"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical." -President Bush, 6/20/07
I guess the question is will the president's professed belief ever translate into action? Sadly, one has every reason to expect that he'll continue to act in a way that is, by his own definition, grossly unethical.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
2007 Failed States Index
Foreign Policy journal published its annual Failed States Index. The two most unstable countries are genocidal Sudan and 'liberated' Iraq. Mission Accomplished!
Many of the 'leaders' have been devastated by war. Others have been hampered by corruption and bad governance. Zimbabwe and Guinea are the most unstable countries that have not recently suffered through armed conflict. Both received poor marks for public services, factionalized elites and delegitimization of state.
Recent conflict zones Liberia, the DR Congo and Bosnia are among the most improved from last year. Elected governments and rebuilding efforts helped bring state legitimacy to the two African countries, though challenges still remain, especially for the DRC.
The two countries whose stability deteriorated the most were Lebanon and Somalia. Each was a victim of a US-supported military invasion against purported Islamists which destroyed burgeoning stability in both countries: Lebanon by Israel; Somalia by Ethiopia (hardly a paragon of stability itself as the 18th most unstable country).
The US also launched air strikes against Somalia. Some believe that the military action is linked to Somalia's potential oil wealth, which was just starting to be realized. The US-backed Ethiopian aggression against Somalia occured after a broad coalition with Islamist components took control of all of Somalia and was starting to bring stability to a country that's had little in the last decade and a half.
The aftermath of the Ethiopian invasion was described as potentially Somalia's 'worst crisis ever'. The invasion also provoked the world's worst refugee crisis, according to relief agencies.
Strong stuff when describing a country that's seen more than its fair share of bad times in the last 16 years.
Liberia is a great example of what can happen outside nations engage a fragile country with subtlety, respect and cooperation. Somalia is a great example of what happens when it's done with brute militarism and naked aggression.
Many of the 'leaders' have been devastated by war. Others have been hampered by corruption and bad governance. Zimbabwe and Guinea are the most unstable countries that have not recently suffered through armed conflict. Both received poor marks for public services, factionalized elites and delegitimization of state.
Recent conflict zones Liberia, the DR Congo and Bosnia are among the most improved from last year. Elected governments and rebuilding efforts helped bring state legitimacy to the two African countries, though challenges still remain, especially for the DRC.
The two countries whose stability deteriorated the most were Lebanon and Somalia. Each was a victim of a US-supported military invasion against purported Islamists which destroyed burgeoning stability in both countries: Lebanon by Israel; Somalia by Ethiopia (hardly a paragon of stability itself as the 18th most unstable country).
The US also launched air strikes against Somalia. Some believe that the military action is linked to Somalia's potential oil wealth, which was just starting to be realized. The US-backed Ethiopian aggression against Somalia occured after a broad coalition with Islamist components took control of all of Somalia and was starting to bring stability to a country that's had little in the last decade and a half.
The aftermath of the Ethiopian invasion was described as potentially Somalia's 'worst crisis ever'. The invasion also provoked the world's worst refugee crisis, according to relief agencies.
Strong stuff when describing a country that's seen more than its fair share of bad times in the last 16 years.
Liberia is a great example of what can happen outside nations engage a fragile country with subtlety, respect and cooperation. Somalia is a great example of what happens when it's done with brute militarism and naked aggression.
Note to readers
I will publish comments from people without a Blogger account for the sake of expanding the debate. But if you don't have a blogger account, at least please sign your name or your first name or a nickname and use it consistently so I can follow a person's line of argument. I will not publish completely anonymous comments due to problems I've had in the past. Thank you.
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Reconciliation in Rwanda
This essay is part of a (more or less) weekly feature on this 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, Iraq, North Korea and Iran.
13 years after a national nightmare, the Anglican Bishop of Rwanda John Rucyahana says that 'wonderful things' are happening in his country.
He doesn't shy away from the difficult path his countrymen have followed and he wishes that France and Belgium* had "asked for forgiveness. That would have been enough contribution to help us rebuild [Rwanda].”
Rucyahana, who fled the country during the genocide, says the aftermath of the horror has united the different ethnic groups in Rwanda, and there’s a new spirit of hope and reconciliation in the country.
The Voice of America has a long story on Rucyahana and his new book Bishop of Rwanda: Finding Forgiveness Amidst a Pile of Bones. He said he was moved to take pen to power after 'fatigue' in reading despairing, hopeless stories of post-genocide Rwanda. In the book, the bishop tries to make sense of the horrors of 1994, how it shook people's faith and how Rwandans today are dealing with its aftermath.
Note: a broad look at the role of France and Rwanda in the genocide is explained here. More recently revealed complicity is explained here.
13 years after a national nightmare, the Anglican Bishop of Rwanda John Rucyahana says that 'wonderful things' are happening in his country.
He doesn't shy away from the difficult path his countrymen have followed and he wishes that France and Belgium* had "asked for forgiveness. That would have been enough contribution to help us rebuild [Rwanda].”
Rucyahana, who fled the country during the genocide, says the aftermath of the horror has united the different ethnic groups in Rwanda, and there’s a new spirit of hope and reconciliation in the country.
The Voice of America has a long story on Rucyahana and his new book Bishop of Rwanda: Finding Forgiveness Amidst a Pile of Bones. He said he was moved to take pen to power after 'fatigue' in reading despairing, hopeless stories of post-genocide Rwanda. In the book, the bishop tries to make sense of the horrors of 1994, how it shook people's faith and how Rwandans today are dealing with its aftermath.
Note: a broad look at the role of France and Rwanda in the genocide is explained here. More recently revealed complicity is explained here.
Monday, June 18, 2007
There's no reasoning with some people
I've always said that the greatest threat to the western world and to global security is not Islamic extremism, but religious extremism. I see no fundamental difference between Islamic extremists and Christian extremists. Both are clearly a threat to western values and to global stability. I see no fundamental difference between terrorism and wars of aggression. They are merely different ways of using violence to get what you aren't good or patient or civilized enough to obtain via the art of persuasion.
There's more than enough Islamophobia in the western world that I'm usually hesitant to appear to fan the flames. But some things are so outrageous that they beg for commentary. Condemning radical Muslim extremism doesn't detract from the threat of radical Christian extremism.
Hence, I was disgusted to read the sickening reaction to the British knighthood awarded to author Salman Rushdie. Rushdie outraged many in the Muslim world with his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.
Pakistan's religious affairs minister Ejaz-ul-Haq told parliament that "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified."
He warned that, "If Britain doesn't withdraw the award, all Muslim countries should break off diplomatic relations."
Sayonara!
So we have a cabinet minister from purported ally in the so-called war on terror justifying homicide bombings over a work of fiction published 18 years ago
He whined that the knighthood "hurt Muslim sentiments." If he's so concerned about feelings, how exactly does Minister Warm and Fuzzy think homicide bombings would help the self-esteem of Britons?
The left-wing British daily The Guardian reported that In the eastern city of Multan, hardline Muslim students burned effigies of the Queen and Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!"
The cabinet minister sniffed, "The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism."
Why? It's a mystery.
I spent two years living in a pair of overwhelmingly Muslim countries, just as I've spent all the rest of my life living in overwhelmingly Christian America. I know that most Christians and Muslims are moderate people who only want to decent, peaceful lives for themselves and their families.
But I also know that when very devout people, regardless of religion, get a persecution complex, rational or not, there's a good chance that the resulting siege mentality will result in violence.
If the minister thinks diplomatic relations between Pakistan and Britain should be broken off because of a novel, then maybe he's right. Religious fanaticism is immune to reason.
There's more than enough Islamophobia in the western world that I'm usually hesitant to appear to fan the flames. But some things are so outrageous that they beg for commentary. Condemning radical Muslim extremism doesn't detract from the threat of radical Christian extremism.
Hence, I was disgusted to read the sickening reaction to the British knighthood awarded to author Salman Rushdie. Rushdie outraged many in the Muslim world with his 1989 novel The Satanic Verses.
Pakistan's religious affairs minister Ejaz-ul-Haq told parliament that "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified."
He warned that, "If Britain doesn't withdraw the award, all Muslim countries should break off diplomatic relations."
Sayonara!
So we have a cabinet minister from purported ally in the so-called war on terror justifying homicide bombings over a work of fiction published 18 years ago
He whined that the knighthood "hurt Muslim sentiments." If he's so concerned about feelings, how exactly does Minister Warm and Fuzzy think homicide bombings would help the self-esteem of Britons?
The left-wing British daily The Guardian reported that In the eastern city of Multan, hardline Muslim students burned effigies of the Queen and Rushdie, chanting "Kill him! Kill him!"
The cabinet minister sniffed, "The west is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism."
Why? It's a mystery.
I spent two years living in a pair of overwhelmingly Muslim countries, just as I've spent all the rest of my life living in overwhelmingly Christian America. I know that most Christians and Muslims are moderate people who only want to decent, peaceful lives for themselves and their families.
But I also know that when very devout people, regardless of religion, get a persecution complex, rational or not, there's a good chance that the resulting siege mentality will result in violence.
If the minister thinks diplomatic relations between Pakistan and Britain should be broken off because of a novel, then maybe he's right. Religious fanaticism is immune to reason.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Democrat amnesia
Upstate Blue is a blog for establishment liberal Democrats in upstate New York. I wrote earlier about how they misrepresented one of my blog entries. So it's no surprise they misrepresented another issue too.
In this entry they sniffed about how the GOP is pushing to abolish term limits in Glens Falls. The issue is question was whether the term limits stipulated in the city charter applied to county supervisors from the city.
The Democrat activist site was playing fast and loose with the facts. It was telling the truth, just not the whole truth. It omitted, for example, that former councilman and one-time mayoral candidate Bill Loeb also came out in favor of no term limits. Loeb is a Democrat.
The resolution clarifying that term limits don't apply to county supervisors passed the Glens Falls Common Council by a UNANIMOUS 6-0 vote.
Blue seems to have forgotten a not-insignificant little fact: five of the six members of the Glens Falls Common Council are Democrats.
Upstate Blue claims that the GOP's action shows the need for effective two-party politics in Warren County. In fact, it demonstrates why we need MULTIPARTY politics to make sure that both Democrats and Republicans tell the whole truth and are held to account when they don't.
In this entry they sniffed about how the GOP is pushing to abolish term limits in Glens Falls. The issue is question was whether the term limits stipulated in the city charter applied to county supervisors from the city.
The Democrat activist site was playing fast and loose with the facts. It was telling the truth, just not the whole truth. It omitted, for example, that former councilman and one-time mayoral candidate Bill Loeb also came out in favor of no term limits. Loeb is a Democrat.
The resolution clarifying that term limits don't apply to county supervisors passed the Glens Falls Common Council by a UNANIMOUS 6-0 vote.
Blue seems to have forgotten a not-insignificant little fact: five of the six members of the Glens Falls Common Council are Democrats.
Upstate Blue claims that the GOP's action shows the need for effective two-party politics in Warren County. In fact, it demonstrates why we need MULTIPARTY politics to make sure that both Democrats and Republicans tell the whole truth and are held to account when they don't.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Norway most peaceful country; 'liberated' Iraq least
"It is always easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them." -Alfred Adler
A new study ranked 121 countries based on 24 factors to determine how peaceful each nation was. Norway is the most peaceful country in the world, according to the study. Followed by New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and Japan. Interestingly, none of the top five peaceful countries has ever been targeted by an Islamist terrorist attack.
The US is ranked as the 96th most peaceful country of 121 and is judged to have the same 'state of peace' as Yemen, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Iran; and below Libya, Egypt and China.
'Liberated' Iraq is at the bottom just below genocidal Sudan. Israel (whose long-term occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was supposed to make things so much more peaceful) and 'democratic' Russia and Nigeria filled out the bottom five.
On a related note, the BBC World Service is running a good new documentary series called Winning the Peace. As is fairly well known, winning peace is much harder than, but just as important as, winning war.
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Update: The Accra Daily Mail boasts that Ghana was ranked as the most peaceful democratic country in Africa.
A new study ranked 121 countries based on 24 factors to determine how peaceful each nation was. Norway is the most peaceful country in the world, according to the study. Followed by New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and Japan. Interestingly, none of the top five peaceful countries has ever been targeted by an Islamist terrorist attack.
The US is ranked as the 96th most peaceful country of 121 and is judged to have the same 'state of peace' as Yemen, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Iran; and below Libya, Egypt and China.
'Liberated' Iraq is at the bottom just below genocidal Sudan. Israel (whose long-term occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was supposed to make things so much more peaceful) and 'democratic' Russia and Nigeria filled out the bottom five.
On a related note, the BBC World Service is running a good new documentary series called Winning the Peace. As is fairly well known, winning peace is much harder than, but just as important as, winning war.
"When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."
Update: The Accra Daily Mail boasts that Ghana was ranked as the most peaceful democratic country in Africa.
Friday, June 15, 2007
Majority of deaths on NYC roads are pedestrians and cyclists
Adirondack Almanack blog had a good essay on 'The Dangers of Americade.'
Anyone who lives in a tourist area knows that embracing tourism is like making a deal with the devil. Residents of Lake George, where Americade is held, often complain about the four scourges tourists bring with them: noise, traffic, garbage and general rudeness and self-absorption. But residents never complain about the money (and thus jobs) generated. A deal with the devil indeed!
Almanack's focus was on the physical dangers faced by motorcycles in the car-centric culture. He scolds Americade's organizers for burying their head in the sand to this problem by focusing more on the family-friendly aspect of the rally. Almanack writes:
The promoters of Americade need to be reminded that it isn't the rebellious who are the danger at Americade. The danger is that Americaders, and others, have to share our common roadways with highway hogs.
Americade's promoters and participants have the perfect opportunity to engage us in serious ideas about sharing the roadway with people using other forms of transportation - bikes, cars, trains, buses, and feet.
Almanack cites a very astonishing and disturbing fact. Not only does New York City have the highest number of pedestrian and (bi)cyclist deaths in the entire nation. But on roads suffocated by automobiles, [p]edestrian and cyclist deaths make up a majority of traffic deaths.
I don't own a car. While I sometimes use public transportation in the winter, biking and walking is pretty much how I get around. I've dodged many an idiot driver who was distracted by yacking on their cellphone or by opening their car door without even taking a glance. Frankly, I've always thought it was amazing that I've never been injured while biking. When I read disturbing stats like this, even in a far away place like New York City, I think it's a miracle.
And then I think of the odds and the future and suddenly the glee wears off.
We need a more sane transportation system in this country. I recognize that cars will be the primary form of transportation for the foreseable future, at least oil starts running out. But planning authorities and governments must stop being so overtly hostile to people who want to use alternative forms of transportation.
I don't want to ban cars. I just don't want to risk life and limb biking down (US) Route 9. I just want sidewalks to walk on (this means you Queensbury, NY). People will use these saner alternatives if it's feasible and safe to do so. They just need a little cooperation from the powers that be.
Recommended reading:
-Transportation Alternatives: 'Advocate for cycling, walking and environmentally sensible transportation.' New York City-based but still worth checking out.
-League of American Bicyclists.
-James Howard Kunstler: Author of 'The Geography of Nowhere.'
Anyone who lives in a tourist area knows that embracing tourism is like making a deal with the devil. Residents of Lake George, where Americade is held, often complain about the four scourges tourists bring with them: noise, traffic, garbage and general rudeness and self-absorption. But residents never complain about the money (and thus jobs) generated. A deal with the devil indeed!
Almanack's focus was on the physical dangers faced by motorcycles in the car-centric culture. He scolds Americade's organizers for burying their head in the sand to this problem by focusing more on the family-friendly aspect of the rally. Almanack writes:
The promoters of Americade need to be reminded that it isn't the rebellious who are the danger at Americade. The danger is that Americaders, and others, have to share our common roadways with highway hogs.
Americade's promoters and participants have the perfect opportunity to engage us in serious ideas about sharing the roadway with people using other forms of transportation - bikes, cars, trains, buses, and feet.
Almanack cites a very astonishing and disturbing fact. Not only does New York City have the highest number of pedestrian and (bi)cyclist deaths in the entire nation. But on roads suffocated by automobiles, [p]edestrian and cyclist deaths make up a majority of traffic deaths.
I don't own a car. While I sometimes use public transportation in the winter, biking and walking is pretty much how I get around. I've dodged many an idiot driver who was distracted by yacking on their cellphone or by opening their car door without even taking a glance. Frankly, I've always thought it was amazing that I've never been injured while biking. When I read disturbing stats like this, even in a far away place like New York City, I think it's a miracle.
And then I think of the odds and the future and suddenly the glee wears off.
We need a more sane transportation system in this country. I recognize that cars will be the primary form of transportation for the foreseable future, at least oil starts running out. But planning authorities and governments must stop being so overtly hostile to people who want to use alternative forms of transportation.
I don't want to ban cars. I just don't want to risk life and limb biking down (US) Route 9. I just want sidewalks to walk on (this means you Queensbury, NY). People will use these saner alternatives if it's feasible and safe to do so. They just need a little cooperation from the powers that be.
Recommended reading:
-Transportation Alternatives: 'Advocate for cycling, walking and environmentally sensible transportation.' New York City-based but still worth checking out.
-League of American Bicyclists.
-James Howard Kunstler: Author of 'The Geography of Nowhere.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)