On Tuesday, May 25th, President Obama unveiled his pick for a new Supreme Court Justice to replace David Souter, the conservative-turned-liberal judge from Vermont appointed by George Bush in 1990. He chose Sonya Sotomayor, a Federal Appeals Judge from New York. The pick has drawn the ire of many conservatives.
Conservative Consternation
Liberal Presidents pick liberal Supreme Court Justices. This is nothing new. However, two things have drawn the consternation of many conservatives. One is a quote from a speech delivered at Berkeley in 2000, when Sotomayor declared that “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” The context of the quote revolved around her belief that there are too few Latina Women sitting on the bench to properly interpret the idiosyncrasies of Latina plaintiffs, and, that, because she is Latina, she “would reach a better conclusion than a white male.” Conservatives are angered because a Judge sitting on the prestigious 2nd Circuit Federal Appeals Court (A step before the Supreme Court) simply cannot believe that “Justice is blind” if she indeed truly believes that a Latina woman would reach a better conclusion than someone from another ethnic or racial background. Such a statement calls into question the nominee's impartiality. The second is that Sotomayor declined to hear an appeal now before the Supreme Court, Ricci vs. DeStefano, which deals with questions of possible “reverse racism” surrounding a firefighter’s test in which only White and Latino Americans passed in the city of New Haven, Connecticut. Because no African American test-takers passed, promotions were denied to all. The Supreme Court is likely to declare that indeed “reverse racism” occurred, and will probably declare the City of New Haven’s actions to deny promotions to those that passed the examinations as unconstitutional. It will probably be a 5-4 decision, according to Supreme Court insiders. The decision will be released at the end of this summer’s Supreme Court session.
Supreme Court Salsa
The only significant difference in the interpretation of the law between Sotomayor and Souter that may alter the direction of the court is Sotomayor’s self-described “realist” interpretation of the law, in which the law is interpreted to keep-up to date with changing business and societal “realities.” Souter was without a doubt also a liberal, but did not hold “realist” interpretations regarding individual rights. In many cases in which individual rights were at odds with states and the federal government, he dependently sided with the individual, displaying a libertarian streak uncommon with most liberal judges. Sotomayor is unlikely to follow Souter’s footsteps regarding individual rights, though she did once rule that abortion protests should be protected completely under the first amendment, so long as they do not incite violence.
There is nothing that is overwhelmingly wrong with the President’s pick, and the conservative backlash that is sure to follow is in many ways overblown and unnecessary. Sotomayor, a liberal, will be replacing Souter, also a liberal. This is important to remember. This will not change the balance of power within the court, as Justice Anthony Kennedy will continue to cast the deciding vote in most of the 5-4 decisions as he sees fit. The court will continue to lean ever-so-slightly conservative for years to come.
President Obama undoubtedly made a calculated political decision in picking a Latina American to sit on the court. If the Republicans in the Senate come out with fangs drawn against Sotomayor, they will draw the anger of the Latino American population, of whom they cannot risk to further alienate. George W. Bush captured 43% of the Latino vote in 2004; Barack Obama captured 67% in 2008, the biggest ethnic swing between the two elections. The GOP should oppose Sotomayor’s confirmation, but only on ideological grounds, and it should be a token effort, as they hold neither the power to reject her confirmation nor the public momentum needed to rile American voters against the historic appointment of Americas first Latina American Supreme Court Justice.
Monday, June 1, 2009
Monday, April 13, 2009
Conservatism Crumbling
Conservatism is in bad shape. Fiscal conservatism is viewed as ineffective regarding our current economic mess. Foreign policy from a traditional conservative standpoint - heavy on defense, light on diplomacy- is increasingly viewed with negative connotations as well. In fact, many believe the nation is in such dire straights because of conservative influence. How did conservatism, marching at heights not before dreamed of in 2004, fall to the place at which it is now?
Communicationisms?
The conservative movement will carry with it for some time the failures of leadership from the Bush Administration. What is of particular note is that through the eight years of the Bush administration - from domestic policy on everything from taxes to abortion - was similar to Ronald Reagan's. George W. Bush even characterized himself as Reagan's ideological heir, never deviating completely from his standpoints. The big difference between the two was not ideas, but how well they communicated them to the public. The Bush administration simply did not put a premium on public support for the issues that it came out strongest for, from the Iraq war to reforming Social Security. It was not an administration bereft of passion nor execution - it held that in droves - but it came up extremely short in effectively communicating its ideas with the American public. The administration's low point regarding communication was Dick Cheney's bombastic 2008 declaration regarding U.S military deaths in Iraq, in which he replied to an interviewer, "So what?"
It is of little surprise that in 2008, among 16 serious presidential contenders, America elected the one who was by far the greatest communicator. A failure of leadership, of which communication is its centerpiece, is why conservatism is in the doldrums. So who then is conservatism's new standard bearer? Who is its new Reagan? don't rush to any conclusions.
Ditto me this
The Obama administration, under the purview of chief political strategist David Axelrod, has hit the conservative weak spot - its lack of leadership. In response to opposition regarding the stimulus bill, President Obama publicly declared to the Republicans on the hill last February that "You guys cant just listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get things done." This was a shot across the bow - Limbaugh is seen by most of the American public as an angry radio show ideologue that is followed too closely by wing-nut conservatives. And verily so - some listeners agree with Limbaugh's positions so wholeheartedly that they have even self-branded themselves "ditto heads." By doing this, Obama painted the radio DJ as the ideological heir of the Republican Party. It would have been the similar if President Bush had appointed Bill Maher as the ideological heart and soul of the Democratic party following a disagreement over legislation in 2001. The only real results of Obama's comment and political grandstanding have been to increase Rush's ratings by several points. Nevertheless, the Obama administration's comments revealed just how bad conservatism is in need of a flagship.
Who wants to ride the elephant next
John McCain lost by 6 points and will have to work hard to defend his Senate seat in 2010. Sarah Palin is viewed negatively by a strong minority of the public and by the vast majority of the news media. Its wealthiest public figure- Mitt Romney- is not poised to take the reigns at any point too soon. Recent political polling does however suggest that registered Republicans would most like to see Romney as the next presidential contender, albeit at a dismal 20% of those polled. Bobby Jindal is too young - at 37- and too much of a regional politician to be considered the next standard bearer of conservatism.
Remember that there has not been a presidential administration since Eisenhower's that has not been rocked with significant scandal. There is little to suggest that the Obama administration will be lucky enough to avoid its own- especially considering Obama's poor vetting regarding cabinet picks. Predicting what or even how the scandal will commence is as difficult as predicting who the next star of the GOP will be. But you can bet that he or she will ride in on the wave of resentment and public outrage that it causes. Obama has promised a new politics. But the next wave of conservatism depends on either time or President Obama's indiscretion.
There is no one looking to ride and lead the elephant today because there are too many droppings behind it that are in need of a good clean up. A new GOP leader will only take the reigns when the mess has disappeared into the ground and out of the public consciousness or if and when the Donkey falls under its own weight.
Communicationisms?
The conservative movement will carry with it for some time the failures of leadership from the Bush Administration. What is of particular note is that through the eight years of the Bush administration - from domestic policy on everything from taxes to abortion - was similar to Ronald Reagan's. George W. Bush even characterized himself as Reagan's ideological heir, never deviating completely from his standpoints. The big difference between the two was not ideas, but how well they communicated them to the public. The Bush administration simply did not put a premium on public support for the issues that it came out strongest for, from the Iraq war to reforming Social Security. It was not an administration bereft of passion nor execution - it held that in droves - but it came up extremely short in effectively communicating its ideas with the American public. The administration's low point regarding communication was Dick Cheney's bombastic 2008 declaration regarding U.S military deaths in Iraq, in which he replied to an interviewer, "So what?"
It is of little surprise that in 2008, among 16 serious presidential contenders, America elected the one who was by far the greatest communicator. A failure of leadership, of which communication is its centerpiece, is why conservatism is in the doldrums. So who then is conservatism's new standard bearer? Who is its new Reagan? don't rush to any conclusions.
Ditto me this
The Obama administration, under the purview of chief political strategist David Axelrod, has hit the conservative weak spot - its lack of leadership. In response to opposition regarding the stimulus bill, President Obama publicly declared to the Republicans on the hill last February that "You guys cant just listen to Rush Limbaugh and expect to get things done." This was a shot across the bow - Limbaugh is seen by most of the American public as an angry radio show ideologue that is followed too closely by wing-nut conservatives. And verily so - some listeners agree with Limbaugh's positions so wholeheartedly that they have even self-branded themselves "ditto heads." By doing this, Obama painted the radio DJ as the ideological heir of the Republican Party. It would have been the similar if President Bush had appointed Bill Maher as the ideological heart and soul of the Democratic party following a disagreement over legislation in 2001. The only real results of Obama's comment and political grandstanding have been to increase Rush's ratings by several points. Nevertheless, the Obama administration's comments revealed just how bad conservatism is in need of a flagship.
Who wants to ride the elephant next
John McCain lost by 6 points and will have to work hard to defend his Senate seat in 2010. Sarah Palin is viewed negatively by a strong minority of the public and by the vast majority of the news media. Its wealthiest public figure- Mitt Romney- is not poised to take the reigns at any point too soon. Recent political polling does however suggest that registered Republicans would most like to see Romney as the next presidential contender, albeit at a dismal 20% of those polled. Bobby Jindal is too young - at 37- and too much of a regional politician to be considered the next standard bearer of conservatism.
Remember that there has not been a presidential administration since Eisenhower's that has not been rocked with significant scandal. There is little to suggest that the Obama administration will be lucky enough to avoid its own- especially considering Obama's poor vetting regarding cabinet picks. Predicting what or even how the scandal will commence is as difficult as predicting who the next star of the GOP will be. But you can bet that he or she will ride in on the wave of resentment and public outrage that it causes. Obama has promised a new politics. But the next wave of conservatism depends on either time or President Obama's indiscretion.
There is no one looking to ride and lead the elephant today because there are too many droppings behind it that are in need of a good clean up. A new GOP leader will only take the reigns when the mess has disappeared into the ground and out of the public consciousness or if and when the Donkey falls under its own weight.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Obama's Afghanistan
Long before Barack Obama assumed the presidency, he declared that the central front of the war on terror was Afghanistan. President Obama’s recent appointment of Richard Holbrooke as special envoy to both Afghanistan and Pakistan and the commitment to send 21,000 additional troops surely point to the present administration’s dedication to stabilize the region. President Obama is making good on his promise to focus more on Afghanistan. However, there is much work to be done, and little of it looks easy.
Khybered Expectations
Unfortunately, many voices in Washington are making calls for lowering expectations regarding what we can actually do to reform Afghanistan. Particularly troubling is the Defense Department’s recent report that building Afghanistan into a stable and functioning state will be too difficult a feat to accomplish. This has been echoed by recent comments from the Obama administration. The DoD and the administration state that America's goals in Afghanistan should be coupled with reality: that Afghanistan, because of its fractured history, lack of a real economy and its virtually non-existent educational system cannot become a stable and democratic nation any time soon. Dreams of creating a democratic and free Afghanistan following our post 9/11 invasion have now been downgraded to one goal, to “Prevent the re-emergence of Al-Qaeda after we leave.” Unfortunately, this strategy is putting the cart before the horse, as abandoning the goal of democratic stability in Afghanistan will mean the return of Islamic terrorist elements. Hoping that Al-Qaeda brand terror networks stay away from a chaotic and fractured Afghanistan will not be enough to prevent it from occurring. Only a full-fledged drive to establish stability and democracy will keep Al-Qaeda at bay.
Soviet Redux?
There is much historical precedent pointing to the fact that Afghanistan is a difficult place to control. This is why the Defense Department and present administration are downplaying the chances of success. The attitude that Afghanistan is the ‘graveyard of empires’ is a largely a relic of the failed Soviet invasion of the 1980’s. But the Soviets were working against more than just the Afghanis. Without the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, American stinger missiles and Saudi cash, the Soviets would have had a much easier time controlling and pacifying the region. Perhaps most importantly, the Soviet attempt to install a godless communist puppet regime in a land known for its dedicated adherence to Islam had little chance of success in the firstplace. Unlike the Soviets, the United states does not want to curtail Islam in Afghanistan nor install a subservient puppet regime. In fact, the United States has an 85% approval rating from Afghanis to stay in the country, a plethora of allies in the region (half of all security troops in Afghanistan are not American) and a much smaller number of enemy combatants to deal with. Most estimates state that the Afghani Taliban number no more than 30,000 troops. The Soviets contended with a number five times that. America is in not nearly as dire straits.
The Never-Ending (Presidential) Afghan Campaign
Domestic political considerations may mean that if the Afghan Surge fails to accomplish goals similar to that which were accomplished in Iraq in 2007, the Obama administration may begin pulling troops before the upcoming 2012 presidential elections. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll states that 57% percent of Americans expect that sending more troops to the region will end up changing nothing or making things worse. This will be a cornerstone foreign policy issue in the next presidential election. After running as an anti-war candidate in 2008, President Obama cannot appear to be the candidate of extending an already decade-long war in 2012.
Who would have guessed that Iraq would have seen the turnaround that it has after the February 2006 bombings in Samarra, which put the country on the brink of disaster? An American abandonment at the time surely would have left Iraq in the doldrums of a genocidal civil war, instead of the developing democracy that it is slowly becoming. Afghanistan today is in not nearly as perilous a position as Iraq was in 2006. Lowering expectations will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. President Obama needs to insist on a stable and democratic Afghanistan if he wishes to prevent the country from becoming a home to Al-Qaeda again. He has at least three years to make it work.
Khybered Expectations
Unfortunately, many voices in Washington are making calls for lowering expectations regarding what we can actually do to reform Afghanistan. Particularly troubling is the Defense Department’s recent report that building Afghanistan into a stable and functioning state will be too difficult a feat to accomplish. This has been echoed by recent comments from the Obama administration. The DoD and the administration state that America's goals in Afghanistan should be coupled with reality: that Afghanistan, because of its fractured history, lack of a real economy and its virtually non-existent educational system cannot become a stable and democratic nation any time soon. Dreams of creating a democratic and free Afghanistan following our post 9/11 invasion have now been downgraded to one goal, to “Prevent the re-emergence of Al-Qaeda after we leave.” Unfortunately, this strategy is putting the cart before the horse, as abandoning the goal of democratic stability in Afghanistan will mean the return of Islamic terrorist elements. Hoping that Al-Qaeda brand terror networks stay away from a chaotic and fractured Afghanistan will not be enough to prevent it from occurring. Only a full-fledged drive to establish stability and democracy will keep Al-Qaeda at bay.
Soviet Redux?
There is much historical precedent pointing to the fact that Afghanistan is a difficult place to control. This is why the Defense Department and present administration are downplaying the chances of success. The attitude that Afghanistan is the ‘graveyard of empires’ is a largely a relic of the failed Soviet invasion of the 1980’s. But the Soviets were working against more than just the Afghanis. Without the influx of thousands of foreign fighters, American stinger missiles and Saudi cash, the Soviets would have had a much easier time controlling and pacifying the region. Perhaps most importantly, the Soviet attempt to install a godless communist puppet regime in a land known for its dedicated adherence to Islam had little chance of success in the firstplace. Unlike the Soviets, the United states does not want to curtail Islam in Afghanistan nor install a subservient puppet regime. In fact, the United States has an 85% approval rating from Afghanis to stay in the country, a plethora of allies in the region (half of all security troops in Afghanistan are not American) and a much smaller number of enemy combatants to deal with. Most estimates state that the Afghani Taliban number no more than 30,000 troops. The Soviets contended with a number five times that. America is in not nearly as dire straits.
The Never-Ending (Presidential) Afghan Campaign
Domestic political considerations may mean that if the Afghan Surge fails to accomplish goals similar to that which were accomplished in Iraq in 2007, the Obama administration may begin pulling troops before the upcoming 2012 presidential elections. A recent Rasmussen Reports poll states that 57% percent of Americans expect that sending more troops to the region will end up changing nothing or making things worse. This will be a cornerstone foreign policy issue in the next presidential election. After running as an anti-war candidate in 2008, President Obama cannot appear to be the candidate of extending an already decade-long war in 2012.
Who would have guessed that Iraq would have seen the turnaround that it has after the February 2006 bombings in Samarra, which put the country on the brink of disaster? An American abandonment at the time surely would have left Iraq in the doldrums of a genocidal civil war, instead of the developing democracy that it is slowly becoming. Afghanistan today is in not nearly as perilous a position as Iraq was in 2006. Lowering expectations will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. President Obama needs to insist on a stable and democratic Afghanistan if he wishes to prevent the country from becoming a home to Al-Qaeda again. He has at least three years to make it work.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Global Recession, Global Culprit
Q: What caused the massive global recession? Was it the banks, the government, big businesses or over-litigious lawyers? Was it the lack of ‘adequate’ health care and education catching up with us, or, was it George W. Bush (The Republicans!) or Nancy Pelosi (The Democrats!)?
A: None of the above, and all of the above.
Anyone claiming to have found the singular bogeyman to blame for the worldwide recession is wrong – yes, even the execs over at AIG aren’t to blame. The globalized economy that slowed down from Singapore to Saskatchewan cannot be blamed on any singular person or even group of people. If there is one thing to keep in mind when explaining the global economic mess, keep in mind that its creation was indeed global as well.
At the heart of the recession are the global trade imbalances that exist between creditor and debtor nations. Without massive trade imbalances, there would have been little reason for the rampant lending that occurred over the past ten years in every market from real estate to consumer products. Differences in the trillions between what nations purchase and sell needs to be corrected and restructured; and the loaning and lending that was done by banks worldwide to finance this discrepancy needs to be corrected as well to make sure that when markets do again stabilize, we do not continue along the same path.
Hedge Hogging
Debt is not always bad – some debt can lead to future growth that would be hard to achieve without it. And some trade imbalances are good – France surely sells more wine than electronics to Japan and vice verse. The problem comes when the imbalances are so outrageous and the debts so huge that the only way to manage them is through wizard finance. The repeal of the Glass-Steagal act in 1999, which had previously separated investment banks and regular banks for the prior 65 years, gave the green light to repackage American debt through new financial instruments. The repeal of the act allowed regular banks and investment banks to work together to repackage and sell loans and hedge funds to other investors at alarming rates, in effect, passing the buck on debt.
The fact that banks (worldwide, not just America’s) leisurely lent money and leveraged loans based on derivatives (presumed future stock market and real estate performances, amongst other derivatives) is obvious enough. Greed and incompetence surely added to the mix. The raison d’être however, lies in the global trade imbalances that caused the global financial industry in both creditor and debtor nations to hedge outrageous debts based on future market performance.
The tipping point was reached in the American housing market in August 2007 and the global stock market in September 2008 when investors and borrowers realized their loans were essentially based on thin air. There was nothing to back assets with other than more derivatives. The cycle couldn't go on any longer.
Stimulate me
As wrong as it is to blame a singular person or group, it is as erroneous to try and find a silver-bullet solution. The global trade imbalances that tipped the world economy to the point of no return had to come along at some point. The intricate global system of financing debt based on the future earnings at unhealthy volumes could not be sustained – and is thankfully at an end.
The problem, however, is that much of the financial services industry (such as AIG) have trillions of dollars wrapped up in loans that aren’t worth a dime. This in turn affects markets all over the world – and as a result stocks plunge and investment grinds to a halt. The only plausible intermediary that can help banks and other companies from insolvency is the United States Government. Therein you have your Stimulus and Troubled Asset Relief (TARP) Programs.
When financial markets do eventually stabilize and are not allowed to repeat the mistakes of the past ten years, we will begin to see the engine of the global economy come down from the lift and begin to run smoothly. The engine won’t-be running at full speed as soon as it hits the pavement – but it will eventually down the road. Global markets are about to change for the better, so long as the bank bailouts and consumer stimulus packages are executed effectively, and the economy is restructured so as to not incur another spate of imbalance and massive debt. The oil in the engine of the world economy is being changed as we speak. Creative destruction reigns on.
A: None of the above, and all of the above.
Anyone claiming to have found the singular bogeyman to blame for the worldwide recession is wrong – yes, even the execs over at AIG aren’t to blame. The globalized economy that slowed down from Singapore to Saskatchewan cannot be blamed on any singular person or even group of people. If there is one thing to keep in mind when explaining the global economic mess, keep in mind that its creation was indeed global as well.
At the heart of the recession are the global trade imbalances that exist between creditor and debtor nations. Without massive trade imbalances, there would have been little reason for the rampant lending that occurred over the past ten years in every market from real estate to consumer products. Differences in the trillions between what nations purchase and sell needs to be corrected and restructured; and the loaning and lending that was done by banks worldwide to finance this discrepancy needs to be corrected as well to make sure that when markets do again stabilize, we do not continue along the same path.
Hedge Hogging
Debt is not always bad – some debt can lead to future growth that would be hard to achieve without it. And some trade imbalances are good – France surely sells more wine than electronics to Japan and vice verse. The problem comes when the imbalances are so outrageous and the debts so huge that the only way to manage them is through wizard finance. The repeal of the Glass-Steagal act in 1999, which had previously separated investment banks and regular banks for the prior 65 years, gave the green light to repackage American debt through new financial instruments. The repeal of the act allowed regular banks and investment banks to work together to repackage and sell loans and hedge funds to other investors at alarming rates, in effect, passing the buck on debt.
The fact that banks (worldwide, not just America’s) leisurely lent money and leveraged loans based on derivatives (presumed future stock market and real estate performances, amongst other derivatives) is obvious enough. Greed and incompetence surely added to the mix. The raison d’être however, lies in the global trade imbalances that caused the global financial industry in both creditor and debtor nations to hedge outrageous debts based on future market performance.
The tipping point was reached in the American housing market in August 2007 and the global stock market in September 2008 when investors and borrowers realized their loans were essentially based on thin air. There was nothing to back assets with other than more derivatives. The cycle couldn't go on any longer.
Stimulate me
As wrong as it is to blame a singular person or group, it is as erroneous to try and find a silver-bullet solution. The global trade imbalances that tipped the world economy to the point of no return had to come along at some point. The intricate global system of financing debt based on the future earnings at unhealthy volumes could not be sustained – and is thankfully at an end.
The problem, however, is that much of the financial services industry (such as AIG) have trillions of dollars wrapped up in loans that aren’t worth a dime. This in turn affects markets all over the world – and as a result stocks plunge and investment grinds to a halt. The only plausible intermediary that can help banks and other companies from insolvency is the United States Government. Therein you have your Stimulus and Troubled Asset Relief (TARP) Programs.
When financial markets do eventually stabilize and are not allowed to repeat the mistakes of the past ten years, we will begin to see the engine of the global economy come down from the lift and begin to run smoothly. The engine won’t-be running at full speed as soon as it hits the pavement – but it will eventually down the road. Global markets are about to change for the better, so long as the bank bailouts and consumer stimulus packages are executed effectively, and the economy is restructured so as to not incur another spate of imbalance and massive debt. The oil in the engine of the world economy is being changed as we speak. Creative destruction reigns on.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Sudan and Darfur: What You Don't Know
Since Sudan achieved its independence in 1956 from joint rule by the United Kingdom and Egypt, it has been in a state of perpetual civil war. In fact four major civil wars have occurred since it was granted independence and the latest, as you may have heard, is happening in the western portion of the country called Darfur. It has left over 2 million people displaced and over 300,000 dead.
What you may not know is that the majority of the civil wars that were fought in Sudan have been between north and south Sudan, resulting in far more death and displacement over the past 40 years than which has occurred over the last 4 in Darfur.
The size of Sudan may be the cause of its very bloody recent history. As Africa’s largest country, (tenth largest in the world) it encompasses literally hundreds of ethnic groups. They can be lumped into two groupings however: northern and southern. The north, having linguistic, religious and cultural ties with the Arabic world is very different from the south, which has little cultural connection with the Arabic world and is mostly tribal and/or Christian. Darfur, located in the southwest, is a conglomeration of the two: it is tribal, yet lax Muslim. It fits neatly into neither and has incurred the onslaught of the Islamist north, which seeks to impose control in Darfur by kicking out the lackadaisical Muslim tribes in order to settle loyal northern citizens and implement its very strict brand of Islamic law. The world has watched this happen because there is more to the picture than that which is happening in Darfur. Concern from the rest of the world remains focused on the future of north-south relations.
America, of course
In 2005, after 50 years of on-again of–again civil war and under heavy American pressure, the north and south concluded an agreement which stipulates that a referendum on independence take place for south Sudan in 2011. It will almost certainly lead to an independent state for the Christian south. But will the north allow this to peaceably occur?
The vast majority of the oil flowing out of Sudan (80%) is located in the south, but the market is dominated by northern Sudanese firms backed with incredible capital support from their brethren in the Arabic world and their biggest customers, the Chinese. The South has seen neither reinvestment nor benefit from the Islamist north, which dominates the government. All the while sprawling government buildings and palaces are being constructed in the North’s largest city and capital, Khartoum.
In addition, the North has stepped up oil drilling in the south and moved 60,000 troops into the region: it knows it only has 3 years to extract as much black gold from the southern portion of the country before it reaches its long desired independence.
Intelligence firms have long stipulated that the displacement of millions of civilians in Darfur is closely related to the growing independence movement in the south. By controlling the western gateway to the south through Darfur, the north will find itself at a significant military advantage if it chooses not to respect southern independence once the referendums occur in 2011. Darfur has also provided an excellent distraction from the movement of 60,000 troops into the south this past year. For example, how many of you have heard of Darfur, but not southern Sudan’s demand for independence?
Wait till 2011
Since the United States brokered the peace deal between north and south in 2005, the north has stepped up its campaign of genocide in the southwestern region (Darfur) in an attempt to militarily prepare itself for the coming insurgency that will erupt once the south votes for independence - that is, if the north will even allow this to happen.
American military bases are located around the periphery of Sudan – from the air force base in neighboring Djibouti that flew sorties against Islamist militias in Somalia in 2008, to the training and intelligence stations in Sudan's neighbors Ethiopia and Kenya. It is clear that the United States is slowly positioning itself as a powerful force against the Islamist north. If the United States continues to develop a respectable military force in the region to counter the northern Sudanese, than perhaps it can push the north away from implementing a repeat of the Darfur genocide in southern Sudan come 2011.
American involvement in Sudan will come, but it won’t happen until 2011. It is then when it will make a stand to protect not just Darfur, but the 12 million Sudanese in the oil rich south. 2011, however, may be too late for those already suffering and dying in Darfur.
What you may not know is that the majority of the civil wars that were fought in Sudan have been between north and south Sudan, resulting in far more death and displacement over the past 40 years than which has occurred over the last 4 in Darfur.
The size of Sudan may be the cause of its very bloody recent history. As Africa’s largest country, (tenth largest in the world) it encompasses literally hundreds of ethnic groups. They can be lumped into two groupings however: northern and southern. The north, having linguistic, religious and cultural ties with the Arabic world is very different from the south, which has little cultural connection with the Arabic world and is mostly tribal and/or Christian. Darfur, located in the southwest, is a conglomeration of the two: it is tribal, yet lax Muslim. It fits neatly into neither and has incurred the onslaught of the Islamist north, which seeks to impose control in Darfur by kicking out the lackadaisical Muslim tribes in order to settle loyal northern citizens and implement its very strict brand of Islamic law. The world has watched this happen because there is more to the picture than that which is happening in Darfur. Concern from the rest of the world remains focused on the future of north-south relations.
America, of course
In 2005, after 50 years of on-again of–again civil war and under heavy American pressure, the north and south concluded an agreement which stipulates that a referendum on independence take place for south Sudan in 2011. It will almost certainly lead to an independent state for the Christian south. But will the north allow this to peaceably occur?
The vast majority of the oil flowing out of Sudan (80%) is located in the south, but the market is dominated by northern Sudanese firms backed with incredible capital support from their brethren in the Arabic world and their biggest customers, the Chinese. The South has seen neither reinvestment nor benefit from the Islamist north, which dominates the government. All the while sprawling government buildings and palaces are being constructed in the North’s largest city and capital, Khartoum.
In addition, the North has stepped up oil drilling in the south and moved 60,000 troops into the region: it knows it only has 3 years to extract as much black gold from the southern portion of the country before it reaches its long desired independence.
Intelligence firms have long stipulated that the displacement of millions of civilians in Darfur is closely related to the growing independence movement in the south. By controlling the western gateway to the south through Darfur, the north will find itself at a significant military advantage if it chooses not to respect southern independence once the referendums occur in 2011. Darfur has also provided an excellent distraction from the movement of 60,000 troops into the south this past year. For example, how many of you have heard of Darfur, but not southern Sudan’s demand for independence?
Wait till 2011
Since the United States brokered the peace deal between north and south in 2005, the north has stepped up its campaign of genocide in the southwestern region (Darfur) in an attempt to militarily prepare itself for the coming insurgency that will erupt once the south votes for independence - that is, if the north will even allow this to happen.
American military bases are located around the periphery of Sudan – from the air force base in neighboring Djibouti that flew sorties against Islamist militias in Somalia in 2008, to the training and intelligence stations in Sudan's neighbors Ethiopia and Kenya. It is clear that the United States is slowly positioning itself as a powerful force against the Islamist north. If the United States continues to develop a respectable military force in the region to counter the northern Sudanese, than perhaps it can push the north away from implementing a repeat of the Darfur genocide in southern Sudan come 2011.
American involvement in Sudan will come, but it won’t happen until 2011. It is then when it will make a stand to protect not just Darfur, but the 12 million Sudanese in the oil rich south. 2011, however, may be too late for those already suffering and dying in Darfur.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
