I don’t really know what to say about this other than wow. Michael Scheuer, who is best known for Imperial Hubris (which originally was written listed as written by “anonymous,” since Scheuer had not yet left the CIA, where he was a member of the bin Laden Unit), talks to Glenn Beck (h/t):
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments
Daniel Larison compares and contrasts events in Honduras and Iran:
[L]et’s try a thought experiment about this question anyway. We are appropriately wary of people who invoke a political crisis to justify extraordinary and extra-legal measures. This sort of rhetoric can be so easily abused for the sake of augmenting and consolidating the power of those in government that we should normally be skeptical of such claims. That said, isn’t it the case that the response of Honduran political and military institutions to presidential illegalities is exactly the one that most of the Western world has been openly desiring in Iran?
Isn’t one of the main problems in Iran that the military and interior ministry colluded with Ahmadinejad in his crime? Suppose they had grabbed him on June 12, the day of the election, and thus prevented him from carrying out his fraudulent power-grab. Would we take seriously for a moment anyone gravely intoning about the need for proper procedure and rejecting the result as an illegal action against the democratically-elected president? (Obviously not, because very few, even the most ardent Mousavi cheerleaders, genuinely think of Iran as having anything like a real democratic process.) One way to look at the Honduran situation is that the political and military institutions removed Zelaya early on rather than permitting him to continue to abuse his office. They did what their counterparts in Iran could not or would not do. Indeed, one might go so far as to say that they were able to take such action because Honduras is a constitutional democracy in many important respects that Iran simply isn’t. . . .
Despite the serious inconsistency on one level, there is a common thread connecting the overzealous pro-Mousavi Westerners to the overreacting international condemnation of the Micheletti government in Honduras. What really irks Westerners who have invested so much energy into Mousavi’s cause is not that Iranian laws were broken or its constitution violated, but that the will of the majority was presumably thwarted and in any case the people were denied their voice. Mousavi believes he is fighting for the integrity of the Islamic republican system and its rules; his Western admirers embrace him (however absurdly) as a symbol of majoritarian democracy. Even though the whole of Honduras’ political class was in agreement that Zelaya had to go because they believe he threatened the Honduran constitution, this does not matter to the rest of the world. Zelaya is a populist demagogue who apparently still has considerable mass support, and it is his democratic support that counts for far more in the view of the rest of the world than his lack of respect for constitutional limits.
I find this to be a fairly disingenous argument. Zelaya was democratically elected in what absolutely everyone (even his opponents) agrees was a free and fair election. Zelaya’s undemocratic moves took place after he assumed office. The case in Iran is vastly different — the ruling elite (including Ahmadinejad) apparently* stole an election, claiming that they had a popular mandate.
The key is not whether Zelaya and Ahmadinejad had a popular mandate, but rather whether they acted in the best interests of sustaining a healthy democratic system. The answer in both cases is no. But it’s equally accurate to say that the opposition in Honduras also failed to meet this standard.
It’s been decades since advocates of democratic governance (even in the Bush Administration) have thought that elections are the be-all and end-all of democracy. The reality is that “democracy” means much more than elections, and that both Zelaya’s attempts to hold on to power and the parliamentary-military coup against him were undemocratic. To suggest that this is about populist majoritarianism fails to recognize the reality that neither side in Honduras has acted in the long-term interests of a stable democracy.
The problem, of course, is that the international community (or, for that matter, individual states) cannot merely say “a pox on both your houses.” Someone has to be in charge. The question is not who is right and who is wrong but rather who will do more damage to the prospect for continued democratic governance in Honduras (and beyond).
The real solution is some sort of compromise.
Adopt new constitutional measures that a) explicitly outlaws the use of a majority vote in a referendum to amend the constitution and b) provides for some sort of process to remove a President acting extra-constitutionally in a manner that does not require the military to grab him/her while still in his/her pajamas.
Then turn the government over to a caretaker, preferably someone not embroiled in the current dispute.
Allow Zelaya to return. Hold a new election, preferably within the next few months, in which Zelaya is allowed to stand as a candidate. Invite international observers and the UN. And then accept the results as the mandate of the Honduran people.
Is it a perfect solution? Absolutely not. But somebody has to come up with something that addresses the reality that neither side is acting in the best interests of the country.
_____
*I say apparently because we never really will know. The reality is that Ahmadinejad may have won a majority of votes, but not 65 percent as claimed. Then again, he may not have.
| posted in American foreign policy, world events | 0 Comments
. . .with apologies to Green Day.
The Minnesota Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has declared Al Franken the winner in Minnesota. Unless, of course, Norm Coleman decides to move the battle to the federal courts.
It strikes me that Americans still have not come to terms with the reality of closely contested elections. Both Coleman v. Franken and Bush v. Gore demonstrate that first-past-the-post systems, where the top vote-getter wins even if s/he doesn’t have a majority, can at times create more havoc than resolution. (Of course, that said, thousands of elections work just fine).
There are two obvious solutions. The first is to require a run-off should no candidate fail to hit 50 percent plus one. This would not eliminate every contested election, but it certainly would get rid of most. The downside, of course, is that such a system not only is more expensive, but also is unlikely to sustain voter interest. Run-offs almost never produce the same level of voter engagement.
The second option is some sort of Instant Run-off Voting, where voters would have the opportunity to rank their choices, meaning that those who chose someone other than the top two candidates would get to express a preference beyond their first choice. IRV is used in a few American cities, most notably San Francisco, and so far there have been few objections. The upside is that it would not require multiple elections to decide a race, and actually could lead to the election of some third-party candidates, who otherwise would not have received the votes of citizens worried that they were “throwing away” their votes.
The downside is that. . . well, frankly, I can’t think of one. Some folks like to argue it’s undemocratic, since the person who gets the largest number of votes doesn’t win. That, of course, is true only if you define “the largest number of votes” as meaning “the largest number of votes in a multiple-candidate field.” And as is the case with conventional run-off votes, the system would come into play only were one candidate not to receive a majority in the first round.
I’m sure that IRV is a flawed system, and that it inevitably will produce challenges along the way. But it can’t by any stretch of the imagination be worse than a campaign that requires nearly more than seven months, millions of dollars, and multiple court rulings before it’s resolved.
Photo: Aaron Landry, via Flickr, using a Creative Commons 2.0 License
| posted in politics | 2 Comments
| posted in media | 0 Comments
So in case you didn’t hear, there was a coup in Honduras yesterday. President Manuel Zelaya, an ally of Hugo Chavez, was hustled out of the country (while still wearing his pajamas, apparently) by the military. Shortly thereafter, the Honduran Congress voted unanimously to remove Zelaya from office and replace him with Roberto Micheletti, the president of Congress.
This is the result of an extended constitutional crisis, during which Zelaya attempted to extend his rule through a referendum (that was scheduled to take place on Sunday) that would have eliminated presidential term limits. Both Honduras’s Supreme Court and Congress had called the referendum unconstitutional.
Earlier today Venezulan blogger Francisco Toro offered his perspective over at TNR:
Seen in context, Sunday’s military powerplay was different in important ways from the traditional Latin American putsch. The generals move came at the unanimous–yes unanimous–behest of a congress outraged by Zelaya’s not-particularly-subtle attempts to extend his hold on power indefinitely. It followed a series of clearly unconstitutional moves on Zelaya’s part, including his attempt to unilaterally remove the chief of the army, which, according to Honduras’s Constitution, can only be done by a congressional super-majority.
And congress’s request had been seconded by the nation’s Supreme Court, which is sworn to uphold a constitution that explicitly makes the act of “inciting, promoting or backing the continuation in power or re-election of the President of the Republic” punishable with the loss of Honduran citizenship.
So while we wince at the image of soldiers kidnapping a president, it’s important to recognize that the move against Zelaya was, if not strictly speaking constitutional, certainly institutional.
If anything, the hemisphere’s unanimous, outraged reaction to events in Tegucigalpa–which, for once, saw Washington and Caracas in strong agreement against the coup–underlines the region’s pathologically imbalanced veneration of presidential power. After all, in 1999, when Hugo Chávez, with the agreement of the Venezuelan Supreme Court, moved to shut down Venezuela’s democratically elected congress, we heard nary a peep from the OAS. And in 2007, when Ecuador’s own neoauthoritarian president Rafael Correa moved to shut down congress with the Supreme Court’s approval, nobody cried coup. In neither case were those closures allowed by the existing constitution, yet nobody would’ve taken cries of a “coup” seriously.
Somehow, though, when the Honduran Congress, with the support of the Supreme Court, moves against the president, the continent’s foreign affairs ministries fly into deep crisis mode.
This underscores a harsh reality for Latin American believers in liberal constitutionalism. Deep down, only Presidential Power is considered real power in Latin America, which is why only moves against the president are considered actual coups. Our constitutions generally define all branches of government as equal, but it seems some are more equal than others.
Toro is suggesting that efforts by Latin American leaders to undermine other branches of government are not regarded as coups in the same way that those toppling Presidents are. But that’s simply not true — the term for such a move, at least in Latin America, is autogolpe, or self-coup:
A self-coup or autocoup is a form of coup d’état that occurs when a country’s leader dissolves or renders powerless the national legislature and assumes extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures taken may include annulling the nation’s constitution and suspending civil courts. In most cases the head of state is granted dictatorial powers.
One of the modern examples of the self-coup is elected Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori’s takeover of the government on April 5, 1992, ostensibly to exercise absolute authority in annihilating Maoist Shining Path insurgents, though political opponents and journalists were arrested by the military.
In addition, I think Toro is on a pretty slippery slope here. Saying a coup against a sitting President is okay because Congress authorized it is hardly that different than saying that a coup against a sitting Congress is okay because the President authorized it.
As my mother taught me, two wrongs don’t make a right. Zelaya’s efforts to pull a Chavez in Honduras certainly were unacceptable and most likely unconstitutional. But the military’s decision to toss Zelaya out of the country — even if subsequently sanctioned by a unanimous vote of the Honduran Congress — is just as unconstitutional (if not more so). If the people of Honduras wanted to oust Zelaya, there were much better ways than sticking him on the next plane out of the country.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=18c1090f-c867-4871-8bca-bf67eb9fc114)
| posted in American foreign policy, world events | 1 Comment
The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison on the hard right’s unhappiness with Obama’s Iran policy:
Americanists believe that any statement from the President that fails to build up and anoint Mousavi as the preferred candidate is discouraging to Mousavi and his supporters, because they apparently cannot grasp that being our preferred candidate is to be tainted with suspicion of disloyalty to the nation.
It is strange how nationalists often have the least awareness of the importance of the nationalism of another people. Many of the same silly people who couldn’t say enough about Hamas’ so-called “endorsement” of Obama as somehow indicative of his Israel policy views, as well as those who could not shut up about his warm reception in Europe, do not see how an American endorsement of a candidate in another country’s election might be viewed with similiar and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country.
This is an excellent point. As a friend said to me, the hard right’s strategy has more to do with pushing Obama to take engagement off the table than it does about supporting the Greens.
I still believe that Obama has chosen the right path so far. I think that talking to a Khameni-Ahmadinejad-led Iran would damage both the Greens and our own credibility. But it’s far too early to suggest that talk is off the table. Although, as I noted in my previous post, regime change is increasingly unlikely and there is no good reason not to try to isolate Iran, the reality is that China, Russia, Syria, Hezbollah, and other actors will not disengage.
That changes the dynamic, and argues even more for the Administration’s current line.
And yes, I recognize the internal contradiction between what I’m saying here and what I said in my last post. That’s because my previous post represents my hopes and this one represents my recognition of reality.
I don’t want to see the United States (or anyone else for that matter) engage with these vicious bastards. But given the fact that two of the P5+1 already have recognized the election results, idealism is no substitute for the way the world actually works.
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments
Green balloons over Tehran:
I think at this point, barring a move by Rafsanjani to displace Khameni, regime change is highly unlikely. But the Greens will not go quietly into the night, and the legitimacy of the current government is gone.
That said, as the Tiananmen Square massacre (and Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 and Poland in 1981 and. . . .) demonstrated, regime illegitimacy is not, in and of itself, a recipe for regime change. Over time, other governments usually chooses amnesia over isolation — it’s better to pretend that the regime in question really isn’t that bad, and, well, you know, there’s nothing you can do about having to engage.
But Iran isn’t China. And even with the nuclear issue, there is no real reason for the world to engage. The challenge for the Greens inside Iran and their friends outside will be to sustain the outrage for as long as possible. It won’t be an easy task.
Insh’allah.
| posted in world events | 0 Comments
Via Felix Salmon, the Chinese government reportedly plans to block GM’s sale of its Hummer brand to the Sichuan Tengzhong a Chinese company that heretofore had produced dump trucks:
Hummer, as an expensive, gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle, would not fit in with the government’s policy of encouraging energy-efficient vehicles, [Chinese state] radio said.
When something is too gas-inefficient even for the Chinese market, that’s saying something.
Setting aside the temptation to be snarky, I wonder whether this will have any impact on GM’s bankruptcy proceedings. Initial press reports had the sale garnering somewhere around $500 million for GM, which isn’t much in the context of its current debt, but it isn’t chump change either.
It will be interesting to see if another buyer now steps in. For the sake of the environment, I hope not.
| posted in global economy | 0 Comments
By which I mean you no longer will have to read posts on the need for the Senate to confirm Harold Hongju Koh as Legal Advisor to the Department of State. He was confirmed today by the Senate by a vote of 62-35.
Congratulations, Harold. Now get to work.
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments
Words by W.B. Yeats, music by the Waterboys (h/t). Warning: final images are quite distressing.
| posted in pop culture, world events | 0 Comments
Over at Volokh Conspiracy, Eric Posner offers a summary of the debate behind the Harold Koh debate:
how much [should] American law, and in particular, American judicial decisionmaking. . .be influenced by foreign and international legal norms[?]
Posner breaks down the main areas of disagreement and the arguments put forward by each side. Here’s one of his key points:
For conservatives, America is the exceptional nation. Other states should imitate the United States, not the other way around. Conservative or not, this is also mainstream public opinion.
The pro-foreign law people, like most academics, reject American exceptionalism: the United States is an ordinary nation—good in some ways, bad in others. The United States needs to be disciplined and constrained, so that it is compelled to take into account the values and interests of other people in the world.
The executive and legislative branches have no incentive to do this because only Americans can vote in U.S. elections. For this reason, only the courts, with their unelected, globe-trotting judges, can put a break on American exceptionalism. It is this last issue which has made the foreign law debate politically explosive.
I don’t think that’s an accurate portrayal of the “foreign law” [Posner's term] position. The argument isn’t over whether America should be exceptional, but rather whether it is exceptional. Most advocates of international law — including Koh — do believe that the United States is an exceptional nation. In his speeches as Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Koh often talked about “the American way,” noting the heroic efforts of average Americans throughout U.S. history to push the U.S. Government to live up to its principles.
What international law advocates argues is sometimes even a democratic nation can take actions that are undemocratic and/or violate human rights. As I’m sure even Alexander Hamilton would argue, the judiciary exists to serve as a check against the possibility that the electorate (or their representatives) will take actions contrary to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. International law advocates are merely suggesting that in doing so, courts should take into consideration both U.S. law and evolving international standards.
Despite my disagreement with this and several other of Posner’s characterizations of the international law side of the debate, the whole piece is worth reading.
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments
After my crack yesterday about Mark Sanford and “Buenos Aires” (not to mention several equally snarky comments on Facebook and Twitter), I have to admit I’m increasingly troubled by my initial reaction to the Sanford mess.
What Sanford did was cruel, wrong, and incredibly stupid, hurting his family and his state. He needs to resign. As a friend said on twitter, if Spitzer, then Sanford. If he used state money for one of his trips to Argentina, that’s pretty much the definition of an impeachable offense.
But my (and others’) gleeful schadenfreude, esp. given his remarkably frank (though frequently incoherent) press conference, strikes me as a bridge too far. Contrast Sanford’s honesty yesterday with the denial and prevarication of John Edwards or the far-too-typical press conference (Ensign, Spitzer, Craig, etc.) where the politician drags his poor wife and family out to “stand behind” him while he makes a thoroughly spun non-admission admission.
Conservative politicians need to stop suggesting that marriage is only between a man and a woman when far too many of them apparently think it actually believe it’s between a woman, a man, and the man’s sexual obsession.
| posted in politics | 0 Comments
NYT’s The Lede blog, which has done an outstanding job covering events in Iran, just posted the following:
Several Iranian bloggers are writing that another rally is scheduled for Thursday. According to an update posted on Twitter from someone who has had reliable information on the opposition rallies in the past:
Thursday’s rally will be @ 4:30pm from Vali-asr intersection to Enghelab sq.
That got me wondering. Who’s behind these tweets? Given the fact that a) the government is monitoring Twitter and b) they’re also monitoring The Lede, Andrew Sullivan, and Nico Pitney, are those who tweet/report on the rallies inadvertently helping the government? After all, there are ways to share this information via more private channels such as direct messages in Twitter.
By all reports, the Basiji and other government forces used considerable brutality to crush the rally in front of Parliament today. Mousavi has claimed that he did not call for it. Government troops/paramilitaries were waiting for the protesters. And helicopters were overhead monitoring the protesters’ movements. At least one participant called it a trap.
So I ask again. Who’s behind these tweets? Is the Khameni/Ahmadinejad faction behind them? I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but if the government is using twitter to spring traps that are leading to the death and injury of regime opponents, the media (old and new) need to think about their role — and their (our) potential complicity.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d4d210ca-4a02-4cf9-85ad-3bbe574749b7)
| posted in media, world events | 0 Comments
I don’t have much to say about the Sanford saga other than to note that those who are making “Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” jokes are picking the wrong song from “Evita.” This is much more appropriate:
| posted in politics | 0 Comments
Final vote, per my earlier post, was 65-31. Eight Republicans (Alexander, Collins, Gregg, Hatch, Lugar, Martinez, Snowe, Voinovich voted to close debate, along with every Democrat present (Kennedy and Byrd were too ill to attend).
The two on this list that I did not expect were Lamar Alexander and Orrin Hatch. I suspect that they will vote against him once the Republicans’ current thirty hours of fake “discussion” and time-wasting quorum calls finally comes to a close, but that certainly is their right, and I give them credit for helping to end a filibuster that was more about show than principle.
There has been some sspeculation that Gregg, Martinez, and Voinovich voted in large part because they’re retiring, but I don’t think that’s entirely true. Voinovich was a prominent critic of John Bolton (at least the first time around), and Koh has long and deep ties to Florida’s Cuban and Haitian communities as a result of his work on the pre-9/11 round of Guantanamo detentions.
As Dave Weigel notes, thirteen Republicans, including John McCain, voted against cloture even though they voted to confirm Koh as Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor back in 1998.
With luck, this will help break the logjam on current and future sub-Cabinet nominations. The next test is Dawn Johnsen, who faces a tougher battle as a result of her past work for the National Abortion Rights Action League. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) already has made it clear he will oppose her, and Arlen Specter (Whatever Gets Me Elected-PA) has said that he will vote for cloture but against her nomination.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=8391e797-84a9-4b7f-beba-6178b3972017)
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments
The Senate just voted to close debate on Harold Hongju Koh’s nomination to serve as Legal Advisor in the Department of State. Final vote was 65-31. Still tracking down the exact roll call, but it looks like a number of Republicans voted for cloture.
Congrats to Harold and thanks to all of the Undip readers who worked on his behalf.
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 0 Comments
As Dave Weigel and Lara Rozen have already reported, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) yesterday filed for cloture, moving Harold Koh’s nomination to serve as State Department Legal Advisor to the floor of the Senate. Although the timing depends on other Senate business, the vote is likely to take place as soon as tomorrow.
For those unfamiliar with the Senate’s mysterious ways, the Majority Leader routinely asks unanimous consent to close debate on a given issue and move to a vote. If any Senator refuses, then “debate” remains open and cannot be closed without a sixty-vote super-majority. This is what used to be known as a filibuster, back in the day when Senators opposing cloture actually had to stay on the Senate floor and speak.
These days, anyone can put a hold on any bill or confirmation and prevent a vote from taking place. The end result is that the Majority Leader has to round up sixty votes for cloture before a regular vote (requiring only a simple majority) on the bill or individual can go forward.
In Koh’s case, two Senators — John Cornyn and David Vitter — refused to agree to a vote. Reid’s decision to move forward means that he thinks he has the votes. What we do know is that Richard Lugar (R-IN) has endorsed Koh, which brings the number to 60, assuming that all Democrats support Koh — and that they all show up, which is perhaps the biggest problem.
That means that it’s important that other moderate Republicans — particularly Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, and Mel Martinez — need to be brought on board. If you live in their states (Maine, Ohio, Florida), I urge you to call their offices and urge them to vote for cloture (and preferably to confirm him as well). If you live in Nebraska or Pennsylvania, I’d make sure that Ben Nelson and Arlen Specter are on board.
In addition, if you live in any state with a Republican Senator — even if that Senator has been a vocal opponent of Koh’s nomination — I would urge you to call his/her office and make the following point.
Conservative Republicans have, over the past week or so, accused President Obama of failing to take a strong enough stand on the crisis in Iran. I have argued in the context of other human rights issues (such as the anniversary of the Tiananmen Massacre) that one of the reasons Obama (and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) have failed to make stronger statements in support of human rights is the dearth of human rights experts at State and NSC — individuals with the heft necessary to push for stronger assertions on behalf of the victims of human rights abuses.
If conservative Republicans truly want to see a stronger response by Obama to Iran (and China), they should want to do everything possible to expedite the confirmation of genuine human rights experts who can make strong arguments capable of countering those in (primarly) Foggy Bottom who would ignore such issues. As a former Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (a position for which he was confirmed by a unanimous Senate vote), Koh has the knowledge to raise such concerns within the bureaucracy. And as a veteran of the clearance wars, Koh knows how to fight the fight.
To be clear, I think Obama’s approach to Iran has been the right one (and I would guess that Koh would say the same thing). That said, I remain concerned about the fact that no one appears to be managing U.S. human rights policy at the moment. If Republicans want stronger human rights language from the Administration, it would help if they stopped blocking those who have the knowledge and ability to ensure that human rights issues remain a paramount component of U.S. foreign policy.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f6d34a70-2e81-4400-b677-59556ffefcd7)
| posted in American foreign policy, politics | 1 Comment
Clearly, I do not have the time or depth of knowledge needed to offer anything new about the crisis in Iran. Thankfully, several experts are on the case, and others are compiling the tweets and other information for us.
So I just want to take one moment to make doubly sure everyone has seen “The Neda Video” and mulled over its implications. You can see all 16 seconds of it here, but just know that it is quite graphic.
Robin Wright speculates on the implications here: “In Iran, One Woman’s Death May Have Many Consequences.”
Dan Drezner chimes in on the Foreign Policy blog. He strikes just about the right tone when he says the video has now created a focal point for the opposition and this has foreboding consequences for the regime. He cautions, however:
To repeat a theme: this does not mean that Ahmadinejad and Khamenei will fall from power (See: Tank Man, Goddess of Democracy). What it means is that even if they maintain their grip on power, they have lost all of their legitimacy.
So what does an Iranian regime devoid of legitimacy mean for the region and for U.S. foreign policy?
| posted in media, world events | 0 Comments
Suzanne Maloney of the Saban Center has just posted a new article for Foreign Affairs on the Iranian election crisis titled “Clerical Error.”
Summary: “No matter who emerges victorious in Iran’s current struggle for political power, the future of the Islamic Republic will look nothing like the country the world has known for the last 30 years.”
| posted in media, world events | 0 Comments
Remember back in April when piracy off the coast of Somalia was big story? Well the fickle finger of media attention may have moved on, but the pirate problem is as big as ever.
Reports say as many as 14 ships (with over 200 sailors) are being held by Somali-based pirates right now. In 2008, there were 120 pirate attacks which netted $80 million in ransom.
Two new media reports give insight into what this massive amount of money (and crime) really means for those living in the area. Al Jazeera’s Mohammed Adow offers “The Pirate Kings of Puntland” from his trip to Somalia’s northeastern corner. And at the BBC, Andrew Harding has fresh video from Eyl, “the tiny coastal town that has become notorious as the centre of Somalia’s lucrative pirate industry.”
I have no great answers for solving this piracy problem. But I do know two things which can help.
First, we have to understand and act on the truth that failed states and ungoverned spaces pose a major threat to global stability. Remember what Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence, said earlier this year: “In recent years, it seems we’ve had more security problems from states that have been in trouble than we have from strong states that have been an adversary to us in the traditional way.”
And from the Al Jazeera story:
However, it was desperation, not greed, he claims, that pushed him to throw in his lot with the pirates. “We are driven by hunger, just look at our country and how destroyed it is. We are people with no hope and opportunities, that is what is forcing us into piracy,” he says.
A Puntland official adds:
But Mahmoud says he needs more help to tackle what is now an international problem. He is critical of the international community’s approach to combating piracy, saying they will never successfully defeat the pirates without collaborating with local forces like his own on land as well as at sea.
Second, the United States must ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty in order to have any credibility on this issue. Like the “Wild West,” the term “High Seas” refers to an area outside of normal laws. The parts of Earth’s oceans and seas which can be claimed by no single country (or can be claimed by so many countries that the claims are meaningless) have long been ruled by either pirates or the strongest navy.
It is time for the United States to be a leader on bringing the rule of law to this next frontier.
| posted in American foreign policy, global economy, world events | 0 Comments
Here it is. (It’s a screenshot. Go to youtube if you want the whole thing.)
Breaking news indeed. Good thing there’s nothing going on in the world.
| posted in media | 0 Comments
Long-time readers of this blog know that Molly and I appear to have an uncanny knack for scheduling vacations right when unexpected world events take place. Last summer, it was the Russian invasion of Georgia. And now it’s Iran.
As it happens (and unlike last summer), I had long intended to go computer-free for a few days (and for the first time since 2003, as far as I can remember). Despite what’s happening, I’m not going to change those plans. So you won’t hear from me for a few days — probably next Tuesday.
The good news is that our old friend Midwest McGarry will be dropping by and offering his thoughts when time allows.
And here’s hoping I return to a new day in Iran.
| posted in media | 0 Comments
I have no illusions about Undip’s ability to track the rapidly changing events in Iran. I encourage you to stay tuned here, but you also should be reading four sites:
NYT’s The Lede blog
NIACInsight, the blog of the National Iranian-American Council
Nico Pitney over at Huffington Post
Ignore the cabletubes (with the exception of the BBC) — they’re not worth your time.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=fe8be4fb-103c-4261-9799-206d557f7f4e)
| posted in world events | 0 Comments
I know that everyone is focused on Iran, but there are, of course, other things going on in the world — like tobacco regulation.
As of Friday, June 12, both houses of Congress had passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. This timing may reflect no more than the fact that Democrats now control both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, but I suspect it has something to do with which particular Democrat now occupies the Oval Office. President Obama is a former Senator who sponsored tobacco control legislation when in Congress, and a former (?) smoker who has publicly acknowledged the difficulties faced by smokers attempting to quit a habit driven by physical addiction.
The health rationale for exerting government control over the marketing of tobacco products to Americans has been a no-brainer for decades. The CDC notes that tobacco products kill more than 400,000 people every year in the US. The significance of this number can be lost when considering a continent-sized nation with a population of close to 300 million people, but the following number is more intuitive: tobacco products eventually kill half of their regular users from smoking-related diseases.
The significance of this moment should not be underestimated. For the first time in history, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has statutory authority to regulate tobacco products, even though the surgeon general announced tobacco’s deleterious effects almost half a century ago. Until now, cigarettes were less regulated than cosmetics or pet food (h/t to The New York Times for that observation, though it was no more supported there than I am supporting it here).
The legislation does not allow for outlawing smoking or banning nicotine, which would be politically impossible. However, FDA can set product standards with respect to impact on human health, thereby forcing changes in existing products and controlling the marketing of new products. These powers will permit FDA to ban some chemicals deemed hazardous to human health, and possibly reduce nicotine content. It allows for the ban of most flavorings except menthol, the most politically sensitive flavor due to its widespread popularity with users. FDA may now regulate tobacco marketing: no ads within one thousand feet of schools and playgrounds, and producers can’t claim products are “light,” “mild,” or “low tar,” as such ads are deemed misleading. And soon more graphic labels, similar to those already required for sales in Canada, will be required in the US marketplace. While this may seem like a lot to ask, I would argue that it is less than what is demanded of the pharmaceutical industry, where there is obvious, significant consumer benefit to the product.
Why has this happened now? Likely for two reasons: Democratic control of Congress and executive branch, and the market leader Philip Morris detected a comparative advantage over its competitors that it would like to solidify. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to guess that the FDA unlikely to approve new tobacco products, or at least any new smoked tobacco products. Thus the restriction on marketing, plus likely lack of new products, will solidify Philip Morris’ market-leading position. With over $3 billion in annual profits, Philip Morris has been able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a modern R&D infrastructure that, in addition to situating the company to respond to new government demands for proof of various technical points under this legislation, could develop novel, smokeless products that don’t involve burning tobacco. The other, smaller, less profitable tobacco companies can’t afford to do this, and since these are the types of new products that would be most likely to be approved under the new regulatory structure, Philip Morris’ market-share lead over its competitors will only increase. Finally, all corporations like certainty, which tremendously simplifies planning. Comprehensive federal regulation governing a marketplace is far better than state-by-state regulations and lawsuits in that respect.
Of course, there are critics of this legislation, but I am not one of them - at least not in the same way. The generic sentiment that the government should have gone further seems unrealistic to me. One out of every five Americans is still a smoker, and it isn’t obvious to me how more could have been done without undulying taxing or restricting the legitimate consumer options of this group. And I think it should emphasized just how big a step this legislation represents. It took twenty years after the surgeon general’s report in the early Sixties to ban smoking on airplane flights in the Eighties, and another twenty years for widespread bans in most public spaces. Restricting smoking has some appeal now, but that is a fairly recent phenomenon, and not universal.
If I worry about anything, I worry about the ability of the FDA to handle several new large mandates at once:
