Keywords and Terms: Military Intervention; American Allies; Libya; Internal Strife; Skeptical Americans Public; Massacre; Moammar Kadaffi; Zinga-Zinga.
While engaging in a civil war may not be the essence of the United States intervention in Libya, Obama’s constructive and forceful argument for intervention gives a new definition for being sympathetic to the course of democratically yearning people of the world, especially in the Arab world. The statements of the President, no matter what fence you sit on, shows a President actively engaged in positioning the country properly in the upcoming changes in the Arab world and probably the whole of middle east. The blog tonight looks at the president's argument for intervention; and the quick withdrawal of leadership of the intervention in Libya.
Libyans and probably secretly, many leaders in the Arab world, subscribes to the leadership role taken by the United States in this instance in the Arab world. A few political observers in the Arab world, probably wished the US could have done the same in some of the more despotic countries of the region, a few of which are currently having faint echoes of progressive democratic group inkling. The fact that the intervention is circumspect, both by liberals and conservatives, would probably convince any observer of the politics of Obama’s Administration, that it is accomplishing the objectives it has set for itself since the November 2010 election results: Go Centrist!
The conservatives are concerned that the President's action came a little too late and liberals found the action probably unacceptable in light of the fact that the country is already engaged in two foreign wars. Be as it may, the nature of the current intervention does not represent the determinism of the White House for all countries that may be yearning for political freedom; as you may deduce from this administration’s action with respect to Egypt, Tunisia, or Syria. Instead, the current Whitehouse believes that its intervention in Libya remains a compassionate action to save thousands of lives that might have been lost, with Kaddafi’s promise to root out oppositions, ‘Zinga-Zinga’!
While the President overwhelmingly subscribes to the view that it is our responsibility as a nation to protect helpless Libyan citizens, very few people believe that a threat to our national interest was evident in his choice. Indeed, many Americans internalized close to a universal belief that the American military and or might, was being stretched too thin with a third intervention in less than two decades. Maybe the President’s comment: "In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners," convinces the skeptics that this intervention wasn’t going to be a one-man show and was necessary on humanitarian grounds; or wouldn’t be for too long or too costly for the nation to bear.
Given that the current intervention sought an international coalition of the willing, who are willing to take on the responsibility of leading the war, as the US shuddered the burden of being the prime leader, no one in the skeptical group completely believes or buys into the President’s assertion that the country has an important strategic interest in preventing Kaddafi from overturning those who oppose him. While the President made somewhat of a convincing case for intervention, the better news from the administration probably came from Secretary Gates comments to CBS’ Bob Schieffer on the face the nation program, last Sunday: "I think the military mission has gone quite well...I think we have been successful a lot. You know, there was never any doubt in my mind that we could quickly establish the no-fly zone, and suppress [Qaddafi's] air defenses." Coupled with the following from Secretary of State Clinton: "we've already seen quite significant progress on the ground;” one can believe that our voyeurism in Libya is temporary. In other words, we are done with our immediate assignment and we are getting out in a jiffy!
Many in the Arab world may subscribe to the notion that the conflict in Libya has the tendency of spreading beyond the country’s border, however, very few of them share the conviction that clamping down on Libyan’s oppositions by Kaddafi will endanger democracy movement in neighboring countries as Egypt and Tunisia. With progressive forces fanning democracy across the Arab world, just as the manhandling of the conflict in Libya by Kaddaffi may spread to other country, so also can the wave of complete conviction in breaking the chains of oppressions and abuses spread across the Arab world. In fact the latter assertion is already taking place, whether other despotic Arab leaders know it or not. The reality is that some leaders in the Arab world are so brutal and more disposed to doing the same thing Kadaffi is accused of, and probably are presently doing same discretely. A few of them are more worried about the political implication of America’s intervention in terms of their own long term survival, with the wave of democratic forces upheaval within their border, the repeated regime changes that has deluged the Arabian world, and the uncomfortable theater of political instability that is now developing with many Muslim countries. The Arab nations are geopolitical different as is well known and the progress already made in the democratic movements in the Arab world, with changes in Tunisia and Egypt being somewhat unique and germane to each of the country because of the geopolitical arrangement within the borders of each country, the coming changes and the US administration’s reaction to each, is a toss up. Indeed, change is already in the Arab world and no one out there can actually say what to expect with the roaring change and clamor for democratic principles in many of these nations.
If the President’s outlined doctrine for intervention in a situation where there is a repressive regime is to hold, the question that ought to be addressed then is, why haven’t we done the same in China, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Yemen, Zimbabwe, North Korea and a host other countries known for repressive regimes? The truth is there is no general agreement regarding why we intervened in Libya, even within the Democratic Party membership. Some critics of the President’s failure to quickly act or ‘slow to act’ choice before intervening in Libya may want to stress the inequality in his doctrine of intervention. Different treatment of nations regarding when to intervene or when not to intervene, when there is a likelihood of a repressive regime in power, exhibits the follies in the intervention doctrine as espoused by the President tonight.
Even though the President believes that a failure to act in Libya would carry a far greater price for America, objective assessment of the action taken so far with respect to Libya, differs from what happened with similar upheaval in China, Bahrain, Jordon and Yemen. Because of our failure to act in a nation like Yemen, a country where Al Qaddai is known to flourish, even though we believe in the lukewarm approach of their leader in the so called war against terrorism in that country and the recent action from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with respect to what was going on within the borders of Bahrain, calls to question our conviction in the President’s doctrine of intervention.
When the upheaval began in Yemen, we had the opportunity to intervene and actually root out any of the clowns/clans and madrasses in that country known to be propagating hatred for America and the west. We had the opportunity to clandestinely cleanse that country of people known to want to kill us, who populate that country. Tyrannical and despotic leaders are still in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, North Korean, Zimbabwe and many more. Women, who cannot drive or go out singularly in Saudi Arabia, will tell you their repressive regime ought to be questioned and so far, we have refrained from doing that while going after Libya. In fact, it could be argued that the only reason why we have not taken similar action in Bahrain, a country where a minority group leads a majority group, is because of our understanding of the differences in the geopolitical power tussle in many Arab nations. Repressive regimes still exist in the Arab world and we know many of them, Saudi Arabia, being number one. Our intervention in Libya does not justify intervening in those countries; however, justifying intervention in Libya with the premise that the cost could be higher, hardly holds much water.
As of today, the United States has taken the extraordinary step to halt the aggression of Col Kaddafi on his own people. President Obama said the US and its allies faced a choice between taking military action and letting the despot massacre civilians in an act that could have stained the conscience of the world. Apprehensive political observers however, reject the discriminatory doctrinal principle advanced for justifying the intervention because we know other despotic countries exist in the Arab world, and elsewhere as we speak, and our doctrine has not been invoked regarding their administration of their nation's affairs; or, clamping down on democratic progressive forces within their border. Moreover, evidence reveals that because of the delayed intervention or the ill-defined purpose of our intervention, our doctrinal strategy at this time, may suffer a setback, if the rebellion in Libya could not take over Libya from Kaddafi. The President has effectively said that the US wants Kaddafi out. If we are unable to achieve this, then our nation’s reputation is on the line. If the rebellion cannot overcome the power of Kaddaffi, there is no way we will not have to commit ground troups in Libya to accomplish the President’s pronouncement of wanting Kaddafi out. Anything less, will be an affront to our integrity as the leading nation in the world!
NB:
Despite my criticisms, I defer to the President on this one because of the articulation of his presentation. He believes in his arguments and presented them in a more aggressive fashion than in the past. The speech was well delivered and carried an allure that is a departure from earlier speeches of the President. Mr. Obama, you are worthy of that office and I enjoyed your presentation!
Monday, March 28, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
The 228 to 192 Vote to Defund NPR: all of us do not want to end up as Sarah Palin!
My mom once told me, you think education is expensive, try ignorance! You think National Public Radio is contributing to the nation’s deficit, imagine what a bunch of illiterate pregnant teenagers will do to the nation’s budget. When you take away any source of learning from people, all you have left are wastes and Riff-Raff.
Slavery days are here again, educational slavery, informational slavery and people's exploitation, if you ask me! The only reason why many of us can read and write, listen and adjudged comments from other people, is because we are exposed to erudite communications from so many guests and speakers on National Public Radio. Well, maybe I am pushing that too far, but schooling information and learning are important in our ability to articulate issues. Many people who have graduated from high school are not only able to understand issues and changes better, they get the privilege of making more money throughout their life time, than those who have not. After school, it is often important to be exposed to information to help us reinforce our learning, knowledge and advance our intellect. The Republicans voted 228 to 192 in support of a bill that will cut public funds to the National Public Radio, an important source of information and learning. What an achievement!
This is a sad day in America. Not only do I and so many well deserving human beings take objections to this bill, we absolutely impinge anyone’s character, any Republican who voted to take money away from television programming that introduced barney to my daughters, is guilty of child molestation. By this singular act, Republicans have made it personal against my family. My daughters, God bless their souls, listened religiously to National Public Radio, and today one of them is a speech pathologist and is graduating with an MBA, come June. Now, you want me to tell you, what National Public Radio means, and yes: It means a difference between a literate populace, who can contribute to our Democracy, and a nation full of bonobos who think and speak like Sarah Palin!
Since Republicans consider Sarah Palin as their heroine; yes, I don’t want any of my daughters to think and talk like a dummy. That is why defunding of NPR on a vote of 228 to 192 in the US House of Representative is an affront on literacy. I am boiling to kingdom come right now, boiling so badly, I am about to boil over. This type of crap is what they did to slaves in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Now, they are doing it all over again only this time, to the greatest number of Americans who can still think and have their heads over their shoulders. We are not going to let this one down, though. If any of our current congressmen or women went to a state supported school and he or she voted to defund NPR, he or she is an ingrate and ungrateful wretch. Because a few NPR executives made some gaffes, millions of children will not have the opportunity that Mary, my beautiful daughter, had to watch Barney? Oh No, I am going to cry foul until someone comes to convince me that defunding National Public Radio and CPB will help America balance its National or State’s budget deficits!
All republicans that voted to defund National Public Radio are short-sighted. I am leaving my phone number for you to call me, 253-347-1420, because that is how passionate I am about public radio and the insult from all that voted to defund this singular service that means anything on the airwaves. None of us would want our children exposed to languages from drug addicts and college drop outs that are filled commercial radio. None of us want children that talk like a nincompoop, that is why we are upset that the only other source of critical thinking that is left on the airwaves is about to be taken away from us. You know what goes around comes around?
Slavery days are here again, educational slavery, informational slavery and people's exploitation, if you ask me! The only reason why many of us can read and write, listen and adjudged comments from other people, is because we are exposed to erudite communications from so many guests and speakers on National Public Radio. Well, maybe I am pushing that too far, but schooling information and learning are important in our ability to articulate issues. Many people who have graduated from high school are not only able to understand issues and changes better, they get the privilege of making more money throughout their life time, than those who have not. After school, it is often important to be exposed to information to help us reinforce our learning, knowledge and advance our intellect. The Republicans voted 228 to 192 in support of a bill that will cut public funds to the National Public Radio, an important source of information and learning. What an achievement!
This is a sad day in America. Not only do I and so many well deserving human beings take objections to this bill, we absolutely impinge anyone’s character, any Republican who voted to take money away from television programming that introduced barney to my daughters, is guilty of child molestation. By this singular act, Republicans have made it personal against my family. My daughters, God bless their souls, listened religiously to National Public Radio, and today one of them is a speech pathologist and is graduating with an MBA, come June. Now, you want me to tell you, what National Public Radio means, and yes: It means a difference between a literate populace, who can contribute to our Democracy, and a nation full of bonobos who think and speak like Sarah Palin!
Since Republicans consider Sarah Palin as their heroine; yes, I don’t want any of my daughters to think and talk like a dummy. That is why defunding of NPR on a vote of 228 to 192 in the US House of Representative is an affront on literacy. I am boiling to kingdom come right now, boiling so badly, I am about to boil over. This type of crap is what they did to slaves in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Now, they are doing it all over again only this time, to the greatest number of Americans who can still think and have their heads over their shoulders. We are not going to let this one down, though. If any of our current congressmen or women went to a state supported school and he or she voted to defund NPR, he or she is an ingrate and ungrateful wretch. Because a few NPR executives made some gaffes, millions of children will not have the opportunity that Mary, my beautiful daughter, had to watch Barney? Oh No, I am going to cry foul until someone comes to convince me that defunding National Public Radio and CPB will help America balance its National or State’s budget deficits!
All republicans that voted to defund National Public Radio are short-sighted. I am leaving my phone number for you to call me, 253-347-1420, because that is how passionate I am about public radio and the insult from all that voted to defund this singular service that means anything on the airwaves. None of us would want our children exposed to languages from drug addicts and college drop outs that are filled commercial radio. None of us want children that talk like a nincompoop, that is why we are upset that the only other source of critical thinking that is left on the airwaves is about to be taken away from us. You know what goes around comes around?
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Want, Effort and Satisfaction in Egyptian Uprising and Democracy?
What a profound spectacle to watch President Hussein Mubarak of Egypt fall from grace to grass. It would be difficult to ascertain what exactly led to the overthrowing of a despot who led Egypt for over three decades, dined and wined with kings, queens, presidents, prime ministers, democrats, capitalists, communists, and oligarchs of all shades and colors across the globe.
Progressive pressure groups and some media outlets would like to credit the fall of the former President of Egypt to social media; however, those who know better will tell you that it takes more than social media; it took the will and dedication of the Egyptian masses to bring down a conniving despot. The stars for his fall were probably better aligned this year, considering that the April 6 pressure groups in Egypt had consistently worked to topple his government prior till now but had been unsuccessful; just as the Muslim brotherhood and other political action groups in Egypt had worked to see Mubarak go into retirement with exasperation.
To paraphrase the Nineteen Century French Economic Journalist Basitiat Frédéric (1801-1850), the (Egyptian) poor have risen against the rich house of the pharaohs, the proletariat against the monarchy, government outsiders against the insiders; the commoners against the power that be, the scorns of the earth against the filthy rich; the underclass against the blue blood! Tasha, times are a-changing! The former first Egyptian family, who has been alleged to have stolen billions, if banking record can help prove that, is tonight in a hole in the resort city Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, just like a foreign tourist in the land of his father and mother! How are the mighty falling and the weapons of the war, perish! With a backdrop like this, what must now be our focus in foreign policy initiative for Egypt or diplomatic work arrangement with respect to the new nations that are falling into democracy or falling out of tyranny and oppression from despots in the middle east? Our blog tonight attempts to explore this question and associated developments.
Just before Mubarak fell, the embattled President attempted to hold on to power, by giving a speech now considered as a flagrant insult to the Egyptian public. While remaining defiant as he offered a theory that foreign influence was behind the progressive groups' attempt to dethrone him and relied on appealing to the nationalistic sense and pride of a people he once had total hold over. Obama Administration did not help matter either, as it continued to diplomatically work behind the screen, imploring the despot to depart from office. The White House publicly denied it was working against an ally, but deep within the State Department Office were foreign policy experts on middle east working over time, trying to figure out what next step the former president was going to take. The soon-to-be ousted President Mubarak attempted to arouse the sense of pride and dignity of being Egyptian, but failed to appreciate the gravity of the movement against his leadership and the extent of hatred for his administration. Maybe this was a folly of his, but the reality was that time already ran out on him with the new protest and there was nothing anyone outside of Egypt could do to save the despot.
At long last, Egyptians of all shades, rich, poor, Christians and Muslims were completely in agreement that it was time for the despot to go, yet in his delusion, he found stepping down from what he considered a meritorious service to his motherland, difficult to swallow. Alas, the same preconceived group, the military whom he had assume an unyielding loyalty from, showed him the door. Mubarak hand-picked Vice-President, Omar Suleiman and Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, probably advised him that his time is up; and, though he may not want it, the forces against him as the President were too overwhelming. The thirty seconds announcement from Omar Suleiman in an eye-drooping and self-defeated look said it all: the people have spoken and there was no more room for Mubarak tactics or oppression. Egyptians people took back their power!
Mubarak wanted to remain in the office, he wanted to hold on to power, Egyptians who had been deprived of any sense of decency for three decades, wanted their freedom and were willing to die for it. The revolt from the people was as huge as a hurricane and as wet as dripping rain. The dictatorial rule of Mubarak conflicted with the people’s cry for freedom. There was no doubt, a transformation was taking place last week Thursday. No one however, knew what the form of transformation was about to take. The uncertainty of the revolt beclouded even the most astute foreign policy experts in America. The character of the transformation was unpredictable and the certainty of the effort of the progressive groups in Egypt was arguably debatable. However, at last, Mubarak fell.
For now, it would be difficult to say whether Mubarak's despotic power has passed from him to the military; or that the newly found freedom by Egyptians are concrete enough to guarantee the type of Democracy or freedom, they are badly seeking. We do not know, whether the freedom sought by Egyptians is going to pass from theory to practice or that it may be delayed by the military care-taker government that has taken over from Mubarak. What is known though is: The former President of Egypt is no more the head of state in Egypt and his past influences, if not completely wiped out by now, has waned disproportionately. Mubarak is despised everywhere in Egypt and probably a few groups who may still have nostalgia for his leadership, are fast realizing that a new day is here for the country: Egypt.
Our pivotal foreign policy question now: how do we address or deal with the new realities in the middle east, vis-a-vis the change that has suddenly befallen or about to befall many nations in that region? Where does our national interest stand? What must we now do to ensure that our national interests that were preserved under the previous leaderships are not eroded with the new dispensation in the middle east, especially in the land of the pharaohs?
Turning a mix of loosely surviving despots and probably some budding democratic states into advantageous or sympathetic loyalists, must now take a prominent place in our foreign policy initiatives. How will our prior negotiations that have so much served our nation so well, survive under the new leaderships and systems of government? Reduced budget for toppling the despotic leaders across the globe will be in order. Financing and supporting internet connections for many more nations in the region is not out of order but cannot be solely regarded as a silver bullet for bringing down governments in nations as Iran, North Korea or Yemen.
Understanding the progress on the ground in many nations yearning for Democracy is one step forward; however, a renewed emphasis on those areas of cooperation with progressive groups in unstable nations where we can gain some traction and commitment from the new power brokers, may just be another alternative in waiting. Building our carrots around those initiatives and programs that will help the nations with their newly found freedom understand what is expected in running and managing a democratic system of government must now be part of our foreign policy diplomatic portfolio. Those nations are yearning for knowledge on how to accelerate nation building in a democratic styled system of government. We must now help them understand what it takes to be successful and must be part of our focus in foreign policy initiative.
No one must now debate that the 'Domino Effect' is in full play and we may not have complete control over how many nations with despotic or unstable governments may fall in the coming months or year. The foreign policy war now is not sustaining former despots who have bid our interests; rather, the war is capturing the new power brokers in the nations that are gradually falling into Democracy, if you will allow me to say so. The challenge for the State Department and foreign policy analysts is how to develop mutually beneficial democratic government building programs, programs that will gain currency among the former progressive pressure groups who saw our nation as a beacon of hope, the shinning light on the hill, which many of them are now clamoring for or flocking to be like. How successful we are able to achieve this new threshold, or how we are able to convince these new democratic neophytes will determine our level of influence in the coming decades in these countries.
We must now invest in leadership development in democratic nation building in radically under-capitalized or un-capitalized economies. While opening our benevolent hearts, we must not have the illusion that all these countries will end up being loyal or sympathetic to our course or immediate interest in the type of government that will emanate from this new crisis over the middle east or the world. We cannot remain docile hoping that once these countries are able to get rid of their oppressing governments or start to take baby steps in democratic governance, they will see issues our way and manage their affairs the same way we have done.
There are some nuances and characteristics peculiar to some cultures in the states seeking democracy that are antithetic to some democratic principles. Some of the inherent cultural road blocks may make progress to a successful democratic state unattainable on our own time table. Like new babies, we may just have to wait for some nations to find their own bearings, just like a new baby, they must be allowed to fail and learn from their mistakes as they take the long walk to a free and democratic state. While doing all these, we must stay loyal to our national interests. This is our new foreign policy realities and we must now work to embrace them in our foreign diplomatic work.
Progressive pressure groups and some media outlets would like to credit the fall of the former President of Egypt to social media; however, those who know better will tell you that it takes more than social media; it took the will and dedication of the Egyptian masses to bring down a conniving despot. The stars for his fall were probably better aligned this year, considering that the April 6 pressure groups in Egypt had consistently worked to topple his government prior till now but had been unsuccessful; just as the Muslim brotherhood and other political action groups in Egypt had worked to see Mubarak go into retirement with exasperation.
To paraphrase the Nineteen Century French Economic Journalist Basitiat Frédéric (1801-1850), the (Egyptian) poor have risen against the rich house of the pharaohs, the proletariat against the monarchy, government outsiders against the insiders; the commoners against the power that be, the scorns of the earth against the filthy rich; the underclass against the blue blood! Tasha, times are a-changing! The former first Egyptian family, who has been alleged to have stolen billions, if banking record can help prove that, is tonight in a hole in the resort city Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, just like a foreign tourist in the land of his father and mother! How are the mighty falling and the weapons of the war, perish! With a backdrop like this, what must now be our focus in foreign policy initiative for Egypt or diplomatic work arrangement with respect to the new nations that are falling into democracy or falling out of tyranny and oppression from despots in the middle east? Our blog tonight attempts to explore this question and associated developments.
Just before Mubarak fell, the embattled President attempted to hold on to power, by giving a speech now considered as a flagrant insult to the Egyptian public. While remaining defiant as he offered a theory that foreign influence was behind the progressive groups' attempt to dethrone him and relied on appealing to the nationalistic sense and pride of a people he once had total hold over. Obama Administration did not help matter either, as it continued to diplomatically work behind the screen, imploring the despot to depart from office. The White House publicly denied it was working against an ally, but deep within the State Department Office were foreign policy experts on middle east working over time, trying to figure out what next step the former president was going to take. The soon-to-be ousted President Mubarak attempted to arouse the sense of pride and dignity of being Egyptian, but failed to appreciate the gravity of the movement against his leadership and the extent of hatred for his administration. Maybe this was a folly of his, but the reality was that time already ran out on him with the new protest and there was nothing anyone outside of Egypt could do to save the despot.
At long last, Egyptians of all shades, rich, poor, Christians and Muslims were completely in agreement that it was time for the despot to go, yet in his delusion, he found stepping down from what he considered a meritorious service to his motherland, difficult to swallow. Alas, the same preconceived group, the military whom he had assume an unyielding loyalty from, showed him the door. Mubarak hand-picked Vice-President, Omar Suleiman and Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq, probably advised him that his time is up; and, though he may not want it, the forces against him as the President were too overwhelming. The thirty seconds announcement from Omar Suleiman in an eye-drooping and self-defeated look said it all: the people have spoken and there was no more room for Mubarak tactics or oppression. Egyptians people took back their power!
Mubarak wanted to remain in the office, he wanted to hold on to power, Egyptians who had been deprived of any sense of decency for three decades, wanted their freedom and were willing to die for it. The revolt from the people was as huge as a hurricane and as wet as dripping rain. The dictatorial rule of Mubarak conflicted with the people’s cry for freedom. There was no doubt, a transformation was taking place last week Thursday. No one however, knew what the form of transformation was about to take. The uncertainty of the revolt beclouded even the most astute foreign policy experts in America. The character of the transformation was unpredictable and the certainty of the effort of the progressive groups in Egypt was arguably debatable. However, at last, Mubarak fell.
For now, it would be difficult to say whether Mubarak's despotic power has passed from him to the military; or that the newly found freedom by Egyptians are concrete enough to guarantee the type of Democracy or freedom, they are badly seeking. We do not know, whether the freedom sought by Egyptians is going to pass from theory to practice or that it may be delayed by the military care-taker government that has taken over from Mubarak. What is known though is: The former President of Egypt is no more the head of state in Egypt and his past influences, if not completely wiped out by now, has waned disproportionately. Mubarak is despised everywhere in Egypt and probably a few groups who may still have nostalgia for his leadership, are fast realizing that a new day is here for the country: Egypt.
Our pivotal foreign policy question now: how do we address or deal with the new realities in the middle east, vis-a-vis the change that has suddenly befallen or about to befall many nations in that region? Where does our national interest stand? What must we now do to ensure that our national interests that were preserved under the previous leaderships are not eroded with the new dispensation in the middle east, especially in the land of the pharaohs?
Turning a mix of loosely surviving despots and probably some budding democratic states into advantageous or sympathetic loyalists, must now take a prominent place in our foreign policy initiatives. How will our prior negotiations that have so much served our nation so well, survive under the new leaderships and systems of government? Reduced budget for toppling the despotic leaders across the globe will be in order. Financing and supporting internet connections for many more nations in the region is not out of order but cannot be solely regarded as a silver bullet for bringing down governments in nations as Iran, North Korea or Yemen.
Understanding the progress on the ground in many nations yearning for Democracy is one step forward; however, a renewed emphasis on those areas of cooperation with progressive groups in unstable nations where we can gain some traction and commitment from the new power brokers, may just be another alternative in waiting. Building our carrots around those initiatives and programs that will help the nations with their newly found freedom understand what is expected in running and managing a democratic system of government must now be part of our foreign policy diplomatic portfolio. Those nations are yearning for knowledge on how to accelerate nation building in a democratic styled system of government. We must now help them understand what it takes to be successful and must be part of our focus in foreign policy initiative.
No one must now debate that the 'Domino Effect' is in full play and we may not have complete control over how many nations with despotic or unstable governments may fall in the coming months or year. The foreign policy war now is not sustaining former despots who have bid our interests; rather, the war is capturing the new power brokers in the nations that are gradually falling into Democracy, if you will allow me to say so. The challenge for the State Department and foreign policy analysts is how to develop mutually beneficial democratic government building programs, programs that will gain currency among the former progressive pressure groups who saw our nation as a beacon of hope, the shinning light on the hill, which many of them are now clamoring for or flocking to be like. How successful we are able to achieve this new threshold, or how we are able to convince these new democratic neophytes will determine our level of influence in the coming decades in these countries.
We must now invest in leadership development in democratic nation building in radically under-capitalized or un-capitalized economies. While opening our benevolent hearts, we must not have the illusion that all these countries will end up being loyal or sympathetic to our course or immediate interest in the type of government that will emanate from this new crisis over the middle east or the world. We cannot remain docile hoping that once these countries are able to get rid of their oppressing governments or start to take baby steps in democratic governance, they will see issues our way and manage their affairs the same way we have done.
There are some nuances and characteristics peculiar to some cultures in the states seeking democracy that are antithetic to some democratic principles. Some of the inherent cultural road blocks may make progress to a successful democratic state unattainable on our own time table. Like new babies, we may just have to wait for some nations to find their own bearings, just like a new baby, they must be allowed to fail and learn from their mistakes as they take the long walk to a free and democratic state. While doing all these, we must stay loyal to our national interests. This is our new foreign policy realities and we must now work to embrace them in our foreign diplomatic work.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY AND THE EGYPTIAN UPRISING
The making of a modern day democratic state in the middle east is not going to be easy. The challenges are not strictly political, it is the histological and philosophical perspectives of the middle eastern landscape that have mesmerized leaders in that region of the world, while attempting to achieve something similar to a democratic state. Monarchies and Empires are not attuned to democratic principles the way we know them in current day perspective. Change may be coming to the middle east, but hardly in the context of current day democratic principles. Look out guys, you may just end up with what you hardly want!
Friday, December 3, 2010
American Foreign policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty
It did not take long for the markets to react to rumors that Wiki leaks founder, Julian Assange, who released cables of diplomatic communications among American Embassy officials and Washington DC was about to release intricate business decisions taken by Bank of America, before the bank officials began to deny claims. Bank of American shares were falling like a yo-yo in early trading on the New York Stock exchange. The fear of opaque transactions in a prominent American Bank translated into fears among investors. The markets became bogged down by rumors that Mr. Julian Assange was about to call the shots on the way banking transaction across the globe were carried out. And, just as hell was about to break loose, some government officials both here and overseas were putting out interpol arrest warrant for the new internet crusader.
The thought of having deals manipulations between commercial banks' heavyweights made public the way the embassy officials communications were released in recent days, made some bank officials go into fit at the headquarters of the Bank of America. According to Bank of America, the probability that its institution’s records, including documents, emails databases and internal websites may have been compromised, is very remote. While the founder of Wiki leaks promised that his 5GB of Bank of America’s profile with his organization will expose an ecosystem of corruption and could take down a couple of banks, made this claim rather intimidating and would probably make doing businesses with banks and investors difficult. While officials at Bank of America are crossing their hands and hoping for the best, our blog today is looking at the implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty of the new development in the releases of private communications between institutions, government and banking.
By this afternoon, it was public knowledge that, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States had loaned money to commercial banks in Europe and probably some other countries in Asia and South America about two years ago, just about the time the whole global economy was precipitating into a free fall. The singular action by the Federal Reserve Bank brought a new dimension into the understanding of monetary integration and legal sovereignty. Commercial banks in foreign countries are known to conduct business independently with the support of their nation’s central bank, not with the central bank of other countries. However, with the step taken by the Feds to loan money to banks in foreign countries, it was becoming clear that monetary regimes are hardly as isolated as once thought; and, that a foreign commercial bank is beholden to the US Federal Reserve Bank, from that singular loan of about 50 billion dollars to say UBS, a Swiss Bank, it will be difficult to continue to ascertain national sovereignty with respect to monetary regimes. The issue of pride in national currency is probably now secondary, if the United State Federal Reserve Bank can have the back of a foreign commercial bank, in the middle of a global recession.
If most independent countries cannot continue to ascertain their nationality through management of currencies and commerce between or among financial entities within their boundaries, it hardly makes any sense to be talking about legal sovereignty. As defined by the 1999 Nobel Laureate in Economics, Robert Mundell, Legal Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state to make its own laws without limitations imposed by any other outside authority. Could the Swiss government make laws that would impinge on the decision of his central bank officials to seek fund from the US Federal Reserve Bank? Probably yes, however, the commitment of funds from the United States Central Bank may make the Swiss government think twice, considering the implication for their national economy and currency. Here lies the joker: the implication of say UBS abandoning its national currency and bank to go seek financial help from the US Federal Reserve Banks, puts a damper on the crave for legal sovereignty; it also creates a difficult environment for the assertion of national sovereignty by the Swiss.
The reality that the United States Dollars has grown up from a national currency to an international medium of exchange with the status of truly being the number one currency of international transaction, now puts into the tanker the argument of the independence of national currencies. The integration of the world’s currencies is getting to be a reality and the de-facto argument of associated national sovereignty and independent currency is gradually becoming a thing of the past. With the US Federal Reserve Bank loaning money to the Lloyds of London, the United States Dollars is virtually becoming something of a profound commodity, being sought by every financial institutions all over the globe. Citizens of the world now depend on the United States’ Currency to dictate the pace of commerce, even within boundaries of countries far remote from the United States. With the Feds loaning money out, comes the landmark concession of national sovereignty with respect to monetary policy. Does this give a bragging right to Washington DC? Probably not, considering that the nature of this type of transaction may be available on tapes, emails and documents that can be released on the WEB by Wiki Leaks, today or tomorrow!
If European commercial Banks agree to seek money from the national bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank, this choice leaves room for monetary expansion policy implication within the European Union. Further, if the Lloyds of London can draw on a short-term Bank Note from the US Federal Reserve Bank, the question of a system of fixed currency exchange rates and the central control over the British Pound by No. 10 Downing Street or the Buckingham Palace, is probably about to become history. Since Britain and United states are not known to have a joint currency, the issue of independence and sovereignty of the nation state, United Kingdom, can be readily called to question. With the singular act of the feds loaning money to European Banks, the kind of legal tender power that is often associated with independent nation’s currency can now come into play, even within those nations boundaries. Since the Swedish bank, UBS, did not seek the replacement of its nation’s currency in its deal with the US Federal Reserve Bank, the implication of its transaction may have a political under tone. here again lies the challenge that Wiki Leaks can drop on the laps of European and American politicians. No wonder, France is out with a similar warrant to the United States for the founder of Wiki Leaks!
The potential that Wiki leaks may get its hand on tapes and documents of say Bank of America and probably the UBS or any other bank out there, may actually introduce a fatal weakness into the international banking system. Imagine that during the turbulent early period of the global recession two years ago, a bank official from UBS and another from the US Federal Reserve Bank had entered into a deal that may impinge on either nation’s monetary regime, then there is obviously a concern that such information is available to a third party like Mr. Assange. The fact that Assange can then turn around and make this type of transaction available on the WEB, can actually destabilize international banking system. Further, it may have an added destruction to the independence of a nation state and its ability to have control over transactions taking place within its borders. The national security implications of the new development in the cyberspace is now a thing that is best imagined than coming to reality. If Wiki Leaks make good on its promise to release the commercial banking transactions on the WEB, you can bet, more than hell will break loose!
It is possible for countries' embassy tape discussions to be made public. It is also admissible that such communications between embassy staff may be cause for alarm by the State Department or Washington DC. However, when the real backbone of many economies are probably going to be at stake, well your imagination is as good as mine. When European Commercial Banks interest are being beholden to the U.S. national Bank, what is the sense of talking about national currencies and pride. It's all about to go into the air: puff! The notion that bank officials are incompetent or cannot manage risk, becomes secondary at this point. The embarrassments for many more national government is the issue now at stake. As we continue to watch events unfold on the WEB, I can imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Paul Allen asking each other: what in the world did we let loose in New Mexico and California three decades ago?
American Foreign Relations has definitely taken a hit from the Wiki Leaks releases. The State Department is busy scrambling around to mend fences with foreign government and national security assets all over the world are probably being moved around and educated about new strategies of communication between their outpost and Washington DC. Unfortunately as one individual said early in the week, we have entered that era in which the facades are being removed from the face of the people: welcome to WEB 4.0! The collective impact of the Wiki Leaks releases on national governments and commercial bankings is probably good for those who have chosen to pursue this route for achieving fairness in the world; however, is this what we really need? I don't know, but what I realize from this new frontier, is that America must continue to look out for Americans and other nations, theirs. We are now in a time zone, where the word Armageddon, is taking a new interpretation in foreign and monetary policies implementation around the globe.
The thought of having deals manipulations between commercial banks' heavyweights made public the way the embassy officials communications were released in recent days, made some bank officials go into fit at the headquarters of the Bank of America. According to Bank of America, the probability that its institution’s records, including documents, emails databases and internal websites may have been compromised, is very remote. While the founder of Wiki leaks promised that his 5GB of Bank of America’s profile with his organization will expose an ecosystem of corruption and could take down a couple of banks, made this claim rather intimidating and would probably make doing businesses with banks and investors difficult. While officials at Bank of America are crossing their hands and hoping for the best, our blog today is looking at the implication for monetary regimes and national sovereignty of the new development in the releases of private communications between institutions, government and banking.
By this afternoon, it was public knowledge that, the Federal Reserve Bank of United States had loaned money to commercial banks in Europe and probably some other countries in Asia and South America about two years ago, just about the time the whole global economy was precipitating into a free fall. The singular action by the Federal Reserve Bank brought a new dimension into the understanding of monetary integration and legal sovereignty. Commercial banks in foreign countries are known to conduct business independently with the support of their nation’s central bank, not with the central bank of other countries. However, with the step taken by the Feds to loan money to banks in foreign countries, it was becoming clear that monetary regimes are hardly as isolated as once thought; and, that a foreign commercial bank is beholden to the US Federal Reserve Bank, from that singular loan of about 50 billion dollars to say UBS, a Swiss Bank, it will be difficult to continue to ascertain national sovereignty with respect to monetary regimes. The issue of pride in national currency is probably now secondary, if the United State Federal Reserve Bank can have the back of a foreign commercial bank, in the middle of a global recession.
If most independent countries cannot continue to ascertain their nationality through management of currencies and commerce between or among financial entities within their boundaries, it hardly makes any sense to be talking about legal sovereignty. As defined by the 1999 Nobel Laureate in Economics, Robert Mundell, Legal Sovereignty refers to the ability of a state to make its own laws without limitations imposed by any other outside authority. Could the Swiss government make laws that would impinge on the decision of his central bank officials to seek fund from the US Federal Reserve Bank? Probably yes, however, the commitment of funds from the United States Central Bank may make the Swiss government think twice, considering the implication for their national economy and currency. Here lies the joker: the implication of say UBS abandoning its national currency and bank to go seek financial help from the US Federal Reserve Banks, puts a damper on the crave for legal sovereignty; it also creates a difficult environment for the assertion of national sovereignty by the Swiss.
The reality that the United States Dollars has grown up from a national currency to an international medium of exchange with the status of truly being the number one currency of international transaction, now puts into the tanker the argument of the independence of national currencies. The integration of the world’s currencies is getting to be a reality and the de-facto argument of associated national sovereignty and independent currency is gradually becoming a thing of the past. With the US Federal Reserve Bank loaning money to the Lloyds of London, the United States Dollars is virtually becoming something of a profound commodity, being sought by every financial institutions all over the globe. Citizens of the world now depend on the United States’ Currency to dictate the pace of commerce, even within boundaries of countries far remote from the United States. With the Feds loaning money out, comes the landmark concession of national sovereignty with respect to monetary policy. Does this give a bragging right to Washington DC? Probably not, considering that the nature of this type of transaction may be available on tapes, emails and documents that can be released on the WEB by Wiki Leaks, today or tomorrow!
If European commercial Banks agree to seek money from the national bank of the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank, this choice leaves room for monetary expansion policy implication within the European Union. Further, if the Lloyds of London can draw on a short-term Bank Note from the US Federal Reserve Bank, the question of a system of fixed currency exchange rates and the central control over the British Pound by No. 10 Downing Street or the Buckingham Palace, is probably about to become history. Since Britain and United states are not known to have a joint currency, the issue of independence and sovereignty of the nation state, United Kingdom, can be readily called to question. With the singular act of the feds loaning money to European Banks, the kind of legal tender power that is often associated with independent nation’s currency can now come into play, even within those nations boundaries. Since the Swedish bank, UBS, did not seek the replacement of its nation’s currency in its deal with the US Federal Reserve Bank, the implication of its transaction may have a political under tone. here again lies the challenge that Wiki Leaks can drop on the laps of European and American politicians. No wonder, France is out with a similar warrant to the United States for the founder of Wiki Leaks!
The potential that Wiki leaks may get its hand on tapes and documents of say Bank of America and probably the UBS or any other bank out there, may actually introduce a fatal weakness into the international banking system. Imagine that during the turbulent early period of the global recession two years ago, a bank official from UBS and another from the US Federal Reserve Bank had entered into a deal that may impinge on either nation’s monetary regime, then there is obviously a concern that such information is available to a third party like Mr. Assange. The fact that Assange can then turn around and make this type of transaction available on the WEB, can actually destabilize international banking system. Further, it may have an added destruction to the independence of a nation state and its ability to have control over transactions taking place within its borders. The national security implications of the new development in the cyberspace is now a thing that is best imagined than coming to reality. If Wiki Leaks make good on its promise to release the commercial banking transactions on the WEB, you can bet, more than hell will break loose!
It is possible for countries' embassy tape discussions to be made public. It is also admissible that such communications between embassy staff may be cause for alarm by the State Department or Washington DC. However, when the real backbone of many economies are probably going to be at stake, well your imagination is as good as mine. When European Commercial Banks interest are being beholden to the U.S. national Bank, what is the sense of talking about national currencies and pride. It's all about to go into the air: puff! The notion that bank officials are incompetent or cannot manage risk, becomes secondary at this point. The embarrassments for many more national government is the issue now at stake. As we continue to watch events unfold on the WEB, I can imagine Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Paul Allen asking each other: what in the world did we let loose in New Mexico and California three decades ago?
American Foreign Relations has definitely taken a hit from the Wiki Leaks releases. The State Department is busy scrambling around to mend fences with foreign government and national security assets all over the world are probably being moved around and educated about new strategies of communication between their outpost and Washington DC. Unfortunately as one individual said early in the week, we have entered that era in which the facades are being removed from the face of the people: welcome to WEB 4.0! The collective impact of the Wiki Leaks releases on national governments and commercial bankings is probably good for those who have chosen to pursue this route for achieving fairness in the world; however, is this what we really need? I don't know, but what I realize from this new frontier, is that America must continue to look out for Americans and other nations, theirs. We are now in a time zone, where the word Armageddon, is taking a new interpretation in foreign and monetary policies implementation around the globe.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
American Foreign policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: Embassy Safety and Exchanges with Washington DC
The theatrics on communications between American Embassy Officials and Washington DC on Wiki leak cable releases are painfully tragic for many veteran foreign policy officials. Many of them, who are familiar with the risks of working in a foreign land where the environment is often unfamiliar and the language different from English, makes the wiki leaks experience, even the more tragic. Many of them contemplate the risks they take in some of those lands across the world, where the basic necessities of life are sometimes unavailable and yet, they work harder to collect useful information that are being paraded on the WEB, as if they are fashion apparels at a Paris runway dig. We may want to remind those working along with Julian Assange, that many of them have never experienced embassy bombings, first hand; and probably have not shared in the experience of losing a colleague on the job. The careless sharing of information moving from those faraway lands to Washington DC on Wiki leaks and other accompanying organizations can lead to deaths of American Embassy officials. No one working for American Embassy is immune from the risk of losing their lives, just by being traced to be working in the interest of this nation. The blog today is looking at embassy officials safety and exchanges with Washington DC, in light of the current Wiki Leaks cables on the WEB.
For those who have forgotten the Embassy bombing experience in Nairobi, Kenya, it is important to remind them that not only were Americans injured, indigenes and locals in that country lost their lives. Nearly everyone in Nairobi on the night of the embassy bombing understood the difficulties of people working for American Embassy or the difficult conditions under which foreign officials work, including the risk of losing their lives while serving the interest of America. Still men and women continue to work for Uncle Sam. We saw the unstable political arrangements in Yemen and the anger and alienation that seem to consume those people in that country over America’s influence. The potential of shattering the peace in many areas of the world is now very obvious with the releases of Wiki Leaks cables.
Today, men and women working in the interest of American Embassies all over the world are wondering if any of their information exchanges with Washington DC are going to be released by Wiki Leaks, or whether they have already been released and would cause harm to them and their families. I once tried to get into Foreign Service employment in 1998 and at the interview debriefing of what foreign embassy staff are expected to do while away from the shores of America, made me think twice, if the job is worth the pay. I am raising this point here, because of many in the press who consider that the releases of the Wiki Leak cables are issue of the freedom of the press. It is more than that. It is all bloods and sweat by dedicated Americans, who see the diplomacy of America around the globe as essential to the stability of this nation and its partners. Has anyone imagined the role of U.S. alliances to the stability of NATO members? The strategy from the White House on Foreign policy is developed from information shared from American Embassies as to the status of current events and dismissive in those NATO member countries. Imagine having such information in the open on the WEB. Is that really what this is all about?
When our Presidents stand up on the podium and say, we are going to work together with our European partners, much inputs has gone into that statement from contribution of American Embassy staff. To discountenance the implication of the Wiki Leaks on the pretext of freedom of the Press or the right of the people to know, these people are being disingenuous to the essence of America’s freedom. People should not confuse the right to know to the high stake of sharing nation’s secrets on the WEB. Imagine what flames the release of the embassy communiqué on the WEB to the delivery of food and shelter to displaced peoples in Kosovo during Clinton's era. If embassy staff in countries in Europe were not up to their snuff, would America and NATO be able to help millions of people who were wallowing in genocide or a fear of it, in that conflict region? Is the freedom of information sharing of intricate efforts made by American Embassy staff to ensure that Washington DC has the appropriate status information to be able to help in that situation; or, to be able to make pronouncements based on the issues on the ground, an inalienable right of everyone in the world? America has done so many things around the world, peacefully, based on the information that Wiki leaks is sharing today on the WEB. Does Wiki Leaks expect us to fold our hands when nations call for our help in desperate times? What then is the purpose of these senseless releases?
When our nation reaffirm strong support for democratically elected governments, the issue of security and confidence in American military and the military of some of other nations around the world, are called to bear; this is the type of information that is being shared on the WEB like college classroom homeworks and assignments. Many who doubt that Wiki Leaks cable releases undermine the essence of our government efforts to ensure the safety of America and its allies must rethink again. Were these people asleep when Milosevic refused international military presence in Kosovo at the height of his atrocities? Who provided the credible assurance to the Serbians that the world was not at war with them but with the policies of the regime in Belgrade. Some of the back room discussions and strategy of handling this very delicate circumstance drew from America’s embassies communication with Washington DC. This same information about difficult circumstances around the globe is now being made available on the WEB, thanks to Wiki Leaks. These are treacherous decisions and someone has to be held accountable, pronto!
For those who have forgotten the Embassy bombing experience in Nairobi, Kenya, it is important to remind them that not only were Americans injured, indigenes and locals in that country lost their lives. Nearly everyone in Nairobi on the night of the embassy bombing understood the difficulties of people working for American Embassy or the difficult conditions under which foreign officials work, including the risk of losing their lives while serving the interest of America. Still men and women continue to work for Uncle Sam. We saw the unstable political arrangements in Yemen and the anger and alienation that seem to consume those people in that country over America’s influence. The potential of shattering the peace in many areas of the world is now very obvious with the releases of Wiki Leaks cables.
Today, men and women working in the interest of American Embassies all over the world are wondering if any of their information exchanges with Washington DC are going to be released by Wiki Leaks, or whether they have already been released and would cause harm to them and their families. I once tried to get into Foreign Service employment in 1998 and at the interview debriefing of what foreign embassy staff are expected to do while away from the shores of America, made me think twice, if the job is worth the pay. I am raising this point here, because of many in the press who consider that the releases of the Wiki Leak cables are issue of the freedom of the press. It is more than that. It is all bloods and sweat by dedicated Americans, who see the diplomacy of America around the globe as essential to the stability of this nation and its partners. Has anyone imagined the role of U.S. alliances to the stability of NATO members? The strategy from the White House on Foreign policy is developed from information shared from American Embassies as to the status of current events and dismissive in those NATO member countries. Imagine having such information in the open on the WEB. Is that really what this is all about?
When our Presidents stand up on the podium and say, we are going to work together with our European partners, much inputs has gone into that statement from contribution of American Embassy staff. To discountenance the implication of the Wiki Leaks on the pretext of freedom of the Press or the right of the people to know, these people are being disingenuous to the essence of America’s freedom. People should not confuse the right to know to the high stake of sharing nation’s secrets on the WEB. Imagine what flames the release of the embassy communiqué on the WEB to the delivery of food and shelter to displaced peoples in Kosovo during Clinton's era. If embassy staff in countries in Europe were not up to their snuff, would America and NATO be able to help millions of people who were wallowing in genocide or a fear of it, in that conflict region? Is the freedom of information sharing of intricate efforts made by American Embassy staff to ensure that Washington DC has the appropriate status information to be able to help in that situation; or, to be able to make pronouncements based on the issues on the ground, an inalienable right of everyone in the world? America has done so many things around the world, peacefully, based on the information that Wiki leaks is sharing today on the WEB. Does Wiki Leaks expect us to fold our hands when nations call for our help in desperate times? What then is the purpose of these senseless releases?
When our nation reaffirm strong support for democratically elected governments, the issue of security and confidence in American military and the military of some of other nations around the world, are called to bear; this is the type of information that is being shared on the WEB like college classroom homeworks and assignments. Many who doubt that Wiki Leaks cable releases undermine the essence of our government efforts to ensure the safety of America and its allies must rethink again. Were these people asleep when Milosevic refused international military presence in Kosovo at the height of his atrocities? Who provided the credible assurance to the Serbians that the world was not at war with them but with the policies of the regime in Belgrade. Some of the back room discussions and strategy of handling this very delicate circumstance drew from America’s embassies communication with Washington DC. This same information about difficult circumstances around the globe is now being made available on the WEB, thanks to Wiki Leaks. These are treacherous decisions and someone has to be held accountable, pronto!
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
American Foreign Policy in the Age of Wiki leaks: the new reality of the information super highway
The recent Wiki leaks’ cable releases on state department activities overseas have great implications for the future of American Foreign policy. Our visions of people, living far away from us are usually not the same as those in our neighborhood. If foreign head of states and our diplomats cannot share information without looking over their shoulders, it will be more than difficult to resolve many differences in the world peacefully, with equal dignity for nations involved. Imagine if wiki leaks had revealed State Department dispatches over Kosovo, maybe we would not have been able to help reverse the ethnic cleansing dilemma that nearly wiped out a generation of people in that part of Europe.
How can our nation make connective links with other nations far away from us, if our representatives are unable to brief our President on the appropriate choice of words to use when our President or his representative meets other heads of states or their representatives? Imagine using the word “Cheers” when meeting a Hungarian President in a diplomatic conversation? How can our President formulate future better relations with Europeans, Africans, Asians or Arab nations, if their representatives and leaders cannot share information in confidence without it ending up on the WEB. For example, the current releases of Wiki leak cables of diplomat’s comments on some issues are at the hearts of current and ongoing negotiations of diplomatic issues, issues that may derail acceptability of difficult reconciliation on an issue as two state solutions for Israel and Palestine never ending debacle. Maybe that is why some people have referred to the current serials of releases from Wiki leaks as the September 11 Armageddon of foreign policy; my wife prefers to see it as a new frontier of a changing world, where advances in information technology may be driving foreign diplomacy or turning the world of foreign diplomacy upside down. How can we create a balance among the right of the people to know, the first amendment and what is often done under the auspices of old glory in many countries around the globe?
First, the right of people to know may not and should never thumb our national interest. Once we subscribe to the contrary, political leadership, either from the Presidency or from the congress, is probably jeopardized. The very insensible right of the people to know in the face of the overall interest of the nation’s security can hardly be a subject of debate in the current world environment. The world today is not what we had in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s. If suicide bombers or mass murderers are going to be held accountable for their actions, the release of confidential state department’s missive that may circumvent the very fundamental foundation of freedom cannot be tolerated by any responsible democratic government. This is not to say that the public does not have the right to know what is done in their name; rather, it is the argument that, it isn’t in all cases that the people’s right to know must thumb our national interest. While the first amendment guarantees the right of the press, it hardly opens that right to the ruining chances of the state. The collective right of the people will sometimes erode the right of the individual to know, if the safety of the people is to be guaranteed.
Second, before we get into the issue of what essentially has been released so far by Wiki leaks and what arrangements had been entered into by the Guardian Newspapers of UK, New York Times, De Spiegel of Germany and any other media outlet that is either releasing or sharing information on private communications between representative of our government and other governments all over the world, it may be important for us to raise our overwhelming interest to ensure that whatever information that is released or discussed does not result in the deaths of anyone, a condition that cannot be totally guaranteed. Now, if all the media that are insisting that the right of the people to know thumbs national security, can anyone of these media sources prevent subsequent political hostilities against American diplomats attempting to do their everyday work all over the world? The concentrating of some state department’s assets all over the world is an issue that must receive the attention of those clamoring for the right to know legacy; hardly can any of these media sources, including wiki leaks, guarantee that a CIA agent in the street of Kabul, Afghanistan, will not lose his life from probable causes associated with the releases of these Wiki leaks cables. Thus, if no one can guarantee that the interest of the state will not be abridged on these releases, it behooves the State to go after Wiki leaks, whether in Norway or within our known borders of operations.
Third, going by the apprehension across borders regarding the implication of the Wiki leaks cable releases, it is possible that some nations and their governments will be willing to work with us to streamline this issue. I understand that some freedom of the press and speech apostles would cry foul at my making of this assessment; however, the question is: Is there any nation in the World that has suffered the humiliation of having what is sometimes considered as national secret exposed all over the WEB? Our nation is the only one that is currently suffering this humiliation and much as I appreciate the importance and relevance of sharing information and the people’s right to know, releases going on by Wiki leaks has crossed the line. Much as I admire what Wiki leaks may be attempting to accomplish, it is hard for me to subscribe to their choice at this time, knowing full well that none of those in the Press can guarantee that lives of people will not be in jeopardy. I have heard from some of their spokesperson indicating that they took all possible precautions by blacking out some names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy, but the real truth is: no one is safe, if all of us are in jeopardy. Parading substantial information on the WEB on American Diplomatic moves opens up the chances that anyone in a clandestine community somewhere in the world can really find out the direct source of information shared with American diplomats after reading the Wiki leaks cables, despite the fact that they (the press and wiki leaks) have promised that they wiped out the names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy before the releases.
Fourth, a month or two ago, President Obama was unable to tie the nut with the Asian countries on the subject of trade with Korea and Currency manipulation with China. Many people in foreign service, including some astute foreign diplomats from the East and West indicated that this was a loss for this nation. The vision of our nation regarding bilateral economic negotiations could have been jeopardized because these two Asian countries were aware of our strategic offering because some of the important information that may have cornered these nations into an agreement have been shared by the very unscrupulous people who have been able to get hold of diplomatic communications from our embassies in China and Korea. Just before Congress went on thanksgiving recess, the START II Treaty that was subscribed to by virtually all the Secretaries of State that has served this nation in the past two decades is not subjected to some estranged questioning by Republicans? Is there other information that these, OBAMA-on-term crusaders have that, the Presidency does not have that is making republicans attempt to score cheap points on this foreign relation issue? You may say I am being paranoid, but in politics, you can hardly trust the enemy?
How can you share strategic partnerships, when information to deal with North Korea’s dangerous nuclear weapons programs is easily available on the WEB? Our nation’s clarion call for some stability in the Korean peninsula is based on some strategic diplomacy, foundation of which would have been based on some communication between the state department and our embassies around the world, including South Korea. If information shared by South Korean government in privacy with our diplomats in Korea is readily available on the WEB, courtesy of Wiki leaks, how can we guarantee that there wouldn’t be more threats and attempt to blackmail from North Korea despite our recent effort to show that we are in support of the national security of South Korea? It is well past time to be leaving our embassies communication on a not so secured WEB! If any American is caught involved in this mess, they should be tried for treasonable felony.
We must take the present Wiki leaks as an affront on our state. We cannot guarantee the peace around several states in the world, if our communications with them are out there for everyone to see. How can you broker peace when your strategy is widespread in the news? How can you transform societies that are on the brink of genocide when you cannot ensure that the information shared with you is sacrosanct? We are pursuing many goals on several front around the world, and much as some nations and peoples around the world may criticize us as we do so, none of this nation had helped out to stop the NAZIS in the Second World War, except for a few and in our current fight against Jihad extremism. No one is standing in the shores of Uncle Sam, so no one of these people at Wiki leaks or the press understands fully where the shoes are pinching!
Fifth, after this storm of wiki leaks, we better appreciate the endless possibility of the information highway. The State Department had better re-evaluate the extraordinary impact that information sharing on the WEB may have on how representatives of American interests in foreign embassies around the world shift information from their respective bases in and out. There is a need for a new paradigm; not only can the short listing of how many people see what information regarding the security of this nation, make a difference; however, it is probably essential to teach foreign officers, coding and information sharing ethics that will not compromise the nation’s security.
Finally, there are going to be times that a visiting head of state to Washington DC does not see eye-to-eye on urgent issues, issues in which sitting down for a real heart-to-heart conversations is necessary for resolving a difficult issue. It is important that American Embassy in the home country of the visiting head of state is able to dispatch cogent information to Washington DC to help the nation or policy makers formulate a positing or a point that will be amendable and consistent with America’s interest. If such information from the home country of the visiting head of state is already released by wiki leaks or any other online information sharing portal, then foreign policies will be more challenging than ever before. Before I say Jack rabbit, there is another head of state visiting next week and I believe he or she will not appreciate that all his or her communication with the White house is coming upstream on the WEB!
The blog today starts discussing the challenges ahead for American Foreign policy in the age of Wiki leak cable releases
N.B.
This is the greatest nation in the world with a population of over three hundred million. You cannot trust all those people within a nation to do all that is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. For this and other reasons, precautions have to be taken in light of the current experience with Wiki leaks. Simple issues as leaking important communications between state department officials and Washington DC will turn out to have profound impact on how America takes positions and on new direction of choices that may reverberate into other national interest. We cannot be looking away as our trust as a nation is being abridged while concentrating on ridiculous alignment to kick out a President that is doing all in his power to do the people's work. It is time for the Republicans to wake up to their responsibility to the people, work with Obama to provide employment to the people, feed the helpless and leave alone those who have too much in their bank accounts to care whether you give them a tax cut or not!
How can our nation make connective links with other nations far away from us, if our representatives are unable to brief our President on the appropriate choice of words to use when our President or his representative meets other heads of states or their representatives? Imagine using the word “Cheers” when meeting a Hungarian President in a diplomatic conversation? How can our President formulate future better relations with Europeans, Africans, Asians or Arab nations, if their representatives and leaders cannot share information in confidence without it ending up on the WEB. For example, the current releases of Wiki leak cables of diplomat’s comments on some issues are at the hearts of current and ongoing negotiations of diplomatic issues, issues that may derail acceptability of difficult reconciliation on an issue as two state solutions for Israel and Palestine never ending debacle. Maybe that is why some people have referred to the current serials of releases from Wiki leaks as the September 11 Armageddon of foreign policy; my wife prefers to see it as a new frontier of a changing world, where advances in information technology may be driving foreign diplomacy or turning the world of foreign diplomacy upside down. How can we create a balance among the right of the people to know, the first amendment and what is often done under the auspices of old glory in many countries around the globe?
First, the right of people to know may not and should never thumb our national interest. Once we subscribe to the contrary, political leadership, either from the Presidency or from the congress, is probably jeopardized. The very insensible right of the people to know in the face of the overall interest of the nation’s security can hardly be a subject of debate in the current world environment. The world today is not what we had in the 70’s, 80’s or 90’s. If suicide bombers or mass murderers are going to be held accountable for their actions, the release of confidential state department’s missive that may circumvent the very fundamental foundation of freedom cannot be tolerated by any responsible democratic government. This is not to say that the public does not have the right to know what is done in their name; rather, it is the argument that, it isn’t in all cases that the people’s right to know must thumb our national interest. While the first amendment guarantees the right of the press, it hardly opens that right to the ruining chances of the state. The collective right of the people will sometimes erode the right of the individual to know, if the safety of the people is to be guaranteed.
Second, before we get into the issue of what essentially has been released so far by Wiki leaks and what arrangements had been entered into by the Guardian Newspapers of UK, New York Times, De Spiegel of Germany and any other media outlet that is either releasing or sharing information on private communications between representative of our government and other governments all over the world, it may be important for us to raise our overwhelming interest to ensure that whatever information that is released or discussed does not result in the deaths of anyone, a condition that cannot be totally guaranteed. Now, if all the media that are insisting that the right of the people to know thumbs national security, can anyone of these media sources prevent subsequent political hostilities against American diplomats attempting to do their everyday work all over the world? The concentrating of some state department’s assets all over the world is an issue that must receive the attention of those clamoring for the right to know legacy; hardly can any of these media sources, including wiki leaks, guarantee that a CIA agent in the street of Kabul, Afghanistan, will not lose his life from probable causes associated with the releases of these Wiki leaks cables. Thus, if no one can guarantee that the interest of the state will not be abridged on these releases, it behooves the State to go after Wiki leaks, whether in Norway or within our known borders of operations.
Third, going by the apprehension across borders regarding the implication of the Wiki leaks cable releases, it is possible that some nations and their governments will be willing to work with us to streamline this issue. I understand that some freedom of the press and speech apostles would cry foul at my making of this assessment; however, the question is: Is there any nation in the World that has suffered the humiliation of having what is sometimes considered as national secret exposed all over the WEB? Our nation is the only one that is currently suffering this humiliation and much as I appreciate the importance and relevance of sharing information and the people’s right to know, releases going on by Wiki leaks has crossed the line. Much as I admire what Wiki leaks may be attempting to accomplish, it is hard for me to subscribe to their choice at this time, knowing full well that none of those in the Press can guarantee that lives of people will not be in jeopardy. I have heard from some of their spokesperson indicating that they took all possible precautions by blacking out some names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy, but the real truth is: no one is safe, if all of us are in jeopardy. Parading substantial information on the WEB on American Diplomatic moves opens up the chances that anyone in a clandestine community somewhere in the world can really find out the direct source of information shared with American diplomats after reading the Wiki leaks cables, despite the fact that they (the press and wiki leaks) have promised that they wiped out the names of people whose lives may be in jeopardy before the releases.
Fourth, a month or two ago, President Obama was unable to tie the nut with the Asian countries on the subject of trade with Korea and Currency manipulation with China. Many people in foreign service, including some astute foreign diplomats from the East and West indicated that this was a loss for this nation. The vision of our nation regarding bilateral economic negotiations could have been jeopardized because these two Asian countries were aware of our strategic offering because some of the important information that may have cornered these nations into an agreement have been shared by the very unscrupulous people who have been able to get hold of diplomatic communications from our embassies in China and Korea. Just before Congress went on thanksgiving recess, the START II Treaty that was subscribed to by virtually all the Secretaries of State that has served this nation in the past two decades is not subjected to some estranged questioning by Republicans? Is there other information that these, OBAMA-on-term crusaders have that, the Presidency does not have that is making republicans attempt to score cheap points on this foreign relation issue? You may say I am being paranoid, but in politics, you can hardly trust the enemy?
How can you share strategic partnerships, when information to deal with North Korea’s dangerous nuclear weapons programs is easily available on the WEB? Our nation’s clarion call for some stability in the Korean peninsula is based on some strategic diplomacy, foundation of which would have been based on some communication between the state department and our embassies around the world, including South Korea. If information shared by South Korean government in privacy with our diplomats in Korea is readily available on the WEB, courtesy of Wiki leaks, how can we guarantee that there wouldn’t be more threats and attempt to blackmail from North Korea despite our recent effort to show that we are in support of the national security of South Korea? It is well past time to be leaving our embassies communication on a not so secured WEB! If any American is caught involved in this mess, they should be tried for treasonable felony.
We must take the present Wiki leaks as an affront on our state. We cannot guarantee the peace around several states in the world, if our communications with them are out there for everyone to see. How can you broker peace when your strategy is widespread in the news? How can you transform societies that are on the brink of genocide when you cannot ensure that the information shared with you is sacrosanct? We are pursuing many goals on several front around the world, and much as some nations and peoples around the world may criticize us as we do so, none of this nation had helped out to stop the NAZIS in the Second World War, except for a few and in our current fight against Jihad extremism. No one is standing in the shores of Uncle Sam, so no one of these people at Wiki leaks or the press understands fully where the shoes are pinching!
Fifth, after this storm of wiki leaks, we better appreciate the endless possibility of the information highway. The State Department had better re-evaluate the extraordinary impact that information sharing on the WEB may have on how representatives of American interests in foreign embassies around the world shift information from their respective bases in and out. There is a need for a new paradigm; not only can the short listing of how many people see what information regarding the security of this nation, make a difference; however, it is probably essential to teach foreign officers, coding and information sharing ethics that will not compromise the nation’s security.
Finally, there are going to be times that a visiting head of state to Washington DC does not see eye-to-eye on urgent issues, issues in which sitting down for a real heart-to-heart conversations is necessary for resolving a difficult issue. It is important that American Embassy in the home country of the visiting head of state is able to dispatch cogent information to Washington DC to help the nation or policy makers formulate a positing or a point that will be amendable and consistent with America’s interest. If such information from the home country of the visiting head of state is already released by wiki leaks or any other online information sharing portal, then foreign policies will be more challenging than ever before. Before I say Jack rabbit, there is another head of state visiting next week and I believe he or she will not appreciate that all his or her communication with the White house is coming upstream on the WEB!
The blog today starts discussing the challenges ahead for American Foreign policy in the age of Wiki leak cable releases
N.B.
This is the greatest nation in the world with a population of over three hundred million. You cannot trust all those people within a nation to do all that is in the best interest of the nation as a whole. For this and other reasons, precautions have to be taken in light of the current experience with Wiki leaks. Simple issues as leaking important communications between state department officials and Washington DC will turn out to have profound impact on how America takes positions and on new direction of choices that may reverberate into other national interest. We cannot be looking away as our trust as a nation is being abridged while concentrating on ridiculous alignment to kick out a President that is doing all in his power to do the people's work. It is time for the Republicans to wake up to their responsibility to the people, work with Obama to provide employment to the people, feed the helpless and leave alone those who have too much in their bank accounts to care whether you give them a tax cut or not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)