Independent Internationalist Podcast

Here is my show, a sorter version, for this week:

Slow Blogging

I apologize for my slow blogging the last few weeks.  My schedule has been busy.  I will not be blogging really until school ends, which will be around Monday, May 2.  Sorry for the inconvenience!

Let's Hitch

This week's Christopher Hitchens' column is about the royal family.

Senator John McCain Visits Libya

The Senator from Arizona will be visiting Benghazi to talk with the rebel forces.  This is noteable because it points to McCain's interest in taking the lead on this topic.  The New York Times reports about the mission:

As he left his hotel, he referred to the rebels as his heroes, according to The Associated Press. Then he made a brief visit to the courthouse, which has been the center of the uprising against Col.Muammar el-Qaddafi.

NYT Continues: 

His visit came a day after officials in Washington announced that the United States would deploy Predator drones armed with missiles to join NATO airstrikes on forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi’s government.Mr. McCain, the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, planned to meet with the administration in Benghazi which has been formally recognized only by France, Italy and Qatar. His arrival in eastern Libya was likely to be seen as an important acknowledgment by a significant member of the American political establishment.
Mr. McCain has criticized a United States decision to hand over command and control of the Libya campaign to European NATO powers, whom the rebels have criticized as less muscular in their airstrikes than the United States.

Finally, his mission is revealed in this statement: 

As he left a hotel in Benghazi, Mr. McCain said that he had come “to get an on-the-ground assessment of the situation” and that he would meet members of the insurgent administration and the rebel army.

Morning Memo: Friday, April 22

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

President Obama sends drones to Libya

Clinton says Gadhafi is using cluster bombs against civilians

U.S. considering offering Libyan rebels "non-lethal" aid

Two western photo journalists killed in Libya

Sen. Kerry releases statement about photographer killed

Sen. Harry Reid and his delegation visit China

Arab group offers Yemen leader an exit strategy

Syrian protesters demand more from Assad

Enthusiasm for GOP field is less than stellar

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

Robert Park wants the west to stop the genocide in North Korea

Jacob Heilbrunn on the U.S. nation building capabilities

Video of Note: A discussion on Syria



Photo Credit: Time Magazine

Figure from Gallup

Another Afghanistan Deadline Debate

Speaker John Boehner is on a mission with a special House delegation to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq.  He's main goal is to get a feel for conditions on the ground in those countries.  It is a pretty routine trip so far.  In a recent speech Boehner said this:

“During our meeting with General Petraeus, he noted that security gains have been made in Afghanistan, but that they are fragile and reversible,” Boehner said“That is why we must remain steadfast in our commitment to the counterinsurgency strategy our commanders on the ground have put in place and to ensuring its success, rather than focusing on meeting arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal,” he added. “Any drawdown of U.S. troops must be based on the conditions on the ground, not on political calculations. If the Obama Administration insists on beginning to draw down troops in July, it must explain how the pace and scope of such a move will not undermine the tenuous progress we’ve made thus far. To date, it has not done so.”

I have a weird suspicion that July could be hot, and I'm just talking about the temperature, month for the Obama administration in Afghanistan.  There could be real divide about whether to start withdrawing troops then or wait a little while longer.  Several polls have indicated that people are tired of Afghanistan and want to focus on domestic projects.  With the Tea Party holding this similar view, the President could have an ally.

In 2004, and too an extent in 2006, Republicans used a strategy to attack Democrats who wanted a set time table for withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.  It worked then because the U.S. had not been in those conflicts as long.  That same magic may not exist this time.  Boehner will be in a tough spot if he argues for staying longer.  Like all of his battles, the greatest one will be within his own party.  The Tea Party on one side and the Bush era Republicans on the other.  Usually, the American public would side with the military on these types of topics, but they already did that last time when Obama granted then General McCrystal the 30,000 troops he needed.  If the military says "give us more time" that might not jive so well for an American public weary of war.

So, I would say Republicans could play the argue against this timeline, but it may not work out in their best interest.

Photo Credit: Politico

Morning Memo: Wednesday, April 20

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

U.S. State Department has little faith in lifting Syria's emergency law will stop protesters

Libyan rebels make some gains in Misrata

First Lady's jet has close call

Speaker Boehner visits Afghanistan

More money given to PEPFAR for AIDS prevention

Get the lowdown on Donald Trump's foreign policy

U.S. and the Afghan opium market

Figures of Note:

Gallup looks at global wellbeing

Opinions of Note:

Annie Lowrey says the S&P downgrade is more about political gridlock than debt

Thomas Donnelly defends defensive spending

My First Thought: Everything is not a sign

In some ways, I think that S&P did not send the message that most people knew, America is not in good place with its fiscal house of cards.  By announcing that it "might" downgrade U.S. bonds to AA instead of AAA, everyone freaked out.  I am here to say that this is not the sign from God or the Easter miracle everyone should be cheering on.  In fact, it reminds me of that Bill Engvall bit, "Here's your sign."  The whole Washington beltway cannot freak out every time an agency or organization with the power to place a label on the U.S. does to.  That would be like if VH1 placed Paul McCartney on the #1 spot of a countdown about the worst artists ever.  McCartney would not freak out because it is just one list.  People will still buy his music and he will remain super rich.

I agree, a plan needs to be in place to fix the long term problem.  Unfortunately, campaign season is coming up and no side wants to make drastic cuts that would hurt constituent voters.  Politics and economics do not mesh well in a world where politics drives the news.  More importantly, the deficit collapsing the U.S. as a global hegemon is a long ways off.  With Washington's incompetence at solving short term problems and the American people's short attention span, it will be a while before this problem is solved.  2013 is when the problem will get worse, but that is 2 years away and it should just be a warning bell.  Until then, everyone should just take a deep breadth and stop freaking out!

Photo Credit: Fox News

Independent Internationalist Radio Show April 19

Here is my show from April 19.  It is my last show of the season!

Show (starts about 2 minutes in)

Morning Memo: Tuesday, April 19

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

Standard and Poor warns of U.S. bond downgrade - hurting stock market

Protesters continue to gather in Syria asking for leader's resignation

Afghan security forces questioned capacity to defend after attack

Clinton pledges support from U.S. to Japan after earthquake

$64 billion in spending for Pentagon weapons program

Potential choices to replace Robert Gates

Rep. Dennis Kucinich: U.S. should take care of its priorities at home

"Arab Spring" could hurt U.S. involvement in Israel-Palestine peace process

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

Daniel Drezner pokes fun at Donald Trump's foreign policy positions

Daniel M. Price on the U.S. returning to the Doha Talks

Great Video Time: Tax Day, courtesy of Schoolhouse Rock

I hope you got your taxes in on time!

Photo Credit: Daily Telegraph

Figure from the Economist 

Does This Shock Anyone?

Newly released Wikileaks cables reveal that the U.S. State Department gave funds to opposition groups in Syria.  It is unclear about whether that happened during the protests or only just before.  The Washington Post reports:

The London-based satellite channel, Barada TV, began broadcasting in April 2009 but has ramped up operations to cover the mass protests in Syria as part of a long-standing campaign to overthrow the country’s autocratic leader, Bashar al-Assad. Human rights groups say scores of people have been killed by Assad’s security forces since the demonstrations began March 18; Syria has blamed the violence on “armed gangs.” Barada TV is closely affiliated with the Movement for Justice and Development, a London-based network of Syrian exiles. Classified U.S. diplomatic cables show that the State Department has funneled as much as $6 million to the group since 2006 to operate the satellite channel and finance other activities insideSyria. The channel is named after the Barada River, which courses through the heart of Damascus, the Syrian capital. The U.S. money for Syrian opposition figures began flowing under President George W. Bush after he effectively froze political ties with Damascus in 2005. The financial backing has continued under President Obama, even as his administration sought to rebuild relations with Assad. In January, the White House posted an ambassador to Damascus for the first time in six years.

No one should be surprised by this.  The U.S. does this a lot with rebel groups.  I call it the "we will support you in spirit strategy."  If Syria's leader Bashar al-Assad stays in power, it will be embarrassing for the U.S. to have supported an opposition group, which is why the Libya situation is also a problem.  This would be the Egypt approach to the problem.  The U.S. secretly wanted the protesters to win and also support Hosni Mubarak just in case.  Eventually, the U.S. must pick sides, but until then, the U.S. will just bat for both teams.

CFR.org - The World Next Week: April 14, 2011

CFR.org - The World Next Week: April 14, 2011

Let's Hitch

This is a reading of Christopher Hitchen's column from this week at Slate:

Should Obama Just Be a Progressive?

The dueling nature of the two deficit plans, one by Paul Ryan and President Obama's plan, show a contrast in politics.  Most knew Ryan's was going to fundamentally be a conservative plan and Obama's a center left plan.  In his speech, the president basically mocked Ryan's plan and proposed his own plan, which could include some tax increases.  The speech was vision for the country and not a starting point for negotiation.

I will advocate this be the track the president take until the 2012 election.  It might sound radical, but in the end it could help him.  During the healthcare fight, Obama reached out to Republicans, even using their plan from the early '90s, and was called a socialist.  In the Bush tax cut debate, the president just caved into GOP demands to let the tax cuts not expire.  Even in last week's budget battle, the Democrats had to make bigger concessions than they wanted to admit.  Let's face it, being a centrist has just made him a political piñata.

If the president just stood up as a progressive he would still get beaten up by the Republican Party in the 2012 election for being radical just like they are claiming now.  The difference between the two is he could keep that progressive voting block and his base will get riled up for the 2012 election.  All of this is just politics of course.  Negotiations will need to be made.  If President Obama keeps acting like a progressive, there will be a land of people to vote for him.

Column (4/15/11): The Trump Card

Megalomaniac millionaire Donald Trump’s recent media crusade to find the answers to President Obama’s birth certificate problem certainly have put a bad stain on the reputation of the Republican Party. In a mere ten days Trump has achieved a cult like status in the GOP by touting a long ago disproven conspiracy theory and used brash rhetoric to describe his stances in regards to Libya and China.

 In fact, he ranks second only to Mitt Romney and in a tie with Mike Huckabee at 17% of Republican primary voters who would support his candidacy for a seat in the Oval Office.

More or less, commentators and the mainstream media have shrugged off this potential candidate as a publicity stunt not worth covering, for which I partially agree. Although what most miss is not that Americans necessarily support the Donald winning the ultimate prize, on the contrary they support someone like him. What they want is a straight shooter, someone who will not dance around the totem pole for a “politically correct” answer to a question. Ultimately, America has reached the point where reality television has defined the norm of the conversation.

Continue Reading Here...

Read more headlines from the Brackety-Ack

Morning Memo: Friday, April 15

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

U.S. has evidence saying Iran is helping Syrian government quell protests

Letter from NATO allies says operations will continue until Gadhafi is out of power

Obama says Qatar's support crucial for Libyan operations

White House criticizes Bahrain's crackdown on Shiite groups

War on soft power begins

Clinton warns NATO about early withdrawal from Afghanistan

New envoy for Burma named

Pentagon asks for speedy fund

Congress approves budget

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

Nicholas Eberstadt on U.S.-North Korean policy

Frederick and Kimberly Kagan on Iraq

Videos of Note: Jon Stewart praises Bill O'Reilly

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Photo Credit: Globe and Mail

Figure from Pew Research Center

Morning Memo: Thursday, April 14

Good Morning!

U.S. foreign policy stories ready for your delight

Top Topics:

President Obama lays out deficit plan

GOP hates tax hikes in Obama's plan

Despite orders to slow down strikes, Pentagon is firing away in Libya

Clinton condemns Gadhafi's continued atrocities

North Korea just detained American

Pakistan lambastes CIA drone attack

American consulate employees in Mexico targets for drug violence

Senator James Inhofe's support for Ivory' Coast's Laurent Gbagbo

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

Matt Yglesias 's liberal persective on Obama's deficit reduction plan

Yuval Levin's conservative perspective on Obama's plan

Video of Note: Deficit conversation



Photo Credit: Reuters

Figure from Gallup

Do Nothing on the Deficit

Annie Lowry writes a brilliant column for Slate saying the best plan for the deficit is actually nothing.  Sounds weird, but listen to this:

So how does doing nothing actually return the budget to health? The answer is that doing nothing allows all kinds of fiscal changes that politicians generally abhor to take effect automatically. First, doing nothing means the Bush tax cuts would expire, as scheduled, at the end of next year. That would cause a moderately progressive tax hike, and one that hits most families, including the middle class. The top marginal rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, and some tax benefits for investment income would disappear. Additionally, a patch to keep the alternative minimum tax from hitting 20 million or so families would end. Second, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Obama's health care law, would proceed without getting repealed or defunded. The CBO believes that the plan would bend health care's cost curve downward, wrestling the rate of health care inflation back toward the general rate of inflation. Third, doing nothing would mean that Medicare starts paying doctors low, low rates. Congress would not pass anymore of the regular "doc fixes" that keep reimbursements high. Nothing else happens. Almost magically, everything evens out.

Morning Memo: Wednesday, April 13

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

France and Great Britain want NATO campaign in Libya intensified

Toppling Gadhafi in the cards

President Obama calls the new Ivory Coast President

New polls show American public supports "Arab Spring"

Inside Yemen's fractured protest movement

U.S. moves with caution on AU Libya peace plan

Afghanistan defense wins big in 2011 budget

Sen. Jon Kyl: Obama's nuclear free world policy is "loopy"

The senate will unlikely debate a Libya resolution this month

Pakistan fund transfered back to Pentagon from State Department

Speech today about President Obama's deficit reduction plans

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

Christopher Hitchens on Zimbabwe's aging dictator

Malou Innocent on NATO's lost purpose

My First Thought: Are deficits really bad for national security?

So often I hear the argument for reducing the national debt labeled a threat to U.S. hegemony.  Needless to say there is something to that claim only if deficits become big enough to bring down the U.S. as a power.  Today, the president will lay out his plan to cut deficits to counter Rep. Paul Ryan's "Path to Prosperity" plan, which really was the same proposals that the GOP has been proposing for years only gift wrapped differently.   I'm sure the president will say a variation of the line "Our fiscal path is unsustainable and we must not pass it on to our children and grandchildren to face the burden."

I say, that is true.  Is it fair to leave the next generation with crumbling infrastructure, a failing education system that makes the greatest power the laughingstock of the world, and possibly hamper an economic recovery?  I would say no.  That is not to say that cutting deficits are not important.  My point is about trade-offs.  Remember for all the money that is cut, a program is lost and a possible chance to invest that money somewhere towards the future.  All of sudden cutting the deficit has become the new hot trend around the beltway.  Just consider the austere nature of austerity.  Investment can sometimes be better for U.S. power than cutting programs vital to it.  I'm not an economist or an expert on fiscal policy, but I think this is something we should all keep in mind throughout this debate.

Photo Credit: Boston Globe

Figure from Ezra Klein

Independent Internationalist Radio Show April 12

Here is my radio show today in case you missed it!

Show

Radio Show Today!

I will be on the radio from 1-3 pm est talking politics and foreign policy on WRKE 100.3 FM in the Salem, VA area, also online at wrke.org.  Once again, I will post the podcast later today!

Morning Memo: Monday, April 11

Good Morning!

Government shutdown averted...

Top Topics:

African Union negotiate cease fire agreement with Gadhafi

U.N. and France attack Ivory Coast leaders compound

Next big political battles for Obama

China condemns U.S. for human rights abuses

U.S. in top for arms spending and dealing

GOP does not want more money for U.N. operations

60 day clock is ticking for Obama to ask for funding on Libya

The Columbia-U.S. Free Trade Agreement has some movement

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

Jackson Diehl on Obama's relationship with Columbia

Ezra Klein on Democrats rotten deal

Videos of Note: Yemen Conversation



Photo Credit: AP

Figure from Gallup

Column (4/8/11): Winning in a Government Shutdown

Grim news looms at the beltway on Friday as the U.S. federal government will officially shutdown if the House and the Senate cannot reconcile their budget differences.  Both House Speaker John Boeher (R, OH) and Senator Harry Reid (D, NV) have been in talks with the president to resolve the issue to no avail at an agreeable compromise.  Since the fall, the congress has kept the government funded by passing temporary resolutions, seven so far, allowing federal agencies to stay afloat.  Although, after this week, Democrats in the Senate and the president are saying no more, calling for anymore temporary resolutions to be voted down by the senate or vetoed by the president.

 Budget logistics are complicated and not fun to explain, wonk work often puts people to sleep.  The story moves like this, the Democratic congress did not pass a budget last fall.  This allowed the Democrats to strategically not make hard choices for the midterm elections.  That allowed for the newly controlled Republican House to make crucial decisions about cuts, which is what they campaigned on. 

With a new spring in their step, the House wanted $100 billion in cuts first.  Then, they dropped down to $61 billion.  In addition to the cuts, there were certain “policy riders,” which planned to defund planned parenthood, National Public Radio, cuts in pell grants, and defunds the healthcare bill and the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gases.  Naturally, the Democratic controlled senate opposed these cuts and would not accept the $61 billion offer; oddly enough that was less than the $73 billion in cuts that President Obama requested. 

Continue Reading Here...

More Headlines from the Brackety-Ack

Morning Memo: Friday, April 8

Good Morning!

The day of reckoning is now...

Top Topics: Shutdown Showdown

Prospects look grim for a budget deal

Harry Reid: Odds for shutdown are 50-50

Policy riders, social issues, are holding up the agreement

White House will veto one week temporary resolution to keep the government funded

Obama holds calm demeanor

Blame for shutdown is mixed

Federal employees will feel the brunt of the shutdown

What actually shuts down during a shutdown?

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

David Wiegel says Republicans will get blamed for shutdown

Jennifer Rubin informs conservatives about why the president's veto is a bad idea

My First Thought: It's really a social issues battle

As Ezra Klein points out, the agreement to avert a government shutdown already exists.  The number is going to be between $33-40 billion in cuts.  Both sides know this, yet there will be a forced government shutdown? It becomes clear that this debate is hardly about cutting the budget.  In fact, the main plank holding up the negotiations are the so called "policy riders."  These are what I call the fiscal social conservative part of the debate. Basically, planned parenthood, NPR, Obama's healthcare bill, and the EPA would receive massive short term cuts to do their job simply because conservatives consider them wasteful.  At first, most thought these would go away in the negotiation process.  Turns out, as the process moved on the Tea Party demanded the riders stay in the budget.  If John Boehner did not go along with it, they would find a new leader.

Obviously Democrats will not say yes to these measures.  It fascinates me how everyone talks of this as a debate to cut deficit spending.  In reality, this debate is just about social issues.  Yes, Republicans loathe most of those programs that are losing funding and see them as a waste.  Before, this it was just focusing on them as social issues, but now they have a prime opportunity to call them "waste" making it much easier to win the social issues debate.  Of course the riders will not pass in the end.  Eventually they will have to be dropped for the budget to get a vote in the senate.  It just saddens me that a government shutdown is going to happen over a "ideological measures" instead of a grown up fiscal debate.

Photo Credit: ABC News

Figure from Josh Rogin's blog the Cable

Morning Memo: Wednesday, April 6

Good Morning!

2 days left until a possible government shutdown

Top Topics:

Talks collapse between Boehner, Reid, and Obama as shutdown looms

What happens during a government shutdown?

Ivory Coast political battle over - Gbagbo will give up power

France begins negotiations of surrender in Ivory Coast

Libyan rebels disappointed in NATO performance

Ecuador expels U.S. ambassador

Israeli president visits White House

Sen. John Cornyn will introduce bill to make Libya regime change U.S. policy

Figures of Note:





Opinions of Note:

David Brooks on Paul Ryan's budget proposal

Stephen M. Walt on why the U.S. is addicted to war

My First Thought: Shutdown fever

On Friday at 11:59 pm, if the U.S. congress does not approve a budget for the fiscal year 2011, the federal government will temporarily shutdown, that is a fact.  The main question pervading the minds of most people is: why?  In general the possibility of this shutdown is a metaphor for a much broader problem which is Washington's inability to compromise.  The ideological spectrum has been defined.  Its Speaker Boehner versus the Tea Party versus the democrats.  Besides the problem of the government temporarily shutting down, one side will inevitably win in the court of public opinion.  Whoever does will be able to win the 2012 presidential election, have their way in Libya, and even have the upper hand to tell the American people what they believe is best.

Think of the shutdown as two cowboys fighting at high noon.  There will be a standoff for a short time, but eventually someone will fire and come out the hero.  One side will have to cave and the other side will win.  Game, set, and match!

Photo Credit: The Guardian

Figures from the Economist and Gallup

Independent Internationalist Radio Show April 5

If you missed my radio show, you can listen here.

Show

My 1000th Post

I can't believe it!  I have made to 1,000 posts.  Quite a feat if I do say so myself.  I have come a long way in a thousand posts.  A "Morning Memo" published everyday, a column at my college newspaper, a radio show that I host on my college radio station, daily rants, and all of my commentary.  I want to thank everyone who reads this blog and continues to support my work, tell your friends!

I have dinner to attend tonight and lots of reading to do later, so this will be my last post of day.  Also, there will not be "Morning Memo" tomorrow, but I will be on the radio doing my show from 1-3 est on WRKE 100.3 FM, also live streaming at wrke.org.  As usual,  I will post the podcast later.

Only Hitch Can...

Christopher Hitchens never disappoints with his witty take on what would otherwise be a germane event.  On the recent Koran burning in Mazar-i-Sharif, Hitchens labels an interesting dichotomy between this event and what has been exemplified by the protests:

How dispiriting to see, once again, the footage of theocratic rage in Kandahar and Mazar-i-Sharif. The same old dreary formula: self-righteous frenzy married to a neurotic need to take offense; the easy resort to indiscriminate violence and cruelty; the promulgation of makeshift fatwas by mullahs on the make; those writhing mustaches framing crude slogans of piety and hatred, and yelling for death as if on first-name terms with the Almighty. The spilling of blood and the spoliation of property—all for nothing, and ostensibly "provoked" by the corny, brainless antics of a devout American nonentity, notice of whose mere existence is beneath the dignity of any thinking person.

The wonderful thing about the last two months had been precisely theabsence of such sanguinary and theatrical nonsense. Large, orderly, humorous crowds formed in major Egyptian cities, all of them demanding the acceptance of civic responsibility not just by the organs of state, but by themselves. Immense care was taken to avoid breakage or looting or even littering, let alone bloodshed. All the emphasis was on dialogue and the civilized exchange of ideas, and though the word martyrwas indeed used to describe those who laid down their lives in the struggle, the cult of human sacrifice for its own sake was not in evidence. In order to hear crowds chanting hypnotically about their willingness to sacrifice their blood (or indeed other people's), one had to turn to the zombified groups of frightened loyalist "demonstrators" mobilized yet again by the regimes of Qaddafi and Assad.

Are we seeing a different kind of protest than what came before?  More importantly, is this the clash of two different cultures of protests.  One with an Islamic viewpoint and the other with a "democratic" viewpoint?  The difference is stark.

Morning Memo: Monday, April 4

Good Morning!

Top Topics:

U.S. shifts position on Yemen

Terrible slaughter in the Ivory Coast

Gadhafi emissary meets with Greek leaders to seek a possible peace deal

President Obama announces re-election bid

President Obama will also appoint first special envoy to Burma/Myanmar

Differences with Brazil and U.S. strained on Libya

Senator Marco Rubio wants to topple Gadhafi

Senator Lindsay Graham criticizes the president for using contractors in Iraq

Senator Harry Reid wants to hold off on arming Libyan rebels

Tea Party mixed reaction about Libya

Fear of U.S. government shutdown gets real

Figure of Note:



Opinions of Note:

David Ignatius's liquidating Libya strategy

John Dickerson thinks a government shutdown is bad for everyone

Video of Note: Best of Late Night TV



Photo Credit: Politico

Figure from Gallup

CFR.org - The World Next Week: March 31, 2011

CFR.org - The World Next Week: March 31, 2011

Ratified

I was unable to snag an interview with Jon Meacham, who is coming to speak at my college next Wednesday.  Then I read this story and maybe now was not the best time to try and get that interview.  Oh well, life goes on: 

1. My first thought was about how the U.S. mainly fears itself

2. Obama names a new Sudan envoy and asks Syria to reform its government

3. Are U.N. resolutions just starting points?

4. Pastor Terry Jones's antics started a deadly riot in Afghanistan

5. Famous mustaches as worn by dictators

6. Is being on the U.N. Human Rights Council worth it?

Overtime: How Ivory Coast conflict can spread to Liberia and an exciting summit about Zimbabwe 

Should the U.S. Stay on the U.N. Human Rights Council?

The U.S. will be up for another term on the U.N. Human Rights Council soon.  Ted Piccone writes a piece for the Brookings Institute saying why the U.S. should stay on the council.  This paragraph is what gets me:

Naysayers will jump in at this point to cite the ongoing bias against Israel at the Council, a situation the United States vigorously opposes, often alone. Or they will complain that the five-year review of the Council so far has led to meager proposals for reform, failing to mention the defeat of numerous efforts to weaken the body. And why was Libya elected to the Council in the first place? In the quickly forgotten recent era of constructive engagement with Tripoli, it was not all that surprising it got elected in the face of no other competition on the African slate. Where there has been competition, states with bad human rights records have been defeated, including Iran, Venezuela, Belarus, Azerbaijan and Sri Lanka. And with Libya’s expulsion, a new precedent has been set that egregious violators will be removed. 

Here Piccone is pointing out the obvious problems with the Human Rights Council, but he still believes it is getting better.  Although, the point should be stressed that while human rights abusers still exist on the council, why should it still be considered a legitimate authority?  Its like having an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting with people who are still drinking.

U.S. Asks Syria For Reforms

In response to the violent clashes between the Syrian government and the protesters, the White House has called for reforms to be implemented in Syria.  Reuters says:

"The Syrian government has an important opportunity to be responsive to the legitimate aspirations of the Syrian people," Jay Carney, spokesman for U.S. President Barack Obama, said in a statement. "Violence is not the answer to the grievances of the Syrian people."

Only a Starting Point

When debating whether to provide arms and training to the rebels in order to take Gadhaffi out of power, questions are being raised about the true nature of the U.S. or NATO to follow the U.N. Security Council Resolution.  David Bosco writes:

I think the Obama administration would say that the Council authorization was essential for the Libya operation. This was in part a cold political calculation (certain key allies wouldn't come on board without it) but also part ideological: this administration places great stock on international legality and legitimacy and sees the Council as key to achieving them.  Bypassing the Council was something the Bush team did. But insisting on working through the Council means that you take what you can get, and what the Western powers could could get was a resolution centered on protecting civilians, not one authorizing support to the rebels or a policy of regime change. There is now a mismatch between the coalition's real goal (quite clearly regime change) and its legal authorization (safeguarding civilians) which is generating significant tension. That in turn raises an important question about the use of the Security Council:  Could bypassing the body be less injurious to it than securing a lowest-common-denominator resolution and interpreting it beyond common-sense limits? Relations between the Council's members have sometimes been frostiest not when the body was bypassed (as in Kosovo) but when some of the members felt that others where abusing the body's authority. During the 1990s, Sergei Lavrov, Russia longtime UN ambassador and current foreign minister, often expressed outraged that the Iraq sanctions resolutions did not include a "sunset provision." The absence of such a provision--to Lavrov, an unintentional oversight--meant that any single permanent member could keep sanctions on Iraq in perpetuity by opposing resolutions to lift them. In that case, Lavrov felt that Russia had effectively been hoodwinked, that its authority as a Council member was being deployed in ways that it never intended.

Bosco implies that under this framework, the Security Council Resolution may only be considered a starting point for larger ambitions disguised through the term "the situation is changing" so the strategy must change.  It would be ridiculous to get a new resolution every time the situation gets worse or if needs change.  By the same token, if NATO takes over the operations then the U.N. coalition is no longer in charge of the mission, so the new coalition can exercise free reign.  


The main debate here is whether U.N. resolutions should be considered static or flexible to conditions on the ground?  The legal debate for this gets complicated.  Nevertheless, it is a question worth asking.  

Terry Jones Does Spark Anger

On Friday, 12 people were killed at a U.N. compound by violent and angry protesters.  One event that had something to do with it was Terry Jones, the pastor from Florida who threatened to burn the Koran last summer, which became a focal point of the demonstration.  The Washington Post reports:

At least 12 people were killed in Afghanistan Friday, most of them foreigners, when a United Nations compound was stormed following a demonstration by Afghans enraged by a Florida pastor’s burning of a Koran, according to Afghan officials.Thousands of protesters mobilized after a midday sermon, then surged toward the offices of the United Nations in Mazar-e-Sharif, northern Afghanistan’s largest city and normally a bastion of calm.Some in the crowd broke into the U.N. office and attacked the staff, killing security guards and members of the U.N. mission, officials said.

Post continued:

 The Afghans had written a 10-point declaration that outlined their anger after the March 20 Koran burning by Terry Jones, a pastor from Gainesville, Fla., who sparked an uproar last year by threatening to burn the Islamic holy book, but then backed off for a time after warnings from U.S. officials and others that his actions could provoke a violent response.Among the points on the declaration was that Afghanistan should sever all ties to the United States if Jones was not punished, according to protesters.

This proves there are consequences when a person decides to insult an entire religion.  More importantly, domestic actions can have an impact internationally.  Not to say that people cannot criticize radical Islam, or any other perverted form of other religions, but the way in which it is done does make a difference.

Mustaches That Ruled The World

Foreign Policy Magazine offers a list of the best dictatorial mustaches  Sick and demented as it might seem, it is still worth reading.

Obama's Squeeze and See Doctrine

David Brook's wrote an interesting piece for the Times this morning.  It looks to be a more sophisticated "wait and see" doctrine of the Obama administration.  Brooks says:

There are three plausible ways he might go, which inside the administration are sometimes known as the Three Ds. They are, in ascending order of likelihood: Defeat — the ragtag rebel army vanquishes his army on the battlefield; Departure — Qaddafi is persuaded to flee the country and move to a villa somewhere; and Defection — the people around Qaddafi decide there is no future hitching their wagon to his, and, as a result, the regime falls apart or is overthrown. The result is a strategy you might call Squeeze and See. The multilateral forces ratchet up the pressure and watch to see what happens. The Western nations are reaching out to senior Libyan figures to encourage defection (the foreign minister has already split, and more seem to be coming). There is an effort to broadcast television signals into Libya to rival state TV. In the liberated areas, the multilateral alliance is sending aid to build civil society and organize the political opposition. The U.S. is releasing billions of confiscated Libyan dollars to the opposition to ensure its staying power.

New Sudan Envoy Named

President Obama just named new special envoy to Sudan yesterday.  The New York Times reports:

President Obama named the veteran diplomat Princeton Lyman to be his new special envoy to Sudan. Mr. Lyman, a former ambassador to Nigeria and South Africa, was called out of retirement last year to help mediate disputes between northern and southern Sudan before the south’s secession vote in January. Now, Mr. Lyman will try to ease southern Sudan’s transition to independence while trying to improve relations with the Sudanese government in Khartoum. He succeeds Gen. Scott Gration, who stepped down in February to be nominated for the Kenya ambassador post.

Morning Memo: Friday, April 1

Good Morning!

It's Friday and April Fool's Day!

Top Topics:

Gates wants other nations to train Libyan rebels

Also reaffirms that the mission is not about deposing Gadhaffi

Sen. John McCain questions handing over the mission to NATO

Congress begins debate about funding the war and presidential authority

Libya owned bank drew money from U.S. Federal Reserve

Ivory Coast's Ouattra supporters surround capital and President Obama's message to the Ivory Coast

Syria protesters continue to demand real reforms

Former President Carter criticizes U.S. Cuba policy while on a visit to Cuba

Compromise gets trickier in the U.S. budget battle

Serious talks from the GOP about cutting defense spending

Figures of Note:



Opinions of Note:

David Frum calls shenanigans on Obama's hypocritical Libya policy

Nicholas Kristoff has hope for Egypt's chaotic democracy

My First Thought: The U.S. only fears itself

Jumping into the terrain of the unpredictable and unscrupulous conundrum that is Libya, U.S. policy makers have many questions about this conflict. Namely, can the rebels defend themselves? Will Gadhaffi leave power? Who will fill the power vacuum left by the Lionel Richie look alike? And is it possible that al-Qaeda could see a presence in Libya?  None of these questions have easy answers or may even be answerable.  Unknown variables are what strikes fear in the hearts of most who look at the Middle East.  With Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Bahrain on the verge of instability, no one knows what will happen next.

For the U.S. though, the fear goes much deeper than the unknown.  What was made clear from the questions hurled at Secretary of Defense Gates yesterday is that congress, and Gates for that matter, fear a repeat of U.S. foreign policy mistakes.  Arming the Libya rebels could become dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands and training them would not be an easy task, just ask the Iraqi army.  Even getting into this quagmire has politicians wondering if this "short conflict" could go on for longer than anticipated.  Most importantly, what if the U.S., or NATO, loses and Gadhafi remains?  Of course, these fears are legitimate.  Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, even the Russian civil war in 1917 when the U.S. gave aid to the White Army makes clear of the risks associated with intervening in another countries affairs.

More broadly, the U.S. foreign policy community is seeing these moments in the Middle East as a reflection.  For years, the U.S. has supported many Middle East autocrats for the sake of stability in the region and for the protection of interests.  Currently, that view is being challenged by the protesters themselves.  In the end, the U.S. would like to prevent not just a repeat of its failed aiding of rebellion policies, but also prevent supporting a regime that could come to power from any of these protests and have that new regime became the same as the old: repressive and corrupt for the sake of stability. Full circle karma is something the U.S. wants desperately to prevent.

Photo Credit: Newsday

Figure from Gallup