Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darfur. Show all posts

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Show me the veeps: Live-blogging the Biden-Palin debate

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY -- PLEASE ADD YOUR COMMENTS AND LET US KNOW WHAT YOU THOUGHT OF THE DEBATE.

THIS HAS BECOME A VERY LONG POST. SCROLL DOWN FOR OUR LATEST UPDATES.

8:51 pm - Okay, here we go. Less than ten minutes before the debate. Keep checking back. I'll be updating this frequently over the next couple of hours.

8:53 pm - First observation: CNN is populated with fools. In response to Jeffrey Toobin's poing that Palin's interview with Couric was a disaster, John "Magic Board" King said that everyone has a bad day now and then. Really? Palin's utter incompetence can be chalked up to a bad day? And don't get me started on Gloria Borger, who has yet to say a single intelligent thing in all my time watching CNN throughout this entire campaign -- okay, I'm exaggerating, but she's just so... trivial.

8:56 pm -- Here's the problem going in: expectations. According to Toobin, generally a solid Obama supporter and Democrat, Palin just needs to look competent. See how low the expectations are for her? I wrote about this yesterday. David Gergen at least argued that she needs to look like a leader -- in other words, much more than merely competent.

9:00 pm - By the way, I'm drinking Yamazaki single malt whisky (aged 12 years). The Japanese tend to like their whisky watered down, but I'm having it straight, with just a trickle of cold water. I prefer my whisky a bit smokier than this, but it's good stuff. Hopefully -- if I may take from my favourite song of all time by my favourite band of all time -- it'll keep me going through the show. (Hello, hello, hello... is there anybody in there, just nod if you can hear me...)

9:04 pm - Palin asks if she can call him Joe. Nice, populist touch, even if her plan is to attack him. And Biden's off to a good start: very sober and restrained, but hitting Bush hard. Yes -- focus on homeowners, talk about Main Street. He's making good points while contrasting Obama-Biden from McCain-Palin.

9:05 pm - Palin, predictably, is playing the populist card, but she's doing okay so far. There's no real substance to what she's saying, but at least she's speaking coherently and is looking straight into the camera. But praising McCain for the bailout bill? Putting politics aside? Bullshit.

9:07 pm - This is good. Biden talking about his record and bipartisanship. And calling out McCain for his stupid comment about the fundamentals of the economy. This is what Biden has to do: focus on McCain. Make this about McCain. And McCain wasn't talking about the workforce, which is Palin's defence. "A team of mavericks." More bullshit.

9:09 pm - Palin: Americans want something different? Yeah, Obama. Really, how are McCain and Palin going to stop the greed on Wall Street? Hockey moms, Joe Six-Pack. Yup, she's trying to be the folksy all-American.

9:11 pm - Biden is being so careful. Taking it to McCain -- on McCain's love of deregulation, for example -- but, again, being very restrained. Let Palin look like she's trying too hard. And here she is, attacking Obama and Biden on taxes. So predictable.

9:14 pm - My friend and co-blogger J. Thomas Duffy just sent me a post he's done. Check it out.

9:15 pm - Palin won't answer the questions the way the moderator wants? She'll talk straight to the people? Thankfully, Ifill cut her off. It's because she's just a wellspring of hollow talking points.

9:17 pm - Biden is right. This is about class. Higher taxes for the wealthy, who have already had their taxes slashed, doesn't equate to higher taxes for the middle class.

9:18 pm - Oooh, Palin has details of McCain's health-care plan. Biden needs to go after her on this. It's a market-oriented plan, with Americans required to find their health care on their own in the market. How does that sound at this time of financial crisis?

9:20 pm - Biden: solid. Tax breaks not for Exxon but for people from places like Scranton. Good job. He has such command. "The ultimate bridge to nowhere." Cheap, but a nice touch -- and one that drew a laugh from the audience.

9:23 pm - Stay in control, Joe, stay in control. She's just trying to taunt you. Really, though, she's attacking him for supporting Big Oil? She basically wants to allow Big Oil to rape Alaska.

9:24 pm - She didn't answer the question, by the way. What would she take back from her promises? She can't think of one friggin' thing? They'll keep all their promises? Bullshit.

Creature: "He has command, but he's coming across a bit too strong. I'm not sure he's playing well.

J. Thomas Duffy: "Palin just threw a Shout Out to the base conservatives, when she called on people to 'step out of the way and let the Private Sector handle it' ... She hasn't flubbed anything yet, but she's sounding awfully canned."

Creature: "Though her folksy shtick make me sick." I hear you, my friend. (Thankfully, this whisky is really good.)

9:28 pm - Come on, let's get to social and foreign policy...

9:29 pm - Palin just wants to read from her mental script, avoiding pretty much every question. It's crazy for her to defend her and McCain's record on alternative energy. Come on, Joe. Don't let her get away with it. Obama's the one with the viable plan for energy independence.

9:31 pm - Ah, climate change. As she told Couric, she doesn't think it's all man-made. No one says it's all man-made. But she clearly doesn't get it. You have to know and understand the causes in order to do anything about it. What an idiotic response.

9:33 pm - Yes! Biden makes that point. It's man-made. And you have to know the causes. McCain has voted repeatedly against funding alternative energy. Invest in clean technology, export that technology. Good stuff. All the Republicans have is more and more drilling.

9:34 pm - "Drill, baby, drill," says Palin. Insane. Drilling won't make much of a difference in the short-term, if any at all. We're looking decades into the future. Oh, and she neglected to answer the question (about clean coal). Again.

9:36 pm - "How do we deal with global warming with additional carbon emissions?" asks Biden.

9:37 pm - Social policy... Same-sex benefits. Good answer from Biden. Constitutional benefits. And Palin? -- no change to "traditional definition of marriage." Oh, but she'll be "tolerant." Thanks. "I have a very diverse family." Uh-huh. She she may be for equal treatment in terms of benefits, but... her answer is about marriage. Damn. This is where I can't stand Obama and Biden. They say they aren't for same-sex marriage. Come on. Let's get past this.

Creature: "She's not answering the questions and Gwen's letting her get away with it. What's up with that? I'll agree with JTD very canned (but it may work)."

9:40 pm - Foreign policy. Iraq. Palin's pro-surge talking points are, once again, predictable. "We have got to win in Iraq." Okay... and how? And what is victory? Where's Katie to ask some follow-up questions? "We're getting closer and closer to victory." Really? Evidence?

9:41 pm - Biden: Obama's plan is Maliki's plan. It's what the Iraqis want. Palin attacked Obama for voting against funding the troops, but, of course, that was a bill without a timetable. McCain voted against funding the troops on a bill with a timetable. Good for Biden for making that distinction. Biden: "We will end this war." For McCain, "there is no end in sight." Solid. Solid. Solid. And Palin's playing the surrender card. Bullshit. Backed into a corner, all she has left are inartful smears.

9:44 pm - Palin thinks she's got Biden and is so smug about it (about Biden once saying nice things about McCain). She makes the "cutting off funding" point again. She's running out of talking points. Good, Joe. Going after McCain for being so utterly wrong in Iraq from the beginning.

9:47 pm - Biden certainly knows his foreign policy. His discussion of Pakistan is pretty good. Palin: "central war on terror" is in Iraq? Right, sure. So she doesn't think Iran should be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. But it's not like she actually has a plan or anything. It's all hollow rhetoric.

9:49 pm - Oh, Palin had a nice conversation with Kissinger. Great. We're back to last Friday's debate. Palin is making the misleading point that Obama wants to meet with America's enemies without pre-conditions. "Simply not true," responds Biden. He's clarifying. Talk, talk, talk -- this is diplomacy. Good point: McCain won't even sit down to talk with foreign leaders.

9:52 pm - Seriously, what does Palin know about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Let along a two-state solution? "We should never allow a second Holocaust." Obviously. Again, there's no substance to anything she's saying.

My friend T-Steel from TMV: "I'm trying to remain impartial but Governor Palin is just to general and sweeping. She is working her notes hard."

J. Thomas Duffy: "The longer this is going, the more Palin is going into the Tina Fey/Katie Couric mode, that she's splaying all over the place, almost that we can hear the words in her head being lifted on to the conveyor belt, going into the "Out" tube..."

9:54 pm - "The only thing on the march is Iran." -- Biden. Well said. Bush's policies have been abject failures. "We both love Israel." -- Palin. Fantastic.

9:55 pm - Jesus. Palin's not even coming close to answering the question. She's all over the place. Reform, McCain the maverick, yadda, yadda, yadda... There are blunders in every administration? Bush's blunders have been rather more significant, no? And Biden makes a good point in response: McCain's policies would be just like Bush's. I'd say: likely even worse.

9:57 pm - Wait, did Palin just say there's a safe way to use "nuclear weaponry"? Huh?

9:58 pm - Biden's confident. Maybe a bit too strong. But he's right that an Iraq-like surge won't work in Afghanistan. Which was Palin's point. She wanted desperately to talk about Afghanistan, but all she could say was that there should be a surge there.

9:59 pm - Biden on nuclear proliferation, one of Obama's strongest issues. Palin's back to the surge, though -- not answering the question. She's reading her notes. Stay in control, Joe. Biden: We've been calling for more money and more troops for Afghanistan, not McCain.

10:01 pm - Biden on Bosnia/Kosovo, Iraq, and Darfur. He's a hawk, there's no denying that. But he was right about Bosnia. He's a bit shaky on his support for the Iraq War, though: he was for it, but not really. Hmmm. But he does have a workable plan on Darfur.

10:03 pm - And Palin plays the outsider card. "Straight talk." Bullshit. But this is a weak spot for Biden, who has disagreed with Obama on Iraq. She gives a decent answer on Darfur, but without much substance. Divestment, that's it.

10:05 pm - Good. Biden's tying McCain to Cheney on Iraq. His own views may be somewhat contradictory, but he can get around that by focusing on McCain. In response, Palin is waffling. McCain know this and that. "He will know how to implement the strategies... He will know how to win a war." That's all she's got, folks. And I'm out of whisky. Damnation.

10:08 pm - If necessary, Biden would carry out Obama's policies -- and he does well to provide an overview of them. "There are such stark differences" between the two tickets. Palin: "What do you expect? A team of mavericks." Bullshit. Seriously. Bullshit. "Putting government back on the side of the people." Really? Like Bush's tax cuts? Like the ongoing Iraq War? Like more deregulation anywhere and everywhere. And she's folky again: Wasilla's Main Street. Oy. And, once more, she shows she's a good Republican by smearing Obama and Biden on taxes.

10:11 pm - Solid rebuttal from Biden on the middle class. Palin: "Say it ain't so, Joe." Well, I guess you knew that was coming. Oh, good, she winked at her dad. She doesn't know what she's talking about.

10:14 pm - What does a vice president do? Hey, everyone, it's civics class with Sarah Palin. Needless to say, Biden's response is much more substantive.

10:16 pm - Palin keeps reading her notes. Really weak. She's sounding like she did with Couric. Biden: "Dick Cheney is probably the most dangerous vice president we've had in our history." Something like that. Nice. And he understands the VP only presides over the Senate in case of a tie.

10:18 pm - What's Palin's Achilles heal? The CW is lack of experience, says Ifill. Palin, again, is not answering the question. She's talking about how great her experience is. "Beacon of hope." "Shining light." "We represent a perfect ideal..." Wow. So incredibly banal. So incredibly empty.

10:20 pm - Biden. The CW is lack of judgement, says Ifill. Biden acknowledges that, and moves on. Well done. And he's talking about his personal story, about being a single father. This may be Biden't best moment of the entire debate. He knows what it's like to sit around the kitchen table, he knows that people need hope. He's a passionate man. He is what he is. He won't change. And what do we get from Palin? More maverick talk, as if she and McCain are all about change. Come on. "Change is coming and McCain is the leader..." Bullshit. Biden: McCain is no maverick. He voted for Bush's tax cuts. He voted against health care for children. He didn't support tax cuts for people who want to send their kids to college. He hasn't been a maverick on the war. Kitchen table stuff again... very strong. "Maverick he is not," said Biden of McCain. Excellent.

10:24 pm - Biden's reading his notes. Stop it. And he's talking about judicial appointments. Good to bring up the Supreme Court, given Palin's appalling non-answer to Couric on SCOTUS cases. Palin says she's never had to compromise on anything important. But now she's talking about bringing both sides together. Oy. More bullshit.

10:27 pm - Biden needs to look directly in the camera. But he's making a strong, if convoluted, case for reaching out in a bipartisan way. And Palin's talking about her "diverse" family. But she's all over the place, like she's plucking out talking points, patching one-liners together.

10:29 pm - Final statements.

10:30 pm - Palin attacks "the mainstream media" as a "filter." We'll fight for the middle class, she claims. "We are so blessed... We have to fight for our freedoms... It was Ronald Reagan who said... There is only one man in this race who has fought for you..." Such mindless drivel.

10:31 pm - Good. Biden's looking into the camera, talking about paying the mortgage, sending kids to college... the bread-and-butter issues on Main Street. "It's time for America to get up together." Very well done.

10:33 pm - Alright, that's it.

**********

Creature: "This is disappointing. Palin played the agreeable role Barack Obama played Friday night and Joe Biden played the surly old man. She was canned, she was overly folksy for my taste, she spoke in generalities, she didn't answer the questions but she's was prepared and far from the ditsy caricature that she's been portrayed as recently. Unfortunately, a rejuvenated Plain will be the new narrative after tonight."

Well, this is what I feared going in, that, with such low expectations, a decent performance by Palin would be spun as a "comeback." And she certainly did... okay. But "rejuvenated"? We'll see. She did much better early on, discussing economic issues. I thought she was rather weak on foreign policy, and it showed. And, towards the end, her answers seemed canned, like talking points stitched together. And so much of what she said involved taxes, the usual Republican attack on Democrats. It doesn't work this year.

As for Biden, I think he did fairly well. He was strong on the issues and he avoided a major gaffe, and avoided coming across as arrogant and condescending.

10:37 pm: Gergen thinks Biden gave the best debate performance of his life. But the overall assessment seems to be that Palin held her own. Again, she beat expectations. Oh, so Borger does say something mildly perspective, if obvious: Palin didn't answer the questions. No substance, says Hilary Rosen. "On Iraq, she wandered all over the place." No game-changer, says Ed Rollins.

All so predictable. There was really nothing Biden could do to win, nothing he could do to stand out. It was all about Palin: Would she flounder and embarrass herself? Would she single-handedly sink the McCain campaign tonight. Obviously, that wasn't going to happen. As so many people were saying going in, myself included, she was bound to give a decent performance. And, well, she did -- in superficial debating terms. But she lagged far behind Biden on the issues, on substance, and I thought Biden had some particularly excellent moments.

So who won? Well, let me think about it for a moment...

10:44 pm - More Creature, from his post-debate post: "[Palin] was prepared and far from the ditsy caricature that she's been portrayed as recently. I think Biden did fine. He certainly ended very strong and I think he was genuine (and right on the issues, BTW). But, unfortunately, a rejuvenated Plain will be the new narrative after tonight."

10:55 pm - Yup, here's the spin. Rollins: "She's back." This is the point Creature and I are making. Palin may have won this debate simply by not embarrassing herself. The expectations for her were that low. Forget that she failed miserably on the issues. All she wanted to talk about was energy and taxes. On pretty much everything else, she was just regurgitating the talking points, often stringing them together incomprehensibly. No, it wasn't nearly as bad as her Couric performance, but that's the point. By doing better, she triumphed.

10:57 pm - But let's not look past Biden, even though all the talk is about Palin. He did very well. He did what he had to do. He showed a commend both of himself and of the issues, he didn't fuck up, didn't have to extricate his foot from his mouth, and, again, on substance, won easily. The problem is that media (and many voters) don't judge debates on substance. For them, it's about style and expectations.

10:59 pm - So who won? I'll call it a slight "win" for Palin -- and especially for McCain, who should get a boost from this. If nothing else, the media have something else to talk about other than Obama's surge in the polls and McCain's ridiculous behaviour in response to the financial crisis. And it's sad to say that it's a "win" for Palin -- a perceived win, that is. It's sad that this is what American politics, even at the highest level, has been reduced to.

11:05 pm - "Sarah Palin had a pretty good night tonight." Republicans will be energized again. See? Gergen agrees, but "it doesn't change the dynamic of the race." Let's hope not. Toobin agrees. This debate won't bring independents over to McCain. Hold on, I need to switch over to MSNBC. (I can't believe I just typed that.)

11:08 pm - Howard Fineman on Palin: "a wolverine attaching herself to the pantleg of a passerby." Something like that. Good line. And Olbermann's calling her out for not answering the questions. But, Fineman again: "She was more than ready for prime-time." Sure, if prime-time is pre-packaged excrement. Oh, wait, it is. Come on, talk about the substance... and they are. Fineman: "I don't think she helped at all."

11:11 pm - Ah, Rachel Maddow... finally, some intelligence. "She hammed it up" on the folksiness. "Joe Biden was boring." She comments on Palin's suggestion that the veep's powers be expanded: "the legacy of Cheney."

11:13 pm - Initial poll, reported by Olbermann: Biden victory on content, but not much moved in terms of the race itself. And we'll have to wait to see what the polls say. Remember that many pundits were calling the first presidential debate a tie or even a slight McCain victory. It wasn't until the polls came out that it was clear that it was a solid victory for Obama.

LindaBeth: "My big gasp came at the end, and I just got finished debating it with my b/f's dad: in her closing statement, Palin called herself a 'middle class family'. I was almost certain that wasn't at all true, considering that the Tax Foundation cites that $122,000 is the max family income that can be called 'middle income' (it's the top figure for the middle 60% of American families' incomes). Huff-Po cites her economic resources, including her $250k income, here."

11:29 pm - Newshoggers' Fester: "Gov. Palin played to her strength of being a nasty talking point repeated with a kindergarten teacher's voice. She also managed to string words in forms that resembled sentences and the occassional sentence group into paragraphs. Sen. Biden kept his feet firmly on the ground and out of his mouth while his fire was aimed straight at McCain."

An update from Creature: "The spin has begun and maybe I was wrong. Bob Schiffer gave huge props to Biden. Rachel Maddow also says Biden was more human. Though, Pat Buchanan -- speaking for the base, of course -- was head over heels for Palin... Early polls, according to CNN, give the debate to Biden. Maybe my first impression, pre-debate, was right after all. Interesting. Maybe the bloom is so off the McCain/Palin ticket that there's no going up for them."

12:23 am - Sorry, just took a break to decompress -- with some tea, some dessert, and Jon Stewart.

12:24 am - The Politico's Roger Simon, a guest on Hardball, thought Palin was amazing. Breaking news: Roger Simon is an idiot.

12:25 am - I thought Keith Olbermann did a fantastic job on Palin's Afghanistan blunder. First, she referred to the U.S. commander in Afghanistan as "McClellan." Actually, the current commander of the International Security Assistance Force is Gen. David McKiernan. Second, McKiernan did say, contrary to Palin's claim, that an Iraq-like surge wouldn't work in Afghanistan.

12:30 am - The polls -- CBS and CNN -- have Biden as the winner. Once again, the pundits are wrong.

12:32 am - Although, this headline from the AP could be the dominant spin tomorrow: "Palin stands her ground in VP debate with Biden." See, the expectations game. That's what Palin won.

12:33 am - For some other live-blogging of the debate, now in the past (so, according to McCain-Palin, it no longer matters), see Think Progress and Andrew Sullivan. Kos has some post-debate thoughts here: "Sarah Palin won! Actually, she survived, since she had no 'deer in headlight' moments... On the merits, Biden won easy. On the things that debates are scored on, it was a draw. And for us Democrats, that's the same as victory." (On another matter, Kos thought Gwen Ifill was "excellent." I thought she was just okay. Sullivan thought she was "intimidated, peripheral, neutered."

12:39 am - Sullivan has additional debate reaction here. He also makes some good points here, including: "Palin's inability to answer real questions, her capacity to avoid follow-ups, her slightly manic quality, and her inability to relate to working class voters came across... What we need now is a press conference with Palin. She needs to be forced to answer follow-ups. She needs to be made accessible to the press and thereby the American people." Indeed she does.

12:41 am - By the way, CNN has a transcript of the debate here. I'm sure it's a fantastic read.

12:42 am - And that's it for me for tonight. It's been long, but fun. Thank you all for stopping by, and especially to all of you who took the time to share your thoughts. (I encourage you all to read the comments. There are quite a few of them, and many of them are excellent.)

And thank you to Creature for his fantastic contributions throughout the evening, as well as to JTD and LB. I'll be back tomorrow, along with the co-bloggers, with more reaction. I'm sure there will be a lot more to say. Stop by and read us again.

Good night, everyone, and take care.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

McCommunism, totalitarianism, and the Beijing Olympics

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The opening ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics may have been greeted with awe and wonder by many -- and may herald the future of China as a global superpower -- but, like the Games themselves, they were a reflection of the sort of controlled-market totalitarianism that China represents.

I objected to China getting the Olympics -- and Beijing beat my hometown of Toronto, no less -- but, then, I'm not sure what else one could have expected from the corruption-ridden IOC.

The Olympics provide China with a global platform and serve to legitimize China's totalitarian regime. Everything looks good, so far, but at what cost? Remember, China may already be a superpower in the global market, and it may have embraced certain aspects of capitalism in rising to the top, but it is still totalitarian, deeply oppressive. There is still absolute control, or the aspiration to absolute control. People still disappear -- or are disappeared. Indigenous minorites are persecuted, crushed. Think what China has done to Tibet. Think what it does to groups like Falun Gong. Think of China's support for the regime in Khartoum, or, that is, think of China's enabling of the genocide in Darfur.

And we are amazed by the totalitarian pageantry of the opening ceremonies? Please.

For more, make sure to watch this clip from The Real News Network. It's an interview with Naomi Klein -- I have had my differences with her in the past, but, here, she's right on -- on how "[t]he security, central planning, surveillance state is an ideal cocoon for global capitalism." It's an excellent response to the Beijing Olympics and what they represent.

Saturday, February 2, 2008

And so it goes

By Carl

While we all struggle to come to grips with the twin news stories of the economy and the election, it's easy to lose track of stories that will affect our news in
years to come:

N'DJAMENA (Reuters) - Chadian rebels seeking to overthrow President Idriss Deby battled their way into the capital N'Djamena on Saturday and fought government troops around the presidential palace, diplomats and residents said.

The sound of machine gun and heavy weapons fire could be heard in the capital as foreign embassies advised their citizens to stay in doors and take cover. Fighting was reported to be taking place around the presidential palace and the parliament.

"I can confirm they (the rebels) are in the city," a foreign diplomat told Reuters. The situation was confused and mobile phone networks were not working.

"Rebels are headed for the palace and are about two blocks from here. The rebels are winning," one foreign resident said in an email sent from the compound of a western embassy in N'Djamena, adding she could hear tank and mortar fire.

OK, it's, you know, Chad! What's that got to do with the price of eggs?

Well, nothing today, but...

Chad says the rebels, who advanced rapidly this week across the country from the eastern border with Sudan's war-torn Darfur region, are armed and backed by the Sudanese government. Khartoum routinely denies such accusations.

Now, scroll back, say, twelve years and substitute Afghanistan for Chad.

That's the kind of trouble this could conceivably foment for us. The Darfur region of the Sudan is beset by Arab Islamist fundamentalists (the Janjaweed) who are attempting to drive out the ethnic Africans.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see what happens next: Al Qaeda and its wealthy patricians ask for and are granted asylum in Darfur, Chad and neighboring regions as the Janjaweed press their "influence" outward, backed by the Sudanese government, possibly cutting a deal with Qaddaffi as well.

This would give Al Qaeda a base of operations within striking distance of Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Kenya, Egypt, and yes, Israel. Iran and Syria on one side. Al Qaeda supported by Sudan on the other, and then the fist closes on the Middle East.

Where's the uproar from the rabidly anti-Islamist right in this country? Where are the more Zionist neo-cons like Pamela "Atl-ass" Geller, always screeching about Israel's security, yet never saying word one about how we have squandered our military and financial resources fighting a war against people who once looked to us as an example of what it means to be free? Where's the "you're either with us or with the terrorists" bravado of 2002?

We on the left have been screaming about the tragedy of Darfur, yet here's a strategic as well as humanitarian crisis, and all this administration can do is embarrassedly clear their throats and mutter vague words of support for some nebulous United Nations attempt at putting a band-aid on a fracture.

Truly, "and so it goes.." -- until it is gone and too late.

(Cross-posted to
Simply Left Behind.)

Sunday, January 20, 2008

Around the world: Serbia, Sudan, Kenya, Cuba, Switzerland, and Germany

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Wait, you mean there are things going on in the world other than the presidential primaries in the U.S.? Sure, and here are some stories you might find interesting:

1) Serbia: The (deputy) leader of the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radicals, Tomislav Nikolic, defied the polls and beat the incumbent, President Boris Tadic, in the first round of that country's two-round presidential election, 39 to 35. Nikolic and the Radicals are anti-European, pro-Russian, and basically pan-Slavic nationalists. They oppose independence for Kosovo. And their leader, Vojislav Seselj, is currently on trial in The Hague. If you're wondering, no, many Serbs haven't learned anything from their country's recent (and historical) travails. For some background, see here.

2) Sudan: One of the leaders of the genocidal Janjaweed militia in Darfur has been appointed to a high-ranking position in the Khartoum government. Hmmmm.

3) Kenya: It seems that some of the appalling violence that has rocked that country since its corrupt and contested presidential election was both "premeditated and organized," with both government and opposition elements stirring up ethnic hatred even before the vote. "It wasn't like people just woke up and started fighting each other," said Dan Juma, the acting deputy director of the Kenya Human Rights Commission. "It was organized." More echoes of Rwanda.

4) Cuba: Cubans went to the polls yesterday to "elect" 614 deputies to the National Assembly. Actually, there were a total of 614 candidates for 614 seats -- all ran unopposed. Fidel Castro was one of them. Good times.

5) Switzerland: One of the country's national foods is under attack from the E.U. It's called cervalat, it's a type of sausage, and it's made with cow intestine imported from Brazil. "Swiss butchers produce 160 million cervalet sausages per year, which works out to about 21 links per person." That's a lot of intestine. The E.U. imposed the ban a couple of years ago on the grounds that Brazilian beef intestines could carry mad cow disease, but Swiss stockpiles are just now running low. And the Swiss are pissed, not least because the European soccer championship is being held there this summer. "Switzerland has surrendered itself in the case of our national sausage to technocrats in Brussels, of all people," wrote one newspaper. "I simply cannot imagine Switzerland without the original cervelat," said one member of parliament. "We cannot stand for this," said one chef, "We have to fight for our sausage!" (Note that Jim Hacker brilliantly played the British sausage card against European technocrats on his way to #10.) By the way, the intestines are just the casing, but it seems that to the Swiss no substitute will do. I think we need to ask Clinton and Obama about this.

6) Germany: A prominent German historian has likened Tom Cruise's performance on that Scientology recruitment video to the propagandistic style of Joseph Goebbels. And he's right, to a point. It's not that Scientology is akin to Nazism in all ways -- and, as much as I dislike Scientology, I would hesitate to make such a comparison -- just that propaganda is propaganda, which is to say, all propaganda, and particularly all cult of personality propaganda in support of quasi-religious cults, is similar. There is, in my view, no good reason why Scientology should be taken seriously or even treated as softly as it is in and by the media. It is a cult of lies, and it should be laughed at, repudiated, and, where possible, exposed for the massive fraud it is.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Around the World: Venezuela, Kenya, Chad, South Africa, Taiwan, and Georgia

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Quick links to some interesting international stories:

1) Venezuela: Anti-Semitism seems to be on the rise in Venezuela. Hardly surprising. After all, Hugo Chavez is best buddies with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

2) Kenya: Memories of Rwanda. One of the preferred weapons in the bloody post-election clashes among the various tribes -- Kikuyo, Luo, Kalenjin, etc. -- is the machete. (For background, see here.)

3) Chad: An EU peacekeeping force may be deployed as early as this month. Most of the 4,000 troops will be French, but their task, an enormous one, will be to protect about 400,000 refugees from Darfur.

4) South Africa: Finally, at long last, a black coach of the national rugby team. The Springboks will be renamed the Proteas as one of the last bastions of apartheid-era racism is uncovered and reformed.

5) Taiwan: The victory of the opposition Kuomintang party in Saturday's parliamentary elections could mean closer relations with China. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, which supports Taiwanese independence, won only 27 of the 113 seats, with the Kuomintang picking up 81. Thankfully, most Taiwanese want the country to remain independent.

6) Georgia: Thousands took to the streets of Tbilisi today to protest last weekend's presidential election, which opposition groups say was rigged. President Mikhail Saakashvili, who came to power in 2003's Rose Revolution, "won" the election with 53 percent of the vote. (For my take on Saakashvili, a pro-western tyrant, see here.)

Sunday, October 28, 2007

African Idiot

By Carl

Quietly, almost unnoticed in America save for the occasion commercial about Darfur, Africa is slipping away. Despite Dumbya's assertions that Africa wll live "in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity," it doesn't look promising:



By my count, that's three wars (four if you count the nascent violence in Sierra Leone), economies in shambles in the DR Congo, Nigeria, and Somalia, and the prince who might ride in and save the continent is... Muammar Ghaddafi?!?!?!?!?

Heck of a job, Bushie!

In fairness, Ghaddafi, when oil prices have been firm, has been generous to his African neighbors and now that oil is reaching record prices, I'm sure he sees an opportunity to engage in a little economic hegemony of his own.

The Bush administration was so desperate for any good news in the wake of September 11 and the bungled Iraq invasion that it embraced Ghaddafi's offer to surrender his weapons programs to inspectors, a move he had originally committed to under the Clinton administration, which rightly laughed at the offer. Ghaddafi? WMDs?

Ghaddafi had a strategy, of course: Al Qaeda would eventually target Libya and Ghaddafi himself, so by ingratiating with the US, he could ask for military assistance. And of course, the Bushies were forced to embrace it, even if it made but a ripple in the news.

And it turned out that Ghaddafi did have a (very) small scale weapons program going on, mostly chemical and biological, but an embryonic attempt to develop nukes was in the works. Whether he would have seriously pursued these, or if this all was an elaborate shell game to try to wring some concessions from the West in terms of sanctions, we may never know. He did, however, get the concessions. But not the lifting of sanctions, since he had threatened to kill anyone who wanted regime change, shortly after the US offered to lift the sanctions for basically, errrr, just that.

Ghaddafi had tried to unify OPEC and the Arab world behind him, and failed (and then oil tanked). He'd have more success in Africa, to be sure.

Add to Africa's manmade struggles the growing environmental crises: extreme drought in Darfur and Nigeria caused by global warming, as well as flooding in DR Congo...put it this way: when the good news of an entire continent can be summed up with a story about a rugby team defeating an English side in a preliminary tournament game, you have a deeply troubled continent.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Petition for Darfur

By Heraclitus

Here's a petition you can sign urging Fidelity Investments to divest from a company helping to fund and prolong the genocide in Darfur. From the Save Darfur website:

Divestment offers a powerful way to put economic pressure on the Sudanese government to cooperate with international efforts to end the violence in Darfur.

Fidelity Investments is a major holder of PetroChina, a Chinese oil company that is one of the highest offenders in helping fund the genocide in Darfur.

Help cut off financial support for the government-sponsored violence in Darfur by urging Fidelity and other investment institutions to divest their holdings from PetroChina and other companies doing business with the government of Sudan.

Friday, April 20, 2007

A hard life in Darfur

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sometimes it's good to see how other people live, particularly in places like Darfur: "A Sudanese woman with her child on her back makes mud bricks at the Abu Shouk refugee camp in the Sudan's Darfur region."

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

Angelina on Darfur

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Do I really need a reason to post an arousing photo of Angelina Jolie here at The Reaction? Oh -- this isn't that sort of blog? Then how about a caricature?

(This one's from Jorge "Fico" Molina at Monkey Studio.)

Actually, let's take Angelina seriously for a moment. She has an interesting (and important) piece in today's Washington Post on the situation in Darfur -- from a refugee camp (Oure Cassoni) in Bahai, Chad. Here are a few key passages:

-- "By every measure -- killings, rapes, the burning and looting of villages -- the violence in Darfur has increased since my last visit, in 2004. The death toll has passed 200,000; in four years of fighting, Janjaweed militia members have driven 2.5 million people from their homes, including the 26,000 refugees crowded into Oure Cassoni."

-- "When I was in Chad in June 2004, refugees told me about systematic attacks on their villages. It was estimated then that more than 1,000 people were dying each week. In October 2004 I visited West Darfur, where I heard horrific stories, including accounts of gang-rapes of mothers and their children. By that time, the UNHCR estimated, 1.6 million people had been displaced in the three provinces of Darfur and 200,000 others had fled to Chad."

-- "Until the killers and their sponsors are prosecuted and punished, violence will continue on a massive scale. Ending it may well require military action. But accountability can also come from international tribunals, measuring the perpetrators against international standards of justice."

Angelina does not back away from military intervention -- and I tend to think that only military intervention by NATO (and not just the U.N. and/or the A.U. would have any chance of halting the genocide and securing Darfur and Chad -- but she is right that "there will be no enduring peace without justice". And this means that an empowered International Criminal Court can be an effective vehicle in bringing some semblance of justice to the region, investigating the many criminal acts and prosecuting the perpetrators of the horror. But the ICC will only be "as strong as the support we give it". With military action unlikely, there is no good reason not to empower the ICC.

"This might be the moment we stop the cycle of violence and end our tolerance for crimes against humanity. What the worst people in the world fear most is justice. That's what we should deliver."

Powerful words backed up by first-hand experience of what many of us in the comfort of our prosperous liberal democracies would rather pretend isn't happening.

Whatever else one can say about Angelina Jolie, she's emerged as a significant public figure in the fight for justice.

Friday, February 16, 2007

From Darfur to Chad

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the BBC:

The violence in Chad could turn into a genocide similar to that in Rwanda in 1994, the UN refugee agency has warned.

The UNHCR says the killing tactics from neighbouring Darfur in Sudan have been transported to eastern Chad in full.

The U.N. and the A.U. seem confident that a joint "border peace force" will be established, but:

Concern is now growing for the 200,000 refugees who sought shelter in eastern Chad.

The conflict in Darfur has followed them across the border with attacks by Janjaweed Arab militia on camels and horseback leaving hundreds dead and 110,000 people homeless.

I don't know nearly enough about the situation in Chad, but now might be a good time to educate ourselves. Thankfully, the BBC has a good deal of background, including a country profile, a timeline, a Q&A on and results of last May's presidential election (which I also wrote about at the time -- see here), a piece on the rebel alliance, and an examination of Chad in relation to its neighbours. In addition, see this piece and this piece on last year's battles between rebels and government forces, as well as this piece on the situation in the eastern part of the country, next to Darfur.

See a map of the "conflict zones" on the border with Darfur, with an explanation of how and where the violence is spreading, here.

See also photos of the Janjaweed in Chad here and of the aftermath of battle here.

Pay attention to this story.

Genocide is spreading. Will we do anything about it now? Or will Chad, like Darfur, become yet another Rwanda?

Wednesday, February 7, 2007

Plan B; or, how to look like you're doing something about the genocide in Darfur without really doing anything at all

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Darfur, there seems to be nothing but impotence and disinterest at the top. To wit:

President Bush has approved a plan for the Treasury Department to aggressively block U.S. commercial bank transactions connected to the government of Sudan, including those involving oil revenues, if Khartoum continues to balk at efforts to bring peace to Sudan's troubled Darfur region, government officials said yesterday.

The Treasury plan is part of a secret three-tiered package of coercive steps -- labeled "Plan B" -- that the administration has repeatedly threatened to unleash if Sudan continues to sponsor a campaign of terror that has left as many as 450,000 dead and 2.5 million homeless. But the administration has held back on any announcement of Plan B, even after setting a Jan. 1 deadline, in hopes of still winning Khartoum's cooperation.


Apparently, "[s]ome aspects of Plan B have already been stealthily launched, such as stationing four U.S. Army colonels last month as observers on the Sudan-Chad border in full view of Sudanese intelligence," but, given all the delays, not to mention the continuing procrastination in Khartoum, holding off international efforts and thereby enabling yet more genocide, there is justifiable skepticism that Plan B is anything more than hollow rhetoric supported by a few minor initiatives.

I suppose blocking these bank transactions is a positive step, but it will take far more to put an end to Sudan's genocidal ambitions in Darfur -- and this means not just international sanctions, since China likely wouldn't agree to such sanctions, and not just U.N.-led peacekeeping efforts, which as in Rwanda would not have the authority to engage the perpetrators with force, but a military intervention with teeth, one that could engage the Janjaweed, the Khartoum-backed militia operting in Darfur, and crush it.

Bush's Treasury-based effort goes back to Clinton, who initiated similar action in 1997, and this is one case where I do not necessarily question his sincerity -- his concern, such as he is concerned, may very well be sincere, and he may very well be frustrated that little has been accomplished thus far. But how to explain the delays? How to explain that Plan B -- a plan to "put pressure on Darfur rebel leaders -- isn't nearly enough, that such action as there has been thus far has been ineffectual? How to explain that Bush is still holding out hope, when there is no justification for it, that Khartoum will cooperate? In short, how to explain that the genocide continues even as Bush -- and everyone else in a position to do something about the genocide -- fiddles?

I can offer no explanations here other to conclude that Darfur just isn't that important to the U.S. And I can't just single out the U.S. It apparently isn't all that important to anyone else either. Even the U.N., which talks repeatedly about breakthroughs with Khartoum that never quite seem to materialize, as if talking is doing, falls far short of acknowledging what must be done to put an end to the genocide. Peacekeeping won't be enough -- has no one learned the lessons of Rwanda?

And so more time is wasted and more people die. And all we have is Plan B.

Which won't make a difference.