The AU Must Work for Qaddafi's Ouster
The African Union should urgently bring a resolution to the UN Security Council, calling on member states of the United Nations, to take all necessary measures to end the reign of terror of Qaddafi in Libya. This must be done today.
Meanwhile, President Obama's administration in the United States should stop trying to walk a fine line, between diplomatic niceties and justified outrage at what is going on in Libya. It should immediately put in place the policies and the military means, to bring a quick and decisive end to the brutal regime of Qaddafi. There can be no normalcy, while the Qaddafi government survives with blood on its hands.
President Obama should come out in 48 hours, to announce a set of military measures aimed at bringing an end to the Qaddafi regime. Unmanned military assets, including cruse missiles and drones should be launched to destroy major support structures of the Qaddafi regime, and it should be done now, as a signal to the democratic fighters in Libya, that the United States supports their struggle.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
__._,_.___
LikeUnlike · · Share · Delete
Write a comment...
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Mubarak's Exit and the Next Challenge
There was just no way President Mubarak would have survived the raging popular anger all around. The next issue that any new political set up will have to confront is that of dealing with the basic demand for democratic reform, which fired up the popular uprising. It is possible that half a loaf will satisfy the activist leaders of the movement for reform, for now. However, it will be a huge mistake for the Egyptian military to assume that it does not need to accede to the demand for genuine democratic reform.
How does one rate President Obama's handling of the crisis? I think he handled it
quite well: an A-, will be the letter grade for his performance, especially if one goes by the assumption that he meant every word of his Cairo address, which prodded the Middle East towards embracing democratic reform. The message from President Obama's stance seems to be that the United States will stand up for democratic reforms in the Middle East, not through invasions, but by empowering the people of the region.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
How does one rate President Obama's handling of the crisis? I think he handled it
quite well: an A-, will be the letter grade for his performance, especially if one goes by the assumption that he meant every word of his Cairo address, which prodded the Middle East towards embracing democratic reform. The message from President Obama's stance seems to be that the United States will stand up for democratic reforms in the Middle East, not through invasions, but by empowering the people of the region.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Egypt and Obama's Riddle
Obama’s riddle: withdraw or keep military aid?
Until the United States discards the complexes it developed during the Cold War, which made it imperative for the country to search for and support individual rulers and political leaders as "allies", instead of the countries themselves, it will continue to stagger from one of these kinds of crises for its foreign policy, to another.
At the core of the notion of the individual ruler as an ally is a value system that is actually inimical to everything the United States should stand for: a value system that abjures popular sovereignty. Mubarak could not be an ally of the United States. Egypt has always been the real ally. American officials should always keep that in mind, if they are to effectively sell the message of popular sovereignty and American support for its underlining values to the world.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
--- On Sun, 1/30/11, Mr. Seyi Olu Awofeso wrote:
From: Mr. Seyi Olu AwofesoSubject: [NewnaijaPolitics] Obama’s riddle: withdraw or keep military aid?To: nigeria360@yahoogroups.com, NewnaijaPolitics@yahoogroups.comDate: Sunday, January 30, 2011, 2:57 PM
Obama’s riddle: withdraw or keep military aid?By Bill Emmott
Post a comment
Recommend (0)
Print
Email
Share
Follow stories about
Bill Emmott
What's this
1 minute ago
America must stay unequivocally on the side of freedom and reform. That means making a break with the past
It is a sobering thought, for any European or American prone to proselytising for democracy and human rights, that this month’s events in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab dictatorships have had so little apparent connection to anything the West does or says. It is even a tad embarrassing that it is al-Jazeera, a broadcaster backed by the dictators of Qatar, that has been closed down first in Egypt and not the BBC or CNN.
That embarrassment is, however, as nothing compared with the fact that the rulers being overthrown were previously known as our “strategic allies”. We did little to bring them down — at least Hosni Mubarak has so far paid no heed to the phone calls he has had from Barack Obama and David Cameron, urging him to democratise Egypt — and yet so far we seem to have escaped direct blame for the rulers’ past sins. However, if that immunity from blame lasts it will be, shall we say, quite surprising.
Perhaps this is unfair. Perhaps WikiLeaks’ revelations of America’s honest view of the Tunisian dictator’s venality and incompetence have played a part; perhaps, a loyal US spokesman might now say, the tough speech in Doha, the Qatari capital, on January 13 by Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, warning Arab governments that unless they reformed they would be in danger, might have caused a few ripples; perhaps the European Union’s “Barcelona Process” of talks with the other side of the Mediterranean over trade and aid amid muffled mumbles about political development made some minute difference. We don’t and can’t know. Like Mr Mubarak right now, we need to be humble about our own powerlessness.
We shouldn’t, admittedly, be too self-deprecatory about this. Revolutions have always happened in unpredictable ways at unpredictable times, making it impossible to say with any certainty why the crowds formed and the necessary sense of collective bravery emerged in one country at one time and not in another country at another time.
Contagion helps, and so does the dissemination of information about how an overthrow was organised, whether by internal groups, by outside lobbies such as the International Centre on Non-Violent Conflict in New York, or just through Western media coverage.
The main tool by which we can promote democracy and other freedoms is by our own conduct and example. The trouble is, that also includes our conduct towards the dictators. Everyone knows about realpolitik, and most accept the need to do deals even with people we view with distaste, for ever risking accusations of double standards. But realpolitik leaves a trail that is likely to be exposed eventually: in a revolution, the archives are thrown open, previously silent people talk, and in an atmosphere of recrimination people look for culprits.
As that happens, in Egypt’s case especially, the West is at serious risk of becoming a target for militant groups, a focus for new sorts of nationalism even amid a move to democracy, if or (we hope) when the Mubarak regime does fall.
Until the United States discards the complexes it developed during the Cold War, which made it imperative for the country to search for and support individual rulers and political leaders as "allies", instead of the countries themselves, it will continue to stagger from one of these kinds of crises for its foreign policy, to another.
At the core of the notion of the individual ruler as an ally is a value system that is actually inimical to everything the United States should stand for: a value system that abjures popular sovereignty. Mubarak could not be an ally of the United States. Egypt has always been the real ally. American officials should always keep that in mind, if they are to effectively sell the message of popular sovereignty and American support for its underlining values to the world.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
--- On Sun, 1/30/11, Mr. Seyi Olu Awofeso
From: Mr. Seyi Olu Awofeso
Obama’s riddle: withdraw or keep military aid?By Bill Emmott
Post a comment
Recommend (0)
Share
Follow stories about
Bill Emmott
What's this
1 minute ago
America must stay unequivocally on the side of freedom and reform. That means making a break with the past
It is a sobering thought, for any European or American prone to proselytising for democracy and human rights, that this month’s events in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab dictatorships have had so little apparent connection to anything the West does or says. It is even a tad embarrassing that it is al-Jazeera, a broadcaster backed by the dictators of Qatar, that has been closed down first in Egypt and not the BBC or CNN.
That embarrassment is, however, as nothing compared with the fact that the rulers being overthrown were previously known as our “strategic allies”. We did little to bring them down — at least Hosni Mubarak has so far paid no heed to the phone calls he has had from Barack Obama and David Cameron, urging him to democratise Egypt — and yet so far we seem to have escaped direct blame for the rulers’ past sins. However, if that immunity from blame lasts it will be, shall we say, quite surprising.
Perhaps this is unfair. Perhaps WikiLeaks’ revelations of America’s honest view of the Tunisian dictator’s venality and incompetence have played a part; perhaps, a loyal US spokesman might now say, the tough speech in Doha, the Qatari capital, on January 13 by Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, warning Arab governments that unless they reformed they would be in danger, might have caused a few ripples; perhaps the European Union’s “Barcelona Process” of talks with the other side of the Mediterranean over trade and aid amid muffled mumbles about political development made some minute difference. We don’t and can’t know. Like Mr Mubarak right now, we need to be humble about our own powerlessness.
We shouldn’t, admittedly, be too self-deprecatory about this. Revolutions have always happened in unpredictable ways at unpredictable times, making it impossible to say with any certainty why the crowds formed and the necessary sense of collective bravery emerged in one country at one time and not in another country at another time.
Contagion helps, and so does the dissemination of information about how an overthrow was organised, whether by internal groups, by outside lobbies such as the International Centre on Non-Violent Conflict in New York, or just through Western media coverage.
The main tool by which we can promote democracy and other freedoms is by our own conduct and example. The trouble is, that also includes our conduct towards the dictators. Everyone knows about realpolitik, and most accept the need to do deals even with people we view with distaste, for ever risking accusations of double standards. But realpolitik leaves a trail that is likely to be exposed eventually: in a revolution, the archives are thrown open, previously silent people talk, and in an atmosphere of recrimination people look for culprits.
As that happens, in Egypt’s case especially, the West is at serious risk of becoming a target for militant groups, a focus for new sorts of nationalism even amid a move to democracy, if or (we hope) when the Mubarak regime does fall.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Afghanistan War and the Need for Change
Intelligence Report Offer Dim Views of Afghan War---New York Times
President Bush sold his ill-conceived notion of a global War on Terror to the American people and to the world at large. From the beginning, the concept of a global war on terror, fought with armies, air force and navies, the same way World War II was fought and won, made the enterprise a mission without a meaningful definition of success. As long as some crazy person in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else was willing to blow himself or herself up, we could not declare victory in the global war on terror.
President Obama came into office, and attempted initially to repudiate the concept of a global war on terror, but he was not strong enough as a leader to do so. He seemed to be too willing to buy into the Conservative propaganda that Democratic presidents are weak on defense. In order to prove the Conservative propagandists wrong, he has used the same play book that informed the war policies of President Bush, which were repudiated by Red States and Blue States just two years ago, to make the Obama presidency possible.
Anyone who has been willing to look beyond the familiar play book will come to the conclusion that is emerging from these reports, that "victory" is next to impossible, unless the mission is defined in a way that focuses on the security interests of the United States. Neither the current Afghan government, nor all of the emotional commitments to bring some form of democracy to the tribesmen of Afghanistan is crucial to those interests. The fundamental American interest is to ensure that Afghanistan is not now or in the future a training and a launching site for international terrorism. A few hundred soldiers and special forces, and smart munitions on ships and in the air could accomplish that mission, at a fraction of the cost of the current mission.
Considering all of the above, President Obama should clearly redefine the mission in Afghanistan. He should also move to significantly draw down on the American military deployment in Afghanistan. The young soldiers on the front lines deserve a clear and winnable mission.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
Intelligence Reports Offer Dim Views of Afghan War
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: December 14, 2010
Recommend
Twitter
WASHINGTON — As President Obama prepares to release a review of American strategy in Afghanistan that will claim progress in the nine-year-old war there, two new classified intelligence reports offer a more negative assessment and say there is a limited chance of success unless Pakistan hunts down insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border.
Enlarge
President Bush sold his ill-conceived notion of a global War on Terror to the American people and to the world at large. From the beginning, the concept of a global war on terror, fought with armies, air force and navies, the same way World War II was fought and won, made the enterprise a mission without a meaningful definition of success. As long as some crazy person in Pakistan, Afghanistan or Iraq or anywhere else was willing to blow himself or herself up, we could not declare victory in the global war on terror.
President Obama came into office, and attempted initially to repudiate the concept of a global war on terror, but he was not strong enough as a leader to do so. He seemed to be too willing to buy into the Conservative propaganda that Democratic presidents are weak on defense. In order to prove the Conservative propagandists wrong, he has used the same play book that informed the war policies of President Bush, which were repudiated by Red States and Blue States just two years ago, to make the Obama presidency possible.
Anyone who has been willing to look beyond the familiar play book will come to the conclusion that is emerging from these reports, that "victory" is next to impossible, unless the mission is defined in a way that focuses on the security interests of the United States. Neither the current Afghan government, nor all of the emotional commitments to bring some form of democracy to the tribesmen of Afghanistan is crucial to those interests. The fundamental American interest is to ensure that Afghanistan is not now or in the future a training and a launching site for international terrorism. A few hundred soldiers and special forces, and smart munitions on ships and in the air could accomplish that mission, at a fraction of the cost of the current mission.
Considering all of the above, President Obama should clearly redefine the mission in Afghanistan. He should also move to significantly draw down on the American military deployment in Afghanistan. The young soldiers on the front lines deserve a clear and winnable mission.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
Intelligence Reports Offer Dim Views of Afghan War
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
Published: December 14, 2010
Recommend
WASHINGTON — As President Obama prepares to release a review of American strategy in Afghanistan that will claim progress in the nine-year-old war there, two new classified intelligence reports offer a more negative assessment and say there is a limited chance of success unless Pakistan hunts down insurgents operating from havens on its Afghan border.
Enlarge
Friday, October 8, 2010
Monday, September 6, 2010
Obama's Waterloo?
Obama's Waterloo?
The Federal Government has to spend, in order to provide liquidity in the market, during periods of economic contraction. That becomes even more critical, when a major factor in the contraction is the failure of the free market, in such areas as the management of supply and demand, and the proper valuation of asset, risks and opportunities.
The problem for the Obama administration is that for a long time Americans have been told that the free market alone is the key to prosperity. Government should not only leave Wall Street alone, to make up the rules of the road, but also avoid taxing citizens to pay for the things that they want from government.
Even the massive failure of the market that brought on the current recession has not been sobering enough, to dispel those faulty notions about the economy and the role of the government. As long as the United States could borrow massive amounts of dollars from places like China, the people could live large in their fiscal unreality. President Reagan, for instance, was a major political actor to tell the people in the 1980s that borrow and spend was preferable to tax and spend, and that government was the problem not the solution. His influence is still palpable in Republican circles.
Thus, two years after the big economic melt-down, President Obama's political opponents are telling the people, once again, that the problem with their situation in the economy is the government. See, they say, Obama had his stimulus dollars, and yet the economic situation remains as bleak as ever. All of the spending has been wasteful! Of course, they are wrong.
They forget that the economic crisis started under a Republican president, whose solution just before he left office, as the economy was sinking was to pour billions of dollars into Wall Street firms. President Obama followed that precedence. The valid criticism of the president is that he followed it with so much faith, instead of ensuring that Main Street was made the focus of the recovery under his watch.
Imagine what the situation would have been today, if the president's stimulus package had dedicated close to a trillion dollars to buy up most of the troubled mortgages in the United States, as a means of resetting those mortgages at today's interest rates for 15 to 30 years. In order to boost the political support for such a program, all mortgages might have been qualified for the modification, solving much of the mortgage problems at the roots of the recession. The Fannie Mae corporation might have been used to make the entire program automatic.
The economic situation would have been dramatically different today. However, politics is the art of the possible, and Charles E. Lindblom (1977) reminds us that in systems such as this, business occupies a privileged position, which any president will ignore to his own peril. Wall Street and business will have the upper hand.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West
The Federal Government has to spend, in order to provide liquidity in the market, during periods of economic contraction. That becomes even more critical, when a major factor in the contraction is the failure of the free market, in such areas as the management of supply and demand, and the proper valuation of asset, risks and opportunities.
The problem for the Obama administration is that for a long time Americans have been told that the free market alone is the key to prosperity. Government should not only leave Wall Street alone, to make up the rules of the road, but also avoid taxing citizens to pay for the things that they want from government.
Even the massive failure of the market that brought on the current recession has not been sobering enough, to dispel those faulty notions about the economy and the role of the government. As long as the United States could borrow massive amounts of dollars from places like China, the people could live large in their fiscal unreality. President Reagan, for instance, was a major political actor to tell the people in the 1980s that borrow and spend was preferable to tax and spend, and that government was the problem not the solution. His influence is still palpable in Republican circles.
Thus, two years after the big economic melt-down, President Obama's political opponents are telling the people, once again, that the problem with their situation in the economy is the government. See, they say, Obama had his stimulus dollars, and yet the economic situation remains as bleak as ever. All of the spending has been wasteful! Of course, they are wrong.
They forget that the economic crisis started under a Republican president, whose solution just before he left office, as the economy was sinking was to pour billions of dollars into Wall Street firms. President Obama followed that precedence. The valid criticism of the president is that he followed it with so much faith, instead of ensuring that Main Street was made the focus of the recovery under his watch.
Imagine what the situation would have been today, if the president's stimulus package had dedicated close to a trillion dollars to buy up most of the troubled mortgages in the United States, as a means of resetting those mortgages at today's interest rates for 15 to 30 years. In order to boost the political support for such a program, all mortgages might have been qualified for the modification, solving much of the mortgage problems at the roots of the recession. The Fannie Mae corporation might have been used to make the entire program automatic.
The economic situation would have been dramatically different today. However, politics is the art of the possible, and Charles E. Lindblom (1977) reminds us that in systems such as this, business occupies a privileged position, which any president will ignore to his own peril. Wall Street and business will have the upper hand.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Glen Beck, Conservative icon beckons America to God
Glen Beck, conservative icon beckons America to God: Who would quarell with that?
Sunday, August 29, 2010 1:06 PM
This is just nonsensical. Who said that America had moved away from God? The nation has always kept its adherence to religious values, while attempting to stay within the necessary constitutional strictures, which among other things, make it possible for African-Americans to be recognized as citizens with full rights.
This rhetoric about God, American public life, and politics (often implied) has been a long-running devise by which conservatives have sought to do god's work in politics, by condemning liberal thought as either ungodly or a sure ticket to hell. That is how the Christian Right has been able to convince a lot of people that supporting conservative politicians and most recently, President Bush, for instance is a Christian duty. In that regard, they violate the important instruction from Jesus Christ to give unto Caesar Caesar's and unto God, God's.
For a long time, the war was against the poorest of the poor: mothers on welfare, who were portrayed as the evil genius behind much of what was wrong with traditional values. President Clinton, for instance, who was a smart politician, did not buy into the narrative, but pushed for radical welfare reform, in order to take the issue away from the Religious Right.
Now, people like Glen Beck are blowing the horn again, partially to whip up the emotions of the rabble against President Obama, an African-American trailblazer, whom many in the ultra-conservative wing, continue to see as an impostor: an African, who should not qualify for the presidency, or a godless socialist, who should be ostracized in the tradition of the Red Scare.
The God these people march for is the jealous and militant God of the Old Testament, who would destroy the enemies of the Israelites, just to make a point, even though the same God supposedly created all of humanity and the natural world; a God who would fight their political battles, while condemning their opponents to eternal hell.
In that sense, these people are truly the Christian Taliban. Without the larger cultural context within which they operate: a context that could juxtapose the noble vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and those of the Christian Taliban, and ask free peoples to draw contrasts and comparisons, these folks will feel very comfortable in the caves of Afghanistan, and in the Madrasas of Pakistan.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
Sunday, August 29, 2010 1:06 PM
This is just nonsensical. Who said that America had moved away from God? The nation has always kept its adherence to religious values, while attempting to stay within the necessary constitutional strictures, which among other things, make it possible for African-Americans to be recognized as citizens with full rights.
This rhetoric about God, American public life, and politics (often implied) has been a long-running devise by which conservatives have sought to do god's work in politics, by condemning liberal thought as either ungodly or a sure ticket to hell. That is how the Christian Right has been able to convince a lot of people that supporting conservative politicians and most recently, President Bush, for instance is a Christian duty. In that regard, they violate the important instruction from Jesus Christ to give unto Caesar Caesar's and unto God, God's.
For a long time, the war was against the poorest of the poor: mothers on welfare, who were portrayed as the evil genius behind much of what was wrong with traditional values. President Clinton, for instance, who was a smart politician, did not buy into the narrative, but pushed for radical welfare reform, in order to take the issue away from the Religious Right.
Now, people like Glen Beck are blowing the horn again, partially to whip up the emotions of the rabble against President Obama, an African-American trailblazer, whom many in the ultra-conservative wing, continue to see as an impostor: an African, who should not qualify for the presidency, or a godless socialist, who should be ostracized in the tradition of the Red Scare.
The God these people march for is the jealous and militant God of the Old Testament, who would destroy the enemies of the Israelites, just to make a point, even though the same God supposedly created all of humanity and the natural world; a God who would fight their political battles, while condemning their opponents to eternal hell.
In that sense, these people are truly the Christian Taliban. Without the larger cultural context within which they operate: a context that could juxtapose the noble vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and those of the Christian Taliban, and ask free peoples to draw contrasts and comparisons, these folks will feel very comfortable in the caves of Afghanistan, and in the Madrasas of Pakistan.
I thank you.
Fubara David-West.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)