Never again, and yet...

The city had been under siege for months when the Bosnian Serbs began shelling it.
Since 1992, the beginning of the Bosnian War, they had undertaken a vicious campaign of ethnic cleansing to rid the eastern part of Bosnia, the Serb-dominated Republika Srpska, of all Bosniaks (Muslims). The latter then accounted for two-thirds of Srebrenica’s population (of less than 6,000 in 1991). By March 1993, 60,000 displaced Bosniaks had found refuge in the city.
Designated a UN safe area in 1993, and thus under the protection of the international community, refugees continued to swarm into the city as the Serb offensive progressed in July 1995.
The Bosniak forces were ill equipped and demoralized, and their renowned commander Naser Oric had left the city in April.
Some six hundred Dutch troops had arrived in January 1995 in order to protect the population and were stationed at Potocari, an abandoned factory five kilometers north of the city. Yet, under their UN mandate, they were not even able to defend themselves, and only authorized to shoot over the heads of the Serbs, and not directly at them. UNPRFOR (UN Protection Force) Commander General Bertrand Janvier asked the UN for additional troops or their withdrawal to allow for major NATO air raids on Serb positions. His requests were denied…
On July 9, thirty Dutch soldiers were captured when advancing Serb forces attacked their observation post.
As the shelling continued, Colonel Karremans, the Dutch commander, requested NATO air support, but the bombing raids were interrupted after the Serbs threatened to kill their Dutch hostages should they continue.
By then, 5,000 Bosniaks had found refuge inside the base of Potocari.
As the Bosniak forces abandoned their last positions, the city fell on July11. General Ratko Mladic, commander of the Bosnian-Serb army, entered the city and issued the defeated Bosniaks an ultimatum: they were to disarm in exchange for their safety. Allah can’t help you but Mladic can, he told them.
Some 15,000 Bosniak forces fled with their weapons into the hills and headed for Muslim territory some sixty kilometers away.
The Serbs proceeded to separate the men from the woman and children. All Bosniak males between the ages of 12 to 77 were to be interrogated in order to identify potential war criminals, the Serbs explained. I first knew what would be happening the moment they started separating men from women and children. I knew that whenever they separated men from women, they most of the time kill the men, recalled Emir Suljagic, now a journalist in Sarajevo who was in Srebrenica at the time.
Those who tried to hide in their homes were hunted down like dogs and slaughtered, according to evidence presented at The Hague at the trial of Serb general Radislav Krstic, in March 2000.
Though General Mladic had promised Bosniak women that they would soon be reunited with their male family members, buses arrived to take them to territory under Bosniak control. Thousands of male Bosniaks were never to be seen alive again…
Two days later, on July 13, Dutch troops were ordered by the Serbs to expulse the 5000 refugees that were under their protection at Potocari.
The Dutch complied, in exchange for the release of fourteen Dutch troops held by the Serbs... My husband was seized in Potocari. He was taken away along with 3,000 others. I never knew anything more about what happened to him until 2005, when his body was identified. I buried him in Potocari. I still know nothing about what happened to my son, Nura Begovi told The Guardian. Her son had fled the city and into the hills.
As the refugees were leaving the Dutch base, there were Dutch soldiers either side, fully armed, with machine guns. They told the people: Empty your wallets, empty your bags, empty your purses, Hasan Nuhanovic, an interpreter present at the scene, told The Guardian. Their fate was thus foretold, and they were being robbed before being killed, the booty Serb spoils of war, no doubt. Listen, the day before, Serb soldiers had shot at least nine men and boys lined up against the wall of that white house outside the base. They were shot in the backs of their heads. The Dutch soldiers saw it, it's written in their report, he added.
Bosniaks were then taken away, some 60 truckloads. Bound and blindfolded, they were executed and dumped in mass graves. Those who had fled in the hills were shelled by the Serb artillery. All in all, General Mladic’s army murdered over 8,000.
Executions occurred also at night and, according to Jean-René Ruiz, a French police officer who collected evidence of the atrocities afterwards, some of the victims were buried alive. The streets were filled with corpses, including those of children.
One soldier approached a woman in the middle of a crowd. Her child was crying. The soldier asked why the child was crying and she explained that he was hungry. The soldier made a comment like, 'He won't be hungry anymore.' He slit the child's throat in front of everybody, he told CNN.
The Dutch have been accused, if not of complicity, at least of apathy during this ordeal. Some decry their callousness and cruelty in their dealings with the Bosniaks. According to spiegelonline, one woman told the Rotterdam newspaper NRC Handelsblad how shocked she was by one peacekeeper's behavior when her son was kidnapped. "I will never forget this soldier's face: He just stood there and watched. But the worst was that he laughed.
In 2002, the government of Dutch Prime Minister Kok fell, after a report issued by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation concluded Dutch troops had acted with negligence and that the massacre could have been prevented had more vigorous measures been taken.
Furthermore, other Western military forces were present in Srebrenica as well, such as the British SAS, but did not intervene. One British soldier later wrote a book on Srebrenica under the pen-name of Nick Cameron. I had visions of swarms of angry aircraft diving and destroying the attacking Serb targets at will. There was nothing . . . we waited and waited, he wrote. According to Cameron, this is what his commander later told him: We never intended to fight for this place. That was never the plan. Cameron came to the conclusion that the whole UN thing was to get Srebrenica finished with…His book was subsequently banned by the Minister of Defense.
As a result, the Mothers of the Enclaves of Srebrenica and Zepa, an organization that represents 6000 family members of the victims, sued both the Dutch government and the UN for their failure to prevent genocide, the term the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) used to describe the atrocities that took place in Srebrenica. By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the 40,000 Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group which was emblematic of the Bosnian Muslims in general.... The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide. Those responsible will bear this stigma, and it will serve as a warning to those who may in future contemplate the commission of such a heinous act, said Judge Theodor Meron of the ICTY.
Hassan Nuhanovic, the former UN interpreter, brought a similar case against the Netherlands for its failure to prevent the Serbs from killing members of his family who had found refuge in the UN Safe Area under Dutch protection. Both cases are still pending.
In 2004, the Bosnian Serbs officially took responsibility for the massacre, and issued an apology in a formal report on the events of July 1995, the report makes it clear that enormous crimes were committed in the area of Srebrenica in July 1995. The Bosnian Serb Government shares the pain of the families of the Srebrenica victims, is truly sorry and apologizes for the tragedy, the authorities said.
The International Commission on Missing Persons (ICMP), founded by Bill Clinton, is still in the process of identifying bodies exhumed from some 70 mass graves through DNA testing. Every year, on July 11, the day the massacre is commemorated, all those bodies that have been identified during the past twelve months are buried.
As of July 2009, 6186 victims had been identified by the ICMP.
Approximately 8100 Bosniaks were killed in Srebrenica in July 1995.
And yet, Radovan Karadzic, the former leader of the Bosnian Serbs, who has been charged with eleven counts of war crimes and genocide, called the Srebrenica massacre a myth.
It is going to be easy for me to prove that I had nothing to do with it. It is a myth, he said at his trial at the ICTY in The Hague on Tuesday.
In fact, he accused the Bosniaks of provoking the Serbs in order to entice Western powers to intervene on their behalf. This cunning strategy was particularly obvious concerning Sarajevo, the Bosnian capital under siege for four years and continuously shelled between 1992 and 1996 and in which 10,000 people were killed (including 1,500 children. 56,000 were wounded), contended Mr. Karadzic.
The Markale Market bombings, which killed 68 people in 1994, and another 37 in 1995 were in fact, the work of the Bosniaks themselves, according to Mr. Karadzic. They killed their own people, he claimed.
They shelled their own people and killed their own people from snipers. You see that it was staged. Perhaps it was corpses that were planted, he added.
The real victims of the war were not the Bosniaks, but the Serbs, who were only trying to protect themselves…
According to the official Serb version of the events, the goal of the Muslims was 100% power as it was in the Ottoman Empire…there were fundamentalist goals to change the destiny and appearance of the whole region, he said
Serbia was defeated in Kosovo by the Turks in 1389, and was occupied until the 19th century.
Hence, the Serbs had no choice but to fight these fanatics if they were to survive.
I stand before you not to defend the mere mortal that I am but to defend the greatness of a small nation... which for 500 years has had to suffer and demonstrated a great deal of modesty and perseverance to survive in freedom. I will defend that nation of ours and their cause, which is just and holy. And in that way I will be able to defend myself too, and my nation, because we have a good case, he concluded.
Perhaps Mr. Karadzic will have the chance to elaborate on exactly what is just and holy about ethnic cleansing and mass murder.
Although negating the humanity and sufferings of one’s victims and emphasizing one’s own is a classic defense in such cases, the evidence confirming war crimes and genocide is so overwhelming that Mr. Karadzic’s line of defense seems futile.
The war is now justified as a small and valiant Christian nation’s attempt to contain militant Islam, the Serbs’ version of the War on Terror. Yet this war of self-defense resulted in the death of 100,000 people (66% of which were Muslims; as were 83% of all civilian casualties in the war) and the displacement of 2.2 million others.
I think Karadzic believes what he is saying...it's the war on terror...and for him, it is necessary to demonize, call them bad guys. It is despicable when he says it, but it is also being said in a simplistic ‘war on terror’ context today in the US and elsewhere that makes it seem plausible. The Bosnian Muslim identity was never very Islamic, but Karadzic doesn’t see it that way. He sees them as Turks that dominated the Balkans for 500 years, James Swithart, formerly of the European Desk at the State Department in the 1990s, told The Christian Science Monitor.
In the post 9/11 world, it is convenient and perhaps cunning to portray ethnic cleansing and genocide as a campaign of self-defense designed to protect the Serbs, and implicitly all of Europe against Islamic fundamentalism.
Yet, Serb intentions were clear from the outset and belie Mr. Karadzic’s attempt to rewrite history.
On the opening day of his trial, last October, a taped phone conversation that took place in 1991, a year before the Bosnian War began, was presented to the court.
There are 20,000 armed Serbs around Sarajevo... it will be a black cauldron where 300,000 Muslims will die. That people will disappear from the Earth, Mr. Karadzic said. There are 3-400,000 armed Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina … It will be a real bloodbath, he added.
The Serbs were not defending their nation, but clearly intent on eradicating the Bosniaks.
Historical grievances were also involved.
General Mladic considered the conquest of Srebrenica as an opportunity for the Serbs to avenge themselves on the Turks. The latter had defeated the Serbs at the Battle of Kosovo Polje in 1389. Kosovo then became part of the Ottoman Empire.
In the end, genocide is always based on an ideology that views the other as inferior and unfit to live in a civilized society. Muslims can't live with others. They will overwhelm you with their birthrate and other tricks. We cannot allow that to happen, he once claimed.
The decision to murder thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica was taken by Mr. Karadzic himself. According to evidence provided by the prosecutor Alan Tieger, he notified the Bosnian Serb parliament that he had signed directive number 7, authorizing the mass executions. I was in favor of all decisions made and I support them. The time had come, Mr. Karadzic told the assembly, according to Mr. Tieger.
As far as the prosecutor is concerned, the only regret he had about the entire operation was that some Muslim men got away.
The trial was interrupted after Tuesday’ session. Mr. Karadzic filed an appeal asking for more time to prepare his defense. An appeals chamber is considering this request.
Late last month however, General Zdravko Tolimir also went on trial for genocide and his participation in the Srebrenica massacre. In 2004, General Radislav Krstic, one of General Mladic’s aides, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for genocide and other war crimes.
In 2007, four members of a Serb paramilitary group called the Scorpions were convicted by a Serbian court and received jail sentences for their participation in the Srebrenica massacre.
A video presented at the 2005 trial of former President Slobodan Milosevic (who died in detention in 2006, before the end of the trial) showed the four men executing six Muslims.
The video, discovered by Belgrade human rights activist Natasa Kandic, caused quite a stir in Serbia.
No longer could the Serbs dismiss Western accusations of war crimes and genocide as anti-Serb propaganda.
Here was irrefutable evidence that Serbs had committed terrible crimes. Recognizing their responsibility in the tragic events of the decade could not be deferred…
Yet, Mladic is still on the run, hiding somewhere in Serbia and the authorities in Belgrade have been unable or unwilling to arrest and transfer him to The Hague.
Many suspected criminals of all extraction are still free, yet the noose is tightening.
Last Monday, the former Bosniak President, Ejup Ganic, was arrested at Heathrow.
He was indicted last year by a Serb court in Belgrade for his participation in the killing of 42 Serb soldiers in 1992.
Serbia has asked for his extradition…
The Balkan wars are from over, and all the aggrieved parties are clamoring for justice.…
Everything that happened here happened under the eyes of the world, General Mladic said after the fall of Srebrenica.
Forty years after Auschwitz, human beings were once again being slaughtered on European soil because of who they were.
Never again, we had said then, and yet…
It took three years of war, the shelling of Sarajevo and its Markale Market, the 8000 dead at Srebrenica, the Tuzla massacre (in May 1995), Serb concentration camps at Omarska, Trnoplje and Keraterm for NATO to act decisively at last.
Air strikes targeted the Bosnian Serbs in September 1995.
Negotiations thus began, and the Dayton Peace Agreement was signed November 21, 1995. The Serbs were not through, however. Their war on Kosovo in 1998-1999 would necessitate another NATO intervention…
There can never be genuine peace or reconciliation until those responsible for so much mindless violence and suffering are brought to trial for what they have done.
Mr. Karadzic is at The Hague
Why is not General Mladic?
(the photograph of the Srebrenica Memorial is by AFP)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

While America bleeds

In a speech at the National Defense University last Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused the Europeans of undermining NATO by refusing to devote to the organization the additional resources it needs to function efficiently and effectively, particularly in Afghanistan.
In addition, however, he lamented the fact that Europe’s current outlook is too pacifist. Last week the Dutch government fell because members of the governing coalition could not agree on prolonging the mission of the 2000 troops currently stationed in Afghanistan. As a result, Dutch forces should be returning home this summer.
Europe’s reluctance to go to war presumably explains its refusal to increase its defense expenditures, the demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st, he said.
In essence, does real security and lasting peace depend on a robust military and one’s willingness to use it? Today, is peace truly conditioned on one’s capacity to wage war without compunction or inhibition?
As such, have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought us any closer to the realization of Mr. Gates’ stated goal?
The US has been in Iraq for seven years. 4697 US troops have been killed there to date, as well as some 100,000 Iraqis…President Obama promised to withdraw all US forces by late next year. National parliamentary elections are to take place on March 7, and it was widely hoped that the poll would allow all of Iraq’s communities to be duly represented. Iraq could then develop peacefully, thus facilitating the US troop withdrawal. Yet, according to Reuters, the campaign for Iraq's first sovereign vote since the invasion has deepened sectarian divides, rather than healed them, after candidates, including prominent Sunnis, were banned for supposed links to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party. Saleh al-Mutlak, leader of the most influential Sunni party, the National Dialogue Front has been prevented form running in the election, along with 400 other Sunnis.
Suicide attacks have increased of late, and, according to Leila Fadel of the WP, many here say sectarian strife is reigniting.
As such, some are wondering if this is truly the appropriate time to withdraw US forces from Iraq, all we're doing is setting the clock back to 2005. The militias are fully armed, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is trying to move back from the west. These are the conditions now, and we're sitting back looking at PowerPoint slides and whitewashing, a senior American military official told the WP.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s performance as leader of the Iraqi government, undermined by corruption and incompetence, has disappointed many. The decision to ban all those who may have been connected to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party alienated the Sunni community. Furthermore, 18% of Iraqis are unemployed and two-thirds of those who do have jobs are employed by the state. Foreign investment has been minimal, except in the oil industry. As a result, many Iraqis are disgusted, there are no jobs, just bombings. I will not take part in the election. What did the people we voted for last time do for us? Nothing, one Sunni Iraqi told Reuters.
The political system created by the US in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, and conditioned by Order No 1, the decision by L. Paul Bremer III, then de facto leader of Iraq, to ban the Baath party, is based on confessionalism. The powerful one-party state having been annihilated by the US military, each of Iraq’s three main communities, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish now vies for power in order to protect itself and advance its own interests, often at the expense of the others. Distrust and suspicion are so widespread that many perceive the US, however reluctantly, as the only honest broker available. In America’s twilight in Iraq, the imperial role of arbiter, in a system that may yet prove unworkable, still belongs to it, wrote Anthony Shadid of the NYT.
Hence, if the elections are inconclusive and its results not accepted by all major parties, sectarian strife may bedevil the country once again, potentially precluding a comprehensive US military withdrawal.
Should the Iraqi authorities prove unable to prevent the country from sliding into civil war, should they not be ready for the task, to quote Thomas E. Ricks, President Obama would have no choice but to abandon his campaign promise and halt the US pullout. But I think leaders in both countries may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come, concluded Mr. Ricks.
In short, the Iraq war may be far from over and achieving real security and lasting peace many years away…
In Afghanistan, NATO has been present for…nine years…Over 1000 US troops have already been killed there.
President Obama defined a new counter-insurgency strategy late last year, and the US will be increasing its troop levels by about 30,000 in 2010, reaching 130,000.
Last week General McChrystal, the Commander of ISAF (the International Security Assistance Force) who is in charge of implementing the new strategy, launched an attack on Marja, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province, in southern Afghanistan, the aim of which is to regain control of the area, and hand it over to representatives of the Kabul government. Afghan soldiers and police would be in charge of security once the battle was over.
Economic reconstruction could then take place, thereby improving the lives of the Afghans living in the vicinity, and hopefully, winning their allegiance.
This exercise would then be replicated in other areas now under Taliban control.
To succeed however, the strategy depends on the ability of the Afghan security forces to protect the area and its inhabitants, and prevent the return of the Taliban once US forces leave.
In order to demonstrate the efficiency and competence of the Afghan army, the latter was to take the lead in the battle for Marja. Statements from Kabul have said the Afghan military is planning the missions and leading both the fight and the effort to engage with Afghan civilians caught between the Taliban and the newly arrived troops, wrote the NYT.
In fact, the US military dominated every aspect of the operation, for Afghan troops revealed gross deficiencies during the campaign. There have been ample examples in the offensive of weak Afghan leadership and poor discipline to boot, concluded C.J. Chivers of the NYT. Moreover, in multiple firefights in which Times journalists were present, many Afghan soldiers did not aim — they pointed their American-issued M-16 rifles in the rough direction of the incoming small-arms fire and pulled their triggers without putting rifle sights to their eyes. Their rifle muzzles were often elevated several degrees high, he added.
The entire strategy of MM. Obama and McChrystal rests on the ability of the Afghan security forces to secure the country and protect the Afghan population. Only then will US troops be able to withdraw, hopefully starting in the summer of next year.
NATO has devoted nine years and several billion dollars to the training of Afghan security forces. Judging from their performance in Marja, the US and NATO are not about to leave the country. Many more years, if not decades, and additional billions will be necessary to train a competent police force and army. Currently, nine out of ten recruits are illiterate….
Yet, we may not have that much time ahead of us.
McChrystal’s campaign to win hearts and minds suffered another serious setback last week.
NATO forces bombed a small convoy of three vehicles, which they believed contained Taliban fighters.
Tragically, that was not the case. Some 27 civilians were killed, including four women and one child, and an additional twelve were wounded. We are extremely saddened by this tragic loss of innocent lives. I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people. I pledge to strengthen our efforts to regain your trust to build a brighter future for all Afghans, McChrystal declared after the incident.
The Afghan cabinet was not impressed, the repeated killing of civilians by NATO forces is unjustifiable. We strongly condemn it, it retorted.
For this incident followed another that occurred on February 14, on the second day of the offensive. A US artillery strike mistakenly hit a compound housing civilians, killing ten including five children. We deeply regret this tragic loss of life, McChrystal had then told President Karzai…
Needless to say, these kinds of egregious errors inflame public opinion in Afghanistan, and only serve the interests of the Taliban, reinforcing their claim that there can be no peace and no one will be safe until all foreign forces leave Afghanistan.
In essence, the latest events revealed the fundamental deficiencies of NATO’s campaign in Afghanistan: the repeated slaughter of innocent civilians undermines its moral authority, and thus its legitimacy, as well as the government’s on whose behalf it is fighting, while those forces which could potentially replace NATO’s do not have the competence to do so, and are not about to…
Consequently, real security and lasting peace in Afghanistan is but a distant dream, and NATO’s current war on the Taliban has brought us no closer to realizing Mr. Gates’ objective, nine years after having first invaded the country…
How long will the Europeans and the Afghans tolerate this situation?
Events in Holland demonstrate that the patience of some Europeans is wearing thin.
In fact, it is precisely the war’s inability to solve complex political issues, and the great suffering engendered that fuels pacifism or demilitarization, call it what you will, in Europe and elsewhere.
A nation or a community of nations cannot wage war perpetually.
Enduring conflicts exact a toll both psychological and financial.
So far, the Iraq and Afghan wars have cost the US $965 billion…
The nation is deeply in debt, and the deficits are rising (currently at about $1 trillion per year). Last month, the Senate authorized the US government to increase the debt by an additional $1.9 trillion. As a result, the current national debt rose to $14.3 trillion, or the equivalent of $45,000 per American, men, women and children included…To continue to function, the US is currently compelled to borrow forty cents for every dollar it spends…
Beleaguered by an unprecedented economic crisis that has increased the nation’s deficits and debt, leaders in Washington seem unable to initiate the reforms needed to restore the nation’s finances.
The endless health care debate reinforces the perception in the US and elsewhere that the nation is paralyzed and incapable or unwilling for purely partisan reasons to pass any meaningful legislation. In Washington, and particularly in the Senate, the very concept of compromise no longer holds any value. It is akin to surrender and thus repudiated, for moderation is now an electoral liability.
Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, recently announced that he would retire from the Senate because brain-dead partisanship prevents that august body from accomplishing anything useful…
I used to think it would take a global financial crisis to get both parties to the table, but we just had one. These days I wonder if this country is even governable, G. William Hoagland, a former adviser to Senate Republican leaders told the NYT. In this context of paralysis, gridlock and exacerbated partisanship, can the US succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan what it has failed to achieve even at home in Washington, that is to say instating effective and sound government?
The astute Tom Engelhardt posed this relevant question:
Why does the military of a country convinced it's becoming ungovernable think itself so capable of making another ungovernable country governable? What’s the military’s skill set here? What lore, what body of political knowledge, are they drawing on? Who do they think they represent, the Philadelphia of 1776 or the Washington of 2010, and if the latter, why should Americans be considered the globe’s leading experts in good government anymore? And while we’re at it, fill me in on one other thing: Just what has convinced American officials in Afghanistan and the nation’s capital that they have the special ability to teach, prod, wheedle, bribe, or force Afghans to embark on good governance in their country if we can’t do it in Washington or Sacramento?
Consequently, could it be that it is al-Qaeda and not Mr. Gates, which has conceived an effective strategy to achieve its goals?
Since the First Gulf War, one of Bin Laden’s principle objectives has always been to evict the US from the Middle East and Muslim world.
Paradoxically, the September 11 attacks were designed to goad the US into invading Afghanistan in order to achieve its strategic defeat and its eventual withdrawal from the region. Christian armies invading Islamic lands could only bolster al-Qaeda’s claim that the West is at war with Islam, and that it is every Muslim’s duty to wage jihad against the crusaders. The subsequent invasion of Iraq, heaven sent as far as al-Qaeda was concerned, only further validated this contention.
That Bin Laden knew the US would retaliate in Afghanistan is evinced by the fact that his followers assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Anti-Taliban resistance (after having fought the Soviets for ten years) who would have been a key ally in any US campaign in the country, two days before, on September 9.
During the Soviet occupation (1979-1989), the Afghan resistance had bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat, Bin Laden declared in a videotape in 2004. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, he added.
Michael Scheuer, formerly of the CIA who headed the Bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center between 1996 and 1999, wrote the following in 2008, Bin Laden has long described a three-fold strategy for driving the United States out of the Muslim world: (1) contribute to the forces creating domestic political disunity in America; (2) act and encourage other Islamists to act in a way that spreads U.S. military and intelligence forces to the point where they lack reserves and flexibility; and (3) bleed America to bankruptcy. Obviously, al-Qaeda has been successful on the first two points and today bin Laden is staring into the face of an entirely serendipitous opportunity to contribute to economic disaster in the United States.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are contributing to the realization of objective number three…
Concerning point number one, the latest Christmas Day attack spawned a bitter partisan debate concerning the handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Many on the right were incensed that a foreigner could benefit from the protection offered by the Constitution, and thus blasted the Obama administration for having authorized the FBI to read the suspect his rights (during his Senate campaign, Scott Brown declared, some people believe our Constitution exists to grant rights to terrorists who want to harm us. I disagree). Attorney General Eric Holder concluded that there’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.
National security, constitutional rights have become a partisan issue in Washington, undoubtedly to the delight of Bin Laden. Controversies weaken a nation’s resolve, and sow doubt concerning the administration’s ability to protect the homeland.
As for objective number two, that same Christmas Day attack led the US to deepen its involvement and invest additional resources in Yemen, where Mr. Abdulmutallab received training from the local al-Qaeda branch (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).
The front in the war on terror is widening, demanding ever-increasing resources to neutralize the extremists.
As for the bleeding of America, is not the process already under way?
The US spends over $700 billion a year for its defense or nearly half of the world’s total…The nation is heavily indebted.
How long can the US sustain such a heavy military burden?
How effective have its military campaigns been?
Have those billions been spent shrewdly, wisely?
Have they furthered the security interests of the nation, and made it more secure?
There does not seem to be any end in sight to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless the US decides to withdraw, regardless of the consequences.
We are not there yet, but the day will come when that is the only viable option left, for these wars cannot be won, and the allies we have chosen (al-Maliki and Karzai) are incapable of achieving anything resembling our definition of victory… Not surprisingly, they are looking after their interets, not ours.
America’s belligerent strategy of waging war to impose a Pax Americana on the planet’s most volatile and dangerous regions is failing.
War should not be thought of simply as one policy option upon many to promote US interests. And yet, conventional wisdom now has it that war should be an option always on the table. This is lunacy!
On the contrary, it must only be considered as a last resort, when the very existence of the nation is at stake.
Neither NATO nor the US currently faces any existential threats, certainly not in Iraq or Afghanistan. As such, war should never even have been considered as a viable policy option…These complex challenges demand more thoughtful, constructive solutions.
It is time to reverse course, for war only begets suffering, death and untold destruction. Nothing ever good comes of it, and certainly not real security and lasting peace.
In fact, it is delusional to imagine that it can lead to either. For what can war but endless war still breed, wrote the poet John Milton…
The time has come to promote our genuine values, peace, justice, democracy and progress.
This is what we should be contributing to the derelict regions of the world, and not death and mayhem.
(the photograph can be found here)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

What's next?

The lump in my throat is choking me. We had so much hope for this day which unfortunately was ruined, one young protester said, following the 22 Bahman events.
The Green Movement had urged its supporters to demonstrate against the regime on February 11 (22 Bahman), the anniversary of the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979.
The inability of the movement to perturb significantly the official commemoration, which included a speech by President Ahmadinejad, dismayed many of its supporters, and has led to much soul searching and second-guessing, I think a failure has triggered debates and tactical analyses that have been needed for a long time now. It seemed like a lot of people were tired of being brutalized and continuing to go out into the streets, one protester called Sania told the NYT.
What went wrong?
Firstly, the movement lacks coherent and effective leadership. Though MM. Mousavi and Karroubi have bravely attempted to encourage and speak for the opposition, both were, until last June’s fraudulent presidential election, regime insiders considered sufficiently ideologically pure to run in the election, hence prominent members of the establishment.
To this day, they defend the Islamic Republic and oppose the authorities, because they accuse the latter of having betrayed it. They have no plans to do away with it, merely to adhere to its principles, both democratic and Islamic, which the current authorities are now subverting.
As such, they lack credibility with many opposition supporters, particularly the young, and those who seek to establish a republic, and not resurrect the Islamic Republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini and that has degenerated into an authoritarian, police state.
Their inability to propose a clear and viable strategy to confront the regime has undermined their authority and legitimacy, if we had a strong charismatic leader we wouldn't have marched in the streets dazed and confused yesterday. I see the opposite side as the winner today. A temporary winner. ...We don't have a central command. We were like a broken chain, thrown all over, one young university student told AP the day after 22 Bahman.
It should be said however, that the authorities have done their utmost to hinder the opposition’s efforts to organize itself effectively, even the hardliners recognize the importance of organization and, hence, expert organizers. This is exactly why Behzad Nabavi, Mostafa Tajzadeh, Mohsen Aminzadeh, and Mohsen Mirdamadi, political activists for decades who have proven to be excellent organizers, have been jailed since soon after the election. In fact, according to Nabavi, their arrest warrants were issued a few days before the election, one analyst wrote.
Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Shirin Ebadi defended the leaders of the movement, arguing that they have done as much as they could do, and that is that they have given the people the courage to express their demands. They’ve inspired the people to go to the streets and make their demands heard, she told AP.
Yet, Mousavi and Karroubi need to organize the movement into a coherent organization and articulate a set of fundamental objectives, and a strategy to realize them.
Opposition followers need inspiration no doubt, but also clear directives. It is the leadership’s responsibility to provide them.
Defective leadership, in turn, produced faulty strategy.
The huge demonstrations that followed Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent election victory led to brutal repression and mass arrests.
As such, opposition leaders have been reticent since last summer to mobilize their followers, fearing a major police crackdown.
As a result, they have attempted to hijack official gatherings organized by the regime, and transform them into vast anti-government demonstrations: Quds Day in September, 13 Aban in November (commemorating the takeover of the US Embassy thirty years ago), Ashura in December, for instance.
The Green Movement’s tactics have thus been predictable thereby facilitating the task of the security forces. Clearly rattled by the opposition’s success at mobilizing its supporters last December, and aware of its intention to renew the feat at the next official commemoration, 22 Bahman, the security forces had plenty of time to prepare, all the while pursuing its policy of intimidating political opponents through arrests and executions.
Not surprisingly, opposition protesters were overwhelmed by the vast security presence. Its Trojan horse tactic whereby demonstrators reveal the green apparel they were concealing under conservative, conventional garb at the appropriate signal failed. Their inability to identify other opposition supporters in the crowd led to confusion and hesitation.
There was also a lack of coordination between various factions of the movement present in the streets.
The Iranian Diaspora played a significant role as well, helping fuel expectations that the 22 Bahman events would deal the regime a potentially fatal blow. There were talks about "over 3 million opposition forces" attending the rally. I think this is a perfect example of where the virtual world and the expat community circulate their visions of sugar plum fairies on TV stations, and thus have become liability to the movement. When you raise expectation above the real capacity of a movement , that only results in disappointment and despair, one blogger recounted.
If modern means of communication clearly helped the opposition develop and mobilize, Facebook Tweeter and YouTube are not sufficient to sustain a political movement.
What is paramount? A galvanizing message, and the militants willing to take substantial risks to disseminate it. It is not technology per se that has the power to change the world, but rather the motivations (both good and evil) of the people using it, wrote Luke Allnut, Editor-in-Chief of RFE/RL’s English-language website.
Emboldened by its clear victory over the opposition, the regime is not about to alleviate its pressure on all those who question its legitimacy.
The struggle is far from over, however, and a regime that felt compelled to mobilize all of its resources to stifle the opposition and ensure it would not spoil its commemoration is clearly worried about the future.
The Green Movement is still very much alive, but needs to reinvent itself, and regain the initiative. It is a vibrant, dynamic movement. Its strategy and tactics should reflect that.
There is no doubt that the future belongs to Iran’s youth, which yearns for democracy and justice.
As one nineteen-year-old student told AP, he and his friends will remain reformists until the end of our lives.
(The photograph above of the 22 Bahman events is by Abedin Taherkenareh EPA)
　
　
　
　

It's a defeat, for now

Could they repeat last December’s feat?
Did the Green Movement still possess the necessary momentum and stamina to transform the regime’s commemoration of the thirty-first anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on February 11 (22 Bahman) into a significant anti-government demonstration, thereby further destabilizing the regime?
Last December, hundreds of thousands of Iranians fearlessly marched in the streets of Tehran and other cities to denounce the regime’s confiscation of power.
The security forces killed at least ten people, including Mir Hussein Mousavi’s nephew, Ali.
This time, both MM. Mousavi and Karroubi called their supporters to seize the opportunity offered by the 22 Bahman events to protest anew.
The authorities, clearly anxious to prevent the opposition from displaying once again its prowess and vibrancy, warned potential protesters that they would be firmly dealt with, we are closely watching the activities of the sedition movement and several people who were preparing to disrupt the 11 February rallies were arrested. If anyone wants to disrupt this glorious ceremony, they will be confronted by people and we too are fully prepared, Esmil Ahmadi-Moghaddam, the Tehran chief of police said.
Furthermore, the regime’s campaign of intimidation and arrests continued unabated.
According to the International Campaign for Human rights in Iran, some 1000 have been detained in the past two months, with journalists a target of choice. Forty-eight are currently in jail, more than in any other country, according to Reporters without Borders.
Last week, five protesters were prosecuted and could face the death penalty should they be convicted. Mohammad Amin Valian, a twenty-year-old student, was charged with Moharebeh or enmity against God, a capital offense, for having thrown rocks and shouted hostile, anti-government slogans during a demonstration. He also happened to be a particularly active member and organizer of the Central Council of the Islamic Student Association…
Two protesters were recently hanged and nine other are currently awaiting execution after having been condemned to death by the regime.
In order to dissuade all anti-government activity, the regime is cynically manipulating the Islamic legal code to eliminate those who have been brazen enough to question its legitimacy. By doing so, it has also revealed its fundamental moral bankruptcy, exploiting Islamic law to preserve its monopoly on power and the perquisites of power, referring to holy principles to protect its earthly prerogatives.
Indeed, Moharebeh can only be invoked against those resorting to armed resistance, the condition of armed activity is essential in charging someone under Moharebeh and the person must have carried out effective actions. If these conditions are not present then the charge of Moharebeh cannot be applied, Abdolfattah Soltani, a Tehran human rights lawyer told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. The regime is clearly counting on arrests, show trials and executions to eradicate the opposition movement.
Massive crowds attended the official commemoration. Hundreds of thousands, including many originating from the provinces, filled Azadi Square to hear the speech of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they bussed in as many people as they possibly could from many towns and locations and depositing them at Azadi Square, surrounded by and escorted by thousands of officers. I have even seen them rounding up people myself, Mehdi Karroubi’s son, Hossein, told Tehran Bureau.
A young Tehran journalist corroborated this version of events, huge numbers of people were bussed in to Tehran from rural areas and given free food, he wrote in The Guardian.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad once again affirmed that Iran was now a nuclear state, and that it possessed the capacity to enrich uranium more than 20% or even 80%, nearly the level necessary to produce a nuclear weapon. In fact, last week, he ordered the country’s nuclear industry authority to begin refining its uranium supply from 3.5% to 20%. When we say that we don't build nuclear bombs, it means that we won't do that because we don't believe in having them. The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to create an atomic bomb, we would announce it publicly and would create it, Ahmadinejad also said. If he denied that Iran was currently in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons, he clearly stated that that position could change if need be. This is a decision belonging exclusively to Iran, and no one else.
As such, he defiantly told the West that we are not afraid of you…
It is no accident that the nuclear issue dominated the speech. Ahmadinejad knows that 55% of Iranians are in favor of a nuclear energy program. It is a matter of national pride, a non-negotiable issue for most Iranians.
As such, and, by reactivating the nation’s enrichment program, is Ahmadinejad seeking to provoke a crisis with the West in order to unite the nation against Western meddling and thus undermine the Green Movement?
In any case, and although loud speakers had been strategically positioned to prevent this very occurrence, shouts of Death to the Dictator could be heard during the speech. Yet, efforts by the opposition to hijack the event clearly failed.
This time, the authorities were well prepared.
In order to prevent the various and disparate groups of opposition supporters from coalescing into one massive, fearless and uncontrollable whole, the authorities took effective measures. Thousands of security forces seized control of Tehran the day before to ensure the official commemoration would go smoothly.
The scale of the crackdown is becoming clear. The security forces were lining up next to each other in rows eight men deep along the routes of the official rally, wrote The Guardian.
Security forces sealed off the site of the official rally, Azadi Square, all the side roads leading to Enghelab and Azadi streets are cordoned off by anti-riot police, Basiji militiamen and plainclothes security officials, some holding cameras, a witness told the LAT.
Azadi Square being off limits, demonstrators were able to gather near Enghelab and on Vali Square, where they clashed with the paramilitaries.
Witnesses reported seeing Revolutionary Guards and Basijis firing into the crowd.
A young woman identified as Leila Zareii by The Times was reportedly killed. The regime resorted to its usual tactics and the security forces acted swiftly each time they encountered groups of opposition demonstrators, using truncheons and tear gas abundantly. Paintballs were also employed to identify troublemakers, and facilitate their identification and arrest later on.
This time however, the regime had additional resources, having recently acquired Chinese anti-riot armored cars equipped with water canons, and helicopters.
Countless protesters managed to meet in Sadeghiyeh Square: there, to the north of Azadi, a large gathering of protesters could be seen defiantly confronting security forces with chants of «Death to the Dictator» and «political prisoners must be freed», while waving green flags and placards and moving closer toward Azadi Square, an eyewitness told the LAT.
As he was leaving his vehicle, Mehdi Karroubi was assaulted with pepper spray by paramilitaries who were clearly awaiting his arrival. The entire area was filled with Basiji from the provinces. NAJA, the law enforcement agency, had a strong presence as well. For about six minutes, a violent attack took place, a witness told Tehran Bureau.
I was in Sadeghiyeh and though people were not holding up any symbols, I think most of them were against the regime because they wouldn't respond to the official chants from the loudspeakers. The security forces attacked the crowd violently, with cables, batons, and gas. Where I was, I can say that the 22 Bahman celebrations did not take place. I saw a small gathering of regime supporters and even they were dispersed by the police.
The people were beaten and I even saw some seriously injured individuals. That's what happens when you're attacked with chains. But no shots were fired, recounted another.
Basijis also attacked Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard; opposition supporters were able to spirit her away from the scene.
Zahra Eshraghi, Ayatollah Khomeini’s granddaughter and her husband Mohammad Reza Khatami, brother of former president Khatami, and both opposition supporters, were arrested and detained for over an hour by the security forces.
Mousavi was prevented from even joining the demonstrators by the paramilitaries.
Clashes occurred in numerous other Iranian cities including Mashhad, Esfahan, Ahvaz, Shiraz and Tabriz.
Although thousands of brave Iranians filled the streets to challenge the regime, many Green supporters were clearly disappointed, everyone we have spoken to so far this morning has said about the same thing -- in a word or two: "A big anticlimax," "defeat," "An overwhelming presence from the other side". People were terrified, one source told Tehran Bureau.
There were 300 of us, maximum 500. Against 10,000 people. It means they won and we lost. They defeated us. They were able to gather so many people. But this doesn't mean we have been defeated for good. It's a defeat for now, today. We need time to regroup, one participant told AP.
It's pretty clear that Greens everywhere will feel demoralized... The overall feeling is one of disappointment, another concluded.
On the other hand, the authorities were jubilant, the massive turnout of the nation shocked the central command of the arrogant front, including the US, England and the Zionist regime, declared the deputy chief of staff of the armed forces, Major General Gholam-Ali Rashid.
Raja News, a pro-government website, declared that the 22 Bahman commemorations was a great defeat for the opposition.
The people of Tehran repelled Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami from their crowds, added Fars News, a news agency with links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Lacking leadership and a strategy, the opposition movement clearly displayed its deficiencies last Thursday. In its current state, it is in no position to alter the status quo now favoring the regime, since it is still there and thus controls the security forces and all other state powers, notably the ability to manipulate at will the internet and all mobile and text messaging services, the opposition‘s chief means of organization and communication.
As such, the movement must strive to display more imagination and flexibility.
One obvious rigidity of the protest movement in Iran is its tight attachment to important days of mourning or celebrations. This gives the regime advance warning to prepare for confrontation and also time to recoup and deal with opponents in between waves of protests, wrote Mardo Soghom of RFE/RL.
The opposition movement’s predictability renders its repression by the authorities that much easier. They should not fall into that trap. Keeping the authorities guessing as to what their next moves will be and where would be more effective, but demands leadership…
Yet, one victory for the regime does not entail the demise of the democracy movement.
Now may be the time for the movement to produce its own leadership at last and a set of clear objectives as well as a strategy and timetable to meet them. Where does it want to lead the nation and how?
We, in the West, should do our utmost to encourage and support them.
(the photograph above is by EPA)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

The time for leadership has come

In a well delivered and penetrating State of the Union address, President Obama proposed an ambitious agenda to jolt the country out of the recession, and set it upon a new path of economic growth, innovation and renewed economic leadership.
The President acutely realizes that if the worst of the crisis is behind us, and even though the financial sector has recovered, the devastation remains, as 10% of Americans remain unemployed.
For them, change has not come fast enough.
The President’s program is impressive, and if put in place, would transform the country.
After having preserved the US from an even more severe economic depression thanks to the Recovery Act, the President seeks to use all the resources of the government to stimulate growth, and job creation, his top priority of the moment.
The new Jobs Bill that he is advocating would provide financing for small firms (currently neglected by large banks), entice them to hire or raise salaries through a new small business tax credit. It would also encourage the renovation of infrastructure and the manufacture of clean energy products, because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation, the President asserted.
He plans also to reform the financial system in order to ensure that it can never again revert to its reckless and speculative practices, which almost brought the world economy to its knees.
He intends to encourage innovation, stimulate exports, and revamp the education system, by improving the quality of schools, and revitalizing community colleges.
Furthermore, he also plans to defend the interests of the middle class, and, as such, pledged not to abandon his heath insurance reform. On this question, he issued the following challenge to its numerous detractors, but if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. Let me know. Let me know. I'm eager to see it.
As he emphasized, a comprehensive reform of the system was nearly at hand, and yet, the project has stalled since the President lost his super majority of sixty in Massachusetts last week.
Don’t walk away from reform, pleaded the President. Not now. Not when we are so close.
The President’s plans are clearly ambitious and would undoubtedly benefit the nation as a whole were they to come to fruition. Moreover, the measures advocated by the Republicans have been tried in the past and have failed, notably that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.
As he also pointed out, the Democrats have the largest majority in decades, so why has he not prevailed in the health insurance reform battle that is now twelve months old? He urged the Democrats not to run for the hills, but have they not done so already?
How is it that such a sizeable majority cannot approve the President’s reforms, and, first and foremost, such a symbolic and signal one as the health insurance bill?
Since Obama has not won that battle, how will the rest of his bold program fare, considering that this is an election year and that in two years, the presidential campaign will be in full swing?
The President’s term is only a year old, yet time is already pressing.
Will the inspiring and formidable candidate of 2008 finally evolve into the transformational leader his supporters in the US and elsewhere were yearning for?
I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it, he conceded.
The time has come for Obama to dispel these doubts, and impose his agenda.
Yet, the obstacles, overwhelming, remain, as he well knows.
One is lack of ambition, or the desire for collective greatness is undermined by a lack of faith in our ability to achieve it, due to the great difficulties involved, and, indeed, the efforts required to prevail.
As a result, preserving the status quo becomes the default policy, the one likely to rally the most supporters in Congress, from the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.
For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold?
You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still, he said.
Another is the nefarious and poisonous effects of partisan politics on the ability of the government to effectively lead and reform the country. This phenomenon, an inherent characteristic of democracy (authoritarian regimes do not face such difficulties, but simply impose their will on the people), is compounded in the US by the fact that congressional elections occur every two years. As such, office holders are perpetually campaigning, thus fundraising, and doing their utmost to ensure they do or say nothing that may harm their prospects for reelection. They are condemned to flattering their constituents and financial backers, catering to their needs, instead of leading them, and invariably (and opportunistically) lambaste all those, and all those policies that may irk their supporters and their interests, no matter where the greater public good may reside.
As a result, legitimate and necessary policy debates degenerate into partisan, populist rows, but what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can, the President said. Indeed, the abuse of the super majority rule in the Senate has effectively paralyzed the government, by denying it (and all those that will follow) the ability to reform the nation. Case in point, the Senate recently rejected a bill to establish a bipartisan fiscal commission designed to reduce deficits significantly, in order to preclude any possibility, less and less remote, of fiscal bankruptcy. Fifty-three Senators, a clear majority, approved the measure but, under Senate rules, sixty votes were necessary…As one of the sponsors of the bill, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H, later lamented, this result was yet another indication that Congress is more concerned with the next election than the next generation…
The third major obstacle, lack of leadership, is conditioned by the first two. It also leads however, to an absence of ambition and rabid, partisan politics. It is a vicious circle, just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership, the President said, addressing the Republicans.
The political culture engenders apathy and cynicism, but each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away, President Obama stated.
His assessment of the obstacles he faces, of democracy’s natural predilection for populist and demagogic politics is an astute one, but what does he intend to do about it?
Obama is a fine analyst, with a keen intellect, but the time for leadership has come.
What does it take to transcend such divisions in a democracy?
Can it still be done, or are all ambitious attempts at reform doomed to fail, precisely because they are ambitious? If not, what kind of leadership does it take to modify deeply entrenched patterns of behavior?
A catastrophe, Pearl Harbor, September 11, profoundly alters a nation’s psyche and its habits at least, temporarily. Can intrinsic leadership abilities solely exert the same transformational influence?
In short, is the system broken, or is Obama lacking the necessary qualities to overcome its deficiencies?
Time will tell, but, surely, the time for action has come.
Of what use is any bold program if the President cannot get it approved by Congress, if the many enemies of change, those who benefit from the status quo succeed in cajoling and intimidating a majority into rejecting what the people supported on Election Day?
Obama is a skillful rhetorician.
He should use the power of eloquence and suasion and travel the country, rally the people for, in a democracy, the only force capable of brushing aside special interests is the people, the might of public opinion. With substantial popular support, everything becomes possible. Nevertheless, to garner that support, one must earn it. How? By convincing the people that you intend to make every effort to implement policies that will benefit them, a sizeable majority of them…
Naturally, this power must be used sparingly so as not to blunt its potency. The President must choose his battles carefully, because he will not be able to wage all of them personally. But, when vital issues or projects are at stake, he must lead.
The President should thus appeal to the nation in order to rebuff narrow, special interests whose sole vocation is to preserve the status quo, and thus the privileges of those who benefit from it. He should lobby the American people against lobbyists of all shades who in effect, coerce elected officials into subverting the will of the people. He should expose those who seek to undermine the political process so as to protect the privileges of the few, at the expense of the many…Engage the ethical debate on the merits of bank reform and universal health care…Let his opponents support the bankers and their egregious bonuses, or a health care system that leaves forty-five million Americans without any coverage, but make sure and plain to the people whose side he is on…Let him dare his opponents to oppose these policies, and shame them if they do.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President, Obama declared.
Now he is the President. It is time to address them forcefully, and obtain results.
That is what the people expect and what he promised them.
Time is of the essence, for he has only two years left to undertake any meaningful action. Then, it will be time to judge whether he was just a gifted orator or a determined leader as well…
(the photograph above can be found here)
　
　
　
　
　
　

Sarkozy's vindication depends on tangible results

Last night, French President Nicolas Sarkozy vigorously defended his policies during a prime time television show, and vowed to pursue his reformist agenda come what may.
Questioned by a panel of eleven French citizens from all walks of life selected by the French television network TF1, he sought to allay their fears, as well as those of the nation at large, claiming that the worst of the economic crisis was behind us.
A recent poll highlighted the issues the French believe Sarkozy should be concentrating on: unemployment (48%) the state retirement scheme (39%), and the standard of living (32%).
On the unemployment front, the President argued that France’s performance was far from mediocre. France resisted better than most, for the unemployment rate doubled in the US, doubled in Spain, and increased by 60% in the UK. Only one nation was more successful than we were, and that is Germany, the President asserted. Yet, an additional 450,000 did join the ranks of the unemployed in 2009, he admitted.
Currently, 9.5% of the population is unemployed, some 2.7 million people. Of those, the young have the greatest difficulties in finding work: almost 25% of those between 15 and 24 are jobless, the highest rate in Europe.
Nevertheless, he insisted, the situation is improving, and he believes the French economy will start creating jobs anew in 2010. The economy is expected to grow at a rate of 1.5%, and not the dismal 0.75% previously announced, a sign that the recovery may be accelerating.
In France, the unemployed are more generously taken care of than elsewhere, Sarkozy added. They are financially assisted much earlier, and for much longer (two years) than in most countries. As such, though the unemployment rate is high, no other allocations will be created. France’s problem is not working less, but more, he said. As such, France does not need additional handouts, but growth, jobs and innovation, he added. Promoting economic growth is the key to creating jobs.
In order to improve the private sector’s competitiveness, Sarkozy recently abolished the taxe professionnelle, affecting all businesses and used to finance local councils.
Sarkozy also plans to reform the nation’s retirement pension system, an explosive issue here. Currently, all those employed are entitled to retire at the age of sixty, and benefit from a state pension. In some industries, the retirement age is fifty-five, if not fifty…
In order to prevent the system from going bankrupt (currently, 10% of all pensions are not funded), the retirement age will have to be increased to sixty-one or sixty-two, to begin with. There is a growing consensus that something needs to be done, for life expectancy rates have vastly increased since the end of the Second World War. Even the opposition Socialist party leader, Martine Aubry recently admitted as such.
He vowed to preserve the system (le régime par répartition) whereby those currently employed contribute to a fund that provides the pensions of the retired. He hopes to have a bill ready by the summer…
The third major issue is the standard of living that has been battered by the financial and economic crises. The issue is a sensitive one, especially in the current context. The salaries of CEOs have made headlines and been much discussed of late, particularly Henri Proglio’s, the man Sarkozy chose to lead EDF, the French, publicly-owned energy giant. As CEO, he will earn 1.6 million Euros per year, or 150 times the minimum wage, a fact repeatedly emphasized here.
Sarkozy defended these wide disparities in salaries. I prefer a good CEO who is well paid, to a badly paid, mediocre one. What I find shocking is a high salary that is not proportional to great responsibilities. To press his point, he criticized the bloated salaries of soccer stars.
For Sarkozy, the surest way to earn a better paycheck is to work more. This is why one of his first measures was to exonerate from income and social taxes all overtime hours, in order to encourage the French to work more, and employers to provide additional opportunities for overtime. That, he claims, is the only way to stimulate consumption, economic growth, and thus job creation…
Although he was clearly in command of the issues, and his arguments cogent, was his performance a convincing one?
Predictably, the opposition was merciless in its assessment.
One Socialist leader, Pierre Moscovici, called the exercise rather pitiful.
The official Socialist party spokesman, Benoît Hamon accused Sarkozy of having given up on the major issues confronting the country.
Not so long ago, the standard talking point was that Sarkozy was doing too much. Now, it seems, he is doing too little…
For Manuel Vals, an up-and-coming Socialist leader, his policies are lacking something vital and essential, the notion of justice, he declared.
The far right leader, the octogenarian Jean-Marie Le Pen accused Sarkozy of resorting to shameful lies, with the complicity of a compliant television network.
The centrist François Bayrou denounced the President’s lack of stature last night and the absence of any vision for the future.
The main, leftist opposition‘s line of attack has been the following:
Sarkozy has chosen sides, and caters to the rich and influential…
Laurent Joffrin, a prominent columnist and editor of the leftwing daily Libération, wrote that the President defended his policies with indisputable skill…And yet, here resides the main weakness of his policies, even if they are adeptly defended, in the eyes of those present, and those who were watching, the sacrifices imposed by the recession were unfairly apportioned.
Sarkozy is thus dismissed as defending the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class. The charge is facile, but potent in a time of economic crisis.
Perhaps it is the resurrection of the classic left-right debate. The Socialists are still seething due to the bouclier fiscal (the income tax shield) he instituted in 2007, and which limited the top tax bracket at 50%.
They have been clamoring for its repeal ever since, finding it unconscionable that the earnings of the wealthy should not be taxed more than 50%…For them, this was a clear sign of where Sarkozy’s allegiances resided.
Sarkozy and his supporters argue that alienating and overtaxing the rich will not help France’s downtrodden and only benefit London, Geneva or Brussels where they are bound to relocate. Though that line of reasoning does have some merit, it holds little sway in egalitarian France.
In addition, Sarkozy has refused to adopt the Socialists’ populist and opportunistic agenda. At the height of the economic crisis, he rejected calls to nationalize (in whole or in part) banks and automobile manufacturers preferring to provide financial assistance instead (thereby earning the state some two billion Euros in interest on the funds devoted to the financial sector). He considered that the policies the Left was advocating were mere replicas of the failed policies of the past. It is precisely the excessively burdensome and meddlesome presence of the state in the nation’s economy that has limited France’s growth these last thirty years. As such, Sarkozy argues, why resurrect a model that has clearly failed?
In a time of economic crisis and dislocation, however, it appeals to many…
People yearn for protection at any cost.
Nicolas Sarkozy has two years left to press his case.
Yet, his vindication can only come through tangible results on the economic front.
If the economy rebounds, the unemployment rate falls and the standard of living, however slowly, begins to rise anew, then he will be justified in claiming that his policies, though controversial, were adapted to the context at hand.
Until that happens, however, all his energy, drive and eloquence will not suffice in reassuring a nation worried about the present, afraid of the future, and uncertain of its place and status in a globalized economy…
(the photograph above is by Gérard Cerle/AFP)

Progress is possible

Many believed that Obama would change the world, because, even though he was a young, African-American liberal, or, perhaps, precisely because of that, he won the presidential election in 2008.
His election was a sign that America was reinventing itself.
Obama was the personification of that change, and his election thrilled all those yearning for the US to once again champion the values of peace, justice and democracy, brutalized by the Bush-Cheney administration for eight, long years.
Obama was thus both the embodiment, and an agent, of change.
His unlikely victory created great hopes and, inevitably, those hopes have been disappointed.
So many wanted to believe that he would change the world, that the great intractable issues his predecessor had exacerbated or failed to resolve, an unprecedented economic crisis, universal health care, constitutional rights, Guantanamo, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process, to name but a few, would be addressed forcefully, rationally, and, at last, successfully.
This has not happened, and it does not matter that we were foolish to expect that it would, in his first year in office.
The disappointment is real, even if it is in many ways unfair.
You know, on the heels of that victory over a year ago, there were some who suggested that somehow we had entered into a post-racial America, all those problems would be solved. There were those who argued that because I had spoke of a need for unity in this country that our nation was somehow entering into a period of post-partisanship. That didn’t work out so well. There was a hope shared by many that life would be better from the moment that I swore that oath.
Of course, as we meet here today, one year later, we know the promise of that moment has not yet been fully fulfilled, the President said, in a speech delivered on Sunday at the Vermont Avenue Baptist Church, in Washington, in remembrance of Martin Luther King.
Our disappointment is simply a consequence of our great faith in Obama’s ability to create that America so many in the US and around the world craved for: a beacon of progress and justice, exerting an enlightened and benign influence around the world, dedicated to resolving conflicts, not provoking them…
And yet, millions are jobless, the health care debate grinds on, Guantanamo is still not closed, US troops remain in Iraq, the war is escalating in Afghanistan, a new front may be opening in Yemen, the Middle East peace process is dead, and Obama has shown little interest in resuscitating it…
Yet, that, in fact, is the very frustrating nature of politics.
In a democratic society, it is very difficult to change reality durably and rapidly.
The forces pitted against you, such as an opportunistic political opposition, saturation and often demagogic media coverage, vested interests, conventional wisdom, a society’s inherent conservatism, apathy and inertia, these forces are formidable and demand vast amounts of energy and public support to overcome. They also exact great political capital, which explains Obama’s mediocre poll numbers. Victories are rare, and usually diluted due to the concessions awarded to obtain them, a process that even alienates one's own supporters, without attracting any new ones.
We must do our utmost to reform society, Obama claims, but we must also refrain from scorning the progress that we are able to achieve, even though it falls short of our hopes and expectations. A little progress is better than no progress. Sometimes, I get a little frustrated when folks just don't want to see that even if we don't get everything, we're getting something, the President said. It’s not enough, he said later in the speech, but it’s progress. Progress is possible.
This disappointment and frustration, the recognition that the progress being made is insufficient, when not altogether absent, must not lead us to give up on the idea that politics is a vehicle for change. In a democracy, it is the only one, and thus must be fostered, respected and cherished.
The political process is frustrating and slow because every initiative taken by the President (it is exactly the same thing in France) is immediately attacked, resisted and ridiculed by a host of antagonists.
The Chinese autocrats do not have that problem, and are able to impose change much more quickly and effectively. Yet, freedom and democracy is the price of such efficiency...

In a democracy, the pace of change is much slower, as a variety of forces must be dealt with and accommodated. The task demands great energy, determination and patience.
An abundant supply of self-confidence is also vital.
There are times when progress seems too slow. There are times when the words that are spoken about me hurt. There are times when the barbs sting. There are times when it feels like all these efforts are for naught, and change is so painfully slow in coming, and I have to confront my own doubts, the President admitted.
Yet, those who have faith must plod on, even if the results are sure to be imperfect.
Some even consider he has exerted too much energy in his desire to transform the country. But his has become a voracious pragmatism. Driven by circumstances and self-confidence, the president has made himself the star performer in the national drama. He has been ubiquitous, appearing everywhere, trying to overhaul most sectors of national life: finance, health, energy, automobiles and transportation, housing, and education, among others, wrote the NYT columnist David Brooks.
The very same thing has been said of Nicolas Sarkozy, who has been dubbed l’hyper-président.
However, change, even when limited, comes at the price of drive and ubiquity.
Sarkozy himself was elected on a platform of rupture with the past, the conventional and failed policies of his predecessors.
His ambition was to revitalize the country by rehabilitating the work ethic and curb the excessively intrusive role of the state in the economy…
Yet, the financial meltdown of 2007, followed by an unprecedented economic crisis doomed that ambition, and he was compelled to use all the resources of the state to limit the effects of the crisis, and protect jobs and living standards, the reverse of what he aimed to do…
As a result, he has also disappointed a great many in France, and the prospects of the President’s party, l’UMP, look dim in next March's Regional elections…
Both Obama and Sarkozy will be up for reelection in 2012.
Much can still be achieved during those two years. Then shall we be able to make a genuine assessment of their performance.
Undoubtedly, much support will have been lost along the way, but the cause they serve, progress, is still a noble one.
In the end, as citizens, we shall have to determine if what they have achieved has any lasting value, and deserves to be rewarded with a second term.
Furthermore, do we believe that, under the circumstances, John McCain or Ségolène Royal could have done better?
It remains to be seen however, if the cause of progress can find more effective and efficient promoters than Obama and Sarkozy…
(the photograph is by Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images)