Yesterday, disgraced New York Yankees star Jason Giambi held a press conference. A few months ago, The San Francisco Chronicle reported that Giambi admitted before a grand jury to taking steroids. This caused a huge scandal and finally shamed Major League Baseball into implementing a sham non-policy on steroids (4 strikes and you're out for only a year). He's also become a huge embarassment to the Yankees, who still are obligated to pay him $82 million for the four years left on his contract... though apparently the Bombers are looking for ways to void the contract.
Anyways, Giambi held a press conference yesterday, on the eve of the spring training. He insisted that he told the truth to the grand jury, but would not acknowledge what that truth was.
He apologized profusely to fans, teammates and the Yankee organization. But he refused to say exactly what he was apologizing for... except for vague "ongoing legal matters."
Why would you bother to hold a press conference to apologize, if you refuse to say what you're sorry for?
"I wanted to get here [New York City] now so I wouldn't be a distraction to my teammates, '' Giambi said. "And (so) when I get to Florida, I can concentrate on baseball. "
I can understand that Giambi's lawyers don't want him to open his mouth too much, but why subject yourself to a big media circus, all the bigger because it's the Yankees, to basically say nothing?
Friday, February 11, 2005
Thursday, February 10, 2005
The newest menace to society: underwear
Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' last year exposed thousands of innocent American eyes to a naked breast (though no action was taken against the football players themselves, most of whom had naked arms). But apparently even being clothed isn't sufficient for some legislators with way too much free time on their hands.
Another story from the big government crowd. Legislators in conservative Virginia have decided a new Crusade to 'protect the people.' The target of their (self-)righteous ire: people who don't wear belts.
The Virginia House of Delegates has approved a measure that would outlaw underwear or boxers hanging over the top of pants.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
Those menaces to society who commit the egregious crime of exposing their naked... boxer shorts could be fined $50.
[Full disclosure: when I play basketball at the YMCA or at the park and I'm on the 'skins' (no shirt) team, sometimes my boxers are visible over the top of my shorts. The same can usually be said for most of the other people on the skins team. Then again, I better not reveal this, lest the busybodies ban shirtlessness too or perhaps even ban being naked in the shower.]
"Most of us would identify this as the coarsening of society," said a Republican supporter. Bad taste? Perhaps. Requiring the full wrath of the Commonwealth? Give me a break!
"To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country," huffed the bill's sponor, a Democrat.
To ban the displaying of boxers is a vote for character?? I think fighting against self-important, pompous legislators would do a lot more to uplift Virginia.
Update: The Virginia Senate, probably red-faced over the embarrassment this has caused the state, has scrapped the nonsense.
Another story from the big government crowd. Legislators in conservative Virginia have decided a new Crusade to 'protect the people.' The target of their (self-)righteous ire: people who don't wear belts.
The Virginia House of Delegates has approved a measure that would outlaw underwear or boxers hanging over the top of pants.
I'll let that sink in for a minute.
Those menaces to society who commit the egregious crime of exposing their naked... boxer shorts could be fined $50.
[Full disclosure: when I play basketball at the YMCA or at the park and I'm on the 'skins' (no shirt) team, sometimes my boxers are visible over the top of my shorts. The same can usually be said for most of the other people on the skins team. Then again, I better not reveal this, lest the busybodies ban shirtlessness too or perhaps even ban being naked in the shower.]
"Most of us would identify this as the coarsening of society," said a Republican supporter. Bad taste? Perhaps. Requiring the full wrath of the Commonwealth? Give me a break!
"To vote for this bill would be a vote for character, to uplift your community and to do something good not only for the state of Virginia, but for this entire country," huffed the bill's sponor, a Democrat.
To ban the displaying of boxers is a vote for character?? I think fighting against self-important, pompous legislators would do a lot more to uplift Virginia.
Update: The Virginia Senate, probably red-faced over the embarrassment this has caused the state, has scrapped the nonsense.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
So much for 'solidarity' with the workers
One of the commonly misunderstood or misrepresented realities about authoritarianism is this: left-wing dictatorships are dictatorships first and left-wing second. Regimes will quickly shed any pretense to left-wing ideals in order to preserve their hold on absolute political power.
Since the late 70s, China has opened itself up to foreign investment and many aspects of capitalism in a way that would surely have Mao rolling in his grave. But one thing remains: absolute control by the Chinese Communist Party over the country's political space.
During the 1980s, the main opposition to Poland's communist government was the Solidarity. trade union During the liberation struggle against white minority rule, guerrilla leader Robert Mugabe was a strong proponent of Marxist rhetoric, something which he jettisonned for a while but re-adopted with a fervor a few years ago. The main opposition to Mugabe's regime comes from the Movement for Democratic Change led by former labor leader Morgan Tsvangarai. Zimbabwean trade unions are also strong opponents of the regime. How is it that the main opposition to these 'workers' paradises' can come from... the workers?
The answer is very simple: left-wing dictatorships are dictatorships first and left-wing second. The reason the regimes in Soviet Poland and Mugabe's Zimbabwe were so opposed to workers' trade unions is because they represented something far more dangerous to an authoritarian regime than even right-wing 'counterrevolutionaries.' They represented an alternative power structure.
While most of the world has been strongly critical of Robert Mugabe's dictatorship, prominent African leaders (with the notable exception of Senegal's president Abdoulaye Wade) have been largely concerned with appeasing Mugabe.
The African point man on the Zimbabwe crisis has been South African president Thabo Mbeki of the African National Congress (ANC) party. Mbeki has been reticent to criticize Mugabe for two main reasons. First, the ANC and Mugabe's ZANU-PF party (just ZANU until 1987) are ideological cousins as they are both left-wing movements that fought against white minority rule. As a result, Mugabe was a big supporter of the ANC during the latter's struggle against apartheid. It is also a fact that Mugabe's paranoid, anti-imperialist rantings have some sympathy in Africa and just enough of the occasional shred of truth to maintain that sympathy.
Though ZANU-PF and the ANC are both left-wing movements that fought against white minority rule, South Africa became a democracy and Zimbabwe did not. The ANC was a movement that was able to transcend its charismatic icon (Nelson Mandela) while ZANU-PF didn't. Though the South African poiltical system is imperfect and has some problems which I'll address in the near future, it's clear that South Africa respects the basic principles of democracy and rule of law while Zimbabwe does not.
The ANC, the South African Communist Party and COSATU, the main South African trade union grouping that is closely allied to the ANC, have jointly announced that conditions in Zimbabwe are not "conducive" to holding "free and fair elections." Parliamentary elections are scheduled for 31 March.
This is criticism Mugabe could easily write off if it came from the UN or George W. Bush or his favorite scapegoat Tony Blair, the British prime minister. But coming from folks Mugabe thought were his allies has to be a bitter pill for the bitter old man to swallow.
It will be interesting to see if how great the rift is between President Mbeki and his party and how they will try to paper over it.
But as always, Mugabe didn't take this snub lying down. A COSATU fact finding mission was refused entry to Zimbabwe. Typically, the regime accused the mission of backing the main opposition MDC (which itself was founded by trade unionists).
"If it is really levelling the playing field and conforming to SADC [Southern African regional grouping] norms, how can they feel threatened by people carrying pens and notebooks," said the general secretary of COSATU.
Authoritarian regimes often feel threatened by people carrying pens and notebooks.
The Zimbabwean goverment obfuscated by claiming the delegation needed to apply for a permit through the South African labour minister.
"[The delegation was] charged with (Section) 18A of the Immigration Act which relates to prohibited immigrants. They are being put on the next plane back to South Africa," explained the general secretary of the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions, which organized the visit.
Not only has "Marxist" Mugabe oppressed his own country's trade unions, but now he's attacking South Africa's. So much for 'solidarity' with the workers.
Since the late 70s, China has opened itself up to foreign investment and many aspects of capitalism in a way that would surely have Mao rolling in his grave. But one thing remains: absolute control by the Chinese Communist Party over the country's political space.
During the 1980s, the main opposition to Poland's communist government was the Solidarity. trade union During the liberation struggle against white minority rule, guerrilla leader Robert Mugabe was a strong proponent of Marxist rhetoric, something which he jettisonned for a while but re-adopted with a fervor a few years ago. The main opposition to Mugabe's regime comes from the Movement for Democratic Change led by former labor leader Morgan Tsvangarai. Zimbabwean trade unions are also strong opponents of the regime. How is it that the main opposition to these 'workers' paradises' can come from... the workers?
The answer is very simple: left-wing dictatorships are dictatorships first and left-wing second. The reason the regimes in Soviet Poland and Mugabe's Zimbabwe were so opposed to workers' trade unions is because they represented something far more dangerous to an authoritarian regime than even right-wing 'counterrevolutionaries.' They represented an alternative power structure.
While most of the world has been strongly critical of Robert Mugabe's dictatorship, prominent African leaders (with the notable exception of Senegal's president Abdoulaye Wade) have been largely concerned with appeasing Mugabe.
The African point man on the Zimbabwe crisis has been South African president Thabo Mbeki of the African National Congress (ANC) party. Mbeki has been reticent to criticize Mugabe for two main reasons. First, the ANC and Mugabe's ZANU-PF party (just ZANU until 1987) are ideological cousins as they are both left-wing movements that fought against white minority rule. As a result, Mugabe was a big supporter of the ANC during the latter's struggle against apartheid. It is also a fact that Mugabe's paranoid, anti-imperialist rantings have some sympathy in Africa and just enough of the occasional shred of truth to maintain that sympathy.
Though ZANU-PF and the ANC are both left-wing movements that fought against white minority rule, South Africa became a democracy and Zimbabwe did not. The ANC was a movement that was able to transcend its charismatic icon (Nelson Mandela) while ZANU-PF didn't. Though the South African poiltical system is imperfect and has some problems which I'll address in the near future, it's clear that South Africa respects the basic principles of democracy and rule of law while Zimbabwe does not.
The ANC, the South African Communist Party and COSATU, the main South African trade union grouping that is closely allied to the ANC, have jointly announced that conditions in Zimbabwe are not "conducive" to holding "free and fair elections." Parliamentary elections are scheduled for 31 March.
This is criticism Mugabe could easily write off if it came from the UN or George W. Bush or his favorite scapegoat Tony Blair, the British prime minister. But coming from folks Mugabe thought were his allies has to be a bitter pill for the bitter old man to swallow.
It will be interesting to see if how great the rift is between President Mbeki and his party and how they will try to paper over it.
But as always, Mugabe didn't take this snub lying down. A COSATU fact finding mission was refused entry to Zimbabwe. Typically, the regime accused the mission of backing the main opposition MDC (which itself was founded by trade unionists).
"If it is really levelling the playing field and conforming to SADC [Southern African regional grouping] norms, how can they feel threatened by people carrying pens and notebooks," said the general secretary of COSATU.
Authoritarian regimes often feel threatened by people carrying pens and notebooks.
The Zimbabwean goverment obfuscated by claiming the delegation needed to apply for a permit through the South African labour minister.
"[The delegation was] charged with (Section) 18A of the Immigration Act which relates to prohibited immigrants. They are being put on the next plane back to South Africa," explained the general secretary of the Zimbabwean Congress of Trade Unions, which organized the visit.
Not only has "Marxist" Mugabe oppressed his own country's trade unions, but now he's attacking South Africa's. So much for 'solidarity' with the workers.
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Monarchical republics
This is part of a regular feature on my blog that presents interesting stories from elsewhere in the world, particularly Africa, that are little reported in the American media. It's part of my campaign to get people to realize there is a lot going on in the world outside the US, Israel and Iraq.
Overt military coups are so 1970s. The image of thugs in camouflage and dark glasses just doesn't play well anymore in a world where pretenses of 'democracy' and 'liberty' are mouthed ad nauseum. They bring sanctions and condemnation. Absolute monarchies are the same way. Even the worst dictatorships at least pretend some popular legitimacy: 'I want to retire to my farm, but the people want me to remain Leader' is a popular lie. So what's an armed force to do when a de facto military leader dies? The military occupies a privileged position in such regimes. Those in privileged positions don't like to lose such privileges. However, exigencies require at least the facade of constitutional order. Overt military coups are denounced by international institutions and, more importantly, this typically results in the suspension of international aid. Corrupt generals aren't in it for the stripes on their shoulder.
A solution has been found: monarchical republics. Monarchical republics respect the facade of constitutionalism but are de facto monarchies. From Syria to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, dead dictators have been replaced by their sons. This succession has inevitably been ratified by the supposedly independent national assemblies. Togo, in West Africa, is the latest country to become a monarchical republic.
This weekend, the country's dictator, Gnassingbé Eyadéma, died after 38 years in power; he ascended to the throne after a 1967 military coup. Eyadéma was the world's second longest serving leader, behind only Cuba's Fidel Castro. The constitutional successor, the National Assembly speaker, was out of the country. So the military suspended the constitution and appointed Eyadéma's son as the new head of state.
"The Togolese armed forces swear allegiance to Faure Gnassingbé as President of the Republic of Togo," said Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Zachari Nandja. That the military would swear allegiance to a man, rather than to the constitution or to the republic, is telling of the mentality of an institution which has dominated the country for almost the entire independence period.
This seemed like a traditional military coup and was quickly denounced by the African Union, the West African regional grouping ECOWAS, other African leaders and pretty much everyone else. So the miltiary quickly backtracked. They ordered the parliament to change the constitution (which apparently was re-instated after the required manipulation).
Previously, the interim president would rule only for 60 days while new elections were organized. This was changed to allow the new president to complete the previous president's mandate: in this case, until 2008.
After this happened, deputies voted to oust the old National Assembly speaker and replace him with Eyadéma's son: Faure Gnassingbé. As new speaker, Gnassingbé was duly appointed as president to fill the vacancy.
So voilà, the military has the facade of constitutionalism.
The military claimed this was necessary because the National Assembly speaker was out of the country on a diplomatic mission and the armed forces wanted to quickly fill the power vacuum.
Nice try, guys.
Following Eyadéma's death, the speaker quickly flew back to West Africa. Except the military had closed Togo's borders, so the speaker had to land in neighboring Benin. If the military had really wanted to fill the power vacuum in a constitutional way (snicker), it would've allowed the speaker's plane to land or at least sent a military jet to Benin to pick him up.
In reality, this 'power vacuum' bemoaned by the military as created in no small part by the military itself. As a pretext, one can safely assume, to appoint to the throne Eyadéma's son, a man who would surely know which side his bread was buttered on.
Fortunately, no one was fooled by this charade. The continental body, the African Union, has denounced the ruse for what it was: a military coup. The AU has already showed more spine in its two years of existence than its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (based on its infamous 'non-inteference principle'), did in four decades. The coup was also trashed by the West African regional grouping ECOWAS.
The AU has a principle of suspending countries which allow extra-constitutional transfers of power and imposing sanctions on such governments. An AU communique also encouraged foreign donors to withhold aid from the new regime in Togo.
Overt military coups are so 1970s. The image of thugs in camouflage and dark glasses just doesn't play well anymore in a world where pretenses of 'democracy' and 'liberty' are mouthed ad nauseum. They bring sanctions and condemnation. Absolute monarchies are the same way. Even the worst dictatorships at least pretend some popular legitimacy: 'I want to retire to my farm, but the people want me to remain Leader' is a popular lie. So what's an armed force to do when a de facto military leader dies? The military occupies a privileged position in such regimes. Those in privileged positions don't like to lose such privileges. However, exigencies require at least the facade of constitutional order. Overt military coups are denounced by international institutions and, more importantly, this typically results in the suspension of international aid. Corrupt generals aren't in it for the stripes on their shoulder.
A solution has been found: monarchical republics. Monarchical republics respect the facade of constitutionalism but are de facto monarchies. From Syria to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, dead dictators have been replaced by their sons. This succession has inevitably been ratified by the supposedly independent national assemblies. Togo, in West Africa, is the latest country to become a monarchical republic.
This weekend, the country's dictator, Gnassingbé Eyadéma, died after 38 years in power; he ascended to the throne after a 1967 military coup. Eyadéma was the world's second longest serving leader, behind only Cuba's Fidel Castro. The constitutional successor, the National Assembly speaker, was out of the country. So the military suspended the constitution and appointed Eyadéma's son as the new head of state.
"The Togolese armed forces swear allegiance to Faure Gnassingbé as President of the Republic of Togo," said Armed Forces Chief of Staff General Zachari Nandja. That the military would swear allegiance to a man, rather than to the constitution or to the republic, is telling of the mentality of an institution which has dominated the country for almost the entire independence period.
This seemed like a traditional military coup and was quickly denounced by the African Union, the West African regional grouping ECOWAS, other African leaders and pretty much everyone else. So the miltiary quickly backtracked. They ordered the parliament to change the constitution (which apparently was re-instated after the required manipulation).
Previously, the interim president would rule only for 60 days while new elections were organized. This was changed to allow the new president to complete the previous president's mandate: in this case, until 2008.
After this happened, deputies voted to oust the old National Assembly speaker and replace him with Eyadéma's son: Faure Gnassingbé. As new speaker, Gnassingbé was duly appointed as president to fill the vacancy.
So voilà, the military has the facade of constitutionalism.
The military claimed this was necessary because the National Assembly speaker was out of the country on a diplomatic mission and the armed forces wanted to quickly fill the power vacuum.
Nice try, guys.
Following Eyadéma's death, the speaker quickly flew back to West Africa. Except the military had closed Togo's borders, so the speaker had to land in neighboring Benin. If the military had really wanted to fill the power vacuum in a constitutional way (snicker), it would've allowed the speaker's plane to land or at least sent a military jet to Benin to pick him up.
In reality, this 'power vacuum' bemoaned by the military as created in no small part by the military itself. As a pretext, one can safely assume, to appoint to the throne Eyadéma's son, a man who would surely know which side his bread was buttered on.
Fortunately, no one was fooled by this charade. The continental body, the African Union, has denounced the ruse for what it was: a military coup. The AU has already showed more spine in its two years of existence than its predecessor, the Organization of African Unity (based on its infamous 'non-inteference principle'), did in four decades. The coup was also trashed by the West African regional grouping ECOWAS.
The AU has a principle of suspending countries which allow extra-constitutional transfers of power and imposing sanctions on such governments. An AU communique also encouraged foreign donors to withhold aid from the new regime in Togo.
Thanks Brad
American goalkeeper Brad Friedel has announced his retirement from international play. Friedel, who will continue playing for his club team Blackburn Rovers, got his first international cap (appearance) in 1992. Friedel and Kasey Keller have been the main keepers for the US national team since 1995 and have been one of the best keeper duos in the world. Friedel was the starting netminder for the US in the 2002 World Cup finals and led the Americans to the quarterfinal round, their best finish since 1930. He became only the second person ever to stop two penalty kicks (during regular play) in the same finals.
Monday, February 07, 2005
Intentional irony?
From The Christian Science Monitor's News briefs
A Hamilton College panel on the "Limits of Dissent" was cancelled after multiple death threats were reported against both officials of the upstate New York school and controversial guest speaker Ward Churchill. An essay by Churchill, in which the University of Colorado professor compared victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center bombing to "little Eichmanns," a reference to the infamous Nazi war criminal, ignited strong resistance to Churchill's scheduled visit.
Was Hamilton College trying to be intentionally ironic? Or perhaps Ward Churchill's opponents were trying to live down to the criticism of them?
There's a not-entirely-unfair sentiment that universities are no longer the venue for vibrant debate and free exchange of ideas they've traditionally liked to promote themselves as. Incidents such as this do little to dispel that train of thought.
A Hamilton College panel on the "Limits of Dissent" was cancelled after multiple death threats were reported against both officials of the upstate New York school and controversial guest speaker Ward Churchill. An essay by Churchill, in which the University of Colorado professor compared victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center bombing to "little Eichmanns," a reference to the infamous Nazi war criminal, ignited strong resistance to Churchill's scheduled visit.
Was Hamilton College trying to be intentionally ironic? Or perhaps Ward Churchill's opponents were trying to live down to the criticism of them?
There's a not-entirely-unfair sentiment that universities are no longer the venue for vibrant debate and free exchange of ideas they've traditionally liked to promote themselves as. Incidents such as this do little to dispel that train of thought.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
We're not invading them... today
So Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has insisted that attacking Iran is not on the agenda... before adding the ominous qualifier: "at this point in time."
When exactly did America's reputation get so bad that a secretary of state has to out of her way to vigorously deny rumors of imminent plans to invade another country willy nilly?
When exactly did America's reputation get so bad that a secretary of state has to out of her way to vigorously deny rumors of imminent plans to invade another country willy nilly?
Thoughts on the Iraqi election
To the Iraqis who braved insecurity and threats to go out and vote: I tip my cap to you. You are the real heroes, not the Abu Ghraib criminals, not theocratic insurgents who willfully slaughter innocent Iraqi civilians, not the American generals who say it's 'fun to shoot people.' Ultimately if Iraq is going to become a stable, free, independent, democratic country that respects human rights, it'll be because not because of a foreign occupation force or the delusions of distant Crusaders but because of people like you. You voters and, especially, the candidates who ran have more guts than anyone else in Iraq right now.
To Americans: the next time you hear a friend or colleague whining about how he can't be bothered to vote because it's too inconvenient for him to spend 10 minutes walking around the block to the polling station, slap him upside the head. The Iraqis had a higher voter turnout than we did in our last national election (where turnout was high by our standards). And we didn't have to dodge bullets to go vote.
The interesting question about the elections is how the US will react if the coalition led by the American-installed prime minister Iyad Allawi loses to a coalition of religious parties. Traditionally, the US has only supported democracy in countries provided that the governments were pro-American; or they have supported opposition 'pro-democracy' movements in countries where the regime was anti-American.
Democratic governments that represented their own interests first have traditionally been either shunned (think France today) or removed (many examples but Iran 1953 is the most geographically pertinent one). Anti-democratic governments that are sufficiently pliant to American interests are usually embraced, or at least tolerated (there are more than enough current examples of this).
The first partial results have Allawi's coalition losing to the religious coalition. What happens if the new, democratically-elected government wants to impose Sharia? What if the new, democratically-elected government wants to use the future constitution to turn Iraq into an Islamic republic? What happens if the new, democratically-elected government wants to restrict foreign access to Iraq's oil fields? What happens if the new, democratically-elected government criticizes the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories?
Yasser Arafat was an internationally recognized democratically-elected leader as well but Bush administration was quick to declare him 'irrelevant' when he was seen as too belligerent to the US and Israel. The new democratically-elected leader Mahmoud Abbas has adopted a line that's more 'acceptable' to Washington so they haven't deemed him 'irrelevant.' At least not yet.
It's fine that the US wants to protect its interests and those of its allies... though I wish the administration would be more ingenuous about this rather than using noble-sounding rhetoric that makes for easy charges of hypocrisy.
When the new Iraqi government is sworn in, the Bush administration will surely laud it as a 'historic step for the Iraqi people in the quest toward freedom and liberty and taking control of their own destiny' or some other high-fallutin' sentiment of that sort. But how will Washington react when the new Iraqi government wants to protect ITS interests? Especially if they're in conflict with American interests? Will the new government cease being a 'beacon of freedom and liberty' and become 'irrelevant' or terrorist appeasers or America-haters?
Time will tell. History suggests skepticism.
To Americans: the next time you hear a friend or colleague whining about how he can't be bothered to vote because it's too inconvenient for him to spend 10 minutes walking around the block to the polling station, slap him upside the head. The Iraqis had a higher voter turnout than we did in our last national election (where turnout was high by our standards). And we didn't have to dodge bullets to go vote.
The interesting question about the elections is how the US will react if the coalition led by the American-installed prime minister Iyad Allawi loses to a coalition of religious parties. Traditionally, the US has only supported democracy in countries provided that the governments were pro-American; or they have supported opposition 'pro-democracy' movements in countries where the regime was anti-American.
Democratic governments that represented their own interests first have traditionally been either shunned (think France today) or removed (many examples but Iran 1953 is the most geographically pertinent one). Anti-democratic governments that are sufficiently pliant to American interests are usually embraced, or at least tolerated (there are more than enough current examples of this).
The first partial results have Allawi's coalition losing to the religious coalition. What happens if the new, democratically-elected government wants to impose Sharia? What if the new, democratically-elected government wants to use the future constitution to turn Iraq into an Islamic republic? What happens if the new, democratically-elected government wants to restrict foreign access to Iraq's oil fields? What happens if the new, democratically-elected government criticizes the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories?
Yasser Arafat was an internationally recognized democratically-elected leader as well but Bush administration was quick to declare him 'irrelevant' when he was seen as too belligerent to the US and Israel. The new democratically-elected leader Mahmoud Abbas has adopted a line that's more 'acceptable' to Washington so they haven't deemed him 'irrelevant.' At least not yet.
It's fine that the US wants to protect its interests and those of its allies... though I wish the administration would be more ingenuous about this rather than using noble-sounding rhetoric that makes for easy charges of hypocrisy.
When the new Iraqi government is sworn in, the Bush administration will surely laud it as a 'historic step for the Iraqi people in the quest toward freedom and liberty and taking control of their own destiny' or some other high-fallutin' sentiment of that sort. But how will Washington react when the new Iraqi government wants to protect ITS interests? Especially if they're in conflict with American interests? Will the new government cease being a 'beacon of freedom and liberty' and become 'irrelevant' or terrorist appeasers or America-haters?
Time will tell. History suggests skepticism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)