President Qaddafi of the United States of Africa

This is a story that i found moderately interesting, the proposal for a United states of Africa. The catalyst for this discussion was the election of President Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya to the Chairpersonship of the African Union. It seems a strange concept that all of Africa could untie along the E.U. model with common currency, passport, military, etc. What does this election of Qaddafi signal for the immediate future of the A.U. and Africa? How did Qaddafi get elected as the head of the A.U.? Its a more interesting story than you think.

From Foreign Policy Passport,

It's not as if the title came unexpectedly. North Africa was up for the regionally rotating seat. So beginning last summer, Qaddafi crowned himself "king of kings," quite literally by inviting 200 traditional rulers to Libya so that they might elect him. He arrived at the AU summit with seven more well-dressed kings by his side (turns out they didn't make the guest list and weren't allowed in). And once inside, Qaddafi is said to have circulated a letter with a simple message: I am king of kings, and I expect to be treated like one. No big shocker when the closed door vote put Qaddafi at the reigns.

Keeping up with Qaddafi's eccentricities is certainly an engaging pastime. But the big news is actually that he might be good at the job. The Libyan leader garners a lot of respect where it is most needed these days. In Zimbabwe, Qaddafi's credibility as a leader who has 'stood up' to the West and supported anti-apartheid in South Africa could at least win him an audience (and some sway -- should he use it) with Mugabe. Likewise, Qaddafi could do some good in Somalia where a newly elected moderate-Muslim President, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, desperately needs help holding together a weak government. Qaddafi has the oil money and religious credentials to push the right ways.

Qaddafi's main focus at the summit was the promotion of a United States of Africa. He has set a rather ambitious goal for his plan, July. In order to achieve it he has gone so far as too alter procedure to require a 2/3 vote against the proposal in order to defeat it. He created a system where silence is acceptance. How realistic is it that the African Union transforms the continent of Africa into a single nation state?

[A]n expert on the African Union called the vision of the United States of Africa a "ludicrous fantasy on the part of [Col] Gaddafi."

Kathryn Sturman at the South African Institute of International Affairs said many African leaders would not be prepared to give up their national sovereignty to join the proposed single-state federation proposed by the Libyan leader.

Ms Sturman said the chair of the group does not have any singular decision-making power, and cannot push through any changes without the consensus of the other leaders.

The idea for a United states of Africa is not new and although it seems overly ambitious to believe it will be brought about in July the idea is not to be dismissed. There are significant possible benefits to the countries and people of Africa if the manage to successfully unite into a functioning state. It would immediately increase their bargaining power on the world stage in areas such as climate change and global trade.

As always with ventures of this type there are considerations of sovereignty and nationalism to address. Even in Africa where there are numerous failed states, (somalia hasnt hada government in 18 years) and massive infrastructure problems. There is also a question of shared identity in a pan-african state.

It is very hard to create a legitimate government based on a strong federalist model where the central government is weak and the sub states have a great level of autonomy. unless the central government can exert considerable control over the substrates then it would make dealing with the internal problems of Africa like HIV/AIDs incredibly difficult. Note how hard it is to get the different african states to commit to peacekeeping missions in other african countries. If Africa were to unite the people who formerly identified as Congolese or Libyan would be required to fight in somalia and other hot spots.

Anything that manages to reduce the violence and poverty in Africa should be welcome. However the United States of Africa seems like an idea that will be long in the making. Africa has many problems that it must deal with before it is stable and successful enough to unite under one government. Colonel Qaddafi can dream but the USA II is a long way off.

Read more...

Ink Stained Hands

Reading the reports of the voting in Iraq one thing has become clear, the Iraqis have an excellent system for identifying those who vote and those who dont. Poli Sci research has shown that one of the most effective ways to get people to vote is social pressure and the possibility of being identified as the person who didnt vote. In Iraq the means of identifying those who have done their civic duty is far more effective than the "i voted" sticker handed out at american polling places.

If your not familiar with the Iraq ink system for identifying voters here is a description courtesy of the NYT

Next, each voter will place his or her ballot inside a locked box - and then the piece de resistance of Iraqi elections will take place: Voters will dip their index finger into a vat of indelible ink, which is done to try to prevent people from casting multiple ballots.

In the past, Iraq has used purple ink for this purpose. This time, the color is literally a state secret. Members of the election commission will only say the ink will come from outside the country.

While the design of the program is to increase the trust and legitimacy of the elections the side effect has been to create a point of pride for the iraqi citizenry. Some who dont vote have even tried to replicate the ink process so as to avoid being singled out as a nonvoter,

New York Times stringer in Mosul – HIS FAMILY VOTED.

As a journalist stationed in one voting center, I was not able to vote. It made me very sad at heart that I was sitting out these elections (especially after boycotting the last ones).

After work I rushed to my assigned voting center only to find it long closed. I started blaming myself for not voting before heading to duty. At home, I was overjoyed to see my family’s purple forefingers. I hid my hand in my pocket, slipped to my room and dipped my finger in a bottle of ink. Not out of fear but out of a desire to be part of this great experience.

People underestimate the importance of a social symbol like the ink stained fingers to the construction of a democratic society. It adds cohesiveness by linking the voting citizens to the national identity. In addition, the more prominent the symbol the more people will be driven to obtain it. In the case of an "i voted" display this can only increase participation in the democratic process, something needed in systems that lack legitimacy or where boycotts are common.

One issue with a system where the voter is physically marked in this manner is that it tends to discriminate against absentee voting. I am sure that if a similar ink based system was implemented here in the states that absentee voters would be taken into account. The Democrats have been trying to increase absentee voting as much as possible so it seems like they would want to alleviate any potential discouraging factors.

Looking that the turnout in Iraq there seems to have been a number of logistical problems that prevented turnout from reaching the point many thought it would. These problems include the curfew, failing to find your name on the voting registration and the inability to reach the polling place of registration due to displacement. These problems can be mitigated in future elections and that they indicate the desire to vote instead of apathy is a good sign.

If the Times is to believed the early returns from the election seem to indicate a strengthening of the secular parties and support for current prime minister al-maliki. An increase in the strength of secular parties is also something i would consider to be healthy for the future of an iraqi democracy. I am partial to liberal western rights and that conception and the freedoms that come with it for women, glbt, and minorities will not be likely under an islamic theocracy.

For voting stories from iraq read, here.

Read more...

The stimulus negotiation

i think it went like this,

The usual democrat and republican negotiations proceed like this,

Democrat: We want to work together to pass a bipartisan bill that helps the country.

Republican: Great we would love that too.

Democrat: Here is our bill. it focuses on proven methods of increasing economic productivity and we even through in tax cuts cause we know you love those.

Republican: What? This bill is an insult! I thought you wanted to be bipartisan! How could you include things like funding for "science" and "education"? Plus there are not nearly enough tax breaks for business.

Democrat: Ok well, we will take out that objectionable funding to make you happy and we will increase the tax cuts. So now you are going to support this bill right?

Reoublican: This bill is offensive to conservative principles. I could never in good conscience vote for such a spending bill especially when it lacks a repeal of X tax. Plus some of the money could go to minorities. But i might support it if you took out the spending and replaced it with tax cuts.

Democrat: Oh well then lets increase those tax cuts for you. How bout that?

Republican: We will have to think about it.

Of course the Republican does not vote for the bill and the media accuses the democrat of being insufficiently bipartisan. The end result is compromise that earned the Dems nothing except a greater chance of failure.

Read more...

Technology Rules My World

So my laptop died a couple of days ago. The death was long drawn out and fraught with rage. I tried to resuscitate it for hours and ultimately managed to get it on life support. Then it lost a major organ, an internal wireless card, and so it had to go out to be fixed by the manufacturer.

As a law student i am utterly and totally dependent on my laptop. It is actually rather unhealthy. I literately cannot function for very long without my laptop. So my solution to the absence of my laptop for the next several weeks...purchase a new one.

I decided that i should purchase a second laptop so that i could get through the next several weeks. I purchased one of those mini laptops you see at best buy for a cor a couple hu8ndred dollars. So far i am extremely impressed by it. Its not big but it has the advantage of being very light. It has lots of memory abd is capable of running the word processor i need and it seems to do fine with movies as well. The only draw back is that it lacks a disk drive. if i want one of those i have to purchase an external one.

I wonder how many other people out there cant go without a lap top or a computer for several weeks. Is it just because im a law student that i find i need a computer at virtually every hour of the day? An over dependence on technology is one of the core themes of science fiction. In many of the dystopic futures we became so dependent on technology to live that we essentially lost our humanity. I dont think im at that point yet but its easy to see the theme as especially important in modern society.

So hopefully i can get back on a more regular blogging schedule.

Read more...

War on Terror Over?

I have been extremely busy and a little sick so my blogging has been very irregular. However, i have seen something that deserves a post. The issue is whether or not the "War on Terror" is over. I am prompted to explore this based on several pieces, one in the WaPo, one by Yglesias, and one in TAP. These pieces have made several important points about not only an end to the phrase, "War on Terror", but the mindset behind it. If Obama is truly ready to end the mentality it can only be considered a dream come true for non neo-cons everywhere.

The first piece on the demise of the "War on Terror" is in the WaPo. It presents a story where Obama is the man undoing the WoT at the stroke of the pen.

Key components of the secret structure developed under Bush are being swept away: The military's Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, facility, where the rights of habeas corpus and due process had been denied detainees, will close, and the CIA is now prohibited from maintaining its own overseas prisons. And in a broad swipe at the Bush administration's lawyers, Obama nullified every legal order and opinion on interrogations issued by any lawyer in the executive branch after Sept. 11, 2001.

I have issues with the post piece. The first is that they present the WoT era as solely the provenience of George W. Bush. The unifying theme of the piece is that this was Bush's war. While it is true that Bush was definetly a leading figure and fully culpable for the abuses that embodied the WoT the article misrepresents exactly how the WoT played out. The Post conveniently leaves out the idea that people were opposed the WoT. Instead it sounds as if the WoT was afad Bush sold the people on that the eventually tired of. For example,

It was a swift and sudden end to an era that was slowly drawing to a close anyway, as public sentiment grew against perceived abuses of government power. The feisty debate over the tactics employed against al-Qaeda began more than six years ago as whispers among confidants with access to the nation's most tightly held secrets. At the time, there was consensus in Congress and among the public that the United States would be attacked again and that government should do what was necessary to thwart the threat
...
The published reports in The Post and elsewhere earned the news media sharp recriminations from the administration, the Republican leadership in Congress and the public. Government leak investigations were launched. Bush administration officials argued that such methods and operations were necessary to effectively thwart terrorism, noting to this day that there have been no major attacks since 2001.

If there were dissenters back then, they were largely silent.

While the moves made by Obama do end many of the Bush tactics for battling terrorists the post piece fails to detail any long term actions taken to ensure it never happens again. By presenting the death of WoT as something organic, something that would have died even without Obama, there seems to be no need to make long term changes. This is wrong. The key is to augment the inducement to comply with substantive law. This means Congress needs to act and forbid these practices.

If we take the Post version of the WoT death we will not do enough to prevent future abuses. It was not Bush alone and to portray it that way is dishonest. While the Post counts the WoT as dead Matt Yglesias is more cautious, here and here.

One thing that a number of people have noticed during the transition and the first few days of the Obama administration is that Obama and his appointees don’t, generally speaking, use the phrase “war on terror.” But when pressed, they don’t disavow the term either. They’ve just kind of backed away from it.

and

Back during the campaign, meanwhile, Obama said he didn't just want to end the war in Iraq, he wanted to "end the mindset that got us into the war in the first place." The idea of a hazily defined "war on terror" would certainly seem to qualify as an important part of that mindset. But thus far, Obama and his team have been mighty ambiguous on the issue. Obama isn't prone to using the phrase himself, but back during the primaries, all the Democratic contenders were given a specific opportunity to disavow it, and only John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich stepped up to the plate. During confirmation hearings neither Attorney - General Eric Holder nor Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor any of the new Pentagon sub - Cabinet officials spoke of a "war on terror." But on the day of his rollout as Obama's choice to run the CIA, Leon Panetta committed himself "to consulting closely with my former colleagues in the Congress to form the kind of partnership we need if we're to win the war on terror."

Obama himself split the difference in his inaugural address, eschewing the WOT terminology, but arguing that "our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."

Yglesias TAP piece does a much better job at addressing the real issues with the WoT. His piece looks at the strategic flaws and failures of the WoT. This contrasts with the Post Piece that looks simply at the demise of the tactics. A tactical change does not herald an end to WoT because that leaves the conceptual framework in tact. Yglesias succinctly illustrates why this should not be labeled a war,

Simply put, terrorists are not warriors. The German soldiers my grandfather fought during World War II killed people, but they weren't murderers; they were soldiers. When captured, they became prisoners of war, not criminals. Some on the Nazi side were, of course, criminals -- war criminals -- and were charged as such. But the typical German soldier was a soldier, entitled to return to his home and family unmolested if he survived the war. Men who blow up nightclubs and train stations and demolish office buildings, by contrast, are murderers. We neither should nor will treat them as soldiers. But insofar as that's the case, we're not at "war" with them any more than we're actually "at war" with the guy who used to sell me pot.

Just as we don't afford terrorists the wartime exemption from prosecution, however, we must observe restraint in going after terrorists. If the FBI has reason to believe a terrorist is holed up in an apartment somewhere in Philadelphia, we don't bomb the building -- we arrest the terrorist. The same thing is generally true abroad -- we need to work with friendly law enforcement to unravel plots against targets in Europe and Canada and other Western nations. But we don't fire mortars or drop bombs in friendly cities -- we seek cooperation with local governments.

Its still too early to tell if the WoT is truly dead as an idea and a mindset. Obama has only been in office for a couple days and the people who supported the policies are not totally gone. The key will be to convert the image of the fight against these subnational groups as a law enforcement issue. Obama has yet to fully transform his rhetoric to reflect this. When he says "we will defeat you" it is not the language of law enforcement.

Instead i would like to see the language and the framing shift to arrest and trial in civilian courts. This is the other key point, the trial of those arrested in civilian, not military, courtrooms. Trials in military courts lend weight to the idea that this is a military action. War criminals are tried in front of the military, criminals are in tried in front of civilians.

Most of what i have said is not particularly new. However it is important to keep the pressure on Obama and on those who backed the WoT in the past. If the coverage from the Post is typical of the coverage on the WoT then Obama is going to get lots of well deserved credit for his initial actions. Without additional pressure Obama will take this credit and move on to the myriad other challenges that we face of a country. By definition a stroke of the pen cannot end the WoT. the WoT is a mind set, a strategy and there is much more to work on before we can truly consider the WoT dead.

Read more...

A Scary New Other

Hilzoy has a post up at the Washington Monthly that reflects on the changes in race relations since the 80's and early 90's. There is a great deal of interesting things to discuss but what id like to talk about is the significance of pop culture and media on the racial dynamic. As a young person i feel justified in expounding on some of the assertions that Hilzoy, and the writers she cites, make.

The first idea put forth for why race relations have cooled is by Josh Marshall who writes,

"American mass culture found a more useful scary other: Arabs and Muslims. That's a key thing that isn't pretty but I think is also true."

Its one of those observations that if you ever want to know who the American enemy is you must simply look to Hollywood. During the days of the cold war the enemy was often a communist or soviet. Then as the geopolitical game changed we saw the increasing use of the arab terrorist as a villain. The use of brown skinned people is a familiar film device,

Parenti (1992) points out that according to the genre traditions, the hero is traditionally a white Anglo-Saxon Protestant male who is saving the Western civilization from threats to its structures and way of life. The antagonist is usually a foreigner, and often his skin color is darker than the skin color of the white protagonist. Parenti (1992) lists Native Americans, black Africans, African-Americans, Russians, Arabs, alien monsters and evil cosmic powers as familiar Hollywood villains. As a character the villain is typically depicted as devil, subhuman, sadistic, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-capitalist, and of an anti-Judeo-Christian religion (Welsh, 2000; Parenti, 1992; Schatz, 1994).

The villain in action movies is commonly something that people fear. Seeing that fear defeated by the hero is a way to assure the audience of the Wests supperiority and provide hope that good (us) will always triumph over evil (other). Noting this its not surprising to see a new film come out where the villain is actually a bank. Arabs took on a larger role as the other in the white American consciousness.

While arabs were becoming villains on the big screen African Americans were increasingly becoming the protagonists on the small screen. Hilzoy uses The Cosby Show as an example. While i think that might work for some i think my best example is actually Will Smith's Fresh Prince of Bel Air. I remember watching Will and the Banks family engaging in the typical family drama sitcom. It never really made an impact on me that they were Black and that Black people living the lifestyle they lived was something extremely rare.

The importance of portraying Black people as no different than white people is important and should not be understated. By placing Black people into the dominant social narrative television helped to break down any perception in younger viewers that Black people were anything other than regular Americans. As Hilzoy writes,

The general point, though, is: I think that things are very, very different now. A white kid who's now twenty would not have gone to a grade school with no black kids, as I did. She might have gone to a college where people of different ethnicities tended to eat at different tables, but the simple fact that the number of non-whites is vastly higher than it was would have to make interaction a lot more common, and thus no big deal. And black kids who go to Ivy league schools, or end up in investment banks, have many more role models to look to, and so have less need to invent ways of being who they are in those worlds entirely from scratch

I assume that in my life im going to encounter Black people in all different walks of life. Some will be much smarter than i am so more gifted athletically some wealthier. They will be doctors and lawyers and judges, business people. Maybe i'll get to meet the one who is going to be President for the next four years. The point is that as a 20 something i expect to encounter a high number of Black people in positions not available to them during even my father's lifetime. I just assume that not only will they be there but that they should, that it is normal.

Read more...

Senate Dems Still Back Bush

There are a certain set of individuals in the Senate who back the decisions made by president Bush on matters of torture and "enhanced interrogation" and those people happen to reside on the senate intelligence committee. The two highest profile members of this torture backing group are Diane Feinstein (D) California and Jay Rockefeller (D) West Virginia. As two members who have always been aware and approving of the Bush intelligence schemes they most certainly meet the level of complicity and conspiracy in the torture crimes. It is not surprising to see them coming out against the Obama pick for CIA head when that person is seen to represent a break from the type of programs and way of doing business they are familiar with.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who this week begins her tenure as the first female chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said today that she was not consulted on the choice and indicated she might oppose it.

“I was not informed about the selection of Leon Panetta to be the CIA director,” Feinstein said. “My position has consistently been that I believe the agency is best served by having an intelligence professional in charge at this time.”

The choice of Panetta was seen as a sign that Obama considered it more important to have a steady political hand and astute manager at the helm of the agency, rather than someone with deep operational experience.

In picking Panetta, Obama risks raising anew questions about the politicization of the CIA, a concern cited by leading congressional officials.

A senior aide to Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), outgoing chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the senator “would have concerns” about a Panetta nomination.

Rockefeller “thinks very highly of Panetta,” the aide said. “But he’s puzzled by the selection. He has concerns because he has always believed that the director of CIA needs to be someone with significant operational intelligence experience, and someone outside the political realm.”

The problem with having people who have an extensive operations background in charge is that they are more likely than not going to have some issues with the torture regime of the last eight years. That is, hopefully, the reason that the Brennan candidacy fell through. There are probably some Clinton people available who have been out of the agency for the last eight years but they would be returning to a place much changed since they left with the reorg after 9/11.

DiFi and Rockefeller have never been too concerned about Presidential choices in the past considering the confirmation of Porter Goss, George Tenet, and Michael Hayden, as well as Mike Mukasey, Robert Mueller. They claim that only a person with field experience inside the agency can do the job? Steve Benen answers that,

Turf battles notwithstanding, the more complaints I hear about Panetta at the CIA, the more I find the concerns underwhelming. Feinstein and Rockefeller feel snubbed? Given their recent track record, I don't much care. The head of the CIA should come from within the agency? At least six recent CIA chiefs didn't. Panetta doesn't have a background in national security intelligence? Nonsense, as White House chief of staff and an ISG member, Panetta dealt with the very sensitive intelligence on a daily basis. Indeed, he learned very well precisely how to process intelligence to help the president see the big picture.

If we start with a premise that Obama wanted to find a credible, experienced manager, who's dealt with intelligence but remains untainted by the Bush-era scandals, Panetta starts to look like an ideal choice.

Far from being ineffective because he lacks field experience Panetta looks like he will bring a great deal of Washington know how to the table. He understands budget fights and the political machinations of washington and can assure the CIA gets its share of money and credit while also keeping the agency in line. If the two honorable senators who have come out against this pick want to cover their torture supporting asses this is not the way to go. They should simply stay quiet and hope everyone forgets about their maleficence.

Read more...

Is there a price for obstructionism?

Steve Benen has a post up regarding the failure of the GOP to consider moderating after its heavy rejection at the ballot box this year. The post progresses as you might expect with a quote from a moderate followed by the absolute rejection of that quote my the rest of the GOP. What is interesting though is the update,

Post Script: The Times piece added, "It remains to be seen how aggressively Republicans will try to wield the filibuster threat. They have recently signaled they will fight Obama's economic recovery plan if it moves too quickly. But there are political risks if the GOP is seen as obstructionist at a time when voters are clamoring for economic relief and change."

Maybe, but that risk existed in the last Congress and Republicans didn't care. And if the GOP leadership is convinced that it has to be even more conservative to win in the future, their embrace of obstructionism may be unaffected.

To say the Republicans did not care is an understatement. Here is a chart produced by Nate Silver at 538 to show the progression of the filibuster over time.




As you can see the filibuster and the cloture vote have exploded in the most recent congress. The GOP was also decimated in the most recent election. The problem is that they did not lose this election in any part because of the obstructionist tendencies they displayed. The framing of the filibuster is such that the media reports it as a failure of the Democrats to get enough votes to pass a bill. This has essentially raised the threshold for passing legislation from 51 votes to 60 votes. Yglesias explained the dynamic perfectly last year,

It seems, though, that the GOP has decided that if they use filibusters to obstruct congressional action that the press will keep reporting this in a "congress fails to do X" kind of way rather than a "GOP obstructionism" kind of way, which makes filibusters a win-win for Republicans.

The evidence points to the idea that there is in fact very little to no price being paid by the GOP for obstructing the Democratic senate. The biggest threat that the obstructionist Senators face is that they fail in their reelection bids but the Dem gains were so great in the last election it is hard to imagine that the GOP continues to lose more senate seats next time around based on obstructionism. The most obstructionist senators are coming from the most conservative states so the odds of them getting tossed out is not very high.

The conservatives are going to continue on the obstructionist path until something changes to stop them. The options for that are basically two fold. the first is to simply get rid of the filibuster all together. The argument for this is that the passing of legislation already has enough road blocks to keep the bad legislation out. I am dubious about this especially because of the recent passage of the FISA bill but its not like the filibuster was effective in stopping that. it seems like it is only employed to stop things progressives might actually like.

The second option is to require that the GOP actually filibuster. Currently they just announce that they are filibustering something and Reid treats it as a real filibuster. Instead we might like to see the GOP up there reading the phonebook for 48 hours and reenacting Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That would change the media reporting to the actual filibuster instead of the failed vote for cloture. As added bonus it would be entertaining as hell.

Of course now that we have a Democratic president the Republicans might be a little more wary about blocking popular legislation. As long as the focus is placed on the failure of the dems and Obama to do anything about our situation the Republicans can continue to block to their hearts desire without any price.

Read more...