The burden and stress of this semester has manifested itself into a no-holds barred freak out session that has lasted since the beginning of April. I am about to enter my last year of undergraduate study with no real plans after graduation.
The young man I'm seeing seems to think this means all I want to do is follow him, marry him and pop out a few of his kids. This is not the case but with no real plans of my own, I can see how he'd worry that he is holding me back. But from what? Not even I know. That's the problem.
When a problem roots itself in your school, professional and social life, it must be significant. I needed a change.
So I made a resolution to immerse myself in something that matters to me. I'm starting small...I picked up Foreign Policy and The Economist today and have decided to invest in a subscription. Thumbing through the pages reading about the world's problems not only makes my own seem miniscule but also encourages me to work towards solving those meaningful and substantial issues.
I'd like to keep this up. Maybe I'll even spend some of my day in silence reflecting on things like The Colonic. Whatever the case, I hope this little change can help make bigger ones...
Monday, April 23, 2007
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Will the Real Foreign Diplomat Please Stand Up?
Condoleezza Rice has quietly discovered the difference between being a loyal, order-following Bushie and being loyal but maintaining personal character—something Alberto Gonzalez apparently hasn’t learned yet. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi flagrantly defies the Executive branch and attempts engagement with rogue nations, Rice is stretching her diplomatic wings in an attempt to engage diplomatically in the Middle East the right way.
Rice met with Palestinian Authority Finance Minister, Dr. Salaam Fayyad on Wednesday April 18. The Palestinian Authority is led by democratically-elected Hamas, whom the United States has refused to recognize. In doing so, she has showed U.S. commitment to the ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without compromising the U.S. stance on working with Hamas and other terrorist organizations and state sponsors.
Rice’s commitment to the economic crisis of Palestine ensures stability and long-term benefits for Palestinians. Palestinians argue that their immediate need, a Palestinian state and a right of return for refugees into Israeli, are more urgent than economic stability. However, Rice realizes that in tackling smaller issues, chances of a settlement and concrete improvements are higher. With the trust and hope achieved with these initiatives, the involved parties will be more optimistic in discussing the more emotional and pressing issues.
Rice’s diplomatic efforts are not overly ambitious. Some, including both Palestinians and Israelis, say the efforts will yield nothing at all. But the fact is these talks have been in place for decades and cannot all be immediately fixed. The 34-Day War between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 ensured any blossoming relations between Arabs and Israelis were cut short. Rice is realistically trying to recover that ground and hopefully gain more in the process. With Rice’s help, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to biweekly talks, the second of which will take place in Jericho, the first ever negotiations in a Palestinian town.
Rice managed to dodge direct talks with members of Hamas by meeting Palestinian Finance Minster Fayyad, an independent. At the same time she is engaging in the unity party of Palestine. Though this political circumvention of Hamas cannot go on forever, for the time being Rice has maintained the U.S. policy of non-engagement with Hamas. Loyalty to the Bush Administration on this issue will give credibility to the Administration while softening hardliner objections and giving Rice more discretion in future negotiations.
Probably the biggest contrast to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Secretary Rice has not turned her trips to the Middle East into a political debacle on display for the media. High-level meetings are not photo-ops or ceremonial dialogues, rather, closed-door negotiations. In fact her several visits in the past few month have been low key and generated relatively low buzz in the news.
Sure Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria increased awareness of a possible U.S. approach of Syria-Iran in stabilizing neighbor Iraq. But the political ploy only sensationalized U.S.-Syrian relations and gave the Syrian government unnecessary legitimacy. By meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad she insinuates a U.S. willingness to soften its diplomatic shunning of Syria, a state-sponsor of terror since 1979.
Pelosi had good intentions and perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised with the good her visit did to restoring diplomatic civility between the U.S. and Syria. But I’m not holding my breath.
The entire Pelosi-Syria visit, however, did gesture to the international community that the entire U.S. concurred with Bush Administration policies. Countries adamantly opposed to Bush’s foreign policy should be more open to relations because of this. Rice should take advantage of this, bite the bullet and attempt to work with all regional players, including Syria to stabilize the new Iraq regime. Choosing to exclude Iran, I can understand. But only working with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the Arab-Israeli conflict only perpetuates the misconception that the United States has only its oil-greedy interests in mind.
Another significant gesture of U.S. commitment would be Rice convincing its ally Israel to give something in the negotiations. Not only does this demonstrate non-biased towards Israel, an accusation made time and again by Arab countries, it also encourages goodwill between Arab countries and the U.S. This would have positive implications in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Rice attempting to establish dialogue with Syria after the Pelosi visit may indicate Bush Administration vulnerability. But that’s nothing new. At this point this Administration has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from making a solid, no B.S. attempt at dialogue and constructive relationship building amongst all countries in the region. Secretary of State Rice is doing her best to make sure that happens.
Rice met with Palestinian Authority Finance Minister, Dr. Salaam Fayyad on Wednesday April 18. The Palestinian Authority is led by democratically-elected Hamas, whom the United States has refused to recognize. In doing so, she has showed U.S. commitment to the ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without compromising the U.S. stance on working with Hamas and other terrorist organizations and state sponsors.
Rice’s commitment to the economic crisis of Palestine ensures stability and long-term benefits for Palestinians. Palestinians argue that their immediate need, a Palestinian state and a right of return for refugees into Israeli, are more urgent than economic stability. However, Rice realizes that in tackling smaller issues, chances of a settlement and concrete improvements are higher. With the trust and hope achieved with these initiatives, the involved parties will be more optimistic in discussing the more emotional and pressing issues.Rice’s diplomatic efforts are not overly ambitious. Some, including both Palestinians and Israelis, say the efforts will yield nothing at all. But the fact is these talks have been in place for decades and cannot all be immediately fixed. The 34-Day War between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 ensured any blossoming relations between Arabs and Israelis were cut short. Rice is realistically trying to recover that ground and hopefully gain more in the process. With Rice’s help, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to biweekly talks, the second of which will take place in Jericho, the first ever negotiations in a Palestinian town.
Rice managed to dodge direct talks with members of Hamas by meeting Palestinian Finance Minster Fayyad, an independent. At the same time she is engaging in the unity party of Palestine. Though this political circumvention of Hamas cannot go on forever, for the time being Rice has maintained the U.S. policy of non-engagement with Hamas. Loyalty to the Bush Administration on this issue will give credibility to the Administration while softening hardliner objections and giving Rice more discretion in future negotiations.
Probably the biggest contrast to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Secretary Rice has not turned her trips to the Middle East into a political debacle on display for the media. High-level meetings are not photo-ops or ceremonial dialogues, rather, closed-door negotiations. In fact her several visits in the past few month have been low key and generated relatively low buzz in the news.
Sure Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria increased awareness of a possible U.S. approach of Syria-Iran in stabilizing neighbor Iraq. But the political ploy only sensationalized U.S.-Syrian relations and gave the Syrian government unnecessary legitimacy. By meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad she insinuates a U.S. willingness to soften its diplomatic shunning of Syria, a state-sponsor of terror since 1979.Pelosi had good intentions and perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised with the good her visit did to restoring diplomatic civility between the U.S. and Syria. But I’m not holding my breath.
The entire Pelosi-Syria visit, however, did gesture to the international community that the entire U.S. concurred with Bush Administration policies. Countries adamantly opposed to Bush’s foreign policy should be more open to relations because of this. Rice should take advantage of this, bite the bullet and attempt to work with all regional players, including Syria to stabilize the new Iraq regime. Choosing to exclude Iran, I can understand. But only working with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the Arab-Israeli conflict only perpetuates the misconception that the United States has only its oil-greedy interests in mind.
Another significant gesture of U.S. commitment would be Rice convincing its ally Israel to give something in the negotiations. Not only does this demonstrate non-biased towards Israel, an accusation made time and again by Arab countries, it also encourages goodwill between Arab countries and the U.S. This would have positive implications in Iraq.
Unfortunately, Rice attempting to establish dialogue with Syria after the Pelosi visit may indicate Bush Administration vulnerability. But that’s nothing new. At this point this Administration has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from making a solid, no B.S. attempt at dialogue and constructive relationship building amongst all countries in the region. Secretary of State Rice is doing her best to make sure that happens.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
A Dangerous Duo
Never really thought of how dangerous an Iran-Syria coalition could be until you see it all inked out in one article...
Friday, April 20, 2007
Privitization of War
According to Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Arm, 48,000 privately-contracted troops, aka "mercenaries" are currently serving in Iraq.
Blackwater USA is one of a hundred private companies who are contracted to do basic jobs, such as clean for our troops, to critical security initiatives, including protecting State Department officials and Iraqi officials.
Through such companies, President Bush has been able to persue an offensive program in Iraq without consent from Congress. These mercenaries are also not included in the casualt
Check out Jeremy Scahill on the Daily Show.
Blackwater USA is one of a hundred private companies who are contracted to do basic jobs, such as clean for our troops, to critical security initiatives, including protecting State Department officials and Iraqi officials.
Through such companies, President Bush has been able to persue an offensive program in Iraq without consent from Congress. These mercenaries are also not included in the casualt
Check out Jeremy Scahill on the Daily Show.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Condi Rice Upping Diplomacy in Middle East
Great op-ed by David Ignatius discussing some of the diplomatic efforts of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the Middle East. Very hopeful and optimistic about her diplomacy skills and getting the United States back on the positive side of the international community.
Gonzalez in the Hot Seat
Highlights from the NY Times article on Gonzalez's visit to the Senate today....
“I think anyone who’s watched this would say we could do better for attorney general,” Senator Charles Schumer (D), New York, said during a break. “He seems to be far less qualified than the U.S. attorneys that he’s fired.”
“I don’t believe that you’re involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn’t prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?”
One word. Ouch.
Read the whole piece here
“I think anyone who’s watched this would say we could do better for attorney general,” Senator Charles Schumer (D), New York, said during a break. “He seems to be far less qualified than the U.S. attorneys that he’s fired.”
“I don’t believe that you’re involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn’t prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?”
One word. Ouch.
Read the whole piece here
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Finally, Some Success in Darfur
If you look at the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, 4 of the 5 countries (Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria) are clearly ideological and political foes of the United States. And then there is Sudan, placed on the list more than 10 years ago.
Why only now are UN troops finally gaining access to Darfur by the Sudanese government? It seems other foreign policies engaged by the Bush Administration (ie Iraq, Afghanistan) have detracted our resources, legislative effort and domestic political opinion from the genocide in Darfur.
Thankfully, the U.S. through the UN was able to put political pressure on the Sudanese government. This is an achievement that should give both disheartened American citizens international community some faith in international organizations and their success.
Why only now are UN troops finally gaining access to Darfur by the Sudanese government? It seems other foreign policies engaged by the Bush Administration (ie Iraq, Afghanistan) have detracted our resources, legislative effort and domestic political opinion from the genocide in Darfur.
Thankfully, the U.S. through the UN was able to put political pressure on the Sudanese government. This is an achievement that should give both disheartened American citizens international community some faith in international organizations and their success.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
