The week-end is around the corner. For aficionados of pro tennis, another star seems to be born. At this point where the choice is between two, I guess the odds are even greater to bet on a winner than when the field had 32 contenders. Nadal has brought a splash of passion an color to the game which have been missing since the days of Mats Wilander, Michael Chang, Jim Courier and the heyday of Andre Agassi. I know that those who love Pete Sampras think I am doing disservice to the maestro for not including him in the list. Of course I just called him the maestro, am I exonerated now.
I hope Nadal wins against Mariano Puerta. However, at the rate at which Nadal is going, God save his knees. His defensive style of play will not hold muster at Wimbledon, Flushing Meadows or Australia. So a star is born only for the moment. I still love Andy Roddick for the future. Enjoy the games people.
Friday, June 03, 2005
Egeland Speaks on Niger's Famine
Listening to National Public Radio (NPR) this morning, Jan Egeland, United Nations Under-Secretary for Humanitarian Affairs, made a heart-breaking appeal for humanitarian aid to Niger. This international appeal for a meager US$16 million to bring relief to 25% of Niger’s population affected by famine, is two weeks and the response his been mute. Not a dime from any governmental entity to bring emergency relief to northern parts of Niger beleaguered by locusts and then flattened by droughts.
Egeland described death by starvation as a slow and painful process, which should elicit greater international benevolence, in comparison to the Tsunami. Despite that "misplaced comparison," the absence of aid seems to lie in geography. Niger is in Africa. Niger is not any global power’s strategic radar sreens (despite Pres. Bush’s claim in his Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”) That country he was falsely referring to was Niger. Niger's inherent weakness and proximity to Libya and Algeria make it a potential outpost for international terrorism (check out the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence questioning of CIA Director, Porter Goss by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV on Somalia the last week). Many of the arguments about Somalia will also hold for Niger, except for the fact that Niger is off any radar screens, making it an even more appealing sleeper base for international terrorists. Does that make a case for humanitarian assistance. Definitely. It falls in line with the same imperatives which defined concerted humanitarian relief efforts for Indonesia post-Tsunami. While the timing may the different and the circumstances even more so, I think Niger deserves more than the hollow echoes of silence to a call for humanitarian assistance.
Niger’s is the heart-breaking tale of humanitarian assistance in Africa. What surprises me though is that, despite President Mbeki’s appeals for African solutions to African problems, the African Union has not made the drought in Niger a priority. Neither has the AU called for international attention to the impending refugee crises in Benin. When I thought the Au was supposed to be a more active replacement of the moribund OAU… or was I simply having ill-conceived illusions?
Egeland described death by starvation as a slow and painful process, which should elicit greater international benevolence, in comparison to the Tsunami. Despite that "misplaced comparison," the absence of aid seems to lie in geography. Niger is in Africa. Niger is not any global power’s strategic radar sreens (despite Pres. Bush’s claim in his Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address that “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”) That country he was falsely referring to was Niger. Niger's inherent weakness and proximity to Libya and Algeria make it a potential outpost for international terrorism (check out the Senate Select Committe on Intelligence questioning of CIA Director, Porter Goss by Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV on Somalia the last week). Many of the arguments about Somalia will also hold for Niger, except for the fact that Niger is off any radar screens, making it an even more appealing sleeper base for international terrorists. Does that make a case for humanitarian assistance. Definitely. It falls in line with the same imperatives which defined concerted humanitarian relief efforts for Indonesia post-Tsunami. While the timing may the different and the circumstances even more so, I think Niger deserves more than the hollow echoes of silence to a call for humanitarian assistance.
Niger’s is the heart-breaking tale of humanitarian assistance in Africa. What surprises me though is that, despite President Mbeki’s appeals for African solutions to African problems, the African Union has not made the drought in Niger a priority. Neither has the AU called for international attention to the impending refugee crises in Benin. When I thought the Au was supposed to be a more active replacement of the moribund OAU… or was I simply having ill-conceived illusions?
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Ford Jr. vs. Blackburn…
…the political spotlights will turn to Tennessee in Fall 2008 to highlight the race for senate successor to Bill Frist. This is a must-win race Democrats, as it holds a stake in the uphill battle to regain Democratic control of the Senate. The full armada of the party will need to prop Rep. Harold Ford Jr., despite his tendency to err on the side of values, which would best be described as progressive liberal. Hey who said Dems. could not coin an oxymoron reminiscent of the GOP passionate conservatives? Ford Jr. might just represent the diversified face of the democratic party Antinio Villaraigosa was talking about while addressing a rally for the Campaign for America’s Future yesterday.
Ford Jr.’ s chances cannot be written off, simply because he is a Dem. running in a GOP stronghold. He has a worthy opponent in Rep. Marsha Blackburn. However, he was elected to congress straight out of Law School at the University of Michigan in 1996. At 35 years old, he has become a savvy Washington insider, who needs to be watched closely in the run-up to the senatorial elections.
This race presents a Herculean challenge for newly minted Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. It presents the fence mending opportunity for former veep Al Gore in TN. TN does not feature on the list of "Red" states in which the DNC is investing $1 million to rebuild Democratic Party structures. MISTAKE. This race gives the Democratic party to make a dent in the Red South, which could be the key to clinching the 2008 Presidential elections. This is a race whose results are hinged on a number of extraneous factors to the candidates. However, I think the Democrats need to start early trying to make this the race to win and give Bill Frist something to think about as he relinquishes his seat for a White House run.
There is no need to bicker on the stances taken by Sen. Ford on the social security issue. The end will justify the means and when it matters most, his vote will make an additional difference in the Senate and strengthen the party when that strength is most necessary.
Ford Jr.’ s chances cannot be written off, simply because he is a Dem. running in a GOP stronghold. He has a worthy opponent in Rep. Marsha Blackburn. However, he was elected to congress straight out of Law School at the University of Michigan in 1996. At 35 years old, he has become a savvy Washington insider, who needs to be watched closely in the run-up to the senatorial elections.
This race presents a Herculean challenge for newly minted Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean. It presents the fence mending opportunity for former veep Al Gore in TN. TN does not feature on the list of "Red" states in which the DNC is investing $1 million to rebuild Democratic Party structures. MISTAKE. This race gives the Democratic party to make a dent in the Red South, which could be the key to clinching the 2008 Presidential elections. This is a race whose results are hinged on a number of extraneous factors to the candidates. However, I think the Democrats need to start early trying to make this the race to win and give Bill Frist something to think about as he relinquishes his seat for a White House run.
There is no need to bicker on the stances taken by Sen. Ford on the social security issue. The end will justify the means and when it matters most, his vote will make an additional difference in the Senate and strengthen the party when that strength is most necessary.
Côte d’Ivoire’s Untenable Peace
A few days ago, I was talking with a friend about the precarious nature of the peace in Côte d’Ivoire. It’s as simple as this: when a peace process is predicated upon personalities prior to addressing group interests and positional dynamics, it is bound to collapse in the long run. This unless, the personalities give up the cause they feel they have a legitimate claim to pursue. Hence the countervailing responsibility between groups and their leaders, and vice versa, in times of conflict. Experience from protracted social conflicts lend credence to this claim – Angola, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka etc.
This morning, renewed violence in Duekoue, points to the fragility of the Pretoria Accords. However, the watershed for renewed and sustained violence is the October 2005 Presidential election. Take a look at the October 2005 electoral scenario. It is a one-shot election. Alasane Dramane Ouattara’s (ADO) candidacy has been accepted, not based upon the “nationality clause” but based on “special presidential decree.” Hence, the “ivoirite” concept is still very much alive. Soro Guillaume’s Forces Nouvelles are convinced that ADO would win an election against Henri Konan Bedie (HKB) or Laurent Koudou Gbagbo (LKG). Doesn’t one love Côte d’Ivoire’s presidential acronyms? To fully capture the precarious nature of the peace in Côte d’Ivoire, it becomes necessary to explore the scenario of potential outcomes. Since that could come at a later time, at the moment, it is important to explore the weaknesses in the Pretoria Accords.
What the Pretoria Accords succeeded in doing was to procrastinate fissures in Côte d’Ivoire. Here’s how:
- Accepting that ADO present his candidacy for the elections, does not guarantee its fairness.
What if ADO wins? What if LKG wins? What if HKB wins? How would the FN react? - In case there is any contest in the elections, the battle lines are already drawn between North and South for renewed conflict.
- There is a misplaced faith in the electoral process as a consensus-building process. However, we all know how polarizing elections could be even in the most democratically entrenched traditions.
- The demilitarization process thus far is slow and suspicious, precluding any kind of trust-building between the contending parties.
- The accords did not create the requisite platform for peace-building.
Based on all these factors, I will bet on renewed violence in Côte d’Ivoire, post-election. I am not merely being afro-pessimistic here, I would hope that there are more positive outcomes, but let’s look into the past to attempt this projection into the future, four months down the road.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Khodorkovsky's Guilty Verdict...
I awoke this morning to the news of Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s (42 years old) conviction to 9 years in jail for 6 charges including tax evasion, embezzlement, and other financial indiscretions. He ranks at the top of the class of post-Soviet Russian oligarchs with a net worth over $8 billion. His true guilt stems from bankrolling soviet opposition to Putin. Was it any surprise then that a court found him guilty of crimes which he committed in cahoots with the same occupants of the Kremlin?
What a damper to the simplistically optimistic assertions of Sharansky who wrote: “Compared to a Soviet Union in which millions worked for the KGB, millions were in prison, tens of millions lost their lives, and hundreds of millions lived in fear, present day Russia is a bastion of freedom,” page 28. For an author who seems to see no compromise in the pursuit of freedom and democracy, that assertion is a chilling relapse to realistic shades of grey which pervade political reality. However, when a “democracy” is built on a political entente between oligarchs and an oppressive political leadership to respect and steer clear of each others’ spheres, how sustainable can that democracy actually be? Basic question, would anyone even consider Russia a democracy?
In the shadow of today’s headline, however, remains... the uncertain story of Vladimir Guzinsky (media magnate, chased around the world for daring to oppose Yeltsin and later, Putin)…the more certain allegiance of Roman Abramovic (who has stealthily moved into investment in soccer and maintained close ties with Putin’s chief of staff Alexander Voloshin)…the escaped Boris Berezovsky (now staging an Anti-Putin campaign from exile)…the silent Oleg Deripaska (who maintains a low key business role at the helm of Russian aluminum exports.
Okay considering time already spent, Khodorkovsky will spend approx. 7.5 years in jail. However, Russia is fashioning itself into a post-polar bastion of personality driven politics and economics in the face of the declining well-being of its populations.
What a damper to the simplistically optimistic assertions of Sharansky who wrote: “Compared to a Soviet Union in which millions worked for the KGB, millions were in prison, tens of millions lost their lives, and hundreds of millions lived in fear, present day Russia is a bastion of freedom,” page 28. For an author who seems to see no compromise in the pursuit of freedom and democracy, that assertion is a chilling relapse to realistic shades of grey which pervade political reality. However, when a “democracy” is built on a political entente between oligarchs and an oppressive political leadership to respect and steer clear of each others’ spheres, how sustainable can that democracy actually be? Basic question, would anyone even consider Russia a democracy?
In the shadow of today’s headline, however, remains... the uncertain story of Vladimir Guzinsky (media magnate, chased around the world for daring to oppose Yeltsin and later, Putin)…the more certain allegiance of Roman Abramovic (who has stealthily moved into investment in soccer and maintained close ties with Putin’s chief of staff Alexander Voloshin)…the escaped Boris Berezovsky (now staging an Anti-Putin campaign from exile)…the silent Oleg Deripaska (who maintains a low key business role at the helm of Russian aluminum exports.
Okay considering time already spent, Khodorkovsky will spend approx. 7.5 years in jail. However, Russia is fashioning itself into a post-polar bastion of personality driven politics and economics in the face of the declining well-being of its populations.
Monday, May 30, 2005
Partially Reviewing Sharansky…
I hail from a country which still lives with the vestiges of a neo-colonial past. Whether illusory or real, the pervasive influence of France through the entire economic and political structure in Cameroon is evident. Even after a review of the “françafrique” (a term which harkens to the neo-colonial legacy) in the mid-1990s, those influences remain. These are the same influences which are said to account (to some extent) to the persistence of the monolithic Biya regime in power. So I know something about living in a “fear Society.” So much for the power of freedom to overcome tyranny and oppression.
After reading over 4 of 7 chapters of Natan Sharansky’s “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror,” I understand why he is one of President Bush’s favorite authors. He was extensively quoted in G.W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural address. Sharansky presents a simplistically selective case for democracy and freedom in the Middle East, based almost entirely upon his experience, living in totalitarian Russia. I have not read the entire book yet. However, as one inclined to the objective presentation of fact, the first chapter of the book sounded like a propagandistic justification of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as a quest to spread freedoms and democracy.
Sharansky’s simplistic quest for moral clarity based on dichotomization between “free” and “fear” societies and "democracy" and “tyranny,” fails to account for the majority of countries around the globe which have opted for a middle ground between totalitarianism and democracy, which Carothers will label as “pseudo-democracies.” While I agree with his perception that “an election does not a democracy make,” very little value is found in his attempt to delineate interest-defined and morally defined foreign policy decision making. The invasion of Iraq was as much about natural resources as it was about the geo-strategic remapping of the Middle East. The invasion of Afghanistan was as much a national security imperative as it was a firm response to international terrorism. It was a response to international terrorism short of taking action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which appears as accountable for spawning Wahabism as Afghanistan was for providing a staging ground for Al Qaeda activity.
Hence for Sharansky to praise the Bush administration for its pursuit of freedoms, while blatantly dismissing the interest-driven imperative underlying this quest, is to devolve to the same simplistic explication of far more complex foreign policy decision-making issues. Furthermore, Sharansky makes a case for democracy without prescribing a methodology for the global spread of democracy and freedoms. Full of contradictions, Sharansky emphasizes the role of the Soviet Jewry as an internal force pushing for freedoms in the former Soviet Union. At the same time he does not propose a specific construct for the fusion of internal forces and external forces to dislodge hegemonic monoliths from power.
Does that imply the primacy of war as the most persuasive option in societal transformation of totalitarian states into democratic states? I read a much better case for democracy in Fareed Zakaria’s “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.” If you intend to make a case for democracy in the future. I'd propose youuse Zakaria and not Sharansky.
After reading over 4 of 7 chapters of Natan Sharansky’s “The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny & Terror,” I understand why he is one of President Bush’s favorite authors. He was extensively quoted in G.W. Bush’s 2005 inaugural address. Sharansky presents a simplistically selective case for democracy and freedom in the Middle East, based almost entirely upon his experience, living in totalitarian Russia. I have not read the entire book yet. However, as one inclined to the objective presentation of fact, the first chapter of the book sounded like a propagandistic justification of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as a quest to spread freedoms and democracy.
Sharansky’s simplistic quest for moral clarity based on dichotomization between “free” and “fear” societies and "democracy" and “tyranny,” fails to account for the majority of countries around the globe which have opted for a middle ground between totalitarianism and democracy, which Carothers will label as “pseudo-democracies.” While I agree with his perception that “an election does not a democracy make,” very little value is found in his attempt to delineate interest-defined and morally defined foreign policy decision making. The invasion of Iraq was as much about natural resources as it was about the geo-strategic remapping of the Middle East. The invasion of Afghanistan was as much a national security imperative as it was a firm response to international terrorism. It was a response to international terrorism short of taking action against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which appears as accountable for spawning Wahabism as Afghanistan was for providing a staging ground for Al Qaeda activity.
Hence for Sharansky to praise the Bush administration for its pursuit of freedoms, while blatantly dismissing the interest-driven imperative underlying this quest, is to devolve to the same simplistic explication of far more complex foreign policy decision-making issues. Furthermore, Sharansky makes a case for democracy without prescribing a methodology for the global spread of democracy and freedoms. Full of contradictions, Sharansky emphasizes the role of the Soviet Jewry as an internal force pushing for freedoms in the former Soviet Union. At the same time he does not propose a specific construct for the fusion of internal forces and external forces to dislodge hegemonic monoliths from power.
Does that imply the primacy of war as the most persuasive option in societal transformation of totalitarian states into democratic states? I read a much better case for democracy in Fareed Zakaria’s “The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home and Abroad.” If you intend to make a case for democracy in the future. I'd propose youuse Zakaria and not Sharansky.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)