A great orator, but are his policies (too) shallow?

Several days ago I watched Barack Obama inspire a crowd in Fairfield, a town in Iowa, a so-called bell weather state, on C-SPAN. Iowa serves not only as the site of one of the first party primaries, but also is seen as a measure or standard of support. The role it will play in the 2008 presidential election remains to be seen. It is amazing, though, that a state with such a small population, carrying little significance (sorry Iowa) can attract some of the biggest names in US politics.

Truth be told this special day-before the 4th of July (Independence Day) event was the first time I watched or heard a full Obama speech. What was more covered was Obama's complementing Bill Clinton — which made headlines, tons of them. The junior senator from Illinois is known for his fantastic speeches, after all his claim to fame was his moving address at the 2004 Democratic Convention. That one speech shot him up the ladder of political stardom.

Obama's policies and charisma seemed great... until he started talking about our "globalized economy" — not that I disagree with that point itself — and his Democratic protectionist trade populism (yuck!) set in. (The Dems have their protectionism from trade, the Republicans have theirs in the area of immigration.) Nonetheless that succeeded a few policy winners like the idea of putting solar panels "on every roof"; the globalization talk was followed by Iraq and national security. He is already talking like he is the Democratic choice for president. Obama is a great orator, plain and simple. Here are some more quotes from his 3 July Fairfield speech:
"There is no military solution in Iraq."
"The world still needs America, just like America still needs the world" (sounding somewhat like Madeline Albright, Bill Clinton, Ann-Marie Slaughter, etc.)
He says he can see from the perspective, "viewpoint" of a foreigner.
"This campaign has to become the vehicle for your hopes."

Then Obama — after talking more on foreign policy, which I'll touch upon in a later post (Foreign Affairs is publishing an array of essays from all the candidates on their pledged foreign policy), with power and energy in every syllable — spews into talk of a people-powered candidacy (see last quote). "We want something new", he is really plugging at the progressive-minded members of the audience, as well as those just fed up with the status quo, i.e. Bush. He, however, talks little of drastic reform, keeping with his earlier precedent of a belief in moderate reform [scroll down to February]. He doesn't want to alienate voters more cautious of great change.

After that he talks about civil rights and the Selma march for black voting rights at the height of the civil rights era in the 1960s, further tying in how his African immigrant plus native American (note: not Native American/American Indian) heritage makes him a symbol of America: with it's goods like openness and rights, and it's bads like xenophobia and repressiveness.

More on Obama:

Profile by The Economist

Wikipedia article

Barack Obama for America website

Washington Post profile (with voting record)

I'll leave you with this question: among the other mainstream candidates, none of whom besides Obama have been called "inexperienced", is Obama really as inexperienced as many point out as his most universal flaw? What do you think counts as experience? — Being governor for a term (or more)? Senator or congressperson for a term (or more)? Business leader? Or more than that?

Barack Obama's political report card score for his two-day Iowa run, plus a bit before and after: B. Seeming like a mix of populist-cheesy-progressive at times, which can only be expected; made amazing amounts of money, without an ex-president as spouse; connected with people but failed to touch upon experience factor. So overall above average, but not stunning.

technorati tags: Barack+Obama, Obama, politics, democrats, republicans, 2008+election, presidential+election, america, united+states, news, iowa, populism, trade, foreign+policy

Blair's last day

Tomorrow, 27 June, will be the day Gordon Brown takes office as the 52nd Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He will be asked by the Queen to form a government tomorrow. Brown is currently Blair's chancellor of the exchequer and fellow Labour MP, and has been so since Blair has been Britain's leader.

Blair handed over the party leadership to Brown a few days ago (24 June) following his promise at the Labour Party conference last fall he would step down as party leader and prime minister before the next conference. He announced his departure in May. Since the announcement there's been much analysis in retrospect of the 10 years Tony Blair, the current prime minister, has been in power.

Considering the important position he currently fills and the even more important one he will have tomorrow, relatively little is known of Gordon Brown. We know he was actually supposed to become prime minister if Labour won the 1997 election, which it did, but the charismatic Tony Blair ended up getting the gold. Brown has been waiting years for the top job — and less than 24 hours it will be his.

I personally am a bit excited not only because a change in leadership means a change in politics (i.e. more news coverage and more blog posts), but mainly due to the 'war on terror' and fiasco in Iraq Blair has lost his edge. His best accomplishments were helping the economy, reducing poverty, increasing education, lowering crime, continuing the good policies of his Conservative predecessor John Major on making peace in Northern Ireland and achieving that peace, including with the IRA, and helping the NHS — though that was one of his failures too. Blair's worst characteristics were his civil liberties-restricting anti-terror policies and following the necon Bush administration into Iraq.

Expect Brown to distance himself from George Bush. The White House will likely feel the sting of a very different relationship with its English-speaking ally across the Atlantic. However on Iraq Brown is expected to roughly maintain the status quo. A cautious person from what I've read, he will not want to run the risk of pulling UK troops out immediately and being blamed for making the conflict there worse. He has spoken much on Africa and poverty, being at the forefront of aid and debt initiatives.

Brown shares the general viewpoint of many fellow politicians on the threat of global warming — remember he was the one who commissioned the Stern report on the economic impact of climate change. He is a calculated, practical man and has shown to be tough on terrorism — is that good or bad? — and very interested in international affairs, such as the Darfur genocide in Sudan and the Israel-Palestine conflict. We can guess he'll be more 'liberal' than Blair foreign policy wise, but to what extent is not really known.

Here are some links useful for learning more about the PM-in-waiting:
Wikipedia article
BBC News article on his known foreign policy views
Prospect article (year-old) on Brown's foreign policy
Profile by The Economist
10 Downing Street (PM's office) homepage
Guardian Unlimited profile
BBC News profile

And here's some good news to start Brown off on a positive note tomorrow:

Britain's new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will take office this week with his Labour Party ahead of its Conservative rivals for the first time in eight months [i.e. since October], a [Ipsos-Mori] poll showed today.

The poll, in the Observer newspaper, put support for Labour at 39 per cent and the Conservatives at 36 per cent.

Forty per cent of voters believed Brown would make a more capable prime minister, compared to just 22 per cent who prefer his Conservative rival David Cameron.

Still, an early election might not be the best of ideas for Brown. Spring 2009 is the expected time of the next general election. The Conservatives have been doing well for a while now, and it's only recently that the political pendulum appears to have swung in the way of Labor. The Liberal Democrats seem to be proving more stubborn towards Brown than the Tories, demanding a snap election so that Brown can prove himself legitimate.

So who will Brown be governing with? Justice Minister Harriet Harman was elected deputy party leader on Sunday in a surprising win of 1% over Alan Johnston. From the BBC Question Time deputy leadership debate I watched, she seemed a reasonable candidate. She strongly disagrees with Blair's Iraq policies as well as his media spin — something both he and his American counterpart Bush have mastered. Even during the Blair-Brown transition has the government been accused of burying stories. Brown has expressed hopes for a cross-party cabinet, although a Lib Dem has already turned him down after being offered the position of N Ireland minister.

A look at a repressed democratic activist: Aung San Suu Kyi

Aung San Suu Kyi — democratic activist continually detained by her military state

Her name is known worldwide as a woman who stands for democracy in the face of brutal authoritarian oppression. She is a Nobel Peace Prize winner (1991) — the only currently imprisoned one in fact — and an enemy of the military junta that rules Myanmar, known also as Burma. Her party rightly won the election in 1990, but the ruthless military set in. Suu Kyi has been detained for over a decade, and her detention has just been extended. The only reason she isn't dead is because she is one of the most popular and notable figures from Burma, a state that is odd in itself (see secret and mysterious capital change).

Burma is among one of the most human rights abusive countries on the planet, and is often ignored as authoritarian nations like North Korea and Sudan take center stage. In fact, the news about Suu Kyi was barely covered in the western media, even for a person who the United States, European Union, and others, as well as a UN official, have spoken recently in support of. General Than Shwe and his military thugs govern the country, with no respect for the people.

technorati tags: burma, myanmar, aung+san+suu+kyi, human+rights, democratic+activist+suu+kyi+nobel+prize+burma, authoritarian, military+junta, than+shwe

Ron Paul: the libertarian Web candidate

Who is he?
A 72-year-old Republican congressman and physician from Texas. Presidential candidate with libertarian stances, with a disproportionate amount of support on the Web compared to in general, where he is not on most polls or in many debates. The libertarian fringe of the GOP's Howard Dean of '08? In short: Ron Paul is a libertarian Web phenomenon

What does he stand for?
American libertarianism and, to some, paleo-conservativsm.

Who are his main supporters?
Many Diggers adore him, as do other geeky (not meant pejoratively) demographics. Also people who hate big government liberalism, but hate freedom-trampling religious right and the Bush administration, etc.

What do you — clearthought — like about him?
He speaks his mind. While I would not likely vote for him, Ron Paul seems to be a voice America needs, especially at a time when dissent is only meant to polarize for political gain, or is squashed. He seems to be an almost purely internet phenomenon. Many have not heard of him, but within the techie circles he is liked more than any other candidate.

Anything else?
This Slate article on "The idiotic GOP effort to silence Ron Paul" is also interesting. Heaven forbid the Republicans support a candidate with rational views and a bit of common sense.

Some Republicans are angry at Ron Paul, the libertarian presidential candidate, for his forthright stance at the Republican debate earlier this week. When George W. Bush repeatedly asserts unpopular opinions in the face of withering criticism, it's seen as a sign of strength and resolve. But when Paul asserted unpopular opinions in a debate, his remarks became the grounds for derision and threats. Paul suggested that the United States' actions in the Middle East—and in Iraq in particular—might have motivated Bin Laden and the 9/11 attackers. Rudy Giuliani immediately jumped on Paul, demanding that he withdraw the comment. Now one GOP official is circulating a petition within the party to remove Paul from future debates. This is silly. Here's why...

Why is he in the spotlight?
Various views and confrontations with the Republican party, as well as Paul being left out of many political events (debates, interviews, etc.) has created some buzz on the internet and in the news. His sensible but blunt views of US policy in the Middle East — e.g. on the cause of 9/11 — have caused many within his party to cast dark glances on him, but those same views have also improved his profile with his main — albeit small — support base.

See also:
Wikipedia
2008 election site
news
House page

technorati tags: ron+paul, 2008+president+election, united+states, politics, digg, republicans

Focus on Hillary Clinton

I'm going to start a new, reoccurring blog post series focusing on politicians in the news, their backgrounds, political analysis about their actions, and, of course, an arbitrary grade of that policy-maker's performance — from my perspective, their peer's perspective, and the view of the voters.

Senator Hillary R. Clinton (D-NY) is leading the Democratic pack in terms of funds and popular support.

Hillary Clinton has lost the support of some liberal supporters because she has refused to apologize in any way about her support for the Iraq war. She remains ambiguous on her real views on hot topics like Iraq. Clinton tries to please so many different groups: from the anti-violent video game parents to the anti-war collegians. She'll have to make a conscious choice about who her real target audience(s) will be if she is to prevent herself from stretching further her ambiguous views on big issues.

Iraq is a huge issue, not only among the voters: whoever wins the election will inherit Bush's disaster of a war.

The Democrats already get more of the female votes than the Republicans, but Clinton's gender, alas, will no doubt be an issue. Pundits and other politicians trying not to sound sexist, but who actually are sexist, will be making plenty of stealthy jabs: the same we've seen against France's Segolene Royal.

Clinton has raised record funds so far, but no doubt her spouse, former President Bill Clinton, has helped her gain a large amount of those funds. The younger, more youth-savvy and fresh Barak Obama is chasing at Clinton's heels, and John Edwards is not out yet.

Clinton's refusal to admit the wrongs of her vote on the Iraq war — which seems to have some hypocrisy to it — shows negatively on her political grade, and she has no new visions or ideas, even modest like those of Obama, to offer the voters. However, she has plenty of money and is still the Democratic frontrunner for 2008. Her grade stands at a B(-), or roughly 6/10 or 7/10 — 10 being excellent, one being unbelievably pathetic (e.g. Al Gore has an 8/10, but at the time of his Oscar, etc, boom it was more like 9/10; Obama has maybe 7/10 or 8/10... still working out the grading system).

technorati tags: politics, usa, united+states, elections+2008, presidential+elections, hillary+clinton, clinton, obama, edwards, democrats, in+the+news, iraq, bush, gore, royal, woman

Plenty of woe, and some promise, in Indonesia

Indonesia never escapes the headlines, which is usually a sad thing...
It seems as if there is always some sort of disaster brewing in Indonesia. Whether it’s a shipwreck or a plane crash or a tsunami or an earthquake. In fact, three of the four aforementioned have occurred in major recent incidents.

With the fire-on-ship incident a little bit ago and the earthquake (killing 82 at the least) and plane crash (killing at least 22) just this month, just within the last couple weeks disasters have killed hundreds. Unsurprisingly, the plane crash, the lesser of the two accidents this month, has garnered much more attention than its less-deadly companion, the earthquake. Aircraft problems always get more attention — like terrorism, it is a public and media obsession.

There has also been a major mudslide and another ferry incident in December, in which hundreds were killed when the boat sank. In January, a plane carrying over 100 disappeared. Just in the past month there has also been a blast at a port and deadly protests.

Corruption, poor safety records, lax government regulation, technical troubles, and poor infrastructure have all been blamed for many of the disasters, though Mother Nature has killed the most. There was a huge earthquake last year and an even larger tsunami in late December 2004, not to mention a large risk of another major tsunami last year. Terrorism still remains an issue.

Profile: Indonesia (Wikipedia, CIA factbook, Economist [1] [2])...
Indonesia is big; it is basically a collection of islands. It is the largest Muslim-majority country and the fourth largest overall country on the planet. Indonesia is also the third largest democracy, bested only by India and the United States. Indonesia is a young democracy at that, and, like India, is democratic at the high, governmental level, but runs into troubles when one zooms to the local level.

Located in the south Pacific, north of Australia and southeast of the Indian ocean, Indonesia became an independent state in 1949, after declaring independence four years earlier. With a state so vast with most areas being former colonies of the Netherlands, there was bound to be ethnic conflict.

The government has had significant trouble holding the country together. With issues like Avian bird flu and Islamic extremism (e.g. Bali nightclub bombings), the Jakarta-based republic has remained surprisingly intact.

The country gained independence led by General Sukarno, who was Indonesia’s nationalistic leader. Following a conspiracy by the Communist Party of Indonesia to unseat Sukarno in a 1965 coup, there was a power fight between Sukarno, the current president, and a military leader named Suharto. Suharto won. Most probably in a mindset of paranoia, Suharto presided over a great purge of communists, which resulted in the deaths of somewhere between hundreds and a couple of million.

Suharto finally fell in 1998 and reforms have followed. There have been plenty of separatist movements, some — plenty — still dragging on, though notable achievements include the ones with East Timor and Aceh.

technorati tags: indonesia, news, politics, sukarno, history, profile, country, facts, suharto, bird+flu, plane+crash, natural+disasters, indonesia+disasters, earthquake, tsunami

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day

Happy Martin Luther King, Jr. Day for those both in and outside of the United States. Martin Luther King (1929-1968) was one of the greatest Americans ever — one of the most influential people to modern human society — and his eternal legacy lives on. King played a great role in the civil rights movement which finally led to real freedom for African Americans, even though black Americans had been emancipated nearly a century before the civil rights movement kicked into full swing in the mid-20th century. King was a Nobel Peace Prize-winning civil rights advocate trying to change society for the better through means of nonviolence. He rekindled the flame of rights for minorities in the United States and all over the world. His "I have a dream" speech (video) inspired a nation and a civilization to look at the mess of racial injustices. Yet, even today, Hispanics and blacks and Arabs are being segregated against — even unnoticeably — in the United States' continued racist struggles (poverty, racial terrorist and crime stereotypes only enforced by parts of the US media, social injustices and disliking someone just because they are different from you all play a role, along with economics and the misunderstanding among some white Americans about immigration); Arabs are restricted in Israel because they happen to look like the people launching rockets at Haifa and blowing themselves up in Israeli-occupied areas of Palestine; this does not really have to do with skin color, but still: the anti-semitism all-too-common throughout the world; the label of Middle Easterners as barbaric and Africans as poor, helpless, and self-destructive by a largely wealthy but ignorant and uneducated western public only relying on false stereotypes; just had to add this one to the mix: Michael Crichton likening global warming to eugenics (take it however you like); South Africa still getting over the days of white-only rule; ... it is not hard to find examples of racism and prejudice around the world, even in young children, as well as many other uncontrollable factors of human beings. Obviously homosexuality is also something looked down upon. A person being gay and expressing or even letting on their sexual preference is only a latent version, adapted for the modern day, of a person being black in the days of widespread lynching. But at least sexual preferences and religion can remain superficially latent; the color of your skin cannot.

In conclusion, have a good Martin Luther King, Jr. day. It will be a good day for historical reflection, however painful that may be. Every year it is always an interesting experience as the nation remembers the injustices prevalent in our society in the past — and even the injustices continuing today. He had a dream, a dream that has yet to become a reality, but we're getting closer and should not loose sight of the goal of human equality, tolerance for others, freedom for all! We are clearly still at a point in history when how one looks is a major factor in how one is perceived, especially when that relates to the color of one’s skin. Dr. King, your dream isn't true yet, I, for one, hope for us to get it as close to a reality as possible.


Articles on MLK:

Wikipedia:

Martin Luther King, Jr. (January 15, 1929 – April 4, 1968) was a famous leader of the American civil rights movement, a political activist, and a Baptist minister. In 1964, King became the youngest man to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (for his work as a peacemaker, promoting nonviolence and equal treatment for different races). On April 4, 1968, Dr. King was assassinated in Memphis, Tennessee. In 1977, he was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by Jimmy Carter. In 1986, Martin Luther King Day was established as a United States holiday. In 2004, King was posthumously awarded the Congressional Gold Medal. He was known as a great public speaker.[1] Dr. King often called for personal responsibility in fostering world peace.[2] King's most influential and well-known public address is the "I Have A Dream" speech, delivered on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C..

TIME 100:

It is a testament to the greatness of Martin Luther King Jr. that nearly every major city in the U.S. has a street or school named after him. It is a measure of how sorely his achievements are misunderstood that most of them are located in black neighborhoods.

Three decades after King was gunned down on a motel balcony in Memphis, Tenn., he is still regarded mainly as the black leader of a movement for black equality. That assessment, while accurate, is far too restrictive. For all King did to free blacks from the yoke of segregation, whites may owe him the greatest debt, for liberating them from the burden of America's centuries-old hypocrisy about race. It is only because of King and the movement that he led that the U.S. can claim to be the leader of the "free world" without inviting smirks of disdain and disbelief. Had he and the blacks and whites who marched beside him failed, vast regions of the U.S. would have remained morally indistinguishable from South Africa under apartheid, with terrible consequences for America's standing among nations. How could America have convincingly inveighed against the Iron Curtain while an equally oppressive Cotton Curtain remained draped across the South?

Encyclopaedia Britannica:

Martin Luther King, Jr.

born January 15, 1929, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.
died April 4, 1968, Memphis, Tennessee

original name Michael Luther King, Jr. Baptist minister and social activist who led the civil rights movement in the United States from the mid-1950s until his death by assassination in 1968. His leadership was fundamental to that movement's success in ending the legal segregation of African Americans in the South and other parts of the United States. King rose to national prominence through the organization of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, promoting nonviolent tactics such as the massive March on Washington (1963) to achieve civil rights. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 1964.

Nobel Prize for Peace


I will not be able to post tomorrow, sorry. Check back mid-week for updates to the blog!

technorati tags: MLK, martin+luther+king+day, martin+luther+king+jr, civil+rights, society, racism, profile, united+states, african+americans, history

Oh how the mighty have fallen: Saddam is dead

Saddam Hussein, former Iraqi leader convicted of crimes against humanity, has been executed this morning for crimes against humanity — just before dawn Iraq time (see Wikipedia). A slew of news analysis and historical tidbits have resurfaced, with the wide view that his death will be of little real significance for the situation in Iraq and the wider Middle East. If anything, Saddam's death outlines how his trial went — and failed — and the effects will be of historical symbolism and the small group of Saddam's Baathist loyalists up in arms while many celebrate. First of all, hanging a person is not the greatest way to start a country's legal system; the ensuing celebrations (from Iraqis and those US government) do not help frame the nation as all-too-well either, as if the violence did not already show Iraq to be in deep, serious strife. The reactions have largely been mixed.

The trial of Saddam Hussein and some of his closest minions was supposed to show Iraqis how bad their former regime had been and how a trial and the legal system should operate. It was all a judicial disgrace. More than a handful of countries seem to think that the execution will — if anything — increase the problems in Iraq. It is not going to have a positive effect, that's for sure. I should say that I am not at all a proponent of capital punishment.
—————
As I mentioned in my previous post on Saddam's impending execution, Saddam is one of several horrible former heads of state who have died this year. There was an extensive Atlantic Monthly article from 2002 profiling the dictator Saddam, who is to be buried with his brothers.
—————
What will the hanging of Saddam Hussein accomplish? What was it meant to accomplish — besides killing Saddam, that is. Between 5:30 and 5:45 (AM) local Iraqi time, the hanging took place. The era of Saddam’s domination in Iraq is now definitely over; he ruled absolutely for nearly 25 years before being overthrown in the United States-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The execution was videoed to quash doubts that the execution was staged, though the actual act of hanging was not photographed (only before and after). “A dark chapter in Iraq’s history has come to an end” said Iraq state media while reporting the execution of Saddam. The immediate aftermath of the execution yielded little reaction in the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad. As word spread of Saddam’s death, some small crowds formed in celebration, a minority mourning the death of their former leader. One can only hope that the book of Saddam is really closed and that no new complications — such as a worse-than-expected reaction from Sunni Iraqis — will spring up as a result of the hanging. Initial media reports said that Saddam was killed alongside his half brother and a judge from his regime, both tried alongside him, though those reports were found to be erroneous. The judge and the half brother will be executed after the Eid holiday.
—————
Rehabilitation certainly would not have been a judicial option for his crimes, but his execution was not just either — nor is the state or otherwise unwarranted killing of a human being (e.g. not for self defense, etc.). Saddam Hussein: a power figure, a murderer and torturer, a danger to regional security, an overall bad man — but as a human being capital punishment should not have been executed (pun) upon him. I will not miss him, and I hope few or no others do, but that does not mean I am content with his hanging or the effects it will bring to an already destabilized — to say the least — region. Most emotions had already been expressed over the merits and failures in the man of Saddam Hussein, so many of the reactions to the news of his hanging are expected.
—————
Saddam Hussein’s trial, which started in 2005 and ended earlier this year, was supposed to show Iraqis how their leader had poorly led them; the crimes he had committed. The trial was also supposed to illustrate an atypical example of the criminal justice and legal systems for the fledgling Iraqi government and citizens being introduced to ‘democracy’. The failures of this trial — on a human rights, legal, and political scale — are momentous enough to make this “example” trial have a negative affect on Iraq. It was a botched trial, it is believed that the display of ‘justice’ did not even teach the Iraqis or their government anything about how a justice system is supposed to work. The long list of additional charges against Saddam will either be dismissed or will be filed and brought against him in his absence [post mortem]. The latter would be ridiculous, I think history has already made its judgment and there is no reason for the Iraqi judiciary to further ridicule itself. The decision on the other charges against Saddam and how the government is to go about treating them is yet to be announced. The “new direction” for Iraq was a heavily rhetoricized American political plan which emphasized the positive points that trying and convicting Saddam would bring — namely a national unity against Saddam, making at least some unity. However, that “new direction” outcome was about as good as the neoconservative doctrine that got the US to invade Iraq in the first place. “National reconciliation” was another key political point, which was minimized by the botched trial of Saddam and the subsequent hasty decision to execute him.
—————
I am reading — among other things — a book called The J Curve. The author, Eurasia Group president Ian Bremmer, wrote an article a while back using parts of the chapter of his book on Saddam's Iraq (which I just finished).

You can learn a lot about a country by looking at the relationship between its stability and its "openness." Stability is a measure of the extent to which a country's government can weather a political, economic or social crisis. Openness is a measure of the degree to which people, ideas, information, goods and services flow freely in both directions across a state's borders and within the country itself.

Some countries (the United States, Germany, Japan and many others) are stable because they are open. Other states (North Korea, Cuba, Iran and others) are stable because they are closed. In each of these closed states, a small governing elite has isolated the country's citizens from the outside world and from one another. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was stable because it was closed. President Bush hopes the new Iraq will be stable because it is open.

Imagine a graph on which the vertical axis measures a state's stability and the horizontal axis measures its openness. Each nation appears as a data point on the graph. Taken together, these data points produce a pattern very much like the letter J. Nations higher on the graph are more stable; those lower are less stable. Nations to the right of the dip in the J are more open. Those to the left are less open.

For a country on the closed left side of the curve to move to the open right side, it must pass through the dip in the J -- a period of dangerous instability. In the early 1990s, South Africa, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia each descended into this dip. South Africa re-emerged on the right side of the J curve as an open post-apartheid state. The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia came apart and ceased to exist.

Right-side states have a collective interest in helping to shepherd authoritarian left-side states through the unstable dip in the curve toward a stability that is sturdier because it is based on openness. The Bush administration hopes to achieve just this kind of transition in Iraq.

In the spring of 2003, the United States pushed Iraq into the dip in the J curve.

The Bush administration finds itself in this position because it ignored one of the fundamental lessons of the J curve: it's one thing to destabilize an isolated authoritarian state; it's quite another to transform it into a country in which political and social stability is grounded in the free flow of ideas, information, trade and people.

That's something that Iraqis will one day have to do on their own.

The situation in Iraq is worse now than it was under Saddam, there is no question about that.
—————
One interesting thing is how Saddam stayed in power through his foreign policy disasters, including the invasion of Kuwait in 1991 — which he lost — and the skirmishes with Iran throughout the 1980s (and other dates), namely the Iran-Iraq War — of which no one really won. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of Saddam’s tight and ruthless, and paranoid, stay-in-power policies, his attacks on Kurds and other ethnic and political factions resisting him, and from the stringent sanctions placed on Iraq [by the US]. Saddam lived a life of harming others for his own gain; for his thirst for power and to retain that power. He ruled by fear.
—————
Now a problem is that Iran is as powerful as ever, extending their Shia influence into Iraq too (Iraq's leading coalition is of the Shia Islam sect, Iran is a Shia Islamic state). Saddam — a Sunni — kept Iraq a major stabilizer in the Sunni-Shia Middle Eastern power vacuum. Now, Iran is almost unchecked in power at a time when it is taunting the international community. Also, the Sunni elite that used to run Iraq were dismissed in disastrous American policies in Iraq, increasing the number of guys with money, power/influence, and guns — three things that those former Baath party elites had. This made the ensuing insurgency all the more strong and make Shia-Sunni tensions build up to a high level of civil war that Iraq is in today.
—————
The New York Times had an excellent editorial on the subject.

The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity. The public record is bulging with the lengthy litany of his vile and unforgivable atrocities: genocidal assaults against the Kurds; aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait; use of internationally banned weapons like nerve gas; systematic torture of countless thousands of political prisoners.

What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future. A carefully conducted, scrupulously fair trial could have helped undo some of the damage inflicted by his rule. It could have set a precedent for the rule of law in a country scarred by decades of arbitrary vindictiveness. It could have fostered a new national unity in an Iraq long manipulated through its religious and ethnic divisions.

It could have, but it didn’t. After a flawed, politicized and divisive trial, Mr. Hussein was handed his sentence: death by hanging. This week, in a cursory 15-minute proceeding, an appeals court upheld that sentence and ordered that it be carried out posthaste. Most Iraqis are now so preoccupied with shielding their families from looming civil war that they seem to have little emotion left to spend on Mr. Hussein or, more important, on their own fading dreams of a new and better Iraq.

What might have been a watershed now seems another lost opportunity. After nearly four years of war and thousands of American and Iraqi deaths, it is ever harder to be sure whether anything fundamental has changed for the better in Iraq.

Toppling Saddam Hussein did not automatically create a new and better Iraq. Executing him won’t either.

technorati tags: saddam+hussein, saddam+executed, saddam+dead, breaking-news, news, iraq, death+penalty, politics, opinion, analysis, middle+east, justice, new+york+times, dictator, saddam+hang, hanging, capital+punishment, legal, government, united+states, american, usa, saddam+trial, obituary, court

Spotlight on Syria: what we know, what they can do, their motives and actions, and more...

Spotlight on Syria ^{search, news}
General references: Wikipedia, CIA, BBC, FRD/LoC, DoS, CUL

Can this oppressive police state and fighter of Islamic extremism really be an ally to the US in its "war on terror" and troubles in Iraq? Yes. But can it happen in an okay manner accaptable to both Western and Middle Eastern powers?

President Bush critisizes Syria for its human rights — he shouldn't be one to talk, as Syrian leader points out on visit to Moscow. How free are the Syrian people?; how much can Syria do to help the Middle East? One must recognize that both the Syrian and American governments are fighting two common causes: Islamic extremism and human rights [in the process of fighting Islamic extremism or in the name of said fight].

Syria and Iran have become closer friends as of recent; the international community (especially the US) has moved further away from Iran recently. I plan to draw up a little map of Syria's social network soon to help clarify this whole international relation's web.


There is a surprising little amount of information about Syria — as I have found out when compiling and writing this post. The reason it is so surprising is the fact that Syria is in the news regularly and it is part of the geographical area called the Middle East. If there is ever no big news coming out of the mid-east, you know something is wrong. Syria was granted indipendence in 1946 after the French ended their rule over the former Ottoman Empire land.

First off, why is Syria so anti-Israel and anti-US, even siding with Iran (which it has not had an exactly peachy relationship with historically)? The fact that Israel occupies land that rightfully belongs to Syria, the Golan Heights, is one major element to Syria's foreign policy. As we all know and has been shown (especially recently), Arabs and others in the Middle East are very proud of their land; their land is extremely important to them. Israel is more powerful and fruitful than any other Middle Eastern state, so one may propose that the reason Arab states and peoples are so attached to their land is its all they definitively have. When Israel takes away land, this produces an extreme outcome — for reasons aforementioned. Imagine you have one toy, and your young neighbor has many better toys. Let's say your neighbor took away or threatened to take away your toy — or parts of it. You would feel extremely volatile. Tie in some nationalism and exploited cultural [extremism], and add the fact that many need land to survive, and you have an aspect of the Middle Eastern situation between Israel and the Arab states, in a nutshell.

The Golan Heights were captured by Israel during the 1967 Six Day War.

In a pre-emptive attack on Egypt that drew Syria and Jordan into a regional war in 1967, Israel made massive territorial gains capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula up to the Suez Canal. The principle of land-for-peace that has formed the basis of Arab-Israeli negotiations is based on Israel giving up land won in the 1967 war in return for peace deals recognising Israeli borders and its right to security. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to Egypt as part of the 1979 peace deal with Israel.

The peace talks between Israel and Syria over the Golan Heights stalled in January 2000. The Israeli control of this recognized area of Syria has led Syria to back the extremist security wing of Hezbollah, as well as other groups. Syria has also aided other Islamic and Arab terrorist organizations — whether directly or indirectly.

Syria has been receiving a plethora of refugees from strife-ridden nations such as Iraq and Palestine.

The Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton commission) report recommended the US work with Syria in the fight against Islamic extremism and the stablilizing of Iraq. This set off shockwaves through out Washington, making politicians, including President Bush, showing their ignorant cowboy international diplomacy mentality again. Meaning, 'we won't work with them unless they stop doing all their bad stuff' what is left out of this thinking is a sprinkle of reality '...even if its stuff we do and have control to stop without really harming ourselves, and work with us without incentive'. British PM Tony Blair has shown his support for talks with Syria and Iran, after all, you cannot be best friends with everyone you hold diplomatic discourse — or aim to do so — with!

Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively. In seeking to influence the behavior of both countries, the United States has disincentives and incentives available. Iran should stem the flow of arms and training to Iraq, respect Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and use its influence over Iraqi Shia groups to encourage national reconciliation. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programs should continue to be dealt with by the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany. Syria should control its border with Iraq to stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq.

The United States cannot achieve its goals in the Middle East unless it deals directly with the Arab-Israeli conflict and regional instability. There must be a renewed and sustained commitment by the United States to a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts: Lebanon, Syria, and President Bush’s June 2002 commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. This commitment must include direct talks with, by, and between Israel, Lebanon, Palestinians (those who accept Israel’s right to exist), and Syria.

As was reported about the ISG recommendations

The report said Bush should put aside misgivings and engage Syria, Iran and the leaders of insurgent forces in negotiations on Iraq’s future, to begin by year’s end. It urged him to revive efforts at a broader Middle East peace. Barring a significant change, it warned of a slide toward chaos.

Being left out of big matters which affect you directly equals hostility and unrest which does not equal peace.

Yet another significant dilemma is Syria's history with its neighbor, Lebanon. This relationship, which was heavily exposed after the 2005 killing of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri — possibly by the Syrian government — has obviously put Syria into the dominating roll over Lebanon. Syria pulled its troops out of Lebanon only last year [2005].

Syrians think of themselves as family, and believe strongly in the aspect of respect. Though people — including the press — can now critisize the parliment, prime minister, and others in the government, the president and army are off limits. Syria has been in a state of emergency effectively since 1963. Which is similar, but not absolutely comparable to, how the United States has been since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks. Believe it or not, Israel has declared war on — meaning technically been at war with — Syria since/after the Yom Kippur War. As of 2005, Syria was rated seven on a scale of one (most free) to seven (least free) by civil liberty and political rights group Freedom House. On the whole human rights front, an in-depth Amnesty International report lists and explanatorily delves into the abuses and status of human rights in Syria. A summary of the summary:

Freedom of expression and association remained severely restricted. Scores of people were arrested and hundreds remained imprisoned for political reasons, including prisoners of conscience and others sentenced after unfair trials. However, about 500 political prisoners were released under two amnesties. Torture and ill-treatment were common. Human rights defenders continued to face harassment. Women and members of the Kurdish minority continued to face discrimination.

So, yeah, Syria is horrible in regards to every aspect of human rights.

Another problem, besides human rights, with Syria is its relations to terrorist groups. Mind you, the Islamic brotherhood and many other groups are strongly condemned and against the law (can you say death penalty), but its anti-Israel groups like Hezbollah that get Syria's support. In a CFR report and recap of the whole Syria-Lebanon and Syria-terrorist shebang, a few key points should be noted:

Some experts characterize Syria’s involvement in terrorism as “passive support.” But Syria has been involved in numerous past terrorist acts and still supports several terrorist groups.

Syria—along with Iran—gives the Lebanese militia Hezbollah "substantial amounts of financial, training, weapons, explosives, political, diplomatic, and organizational aid," according to the State Department. Iranian arms bound for Hezbollah regularly pass through Syria, experts say.

The US and other powers should work with Syria while working with Israel in order to stifle Syria's terrorist group support. On the human rights front, the US should try to nudge Syria in the right direction and work on its own human rights situation. This will cover the fronts of Syria-terrorist, Syria-Iran, and Syria-Israel relations, and, by working with Syria and other Middle Eastern states, the US and international community can better Iraq as well as the states they are working with. Win for US, win for Syria, win for Iraq, win for Middle East and international political stability; good and bad for Israel; not too good for Iran (but they are in control of much of their fate in these matters).
technorati tags: syria, bush, international+relations, terrorism, war+on+terror, Islam, religious+extremism, human+rights, civil+liberties, politics, news, in+the+news, current, foreign+affairs, israel, golan+heights, diplomacy, baker+hamilton, iraq+study+group, harari, lebanon, freedom+house, united+states, profile, country, iran, syrian+society, international, foreign, world, middle+east, history, reference