i never thought i'd say this about an article from the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday from Britain - but this is a great article :-) it's so well written that i don't think i need a comment to contextualize it.

enjoy it!



http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/03/fake_caring_abo.html
Fake caring about Zimbabwe

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Do I care about Zimbabwe? Should you? Every few months, the British media, together with a certain number of politicians, make a fuss about the misery now afflicting that sad country. They sympathise with its ill-fed, oppressed people and with the leaders of its opposition movements. Pictures and reports are published of the horrible beatings given to those who dare to oppose the country's tyrant, Robert Mugabe. The BBC makes a great to-do about how it is banned from Zimbabwe but still manages to get information out.


Nobody can read these accounts without a feeling of outrage and a desire to do or say something. But in my view this is in fact a selfish impulse, unless you are prepared to act personally in some way that will improve matters. We become inflamed with righteous anger about these things, only to prove to ourselves that we are nice, civilised people. In truth, we have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it.


And if we did, it would probably fail. I don't know how many of those who call for intervention in Zimbabwe could find it on a map, but the fact that the country has no coastline could present a small problem to anyone who wanted to invade it. In any case, this is all futile stuff.


The disastrous and irreparable defeat of British arms by the Japanese in Singapore in 1942 finished the British empire for all time, though it would take a little while for this truth to become obvious. India went first, and, after a pause ended by the Suez fiasco, the rest followed soon afterwards. Not only could we not afford the empire any more. Our reputation for invincibility had been smashed by Japan, and we had lost the psychological advantage we had gained in the 18th century and had reinforced by our merciless crushing of the Indian mutiny in 1857.


All over Asia, the Japanese had been careful to see that captured British officers and soldiers were visible to their former colonial subjects, reduced to the status of humiliated, suppliant slaves. The effects of this were enormous and permanent in Asia, and word spread to Africa quite quickly.


Britain, which during the war against Hitler was understandably paying less attention to the Empire than it would otherwise have done, was slow to realise how much things had changed. But by the end of the 1950s, its leaders decided it could not afford an African colonial empire.


Its influence in the area has been in decline ever since, replaced by the USA, China, Cuba and - to a surprisingly small extent - Russia. The problem with Zimbabwe, formerly Southern Rhodesia, was that it was already semi-independent and self-governing in any case, with a white minority that did not wish to lose its privileged way of life because of Britain's decline. It was very difficult for a British government, trying to soothe the feelings of the United Nations and to scrub away all traces of unfashionable colonial supremacy, to force the Southern Rhodesians into giving up their power. They had good reason to suspect that, when they did, they would swiftly lose their pampered way of life.


So London devoted much of the late 1960s and all the 1970s to trying to force a settlement there that would enable the British government to avoid all future responsibility and appear in tune with modern thinking. This ended in 1979, under the Thatcher government but endorsed by the whole British establishment, with the Lancaster House agreement.


This handed Zimbabwe to the sinister Robert Mugabe - mainly because he was too politically and militarily strong to be denied. there were better men available, but they were not strong enough, and the rigged elections which followed confirmed the Lancaster House settlement


The history of that process is long, complicated and not specially honourable on any side. It involves, as so often, the curious paradox that the campaigners for 'freedom' turned out to be tyrants themselves once they had power, and that life under the 'colonial oppressors' was in many ways more prosperous and peaceful than it was to become later. You do not have to be a sympathiser of Ian Smith, the leader of the Rhodesian Front and the chief opponent of majority rule, to recognise that Robert Mugabe has done terrible damage to the country and its people. You do not have to be a partisan of Robert Mugabe to recognise that Smith's Southern Rhodesia was a state based on racial discrimination, that could not survive and should not have survived as it was. Was this unavoidable? Possibly.

Mugabeepa2102_228x197

Intelligent British politicians and diplomats knew, or at least suspected back in the 1950s and 1960s that the end of empire might well mean severe suffering for the people involved. Most of them probably privately admitted that - as in India in 1947 - this country simply no longer had the strength to rule, and that it must make the best of a very bad bargain by trying to leave behind as much democracy, law and freedom, and as strong an economy, as it could manage.


Many of the British colonial administrators, in Africa and Asia, were genuinely devoted men who had worked very hard to bring incorruptible justice, education and prosperity. Such men did all that they could to leave good things behind - and I am always greatly moved by two legacies that seem to have lasted specially well.


Even where elections are rigged and parliaments fail, and civil servants are corrupt, it is amazing how often African judges defy the new tyrants of Africa, releasing political prisoners and halting torture. And it is equally amazing how often African journalists continue to print the truth, despite the very real danger of torture and death, or the smashing of their presses. Free speech and law, interestingly enough, may be more important and enduring than democracy in securing justice and liberty.


What practical conclusions can we draw from this? First, that our power in these parts of the world is gone for good, and it is just posturing to imagine that a protest in London will make any difference there. Comrade Mugabe's response that his critics could 'go hang' is rude and brusque, but also an accurate estimate of how things stand. He doesn't care what we think, and what's more he doesn't even pretend to care.


That's embarrassing of him. We would much prefer an expression of concern, some sign that we matter, even if don't. In fact, his taunting of us for our powerlessness may be his greatest offence against those interventionist liberals who like to imagine that a tough leading article in the Guardian will make Harare tremble.


Second, that the worst crimes of empires often come at the finish of them. Having persuaded people to rely on our power and our ability to protect them, we abruptly change our minds and disappear over the horizon, leaving them with a parliament building, a flag, an anthem, several unresolved territorial disputes and (quite often) a Mugabe figure who, if not very pleasant, is at least strong enough to take over the state.


This is, so far as I have been able to work out, the most powerful argument against empire - which in its British form was often highly benevolent so long as it existed. It has to end, and when it does, there is almost always tragedy. People often say, without thinking, that the winding up of the British empire was a civilised and creditable episode. I completely disagree. the scuttle from India, 60 years ago this year, and the smaller but more poisonous scuttle from Palestine soon afterwards, are among the most shameful episodes in British history. Our departure from Africa was not much better. The USA, and its ring of loyal client states in the former Soviet Union, from the Caucasus to the Baltic, should beware of a comparable bout of shameful departures, probably in the next 30 years, when Washington loses interest in this part of the world and Moscow reasserts its ancient dominance.


Third, that other countries do not exist to provide broad open spaces in which we can exercise our constipated, under-used consciences. It is incredibly easy, and rather enjoyable, to rail against tyrants and injustice a long way away. The tyrants cannot get at you, and if you travel to these places on a Western passport, the worst you are likely to face is expulsion. But it is so much harder, and less glamorous, to challenge the power-grabbers and would-tyrants, and petty but persistent injustices, in your own home country - where your targets can take revenge.


Fourth, that intervention cannot permanently alter the balance of power in foreign lands. Unless you are prepared to stay forever, the 'improvements' you achieve will not survive your departure by more than a few years. Worse, people who trusted you and relied on you will be left to dreadful fates.


Caring about a foreign injustice is futile unless you have the means to express your concern through effective, sustained action. It is an impulse designed to make the carer feel good to himself, and look good in the eyes of others, rather than to do good. So the honest answer, for most of us, is that we do not really care. But who dares say so? To say in a public place that you do not think Britain should intervene in Zimbabwe is to court shocked disapproval. Yet those who say they think we should intervene are applauded - even if they have no intention of doing anything.

All comments are moderated by the community team. Please contact community@dailymailonline.co.uk with any queries about moderation

Continuing my theme for this week, an interesting article from Business Day, a leading South African daily newspaper.

In other news, the BBC put together excerpts from leading african newspapers commenting on
Botha's death. Notably, they are not very polite about the passing of
P.W. Botha. one of the few South African 'leaders' to say something of
value on this issue was Tokyo Sexwale [former Premier of Gauteng
Province and a political prisoner on Robben Island] who is quoted on
the BBC website as saying:
"We should not forget the kind of regime he represented, he was
ruthless, he was brutal, he was a leader of apartheid during the
harshest years of that regime, the sad truth is that he is leaving
with many secrets which he should have revealed perhaps during the
time of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission."

I agree a lot with the article below by Mvoko and also feel that the
South African government and civil society has missed a great
opportunity to deal effectively with the negative history that their
country is still trying to succesfully emerge from.



Groot Krokodil: when moving on obscures historical perspective
by Vuyo Mvoko
________________________________


THERE are times when I do get to appreciate just how lucky I am. In a
country of more than 40-million people, I'm one of very few people who
have the privilege to occupy, and sometimes command, a public space
many other South Africans only dream of.

Every week, through this column, I get to speak to elected public
representatives, as well to business people who have every right to
conduct their affairs and spend their millions the way they deem fit.
Members of the public greet me and are sometimes full of praise for a
job they say I sometimes do well.

It can only be good for a fragile but extraordinary ego of a boy from
an Eastern Cape township, brought up by a domestic worker
grandmother and a "painter's boy" grandfather. I have sat in front of
presidents and other world leaders, and now tell them what they should
be thinking, saying and doing.

But I must also say that secretly I often battle with under- or
overplaying my role and influence, to say nothing of the discomfort
that sometimes comes with thoughts such as: What if I get proven
wrong? and, Am I imposing my "narrow" world view on others? It
particularly struck me this week, as I listened, watched and read what
everyone was saying about PW Botha, following the apartheid SA prime
minister's death. I felt an awkward sense of betrayal when people I
regard ay my leaders — Nelson Mandela, Thabo Mbeki, Desmond Tutu —
chose to say very little, if anything, about the atrocious man that we
came to know as Die Groot Krokodil.

Born in the ordinary Free State town of Paul Roux and of ordinary
Afrikaner parents, Pieter Willem Botha died this week with a solid
reputation of being one of the most appalling men to have presided
over the apartheid machinery. He chose to be evil, killing and maiming
thousands of innocent black people, and imposed his narrow world view
on all of us. Until the second he died, we took care of his basic
needs, his health, welfare, security and comfort: privileges which
still remain beyond the reach of millions of black people.

I was ready to dance on Botha's grave when, on behalf of all citizens,
including me, Mbeki expressed "heartfelt condolences" to the Botha
family. Botha's death, I sincerely believed, should have been used to
teach generations that may have never directly experienced his
viciousness that we would have indeed gone very far as a nation had we
not had people like that finger-wagging racist.

Albeit temporarily, Botha made apartheid succeed where it could have
failed. His relaxation of some laws — such as the Immorality Act and
for which some, FW de Klerk included, now believe Botha deserves
credit — were never about a change of heart but were dismal attempts
at buying time. Botha's half-hearted "reforms" remain inconsistent
with everything he did afterwards. For me, there were no obvious
reasons for a liberation movement that the African National Congress
(ANC) says it still is to be as kind to Botha and his rotten legacy.

It prompts the question: does being "a nation at work" now mean that
when opportunities arise for us to put our history into perspective,
we will shy away from that because we need to "move on"? And if that
is the case, is it the sort of thing that the ANC leadership will,
from now on, seek to impress on the minds of its cadreship that it has
deployed in every sphere of our public lives? Will the ANC leadership,
for example, tell its deployees in the SABC that what they committed
themselves to after meeting a parliamentary committee early this week
is perhaps not the right thing to do?

SABC board chairman Eddie Funde, still pissed off at the leak of the
"blacklisting" report implicating news head Snuki Zikalala, apparently
made an undertaking to investigate the source of the leak. This means
that there is still another sideshow in the Zikalala saga — before the
SABC even begins to deal with the issues raised around Zikalala's
management style and journalistic integrity.

Long after everybody else was reporting on Botha's death, the SABC's
10pm news bulletin was still leading with a Helen Zille piece. If the
SABC board focused on the real issues, it could start by confronting
the challenges facing the national public broadcaster, which have a
lot to do with journalism. While the SABC is not really short of money
or bodies it can call journalists, getting scribes with skills, and
keeping them, remains an elusive goal, something that is not helped by
Zikalala's management style and (mis)conception of what a journalist
should do.

My ego notwithstanding, and my thirst for dead Botha's blood refusing
to go away, I am, for once, prepared to let bygones be bygones.
Focusing on the past; hunting down those who may have wronged you;
listening to your ego; abusing your privileged public position;
wanting to be right all the time — all those things may be good for
revenge and point-scoring, but they may just keep your eyes away from
your goal.

Time to let any old and poison-filled Groot Krokodil die, lest we wake
it up only to destroy our future.

Mvoko is an independent media and political consultant.

So there's actually more to the P.W. Botha thing. This guy gets a
State Funeral!!! The BBC just reported that South Africa will be giving this guy a state
funeral... are you kidding me! what is the ANC smoking! We actually
have a debate about whether it's appropriate to name South Africa's
main international airport after O.R. Tambo, a giant in making South
Africa the country that it is today, and then we have a crazy dictator
get hero status? People like Botha and Ian Smith and Adolf Hitler
cannot get state funerals, at least not from the same states that they
have helped to destroy.

(note how the BBC article does use the word racist or racism not even
once. call a spade a spade. this dude was a racist dictator. when will
we all wake up...?)

So, South Africa has new leadership in its national AIDS programs and in managing the policy of dealing with HIV. The Deputy President of the Country, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, some one I have high regard for and totally have confidence in as a politican, is leading the new initiative. This new article has an obvious bias against Thabo Mbeki (South Africa’s President) and Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang. The line that’s been (wrongly) repeated world wide is that Mbeki and Tshabalala-Msimang (aka, Manto) deny that HIV causes AIDS, and some reports are ridiculous enough to suggest that they completely deny that AIDS exists and hence you have had the blind leading the blind on AIDS.

I think that this is a wrong interpretation of the situation. First of all, Thabo Mbeki is probably one of the most intelligent heads of states in ANY country in the world. I’d like to have any one suggest anything else. There is no way he would deny obvious science, but rather, the mistake he made, as a head of state, was to apply some critical thinking. It was to ask clever questions which could lead to some other response. Obviously that’s not something that you can encourage heads of states to do [hence some other countries have really really stupid people leading them. They don’t think, they just do as they are told.] the main thrust of Mbeki’s inquiry was on the overall causes of AIDS and its devastating impact. The article in the Washington post actually does mention this but I believe, glosses over it and actually misinterprets what Mbeki meant/means:

"President Mbeki said, 'It cannot be the virus alone, we must look at other, other issues that predispose people to the immune system being depressed,' and I am of the same view also," Tshabalala-Msimang said on "Nightline."
The main point is that, people are not dying because of the “virus alone.” So Mbeki’s argument was really, only supposed to lead people to look at the wider system that was causing the extreme impacts of HIV and AIDS. In Africa, poverty is probably the worst killer. Poverty is that parent of violent conflict, disease—including HIV/AIDS, malaria and many others, corruption, dictatorships, hunger and malnutrition. So to have a rallying call to pour millions of dollars into repainting one side of a house falling apart is not doing much justice to the situation either.

I am not saying ARVs are not important or urgent, or that treatment must not be a priority. But we must answer the question of why are the conditions that “predispose people to the immune system being depressed.” These are questions of nutrition and health care systems more than anything else. If the South African government spend all of its money on treatment (i.e. paying global pharmaceutical corporations that own the patents to ARV) millions of dollars to provide the wonder-drugs, what is the real impact…? People will continue to live in environments that do not really compliment the effectiveness of the drugs.

So perhaps one of the greatest blunders of Mbeki’s presidency has not being ‘doing nothing’ about HIV and AIDS, but rather, miscommunication the complexity of the issue. We live in a world where the media simplifies every issue to much for its average reader or viewer that we often fail to understand the multiple dimensions to some of the world’s most complex problems. You need to be able to communicate complexity, with simplicity. Not an easy task. So I actually see the whole “beetroot and lemon” show that Manto has been pushing over the years as a tongue in cheek way of getting people to see beyond the complexity of it all. I am not sure it work so well because, hey, government officials dealing with serious issues are not supposed to have a sense of humor.

But let’s look at bit closely at the beetroot message. What Manto and Co are saying are, let us find simple ways, accessible to people for them to mitigate some of the impacts of AIDS through addressing nutritional issues. Getting South African tax payers to boost the stock prices of Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer isn’t always the best way to go. Of course just giving people beetroots and lemon juice won’t solve the issue, but how do you make the ‘cocktail’ more than just plastic capsules, but also basic issues that people can do something about. So there was a lot of mismanagement in how to communicate these issues. I don’t think the SA government will reduce their emphasis on the nutritional side of things, but this article is really more about changing tune and direction in engaging different stakeholders, especially on the treatment end of things. It’s not about replacing health and nutrition with treatment. It never has been. It’s been about finding the strategy that best compliments other efforts and the deals with the systemic dimension of the problem, and not just the sound bite friendly aspect of free pills for all.

I hope with this ‘new’ take on the AIDS issues, we’ll see less tension around the issue and more partnership and solidarity to really make a difference on a situation that is causing a lot of death, pain, and suffering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/26/AR2006102601874.html?referrer=email

In South Africa, a Dramatic Shift on AIDS
Treatment, Prevention Get New Emphasis as Deputy President Takes Key Role

By Craig Timberg

Washington Post Foreign Service

Friday, October 27, 2006; Page A01

JOHANNESBURG -- The South African government is seeking to shake off years of international denunciation for its handling of the AIDS epidemic -- including a fixation on the supposed protective powers of beets and lemons -- while expanding treatment, testing and prevention programs, officials and activists say.

In public comments and private meetings over the past six weeks, Deputy President Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka has emphasized that the government now believes unequivocally that HIV causes AIDS, a connection that President Thabo Mbeki once publicly questioned. She has also said that antiretroviral drugs must be the centerpiece of the government's response while playing down the dietary recommendations long cited by Health Minister Manto Tshabalala-Msimang as key to fighting AIDS.

"The beetroot and all that lemon stuff is out the window," an adviser involved in recasting the government's policy said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about it. "These guys are now serious about getting it right."

Driving the recent change is a growing realization of the severity of AIDS in South Africa -- an estimated 5.4 million of 47 million citizens have HIV, among the highest totals in the world -- and concern that the controversy surrounding the disease was damaging the country's international reputation.

The Treatment Action Campaign, the country's leading AIDS activist group, said that after years of hostility and legal battles, government officials were working cooperatively with members to realize some of their long-standing demands, such as setting targets for dramatically expanding the availability of antiretroviral drugs through the public health system. Mlambo-Ngcuka, who has taken control of the national AIDS commission, has met privately with the group.

"There's clearly a shift taking place," said Zackie Achmat, the head of the Treatment Action Campaign.

Officials say that Tshabalala-Msimang, often ridiculed as "Dr. Beetroot," will maintain some role in AIDS policy, but activists say they are confident she has been effectively marginalized by the appointment of Mlambo-Ngcuka to oversee the government's response to the disease. Government officials privately acknowledge that Tshabalala-Msimang had become an embarrassment, and activists say the tenor of conversations with the government has changed dramatically since the deputy president took over.

"I'm still skeptical, and I'm still waiting for the proof," said Francois Venter, head of the Southern African HIV Clinicians Society. "But there's been a switch, the most hopeful switch in years, over the past four or five weeks."

Mbeki's comments questioning the relationship between HIV and AIDS stirred international outrage in 2000, and the government lagged even some less developed African nations in introducing subsidized antiretroviral drugs, which can prolong the lives of those with the disease by many years, perhaps decades. The first government program distributing the drugs began here in April 2004. South Africa's far smaller northern neighbor, Botswana, began two years earlier.

The South African program has grown steadily in the past 2 1/2 years and now reaches about 200,000 people with AIDS -- roughly one-quarter of those estimated to need the medicine immediately. But the demand for the drugs has grown faster than the program could handle despite major new government spending, including $400 million for AIDS programs this year alone.

"There were weaknesses on the implementation side of things," a government spokesman, Themba Maseko, said from Pretoria.

A turning point came in August, at the International AIDS Conference in Toronto, where Tshabalala-Msimang sponsored a display featuring lemons, beets and garlic but no antiretroviral drugs. An interview that Tshabalala-Msimang had with ABC's "Nightline" that same week renewed fears that she and Mbeki did not accept the two-decade-old scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS.

"President Mbeki said, 'It cannot be the virus alone, we must look at other, other issues that predispose people to the immune system being depressed,' and I am of the same view also," Tshabalala-Msimang said on "Nightline."

The following day, Stephen Lewis, the U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, denounced the South African government's view as "wrong, immoral and indefensible." Two weeks after that, 81 AIDS scientists from South Africa and around the world signed a letter calling on Mbeki to fire Tshabalala-Msimang.

The president refused. But those events, combined with a government report blaming AIDS for a massive surge of deaths among South Africans in their 20s, 30s and 40s, prompted Mbeki to appoint Mlambo-Ngcuka to lead an urgent review of AIDS programs, pushing Tshabalala-Msimang out of the spotlight, officials say.

In a speech to labor leaders on Sept. 19, Mlambo-Ngcuka said, without qualification, that HIV causes AIDS. She acknowledged "shortcomings" in the government's response to the disease so far. She mentioned the value of a sensible diet but made clear its limits.

"It should be stressed that a healthy lifestyle and good nutrition are not alternatives to treatment," she said, according to a transcript.

Mlambo-Ngcuka also called for peace between the government and its many critics on AIDS. "Our collective response has for too long been undermined by finger-pointing and despair. I appeal to you that we change that," she said.

AIDS activists said they initially reacted warily, but after meeting privately with Mlambo-Ngcuka, including a session Tuesday in Cape Town that lasted nearly two hours, they have grown more confident of the government's desire to improve its handling of the disease.

The activists say they are pushing for several concessions, including a target of treating 1 million South Africans with antiretroviral drugs. They also want targets for expanding HIV testing and for cutting the rate of new infections. Prevention efforts have largely failed in South Africa, experts say, even as Zimbabwe and several East African countries are showing success in curbing new infections.

Maseko, the government spokesman, said that after years of resisting calls from activists, officials have decided to set firm targets for expanding prevention programs and the availability of antiretroviral drugs in the five-year government plan due for release Dec. 1, celebrated around the globe as World AIDS Day.

"We will be accelerating implementation to make sure those who need treatment are getting it," he said.

As discussions continue, activists say the shift in the government's intentions is tangible and hope officials are capable of carrying through on their new promises.

"They have lost at least five years," said Mark Heywood, head of the AIDS Law Project at Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg. "They're behind on prevention. They're behind on treatment. They're behind on planning for the social impact of HIV. But it's not too late to prevent a whole other generation of people from getting HIV."

i was a little confused by the immigrant demonstrations in the US on monday [http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/03/news/immig.php] because i can't figure out who exactly the immigrants are. is it
a. any one in the US, working there who doesn't have US citizenship?
b. anyone whose family originally came from the US?"
c. anyone working illegaly in the US?

this story got a lot of coverage, but i don't think it was well told.

there's a lot of self interest in the US in not really tackling this issue. that way, immigrants can keep being exploited as cheap labor in the country, and the US Congress can keep pretending there are no questions of humanity and justice that need answering.

does anyone have any links to good perspectices or other blogs that focus on this issue?

~ dvb


immigrants protest, but the results are mixed
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg The New York Times
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006
WASHINGTON A nascent immigrant rights movement has shown that it can build an organization, mobilize hundreds of thousands of people across the United States and wield economic power.

But the protesters do not appear to have achieved their primary goal - changing votes in Congress. And some critics say the demonstration Monday may have generated a backlash, hardening positions on Capitol Hill.

The protests, which began in March and resumed Monday with a boycott of work, school and shops, has clearly grabbed the attention of Americans when the issue of illegal immigration is high on the agenda in Washington.

The heightened attention will make it difficult for Congress to duck the question of what to do with the estimated 11 million to 12 million people living illegally in the United States.

Although the outpouring has drawn comparisons to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, questions remain about whether the protesters can translate their passion into political results.

Although some companies closed, it is too early to assess the economic effects of the boycott. The effects were diminished because many workers notified their employers ahead of time that they planned to take the day off.

"This was a one-day deal," said Randel Johnson, vice president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which supports legislation to legalize immigrants. "If immigrants decided to abandon their jobs for two weeks, that would definitely have an impact."

Some advocates who support "comprehensive immigration reform," the idea that illegal workers should be put on a path to citizenship, say the protests have given that concept an important lift in the debate on Capitol Hill.

Other people say that few if any minds were changed and described the demonstrations as a Rorschach test in which people simply saw their own view reflected in the sea of mostly Latino marchers.

"I have no effective data on this, but it has probably hardened positions and maybe done a little bit of wedging," said Governor Jon Corzine of New Jersey, a Democrat and former senator who said he supported the protesters' cause. "I think that the people that were really fired up about this still are, and the position that they had to start with, they still carry."

The protesters have discovered that there is a thin line between promoting national pride and pushing the buttons of their opponents. They made tactical errors - flying the Mexican flag, recording the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish - that have left even some of their supporters feeling a little bit queasy.

"I have a great respect for a lot of the people that did the protesting, but I think their message is all confused," said Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, whose sympathy dates from his childhood, when his mother, an Italian immigrant, was nearly deported. "The flag, the anthem, all that, it got everybody all mixed up. Take off work, it sounded wrong to some people, right to others."

The American public is deeply divided on illegal immigration; a survey in March by the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, found that 53 percent of respondents say people who are in the United States illegally should be required to go home, while 40 percent say they should be granted some kind of legal status that allows them to stay here.

That divide is reflected on Capitol Hill, controlled by Republicans. The House of Representatives opposes citizenship for illegal workers, and has passed legislation aimed only at controlling the borders, while a more comprehensive Senate bill is backed by Republicans like Domenici.

Some say the protests have given the Senate approach a boost.

"While you could never point to a specific vote, they moved the tone and the thrust where now a balanced bill has the upper hand, and it's in part because of the protests," Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, said.

A Republican split over the issue is complicated because it is not just the immigrants who are weighing in. Among their biggest allies are employers, large and small, who are demanding assurances that they will continue to have the labor pool they need. Business groups are important for the Republican base, and many employers gave their immigrant employees the day off Monday in solidarity with the marchers.

"Obviously there's tremendous pressure on lawmakers to fix the problem," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an advocacy group.

Julia Preston in New York and Rachel L. Swarns in Washington contributed reporting for this article.

does any one know where one can find a link for the cartoons that have caused the global islamic outrage? i think a lot of people have no idea what they are protesting or arguing about as i'm sure millions have not seen them. so in the interest of having an informed discussion, could someone please point us to where they can perhaps be seen online ...

thanks

These writers, journalists and thinkers that don’t really understand Africa, but like to think that they do, and then go on to show their inability to grasp what’s going on through their writing, really annoy me. If I didn’t believe that debate, dialogue and discussion were by far the best way of learning and bringing about change, I would ask them all to put their pens and cameras down. But debate is informative so let it be …

Did you see Simon Robinson’s article in the European version of Time magazine (http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901051205-1134693,00.html) ? I have pasted a copy of it below my comment. A friend of mine mentioned in his blog that he thinks it’s a good article on Africa. I’m disappointed. The idea that democracy is simple, in a place as complex and as torn apart as Africa is just a shallow idea. Living here, I see every day, the levels at which democracy and governance are so hard to make function in a continent like Africa. The leadership needs and requirements to make Africa succeed a very much different to what a western country would need. I agree that there is largely a void of such skills that you end up with people resorting to a totalitarian approach as the ‘easiest’ way to deal with things in the absence of those competencies. Let me elaborate:

To run an African country must be complex. I don’t claim to ever know how to run one, or that I will ever do so some day. No way! But you have to deal with several key factors in a very deep way:
• A history of oppression and abuse
• Tribal tensions that were engineered to keep people fighting each other – and they do not go away over night
• Poverty, and the pressures it puts on people to acquire and hold on to resources to stay out of poverty [those resources often go hand in hand with (political/military) power]
• Cultivating a culture of democracy

I could probably write a long thesis on these points, but I won’t!

You can’t reduce the leadership challenges of Africa to just ‘leaders’ and institutions. Institutions can be manipulated, no matter how strong they are. Look at the institutions in a ‘strong’ democracy like the US. Are they not being manipulated … ? I think so! I also think that for the most part, American people at large are like a frog in a pot of boiling water and will only notice that the water’s getting hot when it’s too late.

Anyway, back to Africa, I read the article below by Simon Robinson and he just makes Africa sound so simple, and by virtue, its people stupid and powerless … it’s disgusting. Here are my objections with his perspective:
1. statements by leaders like Clinton of praising African leaders when they don’t really understand Africa set the wrong tone. You get mad men like Museveni being made to look like models of what the rest of us should aspire you. Forget that for the most part, Museveni had suspended democracy in Uganda. Even now as he allows it to make a come back, he’s not tolerating any opposition. Yet you’ll find the noise being made against him to be really a slap on the wrist. If mugabe had put the opposition leader in jail before an election, imagine the outcry and reaction and action [sanctions etc] from the ‘west.’ The noise would be so loud, your ear drums would pop!

Yet putting the Musevenis on pedestals reinforces what they do and their tactics and ways of sucking up to the west as the way forward if you’re to stay in power, and have the world’s big shots back you!

2. You also have to understand the underlying motivations in Africa and in African society and politics. It is not always as simple as saying people want to stay in power. That’s true in some cases, but there are many other reasons for it too … some of the issues that these ‘leaders’ put on the table are bona fide, important issues that need to be addressed, but then again addressing them is not always in the interests of big business, western foreign policy and other excuses. So they are brushed aside and the leaders are just brashed as power hungry and their cases are made illegitimate. The inconsistencies are amazing. It’s pick and choose. So as partners in developing democracy in Africa, the west often makes itself irrelevant because of how they will treat the same situations in country by country with such colossal differences.

Again, allow me to make comparisons between Zimbabwe and another African country – Kenya. Zimbabwe had a constitutional referendum in 2000 which the government lost. The president in Zimbabwe, as in Kenya, accepted the result, did not suspend elections or his cabinet or people’s right to meet. Yet Zimbabwe’s elections a few months later in which people voted and the government wasn’t overthrown, were called ‘unfree and unfair.’ Kenya’s president has, in my eyes, responded very undemocratically to the whole referendum thing. Today they decided that attending opposition rallies was a threat to national security. No one’s really bothered about asking Kenya to behave herself. So if you’re a politician in Zimbabwe, you take those cautions you receive when you ban opposition rallies as just ‘unfairness and bias’ against you. So it doesn’t help to foster that culture of democracy. Your influence as a partner is zero because you’ve shown such inconsistency in reacting to similar breaches of democratic processes.

With all due respect, constitutional issues in many countries just confuse things. People almost never vote on the constitution presented. They use the occasion to show the sitting government the finger. Constitutions are complex documents and their drafting, such complex and delicate processes that you can't assumt everyone will understand the legal implications of a document that lawyers themselves disagree so much on their natures and interpretations. Look at the recent examples of Zimbabwe, Kenya, France, the Netherlands … so for Robinson to look at the constitutional process in Kenya and use it as a benchmark for measuring democractic process - - hogwash!

3. by the way, Mr. Robinson, the opposition in Zambia last won an election in the early 1990s. since then, they have NOT won an election. That opposition became government and has stayed in power ever since. So please don’t get your facts confused. They once again show how much you don’t understand what you’re really talking about. You’re almost as bad as those people who point to Botswana as a model of African democracy! Ha!

4. Robinsons once again gets it wrong. Look at his analysis of Zimbabwe in this paragraph:
“Take Zimbabwe. Even five years ago, the country boasted one of the best judiciaries in Africa. Voters could make their voices heard, as they did in 2000 when they rejected a new constitution backed by President Robert Mugabe. The independent press was amongst the feistiest on the continent. Over the past few years, though, Mugabe and his henchmen have bludgeoned the opposition into near submission, rigged elections, closed down the independent press and forced most of the country's best judges into retirement. Mugabe, once hailed as a great new African leader himself, has proved more powerful than his country's institutions. “

First of all, the judiciary that was in place in Zimbabwe was still largely a white judiciary from pre-Independence days that protected a very conservative agenda that was not in the interests of most Zimbabweans. The same people who had legislated to maintain and uphold apartheid in Zimbabwe were somehow amongst the “best judiciaries in Africa.” When they disagreed with the government, and left, or ‘were forced out,’ and replaced by capable black Zimbabwean judges, our judiciary is suddenly not credible? Because it doesn’t just rule in favor of white minority or foreign interests… ? when was the last time Robinson was in Zimbabwe, or bought a Zimbabwean independent newspaper? Who is he kidding? There are still independent newspapers in Zimbabwe that are very critical of the government in many ways. We’ve never had private TV or radio. Even in the good days. So there’s no benchmark there. One newspaper was closed down in around 2002, for refusing to register with the regulatory authority. Every other paper registered and is still in business. Yet we are told that all the free press has been shut down. Again, another lie that western media likes to promote. I am not saying journalists here write have all the freedoms in the world and it’s an easy environment to be a journalist. Not at all. But again, there’s reasons for that, and if people understand those reasons, they can make meaningful contributions to addressing those problems. Not advocating for sanctions or punishments to fix things. That never works. But those that don’t understand end up writing trashy generalizations about Africa like Mr. Robinson just did. my question is, how would he like to see the judiciary in zimbabwe therefore ... ? full of old white judges who are good at matters of the law [zimbabwean trained black judges are just as good and competent, and don't always agree of rule in favor of the government], and yet want to rule in contra to the interests of the majority of citizens? it cannot work. not in africa. not in any country. (there's a reason why the appointment of supreme court judges in the US is such a hot issue ... )

5. finally, why are these journalists [Michael Wines of the NY Times fame, as well as Rachel Swans and many others who write for different newspapers as the “Africa specialists”] always dodging the core real issues affecting democracy and good governance and good living in Africa. The issues haven’t changed for over 500 years – the desire to have and control those resources that flow out of Africa. If we’re honest, we’ll admit that democracy in Africa is by and large corrupted by the need to access and control those resources. Often in arrangements involving parties on both sides of the equation. But it’s much, much easier and more acceptable to write about failed leadership and weak institutions. It keeps the dogs of the scent. And it keeps us obsessing about voting for the next loser in Africa and missing the real point. Once you raise the topic, you’re labeled an out of touch nationalist who isn’t in touch with the needs of today’s Africa – modern democracies, run by western educated technocrats [if I hear of the fact that Liberia’s new president studied at Harvard just one more time, I’ll throw my TV out the window!] focusing on building institutions and leadership! Blah!

Good leaders and institutions are important yes. But also understanding the underlying, fundamental issues is important as is having the guts to be fair and objective in dealing with the governance challenges in Africa across the board, not in isolated cases country by country while we pretend that other villains are the “hope for our continent’s future!”

http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901051205-1134693,00.html

ESSAY
Africa's Game of Follow the Leader
Why strong institutions matter most when once promising politicians start to fail

By SIMON ROBINSON

Saturday, Nov. 26, 2005
For brutal honesty on the causes of Africa's woes, it's hard to beat Chinua Achebe's The Trouble with Nigeria. Written during the country's rowdy 1983 election campaign, the book, just 68 pages long, is an outpouring of frustration at Nigeria's problems. You only have to read the contents page to tap into Achebe's angst. The author — best known for Things Fall Apart, a powerful work of fiction that almost half a century after its release still tops lists of Africa's greatest novels — uses blunt prose to deliver the message in Trouble. Chapter headings telegraph his views: "False Image of Ourselves"; "Social Injustice and the Cult of Mediocrity"; "Indiscipline"; "Corruption." Achebe lays out his case in the book's very first sentence: "The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership."

Many Nigerians agreed, and Africans across the continent reached similar conclusions about their own countries. Which is why, in the mid-1990s, when a new generation of leaders emerged, Africans dared to hope that things could finally be changing. People like Issaias Afewerki in Eritrea, Laurent Kabila in Democratic Republic of Congo, Paul Kagame in Rwanda, Yoweri Museveni in Uganda and Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia promised a new style of leadership that focused on building economies and democratic nations instead of shoring up their power by force and ensuring that they and their friends got rich. When President Bill Clinton visited Africa in 1998, he touted this generation as Africa's great hope.

The reality has rarely matched the hype. Within months of Clinton's visit, Rwanda and Uganda had invaded Congo, and Eritrea and Ethiopia had gone to war with each other. While some leaders — notably Museveni and Zenawi — still did enough to remain darlings of Western donors, even they have now begun to slide. In Ethiopia, Zenawi has sent troops onto the streets to stop opposition supporters protesting the results of a general election last May. In Uganda, an increasingly dictatorial Museveni announced two weeks ago that he will run for office again, following Parliament's decision to scrap term limits that would have forced him to retire. That long-expected bulletin came just days after his main opponent was thrown in prison on charges — vehemently denied — of treason and rape. Demonstrations have been temporarily banned.

So, Achebe's lament still holds true, then? No. Fixing Africa was never as simple as changing its leaders. And that's why the fall from grace of Museveni and Zenawi may prove a positive thing, even if they hurt their own countries in the short term. It's a reminder, especially to Western countries that invested so much in Africa's new leaders, that strong institutions are far more important than personalities. Good leaders can turn bad if they stay in office long enough: faults become obvious; people compromise to hold onto power; supporters get frustrated with the inevitable slow pace of change. It's not just Africa. There are plenty of erstwhile supporters of Tony Blair who would be happy to see the back of him. The same goes for one-time fans of Jacques Chirac and George Bush. A key difference is that the institutions in the countries those men lead — parliament, the judiciary, the press — are bigger than any one person and counterbalance the worst excesses. That's still not a given in Africa.

Take Zimbabwe. Even five years ago, the country boasted one of the best judiciaries in Africa. Voters could make their voices heard, as they did in 2000 when they rejected a new constitution backed by President Robert Mugabe. The independent press was amongst the feistiest on the continent. Over the past few years, though, Mugabe and his henchmen have bludgeoned the opposition into near submission, rigged elections, closed down the independent press and forced most of the country's best judges into retirement. Mugabe, once hailed as a great new African leader himself, has proved more powerful than his country's institutions.

There is progress, of course. Kenyans last week rejected a new constitution backed by lackluster President Mwai Kibaki — elected just three years ago in a wave of reformist zeal — because of concerns that the proposals vested too much power in his office. (Kibaki promptly sacked his entire Cabinet.) Voters in Ghana, Senegal and Zambia have all elected opposition parties since the turn of the century. Such peaceful shifts prove that institutions in some countries are becoming strong enough to survive change and are not merely dependent upon, or at the mercy of, whoever sits in the presidential palace. Ethiopia and Uganda are also vastly better off than they were before Zenawi and Museveni took power; the backsliding hasn't wrecked all the good work the men have done. But their tainted legacies are a lesson. "A leader's no-nonsense reputation might induce a favorable climate but in order to effect lasting change, it must be followed up with a radical program of social and economic reorganization," writes Achebe in The Trouble with Nigeria. In other words, good leaders are good, but strong institutions are even better.

Now don't you dare marry more than one wife ... especially you crazy african men out there! you're contribute to social unrest, riots and burned cars. and who would want that?

this article is ridiculous! france is ripped apart by social tensions, mainly based on issues of equity and economics and, at the same time an incredible opportunity for genuine dialogue and transformation opens up and what do people in political leadership do...? blame it on the number of wives a man has? young french men are angry because their society does not give them opportunities to participate and engage in productive activities. they respond violently to years of picked on and stereotyped as trouble causers; they are unhappy with being referred to [by government ministers] as 'scum' or filth; they are marginalized and not made to feel like they belong where they have settled. they are threatened with deportation should they break the law. yet the root cause of this trouble is polygamy? and we have people preaching to us in africa about creating diverse, multi-racial [emphasized more than multi-ethnic] societies ... what for? so that immigrants to made themselves at home through brutal means 300 years ago can feel at home, but those who are trying to make them feel at home on other continents are to the thrown out, together with their "filthy" cultural practices. but we have to create multi-racial societies that comfortable accommodate other people's cultural practices -- democracy, religion, 'modernization'

why does something about this whole picture JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME!

oh no, hold on dumi -- it's simple. tell you people to limit the number of women they sleep with, and everything with be ok.

the article in the new york times points to this ridiculous claim made by some french thought and political leaders that Polygamy is a key factor in this french unrest! in all fairness, there have been effort to address the other issues too and to highlight them, but the fact that this one gets this much air time repulses me!

d.



Immigrant Polygamy Is a Factor in French Unrest, a Gaullist Says


By ELAINE SCIOLINO <http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=ELAINESCIOLINO&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=ELAINESCIOLINO&inline=nyt-per>

Published: November 18, 2005

PARIS, Nov. 17 - In the search for explanations for the riots that have rocked France , some politicians and intellectuals are pointing to a novel one: polygamy.

In an interview with RTL radio on Wednesday, Bernard Accoyer, the parliamentary leader of President Jacques Chirac's Gaullist party, the Union for a Popular Movement, called polygamy "certainly one of the causes, though not the only one" for France's worst unrest in four decades. He blamed the former Socialist government of Prime Minister Lionel Jospin or being "strangely lax" in enforcing the ban on polygamy. Pierre Cardo, a deputy in Parliament from Mr. Chirac's party, said that the most difficult juvenile delinquents were "often products of polygamous families."

Hélène Carrère d'Encausse, one of the country's most eminent historians and the permanent secretary of the Académie Française, was even more pointed. "Everyone is astonished; why are African children in the streets and not at school?" she said on Russian television in Moscow on Sunday. "Why can't their parents buy an apartment? It's clear why. Many of these Africans, I tell you, are polygamous. In an apartment, there are three or four wives and 25 children." Even the interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, has suggested that polygamy makes it harder for North African Arabs and sub-Saharan Africans to integrate into French life.

"There are more problems for a child of an immigrant of black Africa or of North Africa than for a son of a Swede, a Dane or a Hungarian," said Mr. Sarkozy, the son of a Hungarian father, in an interview with France 2 television on Nov. 10. "Because culture, because polygamy, because social origins contribute to more hardships for him."

The remarks have set off an uproar in France and charges of racism. In a statement on Wednesday, MRAP, an antiracist group, accused political leaders on the right of "playing an extremely dangerous role in feeding our country with the racism that causes the damage we know."

No official figures are available on polygamy in France, although some women's rights groups estimate the number of polygamous families as high as 30,000. They come mostly from sub-Saharan Africa, including Mali, Senegal and Gambia. The practice is less prevalent among the much larger and older immigrant population of North Africa.

Bigamy is illegal in France, and punishable by a year in prison and a $53,000 fine. But the practice of polygamy among immigrant families from countries where it is part of the culture and tradition is more complicated. Polygamy was effectively banned by a 1993 law that prevented second wives from getting visas. But it created difficult situations for families that had lived in France for years, and pushed many wives to enter France illegally. Polygamy is therefore largely tolerated, particularly if the marriages took place before the 1993 law went into effect.

To end polygamous living arrangements, local authorities encourage wives to seek separate accommodations. "We tell them, 'It may be legal in Africa, but in France, it's not,' " said a City Hall spokeswoman who would not allow her name to be used, citing City Hall policy.

The issue also has caused a furor in the French news media. Le Monde put the article on its front page Thursday afternoon. An editorial Thursday in Le Courrier Picard, a northern French newspaper, said, "Then like this, it's because Papa is polygamous that the son burns cars." It called such statements "a call for a new and hypocritical apartheid."

In an effort to calm the waters, Jean-François Copé, a Chirac spokesman, sought to distance the government from remarks linking polygamy and the unrest. "You cannot draw such a tight link between polygamy and urban violence," he said Thursday in a radio interview. "The crisis of disadvantaged neighborhoods has multiple causes."

Community groups acknowledge there is a problem of polygamous families, but say the causes of the riots run much deeper. "A culprit has to be found," said Claudette Bodin, co-president of Afrique Partenaires Services, a support group for families from sub-Saharan countries in France, in a telephone interview. "It's easier to accuse polygamous families than to question your own society." Daniel Vaillant, the Socialist mayor of the 18th Arrondissement, which has a large number of immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, also said the problem was much larger. "You cannot say that polygamy created or aggravated the riots," he said in a telephone interview. "This is transferring the blame." The root problems, he said, were "those of jobs, of housing, of bitterness."

Ariane Bernard and Hélène Fouquet contributed reporting for this article.

latin american countries seem to be leading in defining a different, more independent poltical agenda, less dicated to from D.C. i guess it helps that there's a huge leadership defecit in washington, and also that there are leadership gain in those countries i guess. plus the fact that people can see that most policies prescribed from places like Washington DC are not in their best interests. i am interested though in the perspective of people in countries like uruguay, argentina, venezuela and brazil to learn about how they seem the impacts of the shift in the outlook and perspective of their political leadership. is life much different from the days when policies were more dominated by world bank and IMF idealogies [not that they are completely free now]? what are the long term prospects?

the rest of us (especially in africa) have a lot to learn from latin america. the article below does a good job of breaking it down, although it is from the perspective of a major US newspaper.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/chitribts/20051031/ts_chicagotrib/bushheadingintodenofleftists

Bush heading into den of leftists
By Colin McMahon Tribune foreign correspondentMon Oct 31, 9:40 AM
ET

For a guy with the headaches President Bush faces, quiet time away and a pleasant visit with friends might be just the ticket. Too bad Bush is booked for South America this week.

The fourth Summit of the Americas will bring Bush into territory that is not quite enemy but far less allied than before. Half the hemisphere's leaders have changed since Bush took office in 2001 promising to make Latin America a priority. The region's politics have changed too.

A resurgent left is reshaping Latin America. This year alone, leftist protests toppled governments in Ecuador and Bolivia. A socialist took power for the first time in Uruguay. And Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, swimming in oil profits and brimming with bravado, is rallying the region against the United States and its economic prescriptions.

All told, more than 320 million Latin Americans have seen their nations turn to the left in recent years--in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela.

Yet this turn is not nearly so dramatic as some had feared and others had hoped. So far, complex economic and political realities have softened Latin America's leftist wave.

"The elections in Uruguay and elsewhere have been a referendum against failed policies. People have started looking for alternatives," said Ernesto Talvi, an economist and executive director of the think tank CERES in Montevideo. "But I don't think they are looking for alternatives that revert us to the failed policies of the past."

Markets failed the poor

During the 1990s and early in this decade, free-market policies--low tariffs, fiscal discipline, privatization--remade Latin American economies. But they failed to significantly reduce poverty or expand the middle class. Poor and working-class voters felt robbed by relentless austerity measures, the loss of state jobs and the cutting of government subsidies.

Leftist precepts that analysts had written off only a decade ago underwent a revival. And so did anti-Americanism. Growing numbers of Latin Americans came to accuse Washington of imperialism in foreign policy and of pushing neo-liberal economic policies that enrich the United States and the region's elite at the expense of the masses.

Bush in particular is identified with the policies that have come under criticism. Suspicion from fellow leaders and derision from protesters will greet the American president at the summit, which starts Friday in Argentina. But most of the hemisphere still looks to the United States for leadership, aid and investment.

This presents the Bush administration with an opportunity but also a thorny foreign policy challenge. Push its agenda too much, as the United States is accused of doing in confronting Chavez in Venezuela, and Washington is seen as meddling. Stand too far back, as the United States is accused of doing regionally since the Sept. 11 attacks, and Washington is seen as abandoning Latin American nations trying to do the right thing on human rights, trade and immigration.

U.S. officials acknowledge that the so-called pink tide rolling across Latin America has a mellow tint.

A few governments have raised tariffs to protect domestic industries, but there has been no wholesale return to protectionism. Social spending is rising, but treasuries remain committed to fiscal discipline. Leaders across the region extol the importance of attracting capital and investment, and last year two nations with left-of-center leaders, Brazil and Chile, recorded the highest percentage increases in foreign investment. Economic opportunity is hardly washing away.

Some left-of-center presidents, such as Brazil's Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, have even come under criticism for being too conservative.

Brazilian turnabout

During his long career as a labor leader and his unlikely slog to the presidency of Brazil, da Silva railed against the free-market economic policies that have transformed his nation. But as the elected leader of the world's fifth most-populous country, da Silva is gambling that fiscal discipline and free markets will spur sustained growth, create jobs and provide the revenue da Silva's government needs to address Brazil's crushing social inequalities.

"Lula changed," said Marcilio Marques Moreira, a former finance minister who also was Brazil's ambassador to the United States. "I don't know if it was by conviction or by pragmatism, but in the process there was a certain type of conversion, at least in economic policy."

This conversion breaks the heart of da Silva's leftist allies. But da Silva's orthodox policies are credited with stabilizing Brazil's economy--and helping to insulate da Silva from an all-out political attack--during a corruption scandal that threatened his government.

That scandal has cost da Silva standing and influence in the region, and Chavez has benefited.

Because of the value of Venezuela's oil, Chavez for now can afford to challenge economic liberalism and even chase off some foreign investors. The Venezuela leader has won many fans with his calls for a "Bolivarian revolution" that would restore a large state role to national economies.

But elsewhere the new leftists are wary of isolating their countries from international credit markets and foreign capital. They are searching for a Latin American third way between unfettered capitalism and state-dominated socialism. They see private business as the engine of growth, but they are not content to leave job creation to the unforgiving market. They believe in free trade but want safeguards to make sure trade is fair.

This may not work, and most Bush administration officials and conservative economists say it will not. They blame corruption and poor execution of market policies, not the policies themselves, for their failure across Latin America. But the hardships and inequalities across Latin American have convinced most voters and the new breed of leftist leaders that the economic orthodoxy of the so-called Washington Consensus has failed them.

Holding off the radicals

The challenge now is for the new leftists to make their way work before radical approaches gain more favor. In some countries, the throwing out of the old has coincided with the rise of new political movements with a strong populist bent and a fervent anti-American agenda. Their commitment to electoral democracy is at best unproven.

So far, the Latin American third way is being built most convincingly by the market-minded socialists running Chile.

Chile has one of the world's most open economies, according to an annual international survey by the conservative Heritage Foundation. And it is the region's beacon for free traders. The left-of-center government of President Ricardo Lagos has aggressively pursued trade deals with countries in Europe, Asia and North America, and Chile's economy has grown more robustly and consistently than any other in the region.

Trade between Latin America and the United States has grown steadily every year since 2001 and has risen to a historic high. But trade between Chile and the United States has positively soared. A bilateral agreement that went into effect in 2004 between the United States and Chile spurred U.S. exports to that country by 33 percent last year, according to U.S. government statistics.

Chile, however, departs occasionally from orthodox neo-liberalism. It has placed limits on how quickly investors can move money in and out of the country, for example, to encourage long-term direct investment and advance "growth with equity."

At the same time, the Lagos government has expanded social programs. In the last 15 years, Chile has slashed the poverty rate to 18 percent of the population from 40 percent. And by doing so, Chile's leadership has brought voters on the far left more toward the center.

"We are being very aggressive in liberalizing and opening the economy," said Chilean Foreign Minister Ignacio Walker. "But we never lose sight that liberalization is the means and not the ends in itself--the means to achieve equitable and sustainable growth."

Argentina is more complex. President Nestor Kirchner's government flirts with price controls, protectionism, currency manipulation and other state interventions that dismay free marketers. But Kirchner has been far more fiscally conservative than his 1990s predecessors, who became darlings of the financial markets even as Argentina was borrowing its way toward a collapse that threw millions of its citizens into poverty.

"It is impossible to conceive of a country without fiscal discipline, correct administration, the care of reserves," Kirchner told the Buenos Aires newspaper Pagina 12, sounding more like a neo-liberal than a leader of his Peronist party.

Since Argentina defaulted more than three years ago on $100 billion in loans and interest, Kirchner has taken a hard line in dealing with creditors and foreign investors. Economists and other Latin governments are closely watching whether he can hold that hard line while ensuring that Argentina gets the capital it needs to continue its recovery.

Already leftists in Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia are calling for their nations to follow Argentina's lead. They want to suspend debt payments and force renegotiations on private creditors and multinational lenders. But even left-of-center economists agree that such moves carry great risks. The populism espoused by Chavez and advocated by his followers would severely damage most Latin American economies by shutting them off from foreign investment, economists argue.

Bolivia, where street protests have forced two presidents from office in the past 18 months, is considered particularly worrisome. U.S. officials accuse Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro of seeking to use proxies such as coca farmer-turned-opposition leader Evo Morales to turn Bolivia into a Marxist, anti-American state. Even leftists such as da Silva and Kirchner, who rely on Bolivia for natural gas, have expressed concerns about a potential economic collapse in Bolivia and the splintering of democratic institutions.

Bush administration officials say a government's political shade is less of an issue than a nation's democratic stability. For one thing, the soundness of institutions matters more to investors than whether a government calls itself left or center or right. Foreign investors seek such qualities as consistent and transparent taxes and regulations, and a judicial system not overrun by corruption. The governments that deliver, no matter what their shade, are deemed suitable partners.

Rice `not worried'

"I am certainly not worried about the rise of left-of-center governments," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declared before the June summit of the Organization of American States.

But in an interview with the Miami Herald that was released by the State Department, Rice made clear that not all left-of-center governments were viewed the same way. She offered indirect if not exactly veiled criticism of Chavez. And she praised the Brazilians under da Silva: "They have been absolutely committed to a social agenda ... but doing it in a way that is responsible economically."

Da Silva has stuck with his current economic policy even under extreme pressure from his Workers Party base to employ populist and socialist remedies for Brazil's widespread poverty. That shows how deeply certain principles of the Washington Consensus have penetrated Latin American political and economic thinking.

"When Lula came into office, there was a lot of fear about how the government would manage the economy and a lot of confidence about how ethical the government would be," said Ricardo Ribeiro, an economist and political analyst with MCM Consultants in Sao Paulo. "It is ironic that we are seeing just the opposite."

----------

cmcmahon@tribune.com

i love how real democracy works... all scripted! every thing from what he says, to waht people say to him!

and i don't understand why people in america put up with it! okay, so there were demonstrations in DC last month. then everyone put away their picket signs and went home. and they get dooped the very next month. too bad there's no country out there with a government like, eeeeh, the united states of america has, to sponsor "public rebellion" against such rubbish! perhaps we would have a purple-orange-rose-red-white-and-blue revolution!

d.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051014/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_iraq


Bush Teleconference With Soldiers Staged
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 51 minutes ago

It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit — the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering — how often do we train with the Iraqi military — who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit — the hometown — and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ... Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ... Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

this article (below) in the NY Times is really frustrating! instead of using 'aid' money to invest in african agriculture to address the problems of hunger [and the money would go SO much further to really averting poverty], the US Congress road blocks the passage of a bill that would make buying food for aid from african farmers. i understand they have a farming industry they feel they need to protect, but obviously some people don't really understand the larger effects of such policy and legislation. or perhaps they do, but don't really care about sustainable development!


From - http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/international/africa/12memo.html?ex=1286769600&en=1bc36f245d786ce8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

October 12, 2005
Poverty Memo
African Food for Africa's Starving Is Roadblocked in Congress

By CELIA W. DUGGER
It seemed like a no-brainer: changing the law to allow the federal government to buy food in Africa for Africans facing starvation instead of paying enormous sums to ship it from the American heartland, halfway around the world. Not only would the food get to the hungry in weeks instead of months, the government would save money and help African farmers at the same time.

The new approach had an impeccable sponsor in Republican-dominated Washington. The Bush administration, famous for its go-it-alone style, was trying to move the United States - by far the world's biggest food donor - into the international mainstream with a proposal to take a step in just this direction. A lot of rich countries had already done so, most recently Canada.

So why is this seemingly sensible, cost-effective proposal near death in Congress?

Fundamentally, because the proposal challenges the political bargain that has formed the basis for food aid over the past half century: that American generosity must be good not just for the world's hungry but also for American agriculture. That is why current law stipulates that all food aid provided by the United States Agency for International Development be grown by American farmers and mostly shipped on United States-flag vessels. More practically, however, it is because the administration's proposal has run into opposition from three interests some critics call the Iron Triangle of food aid: agribusiness, the shipping industry and charitable organizations.

Just four companies and their subsidiaries, led by Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, sold more than half the $700 million in food commodities provided through the United States Agency for International Development's food aid program in 2004, government records show. Just five shipping companies received over half the more than $300 million spent to ship that food, records show.

Members of Congress often applaud the benefits of food aid for American farmers, but that is not really how it works, as Christopher B. Barrett, a Cornell University economist and co-author of "Food Aid After Fifty Years: Recasting its Role," noted. "It's the middlemen who enjoy most of the gains," he said, "not the farmers."

Mr. Barrett's research has established a third side to the triangle of interests with a deep stake in the status quo: nonprofit aid organizations. He and his co-author, Daniel Maxwell, a CARE official, found that at least seven of them, including Catholic Relief Services and CARE itself, depended on food aid for a quarter to half their budgets in 2001. Those groups distribute food in poor countries. But what is less well known is that they have also become grain traders, selling substantial amounts of the donated food on local markets in poor countries to generate tens of millions of dollars for their antipoverty programs. Given that at least 50 cents of each dollar's worth of food aid is spent on transport, storage and administrative costs, selling food to raise money in, say, Africa, is an exceedingly inefficient way to finance long-term development, Mr. Barrett said. Better to just give nonprofit groups the money directly.

Had the Agency for International Development had the authority to buy food in Ethiopia in the mid-1980's, when a million perished, or in 1999-2000 when 20,000 died, it could have saved many more lives, said its administrator, Andrew S. Natsios, who added, "Speed is everything in a famine response."

He pushed within the administration for a proposal that would allow up to a quarter of his agency's food aid budget to be spent in developing countries. President Bush approved the idea, he said, and it was included in the proposed 2006 budget introduced in February.

Ed Fox, the agency's assistant administrator for legislative and public affairs, said the issue was deliberately given a low profile. Little was to be gained from putting members of Congress in the position of choosing between agricultural constituencies and starving children, he said.

But if the proposal was little noticed by the general public, it did not escape the attention of groups representing the so-called Iron Triangle, who argued that cash used to buy food was more likely to be misused or stolen than were in-kind food donations. They maintained that the administration's proposal should not come at the expense of a program "upon which American producers, processors and shipping companies rely," as a statement from an ad hoc coalition of 17 companies and associations put it.

The Coalition for Food Aid, which represents 16 nonprofit groups, also opposed it. While supporting the idea of buying food in poor countries, said Ellen Levinson, the coalition's lobbyist, its members favored a more limited pilot program paid for only with additional appropriations, not money from the agency's core budget.

Ms. Levinson criticized the administration for failing to spell out how its plan would work, and said a carefully monitored pilot was needed to ensure that food bought in poor countries was safe and that the purchases did not drive up food prices for the poor. She also cautioned that food bought near a crisis would not necessarily be quicker to arrive, noting that the European Union has been very slow to release cash for food in some cases.

But Oxfam, which accepts no direct American food aid and is not part of the coalition, has actively supported the administration's proposal. In testimony submitted to Congress, it pointedly noted that the current system offered too many opportunities "for a variety of private interests to skim off benefits in the procurement, packaging, transportation and distribution of commodities."

And CARE, the second largest distributor of United States food aid and a member of the coalition, had a change of heart. It has now given unconditional support to food purchases in developing countries.

The food aid debate will flare again later this year as global trade talks approach, with the European Union proposing that rich countries give a growing portion of their food aid as cash. But, for now, the administration's proposal is going nowhere. Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, still hopes Congress will ultimately allow up to 10 percent of food aid to be spent in poor countries. "It's a question of trying to save lives," he said.

But opposition remains strong. Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican who heads the House Agriculture Committee, said even Mr. DeWine's modest compromise "would break a coalition that has resulted in one of the most successful food aid programs in world history."

In Canada this year, the politics of food aid has unfolded in a starkly different way, with the leading nonprofit group, the Canadian Foodgrains Bank, and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the country's main umbrella organization of farm groups, supporting a sharp reduction of the amount of food bought in Canada. "Canadian farmers are not going to say you have to source food in Canada regardless of whether starving people are waiting for it," said the federation's president, Robert Friesen.


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

interesting piece from Gloria Steinem, posted at http://digital.guardian.co.uk/guardian/2005/09/13/pages/ber28.shtml

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm a hopeaholic. There's nothing George Bush can do about it

We have imposed our disastrous president on the world — but America's finest quality is already turning the tide at home


Gloria Steinem

It's hard to travel or send words out of the US now. How can any American expect to be welcomed in the rest of the world when we have imposed the narcissistic and disastrous George Bush on it? I could explain that almost none of his policies has majority support here. Even among those who voted for him, a poll showed that 60% to 80% thought they were voting for the opposite of his actual positions: they supported the comprehensive test ban treaty (he didn't); they supported the Kyoto treaty on global warming (he didn't); they supported the international criminal court (he threatened to sanction any nation that did); and so on. This tells you a lot about the level of information in mass media that prefer celebrities, yelling matches and advertising to investigating what is and isn't accurate.

But never fear, Americans are being punished. Having re-elected Bush as a wartime president, we have to watch him alienating more allies and inspiring more people to join the war against us every day.

Still, I have hope. I have hope because majority opinion has turned against the invasion of Iraq in far less time that it took to wake up to Vietnam. I have hope because Bush's selling-off of the US government, one function at a time, has stumbled on the privatisation of social security. I have hope because Americans are finally connecting, via the internet, with what the rest of the world thinks. I have hope because the only long-term solution to rightwing extremism was visible in the last election; I've seen people willing to vote before, but for the first time I saw people fighting to vote. Only an end to our status as one of the lowest-voting democracies in the world can keep a focused and financed minority from cutting through the majority like a hot knife through butter.

Hard times have made me realise that hope might be the most American of qualities, the reason why many immigrants come here and our best export by far. When I've lived in other countries, it's what I've been most homesick for. After all, unless we make a place in our imaginations for what could be, there's not much point in believing in anything. You might say I'm a hopeaholic.

I owe this not only to being born here, but to working as a feminist organiser. Terminal hopefulness is an occupational hazard. None the less, I've come to feel that hope is natural, a necessity of human evolution — and hopelessness has to be carefully taught by those who benefit from the status quo. Here's why.

I had the good luck of missing school until I was 12 or so. My parents thought that seeing the country from a trailer or caravan was as educational as a classroom, so I escaped the discouragement that, especially in my generation, came with it. I wasn't taught that boys and girls were practically different species, that America was "discovered" when the first white guy set foot on it, or that Europe deserved more space in my textbooks than Asia and Africa combined. I didn't even learn that people at the top were smarter than people at the bottom.

Instead I grew up seeing with my own eyes, following my curiosity, falling in love with books and learning mostly from being around grown-ups — which, except for the books, was the way kids had been raised for most of human history. With no one to tell me that some people were born to poverty or that women weren't leaders, but married or gave birth to them, I just assumed that hope could lead anyone anywhere.

Needless to say, school hit me like a ton of bricks. I wasn't prepared for gender obsession, race and class complexities or the new-to-me idea that war, male leadership and a God who mysteriously resembled the ruling class were inevitable. Soon I gave in and became an adolescent trying to fit in, pretending I didn't know what I knew, and keeping my hopes to myself — a stage that lasted through college. I owe the beginnings of rebirth to living in India for a couple of years and falling in with a group of Gandhians, then coming home to the Kennedys, the civil rights movement and protests against the war in Vietnam.

But most women, me included, stayed in our traditional places until we began to gather, listen to each other's stories and learn that the subordinate roles we played, even in otherwise admirable movements, weren't just or inevitable. Soon a national and inter