side were they supposed to support? The rebel thugs or government thugs? Aristide ran an administration that was corrupt, autocratic and that increasingly promoted a cult of personality around him.
Take the comment by Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland. He said in a statement, ""By the inaction of the United States government and our allies over the last several years, the democratically elected president of Haiti has been undermined and forced to leave his country,"
Many people, like Rep. Cummings, fetishize elections. 'Democratically-elected' is the highest praise they can lavish, one that offers immunity from all other crimes. (That the phrase 'democratically elected' even applied to Aristide’s second term is highly questionable)
Democratic elections are essential, but they are not the be all and end all. Rule of law, constitutionalism and respect for institutions are just as important as the actual exercise of holding an election. Without these things, you’re simply electing an autocrat. The complaints of Rep. Cummings and others do not recognize the simple fact that 'democratically-elected' and 'democratic acting' are not synonymous.
Some leftists claim that the events in Haiti constitute US sponsored regime change. Their essential argument is that the US in general, and the Bush administration in particular, never liked Aristide, therefore the attempt to get rid of him MUST have been US-backed. This argument panders to anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism. It's plausible and conforms to pre-conceived notions about the administration's motives. It COULD be true, according to these folks, so it MUST be true.
Their other argument is that the rebels are a bunch of bad guys so, by extension, Aristide must be wonderful. Their contention seems to be that there was absolutely no popular discontent in Haiti against Aristide’s rule except from malevolent interests. Artiside’s clique claimed that that US was evening arming the rebels.
California Rep. Barbara Lee wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, "Our failure to support the democratic process and help restore order looks like a covert effort to overthrow a government.” Aristide was an autocrat, not a democratic president. When Washington pressured him to reform, it was accused of meddling then too. Aristide’s successor and close friend (and some would say puppet) Rene Préval suspended Haiti’s democratically-elected (there’s that phrase again) parliament in 1999 and started ruling by decree. Aristide continued ruling by decree when he took over again in 2000 and did not hold parliamentary elections until December 2003. Are these democratic actions?
Even the Montreal daily Le Devoir, a normally reliable assailant of American foreign policy, welcomed Aristide’s departure.
The organization Human Rights Watch, hardly a popular group in neo-conservative circles, assessed Aristide’s rule as follows:
President Aristide, who returned to office for a second term in February 2001 (following the presidency of René Préval), is credibly accused of responsibility for serious human rights abuses. During his tenure, police and pro-government thugs have committed numerous forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions; the Haitian National Police have lost their residual political independence; judges and prosecutors have been threatened, and a network of government-linked political gangs has used violence to repress demonstrations by the political opposition and intimidate the independent press... The opposition has also been the target of violent attacks, notably in December 2001, in which buildings associated with opposition parties and leaders were burnt down by pro-government gangs. Witnesses reported that the police refused to intervene to prevent the attacks.
and:
The third factor in the political opposition are organizations that are generally to the left of the G-184 [a coalition of civil society and business organizations], including anti-globalization groups, feminists, and a national peasant movement. It was only in December 2003, after government-sponsored attacks on protesting students, that these groups endorsed calls for Aristide’s resignation
and for the elections’ fetishists:
The November 2000 presidential election that returned Aristide to office was boycotted by credible opposition candidates. The opposition boycott resulted from the government’s failure to remedy the deeply flawed results of legislative and local elections held in May 2000, a factor that also led the Organization of American States (OAS) to refuse to monitor the balloting
and for those who think that all we needed to do was to “get” Aristide to reform:
During meetings with U.S. Special Envoy Anthony Lake in December 2000, then President-elect Aristide committed to addressing the country’s problems. The reforms he promised—which included remedying the results of the May 2000 elections, professionalizing the police and judiciary, and strengthening democratic institutions—were urgently needed. But while Aristide repeated these promises, in varying form, during later negotiations with the OAS, he has made little serious effort to follow through on them. In response, the international community suspended direct aid to the Haitian government.
This is the regime some would’ve had us send troops to prop up. Why is it some people are quick to assail pro-American despots, allegedly in the name of human rights, but seem happy to act as apologists for dictators perceived to be anti-American? I find this contemptuous.
The answer is pretty simple. Bush didn't like Aristide therefore, by these people's definition, Aristide must've been the second-coming of Mandela. They are so eager to bash President Bush that they are more than willing to toss their human rights' advocacy and supposedly liberal ideology out the window
Opponents of President Bush need to avoid two-faced nonsense like this that's so easily discredited. Otherwise, no one will take them seriously when they offer legitimate criticism. The president was right not to intervene in Haiti while the war was raging simply to appease the 'do something, damn the consequences' crowd. Even if he'd done what these folks wanted, they still would've found reason to attack him.
This weekend, Haitian leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide fled the country, for temporary exile in the Central African Republic. (That a deposed leader who was arguably democratically-elected, but thoroughly undemocratic went into exile in the CAR is an irony surely not lost on anyone familiar with the central African country’s recent history)
Not surprisingly, the events provoked a firestorm of criticism by those with an axe to grind with President Bush. Though I am hardly a fan of the president, he is not to blame for everything and the bad weather. His critics need to beware of the ‘boy who cried wolf’ syndrome.
Predictably, Democrats were at the president’s throat. House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi insisted that “actions should have been taken to end the violence before it spread to Port-au-Prince." [Always beware when politicians use the passive voice].
Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry surprised no one by stating, "This president always makes decisions late after things have happened that could have been different had the president made a different decision earlier.”
More pap! Rep. Pelosi and Sen. Kerry are suggesting that international troops should’ve been sent to Haiti while the uprising was in full swing. History has shown that international peacekeepers work only when there’s a peace to keep. They work only when both/all warring parties consent to outside intervention. If they go into a situation where’s not even a cease-fire, then they are almost always adding to the problem, rather than solving it.
This is why the president was right not to intervene earlier in Haiti and why, as much as I wished otherwise, he was right not to intervene in Liberia while the fighting was still going on. Such intervention should only be done if it’s likely to actually improve the situation. Intervention must never be done solely to assuage our conscience. “We must do something,” scream some. “Not if it will make things worse,” I maintain.
Essentially, the administration’s position was to not take sides. This was the right position considering the situation. Which side were they supposed to support? The rebel thugs or government thugs? Aristide ran an administration that was corrupt, autocratic and that increasingly promoted a cult of personality around him.
Take the comment by Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland. He said in a statement, ""By the inaction of the United States government and our allies over the last several years, the democratically elected president of Haiti has been undermined and forced to leave his country,"
Many people, like Rep. Cummings, fetishize elections. 'Democratically-elected' is the highest praise they can lavish, one that offers immunity from all other crimes. (That the phrase 'democratically elected' even applied to Aristide’s second term is highly questionable)
Democratic elections are essential, but they are not the be all and end all. Rule of law, constitutionalism and respect for institutions are just as important as the actual exercise of holding an election. Without these things, you’re simply electing an autocrat. The complaints of Rep. Cummings and others do not recognize the simple fact that 'democratically-elected' and 'democratic acting' are not synonymous.
Some leftists claim that the events in Haiti constitute US sponsored regime change. Their essential argument is that the US in general, and the Bush administration in particular, never liked Aristide, therefore the attempt to get rid of him MUST have been US-backed. This argument panders to anti-Americanism and anti-Bushism. It's plausible and conforms to pre-conceived notions about the administration's motives. It COULD be true, according to these folks, so it MUST be true.
Their other argument is that the rebels are a bunch of bad guys so, by extension, Aristide must be wonderful. Their contention seems to be that there was absolutely no popular discontent in Haiti against Aristide’s rule except from malevolent interests. Artiside’s clique claimed that that US was evening arming the rebels.
California Rep. Barbara Lee wrote in a letter to Secretary of State Colin Powell, "Our failure to support the democratic process and help restore order looks like a covert effort to overthrow a government.” Aristide was an autocrat, not a democratic president. When Washington pressured him to reform, it was accused of meddling then too. Aristide’s successor and close friend (and some would say puppet) Rene Préval suspended Haiti’s democratically-elected (there’s that phrase again) parliament in 1999 and started ruling by decree. Aristide continued ruling by decree when he took over again in 2000 and did not hold parliamentary elections until December 2003. Are these democratic actions?
Even the Montreal daily Le Devoir, a normally reliable assailant of American foreign policy, welcomed Aristide’s departure.
The organization Human Rights Watch, hardly a popular group in neo-conservative circles, assessed Aristide’s rule as follows:
President Aristide, who returned to office for a second term in February 2001 (following the presidency of René Préval), is credibly accused of responsibility for serious human rights abuses. During his tenure, police and pro-government thugs have committed numerous forced disappearances and extrajudicial executions; the Haitian National Police have lost their residual political independence; judges and prosecutors have been threatened, and a network of government-linked political gangs has used violence to repress demonstrations by the political opposition and intimidate the independent press... The opposition has also been the target of violent attacks, notably in December 2001, in which buildings associated with opposition parties and leaders were burnt down by pro-government gangs. Witnesses reported that the police refused to intervene to prevent the attacks.
and:
The third factor in the political opposition are organizations that are generally to the left of the G-184 [a coalition of civil society and business organizations], including anti-globalization groups, feminists, and a national peasant movement. It was only in December 2003, after government-sponsored attacks on protesting students, that these groups endorsed calls for Aristide’s resignation
and for the elections’ fetishists:
The November 2000 presidential election that returned Aristide to office was boycotted by credible opposition candidates. The opposition boycott resulted from the government’s failure to remedy the deeply flawed results of legislative and local elections held in May 2000, a factor that also led the Organization of American States (OAS) to refuse to monitor the balloting
and for those who think that all we needed to do was to “get” Aristide to reform:
During meetings with U.S. Special Envoy Anthony Lake in December 2000, then President-elect Aristide committed to addressing the country’s problems. The reforms he promised—which included remedying the results of the May 2000 elections, professionalizing the police and judiciary, and strengthening democratic institutions—were urgently needed. But while Aristide repeated these promises, in varying form, during later negotiations with the OAS, he has made little serious effort to follow through on them. In response, the international community suspended direct aid to the Haitian government.
This is the regime some would’ve had us send troops to prop up. Why is it some people are quick to assail pro-American despots, allegedly in the name of human rights, but seem happy to act as apologists for dictators perceived to be anti-American? I find this contemptuous.
The answer is pretty simple. Bush didn't like Aristide therefore, by these people's definition, Aristide must've been the second-coming of Mandela. They are so eager to bash President Bush that they are more than willing to toss their human rights' advocacy and supposedly liberal ideology out the window
Opponents of President Bush need to avoid two-faced nonsense like this that's so easily discredited. Otherwise, no one will take them seriously when they offer legitimate criticism. The president was right not to intervene in Haiti while the war was raging simply to appease the 'do something, damn the consequences' crowd. Even if he'd done what these folks wanted, they still would've found reason to attack him.
HAPPY PEACE CORPS DAY
Moms and dads have their day. Old presidents have their day. So do labor unions and medeival saints. Soldiers have two official days plus numerous 'support our troops' rallies. Even bosses and secretaries have days, according to Hallmark. So why not Peace Corps volunteers?
Today is Peace Corps Day. It's the 43rd anniversary of the day President Kennedy signed the executive order creating the Peace Corps.
Some people think the Peace Corps is a military organization. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's an organization which sends volunteers to developing countries to engage in such activities as teaching, public health, environmental management and small business development. Volunteers receive a living allowance to cover their basic expenses and are provided housing, but are otherwise not paid.
The goals of the Peace Corps, according to the organization's website, are three:
1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women.
2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served.
3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans.
Suffice it to say, all three goals have been important since the organization was created but #2 seems particularly crucial in the era of post-9/11 and random invasions. Though increasingly, it feels like a "one step forward, three steps back" routine.
There have been many books on "the Peace Corps experience" (which is about as broad a generalization as "the American mentality"). Nevertheless, several themes tend to be pretty common among them.
-Go to God-foresaken country with the expectation to save the noble savages.
-Learn that they are not savages and that they are noble/ignoble in more or less the same proportion as Americans.
-Sense of loneliness in a totally alien culture.
-Learn that life without TV/computer is not the apocalypse.
-Leave with the realization that you learned more than they did.
-Sadness when they have to leave their village/city.
-Transmit these themes interspersed with a lot of humorous anecdotes.
-Commentary on the impact of American foreign policy, French foreign policy and the IMF/World Bank may be included.
Common themes for volunteers who served in sub-Saharan Africa are as follows:
-Annoyance at people who call you 'toubabou' (or whatever the local language word for 'white person' is); "My name isn't 'toubabou'," fumes the author. "My name is John!"
-Agitation that everyone wanted you to marry their sister/brother/son/daughter or get them a visa to go to America.
-Rage at the dichotomy between the fabulous wealth of the political elite and the overwhelming poverty of the masses.
-Observation to the effect that "[nationality] are so poor monetarily but so rich in spirit/culture/community."
-Elogies about how welcoming [nationality] are to strangers.
-A brief history of the country and the legacy of European colonialism.
-Maddening anecdotes about dealing with corrupt officials, musings on heat, mosquitoes and hygeine and comical (or frightening) travel stories.
-General commentary about "the African condition" may be included.
The best book I've ever read about "the Peace Corps experience" was George Packer's The Village of Waiting. It was a wonderfully written book in its own right. But I enjoyed it even more because, even though it was set in Togo and I served in Guinea, it was pretty much the story of my experience. Reading The Village of Waiting is why I decided not to write a strictly autobiographical account of my experience: it had already been done.
Moms and dads have their day. Old presidents have their day. So do labor unions and medeival saints. Soldiers have two official days plus numerous 'support our troops' rallies. Even bosses and secretaries have days, according to Hallmark. So why not Peace Corps volunteers?
Today is Peace Corps Day. It's the 43rd anniversary of the day President Kennedy signed the executive order creating the Peace Corps.
Some people think the Peace Corps is a military organization. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's an organization which sends volunteers to developing countries to engage in such activities as teaching, public health, environmental management and small business development. Volunteers receive a living allowance to cover their basic expenses and are provided housing, but are otherwise not paid.
The goals of the Peace Corps, according to the organization's website, are three:
1. Helping the people of interested countries in meeting their need for trained men and women.
2. Helping promote a better understanding of Americans on the part of the peoples served.
3. Helping promote a better understanding of other peoples on the part of all Americans.
Suffice it to say, all three goals have been important since the organization was created but #2 seems particularly crucial in the era of post-9/11 and random invasions. Though increasingly, it feels like a "one step forward, three steps back" routine.
There have been many books on "the Peace Corps experience" (which is about as broad a generalization as "the American mentality"). Nevertheless, several themes tend to be pretty common among them.
-Go to God-foresaken country with the expectation to save the noble savages.
-Learn that they are not savages and that they are noble/ignoble in more or less the same proportion as Americans.
-Sense of loneliness in a totally alien culture.
-Learn that life without TV/computer is not the apocalypse.
-Leave with the realization that you learned more than they did.
-Sadness when they have to leave their village/city.
-Transmit these themes interspersed with a lot of humorous anecdotes.
-Commentary on the impact of American foreign policy, French foreign policy and the IMF/World Bank may be included.
Common themes for volunteers who served in sub-Saharan Africa are as follows:
-Annoyance at people who call you 'toubabou' (or whatever the local language word for 'white person' is); "My name isn't 'toubabou'," fumes the author. "My name is John!"
-Agitation that everyone wanted you to marry their sister/brother/son/daughter or get them a visa to go to America.
-Rage at the dichotomy between the fabulous wealth of the political elite and the overwhelming poverty of the masses.
-Observation to the effect that "[nationality] are so poor monetarily but so rich in spirit/culture/community."
-Elogies about how welcoming [nationality] are to strangers.
-A brief history of the country and the legacy of European colonialism.
-Maddening anecdotes about dealing with corrupt officials, musings on heat, mosquitoes and hygeine and comical (or frightening) travel stories.
-General commentary about "the African condition" may be included.
The best book I've ever read about "the Peace Corps experience" was George Packer's The Village of Waiting. It was a wonderfully written book in its own right. But I enjoyed it even more because, even though it was set in Togo and I served in Guinea, it was pretty much the story of my experience. Reading The Village of Waiting is why I decided not to write a strictly autobiographical account of my experience: it had already been done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)