Guest Blog



May 7 2009

The World Bank: Becoming the World's Economic Good Guys?

Ali Yenidunya, University of Birmingham On 26 April, Robert Zoellick, the head of the World Bank, told a news conference, that poor countries are paying a heavy price in the deepening global economic crisis. According to Zoellick: - In 2008 more than 50 million people, most of whom are children and women, fell under the threshold of extreme poverty, measured as earnings of $1.25 a day. - Most of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals could not be met because of the economic crisis. - In 2009, between 55 and 90 million more people will fall into extreme poverty. The number of those suffering chronic hunger will pass 1 billion.



US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner added on the same day: “The global economic crisis threatens to reverse gains in fighting poverty.” So, in contrast to earlier crises, governments of developed countries are warning that the situation behind the poverty curtain is getting worse, with irrecoverable effects in these regions unless there are urgent interventions. To meet this challenge, Zoellick suggested that those countries who promised to donate funds should fulfil their promises soon, increasing their contributions where possible. New employment opportunities should be created to advance global economic growth, with new investment projects of $55 billion in Africa. For Geithner, investment banks working with the World Bank should be more transparent in their assistance. They should direct investment effectively to fulfil long-term development goals and address poverty. The International Monetary Fund should ensure more representation of developing countries. The troubling question lurks, "What if these measures are not taken?" For Zoellick, if the current crisis is not ameliorated, there will be a humanitarian disaster in poor countries: "There is a widespread recognition that the world faces an unprecedented economic crisis, poor people could suffer the most and that we must continue to act in real time to prevent a human catastrophe." These steps are not marginal; there is a sense of concern for the most deprived when the global economy is likely to shrink by 1.3 percent this year. Still, I wonder whether the descendants of today's 'conscientious' problem-solving guys will have enough concern and courage to criticize the cyclical dynamics of global capitalism when, after an upturn, there is again the possibility of maximising profits. April 23

Israel-Palestine: The Political Wreck on Netanyahu's Track

Ali Yenidunya, University of Birmingham A month ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opened a conference in Jerusalem. In contrast to other high-profile meetings such as that last week with US envoy George Mitchell and in May or June with President Obama, this was a quiet affair. However, the Jerusalem Wealth Management Conference, featuring Netanyahu’s participation, was far from insignificant. The conference’s concern was difficulties with investments in Palestine and Israel, both for individuals and for companies. Amongst those considering the matter were the Bank of Israel, the Ministry of Trade, the International Monetary Fund, the Association of Banks in Palestine, the US Embassy in Israel, the new Israel-Palestine Chamber of Commerce, and the PalTel (Palestinian Telecommunications) Group. Discussions were in three main panels: Israeli Inc. as a Grade A Destination, Israel's Investment Opportunities, and Investment in the Palestinian Economy.



This, however, was a conference with political as well as economic significance. It was no less than a forum for Prime Minister Netanyahu’s strategy towards the Israeli relationship with Palestine. In his commitment to “economic peace initiatives”, he was also drawing the line against a political two-state resolution. Netanyahu was once again declaring that peace talks could focus on building the Palestinian economy and its governing institutions, but there was no need for them to engage other issues such as settlements, refugees, the status of Jerusalem, and borders.



While there is no record to dissent from the gathered bankers, financiers, and investors to Netanyahu, the weakness --- possibly even the folly --- of his approach was clear. A progressive peace plan cannot be achievable merely through “investment”, strengthening the Palestinian economy and the economic relationship between Israel and the West Bank. Economics might be the fundamental for a Marxist approach, determining the political superstructure in and between societies. It might underpin the McDonalds theory of Economic Liberalism bringing political change. It does not, however, work in the Israeli-Palestinian case.



Economics cannot deal with a Hamas organization which claims that it is the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people and which has been successful in convincing many of those people, not only since its 2006 election victory in Gaza but also, amidst Operation Cast Lead, in the West Bank. Economics cannot make Hamas move its feet faster in negotiations with Fatah for a unity government or raise its voice for the principles of the US-EU-Russia-UN Quartet: the recognition of Israel, denunciation of the armed struggle, and adherence to the agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Nor can economics fit Israel’s attempt to alienate Hamas with a “Divide & Rule” strategy, effectively removing Gaza from consideration. Indeed, the strengthening of the economic structures of the West Bank will complicate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by adding problems such as the widening gap of incomes between Gazans and inhabitants of the West Bank and possible corruption amongst Palestinian officials. Nor will West Bank prosperity go unchallenged by Hamas, which will seek to undermine any advances that do not benefit Gaza as well. Far from bolstering his prospective ally in negotiations, Netanyahu’s statement has alienated Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas. Until the formation of the Netanyahu coalition, which occurred just after the Jerusalem conference, Abbas was making no complaints. However, as soon as the new Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, made clear --- in blunter terms than those of his Prime Minister --- that Israel would not follow the 2007 Annapolis process for a two-state resolution, followed by Netanyahu’s explicit preference for an economic track over a political one, Abbas came out in opposition to Tel Aviv’s plans: “The Palestinian issue is not an economic problem. This is, first and foremost, a political case.” Even if Abbas is in a relatively weak position, compared to the new Israeli Government, his shift runs Netanyahu’s economic strategy into a cul-de-sac. The Obama Administration, in return for its political investment in an Israeli-Palestinian (and wider regional) solutions, will expect concessions from each side. Netanyahu, with his priority on economic discussions, is effectively trying to rule out any such concession on his part. Washington may get some short-term benefit from a newly-opened plant or (as occurred two weeks ago) a “security center” in Jericho, but these will not be sufficient as the year moves on. Success in its “attack on crisis”, as well as its War on Terror which is not called a War on Terror, demands a public breakthrough on the Israeli-Palestinian political deadlock. Otherwise, the only winner will be the outsider, Hamas, who will feast on any setback for Abbas as well as Obama. So, after this Jerusalem Wealth Management Conference, we should be watching not for the warm handshake from the US investor but the poke in Netanyahu’s chest from the Obama representative. “Engagement” demands some acceptance from the Israeli Prime Minister of a political track rather than an economic one because --- here is the paradox --- Tel Aviv cannot sustain economic development without the co-operation of the US Government. February 9

A Sensible Consideration of "Islamist Terrorist"

Maren Schroeder The British media continue to highlight the imminent danger of Islamic terrorists lurking within. This weekend, for example, The Daily Telegraph proclaimed, " Barack Obama has been warned by the CIA that British Islamist extremists are the greatest threat to US homeland security. . So, amidst the headlines of fear, how great is the peril? According to Europol’s 2008 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report, less than one percent of all terror acts reported in Europe in 2007 were connected to Islamist terrorism. While the outcome of even a single successful attack, as in Madrid in 2004 or London in 2005, s horrifying, the actual risk of being a victim of Islamist attacks is infinitesimal. In 2007, Europol received reports of 583 foiled, failed or successful terror attacks; of those, only four were committed by Islamist terror groups, none succeeded. Despite this minimal prevalence, Islamist terrorism is diligently persecuted. More than 25 percent of arrests for crimes connected to terrorist activities are linked to Islamist terror groups. This percentage would rise further were UK figures included: As in 2006, the vast majority of the arrested suspects in the UK were in relation to Islamist terrorism. However, since these arrests were not reported as affiliated to any type of terrorism, they were not included in the statistics. For 2007, the arrests in the UK increased by 30 percent. The disparity between Islamist attacks and arrests could be due to a disproportionate focus on Islamist terror or an as yet unreported number of current investigations into new plots. Still, the unique nature and origin of Islamist terrorism results in tough challenges for the law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community. Right- and left-wing terror groups aim to change society towards their extremist models. Single-issue terrorism seeks to change just one aspect of society, such as environmental practices. Ethno-national and separatist terror groups want international recognition and self-determination. Attacks are planned to ensure the survival of the attacker; members are considered valuable, skilled assets to the group, sometimes training for years. As a result of members’ close cultural and social ties to their country, infiltrating these groups and predicting their targets is possible; intelligence about them is attainable. Islamist terror groups are different: infiltrating them is impossible for a non-Muslim agent, severely limiting the number of operatives available. The preferred delivery method is the suicide attack, often carried out after minimal training, ensuring quick availability of new extremists. Destruction of the target state and the establishment of a new Muslim world order are generally declared to be their aims. Counter-terrorism measures, therefore, include arresting not just suspected Islamist terrorists but their entire support network --- political, ideological and financial backers are all targeted. This leads to a comparatively high number of people taken into custody, often not linked to an actual threat. As a consequence, according to the Europol report, “Court proceedings in relation to Islamist terrorism have the highest acquittal rate: 31 percent of the defendants were found not guilty.” Unsurprisingly, data collection is inconsistent. Amonst Europol states, reporting countries have their own definition of terrorism; attacks arising from extremism of any ilk are not included in the figures, as what constitutes extremism and what terrorism is a national decision. Right-wing extremism in Germany, for instance, is traditionally over-reported, but Austria and France, who exhibit a much higher tolerance towards right-wing groups in general, under-report it. Spain, frequently targeted by separatist terror group ETA , includes arson attacks on often empty buildings as terror attacks. The UK only reported two attacks altogether: the failed car bombs in London and the attack on Glasgow airport, omitting the cars blown up by animal rights activists. One final, far from insignificant point. The report’s trend analysis states that “[t]he conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have a large impact on the security environment of the EU”. The threat of Islamist Terrorism is real, but it is neither as prolific nor as inevitable as politicians and journalists alike seem to insist. A more productive emphasis, indeed a necessary first step is an acknowledgement that foreign policy on EU and national level could cause retaliatory terror attacks in Europe. It is in a less belligerent approach to certain Muslim countries that the risk of suicide attacks can be decreased. ---------------------- January 21

A Tale of Two Inaugurations

David Dunn , University of Birmingham David Dunn, Reader in International Politics at the University of Birmingham, was a Fulbright Fellow in Washington eight years ago. Watching from a distance this time, he has offered his thoughts on the meaning of the day and on Presidents Bush and Obama. Resident in Washington in January 2001 as a Fulbright Fellow I was determined to witness the inauguration of the new President. My American friends were much more sceptical – “You’ll freeze to death and won’t get close enough to see anything” was the common line. On both points they were partly right, the temperature never ventured above freezing and my feet turned to ice standing on the muddy grass of Washington’s Mall, mostly watching the event on huge screens, occasionally glancing at the pin sized figures beyond. None of them elected to come with me - in part also because they weren’t celebrating the new administration. And yet I got a better sense of the occasion than I would have got watching it on TV, and certainly enough to know that eight years later this will be a very different event. While the weather and ceremony will remain points of continuity Obama’s inauguration will differ in many ways. Bush’s first inauguration was marked by massive protests with crowds chanting loudly about the stolen 2000 election. Viewing the police dogs and horses I decided against joining in, fortuitously as it turned out as the protestors weren’t allowed on to the Mall. Despite this, however, their cries of “Hail to the Thief” were a constant background to the relayed address to the assembled crowd. Despite what was seen and heard on TV the event represented a divided Washington and a divided country. By contrast the mood in 2009 will be one of universal celebration of the election of a candidate widely seen as the antidote to eight years of Bush and his administration’s policies. The pre-event celebrations were also of a different order. While bands played on the Mall for Bush they did so to a smaller and to a much less inclusive crowd. Indeed in January 2001 the focus was on presidential balls not parades, events which were all cowboy boots, Stetsons and swagger, symbols of the Presidency to come which played squarely to its own political base rather than to the nation as a whole. There was a mood of the Texan Republicans taking over political Washington, not coming in to work with it. This time round with a 70% approval rating and a mood of national celebration the contrast could not be more marked. Obama’s inauguration is an all inclusive event. A celebration of what is possible through the democratic process, an event as much about out reach and inclusivity as it is possible to imagine. Expectations of the inauguration address are also quite different. For the famously anti-intellectual and inarticulate Bush little was expected and the words were quickly forgotten. By contrast the world will hang on every word and phrase uttered by Obama. Part of the reason for this is the different word the two Presidents were bequeathed. Bush inherited a country at peace with a budget surplus and an economy enjoying the fruits of a long economic boom. For Obama the task is more demanding, America is at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the American and world economies are in the largest crisis for seventy years. People expect more of Obama largely because they need to. The skills he displayed as a presidential candidate who came from nowhere to defeat first the Clintons and then McCain and the Republican Party show a wily politician and a shrewd strategist. They also show a leader focused on uniting his country and ending divisions internationally too. As well as the obvious celebration of the inauguration of America’s first black President this historic occasion of the first black president there is also what else that represents, that Obama optimises the antithesis of the cleavages that have divided America. He is the antidote to President Bush’s black and white approach to politics. Watching the inauguration this time from a far reminds me what an unusual spectacle the occasion is. There is no real equivalent at home or elsewhere in Europe, accept perhaps in the very different form of a coronation which last occurred of course in the UK in 1953. In part because the event follows many weeks after the election itself it is also one irresistibly redolent with expectation. It offers a firmer sense of demarcation between governments than the furniture shifting at No 10 Downing Street. A more categorical punctuation mark between presidencies than would otherwise occur. And in 2009 more than most occasions it reinforces the power of democratic renewal in American and beyond. ---------------------- October 1

America and Disability: The Sin of Omission

John Matlin, University of Birmingham As my wife and I spent most of September touring northern California and Oregon, I though that with sights like Yosemite, Crater Lake and The Avenue of Giants, it is little wonder that some Americans believe they live in God’s country.



That view must have been tested during Hurricane Ike. Yet we saw the best of American spirit as the inhabitants of Galveston , Texas , shared precious water and food with the volunteers who came to help. It was a generosity that I witnessed when I was in New York on 11 September 2001. In the immediate aftermath of the attack on the World Trade Center , our hotel on 54th and 6th was home to many out-of-state firemen who worked 24-hour shifts and came to the hotel to sleep before returning to clean up the site.



However, Americans can exhibit a flip side, namely their attitude to physical disability. On my first trip to America , some forty years ago, I saw Manhattan from the Jersey shore, I watched the foundations being laid for the World Trade Centre, and I discovered that the word “funky” was useful for all kinds of situations. But nobody could offer an explanation for a simple question. Why were all American dollar bills the same size and colour? How would a blind person distinguish between a Washington ($1) and a Franklin ($100) and denominations in between? Today, nothing has changed, even if a difference in size of notes or Braille under the picture would solve the problem.



There seems to be something in the American psyche about desiring and seeking physical perfection. Just watch the plethora of US television advertisements for products which will make one look “better”: i.e., slimmer, younger, fitter, healthier. The medication alone which appears in advertisements could stock a large pharmacy. Meanwhile, West Coast news television channels offer “Barbies”, young, pretty, white, blonde presenters who squeak through pinched nasal passages and whose reporting skills are limited. Their male counterparts are inclined to be older but generally handsome with flashing eyes.



Form over content, sound bites over analysis. It is not a phenomenon limited to television. Take a look at the politicians. Barack Obama chose a running mate who could play Cary Grant, at the same time ignoring the likes of Barney Frank. Frank is a former university professor and US Congressman since 1981 who is chairman of the influential House Financial Services Committee. He is also an overweight, balding man who speaks with a broad Boston accent. Clearly he is not visual vice-presidential material.



The concentration on image would be funny if it did not have such serious implications. The Beijing Paralympic Games took place during our trip, but most Americans probably never knew. I did not see one television item on the Paralympics, whether on daily news programmes or on the numerous sports channels. I read a local newspaper most days, but only one mention was made in the Sports Results Section of The Oregonian, noting a gold medal had been won by an American.



Let me contrast the treatment of the Paralympics in Sydney in 2000 with Atlanta in 1996. I was in Sydney for the Olympics. Although my schedule did not allow me to wait there another three weeks for the start of the Paralympics, there was no difficulty finding out about the forthcoming event. As I travelled around Australia , every night on television news there were reports of torch ceremonies and items on competitors and their families. The splendid opening and closing ceremonies were shown in full on network television, and coverage of the Games themselves was extensive. Australia celebrated the triumph of achievement over physical handicap.



In Atlanta , the Paralympics were treated as an embarrassment. Facilities, such as wheelchair ramps, were not available. The Olympic Village itself was reduced in size as units were occupied by locals. Most insulting of all, the flags of competing nations, clearly visible during the “proper” Olympics, were removed and only replaced after vigorous protest. The treatment of Paralympians in Atlanta was so bad that the International Olympic Committee, which awards the Games, tightened its rules considerably for both Athens and London . In Sydney , such action was unnecessary.



In a country where evangelism is important to many people, why do the American media turn their back on persons who are physically handicapped when they compete in athletic endeavour? Is there still a belief that God’s wrath is visited on their people in the form of disability? Surely, the disabled athletes should be feted and celebrated, but either the media is leading the censorship of achievement or is led by the perception that American viewers, listeners and readers do not want such reporting. I cannot tell which is the true reason for neglect, but either way, I feel the need to reply to America : Shame on you. ---------------------- September 18

How Effective is the Palin Effect?

John Matlin, University of Birmingham American presidential politics is nothing if not gladiatorial. It is even Darwinian in terms of survival of the fittest in a two-year battle for victory. It is also often predictable: when “the latest thing” arrives on the scene, the American media feasts upon it, first like epicures but eventually like vultures. On the West Coast, where I have been the last fortnight, the Republican nominee for Vice President, Sarah Palin, has dominated the political news media at the expense of all other candidates. The question is: will that dominance push John McCain to victory or finally doom his campaign? By her admission, Palin is a pit bull, albeit with lipstick. Swept up by her aggression, the Republican base warmed immediately to this gun-toting, pro-life Hockey Mom. From the “get go”, as they say over here, she laid out her stall as a Republican through and through, someone who the party could trust to preserve the values of Reagan and George W. Bush and who would lambast the Democratic opponents. Unlike her new boss, she had no history of flip-flops over important Republican base issues, such as creationism. Furthermore, she had the important attribute of “experience” of life outside the beltway. It is emerging that “experience”, in Palin’s case, means a short-lived career as a presenter of television programmes town councilor in Wasilla , Alaska , before election as mayor and then state governor. Yet, with the presentation of this record, it is as if George Orwell has been writing the script of 1984 in 2008. According to Republican commentators, Palin has life experience while all Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee for Vice President, knows is how to legislate; so much for 38 years as a Congressman and chair of influential Senate committees, such as Judiciary and Foreign Relations. Furthermore, the Republicans considered it appropriate to “manage” Palin’s press interviews until the media have learned to treat her with “respect and deference”. Palin good, First Amendment rights bad. Hopefully, the attempts of McCain’s campaign manager to manage the rules of the televised Vice Presidential debate will not end in apoplexy Satirists are beginning to have a field day at the Republicans’ expense. When challenged about his affluent lifestyle and, in particular, the several houses at his disposal courtesy of his wealthy wife, McCain resorted to the non sequitur that he spent five years in Vietnam as a prisoner of war. Palin’s recent interview on the ABC television network produced huge guffaws when she was unable to recite the Bush Doctrine. “Never mind”, said Jon Stewart, “nor can Bush Is the Palin Effect starting to wear off? The trouble about being “the latest thing” in a faddist society is that fads fade quickly. There are seven weeks to go until the election and soon the Democrats will focus their attack, in general on the fitness of Republicans to run a failing financial sector and the US economy, in particular on the fitness of a forty-something inexperienced Alaskan to take on the leadership of the country, should John McCain die or leave office. Common sense dictates that Democrats will win in November but when did common sense ever determine the results of an election? Perhaps the saddest indictment of the electoral system was voiced to me by a Coast Guard veteran, who said that he ought to vote Republican because of that party’s support of the services and McCain’s war record but that his head told him Obama was the right person to lead. However, he added, it makes little difference because if the Republicans are within ten percent of victory on election-day, they will steal the votes they need. This was not just his opinion, he told me, but the concerns of many with whom he served. I can only cling to the hope that, on Election Day, he will be proved wrong. ---------------------- September 2

Scrambling for Energy:

The Important Story Hidden by the "New" Cold War

Atticus Finch, University of Birmingham Well, it’s been another few days of what my daddy calls fussin’ and faffin’ over the Russian-Georgian conflict. The headline gathering was the emergency summit of the European Union. Predictably, given the domestic politics and the realities of the situation vis-à-vis Moscow , a couple of leaders (Brown of Britain, Sarkozy of France) were allowed to blow hot smoke. Then the EU put out a rather cautious warning of “strategic realignment” if Russia didn’t change its behaviour, supported by token suspensions of talks on trade and energy co-operation. Equally predictably, most in the British and American press blew even hotter smoke about “weak-willed”, “lily-livered” Europe . (The unexciting reality --- unexciting because it doesn’t live up to the billing of New Cold War --- is that Europe and Russia, with the US Government watching on the side, are manoeuvring for an agreement in which international forces will go into the buffer zone between Russia and Georgia. Where exactly that buffer zone starts and ends and who will be in the international force, rather than the posturing over NATO alignments and missile defence, will be the key questions in weeks ahead.) Meanwhile, a more intriguing struggle is unfolding. For those preferring the good v. evil storyline, the Russians are involved but so are a lot of other folks: 1). The Financial Times reports from Turkey that a section of the BTC pipeline was damaged by an explosion the day before the Russian-Georgian conflict erupted over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Kurdish separatists claim responsibility for the explosion, which temporarily bottlenecked and then stopped the flow of both oil and natural gas.



2) The east-west railroad tracks of Georgia were put out of action with the demolition of a railroad bridge near Gori after Russian troops came through the tunnel connecting Ossetia to Georgia . Simultaneously the Russian Navy blockaded the approaches to the port town of Poti and then landed assault troops to secure the oil terminal.



3) British Petroleum shut down their Azeri operations (primarily natural gas) at Supsa. Their spokesman acknowledged that the Russians impeded their operations and that the Kurds had physically damaged their transshipments by bombing the BTC pipeline. While the BTC is again open, BP has not reopened its Supsa operations. Basically Russia has scared the Caspian republics out of transiting their oil and natural gas through the Caucasus . 4) Kazakhstan, which had been developing the Tengiz crude oil export terminal that they own and operate at the Georgian port of Batumi , isn ow indicating that it would "prefer to export its oil through Russian pipelines crossing Russia's territory". 5) Chinese National Petroleum Corporation, Asia's largest oil concern, inked a twenty-year deal with Iraq , estimated to be worth $1.5 to $3 billion, to develop production of 150 to 200 million barrels per day. This is the first major deal to be struck with the Iraqi National Oil Company since 1972, the year before American oil companies were thrown out of Iraq . Meanwhile, any planned future deals involving US companies like Chevron, EXXON/Mobil, CONOCO/Phillips will not be acted upon (as their spokesmen have made abundantly clear) until Iraq has been “stabilized”.



So, all fussin’ and faffin’ aside, Russian activity in Georgia signals a significant power shift in the control of the Caspian energy base under Moscow ’s aegis. Whether the Bush Administration fully understands this, given its focus on the “hard power” of military forces and strategic alignments, is unclear. Meanwhile, who benefits? Russia , Kurdistan , Iran, and Uzbekistan . Who has suffered a setback? Georgia , the US , and the Caspian Republics ---------------------- August 21

An Old Ethnic War and a 'New' Russia

Chris Emery, University of Birmingham The Western media’s approach to the current conflict between Georgia and Russia has emphasised the immediate diplomatic context: Georgia ’s NATO application, declining relations between Washington and Moscow , Vladimir Putin’s dominant political influence in Moscow , the BTC pipeline, the ramifications for Iranian nuclear negotiations, and US missile defence. Beyond all this, however, is a continuation of an inter-ethnic and inter-national civil war in Georgia which Russia , and specifically Putin, has appropriated for a wider strategic agenda. If the broad ethnic and national lines of the conflict inside Georgia are relatively unchanged, Russia’s participation in it shows just how far it has come since Tbilisi’s’ last major effort to pacify its two most troublesome regions. Back in 1992 and 1993, Moscow was economically in the pocket of the West, but it was barely reconciled to the collapse of its South Caucasus Empire and, for a short period in October 1993, on the very brink of civil war. At that time, it was the West’s (and particularly Bill Clinton’s) resolute support for Russian leader Boris Yeltsin that helped Yeltsin prevail, as Washington refrained from criticism of the harsh repression and level of violence that he adopted. Now, however, events point to a strong Russia , economically, politically and militarily confident, that can defy American wishes. Certainly the Russian people seem to be unified behind the political colossus that is Putin and, for the most part, are keenly supportive of his actions in Georgia . It was a Bolshevik army that ended Georgia ’s short-lived independence in 1921. Abkhazia was established as a Soviet republic, with Russians and Georgians encouraged to move into the region and Georgian promoted as the official language. A year after the Soviet Georgian government was formed, Moscow created the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast. Again Georgian was enforced as the official language, though Ossetian culture was respected and its language (part of the Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family) was taught in schools. Whereas Moscow once chose to rule the Ossetians and Abkhazia through Tbilisi , Putin’s differing ambitions in Abkhazian and South Ossetia reflect the wider ethnic and national demographic context of the two separatist regions. In 1926, just 6.7% of those living in Abkhazia indentified themselves as ethnically Russian. By 1959 that figure had risen to 21.4%, due largely to Moscow ’s encouragement of Russian settlers. Still, this does not necessarily translate into an Abkhazian embrace of membership of the Russian federation . Abkhazians are grateful to receive Russian arms and political support and Moscow is glad to give it, but this is only part of Putin’s wider strategy, one in which the Ossetians are key. In South Ossetia, barely more than 2% have ever identified themselves as ethnic Russians, but paradoxically there is a greater “national” sentiment in South Ossetia which can be manipulated by Putin. Of the estimated 700,000 ethnic Ossetians, only 36,000 reside in South Ossetia with well over 500,000 living in the Russian Federation , mainly in Northern Ossetia, a part of the Russian Federation that absorbed some 70,000 South Ossetian refugees around 1990. The media talk about the Ossetian Diaspora forging strong relations with Russia , but they rarely refer to their common cause: fighting Chechen and Ingush Muslims. Between 1989 and 1992 Ossetian militia battled Ingush fighters in a conflict which saw allegations of Ossetian ethnic cleansing in the Prigorodny District. The Russian state, whose strong anti-Ingush feeling can be traced to allegations of Nazi collaboration during World War II, intervened in a barely disguised act of support for the Ossetians. At best the Russian stance can be described as strongly pro-Ossetian, at worst, one may claim that Russian state forces actively allied with and even led Ossetian fighters in acts of ethnic cleansing. It is not surprising, therefore, that many South Ossetians seek to rejoin their kin in North Ossetia under the protection of the Russian Federation . The sentiment is manifest in the holding of Russian passports by 70% of the population. Indeed, it was that demonstration of affinity that helped Putin justify Russia ’s intervention. The net result of this action is uncertain. A referendum in South Ossetia to join the Russian federations is certainly a possibility and would represent a huge strategic coup for Moscow . Tbilisi will do all it can to avoid this, but it is doubtful that ethnic Georgians will ever live in a Georgian South Ossetia. At the moment they are not even permitted to return to their homes whilst their Ossetian neighbours begin the painful task of rebuilding. In Abkhazia, absorption into the Russian state is far less likely, but independence and informal alliance with Moscow are possibilities. The best Georgia can probably hope for is a much looser confederation, but Tbilisi ’s offer of extensive autonomy has for some time fallen on deaf ears. One new, key reality is certain: Georgian troops are unlikely to enter South Ossetia again. The West essentially has two choices with Moscow . Engagement, the more constructive path, would require at least partial recognition of Russia ’s perspective. For Moscow , the West has armed a Georgian state that killed upwards of 2000 Russian citizens in its bombing campaigns. If the West wants to portray this conflict as a vehicle for a resurgent neo-imperial Russian nationalism, it must also acknowledge the maverick opportunism of Georgian President Saakashvili and the highly charged nationalist twang of his rhetoric. NATO enlargement will remain a key sticking point, with Moscow ’s perception that it is as an inherently anti-Russian Cold War anachronism unlikely to change. The revisionist school within Cold War studies, spawned by William Appleman Williams, once urged the West to rethink its attitude to Russian foreign policy, taking into account the trauma of its wartime experiences and asking what role the West played in Moscow ’s sense of vulnerability. Fifty years later, is the demonising of Moscow , or the narrow labeling or its foreign policy as intrinsically nationalist and aggressive, another temptation for which a future generation of scholars will chide us? But perhaps Western Europe can play a critical role in defusing the confrontation. EU peacekeepers seem the most suited to maintain the fragile peace that exists; the Georgians never considered the previous Russian ‘peacekeepers’ as acceptable and the prospect of American peacekeepers is a non-starter with Moscow. The EU could find both sides asking it to play a constructive role And there may be a more unexpected buffer. On the face of it, the recent conflict in Georgia was not an ‘energy war’. It was not even a war that had a significant impact on the energy market. Several hundred miles away, however, lay Iran . Those inclined to Machiavellian interpretation might argue that Russia has no interest in Iran ’s international rehabilitation, as this would purely introduce a strong competitor on the gas market. As such, perhaps the main insulation for Georgia (and Ukraine ) from the Russian ‘gas weapon’ would be the opening up of the Iranian market. How this will affect Russia ’s attitude to Iran in the UN Security Council is unclear. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that the Russians will seek to repair their damaged international reputation, and it is not far-fetched to look at ongoing negotiations with Iran as an ideal situation for Moscow to appear constructive in the eyes of the world. In every crisis there may be an opportunity, even if it is difficult to see how any of them will benefit President Saakashvili. ---------------------- August 18

Freedom and Terror: The Strange Case of Aafia Siddiqui

Karina Bracken Two weeks ago, it was announced that a Pakistani US-trained neuroscientist, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui, is to go on trial in New York for the assault and attempted murder of a US soldier while in American custody in Afghanistan . Siddiqui was initially held by the US military on suspicion of having links with al’Qaida, and the public account of her alleged actions reads like a How to Guide for any terrorist, with images that would keep an American military general awake at night. According to US authorities, Siddiqui was “grabbing hold of a rifle belonging to one of the soldiers who was trying to arrest her and firing two shots at [the soldiers], while shouting phrases like ‘My blood be directly on your head ’”. None of the US soldiers or FBI agents who were in the room at the time was wounded, but Ms Siddiqui was shot in the arm when one of the soldiers returned fire with a pistol. During the struggle Ms Siddiqui reportedly shouted in English “that she wanted to kill Americans”, which seems to be the requisite behaviour for self-respecting terrorist in American custody --- especially when surrounded by US soldiers and FBI agents. This week US officials further stated that they arrested Siddiqui on 17 July “in possession of recipes for explosives and chemical weapons, as well as details of landmarks in the United States , including in New York ”. (As every trained neuroscientist/terrorist knows, these items must always be kept together.) Siddiqui is accused of having links with suspected high-ranking al’Qaida operatives who are currently detained at Guantánamo Bay . So far, so open-and-shut regarding Siddiqui’s perfidy and guilt. It is, however, an incomplete narrative. What was not reported in the American press were the furious protests that erupted in Pakistan after Siddiqui’s family disputed the American military’s version of events. According to the Siddiquis, Aafia was not arrested last month; rather, she has been held by the US military ever since her disappearance from her home in Karachi five years ago. She went missing along with three of her children, all of whom are yet to be located. (The FBI denies having Siddiqui in their custody during these years; however, the official FBI website shows that they have been actively “searching” for her since 2003. Alongside two photographs and Siddiqui’s details, the agency has clarified, “Although the FBI has no information indicating this individual is connected to specific terrorist activities, the FBI would like to locate and question this individual.”) In an interview with her lawyer in New York , Siddiqui reiterated that she has been held for the last few years (she is now unable to tell how long) and subjected to torture at the hands of her American captors, most likely at Bagram Bay in Afghanistan . Her lawyer, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, told the press that Siddiqui has not yet obtained sufficient medical treatment for her bullet wound. Sharp declined to give details of Siddiqui’s subjection to psychological and physical abuse, but Siddiqui’s sister Fauzia told reporters that Aafia had been “raped repeatedly”. US officials have declined to comment. Ms Sharp suggests that it is the upcoming presidential election that led to the decision to put Dr. Siddiqui on trial through the regular criminal courts rather than sending her to Guantánamo Bay . Ms Sharp further contended that New York was chosen because it was home to the Twin Towers that were destroyed by al’Qaida, so sentiment there would be most prejudicial top Ms Siddiqui. Aafia Siddiqui was the first woman to be sought by the US in connection with al’Qaida. Whatever the merits of that prosecution, her allegations and those of her family raise troubling questions amidst the recent history of “extreme interrogation” by the US military and intelligence service. The claims of Ms Siddiqui’s sister that she has been repeatedly rape in custody is far from the first time that the US military has been charged; one only has to review the treatment of suspected female members of the Vietcong by US soldiers and US sponsored forces. The Siddiqui family’s allegations of rape against the US forces will not be investigated. There will be no call for an enquiry or condemnation from the White House. Because Siddiqui is a terror suspect, she does not deserve the fruits of our Western justice system. Because she is not of Western origin, even though she was a US resident and her disappeared children have American citizenship, the tense American relationship with Pakistan is likely to impede the justice that she, or her family, may seek. ---------------------- August 18

Freedom and Terror: The University of Nottingham Case

Hicham Yezza [This article is reprinted from The Guardian. ---- SL] The UN's committee on human rights has just published a report criticising Britain's anti-terror laws and the resulting curbs on civil liberties. For many commentators the issues raised are mostly a matter of academic abstractions and speculative meanderings. For me, it is anything but. These laws have destroyed my life. On May 14 I was arrested under section 41 of the Terrorism Act - on suspicion of the "instigation, preparation and commission of acts of terrorism": an absurdly nebulous formulation that told me nothing about the sin I had apparently committed. Once in custody, almost 48 hours passed before it was confirmed that the entire operation (involving dozens of officers, police cars, vans, and scientific support agents) was triggered by the presence on my University of Nottingham office computer of an equally absurd document called the "al-Qaida Training Manual", a declassified open-source document that I had never read and had completely forgotten about since it had been sent to me months before. Rizwaan Sabir, a politics student friend of mine (who was also arrested), had downloaded the file from the US justice department website while conducting research on terrorism for his upcoming PhD. An extended version of the same document (which figures on the politics department's official reading list) was also available on Amazon. I edit a political magazine; Rizwaan regularly sent me copies of research materials he was using, and this document was one. Within hours of my incarceration I had lost track of time. I often awoke thinking I had been asleep for days only to discover it wasn't midnight yet. My confidence in the competence (and motives) of the police ebbed away. I found myself shifting my energies from remaining cheerful to remaining sane. In the early hours, I was often startled by the metallic toilet seat, crouched in the corner like some sinister beast. For days on end, I drew cartoons and wrote diary entries in the margins of Mills and Boon novellas. I spent hours reciting things to myself: names of Saul Bellow characters, physics Nobel prize winners, John Coltrane albums, anything to keep the numbness away. I'm constantly coming across efforts being made to give detention without charge the Walt Disney treatment: the crushing weight of solitary confinement is painted as a non-issue; the soul-sapping nothingness of the claustrophobic, cold cell is portrayed as a mild inconvenience. Make no mistake: the feeling that one's fate is in the hands of the very people who are apparently trying to convict you is, without doubt, one of the most devastating horrors a human being can ever be subjected to. It is (to misquote Carl von Clausewitz) the continuation of torture by other means. "Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear," goes the tautological reasoning of the paranoia merchants calling for harsher, ever more draconian "security" measures - as we saw throughout the 42-days debate. They should read Kafka: nothing is more terrifying than being arrested for something you know you haven't done. Indeed, it is the innocent who suffers the most because it is the innocent who is tormented the most. The guilty calculates, triangulates, anticipates. The innocent doesn't know where to start. The answers and the questions are absolute, unbreachable, towering conundrums. I underwent 20 hours of vigorous interrogation while entire days were being completely wasted by the police micro-examining every detail of my life: my political activism, my writings, my work in theatre and dance, my love life, my photography, my cartooning, my magazine subscriptions, my bus tickets. Aspects of my life that would have been seen as commendable in others were suddenly viewed as suspect in my case for no apparent reason other than my religious and ethnic background. I was guilty of being that strangest of creatures: a Muslim who reads; who studied engineering yet writes about Bob Dylan; was a vocal opponent of the Iraq war yet owns all of Christopher Hitchens' writings; admires Terry Eagleton yet defends Martin Amis; interviews Kazuo Ishiguro, listens to Leonard Cohen, goes to Radiohead concerts, all of which became the subject of rather bizarre questioning. This is not all: outside, lives are shattered, jobs are lost, marriages are destroyed, minds are damaged, friends and families are traumatised - often irrevocably so. My parents, whom I wasn't allowed to call, could barely get any sleep throughout the ordeal. Many of my Muslim university friends were, and still are, worried about being targeted themselves. For most of my loved ones, despite my innocence, nothing will ever be the same again. I'm now jobless, facing destitution and threatened with deportation from the country I've called home for nearly half my life. Immense pressure is exerted on law enforcement agencies by their political mandarins to produce "results": pressure to produce a higher number of arrests but also the corollary, more dangerous, impulse to justify them at any cost. Naturally, through a perverted but pervasive circularity in the logic, lack of evidence becomes the very justification for requesting "more time". The government claims that checks and balances will ensure extensions to detention periods are based on verifiable and compelling arguments. I beg to differ: in my case, the judge was simply bullied by streams of technospeak until she had no option but to grant extra time. Fighting terrorism is a serious matter and needs to be tackled in a serious way - not through empty gimmicks sustained by fear-mongering and alarmist rhetoric. The real danger is that we are witnessing a slide from the essential purity of habeas corpus into a Britain where the innocent are detained until proven guilty. · Hicham Yezza, an activist and writer, was released without charge after six days in custody, immediately rearrested on immigration charges and issued with a removal order to Algeria, after which he was held for a further 27 days; he is still awaiting a conclusion to his deportation case ---------------------- July 29

Nottingham and Academic Freedom: An Update Heartfelt thanks to all those who wrote after last week's blog and the subsequent publication of the letter in the Times Higher Education. I was particularly moved by this response from Munab Younis :



" I am a Muslim studying politics here at the University of Nottingham, and you expressed quite accurately the outrageously patronising nature of the university's actions. It is indeed the case that the university thinks it can 'protect me' from my (seemingly genetic) predisposition to becoming the wrong sort of terrorist by threatening to call the police if I attempt to study them.

Meanwhile, I am permitted to study declassified CIA and U.S. military manuals - most of them, horrifically brutal - because, well, they're not 'terrorist materials'.



"The climate of fear and suspicion that has grown on our campus has become quite intolerable and we need people to speak out." ---------------------- July 21

Terrorism's Victory: The Prosecution of Understanding

An Open Letter to the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nottingham

Scott Lucas, University of Birmingham [This letter is prompted by an edict handed down to staff at the University of Nottingham, which in turn follows the questioning and detention of two Nottingham staff and students for possession of research materials related to Al-Qa'eda. Rizwaan Sabir was freed after six days, but Hicham Yezza still faces deportation to Algeria.] "There is no 'right' to access and research terrorist materials. Those who do so run the risk of being investigated and prosecuted on terrorism charges. Equally, there is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges (although they may be held in custody for some time while the matter is investigated). This is the law and applies to all universities." --- Colin Campbell, Vice-Chancellor of Nottingham University (THE, 17 July 2008) Let it be noted: the leaders of a prominent University in Britain has caved in to the Culture of Fear. This is an institution which should be celebrating the contributions of its staff and students to knowledge and analysis, which should be at the forefront of free thinking, discussion, and debate. Instead, its officials sacrifice their scholars to a craven bending of the knee before Government authorities who can no longer distinguish between threat and reflection, before those gatekeepers of “common sense” who show no sensibility to our ability to think without falling prey to extremism, and before --- wherever they may be --- those who have carried out violence these past years not only to kill us but to bully us into giving up those liberties and qualities which should have enabled us to rise above their intimidation. I know --- I should be careful. I have had the highest respect for the academic culture at the University of Nottingham. I have come close to working there, and some of my closest friends and colleagues are proud members of its staff. Only last month, I was privileged, very privileged to attend the retirement celebration of a Nottingham Professor whom I consider to be one of the finest, most gracious minds not only of our generation but of many before and after. I may jeopardise the relationship I have with colleagues at Nottingham if I write like this, not because of their reaction but because --- in line with the very attitude that I am criticising --- others who may put up obstacles. But it is because of the esteem that I have for those colleagues and for their valuing of free thought that I must write. To do otherwise is to raise a white flag. This is not a question of “access and research [to] terrorist materials”. No page or picture frame or moving image is “terrorist” in and of itself. It is how that material is used, let us say, to fan the flames of division and hostility that can lead to acts of violence. The problem was never the type-set pages of Mein Kampf; rather, it was in the use of those pages to justify bigotry, racism, war, genocide. The problem was never Marx’s Das Kapital or Mao’s Little Red Book or Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations or the Koran or the Bible. It was, still is, and always will be the manipulation of those texts to justify the taking of lives. Vice-Chancellor, do you think that --- through your denial of texts to us --- that you make us safer? Do you think that, by denying us our ability to think, consider, criticise that you shelter us from harm? Do you think that you protect us from ourselves, prevent us from becoming extremists? If you do, you are reducing your staff, your students, your administrators, your trustees to no more than children incapable of judgement? You go in one step from being a proud university to a fortress of ignorance. I am proud that, before and after 11 September 2001, I have worked in a British system in which my supervisors, my colleagues, my friends, my students have not only read these documents, essays, and books but have used them to construct responses, critiques, and publications which show that we are not enslaved either to the “terrorist” or to an ill-defined “War on Terror”. I think that each and every one of them deserves your highest praise, not your suspicion Would you like me to name their names, Vice Chancellor? I will do so, but not to subject them to the surveillance and petty prosecutions that accompanied the past “naming of names”. Would you like me to cite their works, their contributions to public debate, their contributions to the vibrancy of not only academic culture but of everyday life? I will do so but not to have them denigrated as your suspects. “There is no 'prohibition' on accessing terrorist materials for the purpose of research. Those who do so are likely to be able to offer a defence to charges.” Thus we are allowed freedom of thought under the caution that we are guilty before being proven innocent. Perhaps you know, Vice Chancellor, of other societies in other times who have also maintained their standard. Perhaps you know where scholars, students, citizens have been advised that they may read their books and then, as those books are burned, explain why they have not committed a crime. Perhaps you know of those not-so-distant times when people have been threatened, arrested, terrorised in the name of protecting them from “terror”. Perhaps you know the instances where those scholars, students, citizens --- if they were able to do so --- fled to countries and communities where they could read, think, speak without fear of detention. Perhaps you know that one of those countries was (and still is) Britain. Perhaps you know that some of those individuals who escaped the restrictions on their rights and freedoms came to British universities. They studied here, worked here, left their mark (as they read Mein Kampf, the works of Stalin, the proclamations of Osama bin Laden) in their scholarships, their supervision of others who would eventually take up academic posts. If you do not know that, Vice Chancellor, maybe I can explain as well as atone for my anger. The professor who opened the door to my career at Birmingham, a scholar who left Nazi Germany as a teenager to work on the grounds of Oxford, admiring the British system that only saved his life but allowed him to build that life as one of our finest historians --- he took up his first chair at Nottingham at the age of 39. He was proud of that. So proud that, on the day I was offered my post here, he set me two challenges. First, he said with a smile, beat 39. Then, he added, always be inquisitive, always realise what you do not know, always put yourself in the position of another (the President, the General, the infantryman, the groundskeeper, and, yes, the “terrorist”). Then, and only then, would I have earned the right to put my thoughts and my work before others. At the age of 37, on one of the greatest days of my life, I was able to give a Professorial lecture at Birmingham. But pondering your words, I realise that my false pride was in meeting my mentor’s first challenge. The real pride should be that, as I quoted both “American fundamentalists” and “Islamic fundamentalists” in that lecture, I was not giving way to either of those groups, laying down my ability to think and judge. I could not be reduced to the “us” following an injunction to avoid scandalous, dangerous texts. And in reading those texts, I did not become part of “them”. This, with respect, is why I write. And why I will defend any of my colleagues who continue to pursue their research at risk of your approbation or the prosecution of any misguided law. And why I hope that one day, you will not feed the Culture of Fear with your proclamations, but challenge it (and the terrorists) in your defense of academic freedom. [I write this in a personal capacity, as my own opinion which is no way should be taken as the opinion of the University of Birmingham.] ---------------------- July 2

After Lisbon, What Next for the Trans-Atlantic?

Colette Mazzucelli, Molloy College Crisis Mode is Not an Option The Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty on June 12, 2008 by a margin of 53.4% to 46.6% of citizens voting prolongs the internal policy debate about external relations in the European Union (EU). Previous treaty revisions, particularly the Single European Act, signed in 1986, and the Treaty on European Union, signed in 1992, introduced reforms that led to substantial policy innovations. Notable among those are the internal market and the Euro. The Lisbon Treaty introduces modifications to the Union’s international profile, including a permanent President of the European Council, a High Representative of the Union in Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, and an EU diplomatic service. Ireland’s negative vote must not provide the excuse for another period of introspection. In the aftermath of failed referenda in France and the Netherlands during 2005, the demise of the European Constitutional Treaty led the Union to turn inward. In the present global environment, a crisis mode only serves to fuel the external perception that the EU is a ‘diminishing asset’ just as more is expected of Europe from its allies, particularly the United States. Sadly, Ireland’s vote reveals that the Union has acted on credit vis-à-vis its allies and other third party actors. Those who expected the Lisbon reforms to be implemented by January 1, 2009 still believe the Treaty will eventually come into force. Others like Czech President Vaclav Klaus have declared that the Lisbon Treaty project ended with the Irish vote and that ratifications cannot continue. Across the Atlantic, Lisbon still matters in what may be identified as the assets-expectations differential. The Union’s leaders have decided not to take any decisions to address the Irish referendum until later this year. Steps are likely to be taken during France’s program for the Trio Presidency, which begins on July 1. France will be followed by the Czech Republic in January and Sweden in July 2009. There are several options on the table to move ahead, which the Trio leadership must consider. These include the prospect of a second Irish referendum, negotiating a new treaty, or accepting a Union in which some member states integrate more fully, and quickly, than others. Realistically, there is neither the desire nor the intention to reopen treaty negotiations. Presently, the Union continues to operate under the rules of the Nice system articulated in the text negotiated under the French Presidency in 2000. The Nice Treaty was initially rejected by the Irish population in a 2001 referendum only to be approved in a second vote by which time the original text had been modified. The Crux of the Differential Despite the failure of the Irish referendum, the EU continues to function well in a whole host of areas related to the internal market and the single European currency. Even in external relations and foreign affairs, the European Commission and the High Representative in the Council, Mr. Javier Solana, continue their work with the member states and third party actors throughout the world. The Lisbon Treaty’s rejection puts on hold a number of fundamental changes to the EU’s system of decision making. These changes add more complexity to the system without necessarily enhancing its legitimacy. The EU has genuine assets to offer, which its allies, particularly the United States, expect will be put on the table in coming months. The EU’s tendency to turn inward corresponds to its own disappointed expectations about the treaty reform process. In external relations, the member states do not require Lisbon to maximize their assets as they move ahead with ad hoc initiatives. The E3 diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran is now complemented by EU sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Defense cooperation among the big Six, which Mr. Sarkozy has already proposed, can advance in the coming months with skillful diplomacy. French defense initiatives raise concerns for the Irish who remain attached to a policy of neutrality. The French Presidency’s focus on the big member states risks alienating other small members as well as those European institutions, Commission and Parliament, which have no competence in defense. Such tensions are likely to spill over into the Lisbon reflections. The political dynamics of failed expectations matter inside the EU. Expectations from Washington, likely to come from the next Democratic or Republican Administration, are intrinsically different. The US expects that European countries will demonstrate leadership identifying compromises in which their individual and collective assets contribute solutions to challenges the respective Unions must face together. The assets-expectations differential speaks directly to the painful reality the United States acknowledges as a legacy of successive Bush 43 Administrations. As other powers rise in relation to America and Europe, neither continent can be successful acting on its own. Merkel’s Leadership: A Lengthy Electoral Campaign In an influential essay, Kori Schake (‘The US elections and Europe: The coming crisis of high expectations,’ Center for European Reform, November 2007) focuses attention on Chancellor Angela Merkel as the leader in transatlantic relations who knows how to “identify problems, take initiatives, craft agreements other countries can support, and then turn to the US for the contribution needed to close or enforce the deal”. In the run up to the November election, the German Chancellor demonstrates the ability and interest to work with the candidate elected as the next American president. It is important to understand that the 2009 German campaign for the Chancellorship has unofficially begun. This is the political reality, which has significant implications for transatlantic and intra-European relations. It is not yet clear which candidate Chancellor Merkel will run against in the September 2009 federal elections. The Left’s rise to the position of the fourth largest party in the Federal Republic speaks to the radicalization of politics amidst popular apprehension concerning a range of issues, including globalization and immigration. The candidate emerging as a likely choice to run against the Chancellor is the present foreign minister in Merkel’s grand coalition, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. By the end of 2008, it should be clear whether Foreign Minister Steinmeier will oppose Chancellor Merkel in federal elections. It is difficult to imagine how in the next year Germany might contribute to a host of transatlantic policy initiatives, ranging from domestic security to out-of-area engagement, for which the United States relies on its support. NATO’s 60th Anniversary Summit: Prospects for US Reengagement Next year marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. In retrospect, November 9, 1989 transformed the postwar environment. The years after September 11, 2001 fundamentally altered America’s perception of its own vulnerability, thereby contributing to the construction of a unique narrative. The structural change two decades ago takes precedence in terms of the impact on US relations with Germany and its European neighbors. The two sides of the Atlantic still grapple with the demise of the Cold War in their search for new ways to engage during the 21st century. One prominent issue at the top of the French Presidency’s Council agenda this fall is defense. This is a dossier where President Sarkozy aims to make genuine progress. After years of policy making outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO’s) integrated military command structure, France is serious about reintegration. Nonetheless, the closing of bases in country may hold the NATO issue hostage. Negotiations must take place to set preconditions and respect specific French caveats to a full reintegration into the military command structure. Only time will tell if President Sarkozy can identify the internal compromises to allow reintegration and mitigate the domestic opposition within the French army and conservative elements in his own political coalition. The price of reintegration may be tensions within the French-German relationship concerning NATO out-of-area engagement. The most pressing issue for the United States with its European allies is to gain their commitments to increase contributions in Afghanistan. The NATO Anniversary Summit in April 2009 poses difficulties of timing, engagement, and, most importantly, agenda. The timing will be early in the new American administration. For Mr. McCain, his initial months in office will likely be devoted to filling the ranks of policy makers after 8 years of Republicans in office. For Mr. Obama, the first 100 days will hardly provide the opportunity to prepare intensively for such an important diplomatic meeting. In the face of challenges in Iraq, Afghanistan / Pakistan, and Iran, the US will likely rely on the EU to address a difficult situation in newly independent Kosovo. The Balkans is the only area within Europe where NATO is still potentially relevant. The challenge to NATO’s legitimacy is addressed to the extent that its members are willing to engage out-of-area to address unconventional threats – the earthquake in Pakistan, the violence in Darfur. These are crises in areas where France is more likely to send an expeditionary force and where Germany, owing to its particular domestic situation, is not. The challenge for the NATO Anniversary Summit is to define an agenda for US re-engagement in the midst of tremendously difficult internal political situations, particularly in the Federal Republic. The early timing requires that the agenda be focused tightly, which necessitates out of the box thinking on both sides of the Atlantic. The key to success is to reengage the United States in a way that brings France and Germany on board despite their diverse internal situations. If France and Germany, as Summit hosts, can agree, the likelihood of the other members identifying their interests in an eventual compromise is greater. On the US side, it is not too early to contemplate possible choices for US Secretary of Defense that could establish a bi-partisan consensus in policy making. One name that has already been suggested is Senator Chuck Hagel, an Eisenhower Republican who has taken issue with his party on a range of issues, particularly Iraq. The stakes at the NATO Anniversary Summit are high. This is why the significant obstacles to success must be addressed, sooner rather than later, by Republicans and Democrats alike. ---------------------- July 1

The Bush Legacy

John Matlin, University of Birmingham Of late, much has been written of the so-called legacy of the 43rd president. “Legacy” is defined as something one bequeaths. It has a lasting quality. The probable legacy of Bush’s foreign policy has been widely discussed, together with some of the problems of his domestic policy, for example the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina Good, substantial evidence of the Bush legacy will be found in the rulings of the Supreme Court. Bush has filled two vacancies on a bench already largely nominated by Republican presidents. Should Mr Obama become the 44th president, he will likely find the Supreme Court not so much a legacy from his predecessor, more a poisoned chalice. Two decisions of the Supreme Court this week indicate the nature of rulings which can be expected from this Supreme Court. First, “the Millionaire’s Amendment”, part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, was struck down. The law sought to impose special rules in races where a candidate financed his or her own campaign. For example, candidates for the House who spent more than $350,000 entitled opponents to receive triple the usual amounts - $6,900 rather than $2,300 – from individual contributors. The intention was to level, to an extent, the money playing field. Justice Alito gave the majority opinion and was supported by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice s Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas. Alito’s rationale for rejecting the law was that asymmetry imposed by the law was unacceptable and dismissed the compensation element intended to combat greater financial resources. For the striking justices, not only is money equated to speech but it is equated to power too. The second Court decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protected the right of an individual to own a gun in all circumstances. How the justices ignored the phrase in the Second Amendment, “linking the right to the maintenance of a “well-regulated militia”, is difficult to understand. Scalia‘s opinion was that the intention of the framers was to prevent elimination of the militia, hence the amendment was not restrictive. Since the amendment actually says the opposite, one has to scratch one’s head at the ability of a lawyer to overturn meaning. This reactionary justice would likely find that nine camels can indeed dance on the head of a pin. Scalia was supported by the other usual suspects, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. One wonders if these justices will become known as the Five Horsemen of the Apocalypse, harking back to FDR’s New Deal court. It is very doubtful that a Democratic president will be tempted to increase the numbers of Supreme Court justices to protect his legislative agenda, no matter how right-wing and provocative the rulings may be. Accordingly, the Bush legacy will endure to the disappointment of those with fond memories of justices like Brandeis and to the rulings of the Warren and Burger courts. ---------------------- June 27

When the US Offends its Allies

Dr Abdullah Al Shayji Recently, there has been public outcry in several of the GCC states after a series of very public snubs by Washington . In a report issued last week, the U.S. State department criticized and blacklisted many of the Gulf nations because of their “weak performance” in tackling Human Trafficking. On the 13th June, the US Treasury Department froze the assets of a Kuwait-based charity organisation, Revival of Islamic Heritage Society while linking it to Al Qaeda. Finally at the end of May the US House of Representatives approved a legislation that would allow the United States to sue the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) under its antitrust laws. Dr. Abdullah Alshayeji, a professor of International Relations at Kuwait University, has kindly given permission to reprint his article, first published in the Gulf News. He asserts in comments to us that his piece expresses: “The GCC states’ unprecedented display of anger at Washington unnecessarily targeting its strategic allies” despite “their invaluable contribution to stability in the region.”

Abdullah Alshayeji, Dr Abdullah Al Shayji is a Professor of International Relations and the Head of the American Studies Unit- Kuwait University. We can sense growing suspicion in the asymmetric relationship between the US and the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states due to America 's divergent view and position on GCC issues, which the member states - collectively and individually - deem as either unfriendly or interfering in their domestic affairs. The GCC states are frustrated at Washington 's lack of gratitude and appreciation for their invaluable contribution to stability and security in the region and for pursuing the path of moderation in the Middle East . As part of the axis of moderation, the GCC plays a major role in Iraq , ensures energy security and generates sovereign wealth. But it was all ignored by the US Congress when the US House of Representatives approved a legislation that would allow the United States to sue the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (Opec) under its antitrust laws. New York Times columnist, Thomas Evan, too joined the fray and wrote an opinion article titled "Sue OPEC". With the unprecedented increase in oil prices which is now hovering around $140 per barrel, only the GCC states can calm the world's fears of rising oil prices. Saudi Arabia took the initiative and increased its daily oil output by 200,000 barrels and also held a conference to address the significant relationship between the oil producing and oil consuming countries. Furthermore, the GCC is a regional power house and this year's accumulative Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is expected to reach nearly $1 trillion, up from $800 billion last year. The major clout that the GCC has is its dominant status of a soft power in terms of oil and gas output. In addition, their collective sovereign wealth makes the GCC states a global world player, compensating for their lack of size and lack of hard power. As the Economist put it, "The Gulf added $215 billion to its stock of foreign assets in 2007, the IIF calculates. This hoard is divided between the region's central banks, its sovereign-wealth funds and its wealthy sovereigns. It added up to $1.8 trillion by the end of last year, by the IIF's estimates, and more like $2.4 trillion, according to Brad Setser of the Council on Foreign Relations and Rachel Ziemba of RGE Monitor." The US State Department's Eighth Annual Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP) or modern day slavery, published in early June was deemed offensive by the GCC states. The US insists that the report is "dedicated to ending human trafficking, a deeply dehumanising form of exploitation. In virtually every country around the world, including the United States , men, women and children are held in domestic servitude, exploited for commercial sex, coerced into work in factories and sweatshops. In some, children are forcibly recruited as soldiers". Mark Lagon, the US State Department's senior adviser on human-trafficking elaborated: "For the last four years, the weak performance of several nations in the Gulf has been the matter of great concern and disappointment." But he added that he was "happy to report that the UAE and Bahrain continued to make significant improvements, notably the UAE. It is a model in the region." The report kept the other four GCC states in the blacklist with threat of sanctions against Kuwait , Oman , Qatar and Saudi Arabia because their governments have taken serious steps to deal with "trafficking in people". Display of anger The GCC countries dismissed the report as "unjustified" and their foreign ministers chastised the US in an unprecedented public display of anger. The statement by the foreign ministers said that they "deeply regret the wrong information on the GCC states contained in a US State Department report for 2008 on human trafficking". In a serious tone, they added, "[This information] aims to practice unjustified pressure for political ends," and asked the US to "revise its unfriendly policy towards GCC countries". The divide between the US and the GCC widened further when the US Treasury Department, not to be outdone by the State Department, froze the assets of a Kuwait-based charity organisation, Revival of Islamic Heritage Society (RIHS). It is one of the most respected charity organisations, managed by the Salafi group. The Salafis, along with their allies, won 10 seats or 20 per cent of the seats in Kuwait 's parliament in the elections held last month. In the new Cabinet, there is also a senior minister belonging to this group. Without providing any material evidence to support its claim, the US has accused the charity organisation of supporting and funding Al Qaida. In his report, the US Treasury Department's Stuart Levey, Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, has alleged "RIHS of using charity and humanitarian assistance as covers to fund terrorist activity and harm innocent civilians, often in poor and impoverished regions". Furthermore, the report accuses the senior leadership of RIHS of being "aware of both legitimate and illegitimate uses of RIHS funds". RIHS offices have also been closed or raided by the governments of Albania , Azerbaijan , Bangladesh , Bosnia-Herzegovina , Cambodia , and Russia over suspicion that the charity is allegedly linked with the funding of terrorism. The decision by the US Treasury Department has raised many eye-brows in Kuwait and has led to official and public outcry. In a show of solidarity and support, the Emir of Kuwait, Shaikh Sabah Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah, met with the leaders of RIHS and praised their charitable works in all parts of the Muslim world. The Cabinet called the US allegations baseless and the parliament and its Speaker accused the US of interfering in Kuwait 's sovereignty. They also reminded the US that it was living in a glass house and should not throw stones at others. In reference to the dismal human rights record of the US , they stated that Washington has no moral authority to lecture other nations because it doesn't practice what it preaches. The strategic partnership between the US , the dominant power, and the GCC, its junior partners, should be based on mutual trust and respect, and nurtured by mutual appreciation and gratitude as both sides need each other. Even though such an unhealthy environment won't affect the strategic relationship between them, it will exacerbate unneeded tension and foster an unhealthy environment that won't benefit either side. June 26

Reading Israeli Intentions on Iran

Ray Close [Ray Close, a former CIA official and perceptive observer of the Middle East, has sent us the following commentary on an interview in Mother Jones with Yossi Melman, correspondent specialising in intelligence matters for the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Both Melman's remarks and Close's commentary are, we think, the shrewdest assessment of the recent Israeli military exercises and the theory that they are a forerunner to an attack on Iran. --- SL] Based on what I have heard from Israeli friends of my own, I would say that Melman's remarks

are a fair description of what the most sensible and balanced Israelis feel, and I think their common sense will prevail. I only wish I had the same confidence in the prudent judgment of some lame ducks I can think of in Washington.



I think the extensive international press coverage of the Israeli exercise indicates that they are probably NOT planning to attack Iran, at least in the immediate future. They seem to have deliberately called attention to their activity, as if disappointed that the world had not been

sufficiently impressed by the display of power and "strategic reach" that they had demonstrated. That supports the theory that it was an effort to send a political message (to their own people as well as to the world) just as much as it was a practical military training exercise. The Israelis place an exceptionally high value on the element of surprise. Every aspect of their military experience over the years since 1948 has taught them that. In this

case, if they were planning to attack Iran, they would have hit first, and boasted about it only afterwards.



What to Make of a Recent Israeli Military Exercise:

Interview with Israeli Intel Correspondent LAURA ROZEN, MOTHER JONES



While many people are concerned about whether the Bush administration plans to carry out a parting shot strike on Iran's nuclear program before it leaves office, most policy experts in and out of government I've interviewed think that is unlikely, for a lot of reasons. But the U.S., of course, is not the only actor to consider.



Today came reports that Israel carried out a large-scale military exercise over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece earlier this month that clearly seemed to have Iran in mind. More than 100 F-16 and F-15 fighter planes and rescue helicopters were involved in the Israeli military exercise, according to Pentagon and other US government officials cited in a report today in the New York Times. "Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the militaryʼs capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iranʼs nuclear program," the paper reported. The exercise was so large, U.S. officials told the paper, it was implied that Israel wanted not only Iran, but the US and other allies, to be aware of it.



I asked Yossi Melman, intelligence correspondent for Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, and co-author of The Nuclear Sphinx of Iran, how to interpret the reported Israeli military exercise (Israeli officials have not commented on it). I also asked him about Israel's timeline for contemplating a possible go-it-alone strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, should diplomacy, international sanctions and other measures be judged to fail.



Mother Jones: How to interpret the exercise? Melman: The Israeli Air Force and all the other agencies are preparing tentative contingency plans. This has been going on for many many months. Israel's air space is limited, so you need to fly over the sea, but to practice you also need land. To do it over Turkey will not be sufficient (1500-1800 km) and politically sensitive. So there is an Israeli Greek security agreement [for this purpose] and that's what they are doing.



Now does it mean an imminent attack? Far from that. I don't see at the moment an Israeli cabinet which has the nerve to take such a decision. But as I wrote in my book and in my newspaper and in various international forums recently, Israel will probably do it as a last resort.



MJ: What is Israel's thinking on timing?



Melman: Of course they will wait. Israel will never do it before having some sort of understanding (tacit or not) with the U.S. administration. If they decide to do it, it will not be before spring - mid 2009 most probably, end of 2009, unless they realize something dramatic is boiling up in Iran. I think they will wait also for Iran's presidential elections to see if [Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] is reelected. (Those Iranian presidential elections are May or June 2009).



MJ: Do you think there is a possibility that increased diplomacy and international sanctions could succeed? I was at a forum today where both speakers - including Patrick Clawson - who you've interviewed - expressed some degree of mild optimism that reinvigorated multilateral diplomacy might succeed to persuade Iran to some sort of agreement on its nuclear program. And that it would be far preferable to the military option. Former Israeli intelligence chief Efraim Halevy has also expressed the belief that negotiations with Iran could succeed. What are your thoughts about this? And indeed, about the highly politicized question in the U.S. presidential race about whether Washington should pursue direct diplomacy with Iran? (before contemplating such "last resort" options)?



Melman: I favor direct talks between the U.S. and Iran. But I am very pessimistic about the success of any talks or diplomacy. As long as China and Russia are not part of the loop no diplomatic pressure would succeed. Yet there is a need to exhaust the diplomatic path, if only to show domestic audiences that the West is not trigger happy or a war monger. ---------------------- June 26

Iran's Nuclear Programme and the Latest "Western" Proposal

Mohammad Rezaie, University of Birmingham Javier Solana, the chief European negotiator, was in Tehran last weekend and discussed the file on Iran’s nuclear programmes. Accompanied by the directors of the foreign ministries of all the “5+1” countries except the United States, Solana delivered a long-awaited package of proposals to the Iranian Foreign Minister and held talks with Saeed Jalili, the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator.



Solana’s package was delivered to Iran as President Bush was touring Europe. Even ahead of Solana’s trip, Bush was using strong language to warn Iran about the consequences of rejecting the offer. He said that “all options are on the table”, implying the readiness of the United States to use force if necessary, and he lobbied hard to win the support of US allies in Europe for another round of sanctions at the UN or, if resisted by China and Russia, by the EU countries with the United States. On Saturday, when the speaker of the Iranian government repeated Tehran’s position rejecting any suspension of uranium enrichment, Bush wasted no time in criticising Iran for dismissing out of hand what he called a generous offer. This immediate reaction was interpreted by some analysts as an attempt to show that the offer was effectively dead on arrival, although Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice tried to soften the US position by saying that the US would await the formal reaction. She repeated Bush’s words that all options were on the table but tried to allay concerns that the US was inching towards military option by stating that American energies were focused on diplomacy.



The Iranian Government has now said that it will give its response after thorough examination of the offer, emphasizing that these answers would depend upon how its own proposals are treated. In another sign that Iran will give due consideration to the 5+1 offer, Speaker of the Parliament and former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani said that the parliament will study the package “with alertness”.



The content of the 5+1 package is similar to the package delivered to Iran in 2006. Even some Western journalists and diplomats have said the package is merely an enhanced or refreshed version of 2006 package. The suspension of enrichment as a precondition for the official start of the negotiation with 5+1 countries; at the same, the package recognizes Iran’s rights in accordance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and offers technological and economic incentives to Iran, including the construction of light water reactors.



If the new offer is, more or less similar to the 2006 offer, why did its drafters did not take into consideration the advancement by Iran in its peaceful nuclear activities during the last two years? Why do they insist on inclusion of a precondition in their offer when they know how sensitive this issue is in Iran? It seems that the 5+1 countries are only interested in portraying a positive image of a new initiative while in reality failing to put forward any constructive ideas. Furthermore, they also hope that, in the present internal situation of Iran with the Iranian people facing an economic embargo and the fear of future sanctions and even an attack, the Iranian Government would be pressured into accepting the package. The carrot and stick policy is not going to work with Iran; rather it will worsen the situation. The talk of military strike against Iran, raised again before and during Solana’s visit, has complicated the situation, making it harder for the EU President to present his case genuinely and succeed. The smoke coming out of Western chimneys also incidates that embargoes are moving to a different level, with the sanctions and freezing of the assets in Europe of the largest Iranian bank, Bank Melli, and the listing of certain individuals and companies who must not enter Europe. What makes these steps even more counter-productive is that they have been taken while Iran is still investigating the Solana offer. In such a context, the 5+1 countries are jeopardizing diplomacy with Iran, who perceives that negotiations are superficial when compared with other economic and diplomatic action. Pressures from outside will unite most Iranians regardless of their political affiliations, only hardening the position of the Government. If the 5+1 countries genuinely want to achieve a settlement, they would be wise to work for a genuine resolution on the issue of atomic energy. The key is to find common elements in the Solana package and the Iranian proposal, working with pragmatists such as Ali Larijani, once the key negotiator and now the Head of the Iranian Parliament.. ---------------------- June 25

That US Prsidential Election (So Far)

Reg Whitaker, York University (Toronto)/University of Victoria The American presidential contest has gripped the world. Even in the convulsive last stages of the Bush catastrophe, even as America’s image abroad falters, and its influence wanes, the American political system has somehow asserted the kind of magnetic mass attraction that once characterized Hollywood and American television: Hillary Clinton rising phoenix-like from the humiliation of Monica Lewinsky to become the first woman at the door of the White House; Barack Obama as some kind of unlikely fiction thought up by a screenwriter on hallucinogens (“a black guy whose middle name is Hussein comes out of nowhere and sweeps the nation…”); McCain a war hero captured and tortured by the Communists who comes riding out of the West to clean up Washington. What a show! Apart from the show, which is indeed entertaining, and digging a little deeper, this is really a good news, bad news story. We can get the good news out of the way quickly enough, as it has already been widely trumpeted. The Democratic contest pitted candidates representing two hugely significant groups in American life hitherto excluded from the highest office: African-Americans and women. More than 140 years after the Civil War and the end of slavery, an African-American stands a very good chance of attaining the presidency. In the course of the Obama/Clinton contest, a huge number of new voters, especially among young Americans who had been abandoning the political realm for years now, flocked to the polls with apparent high enthusiasm. This seems surely to indicate a rejuvenation of American democracy at the very moment that Washington under Bush has sunk to new lows in arrogance, reckless incompetence, and ethical squalor. One bad news reflection on Obama’s victory can be dismissed. The bitter claims of some feminist supporters of Clinton that male chauvinism and hatred of women had brought down their candidate, while understandable at an emotional level, do not stand up to analysis. Much has been made, quite rightly, of the appalling male chauvinist attitudes on display in the media. But the Hillary-the-Nutcracker snickers were all coming, without exception, from the usual suspects on the Right (of whom, to be sure, there are no end on radio and television). None of these people, however, are Democrats. Within the Democratic party, there was little evidence that sexism was at play in the vote. Quite the contrary: although Hillary called in all the feminist themes when she finally was forced to endorse Obama, she had played fast and loose with gender throughout her campaign. Her insistent self-identification as a military hawk had led to her support for Bush’s Iraq fiasco – a major reason for her failure to capture the large antiwar constituency in the Democratic party – and to her ‘ready, aye ready’ for a replay fiasco over Iran (she would “totally obliterate” the country if Ahmadinejad attacked Israel). This was classic overcompensation for the perception that a woman might be considered weak on national security, but it played directly into the hands of Obama who had opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. The irony was that Obama much better represents the supposed feminine style of leadership (consensual, collaborative, and compromising) than the relentless Alpha Dog battler Hillary - a point not lost on the Right, already readying an attack on Obama as an effeminate girly-man. Midway through the campaign, Hillary began putting on a new face: a pistol-packin’, deer-huntin’, beer and whiskey chuggin’, NASCAR drivin’, God-fearin’, good ole girl with balls. Bizarre as this might seem for an ostensible feminist, it worked with the white working class male voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and other rustbelt areas – the old Reagan Democrats – who flocked to her side. So much for a male backlash! In retrospect, it turns out that Hillary only took a slim majority of all female votes. Older white women overwhelmingly endorsed her, while younger women went preponderantly for Obama. Among those between 35 and 65, only a small margin was registered for Hillary. Almost all of Hillary’s supporters will eventually rally to Obama in a contest with McCain who wants to make abortion illegal again and represents all the old militarist and aggressive foreign policy stands and hard-eyed right-wing social policies that women tend to distrust. Already one poll has shown a staggering 19% gender gap in Obama’s favour among women. So much for the good news. There is also much about this campaign that is less bright and encouraging, and this is worth discussion since it has had so little play. First, the appalling length of the campaign. It sometimes seems as if it will never end. What began sixteen months ago finally ground to one short-term resolution on June 3, when Obama squeezed out the final few delegate pledges needed to put him irretrievably over the top and assured of nomination. Of course, this was only the end of the beginning: another half year will wear on through the presidential election proper, with Obama-McCain debates replacing Obama-Clinton debates as semi-weekly television fixtures (McCain wants weekly ‘town-halls’ throughout the summer); interminable panels of talking heads doomed to repeating the same things over and over; bloggers talking at and past other bloggers in self-referencing internet loops; non-stop funding appeals that compete shrilly with the evangelicals and the 1-800 ‘call now!’ con-artists; continuous rounds of candidates shaking hands, posing for photo-ops, tossing out the same banal campaign McNuggets stop after stop to audiences that must seem finally interchangeable, indistinguishable, to the numbed protagonists. In late November, one candidate will pass the finish line (barring another Florida hanging-chad debacle) and then be thrown into a furious two months of appointments and patronage dispensing as the new White House is organized, followed by the inauguration in January 2009. The next morning, the new President will finally begin Day One of his four-year term. He might be forgiven at this point, especially if he turns out to be the 72 year old McCain, to wonder at the wisdom of a system that puts potential presidents through a nomination and election process as grueling, or more grueling, and at least half as long, as the job itself. A serious question is what effect this marathon 24/7 campaigning has on the human beings who are the presidents-in-waiting? Is this the training ground any rational person would devise for the job of running the most powerful nation on earth, with a finger on the nuclear trigger awaiting Hillary Clinton’s famous 3 a.m. call on the red phone in the White Hose bedroom? Or is it instead the kind of discipline designed to break a wild horse or lobotomize an otherwise autonomous individual? One is reminded of Henry Adams’ 1880 novel Democracy, in which his protagonist, Mrs. Lee, is shocked to see at the White House “two seemingly mechanical figures, which might be wood or wax, for any sign they showed of life…the President and his wife… stiff and awkward by the door, their faces stripped of every sign of intelligence, while the right hands of both extended themselves to the column of visitors with the mechanical action of toy dolls.” Mrs. Lee is struck by the fact that “in all that crowd there was no one besides herself who felt the mockery of this exhibition…They thought it a democratic institution, this droll aping of monarchical forms….To her it had the effect of a nightmare, or of an opium-eater’s vision. She felt a sudden conviction that this was to be the end of American society; its realisation and dream at once. She groaned in spirit.” Adams’ America was a pre-electronic media and pre-internet world. Today everything is speeded up to manic intensity, demanding that candidates be on call and on camera at all times. The media old and new are on permanent war footing, which in this context means not so much coverage of evolving policy as a relentless gaffe watch. The panoptic gaze sweeps into every nook and cranny of the candidates’ existence and of everyone associated with them in any way, however peripheral. An offhanded but ill-chosen word is fed back relentlessly to cow a candidate and ensure that their message is made yet blander and yet paler. Behold how Obama’s word “bitter” with reference to the bypassed working class was whipped into a firestorm of faux populist indignation that may well have cost him crucial votes in the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries, and may still cost him in November. Offensive sermons by pastors in churches that candidates may have attended are circulated relentlessly on YouTube to discredit the hapless church-goers: the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as Obama albatross was matched by a pair of hate-spouting evangelicals attached to McCain. All had to be cast off publicly and denounced. Nobody, it seems, in either camp would dare suggest that the idle ravings of distantly affiliated religious zealots might be considered irrelevant to the worthiness of the candidates themselves. Now that Hillary has been dispatched, politically prurient attention has turned to Obama’s wife, Michelle, who made a single injudicious remark about being proud of her country for the first time. We may confidently expect this one remark to be regurgitated ad nauseum from now to November, with the clear implication that Obama, associated with someone not only female and black, but manifestly un-American, is unfit to be President. The effect of this non-stop surveillance is a process of relentless homogenization. Each candidate has certain niche constituencies they deliberately cultivate, which may have negative sp