:: Political Paradigm 'Blog ::

:: Monday, March 31, 2003 ::

Spanish Lesson-

Here's a nice little commentary that a friend of mine from Barcelona wrote. It gives us a nice insight on what the Spanish are thinking.

So- yes kids....brush up on your español for this one.




Hola Miroslava,
me alegro de recibir noticias tuyas. Voy a intentar
responder a tus preguntas. Respecto de las elecciones
en España. Las elecciones para presidente del gobierno
se celebran el año próximo y, por cierto, Aznar
anunció hace tiempo que no se va a presentar. Lo
cierto es que tampoco se ha perfilado quien va a ser
el nuevo líder del partido pero ya hay quien dice que
dado el monumental lio en el que Aznar ha puesto a su
partido lo más honesto sería volverse a presentar e
intentar reconducir el camino. La verdad es que yo no
apostaria por ello y será tarea de su sucesor arreglar
el follón. Y es que el follón es enorme. Aznar no
tiene al 85% de la población en contra, sino al 91%
según las últimas encuestas. Barcelona ha vivido las
manisfestaciones mas grandes de su historia. Incluso
Bush padre ha hecho referencia a las mismas. Y si bien
las elecciones para presidente son para dentro de un
año, dentro de dos meses tenemos elecciones
municipales y en otoño regionales, y lo más probable
es que el Partido Popular pague muy caro su posición
en la guerra, posición que se suma al desastre del
petrolero "prestige" unos meses antes. En este
desastre la gestión del gobierno fue simplemente
nefasta, de lo peor que yo he visto.

El ambiente en España está muy crispado. 9 de cada 10
están en contra del gobierno y Aznar está llamando a
todo el mundo irresponsable, radical, desleal etc...
Es su caracter, simplemente no tolera la discrepancia
incluso dentro de su propio partido. Algunos miembros
del mismo han dimitido y otros, expresándose en
privado, critican y dicen lo que no dirían en público.
En este punto debo decir que siento envidia de Blair y
el partido laborista ya que éste ha tolerado un nivel
de discrepancia con, por ejemplo, backbenchers
aplaudiendo a Robin Cook tras su dimisión en los
Comunes, impensable entre las filas del partido
popular. No hay que olvidar que Blair gana la moción a
favor de la guerra gracias a los votos del partido
conservador. Si esta situación se hubiera dado en
España, Aznar hubiera perdido ya que el resto de
partidos estaban y estan en contra.

Mi opinión de la actitud de Aznar es la misma que la
del 91% de españoles. Es simplemente incomprensible.
Nadie entiende aquí que espera sacar Aznar de su
alianza con Bush. Es más, el entorno de España es el
de la Unión Europea, y ahí necesita del apoyo de
Francia y Alemania, precisamente los países a los que
se ha enfrentado. Alejarse de París y Berlín, así como
de buena parte de América Latina, para acercarse a
Washington y Londres, rompe con la política exterior
española de los últimos 20-25 años sin que Aznar haya
explicado a cambio de qué. Me da la impresión de que
Aznar ha confundido influencia con presencia
mediática. Creerse que por salir en las fotos con Bush
y Blair gana influencia en el mundo, es de tontos. Y,
lo peor, es que los intereses del país van a salir
perjudicados a la corta.

Respecto a la guerra en sí. Yo soy de la opinión que,
más allá del drama que supone cualquier conflicto, lo
que nos estamos jugando es el orden internacional del
futuro. No es de recibo que Estados Unidos se crea con
derecho a hacer su propia ley, y actuar en el mundo a
su antojo. En otras palabras, no puede ser que el
futuro sea uno con normas para todos menos para
uno.Pero el unilateralismo de la administración Bush,
con gente como Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz o Rice es algo que
da miedo. Leer los informes del Project for a New
American Century o el documento de estrategia
publicado en septiembre de 2002, donde se afirma que
Estados Unidos debe intervenir allí donde lo convenga,
sin ayuda de nadie y cuando lo desee es para echarse a
temblar. Por cierto el domingo vimos por televisión
un reportaje sobre las iglesias ultraconservadoras de
Estados Unidos, con apariciones de Bush en alguna de
ellas, que me pareció terrible. Yo no se hasta que
punto la administración norteamericana no se da cuenta
de como esa religiosidad ultraconservadora está
alejada de los valores europeos actuales y, por
contra, como la acerca a los paises más
fundamentalistas del mundo árabe. Francamente hubo
momentos del reportaje que más que Estados Unidos
parecía Irán.

Bueno Miroslava espero que que con este mail de
respuesta iniciemos un diálogo que seguro será
interesante.

tu amigo
Victor.

:: MC 3/31/2003 11:04:00 PM [+]

::
...

So it looks like we're going to war. Bush's ultimatum was less an ultimatum and more a thinly veiled declaration of war - the decision to strike has already been made. All Tommy Franks is waiting for is the clock to strike 8:15pm on Wednesday. By midnight, I'm betting the army will have already crossed the DMZ into Iraq. What then? Will Congress pass a formal declaration? More protests in the streets? MP5-wielding cops and soldiers on every street corner of America? The Bush team and the soldiers deployed overseas may have been prepared for this for months, but I seriously doubt that the American people really are. True, we've been following the news about heightened security in the cities, and the vague but grandiose schemes to rebuild postwar Iraq. But this administration has yet to come clean with the American people about the true costs and the true direction of this war. A war on Iraq isn't even in the defense budget for the upcoming fiscal year! And what of postwar Iraq? Nobody is reassured by the thought of a US military occupation, but a thorough postwar plan might have helped turn the tide in global antiwar opinion. Either Bush really hasn't thought this out as completely as we'd been led to believe, or he's just going to string the public along for this roller-coaster ride. Somehow the people will just have to trust this guy. For the "leader of the free world," such blind trust does not come free, and is not carte blanche. Democracy demands answers, and Bush better some provide honest ones before I'm ready to say I support the President's decision.

:: WL 3/18/2003 02:27:00 AM [+]

::
...

Water Water Everywhere

Does the commodification and privitization of water resources worldwide pose a significant threat to international security in the 21st century? The World Water Forum in Kyoto, which opens today, will try to address the problem of access to clean water, especially for the world's poorest people. According to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, "6000 children die every day from water-related diseases" and "half the world's population will face water shortages by 2025." Clearly, though water resources (or the lack thereof) may not be an obvious international security problem, the fallout from unrest over water certainly will be. Social unrest over lack of water can easily spill over into intrastate and even interstate conflict. Even in the US, there have been protests over city utilities cutting off people's water.

Yet like most global ecological problems, water access, water cleanliness, and sustainable water management can be solved. The science is there. But the political will is not. The UN estimates that it will take $50 billion to $100 billion per year to provide clean water for everyone. However, while access to clean water has been recognized as a human right, how can those rights be translated into action? It is easy to put most of the burden on developed countries like the US, Japan, Canada, and the EU. They of course have the most money to spend on water and are probably also the heaviest consumers. But more funding is not enough. Of course more funding is needed, but what is also needed is for stakeholders - governments, industry, consumers - to look at water holistically.

What is known in classical economics as the commons may have been fenced off by private concerns a long time ago. But unlike oil, gold, or diamonds, there is enough water on this planet to sustain 6 billion people and more. And water is immensely more precious than any of the other three commodities. Major powers, especially the US, cannot afford to shy away from an international framework for managing the world's water. Maybe what is needed to convince Washington policymakers that water will become an important factor in politics in the near future is to treat water with the same urgency and emphasis of security as, say, plutonium.Otherwise, there might not be a drop to drink left for anyone.

More on water:
"Cadillac Desert" PBS documentary
UN World Water Day: March 22, 2003

:: WL 3/16/2003 04:01:00 AM [+]

::
...

In a followup to a New York Sun article I linked to yesterday, Slate asserts that a) Richard Perle isn't serious about suing Seymour Hersh and the New Yorker in the UK and b) even if he did, the UK courts would probably dismiss anyway. Jack Shafer on Perle/Hersh.

Also in Slate, Timothy Noah has written another installment of his Kurd Sellout Watch. And, the Slate Field Guide to Iraq Pundits, on the talking heads coming to a cable TV news show near you soon!

:: WL 3/15/2003 01:13:00 PM [+]

::
...

Class, more political reading for today! =)

Papua New Guinea doesn't make it into the news much in the US, but for Australia, it's a failed state waiting to happen.

And, are expert witnesses in court really all that expert or impartial?

And, the intersection of war and the media in the current Iraq crisis is not a pretty picture:
Helen Thomas, who's been a White House press corps fixture since Kennedy, was snubbed at Bush's March 6 press conference
FAIR slams MSNBC for ditching Donahue and hiring Mike Savage
Journalists speak out at Columbia University about government censorship of reporters on the ground in Iraq and Kuwait
MTV and other networks have refused to air both pro and anti war advocacy ads
Defense Policy Board chairman and all-around war hawk Richard Perle is suing the New Yorker, in the UK no less
The Kansas City Star asserts that reporters embedding with the military is a win-win scenario
More on "embedding"
And, why aren't we hearing more about the US spy attempt at the UN SC?

And, when I grow up, I wanna be President! Democratic hopefuls talk shop:
Edwards, Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman in Foreign Policy
The Democratic Leadership Council's Blueprint Magazine looks at the candidates
And, inspiration, Bubba style

:: WL 3/14/2003 01:42:00 PM [+]

::
...

Timothy Noah has posted another installment of his Kurd Sellout Watch series on Slate. The Kurds really have been left out in the cold in Bush's zeal to bring Turkey into the fold. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that both the BBC and ABC News have reported that Turkish tanks have already started rolling into northern Iraq. More from the NY Times' Nicholas Kristof on the Turkish side of Kurdistan.

And, the Taiwan Journal puts in a word about the selling out of Taiwan by the US, by the media, by Hollywood, and by Europe. Well, in slight defense of Europe, the EU did just open a new trade office in Taipei. Alas, unlike the AIT/TECO arrangement with the US, the new EU office won't handle consular or diplomatic affairs.

-WL

:: WL 3/14/2003 01:33:00 AM [+]

::
...

In response to the previous post, what worries me most about Iran is that, mullahs and religious police aside, Iran has a real shot at becoming a pluralist democracy some time this decade. Reading dispatches by Thomas Friedman and other journalists reporting from Iran over the past year, it seems that many of the ordinary citizens of Iran have given up on Ayatollah Khomeini's revolution. Unlike Iraq or North Korea, there's an open reform movement in Iran. True it's kept under check by the old-line religious authorities, but the conservatives are dying out. According to the IHT article, 70% of Iranians are under 30 years old. They might have grown up with the revolution, but they certainly aren't benefitting much from it. According to the World Factbook, Iran's unemployment rate is 14% and per capita GDP is $6400. Compare that to less than 6% unemployment in the US and per capita GDP more than $36000.

Smart US policy decisions toward Iran over the next few years will be absolutely critical to the success of Iran's internal reform movement. Labeling them as part of the "axis of evil" was just plain dumb. Yes, Iran's hard-line leaders are pursuing WMD. But at the same time, Iran has signed the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court, a fact not often appreciated in the US. Schizophrenia? Probably. But that tells us something. It tells us that there are some decision-makers in Iran that are amenable to us, pragmatic and reform-minded enough to look past the ghosts of 1979. These are the people we should be helping, instead of writing off the entire country with the blanket "axis" label.

-WL

:: WL 3/13/2003 10:53:00 AM [+]

::
...

More transcripts:

US/UK draft resolution with the March 17 deadline
Francois Lonseny Fall at the UN, 3/7/03
Farouk al-Sharaa at the UN, 3/7/03
Munir Akram at the UN, 3/7/03

Oh and also here's an interesting profile of Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister.

-Will Lim

:: WL 3/08/2003 01:23:00 PM [+]

::
...