New year, new possibilities
Great news from President Bush, who has decided to increase tenfold, to $350 million, the amount of aid his administration will be giving to survivors of the Indian ocean tsunami.
We probably shouldn't let up in our efforts to persuade the Prez to re-order his priorities towards global neighborliness and away from the waging of war (principally); but away the staging of extravagant parties, as well.
But still, it's important to recognize that the guy has now made a dramatic change in his approach. Thank you, President Bush.
So, what other welcome changes of heart and of policy might we expect in the year ahead? Here are some of my dreams:
- ** That the Palestinian elections of January 9 go off well, and that inside both the Israeli and Palestinian communities the desire for a realistic but generous peace starts to mount, unstoppably.
I've been writing a bit recently about the incredible peace movement that existed in Israel in the early 1980s, and then about the Israeli "Four Mothers" peace movement that persuaded the Israeli government to pull its military clear out of Lebanon in May 2000. Where are these Israeli peace movements today? The concessions and momentum can't all come from the Palestinian side.
Let's hope we see a joyful re-emergence of the pro-peace forces from both sides of the line in the months ahead. But realistically, the Israeli peaceniks are much better placed to turn the tide of history and decisionmaking these days than their Palestinian counterparts. History surely calls on them to do so.
** That the Iraqi elections of January 30 go off "sufficiently" peaceably, and "sufficiently" fairly-- with the criteria for fairness there being principally that the Sistanist (UIA) list be declared the winner, rather than Allawi's list-- and then, that the results are not subject to endless, divisive contestation...
All the indicators I've seen point to the probability of a strong UIA victory. But the temptation to the US hawks to somehow steal the election for "their son-of-a-bitch", Allawi, must I imagine be very strong. Plus, the potential for vote stealing-- in a situation where the security conditions on the ground are chaotic, there are no credible domestic or international observers deployed, and the votes of the large numbers of overseas Iraqis will all be flown to Jordan for counting-- will be very high.
So the potential for subsequent contestations of the election's validity will be equally high, too.
Can the Bush administration find a way to swallow its pride and live with a strongly pro-Sistani government in power in Iraq? It won't be easy. Sistani and as far as I know just about everyone in the UIA coalition remain committed to working for a speedy withdrawal of all the US troops. But my dream is that the Bushies find a way to deal with this quite legitimate and justified demand, and comply. (Anyway, the consequences of them failing to find a rapid and decent way out of Iraq are horrible to contemplate.)
** That in the contest of finding a cover for its "redeployment offshore" from Iraq, the Bush administration rediscover the value of having a robust UN system, and rediscover a US role within the UN that is more in line with current international realities.
Back in the days of the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright used to boast about how the US was "the indispensable nation." Now, things look quite a bit different than that. I dream that someone--though I still can't figure out whw-- within the Bush team rediscover something more like the US's true weight within the global community, and change the country's approach to the rest of the world in line with that.
** Okay, and now we're really steamin', I dream that 2005 is the year when policymakers in the US, the EU, and all the world's rich countries will suddenly understand how harmful their current, very protectionist policies in the international markets for staples like basic foodstuffs and cotton have truly been for the billions of people who live in poor nations-- and will move to end those policies.
Oxfam has been producing some great-looking analysis on how the subsidies that rich governments give to "their" farmers-- and here, we're talking mainly about big agro-business getting these subsidies, not the proverbial "family farmer"-- have resulted in the systematic dumping in world markets of commodities at prices that have already wiped out many farmers in poor countries.
Oxfam has a great campaign underway to Make Trade Fair. You can go here to find out more about it. Moreover, they back up the campaign with well-written, clear pieces of policy analysis. Some of the news they put out in 2004 looked modestly optimistic. Like this report on a recent WTO ruling that found that US subsidies to cotton framers, and "expert credits" provided to cotton farmers and producers of other basic commodities, had all violated WTO rules and should be ended.
That report was called, "Dumping: the beginning of the end?" Let's make sure that in the year ahead we do what we can to end such harmful practices, and help to "Make Trade Fair."
And a very Happy New Year to all of you! Thanks for making JWN into something a lot more lively and a lot less lonely than it would have been without y'all.
Dear Helena,
I wish you a peaceful, happy, and healthy 2005.
I am sorry that our thread under "Lebanon's Hizbullah" no longer has a comments box under it. I had thought we were only just getting started. No doubt there will be more opportunities.
Helena's blog, Helena's rules.
We'll continue the conversation at some point.
Hi Jonathan,
Yes, and I've got a strong sense now of being in sombody else's space. My other favourite site, "Iraq - Mirror of the World", has also changed its posting policy recently, putting a chill on the comment threads.
I suppose the logical conclusion is that each one must start his own blog, but I think it's a shame. It's not as if the comment threads stay around forever. They burn themselves out or they scroll off the home page and into oblivion. They don't have to be strangled, they die a natural death soon enough.
Also, what causes blog-owners and moderators to want to strangle the comments is "extreme" points of view, like tyroler's. They forget that "determinatio est negatio" and therefore even if these extreme views are left unopposed (which was not the case here), the opposing view is already implied. That's what I think, anyway.
Yes, it would be a pleasure to pick up our conversation. Let's hope we find an opportunity soon.
"I've been writing a bit recently about the incredible peace movement that existed in Israel in the early 1980s, and then about the Israeli "Four Mothers" peace movement that persuaded the Israeli government to pull its military clear out of Lebanon in May 2000. Where are these Israeli peace movements today? The concessions and momentum can't all come from the Palestinian side."
And the concessions and momentum are not all coming from the Palestinian side. Quite the opposite. It is Israel that is unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza, it is Israel that has released hundreds of prisoners, it is Israel that is pulling back its forces to allow Palestinian elections.
By contrast, Abu Mazen, now that he is running for office, has essentially pulled a 180 and become a classic Arab rejectionist. Gone are the compromises of the Beilin Abu Mazen plan, gone are the calls to end violent resistance. Hopefully this is just campaign rhetoric, but it is not at all encouraging.
I think Helena is misplaced when she calls for an "Israeli peace movement." The peace movement that she envisions, one of hand wringing "it's all our fault" types, lost all credibility with the start of the 2nd intifada. Yossi Beilin is a despised figure in Israel (for various reasons), and even moderate Labor party members are tarred with being soft on terror.
Nevertheless, Israel is withdrawing from Gaza, and Shimon Peres, is coming back to the government, probably to handle all disengagement related matters. Why? Because the Israeli public, far from being the racist extremists that some people like to portray them to be, recognize that they have to get out of the territories and are most likely going to have to do it themselves or at least take the first major steps themselves.
What's needed is not an idealistic peace movement, but a pragmatic citizenry. If there is a need for an ideological shift, it is probably on the Palestinian side, as it is still unclear whether they can accept the concept of a Jewish state next to them. Even there, I don't know if an ideological shift is necessary, as opposed to just a pragmatic recognition that things are better off if they stop sending kids with bombs strapped to their chests to kill as many Israelis as possible, and try to work out a deal that gives them a state, even if it isn't what they claim is their due under international law.