The last two weeks serve as another example of the exciting place to which I've come in my life. After concluding our first quarter grading period, which lasted nine weeks, teachers and students in Gallup-McKinley County Schools received a week break to collect their thoughts and recover from more than two months of study. It was certainly a challenging time for me, coming in as a new teacher, but as I calculated students' grades and filled out report cards, the rush of what I am currently doing for a profession truly hit me, and I felt thankful, once more, for the critically important opportunity I've come across to change educational inequality in this country for the better.
After spending Monday through Thursday, basking in the glory of a leisurely life of running, reading, writing, and relaxing in Gallup, I headed on up to Denver for the third convening of my Front-Line Leaders Academy (FLLA). As some of you may know, FLLA is a program with which I've been involved since May. It is run by People For The American Way (PFAW), a progressive political advocacy group based in Washington, D.C., which is in the business of training progressive young leaders in the nuts and bolts of running a winning campaign. They encourage us to run young, and, as someone who's long wanted to do this (since November 3rd, 2004), I've appreciated the real-life practice and straightforward criticism and suggestions that our trainers have offered during the first three conferences.
Denver is a cool city! I'd never been before, aside from stopping through in the airport on my way to destinations beyond. However, as we made our way back to the hotel and saw the, I will say, 'post-modern' nature of downtown, I thought that Denver would be a cool place to visit. After reuniting with my other Fellows (there are 20 of us, in total), who are becoming something of a family to me, we began our training. I gave a brief presentation on TFA and my experience with the organization, as several other fellows, most of whom are still in college and all of whom are incredibly passionate, dynamic individuals, have expressed interest to me in applying for, or at least learning more about, TFA.
The presentation went well. I felt comfortable explaining my time as a teacher over the first nine weeks and confident that all the passion I feel for what I'm doing and trying to do with my student, shined through to the other fellows. After my opening statements, my peers asked good, meaningful questions regarding the difficulties of teaching, the logistics of teaching while trying to pay back student loans, as well as the support structure a TFA Corps Member has. I believe that I provided helpful information to my friend and think that many of them will now strongly consider applying for TFA.
After my presentation, we moved into a public speaking session, overseen by our communications guru, political consultant and PFAW staff, Joel Silberman. Joel is an incredible man, coming to the political scene after a long and successful career in the arts. He can sing, act, and, most importantly for us, he knows what looks good in a presentation. His criticism is tough, real, and helpful, and will leave us ready and confident when we step up before crowds to tell them who we are.
I must admit that I was not as prepare to deliver my speech as I would have liked to be. My first draft was written hastily, and I'd not been able to memorize the second draft, as we were supposed to do. However, once I began speaking, rather off-the-cuffedly, I would say, I began to feel more and more confident. I spoke about the ills of educational inequality in Northwestern New Mexico, as well as its connection to economic hardship and environmental degradation. Many of these connections simply make sense, and as I moved through my discourse, I gained steam. Hopefully, this will become a recurring pattern as I give more and more speeches. Gaining confidence as a public speaker was something that would make this weekend particularly special to me.
Dinner on the opening night was outstanding. We went to Bubba Gump Shrimp Co., a charming establishment fashioned, of course, off of the themes of the acclaimed '94 blockbuster, Forrest Gump, a personal favorite and Academy Award winner for Best Picture. We had several engaging speakers, most of whom were young elected officials (YEOs). They included our program's head, Commissioner Andrew Gillum, who is an incredibly charismatic young leader and city commissioner from Tallahassee, Florida and Representative Alisha Morgan (D-GA), who won a state house race as an African American woman in her early twenties in a district largely comprised of the constituency who sent GOP stalwart Newt Gingrich to Congress.
Alisha is a personal favorite of mine in the program. She constantly keeps us focused, especially in terms of why we want to run and, I think more importantly, why we deserve to serve as elected officials. She demands that we find that vision, that motivation that will drive us every day on the campaign trail. I have found mine, and Alisha's constant encouragement and persistence in challenging us to perform at a higher standard has certainly played a great role in my personal development as a leader.
The main speaker of the night was a young state representative from Colorado, who is currently running what will most likely be a successful campaign for state senate. Rep. Mike Garcia (D) spoke to us about being a young, graduate student at the University of Arizona in Tucson, on his way to a career as a political science professor. One day, he received an opportunity to serve as a legislative assistant for a Democratic representative in Washington offered through the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. He loved his experience there and the ability it gave him to play a meaningful role in shaping people's lives in a very real way.
After Rep. Garcia's fellowship ran out, he found himself disinterested in the life of a student and teacher's assistant at U of A. He felt lost and wanted to become involved in the political process in his home state of Colorado. After searching unsuccessfully for a job as a staffer for an elected official at the state legislative level (these positions typically do not exist in the full-time form), it dawned of Rep. Garcia one day, during class, that he should simply drop everything and run for office himself. The issue was, he had no idea how to do say. After doing research and sitting down with his family to plan their campaign in what was one of the most organic, grassroots-oriented manners I've ever heard, he beat out three estalishment candidates as an unknown in the Democratic primary and went on to victory in the general. Mark's story is inspiring and illustrative of the open nature of running for office in our democracy. It shows that anyone, with the right motivation and fire in their heart, can do great things and connect with voters. I hope to run with the same steam that Rep. Garcia exhibited in his first election.
Saturday provided several helpful sessions. We discussed everything from fundraising to communications to ethical campaigning and policymaking. What I appreciate so much about FLLA and similar training institutions in which I've taken part is the very 'real' way in which they prepare trainees to successfully run for office. We all have optimism, but optimism, though critical, will only take one so far. We need skills that will help us be effective, transparent candidates, and FLLA does a great job of providing these skills.
At the close of the day, there was excitement in the air as fellows were to receive their roles in the program's graduation project. The project consists of a simulated election. We were each to be given a role in a campaign, including candidate, campaign manager, communications manager, finance manager, and field manager. Four candidates were to be selected, who would then go to the business of building their team. There was nervous anticipation amongst many fellows, but I felt comfortable in that whatever role I was given, I would do my best to succeed.
When we received our envelopes containing our positions, I calmly and slowly (it was hard to open!) opened mine. The process reminded me of college, when the professor would return tests or papers to the class. Amidst typical chaos, I would always slowly look at mine, often waiting until leaving the class and building altogether to look at my mark. I see no need to flip out in situations of great anticipation. Indeed, as the Good Doctor Mr. Luther King, Jr., once said in one of my favorite quotes from him: 'The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stand in moments of comfort and convenience, but in times of challenge in controvery.' Amidst the controversy, I stayed calm and looked at my envelope.
Candidate. I was confident that this was the role that I would receive, and when I saw my name on the board, and a matching indication on my card, confirming that this would be my role, I felt excited, determined, and ready to get started. After leaving the training site, fellows walked back to hotel in an anxious mass, with many negotiating to determine on which team they would work. I was determined to have my team form organically. After glancing at the list indicating campaign roles, I selected my top-tier candidates for each position and decided that I would wait until a bit later in the evening to make the ask. I walked back to the hotel with Jessica Carter, an incredibly intelligent and charismatic young woman from Philadelphia, Mississippi, currently studying at Cornell. Jessica doesn't know it yet, but she possesses a quite power that draws people to her. I first noticed this quality in Jessica at our first conference in Atlanta, when she stood before the group and told her story of traveling from a tiny town in rural Mississippi to one of the country's most prestigious universities in upstate New York. If that were not enough testimony to the strength, confidence, and ambition of this young woman, she has decided that her political path leads back to her home-state, where she will run for mayor and then...who knows?
Right away, I knew I wanted Jessica on my team, and as soon as we locked eyes, I knew she felt the same way. We began to talk and quickly solidified her position as communications manager in the campaign. FLLA staff has been working with Jessica to open up more as a speaker, and placed her in the communications manager role as a means of helping her along in this regard. I have no doubt that her life experience, creativity, and boldness that will emerge in full-force during the campaign will make Jessica an intricate part of our campaign's success.
The fellows, seeing as how it was our last night together at the conference, decided to go to dinner together. When I arrived in the lobby and stepped off the elevator, my eyes almost immediately locked with Angie Buhl, a razor-sharp, extremely pleasant senior from South Dakota, who I'd identified as the campaign manager I wanted on my team. Throughout the FLLA program, Angie and I had developed a great friendship, and our mutual confidence in one another was evident from early on. As soon as our eyes hooked up, she approached me, and we both were kind of like, 'yeah- we're going to be on the same team!' Since there were not quite enough fellows to fill all positions on all teams, one team member was going to have to do double-duty on my staff. So, I asked Angie if she would feel comfortable, in addition to serving as campaign manager, head up our effort's financial operations. She agreed, and we had the second piece of the puzzle in place!
Jesse Wolfson was the person I knew I wanted to go after to run our field activities. Jesse is a 'super-senior', as he'll excitedly tell you, at Yale, majoring in mathematics and hoping to pursue a PhD. in the same subject beginning next year. He has one of the sharpest minds of anyone I've yet met, and we have connected at a number of political discussions during the courses of the conference. Our outlooks on politics, and the current ruptured state of democracy in our country, largely match. We lament the departure from truth that elected officials seem to make so often, today. We want to work for a time and setting in this country's political setting in which truth, not political calculations, guide policymaking. We want an intricate understanding of all issues, rather than half-baked solutions that, if cleverly-messaged, play well to an unsuspecting electorate. As I said, Jesse specialized in math, but he is rock-solid on any number of topics, particularly politics. I knew I wanted him on board from the word 'go'.
Jesse was my toughest sell. While I felt as though he was leaning toward my camp from the outset, he, in the interest of giving each candidate a fair chance at making their pitch, decided to hear from each person and decide of which team he'd like to be part. As the night progressed, he narrowed his choices to two teams- mine and that of Julianna Andrews, an incredibly charismatic, intelligent student at the University of Arizona. At dinner, Jesse spoke with Julianna and then came to me to offer a chance for me to distinguish my campaign and why he should join. I talked about my unique perspective as a teacher, and the commitment to educational equality resulting therefrom. I argued that, while young progressives have any number of issues that mean most to them, each can agree that progressing toward the type of country and world that we all want, one of equality, justice, fairness, transparent governance, and hope, all starts with offering all children, regardless of background, a fair chance to meet their academic potential. I said that, as a teacher, I had a keen understanding of what that takes, which would shine through during the campaign. Moreover, I told Jesse that this campaign would be ours, not mine. Each person would play an important role in suggesting and developing ideas, whether in terms of policy solutions to pressing problems or planning out the way we will do voter outreach. Eventually, Jesse agreed and decided to hop on board with 'Team Balke'. I was extremely excited to have the confidence and support of this dynamic combination of young minds. Together, we will come up with the ideas and strategy to run a winning campaign. I am thrilled to learn what can achieve, together.
Sunday was our first opportunity to work together as a team in a real campaign situation. The final event on the day's agenda was a debate, which would offer each candidate an opportunity to share her or his beliefs on a number of important progressive issues. The subjects ranged from education, to foreign policy, to the dropping value of the dollar (a question about which I was extremely excited and to which I chimed in immediately to respond). The format was that we would each give a one minute opening statement, respond to two questions from the moderator, have the opportunity to ask each other one question, take two questions from the audience, and then offer a two-minute closing statement.
One minute is not a lot of time. We had what I think was a compelling opening statement planned, which described the inequity I'd observed in my classroom, especially when compared to the opportunity possessed by students in more affluent areas. As one of the staff held up the '30 seconds' sign, I was not even 1/4 of the way through my statement and scrambled to finish up. While I did not botch the statement, it went from what should have been a great strength to a neutral performance. I will work hard to polish this area of my presentation.
As we moved into the questions, I gained steam. I first received a question on 'school choice', which means different things to different people, in many cases referring to school vouchers. I talked about how I think the choice all students should have is that to receive a quality education, regardless of their economic, racial, or social background. I spoke boldly and clearly and think I came off well. Things were off and running.
As we moved along, the other candidates, Mike Makarski (a bold, intelligent, personable young man from New Jersey, who will soon run for school board there), Edwin Zambrano (a passionate, stylish, extremely kind Venezuelan-born community activist from New York City), and Julianna (who, as I said before, is an intelligent, passionate student leader from the University of Arizona), each offered interesting and impressive answers to a wide range of questions. I felt, however, that the message crafted by my team and the delivery I was able to offer, resonated best with the crowd. Moreover, I felt increasingly comfortable and confident, which is precisely what I want most coming out of the FLLA program. I have no shortage of passion or excitement about the issues about which I care most deeply. At times, however, I have felt as though I do not present my beliefs or solutions in as coherent a manner as I would like. This seems to be changing, and I am incredibly excited about that.
When it came time to give our closing statements, I felt determined to make up for my less than stellar performance in the opening. I returned to the cause of educational inequality and my experience as a teacher. I talked about how, while we stand for many important values as progressives, we all stand for giving everyone an equal chance to meet their full potential, particularly with respect to the area of education. Speaking last, I was closing the debate and on a mission to do it well. I looked around the room, connecting with individuals in their eyes, coming to them while staying planted firmly in my chair. I wanted them to feel the passion and fire in my heart about the issue of inequality, of inadequate health care for our country's poor and middle class, and of other issues on which progressive must take the lead if we are to shine as a country. The feeling I experienced reminded me of my long-interview for TFA, when I could feel all the passion and excited I held toward the idea of returning to New Mexico to teaching pouring out of my heart and mind and entering into my interviewer. Things went well on both occassions, and I was pumped as I rose out of the candidate's chair at the close of the debate.
As we move through this campaign, several things will be learned. First, this is the first time I've headed a mature campaign. In college, while running for student senate, which we did successfully, I ran as part of a slate in which I played a key role. However, I did not top the ticket, and there were a numbr of others making decisions to guide our group. Still, I gained valuable experience in that campaign and we enjoyed success. I will certainly translate my experience there into the present effort. We also have to raise money, which I've never done. Reaching out to friends and family to ask for financial support, though seemingly a thing that would create discomfort, is something I feel fine doing. If I believe in myself, which I do, than I should not feel apprehensive about asking others to do what they can to support me. Moreover, I am incredibly blessed to have a number of friends and families who care deeply about me and my personal goals. I look forward to depending on close personal connections to gather financial support for this campaign. Finally, when we come to our final conference in January for the election, I feel confident that our team will have crafted a message and plan that will win the most votes amongst the 200 fellows of the Young People 4 class of 2008 (another progressive, youth leadership program sponsored by PFAW).
The position for which I am running is Youth Ambassador, and my responsibilities are to identify and advocate for the issues that YP4 fellows believe in most strongly and deem most important. I will play a role in YP4 and FLLA's programming and recruitment. There is also the opportunity to travel to different progressive conferences, speaking on the important of youth involvement in the movement, as well as the critical role that young candidates will play in taking our country back from elitist interests and vesting it in the hands of everyday Americans. We have a tremendous task before us, and with my team, I look forward to successfully capturing what is no doubt an amazing opportunity to play a key role in the progressive movement. I ask for your support in this exciting journey.
Sunday, 28 October 2007
Friday, 12 October 2007
U.S. House Votes to Label Turkish WWI Attacks Against Armenians as Genocide
On Wednesday, the United States House of Representatives International Relations Committee voted to label as genocide the mass killings of Armenians by Ottoman forces during World War I. While Turkish Embassy officials and the White House continue to scramble to prevent a vote on the measure in the full chamber, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) seems determined to bring it before members for consideration.
Many have questioned the wisdom (and reason) for bringing up the non-binding genocide resolution up at this time, with countless other measures on the Congressional docket. However, few debate that the atrocities incurred by Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War were atrocious and just as many would labe them, collectively, as genocide.
The Bush Administration has been bent on stopping the resolution since rumors that it would come before the International Relations Committee. Geopolitical considerations determine this stance. Turkey offers U.S. military forces key logistical support in the Iraq War, and as it inches closer to EU membership, has been developing a more prominent role in the global economy. Many Administration insiders fear that passage of the genocide measure would generate a severe backsliding in the state of U.S.-Turkish relations, and recent events, most notable the temporary recalling of Ankara's ambassador in Washington, seem to lend credence to their concerns.
The question remains, however, whether or not lawmakers can, ethically, vote against the resolution condemming Ottoman murder of Armenians as genocide in light of political interests. Congressmen can reasonably grumble about having to make the decision of whether or not to support the measure (strengthening ties to Turkey are, afterall, progressive for the U.S.), but if they do, in principle, believe that what occurred was genocide, then there exists a moral requirement that they vote in its favor. A friend put it well to me when, though expressing confusion and a bit of dismay that this resolution had come to the fore at the present time, he said that one must 'call a spade a spade'- that is, if genocide took place, then genocide took place. We cannot deny it, even if doing so might bring us closer to a valued friend. The U.S. must continue courting favor in, and building parnerships with Turkey, but not at the expense of compromising our moral integrity. Let us hope that our Turkish friends realize that, as Speaker Pelosi stressed, a vote in favor of the genocide resolution is a knock on a regime that no longer exists, not those currently laboring to move Turkey toward a better, more prosperous future.
Cheers,
--Daniel
Many have questioned the wisdom (and reason) for bringing up the non-binding genocide resolution up at this time, with countless other measures on the Congressional docket. However, few debate that the atrocities incurred by Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire during the First World War were atrocious and just as many would labe them, collectively, as genocide.
The Bush Administration has been bent on stopping the resolution since rumors that it would come before the International Relations Committee. Geopolitical considerations determine this stance. Turkey offers U.S. military forces key logistical support in the Iraq War, and as it inches closer to EU membership, has been developing a more prominent role in the global economy. Many Administration insiders fear that passage of the genocide measure would generate a severe backsliding in the state of U.S.-Turkish relations, and recent events, most notable the temporary recalling of Ankara's ambassador in Washington, seem to lend credence to their concerns.
The question remains, however, whether or not lawmakers can, ethically, vote against the resolution condemming Ottoman murder of Armenians as genocide in light of political interests. Congressmen can reasonably grumble about having to make the decision of whether or not to support the measure (strengthening ties to Turkey are, afterall, progressive for the U.S.), but if they do, in principle, believe that what occurred was genocide, then there exists a moral requirement that they vote in its favor. A friend put it well to me when, though expressing confusion and a bit of dismay that this resolution had come to the fore at the present time, he said that one must 'call a spade a spade'- that is, if genocide took place, then genocide took place. We cannot deny it, even if doing so might bring us closer to a valued friend. The U.S. must continue courting favor in, and building parnerships with Turkey, but not at the expense of compromising our moral integrity. Let us hope that our Turkish friends realize that, as Speaker Pelosi stressed, a vote in favor of the genocide resolution is a knock on a regime that no longer exists, not those currently laboring to move Turkey toward a better, more prosperous future.
Cheers,
--Daniel
Wednesday, 10 October 2007
U.S. Economic Embargo of Cuba- 47 years on
Nearly one-half century ago, the Kennedy Administration, in an effort to put the clamps on an emerging Marxist-Leninist regime in its back yard, slapped an economic embargo on Cuba, which more or less severed all relevant commercial ties between the two countries. At the height of Cold War political gamesmanship, Cuba, not typically recognized as a world power, whether in terms of economic, political, or military might, suddenly became a key pawn in the U.S. and Soviet battle for global dominance. With strong backing from the latter, however, Cuba extended its revolutionary wings into developing countries across the globe. Fallen communist icon Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, (who died forty years from yesterday when he was executed at the hands of Bolivian soldiers and CIA operatives in a plan Washington now admits to having sponsored) spent time not only in other Latin American republics, but also traveled to the Congo in Africa, working to replicate the 'miracle' of the Sierra Maestre in this new, struggling state.
Though the Cuban experiment categorically failed in spreading successful revolution in the many countries in which it was attempted, the commitment of the Cuban population to its ideals (which closely align to Castro's notion of the 'New Man', or a citizen whose main and only aims are to better the welfare of his community and fellow humans), undeniably live on. Moreover, Che and Fidel Castro, Cuba's face since the '59 takeover, have achieved romantic status in the eyes of hundreds of million of Latin Americans and receive the admiration of political frontmen in Venezuela and Bolivia, amongst others. Indeed, U.S. efforts to drum up support for its embargo of Cuba are a perennial laughing stock in the UN General Assembly (this from a former professor who represented the State Department in New York and further evidenced by the paltry number of votes cast in the U.S.' favor whenever the embargo, or other resolutuons speaking ill of the Castro regime, come up for consideration). Many responsible foreign policy strategists and academics recognize that the best way for the U.S. to make the political inroads it desires in Cuba when Fidel and brother Raul pass is not through the total isolation envisioned by the embargo, but rather engagement over common ground and areas for cooperation.
This reality, and the clear understanding that the U.S. and Cuba both stand to gain from diplomatic dialogue, is severely complicated by presidential politics in the former. Cuban exiles represent a large voting block in Southern Florida, a state with a hugely determinative impact on presidential elections. This demographic has a staunchly anti-Castro stance and votes accordingly, leaving any politician hoping to have success in Florida with little choice, it would seem, but to acquiesce to their preference in terms of U.S.-Cuban relations, that is, a continuation of the embargo.
However, this demographic is changing. The children of Cuban expats feel less close to their parents' hatred of the embattled communist leader and tend to vote more liberally. Indeed, we could be nearing a time where politicians from parties both left and right will not have to play to the interests of conservative Cubans in Southern Florida in order to get to the White House. Democratic Rock State/Presidential Candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) recently suggested that, as President, he would engage in diplomacy with Cuban leadership, whether Fidel or brother Raul, and would like to seriously reassess the merits of the embargo. Most other front-runners have not gone as far as Obama, but there is growing acceptance that a turning point in terms of U.S. policy on Cuba has arrived- and not a moment too soon.
The Embargo's Impace:
Nearly 50 years later, the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba has, at best, failed to meet its objectives of 'peacefully' spawning regime change in the island country. At worst, it has been a major culprit in perpetuating the less than stellar welfare condition of its nearly 11.5 million inhabitants. President after president has failed to capitalize on the cultural ties that link Cubans and U.S. citizens. Current President Bush, who quite possibly owes his current job to illegal political maneuvering in the state of Florida, has shied away from utilizing the one extremely obvious thing he has in common with Fidel Castro in order to continue U.S. policy: a love of baseball. Indeed, last summer, the U.S. Treasury Department looked to keep Cuba out of the World Baseball Classic for fear that the country would benefit economically from its participation in the contest, which took place on U.S. soil. This ridiculous objection was eventually dropped, paving the way for a strong showing from the Cubans, but the fact that it was raised initially illustrates the strong misgivings U.S. leaders have toward showing any sort of semblance of endorsement toward, or engaging in even the most lukewarm of engagement with, Cuba, even forty-eight years after the revolutution.
The unfortunate scapegoat of Washington's continued failing policy toward Cuba, of course, is the Cuban people itself. Not only have they have been denied the chance to capitalize on ecomonic opportunities that would undoubtedly result were the embargo lifted, but the U.S. (under Bush and other administrations, Republican and Democrat, alike) has regulated the travel of U.S. citizens to Cuba so tightly that it is now extremely difficult for former Cubans living in the U.S. to regularly visit loved ones. Moreover, students of Latin America and international relations, more generally, myself included, are continiously frustrated by the government's clamp down on scholarly visits to the country (a TA of mine, who was authoring a PhD. dissertation on Cuban history was not even able to travel to the country to conduct research!). Nobody wins in this petty political game, but there are many losers, and they live in both Cuba and the United States.
The Embargo's Larger Implications:
But the negative impact of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Cuba expans beyong the realm of this bilateral relationship, especially under the Bush Administration. Indeed, for a president who has seen his standing in the coutrt of international opinion fall substantially in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, continuing and strengthening the embargo serves as yet another example of a cocky, short-sighted, bullyish to foreign policy. Bush's U.S. has been pegged as unwilling to engage in honest, constructive discussion with those who hold positions that differ strongly from its own. Countering this image holds great promise for what will become Bush's lasting legacy in terms of statesmanship, or lack thereof. However, it will require policymakers within the Executive to bite the bullet and sit down with adversarial operatives abroad. A great place to begin would be Cuba. Forty-eight years on, Castro is not going anywhere- until he passes. His brother, though less on a charismatic figure, will most certainly retain power after his brother's death, and it is unrealistic to expect an immediate sea change in Cuba's political makeup when the country's upper political echelons are finally devoid of the Revolution's leading figures (note the absence of the expected pandamonium after Fidel Castro ceded power to brother Raul last summer following a major medical operation). The best way for the U.S. to pursue its goal of helping to forge a democratic, economically liberal Cuba is to open the realm of dialogue, promote cultural exchange, and discontinue an embargo that has brought, and continues to bring, undue hardship on millions of people in this island country ninety miles south of the U.S.
Though the Cuban experiment categorically failed in spreading successful revolution in the many countries in which it was attempted, the commitment of the Cuban population to its ideals (which closely align to Castro's notion of the 'New Man', or a citizen whose main and only aims are to better the welfare of his community and fellow humans), undeniably live on. Moreover, Che and Fidel Castro, Cuba's face since the '59 takeover, have achieved romantic status in the eyes of hundreds of million of Latin Americans and receive the admiration of political frontmen in Venezuela and Bolivia, amongst others. Indeed, U.S. efforts to drum up support for its embargo of Cuba are a perennial laughing stock in the UN General Assembly (this from a former professor who represented the State Department in New York and further evidenced by the paltry number of votes cast in the U.S.' favor whenever the embargo, or other resolutuons speaking ill of the Castro regime, come up for consideration). Many responsible foreign policy strategists and academics recognize that the best way for the U.S. to make the political inroads it desires in Cuba when Fidel and brother Raul pass is not through the total isolation envisioned by the embargo, but rather engagement over common ground and areas for cooperation.
This reality, and the clear understanding that the U.S. and Cuba both stand to gain from diplomatic dialogue, is severely complicated by presidential politics in the former. Cuban exiles represent a large voting block in Southern Florida, a state with a hugely determinative impact on presidential elections. This demographic has a staunchly anti-Castro stance and votes accordingly, leaving any politician hoping to have success in Florida with little choice, it would seem, but to acquiesce to their preference in terms of U.S.-Cuban relations, that is, a continuation of the embargo.
However, this demographic is changing. The children of Cuban expats feel less close to their parents' hatred of the embattled communist leader and tend to vote more liberally. Indeed, we could be nearing a time where politicians from parties both left and right will not have to play to the interests of conservative Cubans in Southern Florida in order to get to the White House. Democratic Rock State/Presidential Candidate Barack Obama (D-IL) recently suggested that, as President, he would engage in diplomacy with Cuban leadership, whether Fidel or brother Raul, and would like to seriously reassess the merits of the embargo. Most other front-runners have not gone as far as Obama, but there is growing acceptance that a turning point in terms of U.S. policy on Cuba has arrived- and not a moment too soon.
The Embargo's Impace:
Nearly 50 years later, the U.S. economic embargo on Cuba has, at best, failed to meet its objectives of 'peacefully' spawning regime change in the island country. At worst, it has been a major culprit in perpetuating the less than stellar welfare condition of its nearly 11.5 million inhabitants. President after president has failed to capitalize on the cultural ties that link Cubans and U.S. citizens. Current President Bush, who quite possibly owes his current job to illegal political maneuvering in the state of Florida, has shied away from utilizing the one extremely obvious thing he has in common with Fidel Castro in order to continue U.S. policy: a love of baseball. Indeed, last summer, the U.S. Treasury Department looked to keep Cuba out of the World Baseball Classic for fear that the country would benefit economically from its participation in the contest, which took place on U.S. soil. This ridiculous objection was eventually dropped, paving the way for a strong showing from the Cubans, but the fact that it was raised initially illustrates the strong misgivings U.S. leaders have toward showing any sort of semblance of endorsement toward, or engaging in even the most lukewarm of engagement with, Cuba, even forty-eight years after the revolutution.
The unfortunate scapegoat of Washington's continued failing policy toward Cuba, of course, is the Cuban people itself. Not only have they have been denied the chance to capitalize on ecomonic opportunities that would undoubtedly result were the embargo lifted, but the U.S. (under Bush and other administrations, Republican and Democrat, alike) has regulated the travel of U.S. citizens to Cuba so tightly that it is now extremely difficult for former Cubans living in the U.S. to regularly visit loved ones. Moreover, students of Latin America and international relations, more generally, myself included, are continiously frustrated by the government's clamp down on scholarly visits to the country (a TA of mine, who was authoring a PhD. dissertation on Cuban history was not even able to travel to the country to conduct research!). Nobody wins in this petty political game, but there are many losers, and they live in both Cuba and the United States.
The Embargo's Larger Implications:
But the negative impact of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Cuba expans beyong the realm of this bilateral relationship, especially under the Bush Administration. Indeed, for a president who has seen his standing in the coutrt of international opinion fall substantially in the aftermath of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, continuing and strengthening the embargo serves as yet another example of a cocky, short-sighted, bullyish to foreign policy. Bush's U.S. has been pegged as unwilling to engage in honest, constructive discussion with those who hold positions that differ strongly from its own. Countering this image holds great promise for what will become Bush's lasting legacy in terms of statesmanship, or lack thereof. However, it will require policymakers within the Executive to bite the bullet and sit down with adversarial operatives abroad. A great place to begin would be Cuba. Forty-eight years on, Castro is not going anywhere- until he passes. His brother, though less on a charismatic figure, will most certainly retain power after his brother's death, and it is unrealistic to expect an immediate sea change in Cuba's political makeup when the country's upper political echelons are finally devoid of the Revolution's leading figures (note the absence of the expected pandamonium after Fidel Castro ceded power to brother Raul last summer following a major medical operation). The best way for the U.S. to pursue its goal of helping to forge a democratic, economically liberal Cuba is to open the realm of dialogue, promote cultural exchange, and discontinue an embargo that has brought, and continues to bring, undue hardship on millions of people in this island country ninety miles south of the U.S.
Tuesday, 9 October 2007
U.S. Presidential Politics and More on Trade
Tonight, leading contenders in the GOP race for the presidency will gather in the heart of the realing U.S. automotive sector to debate issues ranging from a possible military confrontation with Iran to the ever-growing trade deficit. This evening's debate is notabe for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it offers potential Republican voters their first glimpse of the oral sparring ability of former actor and U.S. Senator, Fred Thompson, who hopes to raid good looks and an easy-going speaking style all the way to the White House. Thompson has taken heat for getting into the race so late, and some claim he dodged the latest GOP debate, when he chose instead to announce his candidacy for the country's top job on the Tonight Show. While strategists gave Thompson high marks for his scheduling priority that night (the Tonight Show garnered more than twice the number of viewers than did the debate), this evening, Thompson will be put to the test and have to come up with real policy solutions to problems pitched to him by an unforgiving audience. He has been criticized for failing to offer specifics of how to remedy pressing issues such as problems with Social Security, the budget deficit, health care shortcomings, and, oh right, a war in Iraq with no end in sight. Should Thompson fail to produce tonight, he may be cast off as a pretty face with little in the way of real policy solutions to the country's most pressing challenges. The heat is on for Thomspon.
So, why will the audience Thompson and his Republican rivals face tonight be so 'unforgiving'? The answer has a little to do with geography and a lot to with the worsening situation of industrial workers across the country. With the elimination of barriers to global trade that have come about with the emergence of the World Trade Organization and free-trade agreements like NAFTA, U.S. workers have watched their jobs leave the country as corporations employ move abroad to take advantage of lower wage requirements and environmental standards.
Tonight's debate will take place in Dearborn, Michigan, just outside of Detroit, also known as the 'motor city' for its history as the heart of U.S. autmotive production. Courting support from the powerful United Auto Workers union, which represents a large chunk of vehicle manufactuers, used to be a prerequisite for winning the presidency. However, as strong business interests have begun to clamor more intensely for freer trade and less restrictions on their ability to operate in other countries (a.k.a. search out cheaper labor abroad), GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates have become torn over which interest to back: the powerful and politically active automotive industry (as well as other sectors being weakened due to the expansion of global trade, including steel and textiles) or the business community, more generally, who stands to gain from closer economic ties with the outside world.
Thousands of workers across Eastern and Central Michigan have lost their jobs as the U.S. 'big three' automotive companies, Ford, GM, and Chrysler, seek to lighten their load in terms of salary, pension, and benefit obligations. In the U.S., automotive workers have traditionally enjoyed a solid salary, ripe with medical and other insurance benefits, and security in the form of a dependable pension that paves the way for a comfortable retirement. Automobile companies, therefore, saw an opportunity when trade barriers began disappearing as they could move their business abroad, wherein they would face no such obligations in employing workers. Workers in developing countries are willing to work longer hours for substantially less money than their counterparts in the U.S. They also are less inclined to organize, which frees automotive corporations from the harsh confrontations it faces with unions like the UAW in the states.
Unable to opt out of contracts and other guarantees made to employees, U.S. automotive companies have flirted with (or fallen into) bankruptcy, as they try to keep up their business practices and made good on their obligations. They have watched foreign corporations, such as Toyota, replace them as the most successful automobile companies in the U.S. While the 'big three' continually seek ways to reform the way in which they handle worker guarantees, there exists little chance that even the best deal they could hope to strike with U.S. workers would leave them competitive with automotive companies who base their production abroad.
The U.S. automotive industry, then, stands at a crossroads. The only way for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to remain solvent is to develop a strategy that takes full advantage of the global economy and the cheaper labor offered in other countries. The problem for GOP contenders for the presidency is that, with an issue as big as this, country-wide candidates must take a position. With many displaced unionists in the audience, there will be no hop-skotching around the brunt of the problem either. Tonight, each Republican will have to show their cards, revealing whether, as president, they would back specific domestic interests or progression toward a global economy, void of elimination to international trade.
Each GOP hopeful favors trade liberalization on the stump, as the conservative audiences to which they preach, typically, tend to lean toward an easing of restraints. However, each candidate needs to perform well in Michigan, which has moved its primary date up and is now one of the first places in which voters will make their choice known for the Republican nominee. One candidate in a particularly prickly predicament is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He has deep ties to Michigan and is expected to perform extremely well there. Indeed, his father represented the state as governor and entertained a brief push for the White House himself. Moreover, Romney chose Michigan as the place from which to launch his presidential bid, and were he to win there on election day, people would begin to look beyond his leads in other early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire and start to see his candidacy as the real deal, even formidable.
However, Romney will have to walk a fine-line when he steps up to the plate in Dearborn tonight. On the stump, he has been forced to cozy to free trade in order to shore up his conservative bona fides (many Republicans criticize Romney as ingenuine, sighting his previous support for abortion and gay rights while running for Senate in Massachusetts in the early 1990s). However, victory in Michigan almost undoubtedly requires the support of blue-collar Republican voters, many of whom have lost their job due to an easing of global trade barriers. Will Romney choose to stick to his conservative, pro free trade mantra, or yield to the calls for protection from Michigan's industrial base?
The answer to this is probably both. Many candidates facing a similar position have opted out of taking a firm position on global trade by stating their support for free-trade deal at the bilateral, regional, and global level, while calling just as vociferously for transitional aid for displaced workers. Unfortunately, just as trade-capacity building money has failed to truly help the plight of farmers in countries with whom the U.S. has FTAs (see yesterday's blog entry), transitional aid has a similarly dismal record in the States. It is not that the amount of money secured for this noble purpose has been insignificant. Indeed, millions of dollars have been offered to workers to look for new jobs or seek retraining in more dynamic, sustainable industries. Medical benefits have even been offered to workers who have been sacked for a period of time while they search for new employment. However, a complicated and largely unpublicized application process has left the percentage of eligible applicants who have actually benefited from transitional aid in the low single digits.
Another common copout amongst GOP candidates regards taxes. Some, such as former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claim that the real culprit in the lessening share of U.S. blue-collar corporations in global income shares is not a freer international trade scheme but, rather, the 'immense' tax burden they face. True, U.S. businesses must pay back more to government coffers than their counterparts abroad, but the solution to their predicament can scarcely be solved by lowering taxes. However, playing this card allows Huckabee to score a two-fold political victory amongst conservative loyalists. On one hand, he continues along the party line on trade, praising its merit and pressing for further liberalization. On the other, he argues that the key for U.S. businesses to succeed in a new, looser trade climate rests with the government ability to lower taxes. Win-win!
In sum, what we can expect to see from Republican candidates tonight is high-octane political rhetoric, aimed to please as many key constituencies as possible (while working hard not to upset others) and little in the way of meaningful policy proposals. The real answer on the U.S.'s seemingly paradoxical free trade conundrum rests in early recognition and enhanced and enlarged access to education. Blue-collar industries in Michigan and other locales across the country are dying. They are dying because citizens cannot feasibly adapt to a new way of generating income, that is, shifting away from car production, coal mining, steel production, and other industries that are losing out to similar activities abroad. What needs to happen is a recognition by policymakers that, in the interest of these workers, their children must be offered the incentives to prepare themselves to, instead of carrying on the family tradition, immerse themselves in knowledge that will allow them to gain employment in another, more sustainable field.
However, as millions of Americans know all too well, education aint cheap! The same government that travels the world in search of reducing trade barriers and opening borders to international commerce must simultaneously address the negative offshoots of these activities on the domestic population. Policymakers in Washington should identify the regions that stand to be hit hardest by freer trade and divert extra financial resources to these areas to ensure that young people have every opportunity to obtain a college education and spread their professional wings in any area they see fit. There are numerous other things that must be done to ensure that all U.S. inhabitants feel the benefits that free trade theoretically guarantees. However, hiding behind falty, insincere solutions that play well among focus groups and key constituency groups that a politician hopes to court in hopes of winning an election is worse than a non-answer- it is a disservice to their country.
Also, forty years ago from yesterday, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, the Argentine doctor and Cuban Communist Revolutionary was executed in te jungles of Bolivia. Across Latin America and the developing world, more generally, Guevara is remembered as a committed activist for the plight of the global poor, while in the U.S. and other rich countries the thought of this emboldened leaders conjures up thoughts of an impractical and altogether dangerous vision for society. Whatever the case, Che's memory has left a lasting legacy on the ongoing Cuban Revolution and that country's relations with the U.S., which has maintained an economic boycott against the island for more than forty years. A future blog entry will analyze Che's effect on Cuba's path over the last half-century, as well as the extent to which the U.S.'s approach to relations vis-a-vis Cuba has helped or hindered each country's development and prosperity. It will also look at the way in which U.S.-Cuban relations could influence the '08 U.S. presidential election.
So, why will the audience Thompson and his Republican rivals face tonight be so 'unforgiving'? The answer has a little to do with geography and a lot to with the worsening situation of industrial workers across the country. With the elimination of barriers to global trade that have come about with the emergence of the World Trade Organization and free-trade agreements like NAFTA, U.S. workers have watched their jobs leave the country as corporations employ move abroad to take advantage of lower wage requirements and environmental standards.
Tonight's debate will take place in Dearborn, Michigan, just outside of Detroit, also known as the 'motor city' for its history as the heart of U.S. autmotive production. Courting support from the powerful United Auto Workers union, which represents a large chunk of vehicle manufactuers, used to be a prerequisite for winning the presidency. However, as strong business interests have begun to clamor more intensely for freer trade and less restrictions on their ability to operate in other countries (a.k.a. search out cheaper labor abroad), GOP lawmakers and presidential candidates have become torn over which interest to back: the powerful and politically active automotive industry (as well as other sectors being weakened due to the expansion of global trade, including steel and textiles) or the business community, more generally, who stands to gain from closer economic ties with the outside world.
Thousands of workers across Eastern and Central Michigan have lost their jobs as the U.S. 'big three' automotive companies, Ford, GM, and Chrysler, seek to lighten their load in terms of salary, pension, and benefit obligations. In the U.S., automotive workers have traditionally enjoyed a solid salary, ripe with medical and other insurance benefits, and security in the form of a dependable pension that paves the way for a comfortable retirement. Automobile companies, therefore, saw an opportunity when trade barriers began disappearing as they could move their business abroad, wherein they would face no such obligations in employing workers. Workers in developing countries are willing to work longer hours for substantially less money than their counterparts in the U.S. They also are less inclined to organize, which frees automotive corporations from the harsh confrontations it faces with unions like the UAW in the states.
Unable to opt out of contracts and other guarantees made to employees, U.S. automotive companies have flirted with (or fallen into) bankruptcy, as they try to keep up their business practices and made good on their obligations. They have watched foreign corporations, such as Toyota, replace them as the most successful automobile companies in the U.S. While the 'big three' continually seek ways to reform the way in which they handle worker guarantees, there exists little chance that even the best deal they could hope to strike with U.S. workers would leave them competitive with automotive companies who base their production abroad.
The U.S. automotive industry, then, stands at a crossroads. The only way for Ford, GM, and Chrysler to remain solvent is to develop a strategy that takes full advantage of the global economy and the cheaper labor offered in other countries. The problem for GOP contenders for the presidency is that, with an issue as big as this, country-wide candidates must take a position. With many displaced unionists in the audience, there will be no hop-skotching around the brunt of the problem either. Tonight, each Republican will have to show their cards, revealing whether, as president, they would back specific domestic interests or progression toward a global economy, void of elimination to international trade.
Each GOP hopeful favors trade liberalization on the stump, as the conservative audiences to which they preach, typically, tend to lean toward an easing of restraints. However, each candidate needs to perform well in Michigan, which has moved its primary date up and is now one of the first places in which voters will make their choice known for the Republican nominee. One candidate in a particularly prickly predicament is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. He has deep ties to Michigan and is expected to perform extremely well there. Indeed, his father represented the state as governor and entertained a brief push for the White House himself. Moreover, Romney chose Michigan as the place from which to launch his presidential bid, and were he to win there on election day, people would begin to look beyond his leads in other early voting states such as Iowa and New Hampshire and start to see his candidacy as the real deal, even formidable.
However, Romney will have to walk a fine-line when he steps up to the plate in Dearborn tonight. On the stump, he has been forced to cozy to free trade in order to shore up his conservative bona fides (many Republicans criticize Romney as ingenuine, sighting his previous support for abortion and gay rights while running for Senate in Massachusetts in the early 1990s). However, victory in Michigan almost undoubtedly requires the support of blue-collar Republican voters, many of whom have lost their job due to an easing of global trade barriers. Will Romney choose to stick to his conservative, pro free trade mantra, or yield to the calls for protection from Michigan's industrial base?
The answer to this is probably both. Many candidates facing a similar position have opted out of taking a firm position on global trade by stating their support for free-trade deal at the bilateral, regional, and global level, while calling just as vociferously for transitional aid for displaced workers. Unfortunately, just as trade-capacity building money has failed to truly help the plight of farmers in countries with whom the U.S. has FTAs (see yesterday's blog entry), transitional aid has a similarly dismal record in the States. It is not that the amount of money secured for this noble purpose has been insignificant. Indeed, millions of dollars have been offered to workers to look for new jobs or seek retraining in more dynamic, sustainable industries. Medical benefits have even been offered to workers who have been sacked for a period of time while they search for new employment. However, a complicated and largely unpublicized application process has left the percentage of eligible applicants who have actually benefited from transitional aid in the low single digits.
Another common copout amongst GOP candidates regards taxes. Some, such as former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee claim that the real culprit in the lessening share of U.S. blue-collar corporations in global income shares is not a freer international trade scheme but, rather, the 'immense' tax burden they face. True, U.S. businesses must pay back more to government coffers than their counterparts abroad, but the solution to their predicament can scarcely be solved by lowering taxes. However, playing this card allows Huckabee to score a two-fold political victory amongst conservative loyalists. On one hand, he continues along the party line on trade, praising its merit and pressing for further liberalization. On the other, he argues that the key for U.S. businesses to succeed in a new, looser trade climate rests with the government ability to lower taxes. Win-win!
In sum, what we can expect to see from Republican candidates tonight is high-octane political rhetoric, aimed to please as many key constituencies as possible (while working hard not to upset others) and little in the way of meaningful policy proposals. The real answer on the U.S.'s seemingly paradoxical free trade conundrum rests in early recognition and enhanced and enlarged access to education. Blue-collar industries in Michigan and other locales across the country are dying. They are dying because citizens cannot feasibly adapt to a new way of generating income, that is, shifting away from car production, coal mining, steel production, and other industries that are losing out to similar activities abroad. What needs to happen is a recognition by policymakers that, in the interest of these workers, their children must be offered the incentives to prepare themselves to, instead of carrying on the family tradition, immerse themselves in knowledge that will allow them to gain employment in another, more sustainable field.
However, as millions of Americans know all too well, education aint cheap! The same government that travels the world in search of reducing trade barriers and opening borders to international commerce must simultaneously address the negative offshoots of these activities on the domestic population. Policymakers in Washington should identify the regions that stand to be hit hardest by freer trade and divert extra financial resources to these areas to ensure that young people have every opportunity to obtain a college education and spread their professional wings in any area they see fit. There are numerous other things that must be done to ensure that all U.S. inhabitants feel the benefits that free trade theoretically guarantees. However, hiding behind falty, insincere solutions that play well among focus groups and key constituency groups that a politician hopes to court in hopes of winning an election is worse than a non-answer- it is a disservice to their country.
Also, forty years ago from yesterday, Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, the Argentine doctor and Cuban Communist Revolutionary was executed in te jungles of Bolivia. Across Latin America and the developing world, more generally, Guevara is remembered as a committed activist for the plight of the global poor, while in the U.S. and other rich countries the thought of this emboldened leaders conjures up thoughts of an impractical and altogether dangerous vision for society. Whatever the case, Che's memory has left a lasting legacy on the ongoing Cuban Revolution and that country's relations with the U.S., which has maintained an economic boycott against the island for more than forty years. A future blog entry will analyze Che's effect on Cuba's path over the last half-century, as well as the extent to which the U.S.'s approach to relations vis-a-vis Cuba has helped or hindered each country's development and prosperity. It will also look at the way in which U.S.-Cuban relations could influence the '08 U.S. presidential election.
Monday, 8 October 2007
Free Trade Agreement Passess Narrowly in Costa Rica
Today, voters in the Central American country of Costa Rica took to the ballot box and voiced their opinion on a controversial free-trade agreement (FTA) with the United States and several other countries throughout the region. The Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) has sparked deep divisions amongst Costa Rica's political factions, playing an insrumental role in the country latest presidential elections, which took place in February 2006 and was won by former president and Nobel Peace Laureate Oscar Arias by a measly .22%. All of DR-CAFTA's signatory countries, the U.S., Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, experienced bitter domestic political debate rearding the pact, but only Costa Rica had yet to fully implement the agreement and allowed voters to determine the final decision via a highly-competitive referendum vote. With 95% of the results in, it appears as though DR-CAFTA will have slipped by in Costa Rica, but its ultimate fate is not yet sealed, as opposition officials have vowed to not accept the result until a manual recount of votes is complete.
Costa Rica's battle over DR-CAFTA represents a microcosm of the broader war being waged by left- and right-wing forces across Latin America over trade, particularly that taking place with the U.S. Uncle Sam's harshest critics in the region, Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez and Bolivian frontman Evo Morales, have voiced strong opposition to expanded U.S. influence in the region, especially in terms of economics and, more specifically, trade policy. Chavez, flush with cash from oil revenues (Venezuela is a leading global producer of oil and OPEC member), has even proposed a counter to Washington's vision of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, which seeks to eliminate all barriers to international commerce in North and South America, from Alaska in the north to Tierra del Fuego in the Argentina in the south. Chavez's plan, known as la 'Alternativa Bolivariana para las Americas' (ALMA) in honor of the Latin American patriot and independence leader Simon Bolivar, has turned heads in both Washington and the region, but won little support among even Latin America's most left-leaning leaders, including Brazil's Luis Ignacio 'Lula' Da Silva and Argentina's Nestor Kirchner (Kirchner's wife, Christina Fernandez, who is heavily favored to succeed her husband as president in elections later this month).
Opponenets of freer trade find support for their arguments in the worsening condition of millions of rural farmers in countries with which the U.S. has a trade accord. Most notable of these examples is the plight of corn campesinos in Southern Mexico. These individuals have seen sales of their product dwindle in light of the flood of heavily-subsidized maize from agri-business giants (including Cargill and Archer, Midland, Daniels) in the U.S. that has come about as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Not only does NAFTA threaten the financial livelihoods of Southern Mexican farming families, it also endangers their culture (note that corn farmers in Southern Mexico have engaged in this practice for thousands of years).
Now, with U.S. big business having cornered the Mexican corn market, via the reduction of trade barriers through NAFTA, prices are rising, leaving Mexicans struggling to obtain a vital component of their daily diet (reports have it that corn prices eat up as much as 1/4 of some Mexicans' salaries). Moreover, the brand of corn exported to Mexico from the U.S. is not of the same stock as its Mexican counterpart. Mass-produced, U.S. maize is less filling and less nutritious than Mexican corn, leaving those Mexicans fortunate enough to have found employment after being forced from corn farming without the energy they need to make it through their day.
NAFTA's harmful effect on the Mexican corn industry also has meaningful links to the U.S. immigration debate. Seeking employment in burgeoning border factories, or maquiladoras, hundreds of thousands of displaced farmers have left their families in the south for higher-paying jobs along the border. Many, however, don't stop there, sneaking in to the U.S. in search of even more attractive wages. Conservatives in the U.S. Congress have largely ignored NAFTA's impact on the immigration problem, and for understandable reasons. Conservatives were the driving force behind NAFTA's passage thirteen years ago, and now are the voices speaking most adamantly against expanding illegal immigration. Were they to admit that this issue is largely of their own doing, it might unearth many of the contradictory approaches those in the GOP often take to domestic issues, more generally, further alientating voters already increasingly inclined to go blue in elections.
Turning to the Andean region, citizens in Colombia and Peru have drawn the battle lines and are pointedly debating the outcome of current FTAs with the U.S. Both countries' legislatures have passed the agreements (and the U.S. House seems to finally moving toward ratification of the Peru treaty, though the fate of the Colombia FTA seems less decided), but those opposed to expanded trade with the U.S. are crying out no less strongly because of it. Their objections mirror those levied by Mexican corn farmers. Subsidized agriculture from the U.S. will flood their markets, driving prices down to below the cost of production, and force thousands of farmers out of business. In the case of these true countries, the U.S. approach is, as with Mexico, blatantly contradictory, with our trade policy conflicting sharply with our foreign policy aims. On one hand, we condition substantial amount of aid to Colombia and Peru, two of the world's largest producers of coca, a key ingredient in refined cocaine, on their willingness and ability to cut production of the illicit crop (in Colombia, we sponsor aerial eradication efforts on coca, while in Peru, we sponsor manual, ground-level elimination- both of which have had reportedly devastating environmental effects in the regions in which they take place). On the other, we seem to have little problem driving agriculturalists in these countries, already struggling to eke out a living, away from producing licit goods and into the more lucrative coca industry.
Again, Congressional conservatives in the U.S. try, but cannot, have it both ways. Republicans have been keen to promote U.S. aid to Colombia in an effort to shore up continued support from the Administration's top ally in Latin America. However, this aid does little to establish alternative development programs for the farmers it means to move out of coca-production and into other agricultural programs, focusing instead on forced eradicaiton of coca and violent repression of armed, leftist insurgents in Colombia's southern regions. It is these same congressional conservatives pushing most strongly for passage of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, which would move even more farmers away from licit production and toward growing coca. The aim of these GOP lawmakers is two-fold. On one hand, they hope to push off blame for the U.S.'s drug problem onto supplier countries like Peru and Colombia, while at the same time opening up economic opportunities for key business and agricultural interests in their constituencies. The loser in this equation is the Colombian farmer, who would see her or his livelihood threatened by dirt-cheap U.S. agriculture and a closing door on the possibility of coca production (which, by the way, this blogger certainly does not support). In this environment, it is little wonder that so many agriculturalists in the Andean Region have opposed closer trade ties with Washington.
Opponents of the U.S.-Andean trade agreements also level valid criticisms against the agreement's handling of Colombian labor standards and the status of workers' rights in the country. While having ratified the International Labor Organization's core agreement on the rights of workers, it is well-known that Colombia is one of the most difficult places for laborers to organize, as well as one of the most dangerous places to live for a union leader (kidnaps and even murders are commonplace). Congressional Democrats have, as a result, called for explicit mandates within the text of the U.S.-Colombia FTA protecting the rights of workers as a prerequisite for their support, which is necessary to pass the agreement. Moreover, with Democrats now controlling both chambers of Congress, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Senator Max Baucus (D-MO), chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Committee on Finance, respectively (the bodies that oversee the consideration of trade deals) have conditioned any consideration of the deal on assurances that violations of workers' rights as laid out by the ILO core conventions will result in the revocation of the U.S.-Colombia FTA's preferential treatment for Colombian exports. It seems that things are finally headed in this direction, but passage of the FTA is all but assured and serves as a vivid reminder of the Bush Administration's and Congressional Republicans unwillingness to truly incorporate Democratic priorities into their trade policy and approach to negotiations.
Given the struggles of millions of Latin American farmers, who have seen their condition deteriorate in the face of expanded trade with the U.S., it can hardly seem surprising that Costa Rican citizens would view DR-CAFTA with a cautious eye. What will become of agriculturalists in this country? True, DR-CAFTA, thanks to the tireless effort of pragmatic Democrats in the Senate who sought to include in the agreement trade capacity building (which is money aimed to help farmers adversely affected by trade deals surivive financially), does at least consider the negative possible impacts to producers in signatory countries. However, thousands will lose from this deal, and the track record of trade capacity building in DR-CAFTA countries that have already implemented the deal is less than stellar. The war over trade in Latin America wages on. Whether or not the benefits of freer trade create meaningful benefits for citizens in the region aside from the powerful elite who control economic activity in these vastly unequal societies remains to be seen. Much of this has to do with the action and policy employed by lawmakers in Washington. I encourage each of you to become cognizant of the potential impact, both good and bad, of U.S.-Latin American trade relations and encourage your representatives in Congress and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to do the same.
Cheerio,
--Daniel
Costa Rica's battle over DR-CAFTA represents a microcosm of the broader war being waged by left- and right-wing forces across Latin America over trade, particularly that taking place with the U.S. Uncle Sam's harshest critics in the region, Venezuela's leader Hugo Chavez and Bolivian frontman Evo Morales, have voiced strong opposition to expanded U.S. influence in the region, especially in terms of economics and, more specifically, trade policy. Chavez, flush with cash from oil revenues (Venezuela is a leading global producer of oil and OPEC member), has even proposed a counter to Washington's vision of a Free Trade Area of the Americas, which seeks to eliminate all barriers to international commerce in North and South America, from Alaska in the north to Tierra del Fuego in the Argentina in the south. Chavez's plan, known as la 'Alternativa Bolivariana para las Americas' (ALMA) in honor of the Latin American patriot and independence leader Simon Bolivar, has turned heads in both Washington and the region, but won little support among even Latin America's most left-leaning leaders, including Brazil's Luis Ignacio 'Lula' Da Silva and Argentina's Nestor Kirchner (Kirchner's wife, Christina Fernandez, who is heavily favored to succeed her husband as president in elections later this month).
Opponenets of freer trade find support for their arguments in the worsening condition of millions of rural farmers in countries with which the U.S. has a trade accord. Most notable of these examples is the plight of corn campesinos in Southern Mexico. These individuals have seen sales of their product dwindle in light of the flood of heavily-subsidized maize from agri-business giants (including Cargill and Archer, Midland, Daniels) in the U.S. that has come about as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Not only does NAFTA threaten the financial livelihoods of Southern Mexican farming families, it also endangers their culture (note that corn farmers in Southern Mexico have engaged in this practice for thousands of years).
Now, with U.S. big business having cornered the Mexican corn market, via the reduction of trade barriers through NAFTA, prices are rising, leaving Mexicans struggling to obtain a vital component of their daily diet (reports have it that corn prices eat up as much as 1/4 of some Mexicans' salaries). Moreover, the brand of corn exported to Mexico from the U.S. is not of the same stock as its Mexican counterpart. Mass-produced, U.S. maize is less filling and less nutritious than Mexican corn, leaving those Mexicans fortunate enough to have found employment after being forced from corn farming without the energy they need to make it through their day.
NAFTA's harmful effect on the Mexican corn industry also has meaningful links to the U.S. immigration debate. Seeking employment in burgeoning border factories, or maquiladoras, hundreds of thousands of displaced farmers have left their families in the south for higher-paying jobs along the border. Many, however, don't stop there, sneaking in to the U.S. in search of even more attractive wages. Conservatives in the U.S. Congress have largely ignored NAFTA's impact on the immigration problem, and for understandable reasons. Conservatives were the driving force behind NAFTA's passage thirteen years ago, and now are the voices speaking most adamantly against expanding illegal immigration. Were they to admit that this issue is largely of their own doing, it might unearth many of the contradictory approaches those in the GOP often take to domestic issues, more generally, further alientating voters already increasingly inclined to go blue in elections.
Turning to the Andean region, citizens in Colombia and Peru have drawn the battle lines and are pointedly debating the outcome of current FTAs with the U.S. Both countries' legislatures have passed the agreements (and the U.S. House seems to finally moving toward ratification of the Peru treaty, though the fate of the Colombia FTA seems less decided), but those opposed to expanded trade with the U.S. are crying out no less strongly because of it. Their objections mirror those levied by Mexican corn farmers. Subsidized agriculture from the U.S. will flood their markets, driving prices down to below the cost of production, and force thousands of farmers out of business. In the case of these true countries, the U.S. approach is, as with Mexico, blatantly contradictory, with our trade policy conflicting sharply with our foreign policy aims. On one hand, we condition substantial amount of aid to Colombia and Peru, two of the world's largest producers of coca, a key ingredient in refined cocaine, on their willingness and ability to cut production of the illicit crop (in Colombia, we sponsor aerial eradication efforts on coca, while in Peru, we sponsor manual, ground-level elimination- both of which have had reportedly devastating environmental effects in the regions in which they take place). On the other, we seem to have little problem driving agriculturalists in these countries, already struggling to eke out a living, away from producing licit goods and into the more lucrative coca industry.
Again, Congressional conservatives in the U.S. try, but cannot, have it both ways. Republicans have been keen to promote U.S. aid to Colombia in an effort to shore up continued support from the Administration's top ally in Latin America. However, this aid does little to establish alternative development programs for the farmers it means to move out of coca-production and into other agricultural programs, focusing instead on forced eradicaiton of coca and violent repression of armed, leftist insurgents in Colombia's southern regions. It is these same congressional conservatives pushing most strongly for passage of the U.S.-Colombia FTA, which would move even more farmers away from licit production and toward growing coca. The aim of these GOP lawmakers is two-fold. On one hand, they hope to push off blame for the U.S.'s drug problem onto supplier countries like Peru and Colombia, while at the same time opening up economic opportunities for key business and agricultural interests in their constituencies. The loser in this equation is the Colombian farmer, who would see her or his livelihood threatened by dirt-cheap U.S. agriculture and a closing door on the possibility of coca production (which, by the way, this blogger certainly does not support). In this environment, it is little wonder that so many agriculturalists in the Andean Region have opposed closer trade ties with Washington.
Opponents of the U.S.-Andean trade agreements also level valid criticisms against the agreement's handling of Colombian labor standards and the status of workers' rights in the country. While having ratified the International Labor Organization's core agreement on the rights of workers, it is well-known that Colombia is one of the most difficult places for laborers to organize, as well as one of the most dangerous places to live for a union leader (kidnaps and even murders are commonplace). Congressional Democrats have, as a result, called for explicit mandates within the text of the U.S.-Colombia FTA protecting the rights of workers as a prerequisite for their support, which is necessary to pass the agreement. Moreover, with Democrats now controlling both chambers of Congress, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) and Senator Max Baucus (D-MO), chairmen of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Committee on Finance, respectively (the bodies that oversee the consideration of trade deals) have conditioned any consideration of the deal on assurances that violations of workers' rights as laid out by the ILO core conventions will result in the revocation of the U.S.-Colombia FTA's preferential treatment for Colombian exports. It seems that things are finally headed in this direction, but passage of the FTA is all but assured and serves as a vivid reminder of the Bush Administration's and Congressional Republicans unwillingness to truly incorporate Democratic priorities into their trade policy and approach to negotiations.
Given the struggles of millions of Latin American farmers, who have seen their condition deteriorate in the face of expanded trade with the U.S., it can hardly seem surprising that Costa Rican citizens would view DR-CAFTA with a cautious eye. What will become of agriculturalists in this country? True, DR-CAFTA, thanks to the tireless effort of pragmatic Democrats in the Senate who sought to include in the agreement trade capacity building (which is money aimed to help farmers adversely affected by trade deals surivive financially), does at least consider the negative possible impacts to producers in signatory countries. However, thousands will lose from this deal, and the track record of trade capacity building in DR-CAFTA countries that have already implemented the deal is less than stellar. The war over trade in Latin America wages on. Whether or not the benefits of freer trade create meaningful benefits for citizens in the region aside from the powerful elite who control economic activity in these vastly unequal societies remains to be seen. Much of this has to do with the action and policy employed by lawmakers in Washington. I encourage each of you to become cognizant of the potential impact, both good and bad, of U.S.-Latin American trade relations and encourage your representatives in Congress and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to do the same.
Cheerio,
--Daniel
Sunday, 7 October 2007
Do we know what true actions means?
What does it mean when the world's champion of democratic causes, the Bush Administration, turns its head to ugly and blatant violations of human rights that beat strongly against the pulse of authentic popular government? Well, just as many of you already undoubtedly conclude when searching for correlations between the Bush Administration and a sincere commitment to democracy, this president is a democrat in name only. Surely, if significant economic or political interests are on the line and would be benefited by the defense of democracy abroad, then the Administration has little trouble taking extreme measures to impose its brand of democratic governance. Witness, of course, the ongoing invasion of Iraq in which the U.S. deposed a brutal authoritarian and implemented steps toward free and fair elections. Nevermind that the U.S. misadventure in Iraq has cost nearly half of one trillion dollars and that hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in that country, as well as almost four thousands U.S. have lost their lives. The U.S., under Bush, seeking a foothold in the Middle East had no problem invading Iraq under the guise of a commitment to democratic government and overthrowing Hussein's regime.
Examples of the Bush Administration supporting or at least not speaking or acting against a less than savory regime appear in many other instances, as well. Examples include Mubarak's quasi-dictatorship in Egypt, a country which continues to rank second amongst recipient's of U.S. aid. Also, in Sudan, wherein domestic violence has resulted in the killing of several hundred thousand innocent civilians in the Darfur Region, as well as the displacement of millions more, the U.S. has turned a blind eye toward real action. Though supporting a resolution calling for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to the region, it has failed to put significant pressure on the Sudanese government to stop stalling the beginning of the force's work. The U.S. could issue a country-wide divestment from economic activity with the Sudanese government, boycotting and penalizing business entities that continue to do business with the country (note the lack of trouble the Administration has supporting an absolute economic boycott of Cuba, which has proven ineffective at advancing our aims there and worsened the welfare of the island countries several million inhabitants- if this doesn't seem to make sense, don't worry- it doesn't). In Saudi Arabia, the world's leading petrol exporter, the U.S. continually turns a blind eye to blatant discrimination against women and quasi-democratic governance. In Thailand, moreover, we sat by and watched a coup displace a democratically-elected (although admittedly ineffective) government from power, while we supported the deposing of Hugo Chavez, another democratically-elected official, because he is one of the most openly anti-U.S. leaders in the world. The point is three-fold. Firstly, the Bush Administration, while touting itself as the world'sleading defender of democracy, picks and chooses the scenarios in which it will back this form of governance, largely based on its economic and, or political interests. Secondly, it is ignoble and disgustingly contradictory for the president to claim a genuine support for democracy when it is, at best, implemented in an ad-hoc manner. Finally, following a promotion of democracy that is so contextually-dependent is irresponsible foreign policy and leaves our potential international partners unsure of what they will get in terms of the U.S. executive's commitment to democracy. Real and lasting partnerships are difficult to create in this setting.
Now, turn to Burma. For more than forty years, a military junta has ruled the country without any semblance of deomcratic intentions. Despite valliant, peaceful efforts from opposition leaders including Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to create a system of democracy, the junta has maintained its stranglehold on power in Burma, while world powers stand idly by, immune to any humanitarian or moral concerns for the Burmese.
Recently, Buddhist monks in the country, insulted and outraged by yet another unjust mandate by the junta on an already economically-ravaged populace, this time in the form of a gas tax hike, took to the streets in peaceful protest marches of unprecedented size and strength. Ordinary citizens, emboldened by the bravery of the reveled religious figures, joined in the call for change and a movement toward a more democratic system. As the world looked on, the junta, growing more and more anxious by the seeming lack of concern of protesters at the possibility of a violent put-down, took to the streets and simply mowed-down the movers and shakers.
Naturally, the world's leading promoter of all things democratic, President George W. Bush, sounded the alarm, issuing a meaningful, urgent call for a halt to the violence and change in Burma- right? Wrong. Instead, before a convening of the United National General Assembly, Bush tightened U.S. economic sanctions against the East Asian countries, with whom the U.S. has fiscal relations that are, to put it mildly, less than significant. Moreover, even were the U.S. and Burma more instrumental to one another's economic well-being, the merit of economic sanctions is, at best, disputable. In some instances, they have indeed had a significant impact on the behavior of evil regimes. In South Africa, for instance, as more and more countries and institutions across the world began to boycot business with the country, the racist regime had no choice but to cede power, ushering in a new day of democracy headed by one of this generation's most notable statesman, Nelson Mandela.
In their worst form, however, economic sanctions, in addition to not having their desired impact, actually harm the same populations they mean to serve. By denying business and revenues to a country's government and business entities, jobs can indeed be lost and vital sources of government support (even if vastly insufficient and ridden with corruption) are cut off, which worsens already horrendous living conditions for disaffected civilians.
In the case of Burma, the outside country with the most potential to implement measures capable of changing the junta's violent, decidedly undemocratic behavior is China. However, in the United Nations Security Council, a body which, if united, can indeed elicit desirable behavioral changes from member states, China (and Russia) have balked at supporting meaningful actions meant to reverse the violent trend, claiming the matter an internal affair not to be mettled with by the outside world. China is a vital market for Burmese exports and a key partner in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, an organization that continues to argue that opening Burma to close economic ties with the outside world is the best solution to its archaic domestic political system (in fact, this rhetoric hides many of the IGOs true intentions, wihch are to plunder resource-rich Burma of its hydrocarbons, timber, and other goods, which, of course, adds insult to injury in terms of the well-being of the Burmese masses).
Were China to issue a serious call for the Burmese junta to shape-up and begin moving toward free and fair elections, as well as insisting on a more meaningful political role for the opposition National League for Democracy, headed by Ms. Suu Kyi, it would little choice but to change its ways. However, it seems clear that China is less than willing to do so, as are other of Burma's critical trade partners, which means that the United States has a responsibility to pressure these parties to act. The Chinese economy, though surging ahead at unparalleled and unprecedented levels, depends tremendously on U.S. consumers on a market for its goods (note that the U.S.-China trade balance tips in favor of the latter to the tune of more than $200 billion per annum). Any U.S. restriction on the importation of Chinese goods would hit U.S. consumers, and Chinese exporters hard, but it would, at the very least, cause the country to think twice about its posturing on the issue of sending a serious call for change to the Burmese leadership.
Moreover, the U.S. could issue a call for top domestic athletes, as well as others from around the world, to boycott the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, an event China is hoping to use to show off its impressive push toward modernity. Without the presence of the world's leading athletes, the games would, to some extent, lose their luster, in turn weakening China's ability to showcase itself as a world leader.
Third, the U.S. could sponsor, and continue sponsoring, a resolution in the Security Council calling for a reconciliation force to be sent to Burma to force the junta to a: respect the rights of peaceful protesters (a right enshrined in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights) and b: encourage the movement toward meaningful talks between the junta and the opposition NDL party.
The time for the Bush Administration to stop trying to have it all ways on democracy has come. The lives of peaceful protesters and the well-being of millions of Burmese depend, to a significant extent, on real and touch action from the president and other policymakers in Washington. Action must come. It must come now. Let the U.S. stand up and be the international leader it could and should be.
Cheerio,
--Daniel
Examples of the Bush Administration supporting or at least not speaking or acting against a less than savory regime appear in many other instances, as well. Examples include Mubarak's quasi-dictatorship in Egypt, a country which continues to rank second amongst recipient's of U.S. aid. Also, in Sudan, wherein domestic violence has resulted in the killing of several hundred thousand innocent civilians in the Darfur Region, as well as the displacement of millions more, the U.S. has turned a blind eye toward real action. Though supporting a resolution calling for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping force to the region, it has failed to put significant pressure on the Sudanese government to stop stalling the beginning of the force's work. The U.S. could issue a country-wide divestment from economic activity with the Sudanese government, boycotting and penalizing business entities that continue to do business with the country (note the lack of trouble the Administration has supporting an absolute economic boycott of Cuba, which has proven ineffective at advancing our aims there and worsened the welfare of the island countries several million inhabitants- if this doesn't seem to make sense, don't worry- it doesn't). In Saudi Arabia, the world's leading petrol exporter, the U.S. continually turns a blind eye to blatant discrimination against women and quasi-democratic governance. In Thailand, moreover, we sat by and watched a coup displace a democratically-elected (although admittedly ineffective) government from power, while we supported the deposing of Hugo Chavez, another democratically-elected official, because he is one of the most openly anti-U.S. leaders in the world. The point is three-fold. Firstly, the Bush Administration, while touting itself as the world'sleading defender of democracy, picks and chooses the scenarios in which it will back this form of governance, largely based on its economic and, or political interests. Secondly, it is ignoble and disgustingly contradictory for the president to claim a genuine support for democracy when it is, at best, implemented in an ad-hoc manner. Finally, following a promotion of democracy that is so contextually-dependent is irresponsible foreign policy and leaves our potential international partners unsure of what they will get in terms of the U.S. executive's commitment to democracy. Real and lasting partnerships are difficult to create in this setting.
Now, turn to Burma. For more than forty years, a military junta has ruled the country without any semblance of deomcratic intentions. Despite valliant, peaceful efforts from opposition leaders including Nobel Peace Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi to create a system of democracy, the junta has maintained its stranglehold on power in Burma, while world powers stand idly by, immune to any humanitarian or moral concerns for the Burmese.
Recently, Buddhist monks in the country, insulted and outraged by yet another unjust mandate by the junta on an already economically-ravaged populace, this time in the form of a gas tax hike, took to the streets in peaceful protest marches of unprecedented size and strength. Ordinary citizens, emboldened by the bravery of the reveled religious figures, joined in the call for change and a movement toward a more democratic system. As the world looked on, the junta, growing more and more anxious by the seeming lack of concern of protesters at the possibility of a violent put-down, took to the streets and simply mowed-down the movers and shakers.
Naturally, the world's leading promoter of all things democratic, President George W. Bush, sounded the alarm, issuing a meaningful, urgent call for a halt to the violence and change in Burma- right? Wrong. Instead, before a convening of the United National General Assembly, Bush tightened U.S. economic sanctions against the East Asian countries, with whom the U.S. has fiscal relations that are, to put it mildly, less than significant. Moreover, even were the U.S. and Burma more instrumental to one another's economic well-being, the merit of economic sanctions is, at best, disputable. In some instances, they have indeed had a significant impact on the behavior of evil regimes. In South Africa, for instance, as more and more countries and institutions across the world began to boycot business with the country, the racist regime had no choice but to cede power, ushering in a new day of democracy headed by one of this generation's most notable statesman, Nelson Mandela.
In their worst form, however, economic sanctions, in addition to not having their desired impact, actually harm the same populations they mean to serve. By denying business and revenues to a country's government and business entities, jobs can indeed be lost and vital sources of government support (even if vastly insufficient and ridden with corruption) are cut off, which worsens already horrendous living conditions for disaffected civilians.
In the case of Burma, the outside country with the most potential to implement measures capable of changing the junta's violent, decidedly undemocratic behavior is China. However, in the United Nations Security Council, a body which, if united, can indeed elicit desirable behavioral changes from member states, China (and Russia) have balked at supporting meaningful actions meant to reverse the violent trend, claiming the matter an internal affair not to be mettled with by the outside world. China is a vital market for Burmese exports and a key partner in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, an organization that continues to argue that opening Burma to close economic ties with the outside world is the best solution to its archaic domestic political system (in fact, this rhetoric hides many of the IGOs true intentions, wihch are to plunder resource-rich Burma of its hydrocarbons, timber, and other goods, which, of course, adds insult to injury in terms of the well-being of the Burmese masses).
Were China to issue a serious call for the Burmese junta to shape-up and begin moving toward free and fair elections, as well as insisting on a more meaningful political role for the opposition National League for Democracy, headed by Ms. Suu Kyi, it would little choice but to change its ways. However, it seems clear that China is less than willing to do so, as are other of Burma's critical trade partners, which means that the United States has a responsibility to pressure these parties to act. The Chinese economy, though surging ahead at unparalleled and unprecedented levels, depends tremendously on U.S. consumers on a market for its goods (note that the U.S.-China trade balance tips in favor of the latter to the tune of more than $200 billion per annum). Any U.S. restriction on the importation of Chinese goods would hit U.S. consumers, and Chinese exporters hard, but it would, at the very least, cause the country to think twice about its posturing on the issue of sending a serious call for change to the Burmese leadership.
Moreover, the U.S. could issue a call for top domestic athletes, as well as others from around the world, to boycott the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, an event China is hoping to use to show off its impressive push toward modernity. Without the presence of the world's leading athletes, the games would, to some extent, lose their luster, in turn weakening China's ability to showcase itself as a world leader.
Third, the U.S. could sponsor, and continue sponsoring, a resolution in the Security Council calling for a reconciliation force to be sent to Burma to force the junta to a: respect the rights of peaceful protesters (a right enshrined in the UN's Declaration of Human Rights) and b: encourage the movement toward meaningful talks between the junta and the opposition NDL party.
The time for the Bush Administration to stop trying to have it all ways on democracy has come. The lives of peaceful protesters and the well-being of millions of Burmese depend, to a significant extent, on real and touch action from the president and other policymakers in Washington. Action must come. It must come now. Let the U.S. stand up and be the international leader it could and should be.
Cheerio,
--Daniel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)