El terrorismo de inspiración islámica se ha convertido en una de las principales amenazas para la paz y la convivencia a nivel internacional. Constituye, además, la principal amenaza terrorista para España. Partimos del convencimiento de que las medidas militares y las basadas en la seguridad son necesarias, pero en absoluto suficientes, siendo indispensables medidas socioeducativas a medio y largo plazo que, además, son las más valoradas por los musulmanes participantes en nuestro estudio para prevenir este fenómeno. En la presente tesis doctoral abordamos el terrorismo de inspiración islámica desde tres ejes: a. El mensaje formativo/persuasivo que Daesh y Al Qaeda transmiten a las mujeres musulmanas a través de sus revistas digitales oficiales; b. La opinión del profesorado de Religión Islámica en España y; c. La opinión de la comunidad musulmana en España. Utilizamos una metodología de investigación de enfoque mixto, con técnicas de recogida de datos cuantitativas y cualitativas. Analizamos la narrativa de Daesh y Al Qaeda haciendo uso del análisis de contenido cualitativo, con un sistema de dimensiones y categorías ad hoc. Calculamos la confiabilidad mediante Alpha de Krippendorff. Estudiamos todos los artículos de las revistas digitales oficiales de ambos grupos (Inspire, Dabiq y Rumiyah) destinados a las mujeres musulmanas y aquellos donde se refieren específicamente a ellas. Para abordar la opinión del profesorado de Religión Islámica nos basamos en un diseño explicativo secuencial. En una primera fase, recogemos los datos cuantitativos a través de un cuestionario ad hoc y, en una segunda fase, realizamos entrevistas semiestructuradas con el fin de profundizar en las respuestas obtenidas a través del cuestionario. La muestra participante en la fase cuantitativa está conformada por el 78% de los docentes que impartieron la asignatura en centros escolares públicos de España durante el curso académico 2018/19. En la fase cualitativa entrevistamos a un total de 13 docentes, siendo este el punto en el que alcanzamos la saturación teórica. Para conocer la opinión de la comunidad musulmana en España, empleamos un diseño descriptivo tipo encuesta con un cuestionario ad hoc. La muestra está conformada por un total de 1157 musulmanes. Para su selección, diseñamos nuestro propio marco muestral y utilizamos un muestreo polietápico. Ambos cuestionarios alcanzaron niveles óptimos de fiabilidad (Alpha de Cronbach), de validez de contenido (juicio de expertos y confiabilidad a través de Alpha de Krippendorff) y de constructo (Análisis Factorial Exploratorio con rotación Varimax y Escalamiento Multidimensional-No Métrico). Para el análisis de los datos cualitativos utilizamos la técnica de análisis de contenido cualitativo, siguiendo un criterio temático. Para la narrativa de Daesh y Al Qaeda empleamos una codificación mixta y para el análisis de las entrevistas y preguntas abiertas de los cuestionarios una codificación inductiva. Utilizamos el programa Atlas.ti versión 7.5. Los datos cuantitativos son analizados mediante análisis descriptivos (porcentajes, moda, media y desviación típica), correlacionales (Pearson, Spearman y Contingencia) e inferenciales (pruebas no paramétricas H de Kruskal-Wallis y U de Mann Whitney, y tamaño del efecto mediante coeficiente de correlación al cuadrado). Utilizamos el programa SPSS versión 26. Con respecto al mensaje que Daesh y Al Qaeda transmiten a la mujer musulmana, los resultados obtenidos permiten inferir factores que pueden hacerla más influenciable a la ideología de estos grupos. El profesorado de Religión Islámica es desconocedor de la introducción del terrorismo en el currículum de la asignatura. La mayoría no lo considera adecuado, al fomentar la idea de que solo los musulmanes son vulnerables al terrorismo. La mayoría del profesorado y de la comunidad musulmana en España indican el desconocimiento del islam como el motivo principal por el que se produce este fenómeno. Obtenemos una abrumadora oposición por parte de la comunidad musulmana en España a la justificación de la violencia en defensa propia ante injusticias cometidas contra los musulmanes. Tener un nivel formativo inferior, sentir que no pertenecen ni a España ni a su país de origen o al de sus padres, percibir mayor injusticia hacia los musulmanes como grupo, otorgar menos importancia al islam en su vida y estar en paro, se asociaron con una mayor justificación de la violencia. Propugnamos medidas educativas preventivas que, lejos de enfocarse en detectar posibles extremistas violentos, se centren en enseñar los fundamentos del islam. Especialmente, estimamos imprescindible la enseñanza contextualizada del concepto de yihad menor. También son ineludibles medidas sociales que presten atención, entre otras cuestiones, a posibles conflictos de identidad, sentimientos de injusticia percibida y de desarraigo entre los musulmanes en España, evitando el popular discurso del "choque de civilizaciones". Alertamos sobre el peligro de implementar medidas para prevenir este fenómeno sin tener en consideración la opinión de los implicados. De lo contrario, los efectos pueden ser contraproducentes. ; Islam-inspired terrorism now poses one of the main threats to peaceful coexistence at an international level. Furthermore, it is currently the main terrorist threat to Spain. We are convinced that military and security measures are necessary, but by no means sufficient, it being essential to adopt mid- and long-term measures which, moreover, are the most highly valued by the Muslims participating in our study for preventing this phenomenon. In this PhD thesis, we approach Islam-inspired terrorism from three perspectives: (a) The formative/persuasive message that Daesh and Al Qaeda convey to Muslim women through their official online magazines; (b) The views that Islamic religion teachers in Spain hold in this respect; and (c) The perception that the Muslim community in Spain has of this phenomenon. To this end, we employed a mixed model research methodology, with quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques. Specifically, we performed a qualitative discourse analysis on the subject matter of Daesh's and Al Qaeda's official online magazines, employing a specially designed system of dimensions and categories, while interrater reliability was calculated with Krippendorff's alpha coefficient. We examined all the articles published in the official online magazines of both groups (Inspire, Dabiq and Rumiyah) tailored to Muslim women and those in which specific reference was made to them. In order to become acquainted with the views of the Islamic religion teachers, we employed a sequential explanatory design. In the first stage, we collected quantitative data by administering a specially designed questionnaire and, in the second stage, we conducted semi-structured interviews with an eye to fleshing out the replies obtained in the questionnaire. In the quantitative stage, the sample was made up of 78 per cent of the Islamic religion teachers who were working at Spanish state schools during the academic year 2018/2019. In the qualitative stage, we interviewed 13 teachers, this being the point at which theoretical saturation was reached. In order to sound out the opinions of the Muslim community in Spain, we employed a survey-style descriptive design with a specially designed questionnaire. The sample was made up of 1,157 Muslims, who were selected on the basis of a multistage sampling frame. Both questionnaires reached optimal levels of reliability (Cronbach's alpha), content validity (expert judgements and Krippendorff's alpha coefficient) and construct validity (exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation and non-metric scaling). For the data analysis, we employed a qualitative content analysis technique, following a thematic criterion. As to the analysis of the discourses of Daesh and Al Qaeda, we used a mixed coding method, and as to that of the interviews and the open-response items in the questionnaires, an inductive coding method. The Atlas.ti programme (version 7.5.) was used for conducting all the analyses. ~ 14 ~ The quantitative data were analysed by means of descriptive (percentages, modes, medians and standard deviations), correlational (Pearson, Spearman and contingency coefficients) and inferential methods (Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H non-parametric tests, the effect size being calculated using the squared correlation coefficient). All these analyses were performed with the SPSS programme (version 26). With respect to the messages that Daesh and Al Qaeda transmit to Muslim women, the results obtained allow for identifying factors that may make them more susceptible to the ideology of these two groups. The Islamic religion teachers are unaware of the introduction of terrorism in the module's curriculum. Most consider it to be inadequate, insofar as it fosters the idea that only Muslims are vulnerable to terrorism. By and large, the Islamic religion teachers and the members of the Muslim community in Spain believe that a lack of knowledge of Islam is the main reason behind this phenomenon. We have observed that the vast majority of the members of the Muslim community in Spain are against the justification of violence in self-defence against the injustices to which Muslims are subjected. Possessing lower academic qualifications, feelings of not belonging in Spain or in their country of origin or in that of their parents, the perception of a greater level of injustice against Muslims than against other groups, attaching greater importance to Islam in daily life and being unemployed are associated with a greater justification of violence. We advocate for preventive educational measures that, rather than placing the accent on the detection of violent extremists, focus on the teaching of the foundations of Islam. Above all, we believe that a contextualised teaching of the concept of lesser jihad is imperative. Those social measures addressing, among other issues, possible identity conflicts, feelings of perceived injustice and rootlessness among Muslims in Spain are also essential, since this would help to avoid the 'clash of civilisations' discourse. We feel that it is necessary to warn against the implementation of measures for preventing this phenomenon, without first taking into account the views of the stakeholders. On the contrary, the results could be counterproductive.
The Situation In The Middle East Report Of The Secretary-General On The Implementation Of Security Council Resolutions 2139 (2014), 2165 (2014), 2191 (2014), 2258 (2015), 2332 (2016) And 2393 (2017) ; United Nations S/PV.8209 Security Council Seventy-third year 8209th meeting Monday, 19 March 2018, 3.20 p.m. New York Provisional President: Mr. Van Oosterom . (Netherlands) Members: Bolivia (Plurinational State of). . Mr. Inchauste Jordán China. . Mr. Shen Bo Côte d'Ivoire. . Mr. Tanoh-Boutchoue Equatorial Guinea. . Mr. Ndong Mba Ethiopia. . Mr. Alemu France. . Mr. Delattre Kazakhstan. . Mr. Tumysh Kuwait. . Mr. Alotaibi Peru. . Mr. Meza-Cuadra Poland. . Ms. Wronecka Russian Federation. . Mr. Kuzmin Sweden . Mr. Skoog United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland . Mr. Allen United States of America. . Ms. Eckels-Currie Provisional agenda The situation in the Middle East This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the translation of speeches delivered in other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room U-0506 (verbatimrecords@un.org). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org). 18-07515 (E) *1807515* S/PV.8209 The situation in the Middle East 19/03/2018 2/3 18-07515 The meeting was called to order at 3.20 p.m. Adoption of the agenda The President: The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor. Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): As far as I know, today's meeting was not scheduled in the Security Council's agreed programme of work for this month. Our delegation would be extremely grateful to you, Mr. President, if you could explain what exactly we are supposed to discuss at today's meeting and whom the Council plans to invite as briefers. The President: The representative of France has asked for the floor. Mr. Delattre (France) (spoke in French): France and six other Council members asked for this briefing to be held for both functional and substantive reasons. With regard to the functional reasons, in order to act, the Council should have at its disposal all the information it needs to understand the crises it considers, including information on human rights. That is particularly the case with Syria, where, as we all know, the human rights dimension has been inextricably linked to the dynamics of the conflict from the outset. There have been other briefings by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on situations on the Council's agenda. Syria should not and cannot be an exception. That brings me to the basic reason for our collective request. Our last such briefing on Syria, by then-High Commissioner Navi Pillay, was in 2014. Human rights are a fundamental aspect of the crisis that the Council has not dealt with since then, even though violations of human rights are at the heart of the conflict and its intensification, to the detriment of international peace and security. The briefing we decided to call for will therefore complement those that have been devoted to the humanitarian, chemical and political situations in Syria. If we do not have an understanding of the human rights dimension of the conflict in Syria and the potential solution to it, we are simply being unrealistic and in denial. Who could understand it? The regime, along with other parties, especially Da'esh, has violated people's rights not just as a consequence of the fighting but by using such violations as a chosen, deliberate weapon and instrument of control over territories and populations. Lastly, human rights are inseparable from a political settlement of the conflict. If the Council wishes to commit in good faith to ensuring that the same atrocities are not repeated, it must contribute to a political solution based on a Syrian society that offers inclusion for all its sectors, as well as institutions that respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Syrians. For all those reasons and others, France has called for this meeting and urges all members of the Council to express their willingness for it to be held. The President: The representative of the Russian Federation has asked for the floor to make a further statement. Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): The Russian Federation is opposed to holding today's meeting, as we immediately informed our colleagues on Friday, 16 March. We see no justification for such a meeting, since human rights is not a subject on the Security Council's agenda. That is what the Human Rights Council deals with in its work in Geneva. The mere presence of Mr. Ra'ad Hussein in New York is not a convincing reason for him to brief the Security Council. However, as I understand it, the French delegation, along with a number of others, has already explained the real reasons behind today's meeting. They want to hear about how the Syrian regime, as they refer to it, is violating the rights of its own people. I note once again that their subject is that infamous regime, rather than the extremists whom they openly support and who have been terrorizing the people of Syria for eight years now. That only confirms our fears about the deeply politicized nature of this initiative, which has nothing to do with concern for the Syrians. We would also like to ask the Secretariat to explain the reason for circulating to delegations a note on human rights in Syria from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, despite the fact that we did not request that information. The United Nations system is not organized so that any United Nations body can send the Security Council any information it feels like. We believe that the Secretariat blindly obeyed the delegations that decided to hold this briefing, in violation of the division of labour among the main organs of our Organization, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. In the circumstances, we believe it essential to cancel the meeting and we are 19/03/2018 The situation in the Middle East S/PV.8209 18-07515 3/3 therefore obliged to ask the President to put the issue to a procedural vote. The President: In view of the request of the Russian Federation and the comments made by members of the Council, I intend to put the provisional agenda to the vote. I now give the floor to those members of the Council who wish to make statements before the voting. Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): I would just like to explain that the item on our agenda, "The situation in the Middle East", is an existing agenda item and that of course we are not against it per se. What we are against is holding today's meeting in the format that has been proposed. Therefore, I would ask the President to formulate the question to reflect the fact this is a procedural vote. Ms. Eckels-Currie (United States of America): The United States strongly supports the holding of today's meeting and urges all Council members to support the procedural vote in favour of proceeding as planned today. The Russian Federation's continued efforts to obstruct the Council's work and its attention to grave and systemic human rights violations by the Russian Federation's allies are appalling, and the Council should not allow them to stand. Mr. Shen Bo (China) (spoke in Chinese): The Charter of the United Nations clearly outlines the functions of and divisions of labour among all the main organs of the United Nations. The primary role of the Security Council is to maintain international peace and security, not to consider human rights issues. Pushing the Security Council into discussing human rights issues erodes the functions of other United Nations organs and will not help us to find an effective solution to the issue. China opposes holding deliberations in the Security Council on such issues, and in particular on questions of human rights in Syria. The President: I would like to ask the representative of the Russian Federation to clarify what he wants to be put to a vote, if he wants a procedural vote. Mr. Kuzmin (Russian Federation) (spoke in Russian): We propose voting on whether the meeting should be held today or not. Obviously, we assume that the issue that should be put to the vote is whether today's meeting should be held in principle. We have not yet adopted the agenda for today's meeting. If we had, the meeting would take place. But that has not happened. The President: The Council is ready to proceed to the vote on the provisional agenda for today's meeting. I shall put the provisional agenda to the vote now. A vote was taken by show of hands. In favour: France, Kuwait, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America Against: Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation Abstaining: Côte d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia The President: The provisional agenda received 8 votes in favour, 4 votes against and 3 abstentions. The provisional agenda has not been adopted, having failed to obtain the required number of votes. The meeting rose at 3.35 p.m.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
With a whirlwind of dramatic events gripping the world's attention, it can be easy to forget that we are now less than one year away from the 2024 presidential election.Despite their expected focus on domestic issues, candidates will have a lot to answer for this cycle when it comes to foreign policy as the war in Ukraine drags on and U.S.-China relations continue to deteriorate.The Democratic Party has chosen not to hold debates despite growing concerns about President Joe Biden's chances next year. With only a couple of months to go before the primaries start, the Quincy Institute decided that it would be useful to survey Biden's challengers from the left on how they would handle a range of foreign policy issues if elected.The candidates' responses show interesting differences on a range of questions, from a potential Israeli-Saudi normalization deal to the possibility of using military force to fight the cartels in Mexico. The questionnaire went out before the October 7 Hamas attacks against Israel and the subsequent war in Gaza, but we pulled together candidates' reactions to the events where possible.We received responses from Democratic candidate Marianne Williamson as well as independent candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West. Biden's campaign declined to participate, so we have aggregated relevant quotes and information about the president's stances where possible. We did the same for Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who entered the race in late October and has not responded to our requests. We will update this page if we receive further responses.Biggest challenges to U.S. security; how to avoid war with China; potential negotiations to end the war in Ukraine; U.S. role in Saudi-Israeli normalization; withdrawing troops from Middle East; military force and the Mexican cartels; Israel-Hamas warWhat, in your view, are the three most pressing challenges to U.S. national security?Joe Biden (D)While President Biden has not directly addressed this question, his national security adviser said the following about the White House's 2022 National Security Strategy: "Our strategy proceeds from the premise that the two strategic challenges — geopolitical competition and shared transnational threats — are intertwined. We cannot build the broad coalitions we need to out-compete our rivals, if we sideline the issues that most directly impact the lives of billions of people." He further argued that "this is a decisive decade for shaping the terms of competition, especially with the PRC [China]. This is a decisive decade for getting ahead of the great global challenges — from climate to disease to emerging technology."Marianne Williamson (D)"The three most pressing challenges to U.S. national security are the nuclear threat, climate change, and our inability to go beyond the adversarial positioning in which countries view each other. We are closer to nuclear war than we've been in a long time. We must move towards a nuclear-free world, and we must begin by adopting a no first use policy. Once we adopt this policy, it will be much easier for us to get other nuclear-armed countries to do the same. There is no threat I am more concerned about than climate change. We are living through the last few years where we have a chance to save humanity. We must immediately undergo a just transition from a dirty fossil fueled economy to a clean renewable economy, and create millions of good jobs in the process. The time for incrementalism on climate is over. If we only view other countries through an adversarial lens, in terms of how they can harm or serve our interests, then we cannot deal with these crucial issues that challenge the security of all of us. We must work together with the international community for the common interest so that we can begin to deal with climate change, nuclear weapons, pandemics, and other threats."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"The most pressing challenges are the ones we have created ourselves. First is the risk of nuclear war, which belligerent and provocative U.S. policy has elevated to levels not seen since the Cold War.The second is the bankrupting of America's wealth, the result of decades of elevated military spending. The trillions spent on armaments could have gone toward building modern infrastructure, feeding and housing people, tackling chronic disease, and nourishing a thriving domestic economy.A third threat to national security is the epidemic of violence in our streets and in our homes. When we wage endless wars abroad, their mirror image afflicts us at home. Realistically, our nation is not threatened by an armed invasion by a foreign power. We have to broaden what we mean by 'national security' to include the things that actually make Americans feel insecure."Cornel West (I)"Climate Change: Climate change is not an endpoint that awaits us in the distant future, it is among us right now and impacting lives across the country and the entire world, especially the most vulnerable and most disadvantaged populations here in the U.S. — Black, Brown, Indigenous, and the poor. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), climate change-related damages cost the United States an estimated $165 Billion in 2022, Hurricane Ida, a Category 4 storm that massacred communities in Florida, including the loss of 150 lives, cost taxpayers approximately $112.9 Billion alone. Moreover, NOAA estimates that in the last 40 years, 341 storms exacerbated by climate change have cost the nation more than $2.5 Trillion. To put that into perspective, that's $80 Billion more than the national deficit of approximately $1.7 Trillion, thus far, for Fiscal Year 2023, and 1.5 percent of the national debt that stands at $161.7 trillion and counting. A nation already in massive debt, coupled with the astronomical costs of a growing climate crisis is the direct antithesis of national security. It's undeniable that more calamities associated with the climate crisis, including more powerful weather incidents that induce extreme flooding, extreme heat, and other environmental stressors, are inevitable. These events will have profound impacts on myriad systems and institutions that are necessary to maintain a livable society including, but not limited to, the production of food, access to clean water sources, the quality and availability of housing, transportation, education, and healthcare. The collapse of these systems could reasonably engender massive social unrest that would result in the massive displacement and forced migration of people as we are already witnessing with the United Houma Nation, Pointe-au Chien Indian Tribe, and Biloxi-Chitimacha-Choctaw of present-day Louisiana, who are the first federally recognized climate migrants, whose land is literally sinking due to oil and gas extraction in the Gulf of Mexico, which has rendered their land susceptible to the impacts of climate change. In fact, the United Nations Office of the High Commissions for Refugees has predicted that more than 200 million people, globally, will be forced to relocate due to climate change, including 40% of United Statesians who currently reside in coastal areas. From the atrocities of Hurricane Katrina to the current situation at the United States border with Mexico, we have already witnessed the consequences of climate-related breakdowns of social, economic, and other systems necessary to maintain quality of life and life itself breakdown all coupled with mass migration of innocent people seeking refuge.Increased Militarism: The United States is the single biggest military spender in the world with an annual budget roughly the size of the next seven largest military budgets combined. According to records kept by the National Priorities Project at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), in any given year, military spending accounts for over half of the federal government's annual discretionary budget. The U.S. military's bloated budget is utilized to build weapons and warcraft, which are in turn utilized to threaten other nations and demand their cooperation with the perceived U.S. military hegemony or offered to cooperative nations as part of military alliances. In FY 2023 alone, out of a $1.8 trillion federal discretionary budget, $1.1 trillion – or 62 percent – was for militarized programs. On top of war and weapons for the Pentagon, these expenditures include domestic militarism for police departments across the country and mass incarceration, as well as increased detentions and deportation, which represent direct threats to the security of Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor people in the United States. As we are witnessing right now, the current administration is complicit in thousands of civilian deaths by giving Israel military aid at $3.8 billion this year, half of which goes to Israel's missile system. They are now requesting a combined supplemental aid package at $106 billion for Israel along with Ukraine, Taiwan and the Indo-Pacific region, and US immigration enforcement at the US-Mexico southern border. To put this in perspective, combined with the estimated $113 billion in military aid the US has already sent to Ukraine, should the Congress grant President Biden's additional $105 billion package to Ukraine and Israel, this would represent almost 60% of the initially estimated $379 billion in climate change expenditures over 10 years included as part of the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. Further, the $105 billion military aid package to Israel and Ukraine is one hundred times the paltry $1 billion that the US pledged to the Green Climate Fund earlier this year, to fund climate mitigation and adaptation in the formerly colonized countries of Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Pacific. Our friends at IPS also indicate that the U.S. could safely redirect at least $350 billion from the Pentagon's current spending per year and achieve true security by ending wars, reducing our aggressive posture overseas, and reining in military contracts that drain public coffers for private gain - all measures that would actually increase national security, while making resources available for critical domestic needs including, but not limited to, increased access to healthcare, improving the nation's broken education system - including an iniquitous student loan debt crisis, and real action to address the climate crisis. With the largest military in the world, the US is the single largest greenhouse gas emitting institution and consumer of fossil fuels on the entire planet, with a carbon footprint bigger than 140 other countries. The environmental and climate impacts of global militarism and war are staggering. Militarization continues to increase greenhouse gas emissions and pollute and poison land, water and air through weapons production, storage, and use, which is ironic Defense Secretary, Lloyd Austin, himself recently declared, 'There is little about what the Defense Department does to defend the American people that is not affected by climate change. It is a national security issue, and we must treat it as such.'Rising White Supremacy and Nationalism: We have already observed how the interlinked crises of the calamities associated with climate change, which push those disproportionately impacted further to the margins and thereby increasing the militarization of the southern border, urban areas, and throughout the world to address associated entropy of social systems and infrastructure tends to increase sentiments that beguile far too many U.S. residents to embrace elements of white supremacy ideology, thereby increasing instances of violence and acceptance of authoritarian and fascist paradigms that represent clear and present dangers to national security – no one knows this better than the U.S. Department of Justice. In 2001, Attorney General, Merrick Garland admonished the Senate Appropriations Committee stating, in part, "Domestic violent extremists pose an elevated threat in 2021 and in the FBI's view, the top domestic violent extremist threat we face comes from racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists, specifically those who advocate for the superiority of the white race." This salient issue has the potential to literally tear our nation asunder. A nation this divided is itself a national security risk that can be taken advantage of by nations hostile to the U.S. due to imperialist and interventionist past and present foreign policies of our country and their lasting impacts to [a] marked number of nations across the globe. Dismantling growing white supremacy and nationalism will require a multifaceted and intersectional approach that seeks to deracinate the root causes of this epidemic that prevents the U.S. from living up to its best self while also remaining a seemingly indelible threat. This will require tying requisite economic relief from an oligarchic approach to wealth accumulation and redistribution that exacerbates the white supremacy ideology ensconced in the fabric of this nation in such a way that has been negatively radicalizing poor white folk who may not even realize how the capitalist domination system upheld by the political duopoly extract from them as much as non-white people they are bamboozled to hate and stigmatize. I am confident that my Economic Justice prescriptions that include establishing a federal Universal Basic Income commission, wealth tax on all billionaire holdings and transaction, ending all tax loopholes for the oligarchy, and establishing a national $27 minimum wage, with special considerations for specific geographies where $27/hour would not be a family-sustaining wage, will be key steps in eviscerating the rise of white supremacy and nationalism in our nation that hurts the people perpetrated against as much as the people doing the perpetrating."As president, what would you do to avoid a direct military confrontation with China?Joe Biden (D)Biden has not directly addressed this question since becoming president, but a White House readout from his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping last year gives a good summary of his administration's stated approach to relations with China. "President Biden explained that the United States will continue to compete vigorously with the PRC, including by investing in sources of strength at home and aligning efforts with allies and partners around the world. He reiterated that this competition should not veer into conflict and underscored that the United States and China must manage the competition responsibly and maintain open lines of communication. The two leaders discussed the importance of developing principles that would advance these goals and tasked their teams to discuss them further. President Biden underscored that the United States and China must work together to address transnational challenges – such as climate change, global macroeconomic stability including debt relief, health security, and global food security – because that is what the international community expects."Marianne Williamson (D)"We absolutely cannot have a direct military confrontation with China, which would be one step away from World War III and nuclear Armageddon. The U.S. must accept that we are in a multipolar world. While I am deeply concerned about China's authoritarianism and serious violations of human rights, I do not think that China is interested in invading the U.S. or in starting a war with us. While we should do what we can through peaceful diplomacy to lessen Chinese human rights violations, we cannot start World War III between two nuclear-armed countries. Our military must stop trying to encircle China in the South China Sea. Instead, we must talk to China and seek peaceful coexistence."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"We believe that China has no desire for military confrontation. We will therefore ratchet down the tensions and cease the provocations in the South China Sea and elsewhere. We will adopt a posture that does not see China as an 'adversary,' and begin to negotiate arms control treaties in good faith so that both countries can reduce military spending to better the lives of their citizens."Cornel West (I)"We all know where a direct military confrontation with the People's Republic of China (PRC) will lead — irreparable nuclear holocaust that will lead to the loss and alteration of hundreds of millions of innocent lives over a conflict engendered by two so-called superpowers. We need to be honest with the people of the world, the U.S. and PRC are currently in a cold war that must be thawed to save lives and a global economy both hanging in the balance. The first step in thawing the current cold war will require a cessation to the myriad proxy wars that use nations like Ukraine, Taiwan, and numerous global south nations from Africa to Southeast Asia, to Latin America as pawns in an arms and resource extraction race. As president I will cease the saber rattling and chest beating that are doing nothing but instigating the PRC with military war games in waterways of Southeast Asia such as the Sea of Japan, Yellow Sea, East China Sea and others. I am confident this will open pathways for diplomacy that leads to cooperation in lieu of competition with the PRC. I agree with the Quincy Institute's assessment that the current administration's rhetoric of competition with the PRC is a feckless attempt to marginalize and exclude the nation from the global community, which in turn pushes them to form alliances with nations the U.S. also finds itself in a contemporary cold war with including, but not limited to, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Russia. One area where I believe we should especially be cooperating rather than competing with the PRC is the climate crisis. While it's true that the PRC is the largest emitter in the world, the U.S. remains the largest historic emitter despite only representing five percent of the world's population. Planetary survival literally requires less finger pointing at who is most responsible for the climate crisis and more finger pointing towards mutual and cooperative solutions. And rather than compete with the PRC for requisite critical resources to develop the infrastructure for renewable energy and regenerative economies, we must cooperate with them such that we don't render the need to address the climate crisis into a rationalization for casus belli over possession critical resources that will also drag global south nations into proxy wars they want no part of. The PRC, the U.S., and the entire world has a collective interest in protecting lives and the planet from the impacts of climate change. As president, my first step in avoiding a military confrontation with the PRC would be to invite and work with them to be a leading partner in addressing the climate crisis by exchanging ideas, resources, and technologies that can rapidly emancipate both nations from reliance on fossil fuels, which will improve relations, cooperation, and the habitability of the planet at once, while also preventing a military confrontation that will take more lives than the climate crisis."Is it in the U.S. national interest for the president to convene negotiations in an effort to end the war in Ukraine?Joe Biden (D)Biden generally emphasizes that Ukraine should be the driving force behind any peace negotiations and has argued that Russian President Vladimir Putin has not shown signs that he is ready to negotiate. He has, however, helped to convene several international conferences to discuss a diplomatic path forward, one of which reportedly included discussions about concessions that Ukraine may make in exchange for peace. (The administration denied these reports.)Marianne Williamson (D)"Firstly, this question is framed in terms of the 'U.S. national interest,' but I think it's time we start concerning ourselves more with the interests of humanity as a whole than the interests of the American government or American corporations, which is usually what is meant by 'U.S. national interest.'Yes, I think the U.S. should convene negotiations with Russia and Ukraine. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a despicable crime, and we should support Ukraine and their autonomy. However, we need to do what we can to bring about a just but realistic peace. It seems extremely unlikely that either side in this conflict will have a complete victory over the other anytime soon, so if we don't want to let this draw out for two decades like our war in Afghanistan, then we should press for negotiations. I think that the withdrawn letter by progressive Congress members from last year that urged negotiations was a good and reasonable letter, and they should not have buckled to pressure and withdrawn it."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Yes. Current U.S. strategic thinking is that the war serves the national interest by weakening Russia. That thinking is faulty on two counts. First, it is not weakening Russia. Second, a weak and unstable Russia would make us much less secure, not more secure. The United States and the world will be best served when Russia knows that we are not out to destroy her."Cornel West (I)"The conflict between Ukraine and Russia is not going to be ameliorated by military means. With $113 billion of taxpayer dollars already sent to Ukraine leading to no more than an endless war of attrition, as well as poll numbers indicating dithering support for a series of blank checks to continue it, it's clear the people of the United States have had enough. It's not just in the national interest for a diplomatic solution to this conflict, it's the duty of the President of the United States to lead this process with our global partners in Europe, Asia, and Africa. As president, I will give Ukraine no other choice but to enter a diplomatic process as part of my commitment to cease all war funding and weapons to Ukraine and instead invest in peacemaking."If Saudi Arabia agreed to normalize relations with Israel but requested a guarantee from the United States to defend the Kingdom militarily in exchange, would you seek to ratify a treaty making that commitment?Joe Biden (D)President Biden has not directly commented on this proposal, but his administration has led the initiative to negotiate a defense commitment in exchange for normalization.Rep. Dean Phillips (D)Phillips has endorsed the Biden administration's approach. "Never did we imagine it possible in our lifetimes to see the possible normalization of relations between the Saudis and Israelis. It's an extraordinary and historic opportunity not just for these two countries, but for the entire world," he told NPR. "The United States plays a significant role relative to a defense pact with the Saudis equipment and materiel relative to their military and potentially a civilian nuclear program as well. If those things can be met and also meeting some of the needs of the Palestinians, this could be an extraordinary legacy at a time the world surely needs it." Marianne Williamson (D)"No. The U.S. cannot get involved in another war in the Middle East – especially not in order to defend Saudi Arabia, arguably the worst human rights violator in the region. It is time the U.S. stops aiding Saudi Arabia and Israel in their egregious human rights violations."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"We think the premise of this question to be unlikely. Saudi Arabia is armed to the teeth and has no need of such a guarantee. As it has good relations with most other nations, its [only] plausible national security threat is Iran. However, much of the Sunni-Shiite conflict in the past arose from U.S. geopolitical maneuvering that elevated tensions throughout the region."Cornel West (I)"I wouldn't even qualify this request as a treaty as it would be more of a death sentence for innocent civilians in the region and more service members, too many who have already been lost due to U.S. empire building in the Middle East, mainly to protect oil profits of fossil fuel cartels both domestically and globally. We need less iron domes and a more iron-clad diplomatic process that leads to lasting peace and mutual dignity for all people in the Middle East. To this end, as president I would insist that any normalization of relations between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the State of Israel include immediate steps to liberate Palestinian people from occupation and a wanton cycle of violence that's killing precious Palestinian and Israeli lives alike."As Commander-in-Chief, would you bring home the U.S. troops currently stationed in Iraq and Syria?Joe Biden (D)While Biden has not directly addressed this question, a senior Pentagon official recently said the U.S. "has no intent to withdraw in the near future" from Syria.Marianne Williamson (D)"Yes I would, but in Syria, I would first negotiate an agreement that ensures the Kurds will not be harmed before withdrawing the troops that are protecting them."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Yes. Those nations do not want our troops there. I will instigate bold peace initiatives in places where there are still military tensions, in some cases replacing troops with international peacekeepers."Cornel West (I)"As indicated in my Policy Pillars Rooted in a Movement of Truth, Justice, and Love, as president I would immediately embark on a responsible and expeditious closure of global U.S. military bases as part of a larger initiative to cease and desist U.S. empire building and maintenance and slash the bloated military budget, including the disbanding of NATO, such that we can reinvest those funds in myriad social and economic justice programs domestically. As tensions in the Middle East associated with the crisis in Palestine/Israel grow, the U.S. presence is only exacerbating an already incendiary situation while putting brave service people in harm's way for no other reason than to maintain U.S. empire and a military hegemony in a region that needs less bullets and rockets and more diplomacy. To this end, as president, I would bring those troops home immediately, honor them for their service and ensure a Just Transition so that they can use the skills they gained in the military and put them to use for beneficial services to the people of the U.S."If elected, would you request an authorization from Congress to use military force against drug cartels in Mexico?Joe Biden (D)Biden has not commented directly on calls to authorize military force against the cartels, but a National Security Council spokesperson said in April that the administration "is not considering military action in Mexico.""Designating these cartels as foreign terrorist organizations would not grant us any additional authorities that we don't already have," the spokesperson added.Marianne Williamson (D)"No. The U.S. has invaded and militarily intervened in Latin America time after time, and it has only brought violence and misery and fueled the immigration that we now complain about. It is time we reject the imperialist Monroe Doctrine, which declared Latin America our backyard. It is time we respect our neighbors to the south and stop invading their countries."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)"Absolutely not. The Mexicans have the power to overcome the drug cartels themselves. We can aid them by sharing intelligence, by shutting down the illegal weapons trade, by cracking down on money laundering activities of US banks, and by prosecuting the cartels' collaborators in this country."Cornel West (I)"Absolutely not. To be clear, asking the Congress for authorization to use military force in Mexico would essentially be asking Congress to approve a military invasion through a declaration of war against Mexico. The so-called war against drugs in the United States has been and continues to be an abject failure. This 50-year war has been used as a rationalization for crimes against humanity, especially those most marginalized by failed drug policies - Black, Brown, Indigenous and poor people, who have been subjected to a racialized and classist mass incarceration pogrom that has needlessly locked up over 400,000 people for non-violent drug-related crimes between 1980 and 1997 alone. A failed domestic drug war should not be an impetus to start a foreign drug war in the sovereign territory of one of our North American partners. It should instead be an impetus to enact efficacious policies that treat addiction as a national threat to public health. Instead of increasing militarism and launching a foreign war, we should declare war against the lack of access to healthcare and the lack of economic opportunities that contribute to drug use. Reducing and decriminalizing drug use in the United States will directly reduce the amount of drugs that are smuggled across the border, thereby reducing revenues for drug cartels in Mexico. This is less an issue of militarism and more an issue of addiction driven by supply and demand."Reactions to Israel-Hamas warJoe Biden (D)In a speech on Oct. 20, Biden said: "In Israel, we must make sure that they have what they need to protect their people today and always.The security package I'm sending to Congress and asking Congress to do is an unprecedented commitment to Israel's security that will sharpen Israel's qualitative military edge, which we've committed to — the qualitative military edge.We're going to make sure Iron Dome continues to guard the skies over Israel. We're going to make sure other hostile actors in the region know that Israel is stronger than ever and prevent this conflict from spreading.Look, at the same time, [Prime Minister] Netanyahu and I discussed again yesterday the critical need for Israel to operate by the laws of war. That means protecting civilians in combat as best as they can. The people of Gaza urgently need food, water, and medicine."Rep. Dean Phillips (D)In a long tweet, Phillips said, "The destruction of Hamas is necessary, but the military campaign must follow international law and conventions of civilized nations. [...]I support a pause in hostilities and the immediate safe passage of civilians from Gaza into temporary shelters in Egypt and/or Jordan and the largest humanitarian relief effort in world history.I am pro-Israeli and anti the Netanyahu government — and [its] enabling of settlements on Palestinian land. [...]Israel has a right to exist, defend itself, and ensure the terror and butchering of Oct 7 never happens again.Palestinians have a right to a nation of their own, and that begins with a free and fair election for the first time since 2006 in which a choice can be made; peace or war.Israelis must also be afforded the same right to choose peace or war."Marianne Williamson (D)Williamson tweeted: "For Israel to prosecute an all out war on Gaza is already a catastrophe for the people of Gaza. It can easily become a catastrophe for the people of Israel as well. There's no end game there, for them or for the rest of the world, that doesn't multiply the horror. The United States should join an international consortium — Egypt, Jordan and others — in efforts to secure release of the hostages and cessation of the bombing."Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (I)On Oct. 7, Kennedy said the following in a statement: "This ignominious, unprovoked, and barbaric attack on Israel must be met with world condemnation and unequivocal support for the Jewish state's right to self-defense. We must provide Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself — now. As President, I'll make sure that our policy is unambiguous so that the enemies of Israel will think long and hard before attempting aggression of any kind.I applaud the strong statements of support from the Biden White House for Israel in her hour of need. However, the scale of these attacks means it is likely that Israel will need to wage a sustained military campaign to protect its citizens. Statements of support are fine, but we must follow through with unwavering, resolute, and practical action. America must stand by our ally throughout this operation and beyond as it exercises its sovereign right to self-defense."Kennedy later warned against using the attacks and subsequent war as a justification for war with Iran. "It didn't take long for the neocons in Washington to spin the Hamas terror attacks to advance their agenda of war against Iran," he tweeted on Oct. 27. "If President Biden doesn't resist them, they might get their wish."Cornel West (I)
In a recent statement, West said, "US taxpayers want no part in funding the Israeli war machine that is committing genocidal war crimes in Gaza. We need stronger, clearer headed representation like this within our highest levels of government." He has also said, "We want a ceasefire. We want an end of the siege. We want an end of occupation. We want equal rights, equal dignity, and equal access for Palestinians and Jews."
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
"The library looms as the next big confrontation in the culture war," the Atlantic reports, and President Biden, our Culture‐Warrior‐in‐Chief, is itching for the fight. "The president signaled a new approach in his late‐April announcement video, when he cited book bans as evidence for his accusation that Republicans in the Donald Trump era are targeting Americans' 'personal freedom.'" Not today, Satan—not on Joe Biden's watch. "We're taking on these civil rights violations, because that's what they are," Biden told the crowd at the White House Pride Celebration in June: "book bans may violate the federal civil rights laws when they target LGBTQ students or students of color and create hostile classroom environments." When that happens, local school districts will face the wrath of the new federal Czar of the Middle‐School Library. "Students have a right to learn free from discrimination," the president's top domestic policy advisor, Neera Tanden, explains, but "across the country, our nation faces a dangerous spike in book bans [targeting] LGBTQI+ communities." Accordingly, the administration is appointing a new "coordinator" in the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights who'll bring the full force of the federal government to bear in this fight. I wrote recently that Biden's new Title IX edicts make him "Commander‐in‐Chief of the Girls' Room"; with this latest move, he can add "Boss of the Bookmobile" to his collection of extraconstitutional titles. It's an absurd power‐grab based on the flimsiest of pretexts—and it's certain to make America's cultural conflicts worse.
The White House, like much of the press, has been cagey and duplicitious when it comes to what the "book‐banning" controversy is really about. In Biden's reelection video, for example, while the president rails against "MAGA extremists… banning books," the camera shows a stack of titles including Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man and Harper Lee's To Kill a Mockingbird. Atticus Finch in the dock? Maybe in a few notorious MAGA strongholds like, er, Los Angeles and Seattle, where Lee's novel has been pulled from the curriculum for its insensitive "white‐savior" storyline. But the real school‐library fight centers on a quite different class of books. In both the PEN America and American Library Association "most banned" lists, number one by a wide margin is Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer, a "graphic novel" that's decidedly Not Safe For Work and—arguably!—inappropriate for a grammar‐school library. Others in the ALA's top 10 include: All Boys Aren't Blue (#2), (depictions of underage cousin‐incest) Lawn Boy (#7), "which describes 10‐year‐old boys performing oral sex on each other"; and This Book Is Gay (#10), which includes advice on mutual masturbation—"something they don't teach you in school"(!)—and "instructions on how to use Grindr to find sex partners.") The ACLU and former president Barack Obama have recently encouraged public‐spirited Americans to start Banned Books clubs. I'd love to see the face of any earnest suburban liberal who signs up expecting a refresher course in Vonnegut and Steinbeck. In any event, if you'd like a clearer picture of what some parents are objecting to, in their new study, "The Book Ban Mirage," AEI's Max Eden and Heritage's Jay P. Greene and Madison Marino helpfully screenshot many of the offending passages. As for the supposed "dangerous spike in book bans," Eden, Greene, and Marino show that activists are playing fast and loose with the term "banned." PEN America's definition is broad enough to include "any action taken against a book" that leads to "restricted" or "diminished" access for any period of time. Temporarily removed then reshelved after review? "Banned." Moved from the middle‐school library to the high‐school shelves? "Banned." Removed from a recommended reading list but still on the library shelves? "Banned." In fact, when Eden et al. decided to check online school library catalogs against the PEN index of "banned" books, they found that: "74 percent of the books that PEN America lists as banned are listed as available in the same districts from which PEN America says those books were banned."
Still, the authors managed to find a few localities where kids can no longer check out some of the spicier tomes on PEN's List. So what? There are over 13,000 school districts in the United States; are we supposed to think Our Democracy is imperiled because a couple dozen of them took Gender Queer off their library shelves? Reports of a wave of book‐banning Babbittry have been greatly exaggerated. But to be fair to PEN America, the organization does document some serious cases of legislative overreach by Red‐state politicians claiming to speak for concerned parents. Last year, for example, Missouri made it a misdemeanor offense, carrying possible jail time, for librarians to provide "explicit sexual material" to students. That's nutty: decisions about what goes on school‐library shelves should be made at the local level, not forcibly dictated from the state house. Still less should those decisions be dictated from Washington, D.C.: if the taxpayers in a local school district don't want Gender Queer or This Book Is Gay in their kids' library, it's none of Joe Biden's business. That's not how Biden sees things, unfortunately; in the president's view, it's his right and duty to make a federal case out of how school libraries stock their shelves. In January, according to the Washington Post, the Biden administration embarked on its "first test of a new legal argument that failing to represent students in school books can constitute discrimination." In early 2022, the Granbury Independent School District in North Texas removed multiple LGBTQ‐focused books from its libraries for review, ultimately deciding to return most of them to the shelves. Only three books, including This Book Is Gay (the one "that teaches kids about anal sex, oral sex, and hookup apps"), were permanently removed. The ACLU hit back with a federal civil rights complaint charging that the district had "actively facilitated discrimination and hateful rhetoric" in violation of Title IX. As the Post noted: "If the government finds in the ACLU's favor, the determination could have implications for schools nationwide, experts said, forcing libraries to stock more books about LGBTQ individuals and… ensur[e] student access to books that some Americans, especially right‐leaning parents, deem unacceptable.
The Granbury investigation is still in progress, but in May, OCR reached a settlement in a similar case involving a suburban Atlanta school system. Here, the Biden administration advanced the novel theory that, even if the school district itself doesn't discriminate, it can be held accountable for a "hostile environment" created by parents' comments at a school board meeting. The Forsyth County School District's trouble started in January 2022, when it temporarily removed eight books following parent complaints. After review, they returned seven of eight to the library shelves, excluding only one, the aforementioned All Boys Aren't Blue. FCS soon found itself subject to a federal civil rights investigation into whether the removal of those books created a "racially and sexually hostile environment for students." In its May 19 letter announcing the resolution of that case, the Office for Civil Rights admits that Forsyth County wasn't engaged in an anti‐gay book purge: it had "limited its book screening process to sexually explicit material." "Nonetheless," OCR chides, "communications at board meetings conveyed the impression that books were being screened to exclude diverse authors and characters, including people who are LGBTQI+ and authors who are not white, leading to increased fears and possibly harassment." OCR found it troubling that during a February 15 board meeting: "some [parents'] comments focused on removing books for reasons related to gender identity or sexual orientation. Also some parents made negative comments about diversity and inclusion or critical race theory."
The OCR letter doesn't specify what those comments were, but according to press coverage of the Board meeting, they included statements like "Do you think it's healthy for 8‑year‐olds to be exposed to books which encourage transgenderism, sexualization and masturbation?"
and "CRT, DEI, SEL, or any other name you give it is not harmless…. No more lies, such as 'DEI's purpose is to teach children that there are different cultures that eat different foods. Really?"
Scandalous wrongthink—and in the presence of children, no less! According to OCR, parents' statements at the board meeting contributed to a potential "racially and sexually hostile environment," which the district failed to adequately address with "supportive measures" for afflicted students. To get the feds off their back, Forsyth County Schools had to agree to a number of humiliating terms. Per the Resolution Agreement, FCS must: Publicly Pledge Fealty to DEI Thought: "in locations readily available to the District's middle and high school students," FCS shall post a statement affirming that "the District strives to provide a global perspective and promote diversity by including in school libraries materials about and by authors and illustrators of all cultures"; Help Aggrieved Students Sic the Feds on Their School: that statement will also provide "any student who feels impacted by the environment surrounding the removal of books" with "information about how to file a complaint about discrimination or harassment" under Title IX and Title VI; Take a Long, Hard Look in the Mirror: "The District will administer a school climate survey" on the prevalence of book‐related and other harassment in its middle and high schools; and "assess whether any additional student or other training is needed to further improve the climate." Look, this is a wealthy school district with plenty of tax dollars to go around: why shouldn't the DEI‐consultant industry get a taste? …all this because school officials took a book featuring underage cousin‐incest off their middle‐school library shelves. As the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes, OCR's strong‐arm tactics succeeded here despite the fact that "there is no legal authority that [says] failure to 'promote diversity' violates federal anti‐discrimination law. If OCR thinks it can require schools to affirmatively 'promote diversity'— a term left undefined — what else does the agency think it can get away with?"
I suppose we'll find out as Biden's new school‐library czar gets to work.
Maps and visual representations in general are powerful tools of propaganda and construction of the "other" that perpetrators of genocide employ in different ways and in different contexts and depending on audience, purpose, and stage of genocide. Maps and visual representations are also powerful tools to denounce genocide and are used by the victims to relate, remember, and communicate their experience. These topics will be discussed in the context of the Holocaust and focusing specifically on cartographic design. The role of propaganda, semiotics, the concept of "myth," and iconography will be briefly discussed to frame the theoretical context of the presentation. These topics are part of a broader research agenda on the geographies and cartographies of genocide that I have been engaged in for several years. In particular, I am interested in how cartography, geography and GIScience may contribute to defining, studying, and understanding past genocides, and, hopefully, help preventing future ones. As the majority of my past and current research has been on the Holocaust, the examples discussed in my presentation are relative to that specific genocide. To start with, it is useful to review and define what genocide is and who its perpetrators are. Genocide has been defined in various ways. According to the United Nations (1951), genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This definition stresses the physical destruction of the group targeted by direct or indirect methods, such as the prevention of births by members of the group or the forcible transfer of children from the targeted group to another group. Harff and Gurr (1988) highlight the role of the State and the policy dimensions of genocide: "by our definition, genocide… is the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group." Katz (1994) remarks the fact that it is the perpetrator that defines who the targeted victims and groups: ".the actualization of the intent, however successfully carried out, to murder in its totality any national, ethnic, racial, religious, political, social, gender or economic group, as these groups are defined by the perpetrator, by whatever means." However defined, genocide is carried out in stages that may vary temporally and geographically, as well as in the methods used to commit it, and this is especially the case when acts of genocide are committed over a long period of time and over a large area, as the Holocaust as well as the Armenian genocide, on which I have also worked, show well. Hampton (1986) has proposed a model of the stages of genocide – later modified and redefined, by Stanton (2013) and others – that identifies eight steps, more or less in succession, that include classification ("us vs them"), symbolization ("Jews", "Germans", "Tutsi", swastikas, yellow stars), dehumanization (one group denies the humanity of members of another group and calls them "vermin," rats," or "cockroaches"), organization (as a group crime, as opposed to an individual act, genocide needs to be organized, usually by the State), polarization (this is when rhetoric is ramped up, legislation is introduced, extremists emerge, and political moderates are silenced), preparation (victims are forced to wear identifying symbols, lists are made, victims separated from rest of population, for example in ghettos), extermination (words such as "extermination" or "cleansing" are typically used since the victims are explicitly defined as not fully humans by the perpetrators), and denial (this is always present and starts as soon as during and immediately after the extermination stage, and can outlive the perpetrators themselves; denial includes the destruction of evidence, the destruction of the reputation and credibility of the survivors or witnesses, the claim that deaths were due to famine, migration, disease or, as in the Armenian genocide, all of the above plus the effects of WW1, and – as an ultimate insult – the blaming of the victims themselves). Once genocide is defined and its stages are identified, a third element is crucial to its understanding: why people commit genocide. Doing so is needed to determine what role maps play in genocide from the perspective of both perpetrators and victims. Several models have been proposed to try and explain why seemingly normal individuals engage in genocide, and models have even been proposed to estimate the likelihood of genocide happening in a given society at a certain time. Waller's model (2005) is perhaps the most influential and, in my opinion, the most convincing. I will discuss Waller's work in more detail during my presentation; here, let just say that the model identifies "ultimate influences" (human nature) as well as "proximate influences" as the reasons why people commit genocide. Most interesting in the context of my research are the "proximate influences," which include the cultural construction of worldviews, the psychological construction of the "other," and the social construction of cruelty. In turn, these "proximate influences" are historicized, i.e., they take different forms in different places at different times depending on the specific context. Thus, the indoctrination of SS members during the Holocaust included collectivistic values, authority orientation, and social dominance ( cultural influences ); "us vs. them" mentality, moral disengagement, and the blaming of the victims ( psychological influences ); professional socialization, group identification, and the identification of binding factors for the group ( social influences ). Maps, and images in general (including posters, paintings, movies and other forms of mass communications), can and do play a role in all of the "proximate stages" in Waller's model. In my presentation, as an illustration and for brevity, I will show examples of psychological proximate influences, including the construction of the "other," and in particular I will discuss strategies for the definition, communication, and mass diffusion of an "us vs. them" mentality, the gradual construction and spreading of "moral disengagement" among the perpetrators, and, also among the perpetrators (but also among the bystanders of genocide), the gradual development of a "blaming the victim" mentality to justify active participation, or at least acquiescence, to genocide. In general, to understand the role maps play in this context it is useful to refer to the literature on propaganda and on semiotics, and cartographers have traditionally written about these topics. Perhaps less studied, although not less useful general and specifically in the context of genocide and the definition of the "other," is an iconographical (or iconological) approach; borrowed from art history, this is an especially complex and difficult technique to apply to the interpretation and study of maps, but a promising one. In my presentation I will touch on semiotics, propaganda, and iconography as well as reference and discuss Roland Barthes and his definition of the concept of "myth," which I believe play a central role, one that overlaps all "proximate influences" as defined above, to explain how maps and images relate to genocide. In the final part of my presentation, I will show examples of the use of maps by perpetrators and victims of genocide. From the perpetrators' perspective, myth and propaganda work together in the service of the State; crucial to the effectiveness of genocide, propaganda and the creation of myths have to be monopolies of the State or they will not work effectively. Nazi Germany was especially effective and efficient from this point of view, with a body of work that I will introduce that include both images and writings from Nazi leaders and propagandists. Referring back to the stages of genocide discussed above, I will make the case that different cartographic design principles are applied for the first six stages ( classification, symbolization, dehumanization, organization, polarization, and preparation ) of genocide – as well as the psychological construction of the "other" – as opposed to the seventh ( extermination ) stage. Interestingly, from the point of view of cartographic design, there is a distinct similarity between the maps and images produced by the victims and those produced by the perpetrators, at least as far as the first six stages of genocide are concerned. As I will show in the presentation, this argument is better made via examples, tables, and direct comparisons of design elements, but to briefly summarize my point, depending on their purpose and audience, genocide maps are intended to be alternatively unambiguous or euphemistic, for the masses or for the military and/or political elites, impressionistic or emotional rather than rational and scientific, for public consumption or for private and secret use. In terms of specific elements of design, it is possible to identify the intended audience, purpose, and genocide stage in terms of the use of muted vs. saturated colors, the presence or absence of a legend, the use or not use of graduated symbols and arrows, the scale of the map, how visual contrast is employed to highlight certain elements, the use of black and white, etc. As concerns more specifically the seventh stage of genocide – extermination – this is when the application of the methods and tools of scientific cartography become the urgent preoccupation of the perpetrators, as many examples from the Nazi archives prove; hence, the search for accuracy and precision in the representation of places, times, and themes, including the insistence on the exactness of measurements, the standardization of design elements, and in general the teaching and application of clear, unambiguous, and replicable designs and methods to make maps. Briefly put, maps produced for the extermination of the victims are characterized as the triumph of denotation and technology, while in the previous six stages connotation and the creation of "myth" are guiding principles by which maps are designed and produced, and their effectiveness is measured. In my conclusions, I will remark on the fact that as much as maps (and, by extension and in the present time, GIS) have been used and will continue to be used to commit genocide, they can also be effectively used to counteract and denounce genocide. To do so, one should learn how to exploit propaganda techniques and how to use the theories of semiotics and iconography and the idea of myth to counter-map and resist genocide.
Maps and visual representations in general are powerful tools of propaganda and construction of the "other" that perpetrators of genocide employ in different ways and in different contexts and depending on audience, purpose, and stage of genocide. Maps and visual representations are also powerful tools to denounce genocide and are used by the victims to relate, remember, and communicate their experience. These topics will be discussed in the context of the Holocaust and focusing specifically on cartographic design. The role of propaganda, semiotics, the concept of "myth," and iconography will be briefly discussed to frame the theoretical context of the presentation. These topics are part of a broader research agenda on the geographies and cartographies of genocide that I have been engaged in for several years. In particular, I am interested in how cartography, geography and GIScience may contribute to defining, studying, and understanding past genocides, and, hopefully, help preventing future ones. As the majority of my past and current research has been on the Holocaust, the examples discussed in my presentation are relative to that specific genocide. To start with, it is useful to review and define what genocide is and who its perpetrators are. Genocide has been defined in various ways. According to the United Nations (1951), genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. This definition stresses the physical destruction of the group targeted by direct or indirect methods, such as the prevention of births by members of the group or the forcible transfer of children from the targeted group to another group. Harff and Gurr (1988) highlight the role of the State and the policy dimensions of genocide: "by our definition, genocide… is the promotion and execution of policies by a state or its agents which result in the deaths of a substantial portion of a group." Katz (1994) remarks the fact that it is the perpetrator that defines who the targeted victims and groups: ".the actualization of the intent, however successfully carried out, to murder in its totality any national, ethnic, racial, religious, political, social, gender or economic group, as these groups are defined by the perpetrator, by whatever means." However defined, genocide is carried out in stages that may vary temporally and geographically, as well as in the methods used to commit it, and this is especially the case when acts of genocide are committed over a long period of time and over a large area, as the Holocaust as well as the Armenian genocide, on which I have also worked, show well. Hampton (1986) has proposed a model of the stages of genocide – later modified and redefined, by Stanton (2013) and others – that identifies eight steps, more or less in succession, that include classification ("us vs them"), symbolization ("Jews", "Germans", "Tutsi", swastikas, yellow stars), dehumanization (one group denies the humanity of members of another group and calls them "vermin," rats," or "cockroaches"), organization (as a group crime, as opposed to an individual act, genocide needs to be organized, usually by the State), polarization (this is when rhetoric is ramped up, legislation is introduced, extremists emerge, and political moderates are silenced), preparation (victims are forced to wear identifying symbols, lists are made, victims separated from rest of population, for example in ghettos), extermination (words such as "extermination" or "cleansing" are typically used since the victims are explicitly defined as not fully humans by the perpetrators), and denial (this is always present and starts as soon as during and immediately after the extermination stage, and can outlive the perpetrators themselves; denial includes the destruction of evidence, the destruction of the reputation and credibility of the survivors or witnesses, the claim that deaths were due to famine, migration, disease or, as in the Armenian genocide, all of the above plus the effects of WW1, and – as an ultimate insult – the blaming of the victims themselves). Once genocide is defined and its stages are identified, a third element is crucial to its understanding: why people commit genocide. Doing so is needed to determine what role maps play in genocide from the perspective of both perpetrators and victims. Several models have been proposed to try and explain why seemingly normal individuals engage in genocide, and models have even been proposed to estimate the likelihood of genocide happening in a given society at a certain time. Waller's model (2005) is perhaps the most influential and, in my opinion, the most convincing. I will discuss Waller's work in more detail during my presentation; here, let just say that the model identifies "ultimate influences" (human nature) as well as "proximate influences" as the reasons why people commit genocide. Most interesting in the context of my research are the "proximate influences," which include the cultural construction of worldviews, the psychological construction of the "other," and the social construction of cruelty. In turn, these "proximate influences" are historicized, i.e., they take different forms in different places at different times depending on the specific context. Thus, the indoctrination of SS members during the Holocaust included collectivistic values, authority orientation, and social dominance (cultural influences); "us vs. them" mentality, moral disengagement, and the blaming of the victims (psychological influences); professional socialization, group identification, and the identification of binding factors for the group (social influences). Maps, and images in general (including posters, paintings, movies and other forms of mass communications), can and do play a role in all of the "proximate stages" in Waller's model. In my presentation, as an illustration and for brevity, I will show examples of psychological proximate influences, including the construction of the "other," and in particular I will discuss strategies for the definition, communication, and mass diffusion of an "us vs. them" mentality, the gradual construction and spreading of "moral disengagement" among the perpetrators, and, also among the perpetrators (but also among the bystanders of genocide), the gradual development of a "blaming the victim" mentality to justify active participation, or at least acquiescence, to genocide. In general, to understand the role maps play in this context it is useful to refer to the literature on propaganda and on semiotics, and cartographers have traditionally written about these topics. Perhaps less studied, although not less useful general and specifically in the context of genocide and the definition of the "other," is an iconographical (or iconological) approach; borrowed from art history, this is an especially complex and difficult technique to apply to the interpretation and study of maps, but a promising one. In my presentation I will touch on semiotics, propaganda, and iconography as well as reference and discuss Roland Barthes and his definition of the concept of "myth," which I believe play a central role, one that overlaps all "proximate influences" as defined above, to explain how maps and images relate to genocide. In the final part of my presentation, I will show examples of the use of maps by perpetrators and victims of genocide. From the perpetrators' perspective, myth and propaganda work together in the service of the State; crucial to the effectiveness of genocide, propaganda and the creation of myths have to be monopolies of the State or they will not work effectively. Nazi Germany was especially effective and efficient from this point of view, with a body of work that I will introduce that include both images and writings from Nazi leaders and propagandists. Referring back to the stages of genocide discussed above, I will make the case that different cartographic design principles are applied for the first six stages (classification, symbolization, dehumanization, organization, polarization, and preparation) of genocide – as well as the psychological construction of the "other" – as opposed to the seventh (extermination) stage. Interestingly, from the point of view of cartographic design, there is a distinct similarity between the maps and images produced by the victims and those produced by the perpetrators, at least as far as the first six stages of genocide are concerned. As I will show in the presentation, this argument is better made via examples, tables, and direct comparisons of design elements, but to briefly summarize my point, depending on their purpose and audience, genocide maps are intended to be alternatively unambiguous or euphemistic, for the masses or for the military and/or political elites, impressionistic or emotional rather than rational and scientific, for public consumption or for private and secret use. In terms of specific elements of design, it is possible to identify the intended audience, purpose, and genocide stage in terms of the use of muted vs. saturated colors, the presence or absence of a legend, the use or not use of graduated symbols and arrows, the scale of the map, how visual contrast is employed to highlight certain elements, the use of black and white, etc. As concerns more specifically the seventh stage of genocide – extermination – this is when the application of the methods and tools of scientific cartography become the urgent preoccupation of the perpetrators, as many examples from the Nazi archives prove; hence, the search for accuracy and precision in the representation of places, times, and themes, including the insistence on the exactness of measurements, the standardization of design elements, and in general the teaching and application of clear, unambiguous, and replicable designs and methods to make maps. Briefly put, maps produced for the extermination of the victims are characterized as the triumph of denotation and technology, while in the previous six stages connotation and the creation of "myth" are guiding principles by which maps are designed and produced, and their effectiveness is measured. In my conclusions, I will remark on the fact that as much as maps (and, by extension and in the present time, GIS) have been used and will continue to be used to commit genocide, they can also be effectively used to counteract and denounce genocide. To do so, one should learn how to exploit propaganda techniques and how to use the theories of semiotics and iconography and the idea of myth to counter-map and resist genocide.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The Atlantic recently published a critical review of the new book by Tom Schaller and Paul Waldman, White Rural Rage: the Threat to American Democracy. The review, by Tyler Austin Harper, concluded by saying that they were not just wrong, but had it backwards--the threat is from the cities and suburbs: "Schaller and Waldman are right: There are real threats to American democracy, and we should be worried about political violence. But by erroneously pinning the blame on white rural Americans, they've distracted the public from the real danger. The threat we must contend with today is not white rural rage, but white urban and suburban rage.Instead of reckoning with the ugly fact that a threat to our democracy is emerging from right-wing extremists in suburban and urban areas, the authors of White Rural Rage contorted studies and called unambiguously metro areas 'rural' so that they could tell an all-too-familiar story about scary hillbillies. Perhaps this was easier than confronting the truth: that the call is coming from inside the house. It is not primarily the rural poor, but often successful, white metropolitan men who imperil our republic."The report that Harper links to says: "the more rural a county, the lower its rate of sending insurrectionists, a finding which is significant with a p-value <.01%." A just-published paper by Robert A. Pape, Kyle D. Larson, Keven G. Ruby in PS: Political Science and Politics gives a more detailed analysis. The results are from a negative binomial regression in which the dependent variable is the number of people from a county who were charged with crimes related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol. The number is estimated to be 2.88 times as large in urban than in rural counties, controlling for other factors. Of course, the population of the county is one of the other factors. But a negative binomial regression predicts the logarithm of the dependent variable and their control is population (in 100,000s). The estimated coefficient for population is .148, meaning that the natural log of the predicted number of insurrectionists goes up by .148 for every 100,000 increase in county population. If the natural log of the predicted number goes up by .148, the predicted number goes up by about 15%.* If you're starting from a population of 1,000, an increase of 100,000 means that population goes up by a factor of of about 100; if you're starting from a population of 1,000,000, it's 10%; if you're starting from a population of 5,000,000, it's only 2%. So the model controlling for population builds in a relationship between county population and the chance that a person will be an insurrectionist: declining and then increasing. The figure shows the nature and size of the relationship using their estimate:The number 1 on the y-axis represents the rate in a county of average size (about 100,000). In a county with population of 10,000, the rate is about 8.5; in a county with 500,000, it's about .4, and in one of 5,000,000, it's about 80. The biggest county in the United States (Los Angeles) has a population of about 10,000,000, but I don't extend the x-axis that far because it would make the figure too hard to read. Of course, there is no reason to expect that there really is a relationship of this form.A straightforward alternative would be to model the rate--number of insurrectionists (x) divided by county population (n). But log(x/n)=log(x)-log(n), so you could express that by a regression with log(x) as the dependent variable and log(n) as one of the predictors. Then a coefficient of 1.0 on log(n) would mean that the rate was the same across different county populations; a coefficient of less than one would mean it was higher in counties with smaller populations and a coefficient of greater than 1.0 would mean it was higher in counties with larger populations. What happens if you use log(population) rather than population as a control variable? Population Log% white population decline .111*** .035 (.019) (.020)manufacturing employment decline .011 -.006 (.0054) (.006)extra Trump % -.039*** .003 (.0081) (.0082)% non-Hispanic white .009*** .014*** (.0033) (.003)Metro county 1.095*** .326* (.1335) (.135)Distance to DC -.304*** -.210*** (.0623) (.051)(log) population .148*** .999*** (.0210) (.056) The fit of the model with the logarithm as control is better. Several of the estimates for the other variables change substantially. The estimate for metro counties is still statistically significant, but not overwhelmingly so (p=.019), and is much smaller than when using population. So I don't think that the evidence justifies sweeping condemnation of urban and suburban men.I have experimented with other specifications of the model, but this is enough for one post. *My figures are from my analyses using their replication data file, which are slightly different from the numbers implied by their tables.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
I woke up in the middle of the night because I am old and I ate and drank too much. I couldn't resist schnitzel and strudel as I am in Vienna for a talk and for some other shenanigans (more on that in another post). And then I saw Phil Lagassé's post on the Conservatives and if they might spend on defence if elected. On that general topic, I am a skeptic as I think the CPC cares more about deficits than about defence, and the place to cut the budget is, alas, defence. That is where the money is. This was true under Harper. I don't know what Pierre Poilevre believes in, other than opportunism and pandering to the far right, but I don't think he will commit lots of money to get Canada to 2% of GDP (on the other hand, he could tank the economy, and that is the other way to get there). Oh, and to be clear, I think we need to spend significantly more on the military--I am just not going to threat inflate to get us there.Anyway, Phil said in his piece that we need to spend more to deal with the threat in the Arctic, and I had to scoff. Which led to a fun exchange in bluesky, reminiscent of the old days on twitter where we would argue and people thought we hated each other. Hint: I don't co-author with people I don't like. Ir don't co-author with the same person several times unless we get along very well. But it is both fun and educational to push back against one of the very sharpest defence minds in Canada.Specifically, Phil said: "Canadians know their Arctic is vulnerable." And my ensuing commentary focused on that: what exactly is the threat to Canada from on high? And should we consider this the most significant/dangerous threat? My point is that it is way back in line. Phil says we need to have better situational awareness up north. My rejoinder is: no invasion coming, just some spy ships on the water and below it. Others chimed in: more ships going through the northwest passage means more environmental stuff could go awry. And, I agree. But where does that line up in the threat picture? Here's my cranky, awakened with acid in my throat, ranking of the threats facing Canada. Climate change: Canadians are paying a high price for the changing climate even if we could joke about being a beneficiary as our winters get mostly shorter. Milder? Variance is more certain than anything else. Anyhow, people are dying in floods and fires, much property is being destroyed. When I speak of threat, I think of real harms to Canadians, to the economy, to governance. Climate change is first and it is not close. I was mocked by someone via email when I said this on TV, but I have never been a super lefty, green environmentalist type in my work. It is just the reality that in dollar amounts and in lives, the warming planet is harming Canadians in a big way and it is only going to get worse. A recurring theme is that many of the threats either cannot or will not have the military as the lead agency. This actually comes the closest given that the provinces underinvest in emergency management, knowing that the military will act if asked and won't present a bill.Pandemics: how many people were killed by covid in Canada? Nearly 60,000, which is more than Canadians killed in all foreign wars combined if one leaves out WWI. Plus many people now have long covid. It did a heap of damage to the economy, and, if you care about deficits (I don't really), guess what blew a big hole in the budget? I am very glad the Liberal government poured a ton of money into the economy as we didn't have runs on food banks during the height of the pandemic. I just wish Conservative-led provinces actually spent the money allotted to health care on.... health care. Will covid be the last pandemic? No. Indeed, given what it has done to attitudes about vaccinations, quarantines, and masking, I doubt we will respond as well next time. Scary, eh? The military was called out because other agencies lacked capacity, but this was really a medical/scientific thing, so let's not allocate a ton of money to the military for pandemic preparedness.Cyber attacks. Wars are distant, but cyber attacks are hitting Canadians every day, disrupting people's lives, hurting various businesses and public agencies, and pose a significant threat where some country could bring down our power or harm dams and more. Is this the military's job? Partially but not really. We don't need people who are trained to fire weapons and ready to deploy abroad and all that stuff to fight a cyber war. We need smart folks at well equipped desks. We definitely need to have more money spent on the military to survive and thrive in a cyberwar environment, but the CAF is not really our answer to thwarting cyber attacks against the Canadian public.Far right violence. We live in a time of increasing attacks by xenophobes, misogynists, homophobes, racists, anti-semities, Islamophobes, and white supremacists (these hates tend to travel together). Yes, left wing extremists can have many of these attributes, but it is clear that the violence is almost entirely coming from the far right. These haters are doing real harm to Canadians right now, and the trend is in the wrong direction. Can the military do anything about this? I think the general rule of not having the military police the public is a very good idea. Instead, the military's role is mostly to make sure it is not training the next generation of far right terrorists. Disinformation. This is, of course, related to the prior one, but it also involves foreign actors who are trying to tilt election outcomes. We are increasingly living in a time where people can't trust what they see and hear, or they are trusting the wrong actors. This leads to develop dangerous beliefs--like vaccines are poisonous, that the government in power is engaging in great, deliberate harm against its ideological opponents, and so forth, While the Liberals have screwed up many things, they need some trust in government to operate on our behalf, just as the Conservatives or NDP would need people to trust in institutions. The military should not be the primary actor at home on this either even as they engage in info ops abroad.People might I was joking about the increases in truck/SUV size being a threat, but more than 2000 people died in car accidents in 2023, and the trend is going up, even if one cuts the peak covid years from the dataset.North Korean missiles. While China and Russia have nuclear missiles, I have a bit more faith in the workings of deterrence and a bit less worried about accidental/deliberate first use. North Korea would not have any reason to attack Canada, but I could imagine that their aim might be that good. Of course, what is the CAF's role in this? Providing warning that Vancouver is doomed and then helping to respond to the aftermath. We have no defences against ballistic missiles nor will Canada have any such systems anytime in the future. I am a skeptic about American strategic defense (although tactical anti-missile systems seem to range from pretty good to amazing), but I do think Canada should join the US system as the ABM treaty is very dead. This is a military job and would justify the massive investment in NORAD modernization. Otherwise, it really is a system to warn us to give us a few minutes to kiss our loved ones goodbye. Oh, and manage relations with the US.US relations! The Canadian economy and its security crucially depend on the US, and, oh my, Canada will be so very, very fucked if Trump were to win. Democracies have lived beside authoritarian regimes before (hey, Finland!), but so much of Canada's position in the world relies on this huge market and this peaceful border and cooperation with the US. When was the last time Canada fought abroad without the US beside its side? UN missions? Guess again as the UN relies heavily on American support to do its ops. One could argue this would mean less wars for Canada--no more Afghanistans (which was purely to help its ally). But Canada would be even at greater risk of being bullied by the China's and Saudi Arabia's of the world. And, of course, by Trump himself. But again, this is not the CAF's job to prevent or mitigate this. If Trump is elected, most of the problems above get worse and this item zooms to the top.Maybe here goes: incomplete understanding of what is happening in the Arctic. Yes, that stuff up north is still Canada, but the threat to Canadians up there is not really that posed by Russia or China but by the lack of infrastructure and by the aforementioned climate change, pandemics, etc.So, if the military is not needed for this stuff, or only needed for domestic emergency ops, why spend tens of billions on it? Why increase spending? It comes down to this: the military is an instrument of policy. This means that it can and is used to further Canadian government objectives even if most of those objectives are not about thwarting threats to Canada. Canada has consistent interests in the world for which the CAF is a key tool, such as helping to foster stability in Europe and Asia. Canada, like the US, has learned that when those continents catch fire, it damages Canadian interests and hurts Canadians. A war in the South China Sea with or without the Canadian navy would be catastrophic to the Canadian economy. War west of Ukraine would also be quite damaging. NATO itself is an important interest that requires the Canadian military to invest in itself and in NATO missions. Ultimately, Canadians want to do good in the world and want to support the international order, whether we call it liberal or rules-based or American hegemony or whatever. Because we understand that Canadians have more influence within institutions than outside of them, that the rules have favored the Canadian economy, and helped the Canadian people to enjoy the fruits of international cooperation.Ultimately, one wants a well armed, well trained, well staffed military to prepare for the worst. In my ranking of threats, I focused on both likelihood of the threat being realized and the amount of harm that is likely if the threat happens. Climate change is at the top because it is happening and is not going away and is going to do heaps of damage. The threat in the Arctic is lower down because it is unlike that any foreign actor will attack that way and the damage they can do is not that great, again compared to everything else.Oh, and what is also a threat? Having an under-funded, unprepared, ill-equipped military sent off to war--that way lies tragedy. So, yes, spend more, but let's not exaggerate where the threats are coming from and what the role of the military is.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
Hamas's attack on Israel last week was what any reasonable person would consider an atrocity deserving of moral outrage. Hundreds of innocent civilians were killed, and dozens more were taken into captivity. It thus is understandable that such an event would elicit intense emotion and a thirst for revenge.Being understandable is not the same as being wise or effective, for Israel itself or for regional peace and security.Israel has now embarked on a violent offensive against the Gaza Strip and its residents. However, as much as that offensive may be defended as intended to establish deterrence or to destroy a hostile military force, it is in large part an act of raw revenge. It is a national catharsis amid an atmosphere of intense grief and anger.The casualty count from the Israeli bombardment of the Gaza Strip is rising too fast to venture an up-to-date figure, but Palestinian health authorities reported that as of Monday, 2,800 Palestinians had been killed and 10,000 wounded, with more than half of the dead being women and children. In addition, Israel — which already had maintained a blockade of Gaza — cut off all movement of food, fuel, water, and electricity to the territory. This is quickly generating a humanitarian disaster of a proportion commensurate with the Strip's population of more than two million, with specific consequences ranging from hospitals lacking the supplies and electric power needed to treat the wounded to families running short of food.On top of all this, Israel, through a pre-invasion warning leaflet, has told the more than one million residents of Gaza City and the rest of the northern half of the Strip to head south. Given the lack of food, water, and housing wherever those people could go, such a movement, as U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres has stated, ranges between the "extremely dangerous" and the "impossible." Evacuation does not even buy safety, as indicated by lethal Israeli attacks on convoys that were using what Israel had designated as a "safe route."The scale of physical human suffering in the Gaza Strip already exceeds what Hamas inflicted on Israel last week. And Israel is just getting started as the Israeli aerial assault is likely to transition to a ground offensive.Given the extensive and careful planning that clearly went into the recent Hamas attack, it can be assumed that Hamas's planning did not end there. The group surely anticipated a strong Israeli reprisal, has done all it can to prepare for that reprisal, and has calculated that when the whole episode is over it will have served Hamas's interests more than Israel's. Drawing Israel into an extremely difficult urban warfare campaign on Hamas's own turf may have been one of the group's objectives.The hostages Hamas seized in southern Israel (as many as 150) vastly complicates any Israeli military operation. Hamas claims that Israeli airstrikes already have killed 13 of the hostages — an unconfirmed but plausible claim given the destruction from the airstrikes. The remaining hostages will be in grave danger from a ground assault, regardless of whether Hamas positions them to function as human shields.Animosity across the region and much of the rest of the world will be substantial and will work against Israeli interests and Israeli security. Arab governments will be less inclined than before to expand relations with Israel.In the occupied West Bank — where even before October 7, anger over Israeli policies and actions made the chance of a new popular uprising or intifada significant — heightened anger over more Israeli killing of Palestinian brethren in Gaza increases that chance. There already are signs of the current violence in Gaza spilling over into the West Bank, with at least 46 Palestinians killed and 700 injured in clashes with Israeli security forces and settlers since the Hamas attack.In Gaza itself, an expansion of Israeli-inflicted bloodshed among the Palestinian residents will feed expanded anger against Israel among the remaining residents, with all the potential for new violence that such anger always has entailed. Destruction of Hamas's military capability, even if that could be completely achieved, does not remove the problem. Hamas was never the whole story of violent Palestinian reaction to Israeli policies. Much of the recent rocket fire from Gaza has been carried out by the Palestine Islamic Jihad, a smaller and more radical Gaza-based group. The anger and the violence will find other channels — perhaps through groups and cells not yet formed — even if neither Hamas nor the PIJ were still functional.The Israeli objective in a new ground invasion of Gaza may go beyond "mowing the lawn," to use the Israelis' term for their periodic surges in military attacks against Palestinians, and extend to destroying the ability of Hamas to function any more as Gaza's de facto government. But even if that objective is achieved, then a big unanswered question is, who does govern the Gaza Strip? The Palestinian Authority is widely discredited among Palestinians and seems unable to rise above its residual role as a security auxiliary to the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. Direct Israeli rule of Gaza would be a prescription for even more resentment over occupation and more potential for violent Israeli-Palestinian clashes.U.S. policy on the crisis shows signs of having been swept up in some of the same emotions and rage as most Israelis have. In this respect, the policy is tracking with a broader mood that the Hamas attack has generated in the American body politic, in which the safest public posture is expression of unflinching support for Israel. It is even more hazardous to one's political health than it usually is to say anything that places the crisis within the context of longstanding Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Related to this, the Biden policy of essentially going all in with Israel likely has domestic political calculations behind it.The administration's pronouncements have often reduced the crisis to an easy-to-emote-over tale of good versus evil, which ignores likely motivations for what was a carefully calculated attack undertaken in response to Israeli policies and actions.Continuing this theme, administration officials have likened what Hamas did to the Islamic State or ISIS. The brutal tactics that Hamas used during its incursion into southern Israel can indeed be compared to some notorious actions by ISIS, but beyond that the comparison is meaningless. ISIS is not part of any longstanding situation comparable to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. ISIS is an international terrorist group whose ideology and ambitions know no international boundaries.Hamas is a nationalist group seeking political power in a Palestinian state and has no interest in international terrorism beyond that theater. ISIS has never spoken about observing an open-ended truce to live peacefully next to a state that is currently its adversary. Hamas has. ISIS has never competed in, much less won, a free and fair election. Hamas has. Why and how the tactics and objectives of Hamas have evolved into what it displayed this month have to do with peaceful avenues of competition being closed. To reduce the entire conflict into a matter of one set of outrageous tactics is to miss all the other dimensions of that conflict.Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia has been calling for de-escalation. Russia and China have called for an immediate cease-fire, and Russia is proposing a U.N. Security Council resolution to that effect.The Biden administration is moving in the opposite direction. Secretary of State Antony Blinken on social media endorsed Turkish efforts to secure a cease-fire, but later deleted the post. While President Biden said on Sunday that Israeli occupation of Gaza would be a "big mistake," current administration policy is to otherwise endorse the escalation of the violence that Israel currently is conducting in the Gaza Strip.The administration should think carefully about how U.S. interests differ from Israeli interests and objectives. Israel violently exacting revenge in this case is not a U.S. interest. Given that the foremost responsibility of a government is ensuring the safety and security of its own citizens, one of the important U.S. interests at stake concerns how some of those citizens may have become hostages in the Gaza Strip and will be greatly endangered by escalated Israeli military attacks.In addition to Americans among the hostages Hamas seized, an estimated 500 to 600 other U.S. citizens — mostly Palestinian Americans — are in the Gaza Strip. They are hostages, too — trapped there after the Israeli shutdown of all movement in and out of the territory, and in serious danger of becoming casualties of Israeli air or ground operations. One of those Americans, a woman whose home is Salt Lake City and currently is stuck in Gaza with her family, said, "I feel like I've been abandoned by my country. We're American citizens and we're not being treated as American citizens."Another U.S. interest is preventing the current warfare to spread regionally. The more that the fighting involving Israelis and Gazans escalates, the greater is the danger of such spread, even though other actors in the region are not seeking a wider war. Those in the U.S. who habitually try to stir up conflict with Iran are using the current crisis to do more stirring. This is despite the fact that no evidence has emerged of any direct Iranian role in the Hamas attack — as attested to most convincingly by official Israeli spokespeople, given that the Israeli government usually is eager to implicate Iran in anything condemnable. Press reports citing sources within the U.S. government indicate that Iranian government officials were surprised by Hamas's action.The Biden administration nonetheless has foolishly picked this moment to draw Iran into the Gaza crisis in a way by reneging at least temporarily on its commitment, under a recent prisoner swap deal that freed five imprisoned Americans, to permit some frozen Iranian assets to be used for humanitarian purposes inside Iran. Accusations by opponents of the administration that this money had some connection, however indirect, with Hamas military operations are patently false, given that none of the money involved had yet been expensed. The administration's move will further damage U.S. credibility regarding a willingness to make good on commitments, thereby making it more difficult for the U.S. to reach beneficial agreements with any other government, not just Iran.The administration evidently wanted to make a critical statement about the longstanding and well-known supply relationship between Iran and Hamas. If a patron that has supplied arms or money to a client is to be punished — to the extent even of previous agreements being reneged upon — this raises a question about yet another U.S. interest at stake in the current crisis: avoiding opprobrium and repercussions stemming from some other state's actions.If Iran is to be condemned for any actions by Hamas, even actions Iran did not instigate or control, then what is the attitude to be taken toward the United States regarding destructive and anger-inducing actions in Gaza by its client Israel, the recipient of voluminous U.S. financial, military, and diplomatic support?The world won't likely remember gentle admonitions from President Biden about observing the rule of law. It will instead focus on the U.S. effectively giving a green light for — and materially assisting — an assault that not only flouts the laws of war but brings death and suffering to thousands of innocent persons.There will be hostile reactions to all this, including from violent extremist groups. Revenge is an urge that is not unique to Israelis. Those who are quick to make comparisons with ISIS should reflect on the fact that probably the most consistent theme in the propaganda, interrogations, and claims of terrorists — including al-Qaida — who have attacked U.S. interests has been U.S. support for Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians.
Die Inhalte der verlinkten Blogs und Blog Beiträge unterliegen in vielen Fällen keiner redaktionellen Kontrolle.
Warnung zur Verfügbarkeit
Eine dauerhafte Verfügbarkeit ist nicht garantiert und liegt vollumfänglich in den Händen der Blogbetreiber:innen. Bitte erstellen Sie sich selbständig eine Kopie falls Sie einen Blog Beitrag zitieren möchten.
The New York Times headline said it all: "Middle East War Adds to Surge in International Arms Sales." The conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and beyond may be causing immense and unconscionable human suffering, but they are also boosting the bottom lines of the world's arms manufacturers. There was a time when such weapons sales at least sparked talk of "the merchants of death" or of "war profiteers." Now, however, is distinctly not that time, given the treatment of the industry by the mainstream media and the Washington establishment, as well as the nature of current conflicts. Mind you, the American arms industry already dominates the international market in a staggering fashion, controlling 45% of all such sales globally, a gap only likely to grow more extreme in the rush to further arm allies in Europe and the Middle East in the context of the ongoing wars in those regions.In his nationally televised address about the Israel-Hamas and Russia-Ukraine wars, President Biden described the American arms industry in remarkably glowing terms, noting that, "just as in World War II, today patriotic American workers are building the arsenal of democracy and serving the cause of freedom." From a political and messaging perspective, the president cleverly focused on the workers involved in producing such weaponry rather than the giant corporations that profit from arming Israel, Ukraine, and other nations at war. But profit they do and, even more strikingly, much of the revenues that flow to those firms is pocketed as staggering executive salaries and stock buybacks that only boost shareholder earnings further.President Biden also used that speech as an opportunity to tout the benefits of military aid and weapons sales to the U.S. economy:"We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores, our own stockpiles, with new equipment. Equipment that defends America and is made in America. Patriot missiles for air defense batteries, made in Arizona. Artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas. And so much more."In short, the military-industrial complex is riding high, with revenues pouring in and accolades emanating from the top political levels in Washington. But is it, in fact, an arsenal of democracy? Or is it an amoral enterprise, willing to sell to any nation, whether a democracy, an autocracy, or anything in between?Arming Current ConflictsThe U.S. should certainly provide Ukraine with what it needs to defend itself from Russia's invasion. Sending arms alone, however, without an accompanying diplomatic strategy is a recipe for an endless, grinding war (and endless profits for those arms makers) that could always escalate into a far more direct and devastating conflict between the U.S., NATO, and Russia. Nevertheless, given the current urgent need to keep supplying Ukraine, the sources of the relevant weapons systems are bound to be corporate giants like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin. No surprise there, but keep in mind that they're not doing any of this out of charity.Raytheon CEO Gregory Hayes acknowledged as much, however modestly, in an interview with the Harvard Business Review early in the Ukraine War:"[W]e don't apologize for making these systems, making these weapons… the fact is eventually we will see some benefit in the business over time. Everything that's being shipped into Ukraine today, of course, is coming out of stockpiles, either at DoD [the Department of Defense] or from our NATO allies, and that's all great news. Eventually we'll have to replenish it and we will see a benefit to the business over the next coming years."Hayes made a similar point recently in response to a question from a researcher at Morgan Stanley on a call with Wall Street analysts. The researcher noted that President Biden's proposed multi-billion-dollar package of military aid for Israel and Ukraine "seems to fit quite nicely with Raytheon's defense portfolio." Hayes responded that "across the entire Raytheon portfolio you're going to see a benefit of this restocking on top of what we think will be an increase in the DoD topline as we continue to replenish these stocks." Supplying Ukraine alone, he suggested, would yield billions in revenues over the coming few years with profit margins of 10% to 12%.Beyond such direct profits, there's a larger issue here: the way this country's arms lobby is using the war to argue for a variety of favorable actions that go well beyond anything needed to support Ukraine. Those include less restrictive, multi-year contracts; reductions in protections against price gouging; faster approval of foreign sales; and the construction of new weapons plants. And keep in mind that all of this is happening as a soaring Pentagon budget threatens to hit an astonishing $1 trillion within the next few years.As for arming Israel, including $14 billion in emergency military aid recently proposed by President Biden, the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas simply don't justify the all-out war President Benjamin Netanyahu's government has launched against more than two million inhabitants of the Gaza Strip, with so many thousands of lives already lost and untold additional casualties to come. That devastating approach to Gaza in no way fits the category of defending democracy, which means that weapons companies profiting from it will be complicit in the unfolding humanitarian catastrophe.Repression Enabled, Democracy DeniedOver the years, far from being a reliable arsenal of democracy, American arms manufacturers have often helped undermine democracy globally, while enabling ever greater repression and conflict — a fact largely ignored in recent mainstream coverage of the industry. For example, in a 2022 report for the Quincy Institute, I noted that, of the 46 then-active conflicts globally, 34 involved one or more parties armed by the United States. In some cases, American arms supplies were modest, but in many other conflicts such weaponry was central to the military capabilities of one or more of the warring parties.Nor do such weapons sales promote democracy over autocracy, a watchword of the Biden administration's approach to foreign policy. In 2021, the most recent year for which full statistics are available, the U.S. armed 31 nations that Freedom House, a non-profit that tracks global trends in democracy, political freedom, and human rights, designated as "not free."The most egregious recent example in which the American arms industry is distinctly culpable when it comes to staggering numbers of civilian deaths would be the Saudi Arabian/United Arab Emirates (UAE)-led coalition's intervention in Yemen, which began in March 2015 and has yet to truly end. Although the active military part of the conflict is now in relative abeyance, a partial blockade of that country continues to cause needless suffering for millions of Yemenis. Between bombing, fighting on the ground, and the impact of that blockade, there have been nearly 400,000 casualties. Saudi air strikes, using American-produced planes and weaponry, caused the bulk of civilian deaths from direct military action.Congress did make unprecedented efforts to block specific arms sales to Saudi Arabia and rein in the American role in the conflict via a War Powers Resolution, only to see legislation vetoed by President Donald Trump. Meanwhile, bombs provided by Raytheon and Lockheed Martin were routinely used to target civilians, destroying residential neighborhoods, factories, hospitals, a wedding, and even a school bus.When questioned about whether they feel any responsibility for how their weapons have been used, arms companies generally pose as passive bystanders, arguing that all they're doing is following policies made in Washington. At the height of the Yemen war, Amnesty International asked firms that were supplying military equipment and services to the Saudi/UAE coalition whether they were ensuring that their weaponry wouldn't be used for egregious human rights abuses. Lockheed Martin typically offered a robotic response, asserting that "defense exports are regulated by the U.S. government and approved by both the Executive Branch and Congress to ensure that they support U.S. national security and foreign policy objectives." Raytheon simply stated that its sales "of precision-guided munitions to Saudi Arabia have been and remain in compliance with U.S. law."How the Arms Industry Shapes PolicyOf course, weapons firms are not merely subject to U.S. laws, but actively seek to shape them, including exerting considerable effort to block legislative efforts to limit arms sales. Raytheon typically put major behind-the-scenes effort into keeping a significant sale of precision-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia on track. In May 2018, then-CEO Thomas Kennedy even personally visited the office of Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair Robert Menendez (D-NJ) to (unsuccessfully) press him to drop a hold on that deal. That firm also cultivated close ties with the Trump administration, including presidential trade adviser Peter Navarro, to ensure its support for continuing sales to the Saudi regime even after the murder of prominent Saudi journalist and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi.The list of major human rights abusers that receive U.S.-supplied weaponry is long and includes (but isn't faintly limited to) Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Egypt, Turkey, Nigeria, and the Philippines. Such sales can have devastating human consequences. They also support regimes that all too often destabilize their regions and risk embroiling the United States directly in conflicts.U.S.-supplied arms also far too regularly fall into the hands of Washington's adversaries. As an example consider the way the UAE transferred small arms and armored vehicles produced by American weapons makers to extremist militias in Yemen, with no apparent consequences, even though such acts clearly violated American arms export laws. Sometimes, recipients of such weaponry even end up fighting each other, as when Turkey used U.S.-supplied F-16s in 2019 to bomb U.S.-backed Syrian forces involved in the fight against Islamic State terrorists.Such examples underscore the need to scrutinize U.S. arms exports far more carefully. Instead, the arms industry has promoted an increasingly "streamlined" process of approval of such weapons sales, campaigning for numerous measures that would make it even easier to arm foreign regimes regardless of their human-rights records or support for the interests Washington theoretically promotes. These have included an "Export Control Reform Initiative" heavily promoted by the industry during the Obama and Trump administrations that ended up ensuring a further relaxation of scrutiny over firearms exports. It has, in fact, eased the way for sales that, in the future, could put U.S.-produced weaponry in the hands of tyrants, terrorists, and criminal organizations.Now, the industry is promoting efforts to get weapons out the door ever more quickly through "reforms" to the Foreign Military Sales program in which the Pentagon essentially serves as an arms broker between those weapons corporations and foreign governments.Reining in the MICThe impetus to move ever more quickly on arms exports and so further supersize this country's already staggering weapons manufacturing base will only lead to yet more price gouging by arms corporations. It should be a government imperative to guard against such a future, rather than fuel it. Alleged security concerns, whether in Ukraine, Israel, or elsewhere, shouldn't stand in the way of vigorous congressional oversight. Even at the height of World War II, a time of daunting challenges to American security, then-Senator Harry Truman established a committee to root out war profiteering.Yes, your tax dollars are being squandered in the rush to build and sell ever more weaponry abroad. Worse yet, for every arms transfer that serves a legitimate defensive purpose, there is another — not to say others — that fuels conflict and repression, while only increasing the risk that, as the giant weapons corporations and their executives make fortunes, this country will become embroiled in more costly foreign conflicts.One possible way to at least slow that rush to sell would be to "flip the script" on how Congress reviews weapons exports. Current law requires a veto-proof majority of both houses of Congress to block a questionable sale. That standard — perhaps you won't be surprised to learn — has never (yes, never!) been met, thanks to the millions of dollars in annual election financial support that the weapons companies offer our congressional representatives. Flipping the script would mean requiring affirmative congressional approval of any major sales to key nations, greatly increasing the chances of stopping dangerous deals before they reach completion.Praising the U.S. arms industry as the "arsenal of democracy" obscures the numerous ways it undermines our security and wastes our tax dollars. Rather than romanticizing the military-industrial complex, isn't it time to place it under greater democratic control? After all, so many lives depend on it.This piece has been republished with permission from TomDispatch.
"If there was ever a doubt about just how American Mr. Obama is, Sunday's raid eliminates it better than any long-form birth certificate. This was his finest hour." Bret Stephens, the Wall Street Journal Late at night on Sunday May 1st President Obama announced to the nation that Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed by a US Navy Special Operations team. The Navy SEAL team Six, as it is known here, landed two helicopters inside a walled three-story compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, where years of painstakingly gathered intelligence had led authorities to believe there was a high chance the Al Qaeda leader may be hiding. This may well have been the largest, most successful intelligence operation in US history; the President acted boldly and decisively and for that he received accolades from both sides of the political divide. Coming as it did just a month after the President launched his re-election campaign, this victory immediately boosted his approval rate by eleven points, according to surveys.Even if the strategic defeat of Al Qaeda has not yet been accomplished, this was a huge milestone and the closing of a chapter that started ten years ago when the hunt for Osama Bin Laden was launched by the Bush administration. Last week's operation resulted in the largest trove of data ever found on Al Qaeda, including information on immediate threats being planned, location and structure of its leadership, and scores of data that will help piece together a deeper understanding of their long-term tactics, techniques and procedures.Disposing of such a reviled figure who, for over ten years had ordered the killing of innocent civilians around the world, is undoubtedly a great blow both symbolic and real, to Al Qaeda, a decentralized movement whose members are tied together mainly by feelings, emotions and mythology. But does it sound the death knell for the organization? What are its short and long term implications? Al Qaeda has proven to be quite resilient, but is it still spreading and growing? More importantly, how relevant is it in the face of the Arab Spring moving throughout the Middle East and Northern Africa?All these questions need to be pondered carefully, since they have deep implications for US foreign policy in the region, for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for its difficult and troubled relation with Pakistan. This unexpected win will lead to a comprehensive reassessment of US military presence in the area, its strategies of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, and its alliance with Pakistan.American reaction to Osama Bin Laden's death was one of noisy, overt celebration in New York and DC, and of relief and jubilation in the rest of the country. It was indeed the reverse of the deep shock, terror and bereavement of 9-11, but both instances had one common denominator: there was a sense of collective emotion, of a long-forgotten and now recovered national unity. However, this did not last long as incipient criticism and second-guessing started 24 hours later over Bin Laden's burial at sea and the decision by the administration not to show pictures of his death. It came from both sides of the ideological spectrum and, in some cases, it was bolstered by strong arguments. For example Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor, considered the burial at sea a "willful destruction of evidence that may arise suspicions that there was something to hide." Others used the occasion to stir up doubts and demanded pictures to certify Bin Laden's death, but then again, these are not to be taken seriously sine they were the same groups that had to be shown a long version of the President's birth certificate as evidence he was American. A second criticism coming mainly from some Neo-conservatives, was the administration's failure to recognize publicly that the intelligence gathering that led to the finding and killing of Bin Laden was a vindication of the "enhanced interrogation techniques" (read: water boarding) used by the Bush administration in foreign detention centers and at Guantánamo, which Obama had consistently and very publicly condemned during the 2008 campaign and into his years in office.To the first, members of the administration responded that the point was to dispose of his body in a respectful manner, not because he deserved it but to deny a source of friction with other Muslims and to deprive his followers with a shrine and an opportunity to exploit him as an iconic martyr. A similar argument was used to explain the decision not to release the pictures: the President wants to avoid ostentatious displays of triumphalism that may come back to haunt him. His sobriety and restraint further reinforce the boldness of his decision and his steadfast determination to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat" Al Qaeda and not be distracted from his goal by premature claims of "mission accomplished".To the second claim, the White House responded that the success of the operation is far from a vindication of such unconstitutional techniques, since it was the result of the hard work of professionals over time and across two administrations, who integrated thousands of small pieces of intelligence gathering coming from human and technological sources into one gigantic puzzle, and that no one single piece led the US to Bin Laden. It took all the resources only the US can muster, from military bases to networks of human intelligence, to electronic eavesdropping, to specially trained forces, to locate and kill one hidden individual in a foreign country, and then match his DNA in an aircraft carrier before disposing of the corpse. But it also took a courageous American president to make such a risky call, namely, authorizing a covert operation deep into Pakistani territory based on circumstantial evidence at best, and without alerting the Pakistani authorities about it. Fortunately, wide recognition was given to the President's courage and many on the Right called it "Obama's Finest Hour". Both former President Bush and his prickly vice-president Cheney congratulated Obama and gave him full credit.A more productive conversation that has already started in academic and diplomatic circles is how relevant Bin Laden's death is for the Arab world. If he had died eight years ago, says one French scholar, he would have instantaneously become a martyr in the Arab street, an icon of anti-Western sentiment. However, in 2011, he had receded into the back of the consciousness of young Arabs for several reasons. First, because he had been in hiding for so long that his presence in the media had been noticeably diminished: out of sight, out of mind. Time spent out of the limelight erases mystiques and cools down emotions. Secondly because many saw him as the culprit for bringing the United States into Iraq and Afghanistan, which in turn gave an excuse for authoritarian regimes in the region to become even more repressive and extend their time in power. In Iraq, local Sunnis blame Al Qaeda for bringing the Shiites to power and expanding the influence of Iran in their country. Also, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda had increasingly lost the allegiance of many Muslims around the world for their indiscriminate bombings of hospitals, mosques and shrines and the killings of non-combatant Muslims in Baghdad, Basra and Amman (even if many were Shiite, the slaughter of innocent women and children caused revulsion in these populations).More importantly, the wave of pluralistic revolutions sweeping the Middle East and North Africa has rendered Al Qaeda irrelevant. There is an emerging sense of strong national identities, whereby the masses are thinking of themselves first as Egyptians, Tunisians or Libyans, with ethnicity and religion taking a secondary role. Indeed, Nasser's Pan-Arabism died the 1960sm, and the dream of a Caliphate "extending Islamic rule from Indonesia to Spain", which Bin Laden proposed as Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is no longer an interesting proposition to the extremely young populations of the region, many of whom have access to the new social media in the Internet, and who crave freedom and modernity more than anything else. The "Arab Spring" may spell the end of Al Qaeda's political aspirations for the region: the Turkish model of a secular, modern state with an overwhelmingly Islamic population and a pluralistic party system is far more appealing than the pan-Islamic caliphate of the Prophet's era. In the words of Professor Fouad Ajami, "It is risky to say, but Arabs appear to have wearied of violence…It was Bin Laden's deserved fate to be struck down when an entirely different Arab world was struggling to be born."Time and treasure spent in a ten-year war have also changed perspectives in America, especially for the younger generations. There is an on-going unofficial revision of the Bush doctrine of invading whole countries "that harbor, train or fund terrorists" in favor of narrower, more focused actions against the terrorists themselves. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have taken their toll on the American military as far as recruitment and resources. The main concern of voters is the American economy, especially unemployment and the ever-expanding national debt. A hundred and forty thousand American and NATO troops are involved in counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan, with no endgame in sight. Killings of Americans by despondent Afghan soldiers and other groups whose "hearts and minds" the US is supposed to win, occupy the headlines daily. Counter-terrorism increasingly seems to be a much more appealing and productive strategy. Expressing this widely-held sentiment, Senator Kerry recently declared: "There is no possible victory to be had in Afghanistan".Even though President Obama called it a war of necessity and has invested deeply in it, this is no longer a popular war: two-thirds of the American electorate is against it. Therefore, there will be pressure on President Obama to accelerate the phased withdrawal from Afghanistan, and complete it before the set deadline of 2014. He is a rational decision-maker who does not easily cave under pressure, but the 2012 election is likely to enter into his calculations. As a champion of counter-terrorism and opposing counter-insurgency from early on, Vice-president Biden might still be vindicated in his wisdom. When Obama opted for the surge in Afghanistan two years ago, he overruled Biden and sided with the military. Will he change his mind and speed up the withdrawal now? The killing of Bin Laden certainly gives him an opening to change his initial timetable. "Al Qaeda is no longer there, and the Taliban must be beaten by Afghans themselves", says Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council of Foreign Relations.Finally, the fact that Pakistan has proved to be an unreliable partner in the war against terrorism is also putting pressure on the President to review his Afghan policy. The alliance is frayed; Pakistan is giving sanctuary to violent militants of all sorts, and another high Al Qaeda operative now in American custody, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, was also found in Pakistan (Rawalpindi). Indeed, by the rationale of the Bush doctrine, the US should be invading Pakistan next. The White House says they have no evidence that there was any "foreknowledge" by the Pakistani leadership that Bin Laden was holed up in a one-million-dollar compound, in a military town, only 30 miles away from Islamabad. Pakistan will conduct its "own investigation" and will have to prove itself a worthy ally, for example, by sharing information gleaned from Bin Laden's three wives and several children now held under Pakistani custody. On the other hand, veteran security experts retort, more terrorists have been arrested by the Pakistani authorities since 2001 than anywhere else in the world. In this case, was it incompetence or complicity? Pakistan is a very complex country, where the military are an autonomous force above civilian rule, and they also control the Intelligence Services (ISI). It is a house divided against itself. It harbors numerous militant groups, and goes after some but not others. It hedges its bets this way so as not to lose influence and power in the region, for example by supporting the Taliban and Haqqani networks fighting to seize power in Afghanistan, and the Lashkar-e-Taiba organization against India in Kashmir. Pakistan's foreign and national security policy is built around its obsession with India, its most vilified enemy and against which it has fought several wars. It is clear now that ISI gave sophisticated support to the Mumbai terrorist attack in 2009. Pakistan needs a friendly government in Afghanistan so that it can maintain its "strategic depth" vis à vis India. Armed with over a hundred nuclear weapons and with some control over this wide array of militant groups, Pakistan is pivotal in the stability of South Asia. Those are the two main reasons why the US-Pakistani relationship survived after the Cold War ended. Because of the weakness and corruption of civilian governments, past and present, the US has preferred to engage with the military, who control the nuclear arsenal, and has made them the recipient of most US aid (indeed, by the end of this year alone the Pakistani military will have received $3 billion from the US). But this may be about to change if Pakistan rejects the US request to be in charge of the internal investigation on whether Bin Laden was given sanctuary, and if so, by whom.Now that its main leader has been killed, and in spite of its virtual irrelevance, Al Qaeda is likely to undergo an internal struggle to determine its future. The mystique of its international role has already somewhat dissipated and the different groups in the network are shifting their focus to their national agendas. Indeed, this has already been the case in Egypt, where after days of ominous silence on the Tahrir Square Revolution, Al Qaeda's second in command, Egyptian-born Al-Zwahiri injected himself in the process by supporting the leader of an Islamist party that wants post-Mubarak Egypt to adopt Sharia law. But his attempt did not resonate with the young revolutionaries, most of which want a pluralistic society and are much more concerned with jobs and government accountability than with religious utopia. However, revolutions are just the beginning of a long process, transition periods are by definition unstable, and post-revolutionary regimes have historically been highjacked by extremists. So one can only be cautiously optimistic about what will come next, but it appears as if the Middle East and the Arab world are moving on and beginning to spell the end of Al Qaeda's aspirations. Bin Laden's demise is the appropriate end of this chapter in the region's history.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
AMÉRICA LATINA Tras la muerte de Eduardo Campos, el Partido Socialista de Brasil oficializa la candidatura de Marina Silva. Para más información:http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21613316-marina-silva-upsets-electoral-calculus-third-way http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/world/americas/brazil-presidential-candidate/index.html http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720290-tras-la-muerte-de-eduardo-campos-el-psb-oficializa-la-candidatura-de-marina-silva www.time.com/3149004/the-green-activist-who-might-become-brazils-next-president/ http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/marina-silva-la-mujer-que-podria-sacar-a-dilma-roussef-de-la-presidencia-en-brasil/14428443 http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/24/actualidad/1408841665_890022.html markets.html?ref=world&gwh=A7C174942BD685FB47FD1B248820621E&gwt=pay http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719742-marina-silva-le-ganaria-un-ballottage-a-dilma http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28875205 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/americas/intensifying-presidential-campaign-brings-tension-to-brazils-financial-markets.html Debido al desabastecimiento en Venezuela habrá que dar las huellas dactilares en los supermercados. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28891292 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720428-desabastecimiento-para-comprar-en-el-super-en-venezuela-habra-que-dar-las-huellas-dactilares http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/captahuellas-para-hacer-mercado-en-venezuela-comenzaria-en-2015/14419076 Desabastecimiento en Venezuela también golpea a hospitales. Para más información: http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/08/22/inenglish/1408716543_287566.html Datos insólitos sobre este combustible en Venezuela. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720167-diez-datos-que-probablemente-no-sabe-sobre-la-nafta-en-venezuela Presos brasileños realizan violento motín. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28930141 http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/25/world/americas/brazil-prison-riot/index.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/ultimas_noticias/2014/08/140825_ultnot_brasil_motin_parana_lav.shtml http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/motin-en-carcel-de-brasil-dejo-cuatro-presos-muertos/14434915 Curioso voto en contra en el Parlamento cubano: por primera vez en décadas, alguien se opuso a una ley del régimen. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719997-curioso-voto-en-contra-en-el-parlamento-cubano El kirchnerismo apuesta por la "patria o buitres". Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/ee-uu-y-canada/juez-de-ee-uu-dice-que-canje-de-la-deuda-de-argentina-es-ilegal/14418744 http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1408925589_268292.html http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/08/25/inenglish/1408977028_808376.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/intento-de-argentina-de-pagar-deuda-en-buenos-aires-es-ilegal/14418309 Bachelet deberá llegar a importantes consensos para poner en marcha reformas propuestas. Para más información:http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/08/22/inenglish/1408722919_728679.html Chilenos salen a las calles a protestar. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/estudiantes-chilenos-salen-de-nuevo-a-las-calles-para-protestar/14418512 Sismos sacuden Chile y Perú. Para más información:http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/peru-earthquake/index.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/sismo-en-zona-central-de-chile/14427365 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/25/content_18478757.htm Assange dejará "pronto" la embajada de Ecuador en Londres. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719745-assange-dejara-pronto-la-embajada-de-ecuador-en-londres http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/asilo-al-fundador-de-wikileaks-julian-assange/14427897 Peña Nieto visita California para dialogar con migrantes. Para más información:http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/08/25/inenglish/1408973805_794461.html Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo encuentran a otro de sus nietos. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/abuelas-de-plaza-de-mayo-encuentan-nieto-secuestrado-en-argentina/14422678 Oficial colombiano se reúne con rebeldes de las FARC en La Habana. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-28905674 Tormentas tropicales azotan a diversos países centroamericanos. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27408964 http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/24/world/americas/tropical-weather/index.html www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/three-dead-tropical-storm-cristobal-lashes-caribbean-n187981 http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/23/world/americas/tropical-weather/index.html Arqueólogos hallan dos antiguas ciudades mayas en la selva de México. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/arqueologos-hallan-dos-antiguas-ciudades-mayas-en-selva-de-mexico/14422395 Siderúrgica india gana arbitraje contra Bolivia. Para más información:http://www.bbc.co.uk/mundo/ultimas_noticias/2014/08/140825_ultnot_bolivia_jindal_arbitraje_lav.shtml Canal de Panamá en vías de expansión. Para más información:http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/08/12/4286046/panama-canal-is-another-expansion.html Venezuela enfrenta la inseguridad y la violencia. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/venezuela-como-pais-y-latinoamerica-como-region-los-mas-inseguros/14418016 http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/latinoamerica/la-violencia-macabra-alarma-a-venezuela/14425875 ESTADOS UNIDOS /CANADÁ Para Washington la amenaza islamista es un desafío sin precedente. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28891325 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/top-u-s-general-cautions-against-hitting-isis-syria-n188311 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1721008-para-washington-ei-es-un-desafio-sin-precedente http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/what-are-obamas-options-stomping-out-isis-iraq-syria-n187136 Los incidentes de Ferguson desmontan la idea de que la segregación acababa con Obama. Para más información:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21613261-there-no-excuse-rioting-smarter-policing-would-make-it-less-likely-lessons http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28924099 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/22/content_18467651.htm http://www.lemonde.fr/ameriques/portfolio/2014/08/25/ferguson-les-obseques-de-michael-brown-celebrees-dans-le-calme_4476521_3222.html http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/24/actualidad/1408900159_640232.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/ee-uu-y-canada/continuan-manifestaciones-a-favor-y-en-contra-del-policia-de-ferguson/14428237 http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/ee-uu-y-canada/protestas-por-racismo-en-estado-unidos/14427977 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719851-missouri El mayor terremoto en 25 años en California paraliza Napa. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28924146 http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1408948701_953386.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/ee-uu-y-canada/sismo-de-60-en-california/14429295 Asesinato del periodista James Foley por islámicos radicales sacude al mundo. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28927568 http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/ee-uu-y-canada/decapitacion-de-periodista-fue-un-ataque-a-ee-uu-casa-blanca/14423465 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720296-estupor-por-una-ejecucion-obama-promete-mano-dura-con-los-extremistas http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/verdugo-de-periodista-decapitado-james-foley/14431636 Liberaron en Siria al periodista estadounidense Peter Theo Curtis. Para más información:http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/former-cellmate-peter-theo-curtis-tears-joy-family-n188261 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/american-writer-curtis-release-aided-qatar-state-dept-says-n188681 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28922601 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1721386-liberaron-en-siria-al-periodista-estadounidense-peter-theo-curtis http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/middleeast/peter-theo-curtis-held-by-qaeda-affiliate-in-syria-is-freed-after-2-years.html?src=mv&assetType=nyt_now http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/25/content_18477819.htm Juez declara inconstitucional prohibir el matrimonio gay en Florida. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/ee-uu-y-canada/juez-declara-inconstitucional-prohibir-el-matrimonio-gay-en-florida/14417736 Estados Unidos: chocaron dos trenes con material tóxico y murieron dos personas. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719861-estados-unidos-chocaron-dos-trenes-con-material-toxico-y-murieron-dos-personas Estados Unidos irá por más sanciones si Rusia no retira el convoy humanitario de Ucrania. Para más información: http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720882-eeuu-ira-por-mas-sanciones-si-rusia-no-retira-el-supuesto-convoy-humanitario-de-ucrania http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/ee-uu-y-canada/rusia-debe-retirar-inmediatamente-su-convoy-de-ucrania-ee-uu/14421707 Estados Unidos prohibió a sus aviones comerciales sobrevolar Siria. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719856-siria-vuelos-estados-unidos EUROPA Continúa la crisis política y militar en Ucrania. Para más información:http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21613313-fighting-eastern-ukraine-intensifies-pro-russian-rebels-lose-ground-raising-fresh http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ukraine-crisis/all-vehicles-russia-aid-convoy-have-left-ukraine-osce-n187486 http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-ukraine-convoy-20140813-story.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28931054 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/25/content_18480430.htm http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2014/08/25/a-donetsk-l-humiliant-defile-des-prisonniers-de-guerre_4476162_3210.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/decenas-de-camiones-del-convoy-humanitario-ruso-regresan-a-rusia-/14425715 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719758-kiev-acusa-a-los-prorrusos-de-bombardear-un-convoy-de-civiles http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/europe/ukraine.html?ref=world&gwh=F02B72E98D40AEE0B040C82581325981&gwt=pay&assetType=nyt_now http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1408976442_736286.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/vladimir-putin-no-espera-y-hace-entrar-convoy-a-ucrania/14424638 Rumbo al referéndum que busca una Escocia independiente. Para más información:http://www.lemonde.fr/europe/article/2014/08/25/les-partisans-de-l-independance-pronent-une-ecosse-sociale-et-ouverte_4476154_3214.html http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719363-el-dilema-escoces-jugarse-por-el-orgullo-nacional-o-cuidar-el-bolsillo http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28918473 http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1409000455_298964.html http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-28929057 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/scotland-independence-vote/scotlands-independence-vote-dominates-edinburgh-festival-fringe-n186546 Ahonda la fractura de la izquierda francesa tras tomentosa salida del polémico ministro de economía. Para más información:http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/frances-socialist-government-dissolves-internal-feud-n188436 http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1408995076_926275.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/europe/french-prime-minister-moves-to-dissolve-government.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28924279 Diversos países europeos controlarán avance de islámicos extremistas en sus territorios. Para más información:http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/08/25/inenglish/1408970186_093265.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/europe/nation-appeals-to-anti-extremist-imams-in-effort-to-uproot-seeds-of-radicalization.html Adolescente de 13 años, sospechoso de provocar 7 incendios en Portugal. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/archivo/documento/CMS-14421317 Identifican a presunto asesino del periodista Foley. Para más información:http://elpais.com/elpais/2014/08/25/inenglish/1408959265_825374.html http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-ambassador-britain-foley-killer-20140824-story.html Rumania estaría preparada para convertirse en el granero de Europa. Para más información:http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2014/08/25/la-roumanie-est-en-passe-de-redevenir-le-grenier-de-l-europe_4476309_3234.html "The Economist" publica análisis sobre enseñanzas que debería de tener en cuenta el Banco Central Europeo. Para más información:http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21613259-european-central-bank-should-learn-success-unconventional-policies-america-and El negocio de las armas divide al gobierno alemán. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/el-negocio-de-las-armas-divide-al-gobierno-aleman/14427695 ASIA- PACÍFICO/ MEDIO ORIENTE La ONU acusa al Estado Islámico de 'limpieza étnica y confesional' en Irak. Para más información:http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2014/08/25/la-province-syrienne-de-rakka-passe-sous-la-coupe-de-l-etat-islamique_4476158_3210.html http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2014/estado-islamico-ha-asesinado-a-casi-mil-personas-onu-1032834.html http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/isis-linked-potential-iraq-war-crimes-u-n-s-navi-n188201 http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1408983145_230027.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/medio-oriente/matanza-de-sunies-agrava-tensiones-en-irak/14424640 http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/medio-oriente/claves-para-entender-al-grupo-estado- islamico/14427699 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/deep-pockets-dark-goals-how-will-isis-keep-funding-terror-n187296 El espionaje occidental estrecha el cerco sobre el verdugo yihadista del periodista estadounidense. Para más información:http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/24/actualidad/1408870547_217961.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/middleeast/iraq.html?ref=world&gwh=F141A7F1E8349CC571ED760904D22567&gwt=pay http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/james-foley/syria-james-foley-rescue-might-have-worked-cooperation-n188476 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720657-llaman-a-detener-el-flujo-de-jihadistas-occidentales-a-medio-oriente Diversos ataques suicidas dejan decenas de muertos en Irak. Para más información:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/suicide-car-bomb-explodes-outside-baghdad-intelligence-agency-8-dead-n187461 http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iraq-bombings-20140825-story.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/medio-oriente/ataque-deja-70-muertos-en-irak-y-ee-uu-promete-golpear-a-yihadistas/14421456 http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2014/08/25/l-onu-denonce-le-nettoyage-ethnique-et-religieux-de-l-etat-islamique-en-irak_4476330_3218.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28924104 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/iraq-turmoil/30-killed-iraq-bombings-day-after-mosque-attack-n187591 Barack Obama instó a las fuerzas kurdas e iraquíes a trabajar en conjunto para contener la ofensiva de los extremistas. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719737-irak-con-la-ayuda-de-eeuu-los-kurdos-recuperaron-el-control-de-una-represa-estrategica Militares de ISIS toman base aérea siria. Para más información:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/middleeast/isis-militants-capture-air-base-from-syrian-government-forces.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28927246 http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/isis-fighters-seize-syrias-tabqa-air-base-syrian-regime-n188171 Continúa el conflicto entre Israel y el Hamas. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28925725 http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/middle-east-unrest/israeli-boy-killed-five-wounded-gaza-mortar-strike-n187226 http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-hamas-executes-suspected-informers-20140822-story.html http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2014-08/25/content_18480205.htm http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/medio-oriente/justicia-de-hamas-mata-a-18-palestinos/14424375 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719971-vuelven-los-misiles-y-combates-en-gaza-tras-el-vencimiento-de-la-tregua El papa Francisco concluyó su visita a Asia y pidió por "la reconciliación de las dos Coreas". Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1719637-el-papa-francisco-concluyo-su-visita-a-asia-y-pidio-por-la-reconciliacion-de-las-dos-coreas Mueren 10 personas en estampida en India. Para más información:http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/world/asia/stampede-india.html http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2014/mueren-10-en-una-avalancha-en-la-india-1032792.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-28923854 El papa Francisco estaría amenazado por el Estado Islámico. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/europa/el-papa-francisco-estaria-amenazado-por-el-estado-islamico/14434195 Malasia recibe a víctimas del vuelo MH17 de Malaysia Airlines derribado en Ucrania. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720823-malaysia-airlines-victimas-ceremonia http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/malaysianairliner/ Líderes chinos discuten futuro político de Hong Kong. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-28923896 "The Economist" analiza la India de Narendra Modi. Para más información:http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21613342-narendra-modi-stern-headmaster-early-days China busca decirle adiós a su apartheid. Para más información:http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1721246-con-un-plan-de-ingenieria-social-china-busca-decirle-adios-a-su-apartheid ÁFRICA África continúa alerta por consecuencias del Ébola. Para más información:http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-africa-congo-testing-ebola-2-dead--20140825-story.html http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28925491 http://www.lanacion.com.ar/1720533-liberia-en-fotos-el-barrio-sitiado-por-causa-del-ebola http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2014/el-ebola-y-el-estigma-de-la-pobreza-1032791.html http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/africa/sudafrica-cierra-sus-fronteras-a-los-paises-mas-afectados-por-el-ebola/14417637 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-28923826 http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2014/brote-ebola-congo-distinto-de-frica-occidental-1032909.html Boko Haram proclama un califato islámico en el norte de Nigeria. Para más información:http://www.eltiempo.com/mundo/africa/boko-haram-proclama-un-califato-islamico-en-el-norte-de-nigeria/14433316 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28927898 http://www.eluniversal.com.mx/el-mundo/2014/boko-haram-declara-califato-islamico-ciudad-nigeria-1032877.html Egipto vuelve a las obras faraónicas. Para más información:http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1408987117_336263.html Un nuevo 'parlamento' disputa la legitimidad a la Cámara libia. Para más información:http://internacional.elpais.com/internacional/2014/08/25/actualidad/1409001657_678954.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/25/world/africa/libyan-unrest.html Grupos rivales de Mozambique acuerdan cese al fuego. Para más información:http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28923524 OTRAS "The Economsit" publica su informe: "Business this week".Para más información:http://www.economist.com/news/world-week/21612259-business-week
"The news from Delaware is crystal clear: it's Sarah Palin's party now." Senator John Kerry The Tea Party insurrection against the establishment is causing some headaches for the Republican leadership. Republican primary elections everywhere are being won by Tea Party candidates, some of which are credible and electable in national contests (Marco Rubio in Florida, Joe Miller in Alaska), but many of which are an embarrassment to the party. Christine O'Donnell, who won the Delaware primary, last week, falls into the latter category. The Republican Party had fielded a very strong candidate, Mike Castle, who had already been elected seven times to Congress, and would most likely have won the coveted seat in the national election. But he was considered "too liberal" and "too wedded to the establishment" by the Tea Party. Instead, victory went to Tea Party candidate O'Donnell, who had been endorsed by Sarah Palin. During her campaigning the 41-year old O'Donnell, fresh faced and attractive, adopted the dress style, body language and folksy speech of her flashy mentor, lending some credence to Senator John Kerry's claim that the GOP "is Sarah Palin's party now." O'Donnell had been signed out as not credible by the GOP: not only does she lack any experience and qualifications, but she has a questionable personal finance history and a bizarre background that includes having "practiced witchcraft" before becoming a Christian youth counselor and defender of sexual abstinence. She had run for a House seat twice before and lost, getting only about 4.5% of the vote statewide. Her story brings into focus the dire position the GOP finds itself in: by stirring up the anger and frustration of a public deeply affected by the Great Recession and worried about their economic future, and by using the Tea Party movement's energy and populism to mobilize the electorate, Republicans now find themselves in the awkward situation of having to support and fund fringe candidates for the November election. The Tea Party upheaval has been compared to the Reagan Revolution of 1980. Ronald Reagan transformed the Republican Party by creating a new coalition of social and fiscal conservatives and foreign policy hawks. He brought in the Southern Democrats and the Christian Right, and many moderates from the North East were purged from the party. He forged a new majority, renewed the party's cadre and dominated the national political agenda at least for a decade. Similarly, the Tea Party is imposing a "purity test" on Republicans that includes long-held party principles such as fiscal discipline, balanced budgets and low taxes. But it also demands adherence to more intrusive social dogmas such as opposition to abortion and gay marriage, and blatantly reactionary ideas against immigration and free trade, and in favor of the right to carry guns. With its populist, nativist rhetoric it is feeding the frenzy and anger prevalent in certain sectors of the country today to the point of rendering it ungovernable. Indeed, in order to win, Republican candidates everywhere find that they have to adopt Tea party language and principles even when some of these run counter to the realities of governing. In deep contrast with their extreme views of closed borders, Reagan gave amnesty to a huge mass of illegal immigrants, and was a staunch supporter of free trade, a central tenet of the conservative business class that is anathema to the Tea Party insurgents. Their brand of rampant populism was quite absent from the Reagan revolution: he was a leader who understood where the country was historically and emotionally, and he had the convictions and the policies to move it forwards. His philosophy of hard work, sacrifice, fiscal responsibility and smaller government has endured and influenced many conservative and moderate politicians around the world. In addition, he had the great gift of communication and persuasion, and knew how to use history and logic to back up his actions. Few would compare the Great Communicator with the grammatically challenged elements that lead the Tea party: they tend to speak in sound bites, have poor syntax and grammar, and make obscure, often absurd references that few people are able to follow (for example, Sarah Palin's 2008 comment that "as Putin rears his head and enters U.S airspace, the first thing he sees is Alaska" as an justification of why being governor of that state gave her some foreign policy experience; or Christine O'Donnell's "mice with human brains" reference when explaining her opposition to stem cell research). Their inexperience, rampant populism, and contempt for intellect and knowledge do not bode well for next Congress. Others consider late Senator Barry Goldwater, a blunt-spoken conservative libertarian from Arizona, as the predecessor of the Tea Party. Goldwater, who ran for president in the 1960s against Lyndon Johnson, wanted to abolish the whole welfare state established by the New Deal, and advocated the use of nuclear weapons in Vietnam. He lost to LBJ by a landslide, bringing the Republican Party down with him. But he was a libertarian and this put him at odds with the Christian right agenda of the 1970s. Although it is true that there is a libertarian, Goldwater-like element in some groups of the Tea Party, most of its members embrace an ultra-conservative social agenda of government intrusiveness into people's lives, and that is already a source of contention and conflict within the movement. Given its grassroots, decentralized approach, its platform is a hybrid of sometimes conflicting ideas, but at its core, it is an anti-federalist movement. It officially appeared in the political map on tax-filing day, April 15 of 2009, when "tea parties" were organized in several states to protest against government spending. It grew as a bottom-up organization but, as it gathered strength, it was courted by the GOP as an instrument to revive the party and mobilize its supporters. The Tea Party in its nature and its approach to politics is more reminiscent of the movement that coalesced around Ross Perot in the 1990s. He was against the expansion of the federal government, against free trade and open borders, against Washington "insiders" of both parties, and in favor of balanced budgets and lower taxes. The main difference is that the Tea Party is trying to transform the Republican Party from the inside, instead of running against it as a third party, as Perot did in 1992, thereby preventing the re-election of President Bush senior, and delivering a victory to the Democrats. The question is whether the Tea Party movement will succeed and, whether, by moving the party to the Right, it will have a "corrective" effect, or whether, due to its populist excesses, it will self destroy and bring the party down with it. The Perot movement dissolved because of its internal dissent and lack of leadership, and the Tea Party may encounter the same fate. What the Tea Party movement has in vigor and energy, it lacks in logic, organization and cohesiveness. They would most certainly not have been so successful if they had had to find their own moneys to fund their campaigns. Unfortunately for the GOP, there are at least two Political Action Committees (PACs) that are giving financial support to these fringe-quality candidates: Sarah Palin's own PAC, and the Tea Party Express run by old Republican political operative and entrepreneur Sal Russo, who identifies "promising" candidates that can attract contributions and bring treasure into his own formerly moribund PAC. A third PAC, FreedomWorks, run by former Representative Dick Armey, has been more selective in the Tea Party candidates it supports. It refused to fund Christine O'Donnell, who instead received substantial campaign funds from the other two. Some serious conservative voices are being raised against the Tea Party, but it may be too late. Charles Krauthammer, one of the leading conservative intellectuals, called O'Donnell's triumph a "stunning but pyrrhic victory" that will prevent the Republicans from regaining control of the Senate. While conceding that the Tea Party itself was "the most vigorous and salutary grass-roots movement of our time" and a "source of electoral energy", he still cautioned Republicans that they had to be selective. He said that O'Donnell was problematic and most likely unelectable. Showing his frustration with the defeat of Mike Castle, he stated that the so-called "Buckley rule"-"Support the most conservative candidate that is electable" -had been violated. Also, Karl Rove from his new column in the Wall Street journal called her "unfit for office" and "not a credible" candidate. O'Donnell was the seventh Tea Party candidate to defeat an incumbent, so now the National Republican Committee will most likely have to fund their national campaigns. Not all are unelectable, but the question is, once in power, will they follow the party line or their own? As the GOP moves to the extreme Right to please the Tea Party supporters, it is the moderates that are left out of place. In Florida, the unstoppable Senate race of Tea Party candidate Marco Rubio has forced his opponent Charlie Crist, whom Rubio defeated in the primary, to leave the GOP and run as an Independent. Unlike O'Donnell, Rubio is a very credible candidate who may some day run for president, while Crist has been too much of a moderate for the present political climate, and as governor has supported several of Obama's initiatives. Tea Party Senate candidate Joe Miller, who beat incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska primary, is also a candidate with solid credentials (WestPoint graduate, then Yale Law), but he is still outside the mainstream on basic issues such as Social Security, which he considers "unconstitutional, because it is not in the Constitution". This is what most worries the party moderates: that a huge part of the electorate, frustrated with the expansion of US government, debt and deficits, will feel so disgruntled as to elect a Republican Congress majority populated with extremist candidates that will ignore the party line, and will try to impose their simplistic, atavistic views of government, turning the clock back one or even two centuries. Unquestionably, not all is said and done in this election, and the Republican primary results are cautiously being watched by Democratic candidates who now see an opening to regain the moderate Independents' vote. But the generalized anger against incumbents in the electoral may very well lead many of them to vote for Tea party newcomers all the same, no matter how extreme and erratic they may seem. Objectively, one can understand and respect philosophical differences and the traditions of this country's two-party politics. In order to survive in the post-Bush era, the Republican Party needed to undergo a correction towards smaller government and balanced budgets, which are the core principles of their ideology. During his eight years in power, Republican George Bush oversaw the biggest expansion of the federal government since the 1960s; he made the decision to fight two wars while at the same time lowering taxes across the board and deregulating private financial institutions. It should thus come as no surprise that his course of action brought about the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, and that a public backlash against government spending ensued. A year and a half of frantic efforts by the Obama White House and Congress, which obviously demanded more government spending for the short-term, have not delivered palpable results and, although the Recession has officially ended, unemployment is still at 10%. The popular outcry against big government is to be expected. But some groups have used this opportunity to propose hare-brained schemes based on ignorance, nescience and prejudice. Whether they are railing against immigrants, taxes and social welfare programs, or in favor of armed insurrection against the federal government, quite often, to legitimize their demands, they refer their critics to the US Constitution of 1787. To the extent that the Constitution established the federal government and its relative power over the states, their claims have little merit. Perhaps they confuse it with the Articles of Confederation that preceded it and vested power in the states. In any case, the infantile worship of a three centuries old document in an era of globalization, interdependence and a communications revolution speaks for itself: the Tea Party is reactionary, regressive, and irritating to mainstream Americans. But given the level of anger and disenchantment with Washington, they may linger in the political landscape longer than initially predicted. Tea Party supporters tend to confuse their candidates' folksiness with authenticity, their simple- mindedness with sincerity and their populist slogans with serious policy proposals. The truth is that the United States, for all its failures, has governmental institutions that have endured, and is governed by the rule of law and not by mob rule. It is normal and healthy in a democracy to protest against an unresponsive government. It is quite a different thing to put opportunistic, unproven, inexperienced people at the helm in order to role back institutions that took years to build and that the newcomers in their ignorance scorn upon. There is no telling that they would be less greedy or more competent than those they replace. More likely, a Tea-Party-dominated Congress would be a complete disaster as they focus on their petty interests and ideological vendettas; they repeal existing social legislation and refuse to fund the federal government; they start handing out subpoenas to investigate made-up claims against the Executive, and they do not address any of the real problems facing the country. Their narrow-mindedness, their disdain for the realities of democracy and their disinterest in the welfare of others is quite alarming. It may come back to haunt the other Republicans in Congress, who will realize too late that they have to rely on Democrats in order to pass any spending bill and that anger cannot be turned into an agenda for governing. Ironically, this week has been proclaimed Education Week in America, as the White House unveils its new plan to reform the public school system and to bring American students up to par with other advanced democracies. Although the new emphasis will be on science, math and a longer school year, one can only hope there is room in the curriculum for more civic education, a better understanding of American History and a greater appreciation for democracy and its institutions. Only when that happens will this kind of movement be forever confined to the fringes of society, where it belongs. Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
Almost two years since his election, as Obama's popularity continues to sink, many are left wondering what went wrong with his presidency. But before that question can be answered, a more careful consideration of the situation he inherited seems in order: two unwinnable wars, the Guantánamo legal limbo, a badly damaged international reputation and an economic crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Great Depression, during which close to ten million jobs were lost. That was the state of the country when he came to power in 2008. In two years Obama has not solved any of these problems completely, but has made headway in many of them. In the context of a slow and jobless economic recovery, and faced with a vociferous opposition which has turned down every chance at bipartisan cooperation, the question should perhaps then be how Obama's level of support among the population remains this high (43%).The President still has the backing of Democratic voters, but has lost the support of Independents. Even those who would never consider abandoning him are suffering from an "enthusiasm gap" that may affect their turnout in the November 2 mid-term elections. With unemployment still hovering around 9.5% and with little prospect of change in the near future, the disillusionment of the electorate is understandable (43% support Obama today, compared with 60% in early 2009). But it is worth pondering how much of this discontent against the party in power is derived from the failure of policy and how much from the divisive political game played by the opposition.In all fairness to Obama, shrill accusations of socialism and big government were raised against him as soon as he came to power and had to immediately address the banking, mortgage and automobile meltdowns. Acerbic Republican opposition to any measure adopted by the Executive since then, has dominated the political discourse and made it almost impossible for the Administration to present evidence that, without its actions, the economic recovery would have taken even longer. It is hard to prove a negative proposition. Republicans have had a receptive audience in the low, mostly white middle class, many of who have taken to the streets under the Tea Party banner, to fight in one voice both against government "take over" of health care and (incongruously) in defense of Medicare (the government-sponsored health program for senior citizens).There is rich irony in hearing the word "socialist" hurled as the ultimate insult to a President who has bailed out the big financial institutions and the two largest automobile industries without nationalizing them, and who has signed a health care reform bill that does not include the controversial public option, which had been the centerpiece of his planned reform but was deemed too liberal by members of his own party. But reason and logic have no role to play in the polarized political atmosphere that we are experiencing today. Emotion and fear are much more productive in the views of the opposition, to help them re-take the House and perhaps even the Senate in this fall election.Timid Democrats in the House and Senate, afraid to lose their newly acquired seats in states and districts that voted for McCain in the 2008 presidential election are also abandoning the president. A posse of four or five of Senate "Blue Dog" Democrats has helped dilute the health care legislation by removing the public option from the bill, and have taken off the table legislation to curb carbon emissions and promote green energy sources. There are different hypotheses of why Obama has been unable to maintain high support rates in spite of having had important legislative victories (TARP, Stimulus spending package, extension of unemployment benefits, health care and financial reform). Former (Clinton's) Labor Secretary Robert Reich and NY Times columnist and Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman argue that Obama's stimulus was ridiculously small, given the state of the economy in January 2009. They blame the President for not using the majorities in the House and Senate to pass bolder legislation. By compromising, Obama disappointed the liberal wing of his party, but more importantly, lost the Independents at the center, who simultaneously believed the Republican rhetoric about "Big government Socialist take over" but resented Obama's bailout of Wall Street. Contrary to the fear-mongering claims of the deficit hawks about the debt, Krugman points out that "far from fleeing US debt, investors are eagerly buying it, driving interest rates to historic lows". Reich insists that Obama missed an opportunity to push the limits of politics, establish a new framework of redistributive policies and regulations, and become a transformative president. Although this view undoubtedly has some merit, it ignores the brutal backlash against government spending that affected every Democrat in the House and Senate and made them fear for their jobs. A larger stimulus would have faced even stronger opposition from among the party's own ranks and seen some defectors. Obama is a pragmatic leader who governs as best he can, given the huge constraints of the current political context.Jay Cost from Real Politics offers a different explanation: Obama's geographic coalition was never broad enough because he failed to win the hearts and minds of middle and rural America. It is from those sectors that Independents have abandoned support for the administration in droves. In other words, Obama's major constituencies were in the major cities on the two seaboards and from the suburbs, and included Blacks, youth and university educated white professionals. Even in those cases in which they voted for Obama, white rural America, and blue collar workers never were quite convinced that he would fight for them, and the Wall Street bailout confirmed their suspicion. Underlying it all, there is, of course, the prevalent racism that permeates most sectors of American society and emerges in the form of distrust toward the Commander in Chief: Obama has to prove his loyalty to the country in ways not demanded from others. He has to pay the price of being the first Black president.A third hypothesis that is circulating among pundits is that Obama's focus on health care was misplaced, that he should have concentrated all his attention on economic recovery and job creation instead. Indeed, it was during the 2009 summer of discontent that the electorate became irreconcilably divided and that Republican-launched corrosive ads dominated the airwaves, and rumors about death panels and "pulling the plug on grandma" pervaded City Hall meetings. A general distrust of the federal government and of all incumbents inside the DC belt, while nothing new among the American electorate, re-emerged with new virulence.It is in this context that the Tea Party movement cut its teeth and started dominating the headlines. Spurred by the GOP with the intention of mobilizing the population around anti-tax, anti-federal government sentiments, the Tea-partiers launched national campaigns against all incumbents, and in the process became a voice for the profound anger, fear and frustration that the poor state of the economy and the sustained unemployment rate has caused in the population. Pleased at the frenzy stirred up by the movement, Republicans have complacently let it lead the way, exercising no restraint on their wildest propositions (see below) and allowing it to do the work for them as the voice of the opposition. This is already having unwanted consequences, as extremist Tea-party –fielded candidates from outside party ranks are challenging party insiders in gubernatorial as well as Congressional primary races.Like the eponymous rebellion that took place in Boston in 1773, the Tea Party's main philosophical thrust is against taxes, centralization of power and government overreach. Unlike it, it is also anti-immigrant. Because of the prevalent uncertainty about the economy, their discourse resonates with the electorate. To fight the federal government initiatives, they are finding their best institutional allies in the State governments, courts and legislatures. Indeed, judging by the poisonous political environment, the polarization of the electorate, and the state-based challenges to the federal government, at times it seems that only a Lincolnian figure can save America from another civil war.The so- called "States Revolution" is visible in many fronts. Five states have passed legislation against parts of the federal health reform law, and around 20 states are challenging its constitutionality through the court system. Several states legislatures are getting ready to pass laws modeled after the anti-immigration law in Arizona, which was deemed unconstitutional by a district court but has broad support in the population. It will probably end up in the Supreme Court, as challenges and counter-challenges continue. Interestingly, Obama is in fact deporting more undocumented workers than any of his predecessors, but his reform proposal would give a pathway to citizenship to these workers if they have a job, register with the US government, and pay a fine and back taxes. Immigration has been a thorny issue, with allies and foes on both sides of the aisle. After all, it was Ronald Reagan who gave amnesty to all illegal immigrants in 1986, and George Bush's proposal in 2006 was very similar to Obama's. This is hardly a philosophical issue on which the two parties diverge; it is just a populist cause that is being used by Republicans to stoke the flames of right-wing populism and racism prevalent in main sectors of the population.The backlash against undocumented workers is of such magnitude that it has come to encompass all immigrants. It has now taken the unlikely form of a movement to abolish or amend the 14th Amendment, a foundational provision dating from 1868 which grants citizenship to all born in the United States. The changing of the birth right rule is "worth considering" according to House Minority leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) because "it gives an incentive for people to come to the United States illegally to give birth here." This is outrageous pandering by the Republican Party who has always fathomed itself to be the staunchest defender of the Constitution, which they consider a sacred text to be read literally, with minimal interpretation. Such is the spirit of the times. Republican Senators Lindsay Graham and John McCain, the two most important and moderate voices on Immigration Reform have changed their positions (Mc Cain because he is facing a tough primary in his state of Arizona, against, who other, but a Tea Party candidate!) and have both agreed that it is worth a debate. This is not only unprincipled on their part, but also terrible long-term politics, since by taking this stance on immigration they are removing the possibility of regaining the support of the largest growing group of voters, namely the Hispanic or Latino population for years to come.Given the strong anti-incumbent and anti-Washington sentiment prevalent in the population, the results of the mid-term election are hard to predict because some Republicans may lose seats, too. However, the current projections of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia give the Republicans a net win of 32 seats in the House, 7 seats in the Senate (they would need 10 to become the majority) and 6-7 governor seats. The coming mid-term election is being compared to the 1994 "revolution" led by Newt Gingrich which gave Republicans a majority in both the House and Senate. Just like Obama, Clinton was an "outsider" who was handed the presidency partly thanks to his charisma, but mainly because people were disappointed at George Bush Senior, and did not re-elect him. Clinton made health care reform the centerpiece of his first term but failed to get it through Congress. He did manage to pass a controversial crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons, which the Right traditionally opposes. He also raised taxes. Republicans attacked him with an abrasive campaign in favor of lower taxes, second amendment rights and smaller government, and won. Two years later, however, with a brighter economic outlook and a pledge to balance the budget, Clinton was re-elected.But the parallel should not be exaggerated since there are many differences as well. First, Obama did pass health care reform, and that should count have some weight among his supporters, hopefully enough weight to bring them to the polls November 2. Second, the Republican Party's image was not as tarnished in 1994 as it is today, mainly because they hadn't had a majority in Congress for a long time. A New York Times/CBS News poll this past February found that 57% of those polled has negative views of the Republicans this time. The anger is aimed at Washington as a whole and this may help Democrats. The main concern of Democrats in the House and Senate today is the demographics of mid-term elections: older (over 60) white voters, who are the core group of the Tea Party movement and the most outspoken against Obama and this Congress, are also the most likely to vote in mid-term elections. And the "enthusiasm gap" on the Left may induce many Obama supporters to stay home. On the other hand, the Democratic Party learned the lesson of 1994 and is better prepared for the fight: they have been raising money from early on, setting up voters' registration campaigns and trying to mobilize the same base that brought Obama to power two years ago. They stress his activist legislative agenda and its accomplishments: financial reform, health care, extension of unemployment benefits, an energy bill that came short of cap and trade but will meet some green energy goals. More importantly, they are framing the election as a choice between going back to the policies that got the country into the Great Recession, or moving forward with the new policies of corporate responsibility, accountability and more federal supervision of financial institutions in order to avoid similar crises.However, what is clear is that the anemic state of the economy and the high and sustained unemployment rate make all other tactics irrelevant. Uncertainty rules supreme in the minds of the electorate and with it, a fear of what the future may bring and a lack of confidence in the federal government. The Republican opposition is united and vociferous and its message simple and clear: no more taxes, no more deficits, no more government intervention, close borders to immigrants and focus on private job creation through tax cuts; what the federal government won't do, states will. The President should probably counterattack in kind and engage in this ideological battle, but he is not temperamentally suited for it. He dislikes ideological arguments because he wants to be the President of all Americans, as he pledged during his campaign. The next big decision Obama needs to make is whether to let the Bush tax cuts expire after Labor Day or to extend them for two or three years. He has announced his intention to maintain them for the middle class but to end them for the wealthiest individuals, those in the highest 2% income bracket. It would bring their income tax up from 35% to 39%, not a dramatic raise but one that will be resisted strongly by the opposition. Although Obama has a good argument to make (that the $700 billion dollars thus raised would help him reduce the deficit dramatically), there is fear in Congress Democrats that a two- week debate about tax cuts will help Republicans. In a perversely cynical way, perhaps a Republican win in the congressional elections may not be a bad thing after all, and may yet help Obama: let the Republicans make his case for him, that he himself is reluctant to make. Let them stand the public scrutiny and let the public judge if they can provide better, more novel solutions to job creation, to Afghanistan, to immigration reform. A weak performance by a Republican-dominated 112th Congress, an economy that is bound to recover as it enters its next cycle, and a Palin-Huckabee ticket may still get Obama re-elected in 2012.Senior Lecturer, Department of Political Science and Geography Director, ODU Model United Nations Program Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia
República Federal AlemanaLa República Federal Alemana es una república democrática, representativa, parlamentaria y federal, compuesta por 16 Estados. El parlamento es bicameral. El Bundestag o Asamblea Federal posee 598 miembros y el Bundesrat o Consejo Federal posee 69. El Poder Ejecutivo es ejercido por el Canciller Federal que es el Jefe de Gobierno.El país mantiene altos índices en materia de Estado de Derecho:Estado de derecho en Alemania(1)Observamos como en una perspectiva histórica de 15 años, los valores concernientes al Estado de Derecho se ubican en una posición constante de un percentil 94/100, lo que nos habla de un elevado índice de garantías políticas. Siguiendo a Bobbio, quién se funda en los principios de la ley natural de Locke, podemos afirmar en este caso la existencia de un verdadero imperio de la ley. La sociedad se compone de un 91.1% de alemanes, un 2,3% de turcos y kurdos, 0,7% de personas provenientes de la ex Yugoslavia, 0,7% de italianos, 0,4% de griegos y bosnios y 0,2% de gitanos. (2) En cuanto a religión, predominan la católica con un 33% y la protestante con un 32%, existiendo a su vez minorías judías y musulmanas (6% de la población). (3)Alemania ha sido escenario de abundantes inmigraciones, las cuales dejaron como consecuencia principal una serie de minorías que no pasaron desapercibidas a lo largo de su historia. En este sentido, es el tercer país en materia de recepción de migrantes. Una posible razón a este fenómeno es su posición liberal ante el asilo político que el Estado ha predicado desde siempre –incluso actualmente- ya que en el artículo 16a de su Constitución dispone que "todo perseguido político goza de derecho de asilo en Alemania". (4) Es interesante observar en este punto como el principio de defensa de los derechos inalienables del individuo poseen una implícita primacía por sobre los conceptos de Estado y nación. Es este un elemento que sustenta la intención de defender las garantías políticas de todo individuo que se vea privado de las mismas, aún cuando careciere de la nacionalidad alemana. Observamos entonces como subyace el principio filosófico de la teoría liberal de Locke. Destacamos, por otra parte, que en la actualidad Alemania es uno de los países europeos que más dificulta la inmigración –en circunstancias distintas a las previamente mencionadas- y la expedición de su nacionalidad. Dado la enorme complejidad de la persecución que históricamente han sufrido las minorías en Alemania, nos limitaremos a mencionar las cifras del holocausto llevado a cabo por el régimen Nazi: 11 millones de víctimas, de las que 6 millones eran ciudadanos polacos. Asimismo, además de los 6 millones de judíos, hubo 5 millones que incluían a afro-europeos, Testigos de Jehovah, discapacitados, homosexuales, gitanos, sacerdotes y líderes cristianos y perseguidos políticos opositores al sistema. (5) Destacamos este hecho histórico no sólo por la enorme relevancia que tiene en materia de Derechos Humanos y por constituir una atrocidad que ha calado hondo en la percepción del mundo sobre los alcances de la naturaleza humana, sino –y a los efectos de nuestro análisis- para plantear la evidente consecuencia de este fenómeno en nuestros tiempos. Persiste en la sociedad y gobierno alemán una suerte de cargo de conciencia, profundizado por el saberse moralmente reprobado y vigilado por el mundo entero. Esto obliga a tener una profunda y particular consideración para con el trato de las minorías en su país. Paso seguido, ¿Cuál es el papel de las minorías en términos de participación política? El sistema de representación alemán determina que sólo aquellos partidos "receiving more than 5% of the vote are represented in parliament in proportion to their vote." (6) En este sentido observamos su evidente consecuencia: "El establecimiento de dicho umbral logró reducir la oportunidad de representación de los partidos pequeños." (7) Esto obliga a generar un sistema de gobierno de coalición donde las minorías –que exceptuando a la suma de judíos y musulmanes no superan en ninguno de los casos el 5%- sólo podrían verse representados en función de negociaciones con los grandes partidos, donde su influencia o poder de imposición sería escaso –por no considerarlo nulo en términos relativos. El problema se ve incrementado por el escaso porcentaje de extranjeros nacionalizados y, por ende, poseyentes de derechos políticos. "Only a third of Turks have become German citizens, in part because dual citizenship is not allowed." (8) Esto, de acuerdo a la teoría del gobierno representativo de John Stuart Mill, caería dentro de lo que podría considerarse una deficiencia del sistema de representación. Sin embargo, queremos destacar que aún a pesar de lo que las cifras llevan a inducir, los resultados de las elecciones del 2005 determinan que "there were at least eight members of ethnic minorities in the Bundestag and one on the Federal Constitutional Court, but none in the cabinet." (9) Lo que nos habla de un sistema de representación que en cierta medida pudiere estar funcionando en la práctica. Otro problema radica en la pobre integración –particularmente de los turcos- ya que, como es señalado en un artículo The Economist, la población joven desconoce el alemán e intensifica sus prácticas religiosas –distantes a la tradición cristiana alemana- careciendo muchas veces, como señalábamos previamente, de la nacionalidad. Eso, producto también de las mayores trabas existentes para obtener la ciudadanía, en parte porque, como indica el artículo, "immigrants are welcome, but you also have to get to know our culture, says Wolfgang Schäuble, the interior minister, who rejects the growth of parallel societies." (10) En cierto sentido, buscando distanciarse de las llamadas falsas promesas de la democracia planteada por Bobbio. Esta es una de las causas de la complicada situación que persiste en materia de Derechos Humanos para con las minorías extranjeras (debidamente protegidas por la constitución alemana en su artículo 3 (11)), donde"harassment, including beatings, of foreigners and racial minorities remained a frequent problem throughout the country." (12) En relación a micro grupos operando organizadamente en materia de persecución política, el Departamento de Estado de los Estados Unidos sostiene que "the FCO defines politically motivated crimes as offenses related to the victims' ideology, nationality, ethnicity, race, skin color, religion, worldview, ancestry, sexual orientation, disability status, appearance, or social status. The FOPC report listed 180 right wing extremist organizations and groups." (13) Sin embargo, es necesario remarcar que el país se destaca por sus bajos índices de violencia y su buena estabilidad política (14): Estabilidad política y ausencia de violencia en Alemania (15) En esta línea, The Freedom House (16) posiciona a Alemania en un puntaje de 1 (valor que representa la escala máxima de libertad) en materia de libertades civiles y políticas. En su análisis se destaca particularmente el buen funcionamiento de las instituciones democráticas y el Estado de Derecho, aunque sugiere también un llamado de atención en materia de ataques a minorías étnicas y en lo que respecta a ciertas restricciones a la participación política: "Political pluralism in Germany has been constrained by laws restricting the far left and far right." (17) En lo que al Poder Judicial respecta, observamos que prevalece una estricta independencia amparada en la misma constitución, estableciendo explícitamente en su artículo 97 que "los jueces son independientes y están sometidos únicamente a la ley." (18) Esto, sumado a que "the government is free of pervasive corruption" (19) nos habla un funcionamiento democrático que se aleja en buena medida de las falsas promesas a la democracia planteadas en la teoría de Bobbio. En materia de libertad de expresión, también The Freedom House (20) ubica a Alemania entre los países considerados libres. Esto se fundamenta en su Constitución, donde se establece explícitamente en su artículo 5 que "No se ejercerá censura." (21) El análisis de The Freedom House lo posiciona como poseyente de una prensa diversa e independiente. Asimismo, dicho derecho se ve respaldado en el artículo 10 (22) de la European Convention on Human Right, considerado en Alemania ley federal. Por último, se observa que "Germany's government is accountable through open debates in parliament that are covered widely covered in the media" (23), indicios de una aproximación al debate público que pudiere dar origen a una suerte de democracia deliberativa. Sin embargo, pensamos que a la luz de la eficacia que en definitiva parecieran tener las instituciones democráticas en Alemania, sugerimos que quizá dicho camino democrático no sería –a la fecha- necesario.Estudio comparado Entendemos que en buena medida el estudio de cada uno de los casos ha permitido al lector generar una suerte de deducción en materia comparativa. Sin embargo, consideramos necesario remarcar algunos puntos del análsis comparativo e incorporar algunos detalles que pudieren servir en esta materia. Observamos entonces, en una primera lectura, cómo los indicadores marcan una importante diferencia en los factores que hacen a la gobernabilidad, inclinándose decididamente en favor de Alemania. Como estudiamos en cada caso, la posición de cada país en el Indice de Estado de Derecho elaborado por el Programa de Gobernabilidad del Banco Mundial ha sido debidamente estipulado. Mientras Turquía se posiciona en una escala media, Alemania prevalece en un percentil cercano al 100. Una situación similar se da en el Indice de Rendición de Cuentas, donde Alemania se encuentra por encima de 95/100 y Turquia por debajo de 50/100. Aquí, las respectivas Constituciones nos informan sobre el tratamiento en la materia: por un lado, Turquía mantiene un vocabulario amplio y vago que deviene en un Parlamento fuerte y centralizado, con posibilidad de ejercer presión sobre las instituciones en teoría independientes (por ejemplo, el Poder Jucidial y Consejo Supremo de Radio y Televisión) al tiempo que la arbitrariedad en materia de libertades fundamentales limita toda posibilidad de mecanismos de contralor o rendición de cuentas. Por su parte, en Alemania impera una Constitución clara y contundente, que garantiza tanto la independencia indiscutida de las instituciones como los mecanismos que determinan la efectividad en la rendición de cuentas. Por otro lado, nos remitimos al indicador más contundente en materia comparativa: el Indice de Estabilidad Política (Alemania alcanza 80/100 y Turquia 20/100). No profundizaremos particularmente en este concepto, porque entendemos ha sido debidamente considerado en cada uno de los estudios de caso. Sin embargo, es posible relacionar este indicador con lo que ocurre en materia de libertades y participación política.Por último, nos detenemos en lo que hace al control de la corrupción, elemento que incide notablemente en muchas de las falsas promesas propuestas por Bobbio. Aquí, Alemania obtien 90/100 y Turquia mejora su dsempeno relativo, alcanzando un indicador de 60/100. La enorme distancia que prevalece también en este sentido da fe del difícil camino que tiene Turquía por delante si se plantea seriamente reformar la efectividad de sus instituciones para generar un clima político acorde a su vecino europeo. Sólo de este modo podría garantizar las libertades fundamentales de todos los individuos que conforman su sociedad. Finalmente, en materia de libertad de expresión nos encontramos ante una Turquía que genera especial preocupación, particularmente en el trato con las minorías. Esto permite realizar una lectura entre líneas que determina la situación de persecución en que dicha población se encuentra, tal como ha sido estudiado con antelación.Consideraciones Finales La evidente distancia en materia de instituciones democráticas, Estado de Derecho y tratamiento de las minorías entre la República Federal Alemana y la República de Turquía dan fe de las dificultades que en definitiva enfrenta esta última ante la posibilidad de su eventual incorporación a la Unión Europea. Pareciere que Alemania ha asumido las lecciones del pasado en materia de protección de las libertades liberales, al tiempo que el camino emprendido por Turquía en la materia no parece estar dando los resultados esperados. Nos posicionamos, en este sentido, ante una Alemania libre y de instituciones independientes, con un clima político que posibilita un alto grado de inclusión, al menos desde la conformación de coaliciones políticas. Por otro lado, Turquía permanece en una posición de centralismo que limita enormemente la eficacia a la hora de garantizar la independencia de sus instituciones y las libertades de sus individuos. En un clima de alta corrupción, las falsas promesas de Bobbio afloran en una Turquía con una Constitución más asemejada a los procederes estipulados por Rousseau que a las libertades individuales articuladas por Locke, sin siquiera preservar el rousseauniano idealismo teórico a la hora de la procura de una voluntad generaldesinteresada e independiente. Con un vocabulario amplio y vago, la arbitrariedad es introducida de modo legal, coartando las libertades individuales que son consideradas fundamentales –e incluso previas al Estado- en la concepción liberal. Alemania, aún con algunas señales preocupantes en el trato de la población a las minorías étnicas, carece de estas penetrantes limitaciones que limitan a la democracia y oprimen a las minorías. El estudio comparado refleja una Turquía distante y ajena a los principios democrático-liberales en que está embebida Alemania, distancia que repercute directamente en las condiciones de vida y participación política de sus respectivas minorías. Una eventual Europa que incluyera a ambos gigantes sentiría en sus miembros la palpable distinción que persiste entre un individuo siervo, y un individuo en pleno ejercicio de su libertad. (1) WORLD BANK. (2) Valores aproximados: GUÍA DEL MUNDO: (3) GUÍA DEL MUNDO: (4) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (5) HOLOCAUST FORGOTTEN.(6) NEW ZEALAND ELECTION STUDIE. (7) Descripción del sistema de Representación Proporcional Mixto en Alemania. .pag 13(8) The Economist. 2007.(9) U.S. DEPATRTMENT OF STATE. 2008.(10) The Economist. 2007. (11) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (12) U.S. DEPATRTMENT OF STATE. 2008. (13) Íbid.(14) Debido a los antecedentes, los casos de violencia son tratados con especial cuidado, lo que no determina necesariamente que la violencia sea sistemática o que mantenga índices extravagantes.(15) WORLD BANK. (16) FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. (17) FREEDOM HOUSE.2005.(18) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (21) LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. (22) CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 1950. (23) FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. *Estudiantes de la Licenciatura en Estudios Internacionales, FACS - Universidad ORT Uruguay.AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Informe 2011: El Estado de los Derechos Humanos en el Mundo. Disponible en internet: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL. Turquía: libertad de expresión. Disponible en internet: ANMESTY INTERNATIONAL. 2007. Informe 2007: el estado de los derechos humanos en el mundo. Disponible en internet: BOBBIO, Norberto. 1986. Fondo de Cultura económica. México D.F. CENTRO DE INVESTIGACION Y DOCENCIA PARA AMÉRICA LATINA Y MEDIO ORIENTE. Los Kurdos en Turquía. Disponible en internet: CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS. 1950. Disponible en internet: DAHL, Robert. 1989. Un prefacio a la teoría democrática. Argentina: Grupo Editor Latinoamericano.DERECHO CONSTITUCIONAL TURCO. 1982. Constitución de la República de Turquía. Disponible en internet : Descripción del sistema de Representación Proporcional Mixto en Alemania. Disponible en internet: EL MUNDO EN LÍNEA. Pueblos sin Estado: los kurdos, una nación partida sobre pozos de petróleo.Disponible en internet: EXTRA, Guus; GORTER, Durk (2001). The other languages of Europe: Demographic, Sociolinguistic and Educational Perspectives. Multilingual MattersFEDERACIO D´ASSOCIACIONS GITANES DE CATALUNYA. Proyecto Europeo. Disponible en internet: FIGUEROA, Manuel Ruiz. 2007. El islam y Occidente desde América Latina. México. FREEDOM HOUSE. 2005. Map of freedom in the world: Germany. Disponible en internet: FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. Map of press freedom. Disponible en Internet: FREEDOM HOUSE.2005. Country Report: Turkey. Disponible en internet: GLOBAL SECURITY. Military. Disponible en internet: GUÍA DEL MUNDO. 2007. Disponible en internet: GÜRBEY, Gülistan. 1996, The Kurdish Nationalist Movement in Turkey since the 1980s. Lexington, Ky. : University Press of Kentucky.HABERMAS, Jürgen. 1999. La inclusión del otro: estudios de teoría política. Barcelona: Paidós. HOLOCAUST FORGOTTEN. Holocaust: Non-Jewish Victims. Disponible en internet: La enseñanza del idioma kurdo en Turquía : una reivindicación legítima y justa.2010. Disponible en internet: LA INSIGNIA. 2005. Derechos Humanos. Turquía: AI pide la derogación del artículo 301 del Código Penal. Disponible en internet: LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE. El Atlas III. Un mundo al revés. De la hegemonía occidental al poli-centrismo. Capital intelectual. 2009. LEY FUNDAMENTAL DE LA REPÚBLICA FEDERAL DE ALEMANIA. Disponible en internet: LOCKE, John. 1664. La ley de la naturaleza. Madrid: Editorial tecnos.MILL, John Stuart. 1985. Del gobierno representativo. Madrid:Tecnos. Minorities in Germany: The integration dilemma. 2007. En: The Economist. Disponible en internet: NACIONES UNIDAS. Declaración de los Derechos Humanos. Preámbulo. Disponible en internet: NEW ZEALAND ELECTION STUDIE. Minority Representation, Empowerment,NEWSWEEK. The World`s Best Countries. Diponible en internet: NÚÑEZ DE PRADO, Sara. Minorías nacionales y medios de comunicación: una visión de Europa. Disponible en internet: PETTIGREW, Thomas: "Reactions toward the New Minorities of Western Europe". Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 24, 1998.ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques. El contrato social o principios de derecho político. Editorial tecnos. 1988, original en 1762. Madrid. Traducción de María José Villaverde. Pág. 34.THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY. Disponible en internet: TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL. Corruption Perceptions Index 2005. Disponible en internet: U.S. DEPATRTMENT OF STATE. 2008. Humans Right Report: Germany. Disponible en internet: VELASCO, Juan Carlos (2009). Democracia y deliberación pública. Confluencia XXI. Revista de Pensamiento Político. México.WAGMAN, Daniel. Integración e inmigración. Disponible en internet: http://www.fongdcam.org/manuales/educacionintercultural/datos/docs/ActoresyEscenarios/Actores/GrupoSociales/IntegracioneInmigracionT67.pdfWHITE, Jenny B. : "Turks in the New Germany". American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol 99, número 4, Diciembre 1997. WORLD BANCK. Country Data Report for TURKEY, 1996-2009. Disponible en internet: WORLD BANK. Country Data Report for GERMANY, 1996-2009. Disponible en internet: ZERAOUI, Zidane. 2000. El dilema Kurdo. Editorial Limusa S.A
