The Jeffersonian

The Americas round up relaunched!

2010-01-21T04:34:00.000-08:00

Wow, it has been so long since I proverbially put pen to paper that I do not know where to begin, so naturally I start where I left off and with something I'm familiar with! Looking at the date I last posted a blog it is evident that I last logged in one year ago, so forgive me if this first blog in twelve months seems somewhat 'rusty'! I'm sure I will in due course I will manage to ease myself back into the process.

Too much has happened in the Americas for me to offer thought since I last contributed my two and a half cents, so I'll start with what is happening in the hempishphere now. Haiti naturally is dominating international news stories. It saddens me that it has taken a tragic event of the magnitude Haiti suffered last week for the impoverished nation that occupies the western portion of the island of Hispaniola to occupy western media time. The story of Haiti is one that deserves considerable time itself. Now the poorest nation in the American hemisphere and rated number 149 out of 182 in the United Nations' human index league, Haiti, as Saint Domingue, was once the French empire's richest colony and indeed was for a period the richest colony in the colonial Americas in proportion to land space. In the late eighteenth century as France underwent revolution, the slaves of Haiti rose up and threw off the yoke of colonial rule and founded the world's first black republic against insurmountable odds. The newly-independent United States' chose not to support the revolution and the immature revolutionaries of Spanish South America (which Haiti would later help liberate by sheltering and arming the proclaimed liberator of that region, Simon Bolivar) were not in a position to do so and probably would not have even if they were. The colony of Saint Domingue was renamed Haiti in honour of the virtually-extinct Taino indigenous peoples who once lived in the land and had called the island of Hispaniola 'Ay-ti' or 'land of mountains'. Haiti started its post-colonial independent life in literal ruins and in debt with France to sum of 150 million Francs (popularly expressed to be the equivalent to $22 billion in modern-day currency). Little has changed since then. The country has been contiously ravaged, suffered civil wars and dictatorship after dictatorship, and more recently foreign intervention in its internal affairs when President Aristide was, he claims, kidnapped by U.S. forces and removed to Southern Africa. The current death toll in Haiti in 102,000. The vast majority of these are of course Haitian nationals but a number of internation and particularly Brazilian UN peacekeepers (Brazil provies the largest number of UN peacekeepers in Haiti) and international aid workers and volunteers are also reported dead or missing. Ironically, when Haiti is most in need of international occupation to help rebuild its destoryed fragile-at-the-best-of-times infrastructure, it is distinctly unoccupied.

West from Haiti across the Caribbean sea and president-elect Profirio Lobo has reportedly secured safe passage for ousted president Manuel Zeleya from Honduras to the eastern portion of Hispaniola, the Domican Republic. The Honduran political crisis, it seems, is coming to an end. Brazil along with the U.S. has been actively involved in the process and will both be looking to reintergrate restabilised Honduras.

Meanwhile north in Mexico President Felipe Calderon's federal government is beginning to demonstrate results in its 'war' against organised crime and drug trafficking. Mexican authorities last month killed cartel kingpin Arturo Beltran Leyva and followed up by capturing his brother and acting-boss Carlos Beltran Levya. Since President Calderon started his war against the traffickers some 15,000 people have reportedly been killed in Mexico as a direct result of organised crime.

On the northern side of the U.S.-Mexican border the Democratic Party has suffered defeat in the election in Massachusettes to fill the federal senate seat vacated by the death of veteran Democrat and Kennedy brother Ted Kennedy. The election of a Republican represents a symbolic and substantive vote against the Obama administration.

South across the Panama canal in Venzuela President Chavez has devalued the Venezuelan currency in an effort to stave-off deeper recession there.

Way down south in the southern cone Jose Mujica's election secured a second consecutive presidential term for the Frente Amplio coalition. The Frente also won a majority in both the lower chamber and the senate allowing it to enjoy an absolute majority in both chambers.

Back aross the riograndenese pampa in Brazil, where heavy rain recently caused several deadly flash floods in the state of Rio de Janeiro, the world's first ethanol-fueled power plant has this week been opened in the state of Minas Gerais.

Remember America is a continenet not a single nation-state!

"I love Jesus!"

2009-10-03T10:59:00.000-07:00

It was real moment seeing Vitor Belfort, an excellent Brazilian Jui Jitsu practioner, fighting once again in the UFC recently. So memories of young Vitor throwing his ferouciously-fast fists in the caged octagan flooded back. I'm pleased to see that Vitor has evidently matured and calmed with age. Following his resounding victory over prized former middleweight champion Rich Franklin, Vitor shouted into the microphone held by interviewer Joe Rogan that he "loves Jesus!". It is a treat having Vitor back in mainstream MMA looking as good as ever. I suspect a fight with one of the Silva's (Wanderlei or Anderson) is in the works. Let's hope we get to see some Brazilian Jui Jitsu in all its glory!

Helio Gracie, co-founder of Brazilian Jui Jitsu, passes away

2009-01-30T02:19:00.000-08:00

I'm saddened to write that I have just learned that Helio Grace, who co-developed Brazilian Jui Jitsu with his brother Carlos, has passed away in Rio de Janeiro aged 95.

Democracy is alive in Iraq, now ethnic and religious polarisation need to be seriously reconsidered

2009-01-29T03:21:00.000-08:00

Six years ago Iraq was ruled by a dictator. There were no elections, no organised opposition parties and no internal dissent or criticism of the autocratic regime. The country is now about to undergo historic elections, in which approximately 15,000 candidates representing a cross section of rival ethnic and religious groups are standing for just 440 seats. The country, which featured just one political party under the Saddam Hussein dictatorship, now has over 400 political parties that appear to publish a seemlessly unending amount of propaganda and campaign leaflets. Participatory representative democracy is indeed alive in Iraq, but the problem remains that "Iraq" is just lines on a map to many of its inhabitants.

What people don't seem to realise or at least don't want to accept is that in addition to the inter-islamic polarisation that exists between Shia muslims and Shitte muslims, the nation is also ruptured by ethnic diversion. These divisions are deep and long-established. They cannot be eroded overnight or conveniently swept under a pile of progressive-sounding propaganda. In may senses Iraq suffers from similar aliements as a number of African "nations" which were carved onto maps by European colonisers. This is just as eveident in Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and recently Kenya. This isn't a post about how nation-states are made and what constitututes a nation, but they are fundamental questions to bear in mind as we watch the Iraqi elections.

Democracy is indeed present in Iraq, but until the religious and ethnic divisions that polarise and indeed haunt the nation, it is flimsy and open to corrution of the most severe and horrific sort. If Iraq is to progress, no, survive, there needs to be an overhaul of the nation's governance. Perhaps unitary devolution with a fully representative but weak central authority would just do it.

Statistical sources:

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.cia.gov/

Americas round-up

2009-01-28T02:53:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama has dominated sufficient media time in recent month so I won't spend time writing about his presidential inauguration and concurrent events in the United States, other than saying that we have lived through an historic moment and a promising one too.

Further south, in the tiny haven of democracy and stability in the Central American isthamus called Costa Rica, earthquakes have caused devastation. Over 20 people have been killed and almost 500 homes have been ruined by the natural disasters. The Costa Rican government is rightly concerned about the effects on the nation's tourist industry, an integral part of the nation's economy and a significant source of foreign exchange.

South of the Panama Canal things are quite busy. President Jagdeo of Guyana has had his dirty laundry aired publically and Bolivan President Evo Morales is attempting to modify the Bolivian Constitution in a controversial move which will likely further polarise that land-locked South American republic. Morales, not unlike his Venezuelan counterpart Hugo Chavez, is revered by many and scorned by an equity. But unlike Chavez, Morales' core support is, and will remain unflinching due to the fact that he is the first indigenous president of a nation first which is primarily indigenous in composition. Bolovia has threatened to split into two nations in the past and has teetered on the edge of civil war. That isn't improbable if unrest continues and is exaserbated by the pro and anti Morales groups. The struggle of course is about more that a single man, rather it is about what he represents and what he is attempting to do. In my estimation, the biggest mistake Evo can make is allowing himself to become too influenced by Chavez's blinding anti-Americanism and increasing despotism. It pays to remember that constitutions and dictatorships are not mutually exclusive. Indeed Chavez's revered predecessor "The Libarator" Simon Bolivar wrote constitutions like they were notes, but was ultimately a dictator. Such activity has a long and storied history in Hispanic American history. Morales' proposals will invariably add fuel to the flames that burn in Bolivia.

Eastward across the Parecis mountains into Brazil 5 South American presidents (Morales, Chavez, Rafael Correra of Ecuador, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay and were joined by Brazil's Lula da Silva) were cheered by over 100,000 activists who had descended on the Amazonian city of Belem for the annual World Social Forum. South across the pantanal wetlands and over the Rio Plata into Argentina and skeletons of livestock are piling up in the scorching sun of the Southern Hemisphere’s summer as the worst drought in a generation turns much of Argentina’s breadbasket into a dust bowl.The nation faces losing billions of dollars in agricultural exports as a result. Argentines may receive some relief followinf President Cristina Fernandez's renogotiation of foreign debt repayments.

The Americas

The European media finally recognises that events continue elsewhere in the world

2009-01-27T04:29:00.000-08:00

It has taken some time, but the Euro media has finally began reporting news about other international regions other than Gaza. Even Al Jazeera English has limited its Gazacentric news schedule and has resumed reporting on events in Congo, Somalia and elsewhere. France 24 too has cut back on its Gaza reporting. Events elsewhere in the world evidently stopped sometime in late December and just resumed sometime in late January. It is refreshing, and I must say, reassuring.

Finally the BBC does something I agree with

2009-01-26T05:18:00.000-08:00

It's a rare occassion when I find cause to defend the British Broadcasting Corp (BBC), but today is such an instance.

The corporation has received considerable criticism in the UK and is under intense, and unwarranted, pressure from British politicians (MPs) for following its own code of conduct and deciding against broadcasting a Gaza humanitarian appeal. The publically-funded corporation, who's principle purpose is to provide impartial news, is absolutley correct to refuse airing the appeal. Other (rival) broadcasters have jumped at the opportunity to criticise the UK's principle broadcaster in an attempt to boost their own credibility, but, thus far, the BBC has maintained its position. It now appears that the Sky network will follow the BBCs example.

It would be entirley improper for the BBC to broadcast the appeal and would certainly compromise its apparent impartiality. Likewise, it is entirley improper for MPs to exert parliamentary pressure on the organisation to change its position.

Has the U.S. Revolution reached its climax?

2009-01-21T02:32:00.000-08:00

Following the historic inauguration of Barack Obama as the United States' first MIXED-RACE president, which was the climax of months, no sorry, centuries of struggle and progress in that nation, I find myself asking: "has the U.S. Revolution finally reached its final stage?" That we are living through a moment of international history cannot be denied, and for that alone I am grateful.

The U.S. revolutiony era began in 1763 following the Seven Years' War and typical historiography tells us that it culminated with the signing of the U.S. Declaration of Independence in 1776 which militarily ignited the American War of Independence. By 1783 the British offered recognition of an independent United States of America. For many the "American Revolution" ended their, with the end of the War of Independence. Not so. The campaign for political independence was only one element of a much broader revolution. I don't believe that the American War of Independence should be compared to the French Revolution which began in 1789, and it certainly shouldn't be compared with the Haitian Revolution which was interwoven with the aforementioned French Revolution. The U.S. Revolution is something far more discreet. It has lasted for almost 250 years, and now we are witnessing its conclusion.

The Jeffersonian ear lasted broadly until the early 1820s, when it was superseded by the Jacksonian ear. Despite popular belief, the two eras shared more than they didn't. However, less than fifty years after its establishment, the United States became disunited and a drawn-out process began to create two nations out of one. The first shots were fired in 1860 in the revolution of 1860 in South Carolina. The counterrevolution of 1861 ensured war. The War Between the States or U.S. Civil War lasted for 5 years and resulted in the death of 620,000 Americans. They were killed by their compatriots on their own soil. American killing American, at places with haunting names such as "Shiloh" and "Antietam." Two issues domintated political thought in the South: Southern states rights and property rights and slavery. In the North one issue predominated: the preservation of the Union. Those issues are just as relevant today, albeit in a modernised context. Should the Federal Government be as big and powerful as it is? Should the Federal Government have the authority to get the United States over ten trillion of dollars of debt? Are the states united or disunited? Slavery of course is no longer an issue, but race is, and I'm not speaking about the simple black-white dichotomy which dominated typrical debate. The U.S. has a larger hispanic/Latino population that black population. In fact, in statistical terms the U.S. is the forth largest Latino country in the world after Brazil, Mexico and Argentina. The elction of Brack Obama represents a shift in U.S. politics. A represents a reaction not a revolution.

That so many people are investing so much hope in a single individual is foolish and ignorant and can only lead to disappointment. I think what people should be hopeful about is what Barack Obama's election and current popularity represents, and I'm not speaking about race here, but rather a notion that government is back in the hands of the regular people. There is a hint of Jeffersonian deomocracy in the election of Obama. One is reminded of that U.S. dictum: "government of the people by the people for the people." There is something modernly Jeffersonian about Barack Obama. That he is a great orator cannot be denied by even his most ardent critics, but speech and charisma alone do not make the man. Americans of colour may rightly consider Barack Obama a founding father, for in a sense he is.

Tu or Voce?

2009-01-15T02:16:00.000-08:00

Ever since I began learning Brazilian Portuguese I've been intrigued by the connotations of the use of the word "voce" ("you" in English) both formally and informally. In Portugal, "voce" is reserved for formal affairs and "tu" (also "you" in English) is used informally. In Brazil the use of "tu" is uncommon. I wonder if Brazil's universal use of the "voce" is indicative of something more significant than a mere linguistic break. The use of the word is most probably the legacy of colonialism - slaves and poor immigrants who became the first generations of Brazilians would have had to have addressed their masters and overseers using "voce". But I wonder if the subsequent univeral use of the term Brazil has some foundation in those famous French words: "liberty, equality, fraternity." Brazil did free itself (somewhat bloodlessly) from Portuguese rule in 1822 and there is no doubt that the Brazilian patriots were heavily influenced by events in France and the United States, both of which had undergone revolution only decades earlier. So next time you use or hear a Brazilian use the simple word "voce", spare a second to appreciate what it represents: a break from the past and an embracement of equality and fraternity in a truly multiracial society.

The propaganda war begins to shift

2009-01-14T02:05:00.000-08:00

It has taken almost three weeks, but the propaganda war is finally beginning to tilt marginally in favour of Israel. As I previously noted, the BBC has reported the pro-Israeli demonstration held in London this past weekend, and now I see, more shockingly, that Al Jazeera English has given air time to an Israeli official to outline Israel's position. France 24 too is reporting the diplomatic obstacles Israel is facing in ending its offensive.

Hezbollah claims no responsibility for the rocket attacks launched against Israel from Lebanon. It's unlikely that any such attacks would occur without at least their knowledge and consent. The Egyptian ceasefire proposal is fair enough. Let us remember that it is Hamas that is failing to meet the criteria. The group is opposed to an open-ended truce and to the presence of a multi-national monitoring force on the Gaza-Egyptian border. These points should illustrate well Hamas's own responsibility for prolonging the offensive against Gaza. This of course is in Israel's ideological interest - Hamas now clearly has Gazan blood on its hands. If the organisation was sincere, one should imagine that it would jubilantly welcome a multi-national monitoring force. More so, reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the party led by Yasser Arafat's successor and Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas seems improbable.

Muslim councillor's unlawful protest

2009-01-13T02:10:00.001-08:00

A councillor in South Shields, Tyne and Wear (David Miliband's parliamentary constituency) has organised an unlawful protest against the Israel-Hamas conflict. Councillor Ahmed Khan, who represents the town's Beacon and Brent wards, arranged for 250 school children to take an unauthorised day off school Monday, in protest against Israel's offensive in Gaza. The Education Act of 1996 requires local authorities to enforce school attendance, not encourage unauthorised absence. Lets not forget that the same law actively prosecutes parents who fail to ensure the school attendance of their children. Given Councillor Khan's position as a councillor, in which is he is legally required to enforce school attendance, he has technically broken the law. One wonders if South Tyneside's decision-making board will investigate Mr Khan's involvement in this protest. Highly unlikely I imagine. Perhaps Mr Miliband will. No, of course not. Maybe Ed Balls would take an interest. Doubtful. I note that the BBC was quick to emphasis that "the demonstration was a peaceful one." Khan is very likely the anonymous South Tyneside councillor who filed a foney complaint against a South Shields council resident late last year for "excessively" displaying Christmas lights outside her flat at the objection of local Muslim residents.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7824372.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/puffbox/hyperpuff/audiovideo/england/tyne/7825397.stm

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/schoolattendance/faq/#faq23

There are some Israeli supporters in Britain after all

2009-01-12T03:29:00.000-08:00

I was surprised to turn my television on sometime over the weekend to find the BBC actually reporting a pro-Israel demonstration at Trafalgar Square. The corporation even showed live pictures of the assembled demonstrators. Surely one can imagine my surprise!

The Metropolitan Police estimated around 4,000 individuals attended the Trafalgar area to show their support for Israel. Based on the scenes BBC kindly screened, and given my knowledge of the area I'd say that the number was at least 4,000.

It was refreshing to see such a sight and it pleases me to know that there are ordinary people in this country who are actually prepared to show there support for democracy and security.

Cameron's whistlestop tour

2009-01-10T07:56:00.000-08:00

I recently attended one of David Cameron's Q & A events at a local community centre. I often intend to go to such events, but usually when the time arrives I find an excuse to avoid leaving the house. However, since the Cameron event was billed as informal and community-led (perhaps even Jeffersonian!), I set my mind on attending.

All in all the event was a success. I live in a marginal constituency surrounded by red. My local council has a Tory majority, but the MP who represents the constituency in Westminster is a Blairite. Cameron was welcomed cordially by the crowd and he answered all questions thrown at him. The nature of most of the questions demonstrated that the Tories hadn't planted them, so I applaud Cameron for that. I do however have a couple of complaints: that the leader of the opposition attended such an intimate event and answered as many questions as he could is admirable, but Cameron ultimately failed to really engage with the assembled audience. He arrived, answered questions and left. That's fine, but I think it would have helped his cause if he had have hung around afterwards for a short period. Frustratingly I was sat at the back of the hall in amongst the Tory leader's gofers and a huddle of photographers and cameramen. That ultimately ruined any image I had before I arrived of the event being an intimate and informal display of Jeffersonian democracy. I felt in a sense that Cameron was there but wasn't. He was there in person and he did what he said he would do - openly answer questions, but he did so surrounded by a virtually invisible film of political and PR nonsense. That is regrettable, and reminded me why I usually find a last minute reason not to attend such events.

It's only by attending such events that one can get an understanding of the dynamics and superficiality of modern politics. Cameron's gofers were standing behind me discussing where they had to be next, how the earlier engagement had gone, how the leader looked on the stage. Any whimsical feeling of informal prairie democracy I held before arrived vanished. While I was pleased with Cameron's frankness and responsiveness, I felt in a sense that I knew less of the man after the event than I did before it (I've never seen Mr Cameron speak before). Cameron regrettably has a couple of assistants and gofers who are of the Westminster pretentious variety, which is always a negative in my opinion, and makes me wonder what kind of shield of spin doctors he'll employ should he become PM. The photographers were equally infuriating, and reminded me that I was ultimately at a PR event. Unfortunate and regrettable. Perhaps if I had have arrived earlier and managed to get a seat closer to the front of the hall I would feel quite differently.

I also met members of my local Tory association and a few Tory councillors and the constituency's Tory parliamentary candidate. I get the impression that there's a fair bit of internal politics in my association. What one could call "politics of politics", something I really dislike. Politics of politics only weaken an organisation from within and allow competitors to exploit its weaknesses. The central party may well have made an error by bringing an "outsider" to represent it in the coming general election, but perhaps it felt there was no alternative.

For the pragmatic individual such as myself, attending the event was informative. Based on the gofers and the obvious PR, I'm not sure if Cameron is the kind of PM I'd like to lead the country (it was too Blairite for my liking). And I'm not sure I'd want a Tory MP to represent my constituency in parliament if doing so serves to fundamentally weaken the local association. Not what I intended to get out of the event at all!

Ending Britain's dependency on OPEC

2009-01-09T04:36:00.000-08:00

I find it rather absurd that we humans have allowed ourselves to become dependent upon a resource which will inevitably one day end. Britain's own oil reserves are all but finished and we, like many other modern nations, have effectively become a hostage of the oil-producing countries and specifically the OPEC cartel. Investigating and investing in alternative sources of fuel should now become a priority for us all.

Brazil has led the way in this area. In fact that South Amerian giant is way ahead of the rest of us in demonstrating that moving to an ethanol-powered transport system is not only possible, but desireable. It makes sense to me that if we can we ought to produce our own fuel using a renewable and sustainable agricultural source. This would not only end our dependency on the OPEC cartel but would also increase employment in our domestic agricultural and plant-processing sectors and provide better value and stability for consumers and the wider economy.

In Brazil a large proportion of vehicles are hybrids that can take either petrol or ethanol (or "alcool" as the Brazilians call it) or any combination of the two. Personal experience has demonstrated to me that there is no difference between the two in terms of performance, but there is a significant economic difference: alcool is about half the price and provides better mileage. In Brazil alcool production has bolstered employment and car sales (as more people can afford to run vehicles) and fostered a feeling of nation pride and patriotism, neither of which are bad things in my estimation. Most importantly, Brazil's fuel is renewable and sustainable. It will effectively never be depleted, unlike oil. The Brazilians are even beginning to fuel airplanes with alcool. The environmental advantages are palpable.

Brazil has demonstarted the benefits of ethanol production and use and has freed itself from the woes of uncertainly that dependence upon OPEC creates. Brazil has freed itself from oil dependency while helping its own eceonomy and people. Isn't it time that we in Britain at least investigated how we might benefit from such a programme?

The Israelis strike back

2008-12-30T02:39:00.000-08:00

Like every nation in the world, Israel has a right to protect its citizens and its borders. The complication in that tiny strech of land in the middle-east is that its citizens and borders remain so confused and disputed. The Palestinians living in Gaza are technically considered citizens of Israel by some members of the international community, and in fact only 96 nations currently recognise a Palestinian state, while less than 30 recognise the Palestinian passport issued by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in 1995. That being said, Israel is fighting a war very close to home.

Israel has suffered for decades (and continues to suffer) from internal terrorism. Londoners experince a common uneasiness everytime we use public transport. We can only imagine what it must be like being an Israeli. For those living in close proximity to Gaza even the home does not provide the safety it is usually associated with, for there is always the chance that a Gaza-based rocket may be launched into the property. Cafes, restaurants, sopping malls, buses, government buildings and private dwellings have all been the target of Palestinian terrorism in the past. According to CNN some 84 rockets were fired at Israeli civilian targets on the 27th of December, while some 124 rockets were reportedly fired on the morning of the 29th alone. Conservative Friends of Israel tells us that 5,000 rockets have been fired from Gaza into Israel by Palestinian militants since Israel withdrew its military forces from the territory in the summer of 2005. It is important to remember that these weapons are fired indiscriminately. They kill civilians and destroy private buildings. They are not targeted at commercial interests or Israeli security service buildings and no warning it provided in order to ensure safe evacuation of innocent citizens. They are indescriminate acts of terrorism. Israel has a right to defend itself from such attacks, and it's no surprise that the majority of Israelis support their government's offensive.

Unfortunatley however things are not that simple. Palestinian civilians are inevitable being killed in the offensive, reportedly at a rate of 1 to 3. But Hamas and its agents are blameworthy for this too. It is a popular strategy of Hamas and Gaza-based terrorists to launch rockets from residential areas as a means of protecting themselves from Israeli retaliation. These rockets are not harmless and one wonders how they would be reported by the media if it were Israelis launching rockets into Gaza with the full support of the Israeli government.

Of great concern is the situation on the ground in Gaza. Blood and medical supplies are likley scarce and Israeli bombs will inevitably destroy important infrastructure such as roads, making it difficult to transport the injured. Whether or not Hamas and Eqypt will come to an arrangment regarding supplies from that north African state is presently unknown. Hamas is not particularly pleased with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, who bluntly told it "You [Hamas] have brought this upon yourselves. You are responsible for what is happening to the people of Gaza."

The people of Gaza can thererore perhaps blame Hamas for this tragedy as much as they can the Israeli military which continues to pound their territory. No doubt that is what Israel wants. Hamas has allowed (and encouraged) terrorists to operate in Gaza and publically states that it seeks the destruction of the state of Israel. The organisation was however democratically elected in the 2006 Gazan elections. Whether or not an organisation listed as "terrorist" by Canada, Japan, the US and the majority of the EU member states can be considered a legitimate political party is debatable, but doesn't change the fact that Palestinians in Gaza voted for candidates openly representing Hamas in elections a mere two years ago. Undoubtedly Israel hopes to identify Hamas as the indirect source of Gaza's battering. I order for this Israeli offensive to be truly successful it is important that there is a cultural shift in Gaza. That may be acheived by this warfare, but at what cost? Over 250 people have reportedly been killed in Gaza so far and that numbert is likely to increase significantly. There is the real possibility that Hamas will exploit such deaths and actually increase its support. That being said, this Israeli offensive could actually have the counterproductive of pushing Gazans who don't currently support Hamas into becoming its supporters. That is something Israel needs to thoroughly consider. The alternative is of course more sinister. Israel may be better equipted to deal with Hamas while it is operating openly. Driving it under ground and making martyres out of its leadership and supporters could in the long-term hurt Israel more than the current rocket attacks hurt it.

There are three objectives to Israel's airstrikes: the simplest and most immediate is to stop the rocket attacks which target private Israeli targets on a daily basis. The mid-term objective is to materially weaken Hamas by destroying its compounds and killing its members and senior figures. The long-term objective of turning ordinary Palestinians against Hamas may not be as simple to achieve. If Israel chooses a protracted campaign, and possibly ground war as is looking inevitable, it is taking a significant gamble. The ultimate objective in all is to cripple Hamas, for even Israel must accept that it will very doubtfully ever be completely destoryed. A ground offensive may be Israel's next best move. They can minimise civilian fatalities and perhaps restore a semblance of order in Gaza. Soldiers can also be used to transport much-needed supplies into Gaza.

There's no doubt that Israel has chosen its moment shrewdly. Most parliaments and congresses in the west are in recess for the Christmas break and there is a power vacuum in the white house as George W. Bush says goodbye to the oval office and Barack Obama enjoys the beaches of Hawaii. There are noises of a pan-Arabian coalition being organised. One is reminded of the six-day war when the Israeli military destroyed the last pan-Arabian military coalition organised against it. One outcome of that campaign ironically enough was Israel's takeover of the Gaza strip. Whether or not there is such a thing as a "Palestinian" people or a "Palestinian land" is a debate I don't intend to tackle in this post, but Gaza's Arab population may benefit from bearing it in mind for Israel surely will and will use it ideologically against any pan-Arabian coalition. One is reminded of Golda Meir's quote: "There was no such thing as Palestinians ... It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist." The areas now claimed as "Palestine" we after all, until the 1960s, part of Egypt, Jordan and Lebanon, and a large number of Palestinians hold citizenship in those countries. The international community should remember that often over-looked fact.

http://imeu.net/news/article0065.shtml

http://www.cnn.com/

www.aljazeera.net/english

http://www.cfoi.co.uk/

Obama's predictable move

2008-12-05T03:44:00.000-08:00

So U.S. president-elect Barack Obama has made the predictable move of appointing his Democractic presidential-nominee rival, Hilary Clinton, secretary of state. One can understand the logic behind Mr Obama's move, but I think in the long-term he may well cause more damage to himself than the protection he seeks.

The election of Obama is a watershed event for the United States. Concurrently, Obama's appointment of Hilary Clinton may well provide the break Mrs Clinton needed to ensure that she is elected first female president of the United States, just as Sarah Palin's election to the vice-presidency would have almost certainly paved the way for her eventual (attempted) ascension to the presidency from political obscurity had Republican Senator John McCain's presidential bid been successful. Like Clinton will Obama, Palin would most probably have caused McCain more problems than protection.

In appointing Clinton, Obama has almost certainly facilitated the operation of a powerful "enemy within" his administration, albeit one with a friendly face. Clinton may well become Obama's Gordon Brown, just ask Tony Blair. One can understand Obama's motivation: to ensure the support of the Clintonian wing of his party. However, we all know that Clinton desperately wants to be president. Secretary of state is a position which will allow the former first-lady to meet and deal with powerful people domestically and internationally. There can be little doubt that the new secretary of state will use her position, and the doors it will open, to ensure her ascension, and possibly Obama's downfall if he stands in her way.

By trying to unite the Democrats and ensure partisan loyalty, the president-elect may well have paradoxically ensured disloyalty and facilitated political schemery. Clinton will be in a position to constantly undermine the president whenever subtely feasible. She will be in a position to negotiate with foreign leaders and senior diplomats and domestic figures to build support for herself and play Obama's supporters against themselves. In appointing Hilary Clinton as his secretary of state, Obama may well have set in motion his own downfall and ensured that we will see a female U.S. president in 8 years time. Hilary Clinton will prove to be Obama's wolf in sheep's clothing.

Should Citizenship be a given?

2008-12-05T02:49:00.000-08:00

As the global credit crunch looms and terrorist attacks occur at home and in faraway lands hitherto associated with serenity and opulence (Bali and more recently Mumbai) I find myself asking "should citizenship be a given right"?

In the UK we are battered daily by stories about British-born Islamic terrorists, unrestrained urban knife crime, elderly poverty, fuel poverty and benefit theft. I recently returned to London having been away for a week and as I entered the urban sprawl that is the city I experienced the feeling that I was entering the old wild west. It was ultimately a feeling of lawlessness. It wasn't the first time that I had felt this feeling as I drove into the city from "out of town." In fact the question that forms the title of this post, which is intended to create discussion and provide food-for-thought not advocate an actual policy, first arrived in my mind after I moved to the wild west that is modern London some seven years ago. But this isn't a story unique to London. The point of this post is to consider an alternative form of the provision of citizenship.

The UK is falling apart at the seems, or so it seems if we are to believe the constant stories of crime, hatred and social corruption in Britain. There is no doubt that the country of my birth is a vastly different place than it was a mere decade ago. There are a number of factors that can account for this: nanny-state liberal welfarism which has created a "benefit culture" that prevents those who ought to be working from working (for example capable asylum-seekers) and rewards those who simply don't want to work. In all of this the honest hard-working taxpayer is the victim, for it is our National Insurance Contributions that fund this escapade. Virtually unrestricted immigration from the other 26 member states of the European Union and some Commonwealth countries has had a drastic affect on British society. Schools, the National Health Service and Sewage and waste management facilities are all at breaking point in some parts of the Union (Slough and Peterborough are good examples). The decadely national census is virtually useless. Unrestrained banks have over stretched themselves using savers' money and a passive and inept judiciary and obsessively politically-correct police forces seem entirely incapable of enforcing and interpreting the law. It would be easy to place the blame entirely on government policies and the governing agencies and organisations. However, though governing agencies such as the Home Office and the judiciary are ultimately responsible for allowing the country to sink to the level of depravity it has currently reached, we, the citizenry, need to accept some of the responsibility. The British, particularly the English, are notoriously passive and apathetic. We are known for not even complaining if food is served cold in a restaurant, so mobilising to confront government .... forget it. It's time that we took advantage of our democratic heritage and demanded change. What is the point in our soldiers dying in Iraq and Afghanistan for the sake of "democracy" if we don't even practice our democratic rights here in Britain? Perhaps it is time to consider making citizenship an earner honour rather than a given birthright.

The fact that hate-preachers such as Abu Hamza, who has publicly claimed that if he had the means to go back to Afghanistan and kill a British soldier he would "love to do so", and 21/7 wannabe-terrorist Yassin Omar both lived in housing accommodation at the time of their arrests is such a sickening insult to public decency, when we have second world war veterans living in fuel poverty. Omar's terrorist co-conspiracist, Muktar Said Ibrahim was granted British citizenship after serving five years in a UK young Offenders Institute for robbery and assault.

I don't intend this post to degenerate into an immigration debate, but rather provide a platform for discussing the rights and duties of citizens. A lot of people won't like this but just hear me out for a minute before you make any judgements: what if we told all residents, immigrant and British-born that they had to EARN their citizenship. That's right, earned citizenship. A policy intended to weed out undesirables from applying for, and receiving citizenship, and to install the notion that citizenship is a privilege not a birthright, and one not to be taken for granted.

What are the practicalities of such as policy and how could it be enforced? There's a lot of scope here. One possibility is to identify British-born children as Full British Citizens (FBC) until age 19. This would entitle them to all the benefits of FBC until they reach a predetermined age (in this example 19). Once they reach this age they would automatically become British Resident-Citizens (BRC) unless they had already fulfilled a number of citizenship requirements. These requirements would not be obligatory and any individual could chose to ignore them and to continue to live in the UK as a BRC. However in doing so they would forfeit any right to certain citizenship benefits, such as welfare provision and National Health Service treatment (other than in emergencies). Of course these individuals would have passports, clearly stating their status, entitling them to travel. Any individual who opted out of applying for FBC at age 19 could do so anytime thereafter, providing they had met the requirements in the interim. Likewise, before any foreign-born British residents could be eligible for nationality and subsequently citizenship they too would have to fulfill the requirements. Of course certain incapable individuals, such as the genuinely disabled and mentally incapable, would be exempt.

Now to the requirements. There is much scope here too, but I have had some ideas. These requirements aren't intended as punishment, rather they are intended to install pride in ones citizenship, community spirit and an understanding of democracy and justice in the citizenry. An additional benefit would be the deterrent value that such compulsory requirements would have on potential undesirable immigrants who are unprepared to earn the rights this country has to offer. In order to qualify for FBC, BRCs or FBCs under the age of 19 would have to prove their commitment to their local communities or the nation, their work ethic and their character. They must be able to demonstrate that they have worked and paid tax and national insurance contributions for at least 2 full years. They must be able to demonstrate that they have performed a national duty or community-based duties. Here individuals will have choices. Those interested in the military may opt to serve in one of the armed forces for a period of 12 months on a subsistence level. This could be done on a full-time or pat-time basis (eg. weekends). Those with no such desire may opt to perform a series of civil duties. These duties could include voluntary community policing, road and street cleaning, coaching local youngsters and being involved in local youth centres and assisting the elderly. Individuals choosing the latter option could decide whether they wanted to dedicate themselves full-time to their voluntary assignments or to fulfill their requirements on a part-time basis as they work and thus pay tax and national insurance contributions. Individuals should be prepared to perform their civil duties for perhaps 1,200 hours. On a part-time basis that would work out at about 12 hours per week over a 2 year period. The latter option would make it possible for individuals to move from BRC to FBC within about two and a half years. School-leavers aged 16 could have fulfilled their requirements by the time they reach their 19th birthday and consequently would never be reclassified as BRCs.

The requirements above would be applicable if the individual had a clean or only minor criminal history. For those with an extensive or serious criminal history the requirements would be more rigorous and extensive and the applicant would have to provide demonstrable evidence of their rehabilitation and regret. Foreign-born residents who had a serious or extensive criminal history would be automatically precluded from applying. Other requirements could include the successful completion of a high school or equivalent education, the successful sitting of a "Life in the UK" exam to demonstrate a knowledge of the history, culture and governance of the UK, and for foreign-born residents, an English competency exam and health check.

To some people such a policy would probably be slandered as "fascist." To others it may be too little too late. I believe there may be something to it. It would need a lot of work and consideration before being implemented, and of course strict measures would have to be imposed to avoid fraud and corruption. But potential obstacles aside, just have a think about the benefits for us all, as a nation, before your immediately reject it.

Sources and links:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1557000/The-four-guilty-July-21-bombers.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1812940.ece

http://www.migrationwatch.org/papers/p_DailyMail_19Nov_08.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-387538/NHS-health-tourism-rife-I-turn-sick-patients-away.html