The Fallacy of the Arizona Immigration Bill

I try and look at politics as a continuum and not a single-step process. So initially I took the AZ law criminalizing illegal immigration with a grain of salt – until I got a closer look at what the bill contained and what it mandates from our law enforcement.

The bill, as written, mandates that:

police would be required to question anyone they suspect of being undocumented.

My main question is: how? What would the police use to determine suspicion of “being undocumented?” Will it be someone’s clothes, someone’s accent or someone’s skin color?

I grew up in southern Colorado around people descended from Spanish colonizers of the American southwest. All of them had roots in this country stretching back 300-400 years and most of them spoke a distinct form of Castilian Spanish as their first language. They were all fluent in English but at home and amongst themselves they spoke Spanish. Would they be under suspicion of being “undocumented” in Arizona and subject to a police demand for their documents – despite the fact they and their families have probably lived in this country far longer than those demanding they prove their citizenship? Do tourists from Japan playing on Arizona’s fabled golf courses now have to carry their passports in case police ask to see their documents? And are police now going to be trained in the intricacies of the American visa system so they know who can be in the country without a visa and who cannot?

The absurdities of this new law are numerous but overshadowing the ridiculousness of turning local law enforcement into enforcers of federal immigration law is what really underlies this law – racism. I don’t use that word lightly and as a matter of fact think it’s overused far too often, but a law requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they deem “undocumented” without providing a constitutionally-acceptable standard for that suspicion relies on people’s basest instinct as to what makes one “undocumented.” And that’s almost always, if not 100% of the time, the color of one’s skin. This is a racist law motivated by racism and xenophobia.

The backers of this new law claim it will help enhance America’s “security.” They mutter about 9/11 and terrorism without addressing the salient fact that none of the terrorists who carried out 9/11 were illegal immigrants - they were legal visitors, given visas by a Department of State clerk who overlooked numerous and glaring ommissions on their visa applications.

Addressing the issue of American security requires that we focus the attentions of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies in equal part both outside and inside our country – not on those who are legally residing within it. And it’s a manipulation of people’s worst instincts to focus a law like this on undocumented people who are here doing work most Americans wouldn’t do no matter how much you paid them. It’s shocking that a draconian law like this, backed by the most simple minds within the Republican party (people like Sarah Palin) managed to make it out of committee, through the legislature and was signed by a venal governor who at this point would do anything to ensure her election to the post she inherited when her predecessor was appointed Homeland Security Secretary.

At the Josef Korbel School we’re taught to look at all sides when analyzing a problem – to use our knowledge of systems, theories, languages and other cultures to arrive at the simplest yet most well-grounded answer which fits the parameters and complexities of the problem we’re addressing. It’s through that knowledge that I am confident in saying this bill will do nothing to enhance American’s security because it’s based on a logical fallacy – that more enforcement and more draconian laws will solve America’s problems. I base that on the knowledge I’ve gained at the Josef Korbel school as well as this quote by Professor Paul Viotti’s favorite military strategist Karl Von Clausewitz:

If you entrench yourself behind strong fortifications you compel the enemy seek a solution elsewhere.

Shane Hensinger

Afghanistan- Fantasy v Reality

Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Afghanistan. The pendulum has once again returned east, back to Afghanistan, as the increase in troop levels has deepened the U.S. commitment to the fragile territory. Meanwhile, Iraq fades out of focus like a bad movie ending, Afghanistan slowly follows a similar path, and Iran has increasingly come to command the headlines around the United States. Can you hear the drum yet? It is faint, but ever-present.

Afghanistan can be looked at through many lenses. Let’s try the most obvious. Fantasy and/or reality. Unfortunately, for those grunts on the ground, the young blood of this nation, and for those yet to serve, fantasy has been promoted to cover the mistakes of administrations past and present. The fantasy of OUR government that Afghanistan can be tamed, that American culture and excess will pervade and be accepted, and that OUR rotten style of government will magically work like a Swiss watch in a foreign land, even when it doesn’t work at home. These are the fantasies of which I speak.

I’m not positing that Obama is a naive ideologue that is clouded by his idealistic language or political persuasion. Rather, he is savvy, he is a very smart man. He knows exactly how to use language, appeal to emotion, and mold the argument. Him and all those that have preceded. This fantasy, this underdog story( which Americans love), has been propagandized and turned into a quasi-reality(we are many miles away and we must rely on most info. from authoritative sources) from which the truth is often manipulated or selectively cherry picked. Like the CIA experiments of old, the repetitive nature of half-truths or little white lies, has begun to take the fighting, dissenting, curious nature of us Americans, us humans away. Mass indoctrination and attempts to unify through propaganda are nothing new. “Leaders” of the past have an intimate knowledge of the power this tool possesses when pulled from the political tool bag.

Next, the reality, and this is going to hurt. Poppy, opium, heroin, corrupt Afghan governmental representatives, and Pakistani/Iranian covert actions. This is the reality that is rarely spoken of by the pundits and corporate puppets. Now that the rosy glasses are off, let’s get to it.

Our mission to find Al-Qaeda and topple the Taliban for harboring Bin Laden and his entourage was hijacked by the Bush administration with his stupid, stupid, stupid decision to invade Iraq. That is bad enough, but now we have Obama continuing not the same military strategy as Bush, but the same political strategy. Once again, talking over the heads of Americans, talking about ideals, talking about fantasies, and not talking about the reality, not talking about the interests of Americans(not CEO’s and MNC’s), and not talking about the true scale of death and misery. Instead, democracy, capitalism, free markets, and the expected slew of buzzwords has inundated the airwaves, conditioning the masses to at best, accept the decisions of the executive, and at worst ,question, but ultimately accept the decision because in the words of FDR, “he’s our son of a bitch”(out of context here but it fit well). OUR president wouldn’t lie to us, OUR leaders never fib, OUR government is just perfect and immaculately efficient. Right? Hopefully, you are shaking your head.

The fact that our government understands exactly what the game is, they know the players, and they, to an extent, direct the game, but cannot figure this out is suspect. Gretchen Peters, in her recent book Seeds of Terror, has numerous quips from high-ranking U.S. officials that clearly describe how the United States knows the problems, but either fails to act or ignores those problems. Those problems would be what I referenced earlier. Corruption, narcotics, and covert assistance from Pakistani and Iranian agencies.

The tendency of Americans to “Hollywoodize”(not a word but oh well) life in general has corrupted our own ability to digest information in a real way. We assume all will end with Rambo (aka USA), no matter what the facts or odds, victorious, wrapped in the flag, and always getting the woman.

I have to wrap up before this turns into a research paper. So, Obama politically made a great move by shifting forces to Afghanistan and fulfilling a campaign promise. In reality, the underlying issues fester and get worse. OUR governments’ involvement with criminal elements in Afghanistan, with openly corrupt politicians (some are more sneaky than others), and with warlords whose human rights record is atrocious, will continue to be hush hush. Do as I say and not as I do. Let’s call it like it is. Hypocrisy.

Looking back, one can argue the U.S. government got greedy. They hit 21 and decided to double down (I don’t play Blackjack so I’m not sure if the reference makes sense, but you get the point). Overwhelming air power and devastating assaults by Special Forces operators pounded the radicals in retaliation for 9/11. The footprint was minimal, U.S. forces sustained relatively low fatalities/casualties, the rest of the world was supportive of the strikes, and the expense was bearable. The pivotal(ultimately disastrous) decision was to then made to conventionalize operations and divert resources for another misguided boondoggle instead of beefing up our irregular forces (i.e. Marine Recon, SEAL’s, Green Berets, Rangers, etc.) who were responsible for punching the Taliban and Al-Qaeda right in the mouth. Intelligence, satellite reconnaissance, special operations, cruise missiles, and other powerful tools could have then been used to check any attempts to reestablish footholds, training camps, etc. Ultimately, other choices were made. 

Aaron Ferreira

Transarming Without to Rebuild Within

Transarmament was a term coined by Gene Sharp to describe a way in which European countries, during the height of the Cold War, could drastically reduce arms and destructive weapons while promoting a civilian based defense and deterrence for national security purposes. Of course the circumstances are different in 2010 and in the case of the United States, but the principle behind transarmament is interesting when searching for alternatives to failed policy. Sharp’s alternative is one of many choices that is possible, but somehow unimaginable to U.S. policymakers.

I am not going to detail the shifty policies that have tragically plagued our forces. Those policies are sadly a victim of a grand United States strategy that has not been fundamentally altered since the Cold War.

At best, this lack of transformation to meet the security risk and the security reality may be attributed to a lack of imagination on the part of an old, rigid system, hardened against change, oblivious to the realities of the 21st century. Or is the old, rigid system the problem, not a lack of imagination? The same system that allowed for the creation of the largest military-industrial establishment on the planet. The same industry that receives taxpayer subsidies, makes billions of dollars by selling weapons around the world, then shifts some of those profits towards political contributions back home on behalf of “defense contractors”, a veiled name for the armaments industry.

There are many other hypotheses that could explain the sucking sound that started when the conflicts began in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Vietnam, and Korea, and…………

My feeling is the imagination was there, it was used, and it was used to create a system that gets lower/middle class kids killed, while enriching the CEO’s of Xe, Lockheed, Dyncorps, Boeing, etc, etc. Repetitive no-bid contracts, extraordinary extensions to budget limits and deadlines, immunity from prosecution, and political appointments are clear indications of actions that have the potential to cause damage to national security instead of improving it.

The security risks faced by the U.S. are a combination of U.S. policy abroad and the real threat faced by terrorism. Neither one of those facts should be understated.

A real, comprehensive, independent, possibly external (U.N. ?), review of U.S. strategic posture is desperately needed to overhaul and streamline our force structure. In particular, and more importantly in my opinion, with a focus on transforming U.S. foreign policy. Not that I want an outside entity such as the U.N. to intrude in domestic affairs, but I see no serious initiative that is being propsed to seriously alter the mission and structural composition of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. military posture.

Professor Paul Viotti will be leading a budget simulation next week geared towards U.S. national security policy that will shed light on some of the monetary issues that have paralyzed a system that is arguably broken.

If one were only to look at history, it becomes clear the nations, states, empires, groups, and governments that engage in expansionist and imperialist actions have ultimately failed. Americans tend not to associate with the Romans, or Greeks, or Japanese, etc. But the British. Now that is close. After all, America was founded by Englishmen. Why haven’t our leaders realized that the British Empire was a disaster? They knew it in 1776, but we haven’t a clue in 2010.  The model used by the U.S. foreign policy establishment is uncannily similar to the British model in many regards. Overseas bases, manipulation of markets, punishing trade caveats, and other disastrous effects like that of which Chalmers Johnson termed “blowback”.

Look at the situation objectively, British corporations like the East India Company were floated by public funds while the economy back home fell apart. The CEO’s got rich while the public suffered the economic consequences of an empire that spent like a deathbed patient with a black card. Does this sound familiar?

My fellow students, I simply ask that we all look at this connection between activities pursued overseas in the name of the United States, and the effects they have domestically. Who benefits? Who hurts? Who gets rich? Who loses money? Who dies? Who stays alive?

Comments are surely welcome.

Aaron Ferreira

Korbellian Resistance

Consensus among DU students on the “liberal” atmosphere of campus does not necessarily mean conformity. This is the vibe I got from Jake Braunger, a co-founder of the new student organization as I posed questions this afternoon about the group.

The Korbellian Resistances’ Facebook page states, “our purpose is to promote diversity of thought in opposition to the dominant political ideology at Korbel”. Is there a “dominant political ideology” silencing the voices of “conservatives” on campus, especially those of our fellow colleagues at JKSIS? Organizers of the K.R. would say yes. When asked about this issue, Braunger stated “the predominant ideology is democratic liberalism”. With an “overwhelming lack of political diversity” at Korbel and a tendency towards “groupthink”, Braunger seemed frustrated at a perceived or real lack of variation in political discourse.

“Most of our members agree on fiscal conservatism but there are some differing views on foreign policy”, states Braunger. In its early stage of development, the K.R. resembles more a gathering of politically similar students, than a cohesive force with a demonstrable philosophy at the moment. The leadership is organized in a triumvirate style, with the possibility for the organizational dynamic to vary in the future.

When asked what speaker, if any, he would choose for their first meeting, Braunger said “Ron Paul, and without having someone call him a kook”. Ron Paul does not represent mainstream Republican or conservative thought, reminding me of the enormous applause he received from the young participants at the 2010 CPAC conference. Signaling, there may be a groundswell of resistance among young conservatives. Is this organization tapping into that resistance?

The broad brush of the K.R. appeals to “right” leaning members of the Korbel student body. Neo-cons, fiscal conservatives, traditionalists, etc. are all welcome to join. One curious fact pointed out to me by Joseph Emerson was the call of the K.R. to promote “diversity in thought”, yet the group is closed to the public, with content restricted to members.

This group is representative of a larger tension that has paralyzed American politics and has the potential to divide the public even further. Political parties whose rhetoric is dissimilar but whose policies are nearly identical leaves the public confused. A seemingly binary choice becomes convoluted to the point of apathy within the voting population. Binary? The lack of plurality within American political discourse is shocking.

Supporters of either dominant U.S. political party preclude the insertion of any dissenting opinions and leave the citizenry with the same old song and dance. Emotion clouds reason and agreement is rarely reached other than in times of crisis.

I would argue, whatever bandwagon one jumps on across the political landscape, superficial disagreements among R’s and D’s render incapable the ability to agree on purposeful legislation that would address fundamentally agreed principles. If the stage could be taken away from a Shakespearian Congress that revels in opining and blustering, without much to show for it, maybe some substantive progress will be made.

The Korbellian Resistance, if inclusive and non-divisive, should be welcomed as a healthy addition to a swelling number of Korbel student groups. We shall see.

Aaron Ferreira

Papal Exceptionalism and Capitalist Banter

The enormity of the scandal facing the Vatican is daunting. Accusations abound, I started to think of the ways in which the papal reaction to this new travesty of trust and the rhetoric of capitalistic monetary systems are similar. 

First, new information sheds light on a history of seemingly half-hearted investigations into priests accused of predatory behavior within the Catholic Church. Pope Benedict now is defending his institution and has even allowed some of his most influential subordinates to compare anger and desire for reform of the Church to historical Jewish persecution. Apples and oranges.

So, the Catholic Church goes on record heralding its persecution by those who want the truth about child molestation and pedophile priests as comparable to the persecution of the Jews (unfortunately, the masses were not given a specific time period or event that was being referenced, which might have increased the associative power of linking a historically persecuted group to your defense).  In the end, we should all feel guilty, because that darn media and those pesky grown-ups who were once abused as children now are demanding answers.  They are mean, they are nosey, and therefore the Catholic Church is feeling anguish and despair similar to that of Jewish peoples who have suffered historic injustices (sometimes at the hands of the Church itself). Baffling, but fortunately this veiled attempt to drum up empathy for a declining institution has fallen on deaf ears. People want answers and they are not accepting the usual, “whoops, my fault” response bellowing from the Vatican. Put simply, I don’t believe people, and more importantly Catholics themselves, are going to eat that shit sandwich anymore.

Comparatively, opposition to some injurious and damaging aspects of the implementation of capitalist monetary policies in places such as Chile, Russia, and Bolivia have been similarly resisted by a pattern of deflection and misinformation. Sadly, some opponents of protectionist measures use inflammatory rhetoric and scare tactics to quell interest in alternative strategies. Un-American and unpatriotic become loaded labels that promote associative feelings of guilt, fervor, and unity against others.

Systems of extreme free market capitalism espoused by Friedman and Hayek, while arguably beneficial to overall economic functionality, remarkably have an ugly downside rarely discussed. Increasing unemployment and massive inflation are some negative consequences that are consequently felt by rapid changes in economic systems. Another is a growing divide between rich and poor. These aspects are frequently downplayed, misrepresented, or underreported. Worse, dissent to some of the most devastating and damaging domestic effects are discredited by appeals to nationalistic pride and solidarity.

We are presented with a situation in which proponents of both, Catholic reformers or individuals seeking reform and advocates of various types of economic philosophies are fighting an uphill battle to begin the day. Emotional appeals and language suggesting similarities to persecuted peoples can effectively wrestle strength from opposition. Similarly, language invoking seditious behavior or fear can cause pause in those favorable to change.

Now, how to tie in American economic woes with priestly predatory behavior and the need for change?

Would allowing priests human indulgences cripple the Church and its moral authority? Some would argue yes. I would argue that the rigid opposition to reform-minded forces within/without the Church will ultimately lead to its demise and that individual parishioners recognize that priests are men too and usually will satisfy their most primal urges. The point being, the failing of the Church to evolve structurally as an organization regarding priestly domestic matters has contributed to the predicament we currently find the Catholic Church in. The institutional rigidity and unwillingness to consider seriously the alternatives has led to a suffering by the very people supportive of the overall mission and purpose of the Church. Much like a business that does not keep up with evolving technology, the company will ultimately fail. 

Extreme free market capitalism has unfortunately sometimes been implemented with the aid of right-wing authoritarian regimes that have devastated populations (see Chile). Here, structurally blind adherence to free market policies were initially destructive to the economy. The point here being strict devotion to specific economic policy prescriptions can devastate certain segments of a given population. The workers and political dissidents in Chile, and the current dismantling of the American middle class are good examples.

Overall, we see that papal exceptionalism and the dismissal of needed, substantive change to policy has created an atmosphere in which predatory activity by adults in authoritative positions is tolerated and silenced. Also, some economic policies which have created devastation, hardship, and suspicion have been tolerated and silenced.

In the end, both systems demand a slavish acceptance while fabricating a bond of unity among adherents. The pope’s mouthpiece unifying Catholics everywhere against the attacks by the anti-Semitic media, and the Wall St. capitalists lining their pockets under a banner of patriotism while using socialist principles to enrich themselves.

Finally, in both instances, an awakening is occurring. Increased political participation in the wake of the American recession and increased attention to reform caused by the anger and embarrassment of most Catholics have emerged. We have found that free markets have negative consequences. We have also found that behavior by priests is not always saintly. We continue a path of failure unless alternatives are brought and considered for action. The fear that a reexamination  of certain philosophical questions or historical precedents (priestly celibacy) will alter the status quo must be faced head on in order to produce a more viable and sustainable economic and spiritual life.

Pivotal moments in history are occurring now. What an exciting time to be alive.

Aaron Ferreira

European Court of Human Rights on “Right of Return” for Refugees

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),  one of the world’s most respected bodies on the issue, last week released a ruling in the case of a number of Greek-Cypriots who had fled the north of the island during the Turkish invasion of 1974. What the ruling said will have implications for other unsettled issues of land, place and occupation. Discussion of the ruling follows below. Please note that the ruling cannot be challenged – decisions issued by the ECHR are final and are binding.

The case in question concerned the right of refugees to the possession of their properties left behind when they flee due to war or other civil disaster. The case was brought by a number of Greek-Cypriot refugees who fled the north (now called the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus) during or in advance of the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974.

The Greek-Cypriot refugees “argued principally that they had been prevented from enjoying their property and homes following the invasion of northern Cyprus by Turkey in 1974, and that they had been victims of discrimination.” These claims were made under the European Convention on Human Rights and its subsequent protocols, which said in part:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for… his home ….

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

and additionally:

Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.

The counter-argument, made on behalf of Turkey (as the TRNC is not a recognized state) was that the constitution of the TRNC established what is called an Immovable Property Commission (IPC) (in response to an earlier ruling from the court) which was required to deal with the issue of properties abandoned at the time of the Turkish invasion.

From the court:

“TRNC” authorities enacted the new compensation law, Law 67/2005 (set out in Relevant Domestic Law and Practice above) which entered into force on 22 December 2005. The Immovable Property Commission (hereinafter the “IPC”), which was established under this law for the purpose of examining applications made in respect of properties within the scope of the aforementioned law, was composed of five to seven members, two of whom were foreign members, Mr Hans-Christian Krüger (former Secretary to the European Commission of Human rights and former Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe) and Mr Daniel Tarschys (former Secretary General of the Council of Europe), and had the competence to decide on the restitution, exchange of properties or payment of compensation. A right of appeal lay to the “TRNC” High Administrative Court.

With that follows the meat of the court’s decision and what many find so shocking in its reasoning:

Some thirty-five years have elapsed since the applicants lost possession of their property in northern Cyprus in 1974. Generations have passed. The local population has not remained static. Turkish Cypriots who inhabited the north have migrated elsewhere; Turkish-Cypriot refugees from the south have settled in the north; Turkish settlers from Turkey have arrived in large numbers and established their homes. Much Greek-Cypriot property has changed hands at least once, whether by sale, donation or inheritance.

Thus, the Court finds itself faced with cases burdened with a political, historical and factual complexity flowing from a problem that should have been resolved by all parties assuming full responsibility for finding a solution on a political level. This reality, as well as the passage of time and the continuing evolution of the broader political dispute must inform the Court’s interpretation and application of the Convention which cannot, if it is to be coherent and meaningful, be either static or blind to concrete factual circumstances.

This court then goes on to say that if the offending party has established a fair and equitable means of compensating refugees for their properties then they must avail themselves of the remedies provided – no matter how odious dealing with the authorities of the area which is occupied may be to them:

The Court is therefore not persuaded that the acknowledgement of the existence of a domestic remedy runs counter to the interests of those claiming to be victims of violations. It acknowledges the strength of feeling expressed by some of the applicants. However, the argument that it would be galling to have recourse to authorities in northern Cyprus cannot be given decisive weight – against the background of conflict and hostility, similar argument might be raised in respect of any official body or authority on the Turkish mainland, or indeed by any victim of a violation who is faced with the prospect of asking for redress from a State which has been responsible for the injury suffered. The fact that applicants live outside the occupied area furnishes no reason in principle why they should not be expected to apply to a “TRNC” body where it can be demonstrated that a remedy is both practicable and normally functioning.

The Court notes that the IPC is made up of five to seven members, two of whom are independent international members and that similar rules apply as to senior members of the judiciary in the “TRNC” vis-à-vis appointment and termination, and conditions of employment. Persons who occupy Greek-Cypriot property are expressly excluded. While the applicants and intervening Government asserted that no-one in the north could claim to be unaffected by the widespread problem, this general allegation is insufficient to cast doubt on the composition. Nor is it persuaded that the illegal nature of the regime under international law and the ongoing presence of Turkish military personnel or the appointment of members of the Commission by the “TRNC” President removes any objective impartiality or independence from the IPC in carrying out the functions imposed upon it under Law 67/2005. No specific, and substantiated, grounds concerning any lack of subjective impartiality of members of the IPC have been put forward.

The court then dismisses the claims of the refugees from Cyprus and basically tells them to avail themselves of the remedies offered by Turkey and the TRNC, which the court has judged to be fair.

The Court finds that Law 67/2005 provides an accessible and effective framework of redress in respect of complaints about interference with the property owned by Greek Cypriots. The applicant property owners in the present cases have not made use of this mechanism and their complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention must therefore be rejected for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. It is satisfied that Law 67/2005 makes realistic provision for redress in the current situation of occupation that is beyond this Court’s competence to resolve.

The European Court of Human Rights only has jurisdiction within Europe, so this decision doesn’t apply outside the borders of states which have ratified the treaty establishing the court. But then again – it does. International law is heavily influenced by many sources – decisions like this included. Previous understanding on the “right of return” has been that refugees, no matter the length of time of the conflict, have a right to return to their homes. In the Cypriot case this is outlined in a number of United Nations Security Council and UN General Assembly resolutions. But the court has said essentially, that when an alternative remedy is available which is judged to be fair and impartial then refugees must take it – they cannot avail themselves of the court to force ownership of property or physical return to the lands from where they fled. And the IPC is not an open-ended recourse – the court notes that it will no longer take cases after Dec 2011 (37 years after the Turkish invasion).

I believe this decision will have enormous consequences for the Cypriot case. Up until now the government of the Republic of Cyprus has encouraged its citizens to avail themselves of the European system of justice and had previously won a number of cases on the issue of abandoned properties. This had led to a situation where the government isn’t negotiating with the TRNC in good faith because it knows the deal it has currently is better than any deal it may get – this has caused an asymmetrical balance of power between the two sides and meant one side, the Greek-Cypriot side, is always ascendant against the other. This is one reason negotiations have dragged on and on and on for over 30 years and why the Greek-Cypriot side decisively rejected the Annan plan in a referendum in 2004.

Reaction, predictably, has been outrage on the Greek-Cypriot side with many wondering what step they take now. Do they wait for a political settlement or do they apply to the IPC for compensation? The Turkish side has been far more muted in its reaction, primarily because if every Greek Cypriot applied to the IPC for compensation for their properties the commission would quickly be overwhelmed and the amount of compensation awarded would likely overwhelm Turkey’s ability to pay.

The decision will have consequences outside Europe as well and will be closely studied in Israel, where the issue of the “right of return” for Palestinians is highly controversial. Its applicability to other outstanding conflicts, like Morocco’s occupation and annexation of the Western Sahara, will be examined. This decision may act as a force to change the negotiating positions of many actors in many conflicts and lead to forward motivation in negotiations on all sides.

Now you know what I think. What do you think?

Shane Hensinger

The Commonalities Between Hollywood and Foreign Policy

I recently returned from a trip to LA where I visited a number of my friends who work in the film industry. A friend of mine, who works in TV, mentioned a young actress who’s fallen out of favor. This actress has gained weight, had highly publicized battles with both drugs and alcohol and doesn’t seem to be working much these days.

Our discussion involving the actress turned into a discussion of the rise-and-fall of actors and actresses and why that phenomenon repeatedly occurs. The main question was: why do actors think because they’re on top one day that means they’re going to be on top a year from now, or five years from now? My friend’s view was that it’s inevitable that actors are going to rise quickly and then fall quickly. My friend said “Why don’t they look back at Molly Ringwald and understand the same thing is going to happen to them?” I thought about this for a minute and answered “No one thinks they’re not going to be number one when they’re on top, and people and institutions always repeat the same cycles of boom and bust no matter what the subject is – look at the mistakes the US State Department and CIA have made, repeatedly, yet they keep employing the same policies again and again and again!”

This conversation got me thinking about cycles, hubris and how difficult it is to break them – no matter what subject you’re discussing. Whether it’s the rise and fall of a popular actor or actress, the rise and fall of empires and corporations or the US foreign policy establishment making the same mistakes again and again and again – cycles define our existence for better or for worse. There’s a popular saying that “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result” – which is untrue, that’s actually not the definition of insanity. But it is, to use a very California word – extremely lame to expect that employing that same negotiating tactic or intelligence collection maneuver is going to result in a different outcome than it did the last time it was employed. A lot of the blame for this can be placed on the institutions in which we’re educated. We’re all taught the same theories and instructed on the policies which flow from those theories – and in the interests of “balance” we’re not really encouraged to make “value judgments” on the success or failure of those policies (or theories) in many cases, lest our judgment be clouded.

Institutions are institutions – no matter whether you’re talking about Hollywood and its star-making machinery or the US State Department and its repeated failures in foreign policy. Our job, as students and eventual players in the field of statecraft, is to figure our how we can develop and make effective new strategies which break the various cycles of failure that sadly, seem to have come to define much of our foreign policy over the past 60 years.

Shane Hensinger

Top Gun 2010 style

A few days ago Charlie asked about Russia, the T-50 fighter aircraft, India, and future implications for the relationship.

The T-50, developed by Sukhoi and a less known Indian company, has been compared in some testing data to the F-22 Raptor. Here’s the skinny. It’s cheaper, it’s maneuverable, its weapons capability is formidable, and its stealth is advertised as 5th generation. The first for Russian and Indian air forces.

The consensus among aerospace engineers seems to be while the T-50 is a desirable aircraft to possess, lack of innovation with the structural design raises eyebrows. If you watch some of the test flights you will see an old school styling of the aircraft’s exterior. In other words, it does not look as sleek and futuristic as the F-22 Raptor.

Will the design of the T-50 decrease its efficiency? Time will tell as only 3 test flights have been completed thus far.

India’s involvement with the development of this aircraft has been extensive. Half, in fact. The purchase is essentially a down payment on future aircraft and also intended to assure continued involvement in the R&D process. The Indian air force is requesting a 2-seat version of the T-50. Production will not be in full swing however, until 2015.

What does this mean for international security?

First, it should not be surprising the Indians are actively involved with the Russians. The relationship between India and Pakistan is contentious and prone to short periods of violence (as witnessed in the Kashmir region). When the United States tossed its chips in with Pakistan, how were the Indians to react? The most powerful nation on the planet supports a dysfunctional, corrupt (I’m being nice) regime that happens to be your rival and neighbor to the west. You can’t blame them.

Next, what does this mean in geopolitical terms? Well, if you look on the map, it looks as if a containment strategy may be taking place. There are 3 very volatile countries side by side in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Not to mention Iraq further to the west. Russia may be preempting what they see as a spread of instability northward while India is dealing with this instability now, on its doorstep.

How does this impact American security? The U.S. created most of the mess in that region. Now we see the states surrounding the area arming themselves. Another stellar example of U.S. foreign policy.

I’m not concerned about India or Russia attacking the U.S. with their new T-50′s( unless Sarah Palin says she sees the ruskies flying in over the Bering Strait). Nor am I concerned that India or Russia will use these aircraft in an aggressive attack on a neighbor. This looks more like the classic security dilemma of instability creating a power imbalance whereby nations see opportunities to increase regional influence or increase arms in response to a perceived threat.

Further information on the aircraft is needed. A case study should also be completed to determine if the conflict in the region has/had any influence or impact on the decision to pursue development of this novel Russian/Indian aircraft.

Overall, I do not see a threat to American security. This does, however, increase tension in the region as certain segments of respective populations in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. will see this as suspicious and a cause for arming. In the foreseeable future, we will not have to concern ourselves with the possibility of Maverick losing Goose to those damn communist Migs. What a classic movie.

Thanks for the request Charlie. I hope that was what you were looking for, or close to it.

Aaron Ferreira

Barnum and Bailey’s Presents the Health Care Summit Circus

What is wrong with the health care system in America?

Is the quality of care horrible? I would argue not. Actually, American care is arguably the best in the world. Did Joan Rivers go to Turkey for her surgery(ies)? Again, I would argue not.

Are health insurers/pharmaceutical companies out of control? Warmer. Take a look at opensecrets.org and see how intricately tied to the politicians they are. Some politicians receive enormous campaign contributions from these insurers(and pharmaceutical companies). Unreasonable, confusing, and prejudiced legislation emerges.

Hospitals actually need a certificate to build in North Carolina. Do not think for a minute that competing hospitals and lobbyists aren’t circling like vultures looking to block those who would seek to enter the market and increase availability of care.

What to do? Vote out those who have shady connections to health care/insurance/pharmaceutical companies.

Is it that health care costs are too high? On fire!! The question then becomes, what to do about those outrageous costs?

Companies can’t afford insurance for their employees, individuals can’t afford insurance for their families, and health care costs just keep on rising.

Why did the Senate vote down a bill that would have allowed Canadian pharmaceuticals to come into the U.S., therefore reducing the costs of prescriptions for millions? Why!!!!! I need not answer.

Here’s a common sense plan for health care.

1. Negate all the harmful, anti free market, bogus legislation that has been passed by these crooked health industry patsies. How do you do that? Vote them out and send the insurance and pharma companies a message that they will no longer be moonlighting as thieves.

2. I am not a tax attorney(nor do I see a need for them, in my perfect world), but there must be a way to reform the tax code. Fair tax, flat tax? No income tax is what I would advocate. Taxes are a burden on the American public and you are naive if you believe our status quo will continue without an increase in taxes.

3. Allow free markets to take hold. Real competition will drive down costs. Remove all the bureaucratic, regulatory garbage and unleash the moderating power of free market competition.

By cutting taxes and putting money in Americans pockets, more citizens will be able to afford health care. By increasing competition, costs will drop. More personal income+lower health costs through competition=reduction in American health woes.

Will all problems be fixed? No. Still, for some, health care would continue to be out of reach financially. What to do? No, I would not leave those in the gutter to pass as some media outlets would have you believe. I would depend on the most charitable citizenry on the planet to help their neighbors, donate to non-profits, or volunteer. That is the spirit of America.

Government will not save you. It cannot. It is the problem. Let’s get back to common sense.

Aaron Ferreira

We Can Do This

Something amazing just happened. I became a Republican for 15 minutes, in spirit. That’s right. Ron Paul, for the 15 minutes or so he spoke at CPAC, literally had me standing up to applaud his invigorating comments. I was proud to see the energy rise in the room as he brought the truth to light point after point after point.

We know that America is broken. Something needs to change. That’s obvious. Where do we start? How about looking at what Congressman Paul advocates?

Fiscal conservatism. Barney example to follow. (The big purple type, not the Frank type)

We live in a credit based society. Fine. If you have a credit card, it is best to pay off the balance regularly or at most keep a low balance. We all know this. If we do not, there are devastating consequences. Ruined credit, outrageous interest, foreclosure, etc. Bad things happen.

Then why don’t we have a government that follows this principle? It is as simple as that. Don’t try to complicate the issue. That is the correct way for government to operate, (similar to any business that likes to keep the doors open) with very few exceptions. America cannot survive in this fiscal environment. Ask any economist, this IS ABSOLUTELY UNSUSTAINABLE.

The fact is, either this situation is dealt with or it will be passed on to the next generation to face. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not right. We are no better than those we complain about if we allow all the rhetoric in the world to occur, but no substantive action to take place.

The Republicans swipe the credit card to lower your taxes while the Democrats swipe the credit card to give you more services.

All I’m saying is we must use common sense. We must lower the balance on America’s “credit card”. Ron Paul understands this.

Sounds great right? Get spending under control and create a surplus. Well, how do we do that?

Dr. Paul suggests we resist the policy in Washington of preventative war and focus on national DEFENSE instead of nation building or pursuit of aggressive war. Facts must dictate our foreign policy, not imaginations. America is a young country. Really. Think about how old other nations are. We are infants, though we have the opportunity to act like adults. Acting like self-destructive teenagers will not help us. We can guide our nation away from militarization(militarization that will inevitably lead to a loss of liberties and has been warned of by so many of this nations great heroes) and toward more peaceful means of pursuing the national interests. Let us not fall in to the trap laid out by history. Let us be remembered as the generations that recognized the follies of our human past, and vowing not to repeat them, smartly displayed the strength and reason necessary for peace to flourish.

The “defense” industry has been militarizing this nation aggressively since WWII. We must acknowledge this, resist, and focus on defending the citizens of THIS nation and not on policing the world or forcing American ideals upon those who are different or have different beliefs. Respecting the rule of law and the sovereignty of other nations will only enhance American security.

Dr. Paul advocates a policy of non-interventionism. This is not isolationism. Look up the difference if you do not know.

Freedom is not given through government. You are born free. America is better off nurturing her freedom rather than smothering others with it.

There you have it. Fiscal conservatism and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Can we agree on those?

I would urge you all to watch Ron Paul’s speech at CPAC 2010 2/19/2010. The speech was this afternoon. Try CSPAN.org for the video. I will attempt to find a link and post it. Honestly, it was inspiring.

Aaron Ferreira