The United Nations Security Council has officially abandoned the people of Darfur to their fate.
As I've mentioned before (see: Stop the genocide in Eastern Sudan): militias, widely believed to be armed and sponsored by the Sudanese government, are committing massacres and other forms of ethnic cleaning in the country's eastern region of Darfur. These situation been declared to be 'genocide' by the US Congress, 'massive human rights violations' by the European Union and 'the worst humanitarian situation in the world' by UN officials.
The Security Council yesterday passed a resolution ostensibly designed to further increase the pressure on the Sudanese regime to reign in the militias. In reality, the resolution capitulated to the demands of about half the Security Council members (Pakistan, China, Russia, Algeria, Angola, the Philippines and Brazil, according to the BBC) to remove the explicit threat of sanctions from the text.
The watered down resolution gave the Sudanese regime 30 days to control the militias. And if they didn't, the Security Council would... revisit the issue. I'm sure Khartoum is shaking in its boots. "Stop arming the genociders or... we'll hold another meeting!" Can you say 'Bosnia'?
This demand, if you can call it that, occurs a full month after Khartoum promised to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and US Secretary of State Colin Powell... the exact same thing.
One month of stalling after promising to Annan and Powell. Another month of stalling is permitted by the resolution. This is already after the months of massacres that happened before it even made it on to the international agenda. Then after the month of "warning," it's going to take more time to impose sanctions, assuming the objecting nations even have the guts to do that minimal step. If military intervention, either by the UN or African Union, is ever decided, everyone in Darfur will already be expelled or dead.
Pakistan, China, Russia, Algeria, Angola, the Philippines and Brazil: their blood is on your hands.
Saturday, July 31, 2004
You're not in Sweden anymore
Millions Americans were flabbergasted at Bill Clinton's impeachment. Even many Republicans thought, "Should a president lose his job because of a sex scandal? Only in America!"
Except America isn't the only country in the world where a sex scandal jeopardizes the job of a prominent public figure. Though England doesn't have a president, they do have a national football (soccer) team coach who typically inspires as much love and vitriol as the US president does for Americans.
English national team boss Sven Goran Eriksson is under fire over an affair he had with a secretary for the FA, England's soccer federation.
Though some have resigned first, no Engand manager has been dismissed for poor results since 1974, when the FA sacked Alf Ramsey, who'd previously led England to their only international trophy (the 1966 World Cup) and gotten a 'sir' before his name as a bonus.
In Italy, they'll fire a national team coach if he comes within seconds of winning the European championship but falls victim to a opposition miracle. In England, they only fire national team coaches for insulting disabled people or for personal legal problems or, possibly, for sex scandals.
Eriksson's own appointment was controversial, as he was the first foreigner even to coach England's national team. His arrival was bitterly contested by many segments of the notorious xenophobic England tabloid press (compared to which Fox News [sic] seems like CSPAN).
English fandom is infamous for savaging their best players. Though David Beckham is the second most overrated player on the planet, he is still one of England's better players. Yet he is a hate figure in many quarters, even when wearing the national shirt. Star striker Michael Owen went from Messiah (after dismantling Germany in Munich a few years ago) to Public Enemy Number Two (next to Beckham) during his present struggles. Current wunderkind Wayne Rooney will surely befall the same fate when his incredible international form inevitably slows down. Many fans bitterly criticized Eriksson for sticking with aging goalkeeper David Seaman even though they agreed his understudies weren't yet ready for prime time.
Eriksson, for his part, doesn't understand why the affair is such a huge story that might cost him his job. This would never have been a story in his native Sweden.
Hey Sven, you're not in Sweden anymore.
If you didn't understand the irrational nature of the British footballing press before you accepted the job, you were very poorly served by your advisors.
Except America isn't the only country in the world where a sex scandal jeopardizes the job of a prominent public figure. Though England doesn't have a president, they do have a national football (soccer) team coach who typically inspires as much love and vitriol as the US president does for Americans.
English national team boss Sven Goran Eriksson is under fire over an affair he had with a secretary for the FA, England's soccer federation.
Though some have resigned first, no Engand manager has been dismissed for poor results since 1974, when the FA sacked Alf Ramsey, who'd previously led England to their only international trophy (the 1966 World Cup) and gotten a 'sir' before his name as a bonus.
In Italy, they'll fire a national team coach if he comes within seconds of winning the European championship but falls victim to a opposition miracle. In England, they only fire national team coaches for insulting disabled people or for personal legal problems or, possibly, for sex scandals.
Eriksson's own appointment was controversial, as he was the first foreigner even to coach England's national team. His arrival was bitterly contested by many segments of the notorious xenophobic England tabloid press (compared to which Fox News [sic] seems like CSPAN).
English fandom is infamous for savaging their best players. Though David Beckham is the second most overrated player on the planet, he is still one of England's better players. Yet he is a hate figure in many quarters, even when wearing the national shirt. Star striker Michael Owen went from Messiah (after dismantling Germany in Munich a few years ago) to Public Enemy Number Two (next to Beckham) during his present struggles. Current wunderkind Wayne Rooney will surely befall the same fate when his incredible international form inevitably slows down. Many fans bitterly criticized Eriksson for sticking with aging goalkeeper David Seaman even though they agreed his understudies weren't yet ready for prime time.
Eriksson, for his part, doesn't understand why the affair is such a huge story that might cost him his job. This would never have been a story in his native Sweden.
Hey Sven, you're not in Sweden anymore.
If you didn't understand the irrational nature of the British footballing press before you accepted the job, you were very poorly served by your advisors.
Friday, July 30, 2004
"Fringe parties" and the political process
Oliver Kamm writes:
Fringe political parties almost invariably claim that they are disadvantaged by a lack of coverage in the press and broadcasting media. The truth is the opposite: they typically gain from the fact that few people will bother to correct their more extravagant claims.
Personally, I'd rather have outrageous viewpoints from outside the so-called mainstream (including from "fringe political parties") discredited than legitimate points from there ignored.
If such scrutiny hurts the more extreme claims, then so be it. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In the US, anyways, all major social justice movements in our history have been initiated from outside the framework of two party duopoly.
For example, in the 1840s, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs; the Republicans didn't come into being until 1856. There was a "fringe party" called the Liberty Party, which advocated the then-lunatic idea of abolishing slavery throughout the nation. Within a generation, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution did exactly that.
Heck, even if smaller parties got media coverage comparable to their level of support, it would be an improvement. Ralph Nader got 3% of the vote on the Green line in 2000. Imagine if Greens got anywhere near 3% of the political coverage from 2001-2004. It would be a huge increase.
Fringe political parties almost invariably claim that they are disadvantaged by a lack of coverage in the press and broadcasting media. The truth is the opposite: they typically gain from the fact that few people will bother to correct their more extravagant claims.
Personally, I'd rather have outrageous viewpoints from outside the so-called mainstream (including from "fringe political parties") discredited than legitimate points from there ignored.
If such scrutiny hurts the more extreme claims, then so be it. But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
In the US, anyways, all major social justice movements in our history have been initiated from outside the framework of two party duopoly.
For example, in the 1840s, the two major parties were the Democrats and the Whigs; the Republicans didn't come into being until 1856. There was a "fringe party" called the Liberty Party, which advocated the then-lunatic idea of abolishing slavery throughout the nation. Within a generation, the 13th Amendment to the Constitution did exactly that.
Heck, even if smaller parties got media coverage comparable to their level of support, it would be an improvement. Ralph Nader got 3% of the vote on the Green line in 2000. Imagine if Greens got anywhere near 3% of the political coverage from 2001-2004. It would be a huge increase.
Can a war on terrorism succeed?
In a conversation with an acquaintance, I pointed out that terrorists were the new Communists. He questioned this link and suggested that as a so-called opponent of the war on terrorism, this is a bad analogy since both were/are dangerous. My response:
My linking of terrorists and Communists was related how the former is used as a bludgeon to try to silence dissent and pretend one party has a monopoly on patriotism just as the latter was a generation ago. It used to be that if you didn't believe in rampant militarism, you were soft on communism. Now, if you don't believe in rampant militarism, you're soft on terrorism.
I do object the "war on terrorism" as it's currently being undertaken because a war against terrorism, in the classic military sense, can not succeed. I certainly object to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with dealing with terrorism, but it has clearly increased the likelihood of terrorism. It has also brought American targets much closer to the terrorists and thus faciliated their task.
My acquiantance himself said of the "war on drugs": declaring something a "war" implies the need to "win" it through complete and utter victory, which is of course impossible in this case as with every other form of crime.
This is an EXCELLENT point and I'm baffled that he doesn't see how it also applies to terrorism.
In fact, I object to the way the "war on terrorism" is being fought. I object to doing something simply for the sake of doing something, to soothe our rage for action, even if that action is ultimately counterproductive.
I object to the way the fight against terrorism is being conducted because those fighting it don't have a clue as to its causes. They think that terrorists "hate us because we're free." Do they really think millions of people actually hate freedom? The truth is that millions of people don't see America as representing freedom in the first place. "They hate us because we're free"? This garbage is so self-serving that no self-respecting satirist wouldn't dare make it up.
Some on the left suggest that terrorism is caused by poverty. This is as facile as "they hate us because we're free." If poverty were the only factor, then the international terrorism's epicenter would be in sub-Saharan Africa. But terrorism (for export to the west) is virtually non-existent in that part of the world.
How can we counter something as nebulous as terrorism if we don't have a clue (or are willfully self-delusional) about what's causing it?
Simply put, terrorism is caused by resentment. It's caused by a widespread lack of dignity and a sense of powerlessness. And it's caused by a few extremists who cunningly exploit the widespread sentiment toward a designated scapegoat. The scapegoat can be effective even if it's only a secondary cause of the lack of dignity and sense of powerlessness.
Since our leaders don't have a clue about these causes, it doesn't have a clue how to counter them. Thus they fall back on the one option we're certain we do well: militarism. This is why the "war on terrorism" is failing. A military war on terrorism can never succeed.
Eliminating international terrorism can never happen with a war; it requires something more akin to policing. War is random, brute force. Imagine if every time the police tried to arrest someone, it resulted in a shootout. Police action does involve the threat, and sometimes the use, of force. But it relies more on persuasion and collaboration. Oh, and police action also is supposed to be based on respect for the law as well.
The United States government supports oppressive dictatorships around the globe, notably in the Arab world. The US government need to demand that our allies respect human rights and democracy and practice good governance and permit space for political opposition. If the regimes object to our "meddling," then they are free to do so. And they cease to be our allies. And they cease to receive American aid. We can't invade every country who doesn't do things exactly as we'd like, but the American taxpayers don't need to subside those who most odiously offend our values.
Americans like to see their country as a beacon of freedom and liberty. The people of Egypt or Tunisia live in a corrupt police state that oppresses them on a daily basis, that throws people in jail because they are gay or because they criticize the head of state or because they dare run an independent media outlet. And then the US government lauds their dictators as a true friends of America. Is it any wonder their people don't quite view America as a beacon of freedom and liberty?
A lot Americans who've never been abroad or don't read foreign media don't appreciate the dichotomy between our perception of ourselves and others' perceptions of us. Many Americans think that what our soldiers did 20 or 50 or 100 years ago should immunize our government against criticism of what it's doing today. This perception gap leads to simplistic falsehoods like "they hate us because we're free."
Remember the example of Iran in 1979. The US government eagerly supported the corrupt and repressive Shah for decades (who they installed after the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government). Washington was so eager to prop up the Shah because he was "our SOB" that the US was oblivious to warning signs of discontent against a tired, hated regime. So people gravitated to the Islamist movement because it was seen as the ONLY alternative to the Shah's corruption and oppression.
The US was shocked with the Islamist revolution toppled the Shah and took all those Americans hostage. "Iran was our friend," we thought. Except Iran wasn't our friend, the Shah was our friend. This mistake is one the American government made time and time and time again throughout the Cold War. And we see evidence of it again now.
In Iran, by blindly and recklessly supporting one autocratic regime, we got one that was even worse AND anti-American. One could make a similiar, though imperfect, analogy to the Batista regime in Cuba that was toppled by Castro. Or the Somoza regime in Nicaragua that was overthrown by the Sandinistas.
The Cold War offers other lessons that the Terrorist Warriors (the new Cold Warriors) would do well to remember. One fundamental truth about the Cold War is that Eastern Europe was not liberated from Communist oppression by American tanks rolling into Prague or American jets bombing Warsaw. Eastern Europe was liberated by the Eastern European peoples who finally got sick of the way their lives were being ruined by the autocratic leaders. American support was mainly moral and probably financial. It wasn't military. Eastern Europe was ultimately liberated by the courage of its own people who decided to take charge of their countries. Once this happened, the Communist house of cards did not take long to collapse.
The Arab world can only truly be liberated if it's done in the same manner. Initiated by its own people. If we are on the right side of this struggle AND offer our support in the right manner, then we will be respected. If we do it the wrong way, by shoving things down their throats and meddling in their countries' affairs and supporting democracy only when it produces a result we want, then they will be even more anti-American.
The sentiment toward America in Eastern Europe is a testament of how we are respected when we do things the right way. The sentiment toward us in Latin America is a testament of how we are despised when we do things the wrong way.
We will not convince the hard core of extremists to come over to our camp. Osama bin Laden will never run a McDonald's or The Gap franchise. But extremists, just like dictatorships, are always a tiny minority of the population that require the support and complicity of large numbers ordinary people. Once that support and complicity evaporates, well, I cite the Eastern Europe example again.
Right now, those ordinary people, the masses, only see two options. One is the decadence, corruption and oppression of their regimes that is, in their eyes, sponsored by America. The other is this Islamist ideology that talks about religious fidelity and self-reliance.
If we were seen as sponsoring a third option, the movement for human rights, good governance and democracy, then we'd be seen as the good guys. And the small band of terrorists would be starved of the oxygen of support they need to perpetrate their vile crimes.
My linking of terrorists and Communists was related how the former is used as a bludgeon to try to silence dissent and pretend one party has a monopoly on patriotism just as the latter was a generation ago. It used to be that if you didn't believe in rampant militarism, you were soft on communism. Now, if you don't believe in rampant militarism, you're soft on terrorism.
I do object the "war on terrorism" as it's currently being undertaken because a war against terrorism, in the classic military sense, can not succeed. I certainly object to the war in Iraq which had nothing to do with dealing with terrorism, but it has clearly increased the likelihood of terrorism. It has also brought American targets much closer to the terrorists and thus faciliated their task.
My acquiantance himself said of the "war on drugs": declaring something a "war" implies the need to "win" it through complete and utter victory, which is of course impossible in this case as with every other form of crime.
This is an EXCELLENT point and I'm baffled that he doesn't see how it also applies to terrorism.
In fact, I object to the way the "war on terrorism" is being fought. I object to doing something simply for the sake of doing something, to soothe our rage for action, even if that action is ultimately counterproductive.
I object to the way the fight against terrorism is being conducted because those fighting it don't have a clue as to its causes. They think that terrorists "hate us because we're free." Do they really think millions of people actually hate freedom? The truth is that millions of people don't see America as representing freedom in the first place. "They hate us because we're free"? This garbage is so self-serving that no self-respecting satirist wouldn't dare make it up.
Some on the left suggest that terrorism is caused by poverty. This is as facile as "they hate us because we're free." If poverty were the only factor, then the international terrorism's epicenter would be in sub-Saharan Africa. But terrorism (for export to the west) is virtually non-existent in that part of the world.
How can we counter something as nebulous as terrorism if we don't have a clue (or are willfully self-delusional) about what's causing it?
Simply put, terrorism is caused by resentment. It's caused by a widespread lack of dignity and a sense of powerlessness. And it's caused by a few extremists who cunningly exploit the widespread sentiment toward a designated scapegoat. The scapegoat can be effective even if it's only a secondary cause of the lack of dignity and sense of powerlessness.
Since our leaders don't have a clue about these causes, it doesn't have a clue how to counter them. Thus they fall back on the one option we're certain we do well: militarism. This is why the "war on terrorism" is failing. A military war on terrorism can never succeed.
Eliminating international terrorism can never happen with a war; it requires something more akin to policing. War is random, brute force. Imagine if every time the police tried to arrest someone, it resulted in a shootout. Police action does involve the threat, and sometimes the use, of force. But it relies more on persuasion and collaboration. Oh, and police action also is supposed to be based on respect for the law as well.
The United States government supports oppressive dictatorships around the globe, notably in the Arab world. The US government need to demand that our allies respect human rights and democracy and practice good governance and permit space for political opposition. If the regimes object to our "meddling," then they are free to do so. And they cease to be our allies. And they cease to receive American aid. We can't invade every country who doesn't do things exactly as we'd like, but the American taxpayers don't need to subside those who most odiously offend our values.
Americans like to see their country as a beacon of freedom and liberty. The people of Egypt or Tunisia live in a corrupt police state that oppresses them on a daily basis, that throws people in jail because they are gay or because they criticize the head of state or because they dare run an independent media outlet. And then the US government lauds their dictators as a true friends of America. Is it any wonder their people don't quite view America as a beacon of freedom and liberty?
A lot Americans who've never been abroad or don't read foreign media don't appreciate the dichotomy between our perception of ourselves and others' perceptions of us. Many Americans think that what our soldiers did 20 or 50 or 100 years ago should immunize our government against criticism of what it's doing today. This perception gap leads to simplistic falsehoods like "they hate us because we're free."
Remember the example of Iran in 1979. The US government eagerly supported the corrupt and repressive Shah for decades (who they installed after the CIA overthrew a democratically elected government). Washington was so eager to prop up the Shah because he was "our SOB" that the US was oblivious to warning signs of discontent against a tired, hated regime. So people gravitated to the Islamist movement because it was seen as the ONLY alternative to the Shah's corruption and oppression.
The US was shocked with the Islamist revolution toppled the Shah and took all those Americans hostage. "Iran was our friend," we thought. Except Iran wasn't our friend, the Shah was our friend. This mistake is one the American government made time and time and time again throughout the Cold War. And we see evidence of it again now.
In Iran, by blindly and recklessly supporting one autocratic regime, we got one that was even worse AND anti-American. One could make a similiar, though imperfect, analogy to the Batista regime in Cuba that was toppled by Castro. Or the Somoza regime in Nicaragua that was overthrown by the Sandinistas.
The Cold War offers other lessons that the Terrorist Warriors (the new Cold Warriors) would do well to remember. One fundamental truth about the Cold War is that Eastern Europe was not liberated from Communist oppression by American tanks rolling into Prague or American jets bombing Warsaw. Eastern Europe was liberated by the Eastern European peoples who finally got sick of the way their lives were being ruined by the autocratic leaders. American support was mainly moral and probably financial. It wasn't military. Eastern Europe was ultimately liberated by the courage of its own people who decided to take charge of their countries. Once this happened, the Communist house of cards did not take long to collapse.
The Arab world can only truly be liberated if it's done in the same manner. Initiated by its own people. If we are on the right side of this struggle AND offer our support in the right manner, then we will be respected. If we do it the wrong way, by shoving things down their throats and meddling in their countries' affairs and supporting democracy only when it produces a result we want, then they will be even more anti-American.
The sentiment toward America in Eastern Europe is a testament of how we are respected when we do things the right way. The sentiment toward us in Latin America is a testament of how we are despised when we do things the wrong way.
We will not convince the hard core of extremists to come over to our camp. Osama bin Laden will never run a McDonald's or The Gap franchise. But extremists, just like dictatorships, are always a tiny minority of the population that require the support and complicity of large numbers ordinary people. Once that support and complicity evaporates, well, I cite the Eastern Europe example again.
Right now, those ordinary people, the masses, only see two options. One is the decadence, corruption and oppression of their regimes that is, in their eyes, sponsored by America. The other is this Islamist ideology that talks about religious fidelity and self-reliance.
If we were seen as sponsoring a third option, the movement for human rights, good governance and democracy, then we'd be seen as the good guys. And the small band of terrorists would be starved of the oxygen of support they need to perpetrate their vile crimes.
Thursday, July 29, 2004
Stop the genocide in eastern Sudan
I've been meaning for two weeks to write another essay on the genocide in Darfur, eastern Sudan, but there's been so much material, I haven't had time to sort it. But this editorial from the Botswanan newspaper The Reporter captures my opinion very concisely.
I note how the editorial points out the futility of wasting time arguing whether what's happening in Darfur is really genocide or "only" ethnic cleansing.
What needs to be done?
The starting point is quite clearly immediate international sanctions against the Sudanese regime, who are almost universally believed to funding, arming and organizing the massacring militias. These sanctions must include an arms embargo.
Sanctions must also include a deadline, in the near future, for the regime to reign in the militias. Not for them to promise to do so, which they did weeks ago, but to actually do so. Since the regime pretends they want the massacres to stop and that they are allegedly not coordinating the militias, the international community must call their bluff by offering to "help" them deal with the problem that they claim not to be the authors of.
If they reject this offer, then the deadline must also include a warning that an international intervention, authorized by the UN and by the African Union (AU), will be conducted. If the regime continues to thumb its nose and continue supporting the massacres, then the intervention must occur. The Arab League could, for once, stop whining about Israel for a few seconds and join in the pressure against Sudan.
Any intervention must be done by African Union and/or Arab League troops with technical assistance and funding from the European Union and the US. It is important that the intervention be done by an AU or Arab force. A western-led force will immediately lead to charges of imperialism and will necessarily stoke the fires of Arab nationalism and domestic Sudanese resistance, no matter how legitimate the cause or illegitimate the targeted. Simply put, a western-led intervention in Darfur can't be successful because of the pot it would stir up. An AU intervention would be much harder to tar with the 'neo-colonialist' brush.
The AU is a new organization whose founders hope will be more relevant that the lethargic Organization of African Unity (OAU) it replaced. It has a dynamic leader in Alpha Oumar Konare, the former Malian president. But it has a big handicap. Although the AU has a new structure, it has the same member states that rendered the OAU irrelevant. Whether Konare's exurbence will prevail over the collective inertia of Africa's governments remains to be seen.
The lives of millions of Sudanese depends on it.
**
From: The Reporter of Gaborone, Botswana
Darfur - Africa See No Evil, Speak No Evil
Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)
EDITORIAL
July 21, 2004
Posted to the web July 22, 2004
INTERNATIONAL reaction to the tragedy playing out in the Darfur region of Sudan (in which government-supported Arab militias have killed more than 30 000 black Muslims, and left more than a million others without shelter or enough food and water) has attracted outrage from everywhere else, except - of course - in Africa.
Africa's muted response is best summed up by the communiqué that was issued after the heads of state summit in Addis Ababa two weeks back: "Though the crisis in Darfur is grave, with unacceptable levels of deaths, human suffering, and destruction of homes and infrastructure, the situation cannot be defined as genocide."
Trust Africa's leaders to always choose the backseat, and leave the driving to others, even in matters that are of immediate concern to Africans.
While the continent is in denial (how else do you explain the statement that seeks to qualify the human misery that is going on?), British liberal democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, says the situation in Sudan is exactly what African leaders say it is not: a genocide in the style of what happened in Rwanda exactly a decade back. Once again, a whole continent is sleeping soundly while a raging fire razes its hut to the ground. In the meantime, it is left to the likes of Kofi Annan, Colin Powell and Tony Blair to speak up against the Sudanese crisis. It looks increasingly likely that action, if any, will be initiated from outside Africa's borders.
The indecisiveness and inaction - in the face of a calamity of this magnitude - prove one thing: Africa is in want of leaders with the courage to rise up to the challenges of the day. Today's generation of leaders has not graduated from the victim mentality that gripped the post-colonial leadership. Close to 50 years after the departure of former colonial powers, African leaders still blame colonialism for all the continent's ills, most of which stem from avarice by the ruling class and its cronies; and total disregard for good governance. So many years after independence, African leaders still expect the world, as of right, to clean their mess. The Darfur crisis is a case in point.
**
Want to help: go to MSF's website (Doctors Without Borders)
I note how the editorial points out the futility of wasting time arguing whether what's happening in Darfur is really genocide or "only" ethnic cleansing.
What needs to be done?
The starting point is quite clearly immediate international sanctions against the Sudanese regime, who are almost universally believed to funding, arming and organizing the massacring militias. These sanctions must include an arms embargo.
Sanctions must also include a deadline, in the near future, for the regime to reign in the militias. Not for them to promise to do so, which they did weeks ago, but to actually do so. Since the regime pretends they want the massacres to stop and that they are allegedly not coordinating the militias, the international community must call their bluff by offering to "help" them deal with the problem that they claim not to be the authors of.
If they reject this offer, then the deadline must also include a warning that an international intervention, authorized by the UN and by the African Union (AU), will be conducted. If the regime continues to thumb its nose and continue supporting the massacres, then the intervention must occur. The Arab League could, for once, stop whining about Israel for a few seconds and join in the pressure against Sudan.
Any intervention must be done by African Union and/or Arab League troops with technical assistance and funding from the European Union and the US. It is important that the intervention be done by an AU or Arab force. A western-led force will immediately lead to charges of imperialism and will necessarily stoke the fires of Arab nationalism and domestic Sudanese resistance, no matter how legitimate the cause or illegitimate the targeted. Simply put, a western-led intervention in Darfur can't be successful because of the pot it would stir up. An AU intervention would be much harder to tar with the 'neo-colonialist' brush.
The AU is a new organization whose founders hope will be more relevant that the lethargic Organization of African Unity (OAU) it replaced. It has a dynamic leader in Alpha Oumar Konare, the former Malian president. But it has a big handicap. Although the AU has a new structure, it has the same member states that rendered the OAU irrelevant. Whether Konare's exurbence will prevail over the collective inertia of Africa's governments remains to be seen.
The lives of millions of Sudanese depends on it.
**
From: The Reporter of Gaborone, Botswana
Darfur - Africa See No Evil, Speak No Evil
Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone)
EDITORIAL
July 21, 2004
Posted to the web July 22, 2004
INTERNATIONAL reaction to the tragedy playing out in the Darfur region of Sudan (in which government-supported Arab militias have killed more than 30 000 black Muslims, and left more than a million others without shelter or enough food and water) has attracted outrage from everywhere else, except - of course - in Africa.
Africa's muted response is best summed up by the communiqué that was issued after the heads of state summit in Addis Ababa two weeks back: "Though the crisis in Darfur is grave, with unacceptable levels of deaths, human suffering, and destruction of homes and infrastructure, the situation cannot be defined as genocide."
Trust Africa's leaders to always choose the backseat, and leave the driving to others, even in matters that are of immediate concern to Africans.
While the continent is in denial (how else do you explain the statement that seeks to qualify the human misery that is going on?), British liberal democrat leader, Charles Kennedy, says the situation in Sudan is exactly what African leaders say it is not: a genocide in the style of what happened in Rwanda exactly a decade back. Once again, a whole continent is sleeping soundly while a raging fire razes its hut to the ground. In the meantime, it is left to the likes of Kofi Annan, Colin Powell and Tony Blair to speak up against the Sudanese crisis. It looks increasingly likely that action, if any, will be initiated from outside Africa's borders.
The indecisiveness and inaction - in the face of a calamity of this magnitude - prove one thing: Africa is in want of leaders with the courage to rise up to the challenges of the day. Today's generation of leaders has not graduated from the victim mentality that gripped the post-colonial leadership. Close to 50 years after the departure of former colonial powers, African leaders still blame colonialism for all the continent's ills, most of which stem from avarice by the ruling class and its cronies; and total disregard for good governance. So many years after independence, African leaders still expect the world, as of right, to clean their mess. The Darfur crisis is a case in point.
**
Want to help: go to MSF's website (Doctors Without Borders)
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
What America is all about
I heard some of Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech to the Democratic National Convention last night. I was pleased to hear her praise Peace Corps Volunteers who are serving their country in dozens of different nations around the world.
She said:
In the past year, I have been privileged to meet with Americans all across this land. They voiced many different concerns, but one they all share was
about America's role in the world, what we want this great country of ours to stand for.
To me, one of the best faces America has ever projected is the face of a Peace Corps volunteer.
(APPLAUSE)
That face symbolizes this country: young, curious, brimming with idealism and hope, and a real, honest compassion.
Those young people convey an idea of America that is all about heart, creativity, generosity and confidence, a practical, can- do sense, and a
big, big smile.
For many generations of people around this globe, that is what America has represented: a symbol of hope, a beacon brightly lit by the optimism of
its people, people coming from all over the world.
I'm probably somewhat biased, since I served in the Peace Corps myself. But I'm still warmed by Heinz Kerry's words. It's nice to know that, once in a great while, people can be acknowledged as doing good things and making positive contributions even though the tools of their trade might be shovels or chalk rather than bombs or rifles.
The Peace Corps and programs like it do far more to enhance America's reputation abroad and counter pre-conceptions of "what America is all about" than any war of mass destruction.
Mrs Kerry, thank you for acknowledging that Peace Corps volunteers are not only sacrificing in service of humanity, but they are truly front lines warriors in the struggle against anti-Americanism. It may sound self-serving, but Peace Corps volunteers represent what America likes to think of itself as.
She said:
In the past year, I have been privileged to meet with Americans all across this land. They voiced many different concerns, but one they all share was
about America's role in the world, what we want this great country of ours to stand for.
To me, one of the best faces America has ever projected is the face of a Peace Corps volunteer.
(APPLAUSE)
That face symbolizes this country: young, curious, brimming with idealism and hope, and a real, honest compassion.
Those young people convey an idea of America that is all about heart, creativity, generosity and confidence, a practical, can- do sense, and a
big, big smile.
For many generations of people around this globe, that is what America has represented: a symbol of hope, a beacon brightly lit by the optimism of
its people, people coming from all over the world.
I'm probably somewhat biased, since I served in the Peace Corps myself. But I'm still warmed by Heinz Kerry's words. It's nice to know that, once in a great while, people can be acknowledged as doing good things and making positive contributions even though the tools of their trade might be shovels or chalk rather than bombs or rifles.
The Peace Corps and programs like it do far more to enhance America's reputation abroad and counter pre-conceptions of "what America is all about" than any war of mass destruction.
Mrs Kerry, thank you for acknowledging that Peace Corps volunteers are not only sacrificing in service of humanity, but they are truly front lines warriors in the struggle against anti-Americanism. It may sound self-serving, but Peace Corps volunteers represent what America likes to think of itself as.
A little commentary on imprecise language
It's interesting to note that Teresa Heinz Kerry, the potential next first lady, is an African-American. Though Heinz Kerry doesn't identify herself as such, she has one characteristic that most self-described African-Americans don't have: she was actually born in Africa. In Portugese Mozambique, to be exact.
This is partly why I care little for labels in general and hyphenated labels. A late neighbor of mine didn't care to be called African-American because she was born and raised in Jamaica. Jamaica's in the Carribbean, not Africa.
These labels, like all labels, are things that are based on shorthand, on convenience. But just like the pathetic labels 'liberal' and 'conservative,' they are inadequate for fully expressing the complexity of the human condition.
I knew this guy in college who born and raised in Morocco but who had become an American citizen. He sometimes identified himself in newspaper columns as an African-American. He enjoyed the look on people's faces when they met him, a swarthy fellow. I have to admit, I thought it was funny when he did it too. Everyone ought to have their pre-conceptions toyed every once in a while. It's good for you!
All four of my grandparents came from Italy. I never set foot in the country until I was 22 and even then only for four days. Now do you think you have me all figured out?
This is partly why I care little for labels in general and hyphenated labels. A late neighbor of mine didn't care to be called African-American because she was born and raised in Jamaica. Jamaica's in the Carribbean, not Africa.
These labels, like all labels, are things that are based on shorthand, on convenience. But just like the pathetic labels 'liberal' and 'conservative,' they are inadequate for fully expressing the complexity of the human condition.
I knew this guy in college who born and raised in Morocco but who had become an American citizen. He sometimes identified himself in newspaper columns as an African-American. He enjoyed the look on people's faces when they met him, a swarthy fellow. I have to admit, I thought it was funny when he did it too. Everyone ought to have their pre-conceptions toyed every once in a while. It's good for you!
All four of my grandparents came from Italy. I never set foot in the country until I was 22 and even then only for four days. Now do you think you have me all figured out?
Monday, July 26, 2004
Albany: officially the worst legislature in the country
A shocking study was publicized last week. It revealed, astonishingly, that New York state's government doesn't work. I, and many other commentators, activists and editorialists from around the state, have been saying this for years. Maybe the next great study will reveal that Januarys in New York are colder than Julys.
"Neither the U.S. Congress nor any other state legislature so systematically limits the roles played by rank-and-file legislators and members of the public in the legislative process," concluded the report released by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
The report found: Meanwhile, just 4.1 percent of bills proposed in 2002 in New York were enacted, compared with 69 percent in Michigan, which has the nation's best enactment rate. In California, the most populous state, 41 percent of bills passed.
Though rank and file legislative participation is virtually non-existent in Albany, I think this is a spurious way to measure it. I don't think you measure a legislature's effectiveness by how many, or what percentage, of laws it passes. Otherwise, you get people passing laws just for the sake of passing laws.
Yet, the report does detail how broken Albany is.
The report cited the infamous 'three men in a room mentality,' whereby major decisions are handled exclusive by the governor, Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker.
According to the Times Union, the study said that this problem would be greatly reduced, the Brennan Center concluded, if the Assembly and Senate would change the rules governing legislative committees.
These rules largely determine which bills go to the floor for debate and a vote, and which are buried.
The study found the committees now do little real work, have few hearings on bills and release almost no reports to help members make voting decisions. It also said it is more difficult to bring a bill to a full house vote in New York than any other state.
Every two years, both the Senate and Assembly adopt rules for their committee processes. Those rules will be voted on in January; their passage requires neither agreement among the legislative leaders nor gubernatorial approval.
The report made other suggestions as well:
Making it easier for members to request a public hearing on a bill.
Require all bills reported to the floor to have a detailed public committee report reflecting the debate held on each.
Limit committee assignments to no more than three per lawmaker per legislative session.
Restrict the number of bills passed under a "message of necessity" from the governor, which gives lawmakers little time to read what they are voting on.
The report also calls for the end of proxy voting. Legislators can swipe their ID cards, reporting themselves as "in," and leave the chamber -- sometimes even going home -- but still have their votes recorded. Those votes are automatically counted in the affirmative.
Citizens are cheated by the existing system, [Brennan Center's associate counsel and an author of the report Jeremy].Creelan said. Many bills of public interest never receive public hearings.
The New York Times' article on the topic added that over a five-year period, 11,474 bills reached the floor of the two houses of the Legislature in Albany. Not a single one was voted down.
And during that period, from 1997 through 2001, the Legislature held public hearings on less than 1 percent of the major laws it passed. When those laws made it to the floor of each chamber for a vote, more than 95 percent passed with no debate.
In short, nothing even gets voted on that the chamber leader doesn't want voted on; not that they don't get approved, but that they don't get voted on. And when I say nothing, as the article makes clear, I mean that literally.
In fact, hardly anything even gets DEBATED in the whole chamber or even a committee hearing, without approval of the Assembly and Senate emperors. It's as though the minority members aren't representing New Yorkers; it's as though they don't exist.
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno called the study "pure nonsense." He asks, "What are you going to do, have a discussion and have 212 employees decide what the agenda is?" he asked, referring to the 212 legislative members. "Then you'll have 212 different agendas. That is just chaotic. That is Third-World-country stuff."
Now, I have some regard for Sen. Bruno, despite him being a Republican. Not only is he an affable guy and a distant relative of mine, but he's only one of the "three men in a room" who's able to work with the other two to get things done. The governor and Assembly speaker spend all their time criticizing each other through the media. But this comment shows that Sen. Bruno just doesn't get it.
His logic might make sense if New York's legislature actually worked today, if it weren't chaotic today. For example, it would be nice if they could pass a budget on time. My sister will be old enough to drink next year; the legislature hasn't passed an on-time budget in her lifetime.
As I wrote about here, a parliamentary delegation from Ghana, West Africa, visited Albany in May. Ghana is a country that had its first democratic change of government only four years ago. Yet even they were shocked by what they saw in New York's Capitol.
The New York Times summed up their visit like this: While West Africa in general is not a place where there are functioning governments, much less governments operating in a way the public can scrutinize, the delegation found New York's budget 'opaque.' "Here we have to ask a lot of questions," [the Ghanaian parliament's finance committee chairman] said. "You just really don't know how each allocation is spent. That is quite bleak."
Sen. Bruno, even third world countries aren't impressed by how Albany operates.
And quite frankly, if Mr. Bruno thinks that rank and file legislators are irrelevant and only the leaders matter, then maybe we should get rid of the other 210 and save ourselves a lot of money.
"Neither the U.S. Congress nor any other state legislature so systematically limits the roles played by rank-and-file legislators and members of the public in the legislative process," concluded the report released by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law.
The report found: Meanwhile, just 4.1 percent of bills proposed in 2002 in New York were enacted, compared with 69 percent in Michigan, which has the nation's best enactment rate. In California, the most populous state, 41 percent of bills passed.
Though rank and file legislative participation is virtually non-existent in Albany, I think this is a spurious way to measure it. I don't think you measure a legislature's effectiveness by how many, or what percentage, of laws it passes. Otherwise, you get people passing laws just for the sake of passing laws.
Yet, the report does detail how broken Albany is.
The report cited the infamous 'three men in a room mentality,' whereby major decisions are handled exclusive by the governor, Senate majority leader and Assembly speaker.
According to the Times Union, the study said that this problem would be greatly reduced, the Brennan Center concluded, if the Assembly and Senate would change the rules governing legislative committees.
These rules largely determine which bills go to the floor for debate and a vote, and which are buried.
The study found the committees now do little real work, have few hearings on bills and release almost no reports to help members make voting decisions. It also said it is more difficult to bring a bill to a full house vote in New York than any other state.
Every two years, both the Senate and Assembly adopt rules for their committee processes. Those rules will be voted on in January; their passage requires neither agreement among the legislative leaders nor gubernatorial approval.
The report made other suggestions as well:
Making it easier for members to request a public hearing on a bill.
Require all bills reported to the floor to have a detailed public committee report reflecting the debate held on each.
Limit committee assignments to no more than three per lawmaker per legislative session.
Restrict the number of bills passed under a "message of necessity" from the governor, which gives lawmakers little time to read what they are voting on.
The report also calls for the end of proxy voting. Legislators can swipe their ID cards, reporting themselves as "in," and leave the chamber -- sometimes even going home -- but still have their votes recorded. Those votes are automatically counted in the affirmative.
Citizens are cheated by the existing system, [Brennan Center's associate counsel and an author of the report Jeremy].Creelan said. Many bills of public interest never receive public hearings.
The New York Times' article on the topic added that over a five-year period, 11,474 bills reached the floor of the two houses of the Legislature in Albany. Not a single one was voted down.
And during that period, from 1997 through 2001, the Legislature held public hearings on less than 1 percent of the major laws it passed. When those laws made it to the floor of each chamber for a vote, more than 95 percent passed with no debate.
In short, nothing even gets voted on that the chamber leader doesn't want voted on; not that they don't get approved, but that they don't get voted on. And when I say nothing, as the article makes clear, I mean that literally.
In fact, hardly anything even gets DEBATED in the whole chamber or even a committee hearing, without approval of the Assembly and Senate emperors. It's as though the minority members aren't representing New Yorkers; it's as though they don't exist.
Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno called the study "pure nonsense." He asks, "What are you going to do, have a discussion and have 212 employees decide what the agenda is?" he asked, referring to the 212 legislative members. "Then you'll have 212 different agendas. That is just chaotic. That is Third-World-country stuff."
Now, I have some regard for Sen. Bruno, despite him being a Republican. Not only is he an affable guy and a distant relative of mine, but he's only one of the "three men in a room" who's able to work with the other two to get things done. The governor and Assembly speaker spend all their time criticizing each other through the media. But this comment shows that Sen. Bruno just doesn't get it.
His logic might make sense if New York's legislature actually worked today, if it weren't chaotic today. For example, it would be nice if they could pass a budget on time. My sister will be old enough to drink next year; the legislature hasn't passed an on-time budget in her lifetime.
As I wrote about here, a parliamentary delegation from Ghana, West Africa, visited Albany in May. Ghana is a country that had its first democratic change of government only four years ago. Yet even they were shocked by what they saw in New York's Capitol.
The New York Times summed up their visit like this: While West Africa in general is not a place where there are functioning governments, much less governments operating in a way the public can scrutinize, the delegation found New York's budget 'opaque.' "Here we have to ask a lot of questions," [the Ghanaian parliament's finance committee chairman] said. "You just really don't know how each allocation is spent. That is quite bleak."
Sen. Bruno, even third world countries aren't impressed by how Albany operates.
And quite frankly, if Mr. Bruno thinks that rank and file legislators are irrelevant and only the leaders matter, then maybe we should get rid of the other 210 and save ourselves a lot of money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)