Jimmy Carter’s bold move Thursday, May 24 2007

 Does anybody find this ironic? Jimmy Carter is known for having one of the most lackluster administrations in all of American history. I know that a statement like this is almost impossible to prove, but let’s face it; in 1980, the Republicans didn’t need an icon like Ronald Reagan. They could have taken back the presidency with Donald Duck, America was so impatient to get rid of Carter. Now, maybe it is not right to paint the former president Carter in such a light. But is it really smart for him to give people the opportunity to compare his presidency with that of others? If I were him, I’d prefer it if others did not compare my record with others. 

 

Former US president Jimmy Carter unleashed a torrent of criticism against George Bush and Tony Blair over the weekend, in which he accused the Bush presidency of being the “worst in history” and said Mr Blair’s support had been abominable and subservient.

Even for a former politician with a reputation for plain talking, Mr Carter’s blazing criticism took observers by surprise and had the Republican leadership responding in equally harsh measure. The White House spokesman yesterday called Mr Carter “increasingly irrelevant”, adding that his “reckless personal criticism is out there”.

In a newspaper interview, Mr Carter said of the Bush years: “I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history.” And speaking on BBC Radio 4, Mr Carter criticised Mr Blair, who leaves office next month, for his close relations with Mr Bush, particularly concerning the Iraq war.

“Abominable. Loyal, blind, apparently subservient,” Mr Carter said when asked how he would characterise the British prime minister’s relationship with Mr Bush. “I think that the almost undeviating support by Great Britain for the ill-advised policies of President Bush in Iraq have been a major tragedy for the world.”

He told the BBC that if Mr Blair had opposed the invasion he could have made it tougher for Washington to shrug off critics. “One of the defences of the Bush administration in America and worldwide … has been, ‘OK, we must be more correct in our actions than the world thinks because Great Britain is backing us’.”

(photo: AP)

read more | digg story

5 Responses »

 

Deal Struck on Immigration Bill – Is this realistic? Saturday, May 19 2007

As long as there are rich nations and poor nations there will be immigration. We cannot stop it, nor would we want to. The United States’ national economy relies on the labor of hard working immigrants more than we know. Also, our national culture would be severly lacking were it not for immigrant families. In the era of terrorism, as security becomes the big political juggernaut of the day, it is clear that we must have an immigration policy that is based on pragmatism, instead of idealism. Neither extreme of the political spectrum have the idea. Both are based on idealism. We cannot shut out all immigrants, nor can we allow a blanket legislation to provide amnesty to all peoples illegally in the United States. What we require is a law that ensures that those who are willing to work to become citizens of the United States are allowed to do so, and are not being punished for trying to enter the right way. Why would someone put in the time to immigrate the correct way when they can enter illegally and be given blanket amnesty? I think we need to start a great debate on which sorts of laws will allow for the most pragmatic immigration policy. Let’s start with this article…

-Kent

______________________________ 

 

WASHINGTON – Key senators and the White House reached agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.

The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.

The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush’s Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.

The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush’s top non-war priorities.

The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called “point system” that would for the first time prioritize immigrants’ education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.

The draft bill “gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here” illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.

A spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., one of his party’s key players in the talks, confirmed that the group had reached agreement.

The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a “Z visa” and — after paying fees and a $5,000 fine — ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.

They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.

A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called “triggers” had been activated.

Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.

Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.

In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end “chain migration” that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it’s an unfair system that rips families apart.

Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card — except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

(photo: washingtontimes.com)

read more | digg story

3 Responses »

 

Russia: Our key to Iran Wednesday, May 16 2007

Let’s face it. It’s hard to deal with Russia. It always has been. From the bolsheviks, to the cold war, to Yeltsin, and now President Vladimir Putin. We follow different paths, and we have different interests. In the post-cold war era, this has never been as obvious as it is at this current time.

Since George W. Bush commented early in his presidency that he looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul, their friendliness and kind words have quickly expired. Now the two countries have become engaged in rhetorical shouting matches and trans-national insult exchanges.

There is no doubt that, after years of economic humiliation following the end of the cold war, Russia has become the bear it used to be. Some have even ventured that they are returning to their old, aggressive ways as a geopolitical force. Its bulging gas exports have created an economic boom, the likes of which the Russian people have never seen. One could say, however, that with this new found wealth and power, the Russian government, and Mr. Putin in particular, have developped somewhat of a big head. Most of Eastern, and much of Western, Europe depends on Russia for their oil and natural gas imports, and Russia is trying to take full advantage of it. Recent diplomatic scuffles with the Ukraine and Estonia (see last post) are proof that the Kremlin is not shy about being hawkish in order to regain their power.

Unsurprisingly, the United States is none too thrilled with Russia’s power grab. Certainly, Putin’s suppression of social and political criticism has not won many Western friends, including those of the Bush administration. Putin’s KGB style lockdown of critical news associations and boistrous political opponents is scarily similar to the tactics used under the old Soviet regime. The international pressures to be more democratic, lead by the United States, seem to be having little, if any, effect; Putin’s approval rating is over 70%, and compared to Bush’s paltry 28% approval rating, it is no wonder Putin has the political leverage to scoff at the American president’s comments.

Tensions have also been strained because of the planned missle defense system the United States has planned for Eastern Europe that Russia says is a threat to its interests and security. The United States has said that the missile system is for the defense of Eastern and Central Europe – including Russia – and Secretary of Defense Condoleezza Rice has said that there is no way Russia can veto it. The U.S. has also been vocal in its disaccord with Russia over what it sees as the proliferation and distrabution of weapons of mass destruction – most notably to foe Iran.

It is true that Russia has a cordial and business like relationship with the Iranian regime, and is in the forefront of countries providing materials to supply Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. is, of course, adament that a nuclear Iran is not an option and has become frustrated that its attempts at U.N. sanctioning have not recieved the support of Russia and China.

What the United States must do is use this cordial Russian/Iranian relationship to its advantage. No amount of pressure or criticism from the U.S. will stop the Iranians from what they see as their “given right”, therefore the U.S. should get the Russians to do it for them. Russia has already offered to process Iran’s uranium in Russian – to which the Iranians refused. The U.S. must proove to Russia that it is in their best interest to either deny Iran the ability to process uranium, or to have it done in Russia. This would give Russia more control in the conflict (which Putin is not likely to turn down) and keep the materials in Russia to be handled by Russians. Furthermore, the U.S. would be assured that Iran would be using the nuclear technology for energy purposes only, and not weaponry.

What is important to remember is that if this idea comes from the United States, or seems to be fabricated by them when the Iranians receive it, it is a no go. It is for this purpose that the U.S. must show the Russians how much their interest is at stake, and then let Putin and co. do the bidding. They should, also, not be allowed to take no for an answer.

We are reaching the point where the United States must realize that its diplomatic leverage is down, and must humbly accept the fact that Russia can, and must, be a key component to its diplomatic showdown with Iran. The Russians have a newfound sense of purpose and are hungry for power, why not use this to our advantage?

12 Responses »

 

Estonia under sustained cyber-attack from Russia Wednesday, May 16 2007

This is from The Economist and in part shows us the difficulties we are facing with a resurgent Russia. If you can believe it, this will serve as a lead in to a future post relating to how Russia can become the United State’s key to the showdown with Iran over its nuclear program. As Russia has extremely different geopolitical interests, however, it will be increasingly difficult.

-Kent 

 

FOR a small, high-tech country such as Estonia, the internet is vital. But for the past two weeks Estonia’s state websites (and some private ones) have been hit by “denial of service” attacks, in which a target site is bombarded with so many bogus requests for information that it crashes.

Tallinn’s unknown soldier, still embattledThe internet warfare broke out on April 27th, amid a furious row between Estonia and Russia over the removal of a Soviet war monument from the centre of the capital, Tallinn, to a military cemetery (pictured below). The move sparked rioting and looting by several thousand protesters from Estonia’s large population of ethnic Russians, who tend to see the statue as a cherished memorial to wartime sacrifice. Estonians mostly see it rather as a symbol of a hated foreign occupation.

The unrest, Estonia says, was orchestrated by Russia, which termed the relocation “blasphemy” and called for the government’s resignation. In Moscow, a Kremlin-run youth movement sealed off and attacked Estonia’s embassy, prompting protests from America, NATO and the European Union. Perhaps taken aback by the belated but firm Western support for Estonia, Russia has backpedalled. Following a deal brokered by Germany, Estonia’s ambassador left for a “holiday” and the blockade ended as abruptly as it began.

 (Article: The Economist, photo: news.bbc.co.uk)

read more | digg story

One Response »

 

Get the issues of Iraq straight Monday, May 14 2007

What distresses me just as much as the war in Iraq are the many people out there who think that by making this war illegal and impeaching the President we are doing a service to the Iraqi’s or the thousands of U.S. and foreign troops that are abroad.

Folks, as of this point, from a policy and humanitarian standpoint it does not matter if the war was legal, if there were WMD’s, or whether or not the information the Bush administration had was altered to make the case for war more appealing. Certainly, these are important issues and they must be dealt with; but that is for another time. Impeaching the President now will not stop a bomb from ripping through a marketplace. Litigating whether the war was legal or not will not stop the kidnappings and mass executions of people from differing religious sects. Calling the President a liar in public is not going to help bring peace to this struggling nation.

 What is most important right now is that we continue to debate the issues that will help Iraq to help itself. In my opinion, setting a blind pull out date is not helping the situation. Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel recently said:

“In the face of a President oblivious to human suffering and death, the voting public is the only power that can stop the war. The Congress can and must energize this citizen’s power. Timidity, compromise, comity and politics as usual are not viable alternatives to LEADERSHIP when Americans and Iraqis are dying every day.”

By saying this, Senator Gravel has shown that he is oblivious to human suffering and death as well. Bringing the troops home by Christmas is not necessarily going to lead to stability and compromise in the Iraqi capital. It is bad enough to engage in a war without knowing the consequences or without knowing how to properly deal with the consequences. I would make the case that it is equally as bad to leave a country in a state of disrepair without fully knowing the consequences. The Senator, as with many other politicians and presidential candidates, are playing politics with this issue, all the while criticizing the President for doing the same thing. Sure, everyone wants to be out of there as soon as possible, that is not the issue; but is doing it right now – regardless of what might happen after the fact – what is best for that country? Is creating a power vaccum in Iraq going to stablize it politically? It’s not very likely.

What needs to take place right now is a vigorous debate on what policy will best help the situation in Iraq. I think if Congress were to look at the information and listen to the people who have specific knowledge about the situation, they would understand pulling out forces as soon as possible is not going to prevent a bomb from murdering thousands of civilians in a peaceful cafe.

The time for reprimanding this administration will come, but while there are still civilians and troops winding up dead and in the hospital, our first task must be to figure out how to fix that and keep more people alive.  

6 Responses »

 

Turkey’s protests break the mold Monday, May 14 2007

When you hear news of a protest in the Middle East, what is the first thing you think? “Oh great, another anti-American smash’em-up…what did Bush do now…what anti-Christian venom is being spit and for what purpose?”

While these might not be your exact thoughts, I think it’s safe to argue that news of protest in the Muslim world fills us, here in the West, subconciously with fear and animosity. That’s why the latest round of protests in Turkey break the mold set by years of strife and religious extremism in the Middle East.  

Yesterday, over a million and a half people clogged the port city of Izmir, Turkey in an emphatic display against the pro-Islamic government over fears that the government is in the process of installing a leader more sympathetic to Islamic law than to Turkey’s foundation of secularism. Wow, how often do we see this? A movement in the Middle East FOR secularism? Unheard of!

The Turkish people have been adament in their tradition of a strict separation of church and state since the secular revolution in 1923 lead by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, but it would be unfair to label the ruling AK party as a despotic theocracy just yet. In fact, the ruling party’s record has been harmoniously in line with the principles declared in 1923. What I think is most troubling to the pro-secular Turks is a fear of their government slowly slipping into the throws of religious based ruling, as has been seen across the region for decades. They should be careful, however, as the military has threatened to intervene if the upcoming elections appear to be too “Islamic” – just because the President or Prime Minister’s wife wears a veil (which are not allowed in public buildings) does not mean the country is in for another Islamic revolution. It is important, though, that the citizens of Turkey show their government that they strongly believe in government based on a seperation between church and state. Let’s just hope that they can prove it through democratic means, and not military intervention.

Turks in Europe?

Another hot button issue in the European region is the question of Turkey’s admittance into the European Union. Certainly, if the military intervenes in Turkey’s upcoming elections, they can forget about it. But the fact that talks are already underway between the Union and the Turkish government leads me to believe that, if Turkey continues to follow its foundation of secular government and if it is willing to conform to the market principles of the EU, we will one day see them join the ranks of the European nations.

Many in Europe are hostile to this idea. For one thing, the admittance of Turkey would automatically make them the most populous nation in the EU. That would also make Islam its largest religion. It’s funny that Europe, so pious in its own secular values, would be so hostile to a Muslim country equally pious in its secularity.

Also, by adding Turkey, the European boarder would extend to touch countries such as Syria, Iraq, and Iran – which many feel will bring terrorism and instability to their peaceful European boarders. This also begs the question: where will European expansion stop? Many are already worried that the current 27 are already burdensome. If they add Turkey, why not Syria? After all, the two are, in fact, connected; even more so than Turkey connects to Bulgaria! How about Israel? They have already made a case for their right to join. Certainly the new Iraq would find many advantages in joining. And Russia, already a portion of many current maps of Europe, would extend the EU all the way to the Pacific Ocean, and give it neighbors such as Mongolia and China.

Of course some of these suggestions are unrealistic; however, the debate is still a vigorous and worthwhile one: where will Europe stop?

The United States has enacted the policy supporting Turkey’s bid for the EU, and it should continue with that. President elect Nicolas Sarkozy of France and outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain have also been supportive of this. The mixing of Christian and Muslim nations into a political union could produce and amazing vehicle that would spearhead the Middle East peace initiative. The EU would also gain more legitimacy in dealing with Islamic affairs as they arrise in the Middle East, Africa, and in their own backyard. Will Turkey one day be admitted into the EU. I say yes, but you can bet they will not get there without a fight.  

3 Responses »

 

Four U.S. oil workers kidnapped in Nigeria – so are we desensitized or what Friday, May 11 2007

 

(photo: www.insurancebroadcasting.com) 

By Tom Ashby

LAGOS (Reuters) – Gunmen kidnapped four American oil workers from a barge off the Nigerian coast on Wednesday in the 10th attack on Western oil facilities in nine days in Africa’s top producer.

Rebels from the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) said they had called for a month of “mayhem” before a new government is inaugurated in Nigeria on May 29, after disputed elections last month.

Militant attacks have already cut output in the world’s eighth largest oil exporter by a quarter.

“The Global Cheyenne, a construction barge working in the Okan field, was attacked by unknown armed persons in speed boats,” U.S. oil company Chevron said in a statement.

“Four expatriate American hostages were taken from the vessel and some government security forces suffered injuries during the attack.”

No group claimed responsibility for the latest attack, which helped push London Brent crude oil futures near $66 a barrel on Wednesday morning. Prices eased later.

But MEND is at the vanguard of an armed insurrection to secure regional control over the delta’s oil wealth, and militants see the transition to a new government on May 29 a chance to extract concessions.

About 100 foreigners have been kidnapped this year in the vast wetlands region, but most were released after their employers paid ransoms. The abduction of the Americans takes the total number of foreigners now in captivity to 13.

read more | digg story

3 Responses »

 

China Orders Resettlement Of Thousands Of Tibetans Thursday, May 10 2007

 

(photo: www.greenscene.org) 

By Tim Johnson
McClatchy Newspapers

Bernardo De Niz/MCT
Rays of light bathe a monk at the Sera Monastery outside Lhasa, Tibet
Audio | Narrated slide show – 2:21 minutes
Blog | China Rises: Notes from the Middle Kingdom

ZENGSHOL, Tibet – In a massive campaign that recalls the socialist engineering of an earlier era, the Chinese government has relocated some 250,000 Tibetans – nearly one-tenth of the population – from scattered rural hamlets to new “socialist villages,” ordering them to build new housing largely at their own expense and without their consent.

The government calls the year-old project the “comfortable housing program,” and its stated aim is to present a more modern face for this ancient region, which China has controlled since 1950.

It claims that the new housing on main roads, sometimes only a mile from previous homes, will enable small farmers and herders to have access to schools and jobs, as well as better health care and hygiene.

But the broader aim seems to be remaking Tibet – a region with its own culture, language and religious traditions – in order to have firmer political control over its population. It comes as China prepares for an influx of millions of tourists in the run-up to next year’s Summer Olympic Games.

A vital element in the strategy is to displace a revered leader, the Dalai Lama, now 71, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for advocating resistance to the communist government. The government hopes to replace him after he dies with a state-appointed successor, and in the meantime it’s opened the gates of Tibet to greater numbers of ethnic Han Chinese and tightened control of religious activity.

read more | digg story

Leave a Response »

 

Riots in France following election results Wednesday, May 9 2007

(taken from Sky News.com)

Riot police in Paris fired tear gas into crowds which gathered after Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidential election victory.

The new presidentThe disturbances happened at the Place de la Bastille, a popular hub for demonstrations and strikes. Thousands of police have been deployed in the capital and its suburbs. Railway stations are also under high surveillance in case gangs of youths travel to disrupt victory festivities. The trouble followed news that Sarkozy – a right-wing Conservative – is thought to have beaten socialist Segolene Royal by six points to replace Jacques Chirac.

Sarkozy – who in his victory speech vowed to represent all of France – said: “The French people have chosen change.

“They have decided to break with the ideas and habits of the past. I will rehabilitate work, authority, morality, respect, merit.

“I will restore honour to the nation and national identity – I will bring French pride back to the French people.”

Police fire tear gas at stone-throwing crowdsIn a second speech to massed crowds, he said: “France has given me everything and the time has come for me to give back everything it has given.” Sarkozy, who has promised 100 days of action when he takes control, added that America could “count on our friendship” but that it must take the lead on climate change.

Initial exit polls revealed the reform-minded victor won 53% of the vote. Although unofficial, the exit polls are usually accurate. Ms Royal, addressing her faithful supporters in Paris after conceding defeat, said she had given “all her strength” during the campaign.

She added: “I would like to thank the 17 million people who voted for me and I express disappointment but I would like to say to them that something has been started that will not stop.”

Sarkozy and Segolene RoyalSky’s Foreign Affairs editor, Tim Marshall, said Sarkozy is known as ‘Thatcher with trousers’, after former UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher.

He added: “He’ll think he’s got a mandate to change this country.”

Voter turnout was 85%, the highest level in 33 years. Mr Sarkozy, 52, the son of a Hungarian immigrant who heads the ruling Union for a Popular Movement, was seen as the clear frontrunner. The latter stages of the campaign had been marked by a bitter war of words between the two.

On Friday, Ms Royal – who would have been the country’s first woman president – warned of “violence and brutalities triggered across the country” if he wins. She was highlighting fears that a victory by him could spark unrest in the poor high-immigration neighbourhoods that were the scene of riots in 2005.

Mr Sarkozy, who was Interior Minister at the time, is a hate figure for many young people of black and Arab origin. He has also been vilified as a hard-right authoritarian by many on the left.

read more | digg story

2 Responses »