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 and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
National Public Radio's Africa correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a good blog piece on some of the strides being made in Africa.
There remain many problems on the continent: the worst being Darfur, northern Uganda and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. The crises in Somalia, Zimbabwe and Côte d'Ivoire aren't far behind.
Still, the tide may well be turning.
Hunter-Gault discusses the importance of the New Partnership for African Development. Nepad was imposed not by westerners but was conceived and advanced largely by three African presidents: South Africa's Thabo Mbeki, Senegal's Abdoulaye Wade and Nigeria's Olesegun Obasanjo. Nepad set up a procedure where by governments would submit to a review of its governance practices by its peers. Hunter-Gault suggests that this peer review mechanism is part of the 'Changing the Rules in Africa.'
Previously, there was a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. Far from being done by a wink-and-a-nod, this non-interference policy was explicitly stated in Article III of former the Organization of African Unity's charter. Back then, the group would've been more accurately called the Organization for African Dictators' Unity.
This has been turned on its head by Nepad. Granted, the peer review mechanism is voluntarily, but Hunter-Gault notes that about half of African countries have submitted themselves to the process.
Another example of the changing tide is the African People's Court I wrote about a few days ago. For the first time, a pan-African entity gives equal standing to citizens and non-governmental organizations as it does to heads of state. The idea of governments or the pan-African institution itself having any responsibility to its citizens is a key evolution, one that we should hope will trickle down to national governments themselves.
Increasingly, African leaders are looking not for aid handouts but for fairer trade. They want Europe and the United States to reduce agricultural subsidies and trade barriers so that African raw materials such as cotton and cocoa can compete fairly on the international market. Even countries who are rebuilding from war, such as Liberia, are more interested in ideas than foreign cash.
Is there an African renaissance, as famously predicted by Pres. Mbeki almost a decade ago? Not yet. Not as long as there's genocide in Sudan, an impending one in Côte d'Ivoire and the deadliest conflict since World War II in the DRC. And for all the talk of 'African solutions to African problems,' Mbeki's been criminally silent on the Mugabe-made disaster in Zimbabwe.
But leaders are laying the pan-African groundwork that, if supported and respected, will provide a framework for future justice and stability on the continent.
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Artists, society and the duties of citizenship
A while ago, I watched bits and piece of a PBS documentary on Bob Dylan. And it got me to thinking what would happen if Dylan were in his prime today.
It's no secret that our current political atmosphere is very poisonous. If you criticize the president, you are called a traitor, a terrorist appeaser or America-hater. (The Bush=Hitler crowd isn't exactly calming things down either)
While anyone who criticizes the president or his policies is subject to scorn, famous people who do so are subject to particularly vicious vitriol. The Dixie Chicks are the most famous example; they've even received death threats (presumably by people who insist our boys are over in Iraq fighting for freedom). But so is Michael Moore. So is Eddie Vedder. So is Green Day. So are many Hollywood actors.
I have no problem with fair criticism of these people or their comments. After all, if you can criticize Bush's actions or words, then your comments should be off-limits to criticism either. You should expect it. And not all of the criticism of Bush is fair either. But fair criticism means, "Vedder's criticism of Bush is wrong because...." not "Vedder is an America-hating sleazebag."
But singers, writers and actors who criticize the president are subjected to a ridiculous double standard. It's not the mere substance of their criticism that's attacked, it's the fact that they spoke out at all. According some people, actors should only talk about film , writers about literature and singers about music. They are not permitted to be citizens supporting or opposing their government's policies (well, they can support it, just not oppose it; no one seemed to mind baseball player Curt Schilling stumping for Bush). And frankly, that's outrageous.
Eddie Vedder is a citizen of the United States. So is Michael Moore. So is Billy Joe Armstrong. So are the Dixie Chicks. As such, they have every right to criticize the president and what he's doing. Just as you have every right to ignore them. They do not have the right to be taken seriously, but they do have the right to speak.
The war in Iraq isn't immoral because Susan Sarandon says so. It's immoral because it's immoral. That said, I have no more problem with Sarandon saying it's wrong than I do with Joe Sixpack saying it's wrong.
Their words do not carry more weight because they are famous. But their words do not carry less weight either.
Dylan wrote some of the most influential music of his time. He wrote about how young people were starting to think for themselves. He wrote about the immorality of segregation and racism. He wrote about the insanity of war.
And he admitted that artists had a social responsiblity:
Come writers and critics
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
Will be later to win
There's a long history of artists being engaged in politics and social issues. Some of the most revered figures in American history are people involved in artistic endeavors who weren't afraid to stick their noses in on the pressing issues of their time. Henry David Thoreau. Harriet Beecher Stowe. Mark Twain. Woody Guthrie. Pete Seeger. Harper Lee. Countless others.
And it's not just in American history. Writers played a very important role in supporting and advancing the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Fela Kuti sang about injustice in military-dominated Nigeria in the 70s. Writers have always been influential in Latin America.
The most prominent dissidents in Eastern Europe, those most revered by the west, weren't politicians. They were writers (Solzhenitsyn), playwrights (Havel) even scientists (Sakharov),
These people felt that limiting themselves ordinary stories about lost love was trite when the society around them was suffocated by such oppression. They felt a social responsibility to risk leaving their little artistic cocoon and speak out against injustice. They helped bring an end to the monstrosity that was the Soviet empire, all because these artists dared speak of politics. Then, the government treated them as traitors. History now considers them as heros and patriots. Not because they were artists. But because they were citizens.
It's no secret that our current political atmosphere is very poisonous. If you criticize the president, you are called a traitor, a terrorist appeaser or America-hater. (The Bush=Hitler crowd isn't exactly calming things down either)
While anyone who criticizes the president or his policies is subject to scorn, famous people who do so are subject to particularly vicious vitriol. The Dixie Chicks are the most famous example; they've even received death threats (presumably by people who insist our boys are over in Iraq fighting for freedom). But so is Michael Moore. So is Eddie Vedder. So is Green Day. So are many Hollywood actors.
I have no problem with fair criticism of these people or their comments. After all, if you can criticize Bush's actions or words, then your comments should be off-limits to criticism either. You should expect it. And not all of the criticism of Bush is fair either. But fair criticism means, "Vedder's criticism of Bush is wrong because...." not "Vedder is an America-hating sleazebag."
But singers, writers and actors who criticize the president are subjected to a ridiculous double standard. It's not the mere substance of their criticism that's attacked, it's the fact that they spoke out at all. According some people, actors should only talk about film , writers about literature and singers about music. They are not permitted to be citizens supporting or opposing their government's policies (well, they can support it, just not oppose it; no one seemed to mind baseball player Curt Schilling stumping for Bush). And frankly, that's outrageous.
Eddie Vedder is a citizen of the United States. So is Michael Moore. So is Billy Joe Armstrong. So are the Dixie Chicks. As such, they have every right to criticize the president and what he's doing. Just as you have every right to ignore them. They do not have the right to be taken seriously, but they do have the right to speak.
The war in Iraq isn't immoral because Susan Sarandon says so. It's immoral because it's immoral. That said, I have no more problem with Sarandon saying it's wrong than I do with Joe Sixpack saying it's wrong.
Their words do not carry more weight because they are famous. But their words do not carry less weight either.
Dylan wrote some of the most influential music of his time. He wrote about how young people were starting to think for themselves. He wrote about the immorality of segregation and racism. He wrote about the insanity of war.
And he admitted that artists had a social responsiblity:
Come writers and critics
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
Will be later to win
There's a long history of artists being engaged in politics and social issues. Some of the most revered figures in American history are people involved in artistic endeavors who weren't afraid to stick their noses in on the pressing issues of their time. Henry David Thoreau. Harriet Beecher Stowe. Mark Twain. Woody Guthrie. Pete Seeger. Harper Lee. Countless others.
And it's not just in American history. Writers played a very important role in supporting and advancing the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa. Fela Kuti sang about injustice in military-dominated Nigeria in the 70s. Writers have always been influential in Latin America.
The most prominent dissidents in Eastern Europe, those most revered by the west, weren't politicians. They were writers (Solzhenitsyn), playwrights (Havel) even scientists (Sakharov),
These people felt that limiting themselves ordinary stories about lost love was trite when the society around them was suffocated by such oppression. They felt a social responsibility to risk leaving their little artistic cocoon and speak out against injustice. They helped bring an end to the monstrosity that was the Soviet empire, all because these artists dared speak of politics. Then, the government treated them as traitors. History now considers them as heros and patriots. Not because they were artists. But because they were citizens.
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Wellstone
Every Friday night, our local baker shows progressive oriented films at his cafe. Last night, he showed an inspiring documentary on the career of Sen. Paul Wellstone. Despite the unhappy ending, Wellstone and his wife (an activist in her own right) tragically in a plane crash in October 2002, it was one of the most uplifting pieces I've seen in a while.
One of the things that intrigued me was how unusual someone like him seems now. I wondered what it would be like to be represented by someone with a shred of idealism. Idealism in politics seems virtually dead now, even on the left where idealism was so central in the 60s and 70s. Ronald Reagan's victory was more comprehensive than people realized during his presidency. He didn't just win the battles of the day.
Reaganism thoroughly eradicated the notion that government could anything (except wage war and provide welfare to defense contractors). Reaganism thoroughly crushed the notion of the word 'public.' The only thing that mattered was fundamentalist individualism. Conservatives of today complain that Americans aren't sufficiently united against the threats and alleged threats that we face. But that's because Americans no longer think in collective terms. This is a consequence of the Me Decade and the rejection of the notion of society, of being part of something greater than oneself.
Now, politics are governed almost exclusively by anger, divisiveness and demonization. These elements have always been present in American politics but at least they used to be balanced out by a bit of idealism. That balance seems to have disappeared.
At this point, it would be useful to point out the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism means you don't take anything at face value. Cynicism means you automatically attribute malicious or selfish motives to everything and everyone. Skepticism is a key component in ensuring democracy doesn't turn into authoritarianism. Cynicism is corrosive and undermines democracy by assuming that every action is selfish and everyone is only interested in self-promotion.
Skepticism means you analyze each case individually. Cynicism means you automatically assume the worst. In that way, cynicism is just as simplistic and mindless as the Polyanna view of the world. It doesn't take any effort to believe that the world is all sweetness and light. It also doesn't take any effort to believe that all humans are irredeemable thugs. It doesn't take any effort to believe that President Bush or the Democrats are automatically wrong before you even process their words or actions (the partisan view). It doesn't take any effort to believe that the purpose of every government program is to undermine society, that any collective action is a vicious assault on freedom (the hard-core libertarian view). These analyses are cheap, lazy and wrong.
But this cheap cynicism is worse than wrong, it's destructive. If you believe that citizens are irrelevant to the political process, you're going to sit on your butt and watch Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire instead of writing, protesting, organizing or voting. If you believe that all politicians are corrupt and there's nothing you can do about it, then you will withdraw from the political process. The more good folks withdraw from the political process, the more influence is ceded to the less honorable people. The more cynicism rules, the more good folks will be discouraged from getting involved at all.
We live in an era where it's easy to be cynical. We live under the most divisive president in generations. He's waging an insane war of aggression that was supposed to make us safer but has instead led to even his own party members saying we're in the early stages of World War III. And the disastrous foreign policy only serves to obscure disastrous domestic policies as well, such as in the domains of energy, scientific research and civil rights.
Yet, it would be a mistake to forget that while I oppose what the president is doing, a lot of people support him and/or what he's doing. A lot of people think the war is necessary and that Americans really need to get behind it. A lot of people think, for whatever reason, that the country will go down the tubes if two men are allowed to get their relationship recognized by the state. A lot of people feel that too many Americans don't recognize the dangers of Islamic extremism.
And people on all sides resent the influence of big money on politics, the legalized bribery of poltical officials called campaign contributions. People increasingly see that there are only a handful of true differences between the two major parties and that most of the other 'differences' are cosmetic or questions of degree. (Don't forget that John Kerry's position on Iraq wasn't that it was a terrible idea. It was that Iraq was a nifty idea that Bush was screwing up the details and that he could do better)
In short, everyone's angry. Everyone's more worried about blaming the other side or the media than trying to figure out solutions to problems.
The president didn't help things when he demanded total subservience. He infamously said that either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. Liberals and progressives resented being told they couldn't oppose anything he did or they'd be with the terrorists. These groups had real concerns about radical Islam, since religious extremism is the most reactionary, anti-progressive force in the world today. If you want unity, you need to reach out to people. The president and his supports demanded absolute obedience or else. Of course there was going to be resistance.
In the wake of this, there were two astonishingly juvenile smear campaigns. One by the right against anyone who questioned the war on Iraq or its dubious justifications. One by the left against President Bush's intellect and his alleged similiarities to the history's worst monsters.
This sort of bile is anthetical to building consensus. If you've been bombarded with slogans like "Bush is Hitler" or if you've had some scream at you about being a traitor or a terrorist appeaser, you are not likely to be in the mood to sit down and rationally discuss possible ways to move forward.
But once these folks wipe the drool from their chins and their blood pressure goes back to normal, the issues will remain.
Even aside from the war, there are a lot of problems in this country. But as someone who's not a cynic, I also believe that a lot of good things about this country too. There are a lot of good people (both supporters and opponents of the current president) with good will who, if their energy and ideas were tapped, could help make this country even better.
And that's what intrigued me about Paul Wellstone. He didn't just say, "This is what I'm going to do. Follow me or else."
That's really a true leader of a movement does. He convinces people to follow him but more importantly, he inspires them to take action in their own right. He makes them feel like they have power and that the power will survive even when the leader is no longer there.
It's hard to do nowadays, when cynicism is so easy. But some people manage it. Howard Dean did it for a while. And he's a great example. Dean was not really that liberal himself; he was a fairly pragmatic centrist governor. Yet he was able really stir up the previously moribund liberal wing of the Democrat Party. That wing remains active despite Dean himself selling out.
Paul Wellstone was able to motivate people to become active in the political process. Jesse Jackson did it. Dean did it.
Even though I disagree with them wholeheartedly, the Christian Right did a masterful job of it in the 80s and 90s. They took a group that felt marginalized by the mainstream, organized them from the bottom up in a long, painstaking process and now they control the country.
There are no shortcuts. But when it works, it really works.
Wellstone, Jackson and the Christian Right knew one critical thing. Money may be disproprotionately important in our political process but corporations still can't vote on Election Day. Ultimately, the elections are decided by human beings. And when human beings are organized, they can win.
History is filled with supposedly powerless people who didn't believe in their supposed powerlessness. Wellstone was a rabble rouser in one of the most establishment bodies in this country. He didn't get through his whole agenda; he spent most of his time in a Senate controlled by the other party and the rest controlled by the other wing of his own. But through hard work, passion, commitment and the belief that politics matters, he got things done against the odds.
Whether you believe you can make a difference or believe you can't, you're right.
One of the things that intrigued me was how unusual someone like him seems now. I wondered what it would be like to be represented by someone with a shred of idealism. Idealism in politics seems virtually dead now, even on the left where idealism was so central in the 60s and 70s. Ronald Reagan's victory was more comprehensive than people realized during his presidency. He didn't just win the battles of the day.
Reaganism thoroughly eradicated the notion that government could anything (except wage war and provide welfare to defense contractors). Reaganism thoroughly crushed the notion of the word 'public.' The only thing that mattered was fundamentalist individualism. Conservatives of today complain that Americans aren't sufficiently united against the threats and alleged threats that we face. But that's because Americans no longer think in collective terms. This is a consequence of the Me Decade and the rejection of the notion of society, of being part of something greater than oneself.
Now, politics are governed almost exclusively by anger, divisiveness and demonization. These elements have always been present in American politics but at least they used to be balanced out by a bit of idealism. That balance seems to have disappeared.
At this point, it would be useful to point out the difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism means you don't take anything at face value. Cynicism means you automatically attribute malicious or selfish motives to everything and everyone. Skepticism is a key component in ensuring democracy doesn't turn into authoritarianism. Cynicism is corrosive and undermines democracy by assuming that every action is selfish and everyone is only interested in self-promotion.
Skepticism means you analyze each case individually. Cynicism means you automatically assume the worst. In that way, cynicism is just as simplistic and mindless as the Polyanna view of the world. It doesn't take any effort to believe that the world is all sweetness and light. It also doesn't take any effort to believe that all humans are irredeemable thugs. It doesn't take any effort to believe that President Bush or the Democrats are automatically wrong before you even process their words or actions (the partisan view). It doesn't take any effort to believe that the purpose of every government program is to undermine society, that any collective action is a vicious assault on freedom (the hard-core libertarian view). These analyses are cheap, lazy and wrong.
But this cheap cynicism is worse than wrong, it's destructive. If you believe that citizens are irrelevant to the political process, you're going to sit on your butt and watch Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire instead of writing, protesting, organizing or voting. If you believe that all politicians are corrupt and there's nothing you can do about it, then you will withdraw from the political process. The more good folks withdraw from the political process, the more influence is ceded to the less honorable people. The more cynicism rules, the more good folks will be discouraged from getting involved at all.
We live in an era where it's easy to be cynical. We live under the most divisive president in generations. He's waging an insane war of aggression that was supposed to make us safer but has instead led to even his own party members saying we're in the early stages of World War III. And the disastrous foreign policy only serves to obscure disastrous domestic policies as well, such as in the domains of energy, scientific research and civil rights.
Yet, it would be a mistake to forget that while I oppose what the president is doing, a lot of people support him and/or what he's doing. A lot of people think the war is necessary and that Americans really need to get behind it. A lot of people think, for whatever reason, that the country will go down the tubes if two men are allowed to get their relationship recognized by the state. A lot of people feel that too many Americans don't recognize the dangers of Islamic extremism.
And people on all sides resent the influence of big money on politics, the legalized bribery of poltical officials called campaign contributions. People increasingly see that there are only a handful of true differences between the two major parties and that most of the other 'differences' are cosmetic or questions of degree. (Don't forget that John Kerry's position on Iraq wasn't that it was a terrible idea. It was that Iraq was a nifty idea that Bush was screwing up the details and that he could do better)
In short, everyone's angry. Everyone's more worried about blaming the other side or the media than trying to figure out solutions to problems.
The president didn't help things when he demanded total subservience. He infamously said that either you're with us or you're with the terrorists. Liberals and progressives resented being told they couldn't oppose anything he did or they'd be with the terrorists. These groups had real concerns about radical Islam, since religious extremism is the most reactionary, anti-progressive force in the world today. If you want unity, you need to reach out to people. The president and his supports demanded absolute obedience or else. Of course there was going to be resistance.
In the wake of this, there were two astonishingly juvenile smear campaigns. One by the right against anyone who questioned the war on Iraq or its dubious justifications. One by the left against President Bush's intellect and his alleged similiarities to the history's worst monsters.
This sort of bile is anthetical to building consensus. If you've been bombarded with slogans like "Bush is Hitler" or if you've had some scream at you about being a traitor or a terrorist appeaser, you are not likely to be in the mood to sit down and rationally discuss possible ways to move forward.
But once these folks wipe the drool from their chins and their blood pressure goes back to normal, the issues will remain.
Even aside from the war, there are a lot of problems in this country. But as someone who's not a cynic, I also believe that a lot of good things about this country too. There are a lot of good people (both supporters and opponents of the current president) with good will who, if their energy and ideas were tapped, could help make this country even better.
And that's what intrigued me about Paul Wellstone. He didn't just say, "This is what I'm going to do. Follow me or else."
That's really a true leader of a movement does. He convinces people to follow him but more importantly, he inspires them to take action in their own right. He makes them feel like they have power and that the power will survive even when the leader is no longer there.
It's hard to do nowadays, when cynicism is so easy. But some people manage it. Howard Dean did it for a while. And he's a great example. Dean was not really that liberal himself; he was a fairly pragmatic centrist governor. Yet he was able really stir up the previously moribund liberal wing of the Democrat Party. That wing remains active despite Dean himself selling out.
Paul Wellstone was able to motivate people to become active in the political process. Jesse Jackson did it. Dean did it.
Even though I disagree with them wholeheartedly, the Christian Right did a masterful job of it in the 80s and 90s. They took a group that felt marginalized by the mainstream, organized them from the bottom up in a long, painstaking process and now they control the country.
There are no shortcuts. But when it works, it really works.
Wellstone, Jackson and the Christian Right knew one critical thing. Money may be disproprotionately important in our political process but corporations still can't vote on Election Day. Ultimately, the elections are decided by human beings. And when human beings are organized, they can win.
History is filled with supposedly powerless people who didn't believe in their supposed powerlessness. Wellstone was a rabble rouser in one of the most establishment bodies in this country. He didn't get through his whole agenda; he spent most of his time in a Senate controlled by the other party and the rest controlled by the other wing of his own. But through hard work, passion, commitment and the belief that politics matters, he got things done against the odds.
Whether you believe you can make a difference or believe you can't, you're right.
Friday, July 28, 2006
The beginning of the end for the imperial presidency?
I've written regularly about the Bush administration's contempt for the rule of law. A google search of this blog for the phrase 'rule of law' shows four essays on this topic relating to the Bush administration since April alone; six since the beginning of the year.
The worst part of the administration's assault of the rule of law is the shameful acquiesence on the part of legislators, that supposed co-equal branch of government which has abdicated its constitutional duty to be a part of the checks and balances process.
But it looks like the benefits of stem cell research has not only scientific benefits, but political ones too. Apparently, it's been used to grow a spine for some members of Congress.
President Bush has used something called 'signing statements' to dissent from parts of bills that he signed. The signing statement is not new, but Bush has issued more of them in a little over five years than all his predecessors combined did in the previous 212. Most of the signing statements by his predecessors have been instructions on how executive agencies should enforce the law, now how they should ignore it.
Critics add that the chief executive should not be picking and choosing which laws he feels like enforcing. If he doesn't like a bill that comes before his desk, he should veto it altogether.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
These signing statements amount to line item vetoes of legislation, which are not permitted under existing law or the Constitution. Except they are more insidious and a naked power grab because since they aren't official vetoes, Congress can't override them.
Most infamously, he signed a bill that banned torture but added that he reserved to right not to enforce the ban.
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has proposed legislation that would explicitly declare that these signing statements had no legal status.
"The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can the president use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," Mr Specter said as he introduced his proposed law.
"The president cannot veto part of bill... he cannot veto certain provisions he does not like."
Mr Specter's proposed law would forbid courts from taking presidential signing statements into account when interpreting laws and would allow Congress to take the president to court over signing statements.
"If the president is permitted to re-write the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process," Mr Specter, an increasingly frequent critic of the administration, said.
The action came after the American Bar Association declared that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
(Note: it's worth remembering that the ABA gave a thumbs up to both of Bush's Supreme Court nominations)
If this actually passes, which is admittedly a long shot at the moment given that hard-core conservatives control the House of Representatives, then it would be an important and long overdue step in Congress finally reigning in assertions of imperial authority by the White House.
The worst part of the administration's assault of the rule of law is the shameful acquiesence on the part of legislators, that supposed co-equal branch of government which has abdicated its constitutional duty to be a part of the checks and balances process.
But it looks like the benefits of stem cell research has not only scientific benefits, but political ones too. Apparently, it's been used to grow a spine for some members of Congress.
President Bush has used something called 'signing statements' to dissent from parts of bills that he signed. The signing statement is not new, but Bush has issued more of them in a little over five years than all his predecessors combined did in the previous 212. Most of the signing statements by his predecessors have been instructions on how executive agencies should enforce the law, now how they should ignore it.
Critics add that the chief executive should not be picking and choosing which laws he feels like enforcing. If he doesn't like a bill that comes before his desk, he should veto it altogether.
Bush has issued at least 750 signing statements during his presidency, reserving the right to revise, interpret or disregard laws on national security and constitutional grounds.
These signing statements amount to line item vetoes of legislation, which are not permitted under existing law or the Constitution. Except they are more insidious and a naked power grab because since they aren't official vetoes, Congress can't override them.
Most infamously, he signed a bill that banned torture but added that he reserved to right not to enforce the ban.
Republican Sen. Arlen Specter has proposed legislation that would explicitly declare that these signing statements had no legal status.
"The president cannot use a signing statement to rewrite the words of a statute nor can the president use a signing statement to selectively nullify those provisions he does not like," Mr Specter said as he introduced his proposed law.
"The president cannot veto part of bill... he cannot veto certain provisions he does not like."
Mr Specter's proposed law would forbid courts from taking presidential signing statements into account when interpreting laws and would allow Congress to take the president to court over signing statements.
"If the president is permitted to re-write the bills that Congress passes and cherry-pick which provisions he likes and does not like, he subverts the constitutional process," Mr Specter, an increasingly frequent critic of the administration, said.
The action came after the American Bar Association declared that by attaching conditions to legislation, the president has sidestepped his constitutional duty to either sign a bill, veto it, or take no action.
(Note: it's worth remembering that the ABA gave a thumbs up to both of Bush's Supreme Court nominations)
If this actually passes, which is admittedly a long shot at the moment given that hard-core conservatives control the House of Representatives, then it would be an important and long overdue step in Congress finally reigning in assertions of imperial authority by the White House.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Climate change and the national parks
Leave it to a foreign paper to tell us what's really going on in the US. The UK Independent has a good article on how climate change is affecting America's national parks and other treasures.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
The moral midget speaks
You know your position is morally bankrupt when it boils down to: our innocent civilian deaths are more righteous than your innocent civilian deaths.
David Limbaugh heaped praise on US ambassador to the UN John Bolton and urged he be approved to the position full-time. Personally, I'm torn. He certainly represents the Bush administration's belligerence and arrogance better than anyone else; a more diplomatic ambassador might paper over the White House's deep flaws. But I guess it's a question of whether you should vote for an ambassador who works for an administration at the expense of the well-being of the country as a whole.
Anyways, Limbaugh praised Bolton's 'moral clarity' in his absolutist defense of the Israeli destruction of southern Lebanon.
In commenting on the crisis, Bolton said:
I think it would be a mistake to ascribe a moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts, the very purpose of which terrorist acts are to kill civilians and the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths as a result of military action taken in self-defense.
Huzzah for the 'culture of life'!
Bolton's moral clarity is evident: it's clear his morals are seriously deficient.
Then again, it's too bad the Lebanese civilians weren't embryos. Or on life support. Then Americans might care about what happens to them.
David Limbaugh heaped praise on US ambassador to the UN John Bolton and urged he be approved to the position full-time. Personally, I'm torn. He certainly represents the Bush administration's belligerence and arrogance better than anyone else; a more diplomatic ambassador might paper over the White House's deep flaws. But I guess it's a question of whether you should vote for an ambassador who works for an administration at the expense of the well-being of the country as a whole.
Anyways, Limbaugh praised Bolton's 'moral clarity' in his absolutist defense of the Israeli destruction of southern Lebanon.
In commenting on the crisis, Bolton said:
I think it would be a mistake to ascribe a moral equivalence to civilians who die as the direct result of malicious terrorist acts, the very purpose of which terrorist acts are to kill civilians and the tragic and unfortunate consequence of civilian deaths as a result of military action taken in self-defense.
Huzzah for the 'culture of life'!
Bolton's moral clarity is evident: it's clear his morals are seriously deficient.
Then again, it's too bad the Lebanese civilians weren't embryos. Or on life support. Then Americans might care about what happens to them.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
African people's court
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 and Iran*. (*-added on the suggestion of a reader)
The two areas that have in the front of the African news lately have been Somalia (which I discussed here) and the impending elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (ably covered in The Salon blog and by the IRIN).
While these important issues along with the Ugandan peace talks and the intervention of Joseph Kony's mother have been in the headlines, one important development in continental justice seems to have slipped by with little attention.
Earlier this month, the African Union launched the historic African Court on Human and People's Rights.
It will be the continent's first court that gives states and people equal rights to challenge governments suspected of human rights violations or other infractions.
Eight years in the making since its creation on paper, the court can apply and rule on any international treaty or law ratified by the state in question, including treaties that do not themselves refer violators to a court. States, AU organs, individuals and non-governmental organisations [NGOs] can all ask for rulings.
Though it's easy to be cynical, this has to the potential to revolutionize justice in Africa. Rather than shipping dictators to Europe to stand trial or to ad hoc tribunals, there will be a single, regular court with a consistent mandate and rules. This will certainly lead to more effective implementation of justice than having to re-invent the wheel after every conflict.
Most international bodies only give standing to governments, some of whom are causing the problems in question in the first place. This court importantly gives equal standing to individuals and NGOs as to states. That means that dictators like Ben Ali, Obiang and Mugabe can no longer hide behind the fig leaf of national sovereignty to cover their gross human rights violations.
After all, the African Charter on Human and People's Rights has been voluntarily ratified by Tunisia, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and all 50 other members of the African Union.
Update: NPR Africa correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a good piece on some of the other strides being made in Africa.
The two areas that have in the front of the African news lately have been Somalia (which I discussed here) and the impending elections in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (ably covered in The Salon blog and by the IRIN).
While these important issues along with the Ugandan peace talks and the intervention of Joseph Kony's mother have been in the headlines, one important development in continental justice seems to have slipped by with little attention.
Earlier this month, the African Union launched the historic African Court on Human and People's Rights.
It will be the continent's first court that gives states and people equal rights to challenge governments suspected of human rights violations or other infractions.
Eight years in the making since its creation on paper, the court can apply and rule on any international treaty or law ratified by the state in question, including treaties that do not themselves refer violators to a court. States, AU organs, individuals and non-governmental organisations [NGOs] can all ask for rulings.
Though it's easy to be cynical, this has to the potential to revolutionize justice in Africa. Rather than shipping dictators to Europe to stand trial or to ad hoc tribunals, there will be a single, regular court with a consistent mandate and rules. This will certainly lead to more effective implementation of justice than having to re-invent the wheel after every conflict.
Most international bodies only give standing to governments, some of whom are causing the problems in question in the first place. This court importantly gives equal standing to individuals and NGOs as to states. That means that dictators like Ben Ali, Obiang and Mugabe can no longer hide behind the fig leaf of national sovereignty to cover their gross human rights violations.
After all, the African Charter on Human and People's Rights has been voluntarily ratified by Tunisia, Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe and all 50 other members of the African Union.
Update: NPR Africa correspondent Charlayne Hunter-Gault has a good piece on some of the other strides being made in Africa.
Monday, July 24, 2006
The Habit of War
Given this blog's recent (if inadvertant) on the mentality of violence, The London Review of Books Jeremy Harding ran a good piece on The Habit of War.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)