Marin Forum

Before I begin, I probably should set forth some qualifications. As readers of my posts should know I am highly supportive of international military intervention in Darfur or at least a robust United Nations mission. Also by no means as the genocide ended in Darfur, although the situation has drastically changed. Furthermore, I have the utmost admiration for the the Darfur Awareness Movement to keep international attention on Darfur for five years. Often something will take hold of the international spotlight but shortly after completely disappear. Also the humanitarian effort in Darfur has been successful thanks in large part to the awareness movement.

That being said the Darfur Awareness Movement has done nothing to change the political situation and is often consumed with symbolic acts. Symbolism may be right thing to do early in the conflict, but five years into the genocide it’s a little too late for symbolic acts.

Divestment provides the perfect example of a symbolic act that is political worthless. Investors are not a homogeneous bloc, so when one group of investors pulls out other investors will be more than eager to jump in. This is especially the case when those other investors are Chinese. Divestment or economic pressure is actually not a flawed idea. In the 1990s Sudan was desperate for foreign investment. In fact U.S. investment in Sudan was so important that the Government of Sudan exiled Osama bin Laden when the U.S. threatened to pull out of Sudan if it didn’t do something about bin Laden. The problem now is China. Divestment may have had some successes if China agreed to not invest too. Of course that didn’t happen so divestment became a symbolic waste of time and effort (politically speaking; morally it was the right thing to do).

When it comes to international politics, activist groups have very little influence. Rallies are nothing more than symbolic acts that are going to have no influence on the Government of Sudan or other governments. Sudanese officials won’t listen and the war in Afghanistan has tied the hands of many European governments not to mention the United States. Yet activist groups somehow are still important. Without the Darfur Awareness Movement the amount of aid flowing into Darfur would surely become a trickle. Furthermore, the focus on international politics by the average Joe is a good thing. Bill Clinton’s foreign policy was a mere patchwork of actions because the American public did not care about foreign relations and thus it wasn’t a policy priority for the Clinton administration.

And so arises an interesting paradox. Groups like the Darfur Awareness Movement are politically irrelevant in directly influencing policy, but the interest in foreign affairs that they foster force government leaders to place some focus on international politics; thus in the longterm they change the political climate. In other words, only the presence of the groups matter; their actions are not important.

The Darfur Awareness Movement should eliminate it’s symbolic acts from its agenda. Instead they should put their effort into the humanitarian effort, helping secure funds for the UN-AU Hybrid Mission (UNAMID), and supporting key legislation when it arises. These concrete efforts will show far more results than rallies and other symbolic efforts. The time for symbolic action has long passed; the time for concrete and direct action is now.

On Thursday the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban. Unlike all previous cases involving gun control, this was the first case to be decided based on the Second Amendment. While most pro-gun supporters have turned to the Second Amendment for decades, the Court never connected gun ownership with the Second Amendment. In fact it never made a decision at all on this matter which left the issue open to debate by all sides.

Before this case if you were to pay attention to gun control debates among those not fully knowledgeable in Constitutional law, the central issue was whether the Second Amendment protected the “right to bare arms.” Those in favor of guns would point to specific phrases in the Second Amendment to show that they had a Constitutionally protected right to own firearms. Gun control activists point to the intent of the Amendment and the entire wording to show that the Amendment only refers to maintaining militias. What this decision does is advance the debate by saying “ok, the Second Amendment protects the right to bare arms, BUT there can still be limitations.” The debate is no long if, but how far.

The decision gives both sides fuel for future fights. On one side it declared DC’s gun ban unconstitutional. More importantly it opens up older gun control laws for re-examination since those were decided with the knowledge that the Second Amendment did not apply. So potentially other laws could have the same fate as DC’s ban. On the other side, the decision said that limitations to the right to bare arms could be applied. In regards to that part of the ruling, potentially most gun laws can remain on the books. What will now remain to be seen is how far the limitations can go.

The debate has shifted, that much is certain. The ruling is definitely not the end all solution, especially since there are parts that both sides can take away from it. In the meantime, the lower courts are going to be inundated with claims against other gun control measures.

In my last post I mentioned how the conflict in Darfur has significantly changed and that it is questionable whether it is still a genocide like it was in the past several years. A closer look at the term genocide can provide a better perspective on the current situation and it can explain why the international community was slow to proclaim that a genocide was occurring.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines genocide as the “deliberate extermination of an ethnic or national group.” The political scientist Donald Horowitz adds that government participation is necessary for genocide to occur. I will add that a genocide can be carried out by proxies of the ruling party. Genocide is the deliberate extermination of an ethnic or national group by the government or its proxies. Classifying an event as genocide becomes difficult when it is entwined with military campaigns. Every country has the right to defend themselves against internal insurrections. So where is the dividing line between the right to defend and genocide?

The Holocaust was clearly genocide. The Jewish population in Germany had no rebel army nor did it constitute a threat to the German government. Furthermore, Hitler and the Nazis had a systematic plan to remove the Jews from the German population. More recent genocides are not so easy to classify. First, take Bosnia as an example. While the Serbian government was never found to be responsible for committing genocide in Bosnia, the International Court of Justice did find that genocide occurred. As in many similar conflicts the central government hid behind proxies. However, things became more difficult when the Bosnians established their own army. By the end of the conflict around 100,000 people had died but around 70% of those were armed combatants. Or lets look at Darfur. The conflict started when Darfur rebels attacked a Sudanese military base which provoked the central government to respond in the way they did. Since the start of the conflict there has always been a rebel presence in the region so the government of Sudan is able to pass off their actions as military operations necessary for national security.

Now what about US military operations conducted in WWII and Vietnam that resulted in the deaths of thousands of people? Where is the difference between the Allied bombings of Europe and the destruction of villages in Darfur by the government of Sudan/Janjaweed? The difference is intent. When the Allies bombed Europe in WWII they had no intent in eradicating a certain ethnic or nation group; it was merely a strategic move to cripple Nazi Germany. In Vietnam the US destroyed entire villages and displaced thousands of people to combat North Vietnam and Vietnamese insurgents. There was never any intent to destroy an entire population. Both cases were acts of military aggression. Meanwhile, in Serbia the nationalistic ideals floating around during the 1990s involved the idea of a Greater Serbia which meant “Serbia for the Serbs.” The Darfur conflict follows a similar path. A clash over resources and then Darfur rebel attacks on the Sudanese government heightens nationalistic sentiments in the North, which aid the the government of Sudan in purging the Darfur region.

It is very difficult to establish an intent to exterminate a group of people. Declaring that a genocide is occurring is a lot like presenting a case before a court. You may have several assumptions of chains of events but without concrete evidence the international community is not going to buy into it. Speeches or propaganda can be evidence but they may differ from the actual action taken by the government; thus, they cannot be used as sole evidence. Internal communiques or memos and personal testimonies can make or break the case to establish intent. Unfortunately internal communiques and memos are hard to obtain and government officials most likely will refuse to testify or will spew some diplomatic line. To further make things difficult often genocides occur in the backwaters of the globe where the international community does not have a sizable presence beyond some humanitarian work. All these factors make it difficult to establish intent and thus genocide which explains why the international community is usually slow to respond.

Currently in Darfur it is becoming increasingly hard to say that genocide is still occurring. Yes, genocide did occur which resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 people, but the active rebel presence in the region lately is making it hard to differentiate between acts of genocide and military aggression by the government of Sudan.

After five years of conflict in the Darfur region of Sudan the situation on the ground has changed dramatically. The clashes between the government of Sudan versus the people of Darfur has in many cases evaporated. Most of the 200,000 plus deaths related to the conflict occurred in the first few years. When the conflict started there were two rebel groups, but now there are numerous rebel groups and none of them seem to get along with each other. The most common sight in the region is no longer Sudanese gunships and Janjaweed militia pillaging towns but banditry by the various rebel factions. Tens of thousands of people are still being uprooted from their homes, but the cause is more due to general violence rather than government campaigns.

It’s possible that the situation is no longer technically a genocide. One of the key aspects that separates a genocide from other forms of conflict is the direct involvement of government forces to exterminate a group of people. This was clearly the case in the early years of the Darfur crisis, but now there seems to fewer cases of atrocities committed by the central government. Many abuses committed by government troops are acts of banditry which are no different than those committed by other rebel groups.

“Acts of genocide” may be on the decline because the central government in Khartoum is losing control of the country. Southern Sudan has become increasingly dissatisfied with the North and political fractures are reemerging there. A few months ago JEM (the only major rebel group remaining in Darfur) fighters fought there way into Khartoum. Border clashes with rebel groups and the Chadian army are on the rise. Meanwhile Darfur is turning into an area of warlords; rebels are fighting rebels, Janjaweed militia members have been turning against the central government, and government troops are becoming bandits like everyone else. In order for genocide to occur the central government or its proxies must have established control over the region since genocide is very systematic. At this point it is questionable how much control the central government has over Darfur.

This new situation only makes the crisis worse. The death rate from violence may not be as high as it was earlier in the conflict but thousands of people will continue to be displaced by the wanton violence. Delivering humanitarian aid becomes more difficult because no one is accountable to the banditry. Without adequate force protection humanitarian efforts will find it increasingly difficult to aid those in need. Khartoum opened a can of worms and now they are losing control of their country. A robust UN mission must enter into Darfur to reassert law and order to the region. Furthermore, the government of Sudan should realize that they need international peacekeepers to prevent the country from completely falling into warlordism. Without such a force the humanitarian situation will continue to deteriorate, and it will become increasingly difficult to reach an agreement or solution among the parties to the conflict.

Last week the average gas price across the United States was over $4.00 a gallon. The San Francisco Bay Area was hit with prices ranging between $4.50 and $4.75. In the last couple weeks gas prices have been rising 10 cents or so every few days. President Bush responded by proposing that Congress lift its ban on offshore drilling and opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling. Senator McCain also proposes offshore drilling although he continues to oppose drilling in the ANWR. Yet, are these really solutions? A couple questions need to be examined.

First, would expanding domestic oil reserves lower fuel prices in the short term? If the bans were lifted, it would take years for the infrastructure to be developed. American consumers would not see the benefits of larger domestic oil yields for several years. That being said, markets look to the future. If they see a future increase in oil reserves then the price will likely drop. So yes, Americans would probably see a decrease in gas prices for the time being.

So that brings us to the second question: ignoring the environmental consequences, what are the long term impacts? Domestic oil reserves would be expanded for decades, but the solution to the energy problem is not to continue drilling. Eventually we will run out of places to drill and oil reserves will begin to dry up. Furthermore, domestic oil demand will continue to increase. Come ten or twenty years later we will be in the exact same place we find ourselves at the moment. Expanding domestic oil reserves only buys more time before politicians have to face the reality that the future does not lie in black gold. More importantly, It delays the necessity to develop alternative fuels, which is where the solution to the energy crisis lies.

The Bush and McCain proposals are not solutions but are concessions that delay the inevitable. Yes, they relieve Americans today, but they are incredibly short-sided. The energy crisis will not be solved by short-term “solutions” but long term proposals that develop alternative sources of energy. An interesting side-effect of high gas prices has been middle class Americans demanding more hybrid vehicles and using mass transportation. When gas prices in the Bay Area reached $4.50 a gallon ridership of the local train systems and other transportation system dramatically increased. An opportunity has risen to significantly push forward alternative energy research as consumers turn to other options.

However, high gas prices have to be addressed. Middle class America can adapt, but the poor do not have that luxury. Increases in gas prices affect more than the automobile industry since they cause rises in transportation and shipping costs which in turn affect many other areas of the economy. Also energy efficiency improvements tend to reach the poor last due to high initial costs. Something has to be done in the short-term to keep prices down. For starters the oil industry needs to be placed under greater scrutiny. Increasing the effectiveness of existing oil reserves may also help. Whatever the solution may be, balancing short-term demands with the long run necessities will require a lot of political will from the next president of the United States.

While Tim Russert’s death is no longer the breaking news, I believe it is still fitting and necessary to write a short tribute. Russert was one of the most respected political commentators in the media and that world will greatly change with his passing. Objectivity is becoming increasingly harder to find into today’s news, which makes Russert’s death even more untimely. The truth was all that mattered, and that is what reporting should be all about: the truth. I hardly watched Meet the Press, so I’m not the right person to saying anything about him. Instead I’ll let one of our contributing writers speak for me:

I would like just like to take a moment to talk about Tim Russert. As a child I would wake up every Sunday disheartened that there were no morning cartoons, but my father would be watching Meet the Press and it would intrigue me, sometimes for hours. As I got older and I understood politics better, I came to realize the significance of the show, and as I grew up watching NBC news, I would come to appreciate the significance of the man. “Florida Florida Florida”. Tim Russert had a way of making politics intriguing while remaining informative. He became someone I looked up to and respected as was so for many others. He was someone I trusted for news and insight and I am not alone. It was cruel that he was taken away at the start of a historic general election, for him and this country. Political reporting and election coverage was something he obviously loved. That this general election must continue and finish without his whiteboard and his red and blue markers is unthinkable. That Meet the Press will lose its greatest and finest host is overwhelming. To think that we have all lost a great example of a news reporter, a true American, and a human being is devastating. Tim Russert will be greatly missed, by me and by us all.

~latenlazy

I am traveling to New York City for a week so I will not be writing any new posts. It is likely that our other contributing writers will continue to publish. I will resume writing on Wednesday the 18th. Until then, cheers!

Commentators of the War on Terror often break into two camps: those who believe the United States’ military power will crush any extremist organization, and those who believe the War on Terror is a slow and painful defeat. What if both sides are correct and wrong at the same time? Military prowess alone cannot eliminate extremism because it doesn’t remove the support base, but evidence is beginning to surface that shows a weakening Al Qaeda.

Why is Al Qaeda weakening? It’s not necessarily because US military campaigns have disrupted the leadership of the organization. Al Qaeda has always been fairly decentralized as far as its cells are concerned. Rather, Al Qaeda is losing it’s base support. Muslims are beginning to be fed up with the actions of the organization and its indiscriminate killing of innocent Muslims. Al Qaeda is destroying itself.

A complicated chain of events characterizes this shift in attitude:

1. For what reason an extremist group is motivated to carry out a catastrophic event against the United States (i.e 9/11).
2. The United States is mobilized to retaliate and unleashes its military on a particular target (the Taliban in Afghanistan).
3. So begins a period of tit-for-tat actions. US actions disrupt the lives of the local people and they express their anger by supporting extremism. The US increases its presence or widens the war. The extremists respond with larger and more deadly attacks.
4. This continues for a while until at some point a shift occurs. The local population turns some of their anger toward the extremists for provoking the United States and causing the resulting devastation.

In the past few years many Muslim leaders and former jihadists have turned on Al Qaeda and have taken public stances denouncing the organization. These criticisms have been well received by many Muslims which suggests that Al Qaeda’s popular support is eroding. A US presence in the Middle East causes a reaction by extremist groups but the retaliatory actions taken by those groups are seen to target the wrong people.

The outcome is a race to the bottom. Who can discredit themselves faster? As long as extremist groups don’t change their strategies the United States will win out. Unlike extremist groups the United States is not as dependent on domestic support. The President and military can act independently of public opinion, while extremist leaders need domestic support for new recruits and hiding places. Furthermore, the United States is institutionally stronger than extremist groups; thus, it is predisposed to outlast the younger terrorist networks such as Al Qaeda. Of course extremist groups are highly adaptable and require very little resources to survive.

However, such a victory by the United States would be a Pyrrhic victory. Al Qaeda would be “defeated” (or at least enfeebled) but in the process the United States would be throughly discredited. Anti-American sentiment would still be present and new groups that are more discreet would fill the void left by Al Qaeda. Successful groups seem to be the ones that offer social services such as Hizbullah in Lebanon. Building trust and removing extremists from their support base is the only way to fight extremism, but it seems that one way to get Al Qaeda to implode is for the United States to assume the role of the big, bad bully.

In the end of the day what’s more important: defeating Al Qaeda now or thwarting extremism tomorrow? Aggressive military tactics may bring the end to Al Qaeda quickly, but careful rapport building can achieve the same result far more effectively although it may take twice as long.

The hunt for Osama Bin Laden continues seven and a half years after the attacks of September 11, 2001. Yet with the growing sectarian violence in Iraq, the reemergence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the continuing crisis between Israel and Palestine, the man behind the curtain has faded form the minds of the media and the average American citizen. This is of course completely justified, as these problems have taken far more of a center role in Middle Eastern politics. Even while we are focused on these more pressing issues, however, in the back of our minds, Osama lurks in the dark, a problem seemingly unresolved and a man remaining elusive.

Is this where he will remain? Will he forever haunt our dreams and our nightmares, creating a nagging sense of doubt that there is something unaccomplished, and a danger still out there in the world? Will parents in years to come whisper tales to their children to keep them from bad deeds, warning that if they acted naughty, then Osama would come to get them? Will he become a ghost story and pass into legend and then myth, the man who still remains somewhere out there, and the man who the United States could never kill?

Indeed, this is a romantic possibility, and one which seems eerie yet somewhat poetic. In truth, Osama Bin Laden is probably dead. It is of course, impossible to verify. The bombs dropped on the Afghan hills could have killed many without our knowledge, and even though we are unaware, Osama himself could have died long ago. Perhaps one of the many rumors, such as Madam Bhutto’s comments that she knew of a man, Omar Sheikh, who killed Osama Bin Laden, are true. Or perhaps he wasted away of disease in an abandoned Afghan farm, and his body know lies unrecognizable at the bottom of a pit or well. All of these are completly plausible and utterly unverifiable.

And yet, what does it matter whether one man is dead or not? Many say that the continuing threats from Al Qaeda and the tapes that trickle into the media that claim to be from Osama are examples of proof that he is still alive. Yet the only thing they are proof of is that someone is at the head of Al Qaeda, potentially masquerading as Osama bin Laden. And this is an important fact in the hunt for one man, one which the US has hopefully learned. To cut off the head of a terrorist organization is not a method of destroying that organization, because there will always be another terrorist who will crop up, and another leader who will replace him. This point is superbly demonstrated in Steven Spielberg’s film Munich and is an important lesson. If Osama is still alive, and still pulling the strings, then so be it. If he is dead, and now replaced by another, then so be it. The important thing is not to go after individual men, but the idea of terrorism, and the ideals that these groups preach. The important thing is to attack the way these groups form, or in other words, the economic structure of the countries where these groups get recruits. And by concentrating on these fundamental ideas, the US can combat terrorism far more effectively than by targeting individual men. Let Osama be one for the legends and myths, a man of tragedy for the poets of the world, and a specter of fear, a ghost stories that will haunt our dreams, but be ineffective in the real world.