Wow. That was a long hiatus.

I just got finished with my final exam for my new job. I realized that I haven't been on in three months. wow.

A lot has happened in three months, and I've missed it all. I'm going to have to remedy that.

I wonder if I still have the old rage within me....

The FSWE and the UN

I took the Foreign Service Written Exam last Saturday, and on the essay portion was a question on the United Nations, one of my favorite topics. I think I can say that without breaking my confidentiality agreement....

Anyway, I was thinking about the UN today, talking it over with my wife, and I was thinking about the issue we have with Iraq (and now Iran) obtaining nuclear (nukular?) weapons and the almost-failure of the international community to address issues like WMD, ballistic missile testing by North Korea, the black market fire sale on over 100 missing tactical battlefield nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union, and the like. It struck me that the international community, as expressed through the United Nations, is finally drafting a resolution to take a stance on the GENOCIDE in the Sudan and adopt a strong position against the Sudanese government's complicity in the human rights violations of the Janjaweed.

'Bout fuckin' time.

It's been three years since the (former) United States' Secretary of State, the estimable Colin Powell, stood up in the UN and implored the international body politic to act on the slaughter of black farmers by arab herders. And let me say, just for the record, that it's about time. It took the UN three years to act on a BLATANT campaign of GENOCIDE, quite possibly the worst human rights violation IMAGINABLE!

It started me thinking, and I think I understand a fundamental problem with the international community, and with the United Nations. It's set up in a Cold War paradigm, one that was set up to address a set of issues that are no longer dominant in the international community. We no longer have a paradigm of East versus West, Communism versus Democracy, the United States of America versus the Soviet Union. But that is what the United Nations was created to deal with.

The world has changed. And the UN needs to keep pace. It should NOT take three years for the international community to do something about genocide. If that's the case, then the UN does not have the ability to react to threats to the human community in a timely fashion. If that's the case, then there needs to be a mechanism in place that will allow the international community to respond in a matter of days, weeks, or (at the very most) months to credible reports of human rights violations. If that's the case, then something has to change in the international community.

I understand that the Bush administration cooked the books on Iraq. But imagine for a second that they didn't. Imagine that Saddam had a nuclear program that was well developed. Imagine that he was two years away from developing a 50 megaton nuclear bomb, slightly larger than either nuclear weapon used in the history of warfare. Imagine that they had their current delivery technology, and could only use the Scud II to reliably deliver that warhead. To Tel Aviv.

I submit to you that the international community wouldn't do anything about it. It took them three years to try to do anything about GENOCIDE!

THIS IS THE SAME SHIT THAT HITLER WAS GUILTY OF!

Aah, when you rank up there with Hitler, you know you're at the top of the "do not fail to depose" list.

But they haven't done anything about the Sudan in three years, so what makes anyone believe that the UN would do anything effectual about Saddam in three years, even if they got an inkling that they were within two years of maybe building a bomb?

What did they do about A Q Khan? And now NORTH FUCKING KOREA has the bomb and a ballistic missile that was successfully launched over all of Japan and into the Pacific Ocean.

So let's go back to our original scenario. Somebody out there is working on the bomb. They already have a delivery mechanism that threatens a valued ally, coupled with a leader that has threatened to wipe that ally off the face of the map. They may be within two years of having the technology to build that bomb and blow shit up in a way that makes Hiroshima look like amateur night at the Apollo. It'll take the international community three years to draft a resolution, and five years to resolve to send in troops. By that time, our hypothetical nation will already have the bomb. What is the solution? To have NATO send in troops? (no, it'd take a bit too long to be effective.) To allow a nation to go it alone? (no, it'd make them war criminals.) What's left?

A coalition of the willing. And how pathetic is that?

I think that there are four situations that are recognized by the international community, in descending order of legitimacy. First, there's the UN, whose actions are greeted universally (by its member states) as being a legitimate expression of the international community. Then, there are organizations like NATO and the African Union, who are long-standing multi-national communities tasked with the obligation of protecting and defending those in need, and who need a large number of states to agree on the legitimacy on the mission. Third, so called "coalitions of the willing", which could range from our coalition in Iraq to a "coalition" between Russia and The Ukraine in carpet bombing Chechnyan rebels. It's marginally more acceptable than option four. Which is a unilateral invasion of a sovereign nation, which has been condemned by the majority of the international community as the equivalent of the "war crime".

So we can't get the UN to respond in the Sudan inside of three years? No real surprise. That's typical of the UN. And it's tough to get NATO to respond, although the AU sent in troops after about a year and a half, even though the collected nations of Africa have less resources to devote to the AU's defense fund than the state of Wyoming collects in income tax on an annual basis. So what's left?

I'm a big fan of the idea of the UN, but NOT of the current structure of the UN. We need to reform the UN, in a BIG way. We need the international community to have an internal organization with the responsibility and power to STOP the Sudan in a matter of months. A panel that can take quick and decisive action against someone like A Q Khan. A group that can deal with a fast paced crisis, and I mean CRISIS, like America dealt with in 1962 when Kennedy (successfully) stopped the Soviet Union from basing something like 17 short and medium range ballistic nuclear weapons in Cuba. Because if the International community can't deal with the threat of nuclear proliferation IMMEDIATELY and DECISIVELY, then someone else has to.

And that's scary.

Let's do what we can to make sure that the UN can do something about genocide, nuclear proliferation, and other internationally recognized unacceptable state actions. Because if the UN can't do anything, which is the ideal paradigm for dealing with international threats, someone will have to step in and administer "vigilate" justice. And, in all honesty, with a defense budget that in the year 2000 was as large as the REST OF THE WORLD'S COMBINED, the United States is the only real option for administering said unilateral sanctions.

And that fucking TERRIFIES me.

Time to piss Mia off....

Mia, who is a most eloquent writer, asked me to give my two cents on the immigration issue. In my ordinary, briefly worded manner, I will respond, and I will respond directly to you, Mia:

I hope that being an illegal immigrant becomes a felony.

Now, before you blow a gasket in that pretty little head of yours, let me tell you why. It's probably not for the reason that you would think. It's not because I have a problem with el Mexicanos, or any hispanics, for that matter. It's because I don't think that it'll stick, and that it would cost the Republicanos the Hispanic vote for the next forty years. Frist is pushing hard for making illegal immigration a felony, and it could kill him, and his entire party, for a generation, in much the same way that Johnson handed the South to the Republicans when he signed the Civil Rights legislation in '66. Lemme 'splain.

I work in the restaurant business, and our dish crew is all Mexicanos. They've been teaching me smatterings of Spanish for the past two years, and I (ironically enough) have been teaching one of them common greetings in Arabic. It's been fun, and they're generally a decent bunch of guys. I could be friends with two of them if it wasn't for the pesky language barrier, but since the extent of our conversation ends up being "que pasa", "como es stas", and slang about delicate parts of the human anatomy, we haven't found many common interests.

I've heard the arguement that illegal immigrants take jobs that legals and citizens wouldn't take, and I disagree with some of it. In the agricultural business, for the most part, I agree. Now, John McCain said that he could offer $50 an hour to go pick veggies in Huma, Arizona, and he doesn't think any American would do it. For $400 a day, I'd do it, and do it without complaining. That's an income equivalent to $100,000 a year for the duration of the growing season, and I can't think of anywhere else I could make that kind of money except Iraq. But it's a moot point, because McCain was speaking hypothetically, and I sure as hell wouldn't do it for the 6-14 dollars an hour that most agri-workers actually make, and that's the reality of the situation. And few Americans would, if any.

I have a friend who is a roofer; it's hard, physical labor, often in crappy weather, and they get paid between 10 and 15 an hour for it. He makes more, because he's a foreman, but his crew makes a decent salary for being low-skilled workers. And he's learning to speak Spanish, because a lot of his crew is comprised of immigrant labor. Most of it illegal.

What do I think about that? To be honest, I don't know. I do not believe in the unregulated flow of either capital OR labor. I think that immigration SHOULD be regulated. I don't believe in quotas from certain countries. I do believe that there should be special categories for political or religious refugees. I do believe that there should be special categories for people who can contribute specific skills and talents to our country, like scientists and engineers. And I do believe that the "huddled masses" should be invited from all over the world, so that America has a wide variety of races, ethnicities, languages, ad infinitum. These are things that I think are good for America. I believe in the "mixing bowl" concept of what the USA should be.

On the other hand, I don't agree with illegal immigration. I think that it's important for countries to control their borders. Can't we have a real guest worker program, designed to keep tabs on those who come into the country for gainful employment in a way that allows them to do jobs that there is a demand for? One that isn't being fulfilled by American labor?

The law of supply and demand vis a vie labor suggests that if there is a large demand and small supply for jobs, that wages will go down, wheras if there is a large demand and small supply for labor, wages will go up. I tend to agree with that. That's bad for my roofer friend. His wages are depressed because of competition. It doesn't have any bearing on wages in agri-business, where Americans won't do the job until wages become cost-prohibitive.

What it comes down to is that I think that guest workers SHOULD be allowed in the country, but only for jobs that Americans (including legal immigrants) either can't or won't do. And real, honest analyses should be done to figure out what and how many of those jobs are available. Right now I think that we're too heavily entrenched in the spin to see the truth on the numbers. But it should be regulated, monitored, "blue-carded", et cetera.

------------------------------------------------

Regarding the illegal immigrant debate and 9-11, I think it's all a political ploy. All of the 9-11 hijackers came here legally, and that didn't stop them from killing. Anyone who uses 9-11 as a justification to crack down on people who swim the Rio Grande are either lying, misinformed, or stupid. There's no two ways about that.

And I hope that Mia doesn't hate me now....

You say potatoe, I say potato....

I was listening to a reporter from the Israeli newspaper Herat on C-SPAN this morning (because I'm a big nerd). As they often do, a caller decided to grace the world with her opinion, which, as they often do, caused me to start screaming at my radio. Which is just more evidence of my Irish temper. The reporter was talking about the fact that polls show Qadima leading Labor in tomorrows parliamentary election by ten mandates (kind of like seats in parliament) and that it looked like a foregone conclusion that Qadima would win pretty handily. The caller asked a question to the effect of, "If the party that you don't want to win ends up winning in the election, are you going to break off relations with them like you did with the Palestinians?" It was an obvious reference to the Hamas victory in the Palestinian election.

And that's when I kind of lost it.

Will someone please explain to me the moral equivalence between breaking off relations with a Hamas controlled Palestinian government and a Labor controlled Israeli government? The last time I checked, Hamas was advocating driving the Israelis into the sea, wiping them off the face of the Middle East, whereas Labor was advocating taking a more centrist approach to the Palestinians and conceding to them much more than their main adversary, Likud (in pre-Qadima days). Even if they WERE hard liners, they aren't an internationally recognized terrorist organization, which is why so many nations have told Hamas that they won't be invited to further negotiations until they give up the aspects of their position and charter that advocate non-state violence and violence against civilians!

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not a Zionist. I'm a big proponent of the two state solution, and I really think that something LIKE the pre-1968 borders needs to be agreed upon. I also believe in Palestinian sovereignty and dignity, and I think we should continue to give aid to the Palestinian people through charities and agencies that don't go through their government (WHO, UNICEF, et cetera). And I think that the Hamas government should be engaged, lest we run the risk of having them disengage from the international political scene and become even more steadfast in their hard line position. But we're not engaging them in a meaningful way right now, and it's understandable why, given the fact that they are directly responsible for much of the non-state violence in Israel, they are an armed branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, et cetera.

But still, there's no comparison.

Clarion Call to the Dems:

Everyone who will listen, I want to make a suggestion:

The Dubai Ports deal has given us an example of what happens when the American Public's concerns about security conflict with Bush's Big Business Agenda. Big Business wins. I urge everyone who is upset about the way that Bush has been using the phrases "national security", "9-11", and "the War on Terror" to scare the American Public into accepting the egregious actions of this administration to start a dialogue about what the president means when he uses these words. Start asking who benefits financially from a policy, any time he pulls the security trump card. And hammer this point home, religiously, fanatically, incessantly--hell, "Republicanly"--that Bush is more concerned with financial profit than addressing the security concerns of the American people.

Tell everyone that when Money and Security are at odds, Bush is more concerned with Money. Make it your one talking point, every time a conversation about Bush comes up. Whenever you hear anything about this administration that is about security, remind everyone that he's more than willing to ignore the concerns of the American people vis a vie security if it protects his Big Business Agenda. Make it so that no Republican pundit can say anything about his administration without starting a debate over Security vs. Big Business, just like the Republicans did with Kerry and the Swift Boats controversy.

And tell everyone. Tell everyone who will listen. Send them a link here, repost this message, create your own post on this issue, just get the word out the door. Get it to anyone who will listen, anyone with a sympathetic ear, anyone who feels like something isn't right when Bush et al says that they are doing something for the safety of the American people. Remind them that when push comes to shove, security vs Big Business, Bush will sell out the security of the American people so that his friends can make money. Get everyone you can to repeat this message: Bush will sell out on security to make money.

Maybe then, if we all come together, if we're all saying it all the time, maybe then the American Public will hear us and realize how bad it is.

Oh Dubai... Where has the love gone....

I've been paying attention to this entire Dubai Ports World deal, and I have to say, I'm not surprised at yesterday's news. It's just another example of how the President and his crewe manage to exculpate themselves from every controversy that in which they become embroiled.

I'm actually surprised that I haven't seen more of an imbruglio on the blogs about this issue, but since there seems to be only light attention paid to the deal (Big Pharoah and Daily Scorecard are the only two that I've seen in my little list), I thought I'd chime in.

I'm of the opinion, personally, that Dubai has been very pro-US officially, even though there is an undercurrent of anti-US hostility there. We have our largest US basing facilities in Dubai, with the largest US ship fleet outside of the US currently stationed at their ports and a great number of warplanes stationed at an Air Force base there. The Pentagon has often reviewed and never (to my knowledge) found lacking the security at their ports, which is one of the reasons that our military can do such brisk business through Dubai. They have been supportive of our presence in the region, are very pro-US business, support a large US expat community, and are progressive in the Muslim world in a number of ways.

On the other hand, they don't recognize Israel, they support Hamas, and they still have some of the more medieval codes of laws on the books in the Muslim Middle East (although they're not quite as bad as their big sister, Saudi Arabia). Those are serious concerns, but we do business with other countries who have human rights records or political positions that disagree with ours, so why should this be any different? Those are serious concerns, but they're not a reason to scuttle a business deal.

But the public here in the USA is up in arms about DPW. Why? They say security. I say the boogey man.

So the idea of a Dubai controlled company running terminals at 6 US ports is so scary to 71% of the American public that the issue had managed to do something that NOBODY saw coming--they made the Republicans divided and the Democrats united.

For the first time in 60 years.

But with overwhelming support for a bill to kill the deal in Congress, Bush springs into action threatening a very unpopular veto. The American public wakes up, Bush's poll numbers drop to my waist size, and pundits start using the term "lame duck" a lot more (except on Fox, where they're still using the term "Best President Ever").

But there is a reason to be concerned with the deal, and it has little if anything to do with terrorism. Dubai has been handling sensitive information about US shipping for years, between all of the ships that the UAE brings to port in America and the US Naval ships stationed there. They've provided good enough security for us in the past, even if it wasn't in our ports. The thing that concerns me is their financials. The UAE's reputation when it comes to transparancy has been, shall we say, "less than stellar". They're trying to straddle two different economic models, that of the west and that of the Middle East, and as a result too much business is done not only without oversight, but without the POTENTIAL for oversight. Anyone remember the International Bank of Credit and Commerce? I'll give you a hint--they were the biggest money laundering operation in history, and their two biggest clients were the CIA and UBL. If we want Dubai et al to be involved in the "War on Terra", it would be in our best interests to not give them exceptions to accountability rules, which is exactly what happened and why the Treasury department should be run up a flagpole on this one. We literally HAD TO MAKE EXCEPTIONS to our accounting rules just to let this deal go through!

There's also the concern over whether or not we want companies owned by foreign governments owning land in "sensitive areas", like the ports. But that should be a drawn out, well reasoned, healthy public debate rather than a scare-fest like this. And it should apply to companies owned by Canada just as quickly as those owned by the UAE.

So Bush threatened to veto a popular bill, and the conditions for the proverbial rock and hard place were set. How could he wiggle out of this one?

Back room deals, y'all. Back room deals. Yesterday the Prime Minister of Dubai announced that they will be transferring control over to Americans to not further threaten the relations between our countries. And they need this relationship. We support them militarily and have too many economic interests in their country to have us pull out.

So Bush is off the hook again? That's the question. But I don't think the answer is that simple. The controversy has managed to tarnish his image with a majority of Americans, something that Valerie Plame, the NSA Wiretaps, the Abramoff scandal, and even the War in Iraq hadn't been able to do. Maybe it's a culmination of all of these things, but now I think that the tarnish has finally stuck. I predict that Bush's poll numbers will jump up to about 40% and languish there and that the Republican party will continue to be divided over supporting the president's policies and distancing themselves from him. Because now Bush has done something he hadn't done before--he "betrayed" the security of the American people.

He's been playing the security card since 9-11, using it as trump card to do just about anything, including wipe with the constitution. And he's always justified doing things that were unpopular by playing to the peoples' fears. But now he's gambled against the peoples' fears and he's been forced to beat a quiet retreat, to shift the focus again. But when it comes time for him to say "We've got to cut taxes to the wealthiest Americans so that the Terrorists can't attack us over here", I suspect that now people will remember this, and wonder whether he's more concerned with protecting the average citizen against terrorism or just trying to make more money for big corporations. And if he can't play the trump card any more, he may just have to fold.

Here's Johnny

It's been a while since I've posted, and I was thinking about letting my blog die a quiet death, as do so many web pages. But I got an email from a voice that I hadn't heard from for a while. Dumpendebat asked me if he could encourage me to keep it up, so, in the spirit of our Commander in Chief...

IT'S A MANDATE! THE MASSES HAVE SPOKEN!

Sure, it's just one email, but that's enough for me! All of my enduring fan(s) can rejoice! I'm going to start posting again, making time for giving my opinion to all of my reader(s)!

But I'm a little bit out of the loop--has anything interesting happened in the past three months?