Something to renew faith

By Greg Prince

It's been an interesting weekend, following an exhausting week on many fronts.

Here's a story from Egypt that brings a smile to my face, and goes far toward reminding us that humanity really is worth saving.

Remember this story next time a wingnut tries to tell you there is no such thing as moderate Muslims:

Egypt's majority Muslim population stuck to its word Thursday night. What had been a promise of solidarity to the weary Coptic community, was honoured, when thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside.

From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as "human shields" for last night's mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife.

"We either live together, or we die together," was the sloganeering genius of Mohamed El-Sawy, a Muslim arts tycoon whose cultural centre distributed flyers at churches in Cairo Thursday night, and who has been credited with first floating the "human shield" idea.

Among those shields were movie stars Adel Imam and Yousra, popular Muslim televangelist and preacher Amr Khaled, the two sons of President Hosni Mubarak, and thousands of citizens who have said they consider the attack one on Egypt as a whole.

"This is not about us and them," said Dalia Mustafa, a student who attended mass at Virgin Mary Church on Maraashly Street. "We are one. This was an attack on Egypt as a whole, and I am standing with the Copts because the only way things will change in this country is if we come together."

(Cross-posted from Greg Prince's Blog.)

The Social Construction of Controversy

by Peter Henne

Observers and participants in the recent Park51 debate likely noticed some parallels to the 2005 Danish Muhammad cartoon controversy. Potent religious issues mixed with a clash between freedom of speech and the protection of communal values. But, as Lawrence Wright has discussed, the real parallel is in the strange dynamics of both controversies. What started as relatively insignificant incidents became issues of global contention. Nothing in the nature of the issues changed, and the lack of initial reaction indicated the controversy was not inherent in either of them. Instead, it was the framing of these issues in the media, and their manipulation by elites, that mattered. The nature of this manipulation, and how it can create controversies out of thin air, will have significant implications for both U.S. domestic politics and foreign policy.

Drawing from stands of sociology, international relations scholars such as Alex Wendt began in the 1980s to emphasize the "social construction" of politics. Things do not acquire an importance or meaning as a result of their material properties; instead, social interactions produce meanings, which participants then accept as "real." The example I like to give is of suits: there is nothing in the material properties of matching jacket and pants, shirt and tie that create formal attire, but meaning arises from shared understanding of the material properties. So for "constructivists," the dynamics of the two controversies would not be surprising: everything is socially constructed, including incidents of global significance.

Another set of academic arguments, however, are equally relevant to this topic. These are "instrumentalist" theories, which claim that ideas arise from elite manipulation of the public: elites propagate certain ideas they believe will advance their interests, even if this produces an unintended negative outcome. A notable example is Jack Snyder's 2000 book From Voting to Violence, in which he explains the rise of nationalist violence in many new democracies as a result of elites' manipulation of public fears and ethnic identities, a process facilitated by imperfect media.

There are thus greatly diverging explanations for the Park51 and Muhammad cartoon controversies. If the anger was inherent in the issues -- if Muslims will be inevitably angry about cartoons of Muhammad and many Americans don't want Islamic Centers in Manhattan -- then what we have is a classic clash of civilizations. If the contentious meanings of these incidents were constructed through a diffuse process of social interaction, then conflict is not inevitable, and propagating a less extreme set of ideas -- such as the oft-discussed "moderate Islam" -- will solve the problem. If, instead, elite manipulation of the planned construction of an Islamic center and drawing of offensive cartoons caused the conflict, then either undermining the power of those elites or correcting the media market to allow for a diversity of viewpoints is the solution.

In this case, the instrumentalists seem to have it right. The printing of cartoons about Muhammad or building an Islamic Center obviously did not lead to worldwide controversies by themselves. Neither did the meanings arise spontaneously through social interactions among Muslims around the world, or Manhattan residents and activists throughout America. Instead, as Wright notes, elites are responsible. Islamist networks in Europe and the Middle East spread the cartoons, amplifying their significance, while bloggers in the United States latched onto the Park51 story, inflating the contentious nature of the issue to what it is today.

An important element in all this, though, is the media. The media market in Middle Eastern countries is hardly perfect, with authorities restricting open debate; this has been replaced by official news outlets that serve state interests and Arabic-language satellite stations that -- while allowing greater debate than would be otherwise possible -- often provide a platform for radical voices, and are popular in both the Middle East and Europe.

Unfortunately, there are also issues with the American media. Mainstream news outlets are often guilty of either passing on politicized information or politicizing it themselves; "new media," like blogs, often selectively interpret events to support their authors' pre-existing viewpoints. As a result, the most dramatic and exciting news -- not the most accurate or valuable -- is highlighted, providing inaccurate details to Americans and a skewed perspective on most Americans' priorities to foreign audiences.

The parallel nature of the two developments makes a potential solution to seemingly irrational controversies like these widely applicable. It involves, in part, addressing the power of a small group of elites to manipulate information. It also involves ensuring open and high-quality debate in media markets, which translates to support for greater freedoms in the Middle East and a more responsible media in America. The problem is not conservatism, or the lack of a "moderate Islam." The problem, and the solution -- as Middle East experts have said of broader issues in the region -- is politics and institutions, and the particular forms of elite-led social construction they engender.

(Previously posted at The Huffington Post)

Tom Friedman redux

By Carol Gee

Over the past years of my primary home, the South by Southwest blog, the most popular post I have ever written was about Thomas Friedman's "flat world," dated 7/19/05. In all likelihood, it is not because it was a brilliant post, but because the first line of it reads like a gold mine for college students with an assignment due. To quote:

Here's your cliff notes . . .
Thomas Friedman addressed the National Governors Association in Des Moines, Iowa recently. In an animated presentation, he talked about his thesis that "The World is Flat." (Amazon.com reviews his book here). See also "Valin"'s long post and comments following it.

Here are some of the main points and themes that I took from watching his keynote speech to the assembled governors, broadcast on C-Span.

I have been meaning to revisit this most influential author, and today is the day based on regular contributor betmo's sending me this link from The Agonist: "There will be no reboot."* The post had its genesis in Friedman's latest op-ed piece in the 12/23 NYT, in which he opined that it is "Time to Reboot America." Bemoaning the GM bailout, Friedman compared his favorable technological experience on a Far East trip, with his unpleasant recent homecoming to an aging and dysfunctional U.S. infrastructure. To quote:

That’s why we don’t just need a bailout. We need a reboot. We need a build out. We need a buildup. We need a national makeover. That is why the next few months are among the most important in U.S. history. Because of the financial crisis, Barack Obama has the bipartisan support to spend $1 trillion in stimulus. But we must make certain that every bailout dollar, which we’re borrowing from our kids’ future, is spent wisely.

. . . John Kennedy led us on a journey to discover the moon. Obama needs to lead us on a journey to rediscover, rebuild and reinvent our own backyard.

How to peg Friedman's politics? He has written a number of columns supportive of President-elect Obama, one this month speculating that Obama might just be able to fetch a success from the war in Iraq. Opinion about Friedman's stripe varies wildly:

• "Thomas Friedman's Socialist America" is posted at New York Young Republican Record.


• David Sirota, writing in 2006 at The Huffington Post, labels him contemptuously as a "pompous and grandiloquent" friend to rich elites.


• Reviewing Friedman's newest book, titled, "Hot, Flat and Crowded," NPR labeled his as a revolutionary opting for "geo-greenism." That sounds positively scary.


• Wikipedia, naturally, has a thorough exploration of the three-time Pulitzer Prize winning author, noting that he originally supported the invasion of Iraq, but "later became an outspoken critic of the war and the Bush administration."

Now, what do I really think? I am ambivalent. Friedman fancies himself as a world-class guru on the Middle East, and incidentally, the Entire World. He can be smug during personal appearances on television. But he is due much credit for articulating the flat world concept that explains globalization in a way that truly fits for me. And his television series on the history and politics of the Middle East was foundational to my understanding of the region. What is your take on Tom Friedman?

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are "betmo"* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Some People Will Be Hungry This Thanksgiving - Reprise

By Carol Gee

Thanksgiving Day 2008 -- Bountiful tables, full tummies, excess leftovers characterize many of our Thanksgiving feasts. On one of our favorite holidays in the United States, we give thanks for all we have. Today's post is an updated republication of a post that has remained popular since it first appeared in 2005. I begin with an update:

An economist's view -- "The world financial, food and hunger crisis" by Lane Vanderslice from World Hunger Notes (updated Nov. 11, 2008). Some points:

1. The world food crisis has been replaced in large part by the world financial crisis.


2. . . . food prices have soared. . . rice, the staple food of billions of people, more than doubled from 2003 through March 2008. . . This is a crisis for the poorest people in the world. 2.6 billion people live on $2 a day or less. They spend approximately 50 percent of their income on food.


3. [Causes] What are key factors affecting the supply of food? [On] Demand side: There has been strong economic growth for the world economy over the past 10 years or so. . . the quantity people demand of food does not vary much with changes in prices. . . Commodity speculation has been widespread.


4. Supply side: A major factor affecting the supply of food has been the diversion of crop land to fuel production. . . the agricultural production of developing countries is now directed to a greater extent toward producing for export to developed countries rather than to producing goods for their own people. . . There have also been certain shortfalls in production. . . Assistance to agriculture by developed countries and multilateral development banks has been minimal, and, though some countries have adequately supported their agriculture sector including India and China, others have not, including many and perhaps most countries of Africa. Agricultural producers, especially the poorest, in Africa and elsewhere have been exploited or neglected by governments. Assistance to agriculture by developed countries and multilateral development banks has fallen dramatically.

Wikipedia page "Malnutrition" 2008 -- has what appears to be some good entries. For example:

Some environmentalists claim that the fundamental issue causing malnutrition is that the human population exceeds the Earth's carrying capacity;^[5] however, Food First raises the issue of food sovereignty and claims that every country (with the possible minor exceptions of some city-states) has sufficient agricultural capacity to feed its own people, but that the "free trade" economic order associated with such institutions as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank prevent this from happening. At the other end of the spectrum, the World Bank itself claims to be part of the solution to malnutrition, asserting that the best way for countries to succeed in breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition is to build export-led economies that will give them the financial means to buy foodstuffs on the world market.

World Hunger Notes is a fabulous resource for the latest news about world hunger. For example:

• Rising unemployment could push an additional 7.5 million to 10.3 million United States residents below the federal poverty line in the next two or three years, study says Eric Eckholm New York Times November 24, 2008.
• Some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007, while close to one in eight Americans struggled to feed themselves adequately US food security report says Michael J. Sniffen Associated Press November 17, 2008

The original post -- Some Will Be Hungry This Thanksgiving -- Nov. 23, 2005

How does it feel to be hungry, really hungry? It is not the kind of hunger that comes with having missed a meal. It is also not the kind of hunger one feels when doing a very purposeful "cleansing fast," or fasting on Fridays, in the old days of an observed liturgical holy week.

This hunger is that which comes from not getting anything to eat, or very little to eat, on a regular basis for days, weeks, months or years at a time. It comes from not getting a nutritionally balanced diet. This kind of hunger makes it difficult, if not impossible for mothers to nurse their infants. Infants do not grow and thrive if they live. People - adults and children - starve to death, or they die of diseases brought on by malnutrition. There are entire nations starving or desperately endangered today; right now. And there far too many people in these United States that are also hungry. This week, this coming Thanksgiving Day, the weekend following , millions are hungry. For many of the rest of us, we will be trying to figure out what to do with all our leftovers.

A recent Reuters story focused on the just published United Nations report on hunger in the world which states that 6 million children a year die from hunger related causes. (see also the terrific pop up map in the title link above) Quoting Reuters,

Most of the 6 million child deaths a year are not due to starvation but
rather to neonatal disorders and diseases like diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria and measles which would be easily curable if the victims were not weakened by lack of nutrition.

The food crisis brought about by climate change is also part of the larger hunger picture. The BBC article begins,

Climate change threatens to put far more people at risk of hunger over the next 50 years than previously thought, according to new research. Scientists say expected shifts in rain patterns and temperatures over that time could lead to an extra 50 million people struggling to get enough food.

(BBC image) In Africa people in Malawi face a maize crisis. Quoting,

The worse harvest in a decade and failed rains are being blamed for what aid agencies warn is a rapidly emerging food crisis. What is making matters worse is HIV/Aids. One in seven people in Malawi is affected and it is fueling the problem of extreme hunger. Money that households would normally spend on buying seed and fertiliser, is being spent on transporting the sick to hospital and buying basic medicine instead.

In Zimbabwe even their own soldiers are hungry enough that there are shortages of food in the barracks and forced leaves. High food prices are a factor in Niger's hunger problems, because of the high demand for food in the surrounding countries. The crisis of African hunger was debated in this BBC feature; some of the discussion comments were excellent. Millions are at risk in Africa, but so are millions in southern Asia.

Earthquake survivors face winter hunger in the Kashmir area. It is a major crisis for the millions left homeless by the quakes in Pakistan, Kashmir and India. The article states, "As of 16 October, food had reached 440,000 people but an estimated 560,000 remained in "desperate need of assistance".

In our own hemisphere hunger is a major problem in several contries. The BBC reports that Guatemalans face hunger as a result of the recent natural disaster, Hurricane Stan. Rats ate the crops of many people in Nicaragua, one of the poorest nations in the Central America. The BBC article headlines, "The UN is to send 230 tons of emergency food aid to thousands of Miskito Indians facing hunger in Nicaragua."

Here at home, the Food Research and Action Center is an excellent site for exploring hunger in the United States. America's Second Harvest, the nation's food bank network, has excellent material on hunger in the U. S. The Children's Defense Fund explores the question of U.S. children's hunger in this 6-page PDF document. Here is what the USDA site has to say about "food security" in the U.S.:

Eighty-eight percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire year 2004, meaning that they had access, at all times, to enough food for an active, healthy life for all household members. The remaining households were food insecure at least some time during that year. The prevalence of food insecurity was 11.9 percent in 2004, up from 11.2 percent in 2003. The prevalence of food insecurity with hunger was 3.9 percent in 2004, up from 3.5 percent in 2003.

Since our population was 290,342,554 in July of 2003, the "3.9% of food insecurity with hunger" translates into 11, 323,360 hungry people in the United States. Is there anything that can be done about the recent increase in hunger? The above paragraph on hunger in America includes several references in the linked articles to organizations that endeavor to feed people who go to bed hungry. In your own city, there is probably a food bank, a soup kitchen or a homeless shelter that could use some help, either volunteering or donating. And many churches, synagogues and mosques as well as other faith based organizations focus of food pantries or feeding programs.

World wide, diminishing poverty and the predominance of violence and war will help. Improvements in agriculture are key to the long term solution. For example, unraveling the DNA code of the rice genome may be an answer for many countries where rice is the predominant staple.

Reference: Wikipedia's excellent section on hunger discusses many aspects of the problem and includes links to many organizations that work on hunger.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Unrest in the world -- a Bush Legacy

By Carol Gee

U.S. in push for foreign arms deals: report," a story from Reuters (9/14/08), lays out a very unpleasant reality. The Bush Doctrine is at the center of a "military-industrial complex" that seems to have no boundaries. Eight years after the terrorist attacks on the United States, this administration seems to know only conflict, military arms and business as usual. Rather that focusing on peace, the budget goes largely for an interminable war. Congress and the president prop up military contractors, who often manufacture cold war systems. And diplomatic gross ineptitude results in uneasy relationships with countries all around the world. To quote:

The Bush administration is pushing through a wide range of foreign weapons deals in a bid to rearm Iraq and Afghanistan and contain North Korea and Iran, The New York Times reported.

The deals range from tanks, helicopters and fighter jets to missiles, remotely piloted aircraft and warships, the Times said in its Sunday editions. The weapons and other military equipment foreign sales have totaled more than $32 billion this year, compared with $12 billion in 2005.

While the focus has been on the Middle East, sales extend to northern Africa, Asia, Latin America, Europe and Canada, the Times said.

"This is not about being gunrunners," the Times quoted Bruce Lemkin, the Air Force deputy undersecretary who has coordinated many of the largest sales, as saying. "This is about building a more secure world."

The reality is that since 9/11/01, terrorism has been on the rise. And the unfortunate myopic Middle East regional bias means neglect of other places where the U.S. might be helpful. India for example has a large problem, of which we are seemingly unaware. About all that interests the U.S. regarding India right now is a questionable nuclear deal. Another Reuters article details: "India police raid slums, relatives angry after bombs," (9/14/08). To quote: "The National Counterterrorism Centre in Washington says 3,674 people had been killed in militant attacks in India between January 2004 and March 2007, a death toll second only to that in Iraq."

Meanwhile much of the world does not have enough to eat. Global warming is on the rise, threatening farming, particularly in Africa. A recent e-mail from David Lane from One.org, reminded me that the unpleasant reality of starvation is, at times, the direct result of lack of a decent U.S. development effort, conflict and war. Again, the U.S. budget figures attest to administration priorities. To quote:

High food and fuel prices continue to have a catastrophic impact on the world's poorest people and threaten to roll back some of the great progress we've made alleviating poverty in areas including AIDS, malaria, and education.

Later this month, world leaders are going to the United Nations in NYC. They’ll be discussing the world's progress toward the Millennium Development Goals(MDGs)—critical issues like health, education and water. They must also act on the food and hunger crisis. There are 30 countries in immediate need of emergency food assistance and essential seeds and fertilizer. These countries have created specific plans to feed the hungry and prevent future crises by enabling people to provide for themselves. Meeting these emergency needs requires $1 billion in funding by the end of this year.

Here is where you can sign a petition, the letter reads: "As world leaders come together for the United Nations summit, please ask them to close the book on the hunger crisis. Please click the link to add your name to our petition asking them to do so:" Petition link The petition reads:

Please provide life-saving food and essential seeds and fertilizer to the 30 countries that need it most by filling the 2008 food and agriculture funding gap of $1 billion without delay.

Condi travels to Libya for a historic meeting, as well as several other places abroad. The definition of enemy has undergone an amazing transformation under the Bush administration. They are able to have a set of conflicting standards for who is favored or unfavored. Syria is still out of favor. The "Damascus Spring" in Syria has faded into memory, according to the Financial Times. To quote [regarding Syria]:

. . . activists point to other Middle East states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which have poor human rights records but enjoy strong ties with the west – even adding Libya to the list after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to the north African state last week – to argue that international relations are one thing, internal reform another.

"What Is Condeleeza Rice REALLY Doing Over There?" asks my regular contributor, "betmo," who sent me this link to Bluebloggin (9/7/08) Security was very high. Dick Cheney was traveling in other parts. A good deal of it has to do with AFRICACOM, the strange strategic hybrid of military melded with diplomacy. To quote:

Rice arrived in (staunch US ally) Morocco late on Saturday after visiting Algeria and Tunisia and holding a historic meeting with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in Tripoli.

Rice’s visit is her first as secretary of state to this region of increasing strategic importance in terms of oil resources, emigration and terrorism.

The Bush Doctrine had no meaning for Republican Veep candidate, Governor Sarah Palin, until it was explained to Palin incorrectly by ABC's Charles Gibson, during their interview. The doctrine of preventive war is at the center of a Bush-military-industrial complex that has no boundaries. Bush business as usual means an interminable "preventive" war in Iraq, certainly a contradiction in terms. Uneasy relationships all around the world -- what a legacy!

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

"My friends, we have reached a crisis, the first probably serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War. This is an act of aggression."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So said McCain yesterday at the Aspen Institute in Colorado, providing yet more evidence -- and it's really piling up -- that he is not the straight-talking maverick with international relations expertise that some still make him out to be but a dim-witted buffoon who actually knows very little about the world and who is prepared to do and say anything to score political points, including, as in this case, exaggerate and fearmonger to the point where what he says bears absolutely no resemblance to the truth.

I mean, seriously. This is the first "serious crisis internationally since the end of the Cold War"? Yes, it's an act of aggression by Russia -- although McCain either doesn't understand or doesn't want to admit that Bush's reckless foreign policy contributed a great deal to causing the crisis (egging on Georgia, provoking Russia, and weakening America's standing internationally) -- but there have been other acts of aggression and other rather serious crises: the Gulf War, 9/11, the Iraq War, North Korea's nuclear tests, etc. Does McCain not remember those crises, or is he just hell-bent on scoring political points by exaggerating the significance of the current conflict in Georgia and resurrecting Cold War geopolitics by vilifying Russia?

Let's face it, McCain has no clue what to do about the conflict in Georgia. His message, however, is this: "It's the Cold War all over again! I was there! I get it! Russia is the Evil Empire! I know what to do! Vote for me!"

The contrast is clear: Obama, whose forward-looking worldview has not been shaped by Cold War geopolitics and a Cold War mindset, understands that the Cold War is over and that the world is a different place, complex and multi-polar, but McCain, whose backward-looking worldview has been shaped to an extreme by Cold War geopolitics and a Cold War mindset, can't seem to get his head around the crises and challenges America and the international community currently face and will continue to face.

And where Obama offers nuanced responses and solutions to those crises and challenges (including re-engagement with the international community, diplomacy from a position of strength, the development of alternative energy to overcome dependency on foreign oil, the strengthening of America's economic base and workforce so as to remain competitive in an increasingly uncertain and competitive global market), McCain offers posturing, blustering, and an approach to foreign and national security policy that is not just obsolete but reckless and dangerous.

For all the talk, and all the mythologizing, that he is some sort of expert in such matters -- and he and his campaign are certainly pumping up his "experience" to contrast him with the younger Obama -- McCain is incredibly stupid, a man of terrible judgment and aggressive disposition who doesn't have a clue.

That's a pretty bad mix for the Oval Office.

Rejected, mocked, punished

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So you want to know how the Bush Administration conducted itself -- and how Bush conducted himself -- in the international arena leading up to and after the start of the Iraq War? (And how it has conducted itself with respect to international relations generally? Consider:

In the months leading up to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration threatened trade reprisals against friendly countries who withheld their support, spied on its allies, and pressed for the recall of U.N. envoys that resisted U.S. pressure to endorse the war, according to an upcoming book by a top Chilean diplomat.

The rough-and-tumble diplomatic strategy has generated lasting "bitterness" and "deep mistrust" in Washington's relations with allies in Europe, Latin America and elsewhere, wrote Heraldo Muñoz, Chile's ambassador to the United Nations, in his book "A Solitary War: A Diplomat's Chronicle of the Iraq War and Its Lessons," set for publication next month.

"In the aftermath of the invasion, allies loyal to the United States were rejected, mocked and even punished" for their refusal to back a U.N. resolution authorizing military action against Saddam Hussein's government, Muñoz wrote.

But the tough talk dissipated as the war effort worsened and President Bush came to reach out to many of the same allies that he had spurned. Muñoz's account suggests the U.S. strategy backfired in Latin America, damaging the administration's standing in a region that has long been dubious of U.S. military intervention.

In other words, the U.S. bullied anyone and everyone (including friends and allies) who dared to disagree with its warmongering, threatening opponents (and even would-be opponents) of the Iraq War with reprisals. (You know, you're either with us or against us -- and if you're against us, you're with the terrorists. That was pretty much the extent of Bush's worldview. And that hasn't changed.) Bush himself, it is clear, was the chief bully, but he was not alone. Powell and Negroponte issued threats as well -- as, of course, did Cheney and Rumsfeld (who are not mentioned in the article).

The bullying stopped -- or at least was finally reined in -- once the U.S. found itself in the predictably lame position of having to ask (if not beg) for international support, but by then it was too late. Bush had already destroyed U.S. credibility and had already stomped all over whatever international goodwill there may have been. Having been rejected, mocked, and punished, countries that had opposed the war, including some of America's closest allies, weren't about to come to the rescue.

In the world of diplomacy, as pretty much everywhere else, Bush has been, without doubt, an abject failure.