China and Tibet

Sorry for not posting in ages. State and National qualifiers for debate and speech have consumed my life this past month.

I am somewhat disappointed with China right now over the whole Tibet issue. Not to say that I necessarily support Tibet's self-autonomy or don't support it; rather, I am disappointed over China's mentality that it should "clean itself up" for the 2008 Olympics.

A) China shouldn't try to gain international kudos for the sake of its reputation; and even if it does..
B) China shouldn't be hypocritical and then hide the well-known secret that it selling arms to Sudan, which in turn is purported going to the pro-government militais carrying out the genocide in Darfur.

Ultimately, I want China to be pro-human rights and more liberal and free (not necessarily in the form of a democracy), and even though I know it will take time for China to change this way and will require much bottom-up reform, I still am disappointed by this entire issue.

I see the Tibetan revolt by the monks and people and China's reaction to the revolt as the epitome as China's failed policy of just suppressing issues and letting them worsen. Even though I think Tibet is part of China, China's reaction is not helping and gives more power to the rebels.

Cuba now?

Since the early 19th century, the United States has had a keen interest in the island of Cuba. As US Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams, wrote in 1823 that Cuba is a “natural appendage” of North America. Later as president, Adams predicted Cuba would fall "like a ripening plum into the lap of the union." Unfortunately, Cuba didn’t fall to the United States in the manner Adams had hoped or planed. Ever since the Cold War, the United State’s policy towards Cuba is still one of containment, and has been so since Fidel Castro has been leader of Cuba. As the MSNBC of February 25, 2008 notes, Fidel Castro has been Cuba’s president for over forty years. He has weathered ten US Presidents, survived the downfall of the USSR, and lived before and after the rise of the Beatles. Therefore, with former President Fidel Castro stepping down last week and his younger brother Raul Castro officially being named President of Cuba on Sunday, February 24th, it is important to consider how this change will affect Cuba.

First, Cuba under Raul Castro will lead to new economic reform. The Xinhua News Agency of China reported a day after Raul’s confirmation as president that Raul’s primary goal is “to move the country forward.” Cuba’s largest problem is its pervasive poverty; since Cuba’s planned economy is heavily socialist, government policies affect its economy far greater than a capitalist country’s government would. Thus, Raul’s attempts at fixing the economy target both the government and the actual economy itself. As the Wall Street Journal of the same date reports, Raul plans to reduce government bureaucracy and streamline government functionality by cutting administrative bodies. Raul also plans to eliminate some government regulations, shifting the economy to a more capitalistic form. As the MSNBC of February 26, 2008 notes, even though Raul has not made concrete plans for how he will achieve his goals, his progressive stance will mean that Cuba will be headed down the road of reform. Among his goals, Raul wants to “improve salaries, eliminate costly subsidies, and phase out a dual-currency regime that he said had caused distortions in the economy.”

Second, Cuban relations with the United States might begin to thaw with this change in leaders. The USA Today of February 26, 2008 posted an opinion piece stating that “for nearly half a century, this country has blamed Fidel Castro for its bad treatment of Cuba.” Although Raul is still a Castro, his plans for reform and loosening of government domination over the economy in favor of a slightly more laissez faire economy is favorable news for the United States. As the Economist of February 23, 2008 reports, the US policy of containment of Cuba is archaic, since we are no longer battling communism, and its embargo against Cuba has failed. Thus, with Fidel’s resignation, the United States will be more prone to bringing normalcy back to Cuban relations. Furthermore, as reported by the Kansas City Star of February 26, 2008, both Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama favor an “eventual normalcy” with Cuba given the resignation of Fidel Castro. If the democratic party wins, which I hope it will, then we might see a return of normalcy to relations.

Lastly, Cuba under Raul Castro will hopefully lead to more political freedoms. One of the world’s greatest criticisms of Fidel Castro’s regime was its abridgement of human rights, such as free speech. However, Raul Castro is more willing to give freedoms to his people than Fidel. The Reuters of February 26, 2008 reports that under political pressure from the rest of the world, he did two key acts that underscore an important potential trend in Cuba under his rule: the releasing of several political prisoners and allowing peaceful protests to occur in Cuba. The Xinhua of the same date reports that even though Raul Castro has iterated that Cuba will not change its socialist policies, his actions show a willingness to grant more human rights to his people. Hopefully, this change is not just one-time.

What are the effects of Kosovo's independence?

On Sunday, February 17, 2008, a historic event occurred in Eastern Europe. After years of ethnic conflict and repression by Serbia, Kosovo’s Parliament officially declared its independence as a sovereign nation. However, like a stone that falls into a pool of water, the effects of this action have had rippling effects across the world. Perhaps one of the most notable effects of Kosovo’s independence is the recall by the Serbian government of the Serbian ambassador to the United States because of the United States’ recognition of Kosovo. As the Sydney Morning Herald of February 18, 2008 reports, Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica told his parliament: “The government of Serbia ordered that the ambassador of Serbia in Washington urgently withdraw to Belgrade.” Quite obviously, this declaration of independence by Kosovo is controversial, and its effects are severe. Given this pretext, we must ask ourselves the crucial question, “What are the effects of Kosovo’s independence?” The answer to this question is threefold. First, Kosovo’s independence has renewed tensions between Kosovo and Serbia. Second, Kosovo’s independence has created international conflict over the recognition of Kosovo. Lastly, Kosovo’s independence will reduce the efficiency of the United Nations.

First, Kosovo’s independence has renewed tensions between Kosovo and Serbia. According to the Associated Press of February 18, 2008, Kosovo’s declaration of independence has incited much protest by the Serbians, who see Kosovo as part of Serbia. Serbs in Kosovo, such as those in the divided town of Mitrovica, protested Kosovo’s independence in the streets. Similar protests took place in other Serb-dominated towns of Kosovo, which is comprised mainly of ethnic Albanians. Furthermore, protests took place in Serbia over Kosovo. The Angence French Presse of February 18, 2008 reports that around 800 to 1,000 Serbian youth smashed windows of stores and attacked the US and Slovenian Embassies this Sunday over Kosovo’s declaration of independence; Serbia had to send riot police armed with tear gas to stop the violence. Nevertheless, the government of Serbia is also displeased over Kosovo’s independence. The Prime Minister of Serbia Vojislav Kostunica has told the press that Kosovo is still part of Serbia in his country’s eyes and that they would never recognize Kosovo: “As long as Serbs exist, Kosovo is Serbia.” The BBC of February 18, 2008 further notes that Serbia’s three political parties unified over their disproval of Kosovo’s declaration of independence and “in a rare show of unity, the leaders of the three main political parties in Belgrade agreed to call for a mass demonstration in the capital [this[] Thursday to show the widespread opposition to independence.” Luckily, the Washington Post of the same date reports that Serbia has ruled out any military action on its part. Clearly, Kosovo’s independence has renewed tensions between Kosovo and Serbia

Second, Kosovo’s independence has created international conflict over the recognition of Kosovo. The Associated Press of February 18, 2008 reports that Kosovo’s independence has sparked discussion around the world regarding whether or not to recognize Kosovo. While the United States immediately backed Kosovo, Russia and China joined sides with Serbia to refuse to acknowledge Kosovo. Because of the United States’ position on this matter, tensions between the United States and China and Russia have increased and Serbia has recalled its ambassador from the US. Furthermore, relations between China and Taiwan have been strained by this event after Taiwan stated that it was ready to give recognition to Kosovo. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Liu Jianchao stated to the China Daily about Taiwan that “The world knows that as part of China, Taiwan has no right and qualification to make the so-called recognition.” The New York Times of February 18, 2008 reports that Russia stated that if Kosovo can be declared free, then so can Abkhazia and South Ossetia , two Russia-backed separatist areas in Georgia, and hinted that it might recognize their independence if Western countries recognized Kosovo. The Russian Parliament released a statement that “the right of nations to self-determination cannot justify recognition of Kosovo’s independence along with the simultaneous refusal to discuss similar acts by other self-proclaimed states, which have obtained de facto independence exclusively by themselves.” The European Union was not so black and white on the issue. The Voice of America of February 18, 2008 points out that the EU could not reach a conclusion on recognition and thus decided to let each member decide the matter on themselves. Thus, it is clear that Kosovo’s independence has created serious controversy for the world.

Lastly, Kosovo’s independence has reduced the efficiency of the United Nations. Due to the polarizing nature of Kosovo’s independence, both Portugal and Malta have declared their difference on the issue to the UN. However, as the Ottawa Citizen of February 18, 2008 reports, despite Canada and Russia both launching an emergency session of the UN to discuss the issue, no conclusion could be made. Panama, which currently holds the rotating Security Council presidency stated that the Security Council is divided on the issue: “Some members consider it ‘an illegal act in contravention of resolution 1244’, while others consider it ‘a legitimate act’.” The Voice of America of February 18, 2008 reports that Germany, Britain, France and Italy have followed the United States in saying they would recognizing Kosovo's independence. Poland, Austria, and Sweden are willing to follow suit as well. However, Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Romania, and Slovakia have refused to acknowledge Kosovo. The problem with such a rift in opinion is that such differences on a heated issue will spill into other conflicts in the United Nations. Political analysts at the Associated Press of February 18, 2008 predict that Russia’s particularly passionate disapproval of Kosovo’s independence and heated discouragement of US recognition will affect Russia’s stance to Iran, which has recently been slightly more favorable to the US in the past few months. Clearly, the diplomatic rift caused by Kosovo’s independence will hurt the functionality of the UN, as member state’s use diplomatic leverage against each other to prevent each other from getting what they want.

Kosovo’s independence is a touchy issue for many. To the United States, it is vindication for all the injustices suffered during the 1990s. The French government calls this move by Kosovo a victory for common sense. However, other nations around the world are afraid that such an action by Kosovo will incite the separatist movements in their own region. Thus, when asking the question, “What are the effects of Kosovo’s independence?” we see that the answer is threefold: first, it has increased tensions between Kosovo and Serbia; second, it has sparked international conflict; and lastly, it has reduced the efficiency of the UN. One chapter in Kosovo's history may have now closed, but the story is far from over.

Pakistan <----- legitimacy?

Delay and drama and tragedy may make for a good movie but are never ingredients wanted in a parliamentary election. Despite all the setbacks in the Pakistani elections and the assassination of the PPP’s party leader, Benazir Bhutto, they were finally held today on February 18, 2008. Up until the election, political analysts, bloggers, politicians, and ordinary people alike across the world were skeptical about the elections. Some claimed the elections would not bring peace to Pakistan while others warned about vote rigging and other underhanded election techniques. Above all, they claimed that legitimacy would not be restored to the government by the election. But I think it has.

First, Musharraf’s reaction to the preliminary election results is indicative of his willingness to obey the will of the people. The New York Times of February 18, 2008 reports that part of the reason why Pakistan’s government was not considered legitimate was Musharraf’s dismissal last year of the Supreme Court chief justice, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, who remains under house arrest and the suspension of other Supreme Court justices last Winter because they disagreed with Musharraf. Indeed, Musharraf’s policy in the past has been undemocratic in many ways, with him refusing to obey the law whenever he chooses. When the Washington Post of the same date reported that initial election results showed an overwhelming loss for Musharraf’s party, many were afraid he’d declare emergency rule again or employ some other maneuver to stay in power. However, this time, Musharraf has conceded to the results. The spokesman for the party, Tarik Azeem Khan, said: “We readily accept our defeat unlike in the past when losing parties alleged rigging. We accept that we were beaten fair and square." Thus, Musharraf’s reaction to the elections will give legitimacy to the new government by virtue of his acknowledgement of defeat.

Second, the credibility of the elections itself will give legitimacy to the new government. The Associated press of February 18, 2008 reports that many people were afraid that vote rigging would produce an illegitimate election, which would then translate to an illegitimate government. With the nearly complete election tally revealing that the Pakistan People’s Party has won 80 of the 242 contested seats, the Pakistan Muslim League-N with 66, and the pro-Musharraf party trailing with 38, international observers have also added that this election has been fair. The New York Times of February 18, 2008 adds that this election’s results are an “accurate reflection of the voting.” Thus, since the elections have been credible, the new government will be legitimate as well.

Lastly, and most importantly, the actual results of the election itself provide legitimacy to the new government. In the recent past, Pakistani governments have followed a trend of one party rule that is then toppled by a coup d’état. The Associated Press of February 18, 2008 notes that many people were afraid that is the PPP were to gain overwhelming support, then it too might repeat a history of single party rule that has ultimately failed. However, the New York Times of February 19, 2008 reports that no one party has a majority; rather, power between the two major opposition parties is split. In other words, the BBC of the same date reports that the new government would have to be created by many coalitions of parties, giving a stronger voice to minor opposition parties and restoring the balance of power that is supposed to be inherent in a parliamentary system.

The former Chief of Staff of the Pakistani government, General Karamat, stated in an interview with the New York Times that “what we are seeing through these elections is moderate and liberal forces which [are] absolutely great.” Hopefully, a new, brighter episode of Pakistan’s history will begin now.

On your marks, get set, Go!

Joe Klein's most recent article in the Time magazine, named "How Hillary Learned to Trust Herself," deserves props. I am glad he is apologizing on the media's behalf for their savage media coverage of Hillary Clinton.

He is right, the media has exaggerated on her emotional states and exploited her to heighten reader sensationalism: "But we in the press have to be smarter too. We were wildly stupid in the days before the New Hampshire primary, citing Clinton meltdown after Clinton meltdown — the tears, the flash of anger in the debate — that never really happened. We really need to calm down, become more spin-resistant, even if our sleep-deprived sources tend to overreact to every slip and poll dip in the campaign. If we are lucky, this will be a long and complicated race — which is exactly what this country deserves right now — and we need to watch it with our very best, most patient eyes, just as the public seems to be doing."

Thank you Mr. Klein for that excellent article, even if you don't completely support her, but still recognize what the savagely wrong nature of media coverage of the elections.

Another article in the same January 21, 2008 edition of Time I read even took this further to state that the media, "fourth branch," was the loser of the elections and the common people were the winners because the voters ignored the "pompous punditry" of the media who claimed Hillary was finished and voted on their own beliefs.

Yes America. It's time for us to get our own opinions. The media should be giving us news. It's called news for a reason. While I love good analysis, I don't want to know a future that only materializes because of a self-fulfilling nature crated by apathetic and ignorant population who takes what the media says as the golden truth.

Thank you America. It's time for a real race.

Kuomintang's landslide victory in Taiwan

It was predicted by political analysts that the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party, in Taiwan would do well in the January 13, 2008 parliamentary elections over the incumbent party, the Democratic Progressive Party. However, the landslide victory with which the Kuomintang won astounded even most liberal forecasters. According to the National Post, the Kuomintang won almost 75% of seats in the 113-member body, compared with only 27 for the Democratic Progressive Party. As a result of this shocking political defeat to the Democratic Progressive Party, the current president of Taiwain, Chen Shui-Bian, has resigned as the head of the Democratic Party; however, he will still carry out the remainder of his term as president. There are three primary reasons why the Kuomintang did so well.

First, one reason why the Kuomintang did so well was because of Taiwanese people believe that the Democratic Progressive Party has lost touch with the people of the island. According to the Asia Times of January 15, 2008, many Taiwanese felt that that Democratic Progressive Party no longer served the needs of the people. The New York Times of January 14, 2008 attributes this feeling of discontentment partially to the corruption scandals involving President Chen-Shui-bian and his advisors. Furthermore, the Financial Times of January 15, 2008 adds that many Taiwanese people felt that the very campaign strategies of the Democratic Progressive party showed that it had lost touch with the people. The Democratic Progressive Party’s strategy worked in the 2004 presidential election when Chen Shui-Bian attacked the Kuomintang as a Chinese puppet and to rally for more moves towards eventual Taiwanese independence. However, it did not work this time because most voters felt that there were more important issues to address. In an interview with the Financial Times, Sandy Chow, a Taipei student, stated "I need to worry about whether I will find a job after I graduate. I really do [love Taiwan], and of course Taiwan must be independent but, meanwhile, let's move on and get some work done." In fact, Hsu Yung-ming, a professor of political science at Soochow University, stated that the election results reflect the fact that "the DPP [is] losing touch with the voters". Although the Kuomintang has not held majority power in the parliament for eight years, many Taiwanese in this election voted for the Kuomintang because of its appeal to the “common man.”

Second, the economic policies of the Democratic Progressive Party have upset the Taiwanese. A major reason why many Taiwanese voted against the Democratic Progressive Party in this election is because of the failing economy. Although Taiwan’s economy is growing, it is much slower than was previously expected. Part of this reason, as the Houston Chronicle of January 14, 2008 reports is that current president Chen limited “the size and type of Taiwanese investments on the mainland” and reduced trade between Taiwan and China by preventing direct trade between the two. As of right now, China and Taiwan can only trade through intermediaries, like Hong Kong or the likewise. As a result, economic growth has slowed down under Mr. Chen’s rule, which many voters link to the Democratic Party’s unfavorable economic policies. The Houston Chronicle further elaborates that “Taiwan's economic growth averaged 3.8 percent annually during Chen's years in office… The rate [for the past decade]… was 6.5 percent.” The Kuomintang is an exact opposite to this policy. The Kuomintang wants to reopen direct trade between the two countries and reverse the economic policies of the Democratic Progressive Party. Therefore, another major reason why the Kuomintang won was because of the Democratic Progressive Party’s unfavorable economic policies.

Lastly and perhaps more importantly, Taiwan wants to make reconciliatory moves towards mainland China. The main stance that separates the Democratic Progressive Party and the Kuomintang is their stances towards mainland China. The Democratic Progressive Party favors independence whereas the Kuomintang, according to the National Post of January 15, 2008, supports “close economic and cultural ties with China and [is] not ruling out eventual reunification.” Many people voted in favor of the Kuomintang because they want to see better ties with China, especially since China has a booming economy. It is clear that the issue of China is big because immediately after Chen Shui-bian resigned, the new leader of the Democratic Progressive Party, Frank Hsieh, even conceded to tone down his anti-China stance and promised to be less confrontational to China to try to appeal to voters. Jing-dong Yuan of the Monterey Institute of International Studies noted that the results of the Taiwanese parliamentary elections indicate that "after 60 years of hostility and alienation, a new era of reconciliation and rapprochement between the mainland and Taiwan may be in the offing;" and this peace is exactly what the Taiwanese want and have voted for in this past election.

Irked by media coverage of the elections

Media coverage of the 2008 elections are seriously flawed.

My main issues with the coverage are these:

1. What happened to the other candidates? After the Iowa Caucus, the only news I can find are on Romney, Huckabee, Clinton, and Obama. What ever happened to the other candidates? Let us not forget that Richardson is still a candidate (even if he might not win). And what about Edwards? HE only won second at Iowa. What about McCain and Guliani? There are not too many articles on them as well. And how about Mr. Libertarian as Republican Ron Paul? The disproportionate coverage on the elections is extremely disturbing and skews bias as well as reader knowledge of the elections.

2. Deceptive nature of media- The media can be a vicious hound dog in some instances. I find it highly annoying that articles like these exist. Watch the video for yourself, I do not sense anything wrong with her tone in that rebuttal. In fact, I found that there WAS much sense in that argument she was making. Obama is only riding on a word, change, and an empty paper trail. I understand the appeal he has as a "fresh page" in politics. But unfortunately, that kind of wide-eyed idealism doesn't usually work out too well in the real world. I'm not saying I hate Obama. I think he's a great candidate and has good stances. However, I find that when you boil it down, to a large degree, Clinton and Obama have similar stances (though Obama has more liberal economic policies). However, Obama does have some troublesome contradictions in his rhetoric- such as promoting bipartisanship but also the largest tax increase in a while- and doesn't have the experience and know-how like Clinton. Certainly, it doesn't mean that Obama can't do the job, but I'd rather be more conservative when it comes experience. Wooo, tangent.

3. Superficial nature of media coverage- when you look at the news articles around, most of them talk about matters like "Hilary making a last ditch attempt" or "Huckabee makes a surprise victory." Ok, that's important. But when every article I find is about the logistics of their strategy, the small, pithy issues surrounding their candidacy, and their bickering amongst each other, the media makes politics look like a insult-fest. What is more important is to actually consider what these candidates stand for. I would like to see the media continuously consider the politician's stances and write about the feasibility and effects of their policy. I would also like the media to give better coverage and break downs of the debates. I understand you can watch them. But seriously, who has the time to watch all of it? I would like the media to cover salient points, not over which candidate looks the angriest and thus deserves to lose or which looks the most "presidential" and thus deserves to win.

Thank god for blogs, where would the media be without people like us to give them real feedback.

Effects of Bhuttos' death

I previously blogged on the tragedy of Bhutto's death; now, it's time to consider the effect of her death on both Pakistan and US foreign policy.

First, the death of Benazir Bhutto has greatly weakened President Musharraf and his administration. According to the Forbes of January 4, 2008, the death of Bhutto has weakened Musharraf because many protesters in Pakistan have blamed him for her death. The Financial Times of January 4, 2008 reports that while the “Western media were virtually unanimous in blaming al-Qaeda for Bhutto's murder… Pakistan's protesters generally blame Musharraf.” The Associated Press quoted a Pakistani man in December 29, 2007 saying “I don't know who killed Benazir Bhutto. But I do know that it is the result of Musharraf's wrong and bad policies." While some Pakistanis believe in a conspiracy by Musharraf to have Bhutto killed, most Pakistanis blame Musharraf for not providing her enough state protection. In fact, in the initial days of the assassination riots broke out throughout Pakistan in outrage. The Associated Press of the same date notes that in three days, protests have left “more than 40 dead and tens of millions of dollars in damage.” These riots are another reason that Musharraf’s government has been weakened. As a result of the increasingly unpopular status of Musharraf and the riots that broke out from the assassination, his administration has been severely weakened and his credibility reduced.

Second, Bhutto’s death in Pakistan has forced the United States to rethink its Pakistan policy. The New Statesman of January 3, 2007 reports that the United State’s policy in Pakistan was centrally based on their prediction that Bhutto would win the January 8 elections. However, with her death, the United States has been forced back to the drawing board. The SF Gate of January 5, 2008 states that the assassination of Bhutto has forced the United States to completely rethink its Pakistan policy. The Kansas City Star of January 4, 2008 notes that “the assassination of Benazir Bhutto killed the Bush administration’s last hope that President Pervez Musharraf could simultaneously defeat al-Qaida and the Taliban and return Pakistan to democratic rule.” The Philadelphia Inquirer of January 4, 2008 reports that the death of Bhutto has severely destabilized the region and allowed for terrorists to gain a stronghold in the country. Considering the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapon capabilities, it is crucial for the United States to think of a new plan to ensure peace and stability in the region.

Lastly, the assassination of Bhutto will hurt the economy of Pakistan. This is a less reported fact that still has an important bearing on the issue. According to the Australian Market of December 28, 2007, the death of Bhutto is a sign that Pakistan could be becoming more unstable and thus cause many investors to pull their money out of the region of fear that instability will hurt economic growth. This fear has already partly manifested in the riots of last week. Bryan Collings, a managing partner at an investing firm in Pakistan stated that "My main concern is direct investment in the area” because the “people in the Gulf who are putting money into this equity market will have to have a rethink." Perhaps even more damaging to Pakistan’s economy is the fact that the assassination could hurt the country's credit ratings as well. The Forbes of December 28, 2007 notes that the Standard & Poor's ratings director stated that this recent development in Pakistan potentially could result in the S&P reducing its grade for Pakistan’s sovereign credit rating. One of the major services that the S&P does is rate countries with a letter grade to determine how safe it is for an investor in invest in that particular country. Pakistan’s grade is already a B-; however, the death of Bhutto has caused concern in the S&P that the grade should be lower. A lower grade for Pakistan’s sovereign credit rating would mean reduced investor confidence in the investment environment of the country and thus further hurt Pakistan’s economy. Thus, Bhutto’s death will hurt Pakistan’s economy.

Why Huckabee and Obama did so well in Iowa

Although Huckabee and Obama are politically two very different people when it comes to platforms and stances, they are very similar when considering the turn of events post-Iowa caucus. Both are “rookies” in their respective parties, but both have won the first state in a series of upcoming primaries and caucuses to decide who will be the presidential candidate for the two major American parties, the Democratic and Republican Party. With the next state New Hampshire’s primaries coming in four days on Tuesday, it is important consider why these two “underdogs” won .
First, it is important to consider the support Huckabee won from the Christian right. According to the Associated Press of January 5, 2008, Huckabee’s social policies and religious past as a Southern Baptist minister have greatly helped him in the Iowa caucus. In fact, the Washington Post of the same date notes that as of right now, Huckabee is the only candidate who has the support of the religious right. The BBC of December 20, 2007 notes that whereas McCain, Romney, and Guliani are strong fiscal conservatives and have some socially conservative policies, none of them have the religious background that appeals to the evangelicals like Huckabee does. The Wall Street Journal of January 4, 2008 reports that in Iowa, evangelicals represented 60% of all the Republican votes. As a result, Huckabee was able to win because he had a strong voter base in Iowa.

Second, Clinton’s flawed campaign strategy helped Obama win the Democratic votes in Iowa. Many magazines in the fall claimed that Hillary Clinton was the “inevitable” Democratic nominee. However, with the surprise victory of Obama in Iowa, it would appear that she is doing something wrong. The Wall Street Journal of January 5, 2008 reports that the reason for this loss in Iowa is because of her flawed campaign theme, which has hurt her more than it has helped. While Obama’s theme is “Change,” Clinton’s primary theme is that of experience. However, Obama’s win in Iowa is a sign that most Democrats want to separate themselves from the Clinton era. Even Bill Clinton described his wife Hillary's campaign as one of going "back to the future;" however, Obama’s theme of turning a fresh page clearly has won voters. The SF Gate of January 5, 2008 reports that “entrance polls in Iowa found that 52 percent of Democratic caucusgoers said a candidate's ability to bring change was the most important factor in their decision.” Of those people who said change was the most important, an overwhelming majority of them choose Obama. Only 20 percent told polls that experience was the most important factor in their decision. Clearly, Clinton’s theme of experience was flawed and helped give Obama the win in Iowa.

Lastly, the vast number of young people who attended the Iowa caucus helped Obama win. According to the Los Angeles Time of January 4, 2008, Iowa's results showed that “young people were more ready to take a chance on a fresh face.” Young people from 18-the late twenties came in larger numbers than ever. It is estimated that three times as many young voters participated in the Iowa caucus than before, making yong voters 23% of the caucusgoers in thie year’s Iowa caucus. The New York Times of the same date reports that “Obama drew support from 57% of voters in the 17-24 and 25-29 age categories. Clinton scored heavily among voters 60 and older.” It is therefore apparent that Obama’s appeal to the younger generation coupled with their activism is another major factor in why Obama was able to win Iowa.
While the New Hampshire state has a population quite different from that of Iowa and well-known as a “maverick state” when it comes to primaries, it is clear that Huckabee and Obama have the political momentum they need to continue to do well in the preliminaries.

Will violence in Kenya end?

On December 27th, 2007, Kenya held presidential elections between current incumbent Mwai Kabaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga, who leads the Orange Democratic Movement Party. Although Kabaki barely won re-election as president, international observers have criticized abnormalities in the vote-count process. As a result, the Wall Street Journal of January 4, 2070 notes that both sides have accused the other of voter fraud and rigging the elections in their favor. Even worse, the Associated Press of December 30, 2007 reports that hundreds have died as violent protests destroyed homes and killed many innocent bystanders. In an attempt to quell the riots, diplomats from Africa, Europe and the United States have pushed for peace and negotiations between the two parties. Unfortunately, not even this will end the violence. Why?


First, it is important to examine how the riots in Kenya have affected its economy. The violence in Kenya has had a ripple effect that hit the Kenyan economy. The Business Week of January 4, 2008 notes that due to the riots in Kenya, the stock market in the country has plummeted and the country’s economy is in shambles. The New York Times of the same day further elaborates on this point by noting that “Before last week’s election, a head of cabbage in Mathare, an enormous slum, cost 15 shillings, or about 20 cents. After the much-debated results were announced on Sunday and the country exploded into chaos, cabbage prices doubled. By Thursday, as the police tear-gassed protesters in the streets and gangs from opposing tribes hacked one another to death… cabbage prices shot up to 100 shillings.” This deterioration of what was once heralded as a great model for other African economies caused more and more people to protest the poor conditions of the country, turning what used to be a purely political matter into a political and economic issue. As a result, many of the riots currently occurring in Kenya are also over the poor economic condition of the country, thereby creating a vicious cycle of violence that is self-perpetuating. Thus, the deterioration of Kenya’s economy is one reason why the violence in Kenya will not be ending anytime soon.

Second, the riots in Kenya have reopened racial wounds in the country. The Washington Post of January 4, 2008 notes that this election has stirred up “strong undercurrents of ethnic-based hatred that will not recede any time soon.” Since Kibaki is a Kikuyu, a tribe known as Kenya’s privileged tribe, and opposition leader Odinga is a Luo, a tribal ethnicity that has long felt marginalized, many Kenyans have felt subtle undercurrents of racial tension over this election. In fact, exit polls found that most voters voted based on ethnic associations. As a result of the current conflict over elections, a sub-group of violent acts in Kenya stem from racial tensions. As the Wall Street Journal of the same day reports, in one city, mobs swept through towns across the country, looting Kikuyu stores, attacking Kikuyus and in one case burning to death up to 50 Kikuyu women and children who were taking refuge in a church. Furthermore, tribal gangs have gained power in some regions in Kenya, making the issue of race an important factor for why the violence in Kenya is so strong. As a result, the violence in Kenya won’t end anytime soon because this political conflict has opened a racial conflict between the Kikuyus and Luos. Thus, even if the two parties agree to compromise, racial tensions between the two will still exist.

Finally, it is important to consider the how both parties have refused to compromise on this issue. The BBC of January 4, 2008 notes that while the two parties have finally met, they have not agreed to anything as of yet. The Financial Time of January 4, 2008 primarily attributes this inability to resolve the conflict to the current incumbent president’s refusal to compromise: “President Mwai Kibaki, the declared winner of a flawed election last Sunday, has adopted a hardline stance and blocked international intervention in the bloody stand-off.” However, this stance is not entirely true. The opposition Orange Democratic Movement Party is also to blame. As the BBC of January 4, 2008 notes, the European Union offered to conduct an independent investigation, a step that could lead to a recount of the ballots. However, the opposition party refused to take this offer responding that a recount would be pointless because the ballots would already be lost or forged. Then, the incumbent government stated it would allow a rerun if the court system demanded one. However, the opposition party stated that the courts were at the whims of the government and would not only take too long to make a decision, but would also be under the control of Kibaki. Therefore, it is apparent that neither side of the conflict is willing to compromise; since no compromise can be made, the violence will not be resolved.

Given the current situation in Kenya, it seems that this country, which was previously proclaimed the “most stable democracy in Africa,” will not be so stable anymore.

Huckabee and Obama win Iowa

Well, Huckabee and Obama won the Iowa Caucus for their respective parties. It was actually quite interesting that Huckabee won, seeing as how he operated on a "show-string budget" and is by all means, one of the underdogs in the Republican Party.

Obviously, Huckabee's success to a large degree is the fact that he is a religious (and a Protesant) and is not only a fiscally conservative politician, but also socially conservative and religious in the conventional sense (sorry Romney) of religious with regards to the Republican Party. This aspect of Huckabee makes him strong since there is no other candidate that appeals to the religious right (For example, Guliani is hated by many Christians for his pro-choice stance, which is now something in the middle of pro-choice and pro-life...).

Will Huckabee be another Howard Dean though? I predict much so. Huckabee's popularity will be strong in the "Bible Belt" so to say, because of his affinity amongst the religious conservatives of the party. However, as he gets to the larger and more important coastal cities, where religion is not as large an issue (there was a demographics study done by the Times that substantiates this, I'm too lazy to link it), he will lose votes.

Now, don't get me wrong, Huckabee has some good policy stances. I give hive HEAVY kudos for his anti-IRS and anti-tax code stance. I like his idea of a national sales tax (or Fair Tax). I do not like his overly socially conservative stance though. I don't like the fact that he believes people with ADIS should be "quarantined."

In 1992, Huckabee wrote, "If the federal government is truly serious about doing something with the AIDS virus, we need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague."

"It is difficult to understand the public policy towards AIDS. It is the first time in the history of civilization in which the carriers of a genuine plague have not been isolated from the general population, and in which this deadly disease for which there is no cure is being treated as a civil rights issue instead of the true health crisis it represents."

In any regards, I predict that Huckabee won't be presidential candidate if he continues to be so socially-conservative. Then again, maybe America wants someone this socially-conservative. I sure don't.

Mrs. Bhutto's Death

As most of us know by know, at 6:16 PM today in Pakistan, Mrs. Benazir Bhutto, twice former Prime Minister of Pakistan and first female PM in a Muslim nation was killed after a suicide bomber shot her and exploded a shrapnel filled bomb. While it is not clear whether the gun shots or shrapnels killed as, as there are many conflicting stories, Mrs. Bhutto was pronounced dead at a local hospital nearby the location of the suicide bombing. She was giving a speech at an open rally at the town of Rawalpnindi.

It is a great tragedy that such an event occurred, and even more tragic that she apparently was killed after willingly opening her car window to wave to the crowds, a customary action of hers, when she could have prevented serious injuries had she not done so since she was in her bullet-proof Toyota.

Many protests have erupted in Pakistan over this incident, with many of the disgruntled Pakistanis blaming the incident on Musharraf, calling him a murderer and the likes. Mr. Musharraf himself condemned the attacks and announced three days of national mourning for this horrendous act of terrorism and the unfortunate death of Mrs. Bhutto. Nevertheless, I believe that Mrs. Bhutto's legacy should not be in vain. Now is the time for the Western nations to push for more reform and the increased democratization in the region. Now that the people of Pakistan overwhelmingly despise the actions of the radical Islamists who are currently the prime suspect by analysts for the attacks on Bhutto, we should take advantage of this feeling and finish what Bhutto would have wanted us to do, promote moderate Islam in Muslim nations.

On the news, most candidates have expressed their condolences to Mrs. Bhutto, but none of them are giving solvency to the problem and any actions they will take because of this incident. It is important they give their grief to the people of Pakistan and those close to Mrs. Bhutto. But it is more important that they show the world that this incident is the reason why we must promote moderate Islam in Muslim nations and combat terrorism.

FDA Ban of Foreign Prescription Drugs

I firmly believe that the FDA ban of Foreign Prescription Drugs is wrong. After doing some additional research on this issue, I stumbled on a CATO institute transcript of Roger Pilon,vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies, and his testimony before the Senate's Special Committee on Aging (I didn't even know we made this committee.) Two important points I want to quote from him are...

1. People are already breaking the law: "The reimportation debate is before us, of course, because in recent years, owing in part to the rise of the Internet, Americans in increasing numbers have discovered that the patented prescription drugs they're using cost considerably less abroad. But they've also learned that American law, except under limited circumstances, prohibits them from buying those lower priced drugs. Thus, they're pressing Congress to lift the ban in the hope of lowering their medical bills. But in the meantime, they and many state and local officials are simply ignoring the ban and purchasing drugs abroad."

2. An elimination of the ban on drug reimportation should be Congress' course of action: "Thus, if the reimportation ban were lifted, and market principles and practices were to take its place, it would not follow necessarily that domestic drug prices would drop or that the free-rider problem would abate. {I do, however, believe a free market system would decrease prices.} In a free market, sellers and buyers are free to strike whatever bargains they wish. Americans might thus continue to face high prices if foreigners were unwilling to resell their limited supplies to them. But as price differentials increase, incentives on both sides to breach the market barriers only grow, as we are seeing today, even with a statutory ban in place. Thus, in a world of large differentials, multiple vendors, and ready information, it's not likely that no-resale contracts and supply limits would long stanch the cross-border flow of drugs. Companies in that case would have no choice but to adjust prices, raising them abroad and/or lowering them here sufficiently to discourage parallel trading."

A better resource to consider is Pilon's actual original CATO study about eliminating the ban.

By the way...

That Chavez prediction about the referendum failing, who predicted that? That's right. I did.

Chavez and his constitution

So speaking of politicians who are trying to change the constitution, a hot trend in Latin America (just like adopting foreign babies seemed like a hot trend for celebrities last year), let's go to the politician who many say started the trend, Chavez of Venezuela. Many political analysts have stated in the past that Hugo Chavez, current President of Venezuela, has been tightening his grip over his nation. Indeed, as the BBC of November 26, 2007 notes, Chavez has been well known for his nationalization of many foreign oil companies and his censorship of anti-government organizations, newspapers, and radio shows. All of his domestic actions indicate an agenda towards an increasingly authoritarian government that includes taking away some essential liberties, including the right to free speech. As the US News and World Review of November 26, 2007 reports, over the past few months, Chavez has been trying to pass a new constitutional amendment in the form of a referendum to abolish the term cap on a president to enable him to run for a fourth time, which currently is banned in the Venezuelan constitution. As a result of the fact that many political analysts, some political analyst like Saul Hudson of Reuters believe such a referendum will be likely passed. However, Brian Ellsworth of Reuters disagrees with this belief noting in his November 26, 2007 article that many Venezuelans are growing discontent with Chavez and that he is losing control of his country. There is some truth to that statement, Chavez seems to be loosing some support of the people and control of his country.

According to the Reuters of November 26, 2007, new “polls show Venezuelans [are] shying away from the Cuba ally's drive for socialism in the OPEC nation.” Such a decrease in support comes from the fact that many Venezuelans oppose Chavez’s attempts to centralize more power and become more authoritarian. In fact, Chavez’s latest reform package he drafted to the Venezuelan congress consisted of measures including removing limits on presidential re-election, increasing Chavez’s direct control over foreign currency reserves, and expanding his power to expropriate private property and allow for media censorship during political emergencies, according to the Wall Street Journal of the same date. Chavez’s so called reform package has become so unpopular that one poll conducted even found that the Venezuelans who said “no” to the package had a ten percent lead over the “yes” group. The Washington Post of November 26, 2007 attributes this growing unpopularity of the Chavez’s policies to “nagging shortages of basic food products like milk and eggs.”

Chavez is not only losing control of the people, but he has also lost some of his former political allies in the past several weeks. According to the Reuters of November 26, 2007, Defense Minister Raul Baduel, who in 2002 helped quell an attempted coup against Chavez, broke ranks from Chavez and called his reform campaign a "coup." Furthermore, the second largest party of the president's coalition left the coalition, criticizing Chavez’s new plans and weakening his political base. The Economist of November 26, 2007 notes the part of the reason that Chavez is losing so much support at home is because he is creating so much tension abroad. Just recently, Chavez called Colombia's president a liar, is considering stopping the $4.1 billion worth of trade with Colombia, and froze ties with Spain until King Juan Carlos apologized for telling him to "shut up" at a summit this month. Such international conflict has hurt Chavez’s economy, reducing the amount of trade and thereby causing domestic strife as well. The Associated Press of November 26, 2007 adds that such groups leaving signifies that Congress is starting to distance itself away from Chavez, meaning it will be harder for Chavez to get any new radical packages passed.

Now, whether or not the decreasing popularity of Chavez will be enough to reject the December 22, 2007 constitutional referendum is still largely a speculative matter and even whether such a rejection would push Chavez to even more desperate measures- such as a military dictatorship- is another issue.

Evo Morales' Problematic Situation

It’s no secret that Bolivia has been on a track course much like Venezuela, Bolivia’s Evo Morales, current president of the country, has stated so himself. In fact, one of Morales’ political allies and mentors has been none other than Hugo Chavez, President of Venezuela. Such a role model has been all too apparent, as Morales is attempting to pull off a similar constitutional maneuver that Chavez is currently attempting as well, thereby making Morales what I call Chavez's shadow clone.

But I digress. As the BBC of November 27, 2007 reports, the constitutional draft Morales has been pushing for was violently met with protests in the Sucre region started November 24 after some 150 pro-government delegates to a Constituent Assembly on Saturday approved the outlines of a new draft constitution. The opposition boycotted the meeting and thus the draft constitution was easily passed. One of the provisions of the constitutional package is a removal of the term limits to the Bolivian presidency, a controversial change that is also the centerpiece of Venezuela’s current constitutional reform package. Given the fact that protests have occurred in response to this new draft proposal, one wonders just how south Morale's plan has gone. Today, let's consider the this recent development, which has been quite the problematic thorn in Morales' administration.

Clearly, the riots are indicative of a strong disapproval of Morales’ current plan. While Morales was elected to office on his leftists, almost-socialist policies, his new political agenda is starkly similar to that of Venezuela’s authoritarian, leftist government. The Reuters UK of November 26, 2007 reports that many Bolivians are unhappy with this change. While they are happy with socialist welfare policies and land reforms, they do not want to much power centralized into the government. The BBC of the same date adds that such Bolivians fear the loss of rights at the hands of corrupt governments. The riots, which left three dead and at least 130 injured, according to the Bloomberg of November 26, 2007, has been merely one of many riots that have shown the country’s immense dislike of the new draft constitution. In fact, the reason why the Constituent Assembly was even in Sucre to pass the outlines of the new constitution was because in August of this year, protests in La Paz, the administrative capital of the country, prevented the Constituent Assembly from voting on the issue.

But it's not just the growing discontent of the people that's so problematic; the presence of the draft constitution has strengthened the opposition party. As the Agence France Presse of November 26, 2007 reports, former Bolivian president Jorge Quiroga, a key opposition figure, claimed the proposed constitution was "drafted in a barracks, written with rifles and bayonets, and stained with the blood of the people of Sucre." Such comments and many others have increased the emotional and political appeal of opposition leaders. Opposition leaders have been gaining in popularity and in political clout primarily because of the presence of this new constitutional draft. Because of the highly unpopular nature of the draft constitution and because of comments by Morales such as "civil disobedience isn't democracy, and we hope the Bolivian people ... identify these traitors, the people who are against the nation and want to damage this process of change.” Morale’s refusal to acknowledge any criticism against his new constitutional plan has alienated many of his followers and pushed many Bolivians into the hands of opposition leaders.

These two previously mentioned factors have culminated in the most dangerous aspect of Morale's unpopular draft constitution- ie, the increased the willingness of the Bolivian populous to take more actions of civil disobedience against their government. Although Morales harshly condemned anyone who would engage in civil disobedience, that clearly didn’t spot the riots in Sucre in happening. In fact, the appearance of the draft constitution has made the Bolivian people more willing to take actions of civil disobedience to protest such plans by the current government. According to the BBC of November 26, 2007, opposition leaders in six of Bolivia’s nine provinces called for a general strike by the Bolivian people today to protest the draft constitution of Morales. As the All Headline News of November 27, 2007 notes, such a bold political move would only have been possible because of the highly unpopular constitutional draft. Today's BBC noted that while the strikes (still ongoing) did paralyze some of the financial centers of Bolivia, the Bolivian Congress passed a motion that gave greater flexibility to the Constituent Assembly (the body that passed the outline of the constitution) to convene and took budget money from several cities, thereby showing the government' refusal to listen to the protesters. This action will increase tensions in the country between government and people.

Morales has a problem: The Bolivian people have already spoken; they reject this new draft constitution despite Morales' aggressive push for this plan. Given the uncompromising mentality Morales has to this issue, it seems that unfortunately, as opposition lawmaker Fernando Messmer stated today, "There will be violence, there will be clashes."

French youth riots: déjà vu all over again!

It was a déjà vu all over again. It was like the November 2005 youth riots in which minority youth clashed with Frances police in poor neighborhoods called banlieues over the racial tensions and poor socioeconomic conditions of such minority youth. In fact, it was just like a continuation of the 2005 protests. The Independent of November 27, 2007 reports that new French youth riots have erupted through France again, especially in the Clichy region: “A mob of angry youths left a trail of fire and destruction through the northern suburbs of Paris after two teenage boys riding a mini-motorbike were killed in a collision with a police car.” As the BBC of November 26, 2007 notes, Sarkozy reacted to this recent development, which is similar to the fatal youth riot of 2005 leading to the increased unpopularity of former French president Chirac, by stating in a recent press conference that the most important thing was to be calm: “Let everyone cool down and let justice determine who is responsible for what.” However, can such cool happen in France? Nope, these riots have come back to haunt France much like bad gun jokes haunt our very own Cheney.

Sorry Sarkozy, looks like you're going to have to learn the lesson the hard; since neither you, nor your government learned the lesson last time.

Ok, but before I explain why such riots won't be quelled any time soon, it is crucial to consider why such riots have occurred. As the Wall Street Journal of November 26, 2007 reports, the riots have been caused by two recent deaths in France’s Villiers-le-Bel in which two African teenagers, aged fifteen and sixteen were killed after being hit by a police car. While the police has asserted that the two youth were accidentally killed after they sped through a red light on unlicensed motorbikes without helmets. However, many of the French youth at the scene claim that the police deliberately hit the two youth then left the scene without helping them, thereby leaving them to die. Such a disparity in descriptions has been the initial spark in a riot that has been waiting to erupt for ages. One likens the current situation in France to a small spark being set off near tinder and a keg of gunpowder.

Ho'kay, so that's the spark. What was the gunpowder? I don't think the root of the problem is not the deaths of two African teenagers. According to the Time Online of November 26, 2007, after the two deaths at Villiers-le-Bel on Sunday night, a mob of 150 youths went on a three mile rampage, “burning one police sub-station and ransacking another… 40 new cars [were burned]…Twenty-five policemen and a fireman were injured, two seriously.” What could have provoked such a violent reaction? As many French politicians and officials have correctly pointed out, it’s the lack of reform promised after the 2005 French youth riots. The source of the tensions between the state and the French youth is their socioeconomic condition and the racial tensions they feel from being discriminatorily treated by the rest of French society. After the 2005 riots, politicians in France claimed they saw the error of their ways and promised to help pull such youth out of their miserable conditions and help integrate them into French society. The Washington Post of November 27, 2007 cites François Hollande, the Socialist Party leader, who criticized the government’s failure to prevent such riots from happening: “Promises were made. We want to see the results. How long have we been talking about a ‘plan for the suburbs’?” Furthermore, Dominique de Villepin, the former was Prime Minister during the 2005 French youth riot demanded that the government take action now: “The sense of injustice that was felt at Clichy-sous-Bois is being felt today at Villiers-le-Bel,” he said. The problem, however, is that the government has not taken any real steps to reform the poor ethnic parts of France. Since the government has not taken steps to improve the infrastructure of such places, integrate por ethnic youth into French society, and improved the economic situation in such locations, the riots cannot be quelled. It is already too late to make reforms now.

However, what kind of action will solve the problems in the banlieues of France? Certainly, it cannot be police force. Matching brutality with brutality was the tactic of French police in the 2005 French youth riots, which failed horribly. As the Times Online of November 26, 2007 notes, the 2005 riots resulted in two hundred nights of rioting, 8, 973 torched vehicles, 2,888 arrests, and one death. A lesson the French government should at least have learned, if not the importance of reforming such poor neighborhoods, is that police force will not solve the problems. If the instigator of such tensions between the poor multiracial sections of France and the rest of France is the tensions felt between the poorer minorities and the police, then police force will certainly only enflame more violent response.

So, if reforms are too late and police brutality will only spur more violence, I think we can see where this is headed. Yes, looks like Sarkozy is between a rock and a hard place. Looks like he'll have to do damage control now by implementing reform packages to improve such poor neighborhoods ASAP as well as crack down on the most serious offenders of disturbing the peace in France. Obviously, while such dissenters cannot be allowed to run rampant, they send a clear message of the need of change, a message that should be listened to by the French government.

¿Plan México? ¡Pienso que no!

As the Economist of October 27, 2007 reported, on October 22nd of this year, the United States and Mexico signed an agreement that renewed both side's efforts to crack down on the drug cartels of Mexico in which the United States would send "$1.4 billion in aid over the next three years to fight drug traffickers."

Great! If you've seen the iRack Mad TV parody before, then you'll know how futile it is to throw money at the iRack. You can't just give Mexico "aircraft... scanning equipment at the border, and new communications systems, training and technical advice for Mexican police, including help on a witness-protection programme" and expect that to be a good solution. It's costly, and it doesn't target the root of the problem.

Allow me to explain: this new agreement reached after weeks of talks by negotiators from President Bush of the United States and President Calderon of Mexico is not bad. Its intentions are good. However, expensive technological trinkets will only have limited success vis-a-vis reducing drug trafficking in Mexico. The new plan, dubbed "Plan Mexico" by many newspapers, does not target the heart of the problem.

“They are overemphasizing the technology.”
-Luis Astorga of the National Autonomous University in Mexico City.

The heart of the problem is that poverty is a widespread structural problem in Mexico that creates a situation in where normally law abiding citizens of Mexico help the drug cartel through their desperation for money. This problems even infects Mexico's local policemen who oftentimes are the ones who help the drug cartels. Thus, the reason why the new plan will be ineffective is because the technology can only help insomuch as the authorities using the technology are actually using it to crack down on the drug cartels in their country. However, if such authorities are helping the drug cartel and corrupt, then that technology will not reduce the drug trafficking in Mexico.

Speaking of technology, many Mexican officials that believe if America would stop selling the drug traffickers arms and weapons, then maybe Mexico's drug cartel wouldn't be as powerful. The October 20, 2007 LA Times notes: "An estimated 95% of weapons confiscated from suspected criminals in Mexico were first sold legally in the United States, officials in both countries say."

Hm... I wonder what could be a more effective way to help Mexico fight the War on Drugs... Give that $1.4 billion to our Border Patrol and ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency to prevent the exporting of arms illegally to Mexico (since it is illegal to carry arms and ammunition to Mexico from America) and make our borders a safer place. We're complaining that drugs are entering our country? How about we get tighter borders and promote more US investment in Mexico and have Mexico create new legislation to improve their nation's economy, set up a better welfare system (maybe), and get more worker rights laws in place in addition to their already preexisting policy of using brute force to deal with the drug cartels of Mexico (Calderon sent 30,000 troops last December to six Mexican states that were known bastions of drug cartels).

US places sanctions in Iran... again.

What's new here? Nothing. America has placed sanctions in Iran before, has tried and failed to place UN sanctions on Iran, got one to work in December of 2006, are still trying to get more sanctions on Iran, and now they have another one.

According to the BBC of October 25, 2007:

"The US has stepped up its sanctions on Iran for "supporting terrorists" and pursuing nuclear activities. The new measures target the finances of Iran's Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and three state-owned banks."

Do sanctions work? I would have to say that on balance it does not. Certainly, in the case of the South African apartheid, it did work. But in other cases, especially the Darfur issue, it has not worked. I think that the reason for this is that we live in an increasing globalized society. The obvious logical extrapolation to that is the decreased effect one economy can have another's economy. The US taking unilateral of even weak multilateral sanctions against Iran will have highly limited effects compared to the strong multilateral response in the case of South Africa because the other countries that are not in support or bound to honor the sanction will fill in the vacant spots of trade and what not and thus continue to prop up that nation's economy.

In other words, because of globalization and the fact that we all trade with one another,when one or several countries to ban trading with a nation in a limited regard, it is ineffective because the targeted country can find other ways to fill in that missing trade by trading with other countries. The only way for sanctions to truly work is for it to be a strong multilateral response.

On Tony Blaire in Oakland

Tony Blaire gave a speech at Paramount Theatre in Oakland yesterday, Tuesday October 23, 2007 on the topic of gloalization. Not that this note is a bad thing, but his "link" of globalization was a weak one, since his speech was more about the current state of affairs of our nation, his nation, and the evolution of global politics over the past few years. Regardless, the content of his speech was excellent and his humor, though largely with jokes unrelated to the topic at hand, well placed.

Here are some quotes (quoted as accurately as I can remember) that I would have to say "hear, hear" to:

"Globalization is a fact, but the values with which we approach it are not. We must approach this global phenomenon with not only democracy and freedom, but also justice, tolerance, and opportunity."

"Globalization is truth. We are becoming more interconnected with one another and our economies are going interdependent of one another as well. The absolute corollary to that is care for one another."

"A good leader is one who does what he believes is correct."

Props to Mr. Blaire, and props to his defense of himself with regards to his unpopular decision to support the US in the War on Terror and in Iraq. I respect his insight, I hope his Middle East Envoy position yields him more success, and I admire his ability to make decisions that he felt were correct despite being unpopular- for a politician who is unpopular for making choices he feels is right is better than a politicians paralyzed by fear, public opinion, and inaction.