Why the June Primary Helped Arnold

As I re-emerge from my post-mortem, I have been thinking for the past few months about the California June Primary, the low voter turn out and the effects it will have on the November election--which is, by the way, only three months away.

I had the privilege to hear from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson last week in the Capitol and he attributed the low voter turn out to "voter fatigue." He cited the recall election, last year's special elections, a.k.a. the foiled "Year of Reform" initiatives attempted by Governor Schwarzenegger, and the primary as the reasons why California voters had had enough of exercising their civic duty. He may have a point, but of course that wasn't the sole reason why California voters were deterred to vote this past June.

Having helped support the Westly campaign, the negative ads were definitely a detractor. Voters were undoubtedly turned off by the mud-slinging. Having spoken to Westly's Southern California political director last May and discovering from her that 90% of his campaign funds, which if I may remind you Mr. Westly contributed an estimated $30 million from his own personal accounts, were being spent on the media, specifically for the negative ads, I had a feeling from the very beginning I joined the bandwagon, that his campaign was in jeopardy.

I asked her, "What's Steve doing for GOTV?" (For those of you who are campaign novices that's an acronym for "getting out the vote.") She told me that he was doing a bus tour of the state as a last push to get the word out. While I thought that a bus tour was a valiant effort at the time, she failed to really answer my question. In the back of my mind, I was asking myself: Who will be shaking peoples' hands and telling them why Steve would make the better candidate? In fact, my instincts were right all along. The non-direct answer indicated that the campaign didn't have a strategy for GOTV.

With labor's strong support for Phil, I knew that days before the election that the Angelides' camp had mobilized a strong effort for GOTV. The last days leading to the election, I knew we had a slim chance of regaining our lead because our camp did not mobilize such an effort. As I watched the precincts return that evening, I knew we had lost when conservative Orange and San Diego counties chose the more liberal candidate in Angelides. By the morning, it was 48-44 in favor for Phil. Our journey was over.

While I still believe Steve Westly would have made the better Democratic candidate and would have had a more legitimate chance in defeating the incumbent governor, I learned two important lessons from working on the Westly campaign that explained why he was defeated.

1.) Too much money was spent on superfluous consultants who directed him to invest in the media rather than focusing more on GOTV strategies.

2.) More time and energy should have been devoted in Southern California, especially in Orange and San Diego counties. My former graduate professor made it explicitly clear that if a California state-wide candidate fails to win the Los Angeles area, he or she would lose the race. This was true for Westly and Jackie Spier. If these counties swung in favor for Steve Westly, he could have been facing Arnold in November.

So what do I say about the implications of the June debacle on November's election? It favored the current governor. While Westly and Angelides' battled it out, Arnold took a backseat and watched the fight. As the two democratic candidates spent countless millions trying to knock each other out of the race, the governor raised money for his own campaign. The low-voter turn out in June is an indication of how split Califronia Democrats truly are today. At the end of the day in November, mark my words; we will have another four years of the Governator in office.

Technorati Tags:

California Primary

Steve Westly

Phil Angelides

Five very good reasons why to vote for Steve Westly today

1) Westly up by 1 point in newest and final major poll. Last Saturday, the Field Poll released their polling for the democratic gubernatorial primary – the last major poll before the election. The numbers are are 35% Westly, 34% Angelides, and 26% undecided. We are confident with our position going into the last few days. We always knew it would be a close race, but believe Steve Westly’s positive vision for California will win on Tuesday. Here’s some key data straight from the poll findings: “In Westly’s case, more voters (30%) hold a favorable view than an unfavorable view (24%). However, the reverse is true of Angelides, with those holding a negative impression outnumbering those with a positive assessment 34% to 27%."

2) Westly endorsed by Palm Springs Desert Sun and seven African American newspapers. Last Saturday, the Palm Springs Desert Sun released an editorial endorsing Steve Westly for Governor, highlighting his pragmatic approach, his independence, and his ability to work across party lines to solve problems in state government. Steve Westly also recently announced the endorsements of prominent African American newspapers including the San Francisco Bay View, Los Angeles ACC News, Los Angeles Sentinel, Fresno California Advocate, Riverside Black Voice, Pomona Inland Valley News and Pasadena Journal. Westly has been endorsed by many of the state’s leading newspapers, including the San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Daily News, Riverside Press-Enterprise, Fresno Bee, Los Angeles Daily News, Santa Cruz Sentinel, Modesto Bee, Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, Merced Sun-Star, Bakersfield Californian, and Metro Silicon Valley.

3) New Angelides’ “Twins” ad shamelessly distorts the truth. Angelides’ new ad features Steve Westly in pictures with Arnold Schwarzenegger and implies that Steve Westly supported Arnold Schwarzenegger’s cuts to education, healthcare, and aid for the disabled. The implication is a flat out lie. Steve Westly never supported the Governor’s cuts, and Phil Angelides knows it. The pictures come from when Steve Westly and the democratic leadership were working to solve the state’s fiscal crisis shortly after Arnold Schwarzenegger came into office. Steve Westly, along with Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, the AFL-CIO, a majority of democratic legislators, a majority of Californians, and almost every major newspaper in the state supported Propositions 57 and 58 back in 2004. Steve Westly, like most Californians and the Democratic Party leadership, was willing to give Schwarzenegger a chance. Since then, the Governor has cut education funding, prevented 100,000 poor kids from getting health insurance, and pursued a partisan special election attacking nurses, teachers, and firefighters. Steve Westly fought against the Governor’s right wing agenda as hard as anybody. California needs a governor who cares more about solving problems and less about partisanship.

4) Angelides’ “Joseph Cari” ad is misleading and hypocritical. A new Angelides attack ad accuses Steve Westly of raising campaign cash from “a corrupt Chicago businessman” (Joseph Cari) who wanted one of the state’s pension funds to invest in Healthpoint. The ad slams Westly's reputation for honesty and efficiency. Here are the facts: When Westly accepted a $4,000 contribution from Cari, he was a well-known Democratic fundraiser and former finance chair of the Democratic National Committee. The next year Cari pleaded guilty to extortion and Westly gave the money back. The pension fund ended up investing $5 million in Healthpoint, but Westly and the pension fund board never voted on it. Westly applied no pressure to invest in Healthpoint. Westly treated Cari's company no differently from any other investment opportunity and the pension fund's staff made the final decision to invest. Ironically, Angelides himself admits to soliciting funds from Cari on multiple occasions. It’s Phil Angelides, not Steve Westly, who has raised over 47% of his campaign funds from big Sacramento developers. His misleading attacks can’t change that. Read an LA Times article about Angelides’ misleading attack, “Angelides Attack Ad Points Back at Him,” here.

5) Angelides skirts campaign contribution limits. In June 3’s edition of the LA Times reports that Angelides “is using a loophole in the law to tout himself in statewide mailings that promote a preschool initiative on Tuesday’s ballot.” As the LA Times points out, Mr. Angelides’ new strategy is on shaky legal and ethical ground. Steve Westly also supports the universal preschool initiative, but unlike the Treasurer, Controller Westly respects the intent of campaign finance laws. Read the full article from the Times here.

Technorati Tags:

California Primary
Steve Westly
Phil Angelides

Another day, another ad, another Angelides distortion

Phil and his gang are sure getting desperate these final days before June 6. If you weren't already aware, his campaign recently launched another "negative" ad depicting his opponent, Steve Westly to be Governor's Schwarzenegger’s clone. I set the facts straight below.

Phil may not have been the first to mudsling, but it's sure like he'll be the last one to throw a punch, which seems to me an obvious sign of desperation on his part. This election is coming to the wire and I hope that those of you undecideds who continue to read my post will be convinced that this ad is another one of Phil's distortions. The following is an article written by John Wildermuth that appeared yesterday in The San Francisco Chronicle.

“New ad shows Westly as Schwarzenegger clone, Angelides attacks his Democratic rival in black and white”

Los Angeles -- State Treasurer Phil Angelides released a new attack ad Wednesday that painted Controller Steve Westly, his opponent in the Democratic primary for governor, as a clone of Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Westly dismissed the attack as an example of the hyper-partisanship in the state Capitol that stands in the way of solving problems for Californians. Talking with voters this week, Westly has emphasized his ability to work with those in both major parties.

The ad released by the Angelides campaign features black-and-white pictures of Schwarzenegger and Westly standing together and smiling at the camera.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger called him his twin," an announcer intones, "because Steve Westly was his strongest ally even while Schwarzenegger was cutting education, health care and aid for the disabled."

The final picture shows Schwarzenegger and Westly locked in an embrace. "California doesn't need a Schwarzenegger twin," the ad concludes.

Schwarzenegger and Westly worked closely in 2004 to pass Propositions 57 and 58, which were designed to ease California's budget crunch. While Angelides opposed the measures, they were supported by almost every other Democratic leader and legislator.

"The ad is pathetic and intellectually dishonest," complained Nick Velasquez, a spokesman for Westly. "By Mr. Angelides' reasoning, Democrats like Sen. Barbara Boxer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, his own supporters, are twins of Gov. Schwarzenegger because they backed the propositions."

Automatically rejecting ideas from the other party is no way to solve the state's problems, Westly said Wednesday after a visit to a Thousand Oaks (Ventura County) free clinic.

"I've supported Gov. Schwarzenegger when I thought he was right, and I've opposed him when I thought he was wrong," Westly said. "I'm here to fix things. I'm here to find concrete solutions to the problems that face the state.''

Throughout the campaign, Angelides, the two-term treasurer and former state Democratic Party chairman, has been banking on the support of Democrats so angry with Schwarzenegger after last year's special election that they'll reject any suggestion of political compromise with the Republican governor.

At stop after stop, Angelides talks about how he was willing to stand up to the governor "even when his popularity was as high as his box office receipts" and dismisses Westly as someone who wasn't willing to challenge Schwarzenegger until the governor's poll numbers started dropping.
Westly and the governor "have stood together in the past and more importantly they still stand together" on many issues, Cathy Calfo, Angelides' campaign manager, said Wednesday when she screened the new ad for reporters.

The ad is in black and white, she said, "as black and white as the differences between Steve Westly and Phil Angelides."

Westly's campaign strategists have been expecting the attack from Angelides since the start of the campaign. By waiting until the final week before Tuesday's primary election, Angelides' aides hope the link to an unpopular governor can push undecided Democrats away from Westly and close the deal for their candidate.

It could do just the opposite, said Velasquez, Westly's spokesman. "We've seen how ineffective a governor is when he's stridently partisan and that's exactly what Angelides would be," he said.
At campaign stops this week Westly has talked about partisan gridlock in Sacramento and reminded his supporters that legislators of both parties passed milestones such as the state's ban on off-shore oil drilling.

"We need to bring Republicans and Democrats together to craft common sense solutions," he said Tuesday to a small group of supporters at a Paso Robles (San Luis Obispo County) winery. "You've got a choice between someone who's focused on being the anti-Arnold or someone who's focused on fixing the state's problems."

For Angelides, compromising with Schwarzenegger and Republicans in the Legislature is little more than surrendering to their calls to cut services to the state.

While he admits that his plan to raise money for schools by boosting the taxes of corporations and wealthy Californians faces tough sledding from anti-tax Republicans in the Legislature, "you don't run up the white flag before the battle's even fought," he said.

My editorial to the San Francisco Chronicle that sets the facts straight about Angelides' ad...

Dear Editor,

I am writing in response to John Wildermuth’s article, “New ad shows Westly as Schwarzenegger clone, Angelides attacks his Democratic rival in black and white.” I believe it was Lord Palmerston who once said that in politics, “there are no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, just permanent interests.” I know it sounds cliché, but politics is truly the art of compromise.

The only way to get things done and stop the gridlock in Sacramento is if one builds support. This is what Steve Weslty did when he allied himself with the governor in support of Prop 57 in 2004 which called for a $20 billion fiscal recovery plan the state desperately needed at the time to keep our schools and hospitals open. In fact, Steve Westly wasn’t the only Dem who supported the governor that year. Senators Feinstein and Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Fabian Nunez, the AFL-CIO, the CTA and practically every Democrat in the state legislature supported the proposition, except you know who? That’s right, Phil Angelides and GOP State Senator Tom McClintock. So let me get this straight. Which candidate for governor is more aligned with the Democratic Party? According to Phil’s ad, it’s actually Steve Westly. I hope next time Phil gets his facts straight, if there is a next time.

Technorati Tags:

California Primary
Steve Westly
Phil Angelides

Vote for Phil if you want to see four more years of the Governator

Here's an article written by Dan Walter's that appeared in The Sacramento Bee yesterday. While his points make sense, the supposedly provocative question he asks at the end of his article is suppose to make California Democratic voters think. The letter to the editor I sent off to The Bee yesterday explains why the answer to his question is actually quite simple. Read for yourself.

"Many Democrats still undecided as Angelides and Westly joust" by Dan Walters, The Sacramento Bee

Phil Angelides and Steve Westly should be thankful that "none of the above" isn't an option on the June 6 ballot because, without spending a dime, NOTA might be a winner.

As the tortuous -- perhaps torturous -- duel between Angelides, the state treasurer, and Westly, the state controller, for the Democratic nomination for governor enters its final week, it's evident that neither would-be governor is generating much enthusiasm among Democrats, much less among all-important independents.

Two recent statewide polls by the Public Policy Institute of California and the Los Angeles Times show that, as Angelides told a rally at his campaign headquarters Tuesday, "We're in a dead-even contest."

Angelides does appear to have more momentum, having erased the lead that Westly had built during earlier stages. Nevertheless, both polls found that an extraordinary number of Democratic voters, somewhere between a quarter and a third, remained undecided last week, less than a fortnight before the election.

Voter turnout could be the key to which man emerges with the nomination. If it is, as many prognosticators expect, a low-turnout election, pro-Angelides get-out-the-vote drives by unions and Angelides' Democratic Party endorsement could be decisive.

Why such a large number of fence-sitters? PPIC polling director Mark Baldassare said they are "uncertain about the type of leadership they want for the state." And neither Angelides nor Westly is telling them much about how he would govern as both escalate the exchanges of personal invective, each essentially accusing the other of being sleazy.

The dearth of issue-oriented campaigning between the two candidates -- they truly disagree on few issues other than raising taxes -- has spilled over into the news media. The state's major newspapers have been publishing a series of damaging revelations about the two, most of which stem from their activities as private businessmen and/or campaign fundraising. And, predictably, those articles have fueled even more accusations of sleaziness from the opposing campaigns.

And what about Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Republican governor whom Angelides or Westly will face in November? A clue to his attitude is found in a brief bulletin to reporters from his office Monday: "Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will have no planned public events on Tuesday, May 30. He will hold private meetings in Sacramento." In other words, the governor is very content to keep a low profile while his two challengers beat up on each other and, he hopes, alienate the independents, who are roughly a fifth of the electorate and will be decisive in any close November election.

The Times and PPIC polls provide new evidence that Schwarzenegger has rebounded from the abysmal popularity that accompanied his massive defeat on a serious of special election ballot measures last November and while he's not out of the woods, he would stand a good chance of winning a second term. Among likely voters, he's somewhere in the mid-40 percent range -- not at all a bad position.

Schwarzenegger and his new political team have done an image makeover -- no more casual clothes and cheap theatrics, more business suits and events that stress governance rather than confrontation. Polls indicate that while voters like Schwarzenegger personally, they were repelled by his take-no-prisoners rhetoric during his "year of reform" ballot measure drive. The new Schwarzenegger image is statesmanlike and bipartisan, with his deal with the Legislature on infrastructure bonds as the centerpiece.

There's little doubt that when the votes are counted next Tuesday night, Schwarzenegger and his aides will be rooting for Angelides, whom they consider to be more liberal, less attractive to independents and carrying more negative baggage than Westly.

While the PPIC poll shows Schwarzenegger to be running neck-and-neck with either of the Democrats, the Times poll shows Westly faring much better than Angelides against the governor.

The dilemma for undecided Democratic voters may be whether to nominate someone who better represents the liberal heart of the party in Angelides, or someone who may stand a better chance of winning the governorship in Westly.

My rebuttal...

Dear Editor,

I’m writing in response to Dan Walter’s article, “Many Democrats still undecided as Angelides and Westly joust.”

Dan Walters wrote exactly what I have been telling my friends and acquaintances for the past two months. While Angelides may have the loyalty of the Democratic Party, I believe many Democratic voters know in their heart of hearts that when it comes to facing Gov. Schwarzenegger in the general election, Steve Westly would have the better chance to defeat the current governor.

While Mr. Walters framed the question at the end of his article as something that Democrats must mull over, the answer is very apparent to me. If Democrats want another four more years of the Governator, then go ahead and vote for Phil. If Democrats actually want to retake the governor’s seat and craft policy, then I would cast my ballot for Steve Westly.

Technorati Tags:

California Primary
Steve Westly
Phil Angelides

Defending Steve Westly

Since there's approximatelya week left until the June 6 primary, I took it upon myself to become more active in the political debate. While publishing on my blog is great, attempting to get published in a major newspaper is probably a better way to get more exposure.

So below are some letters to the editor that I have drafted and submitted to the Sacramento Bee. Whether The Bee decides to publish it, only time will tell. But if they don't print it, at least I manage to give my two cents here:

I’m writing in response to the article, "2003 bank deal raises questions of possible conflict for Westly." This piece is filled with accusations and shows just how low both the press—and other candidates—are willing to go to dig up some dirt.

It seems to me that, far from having a conflict of interest, Steve Westly did what he needed to do to keep the state afloat. Without these RAWs, California’s credit rating would be in shambles -- not to mention that the state would be bankrupt. As a result of the Controller’s work, our schools and hospitals stayed open.

Frame it the way you want to frame it, but in my eyes, the deal was innovative leadership on Westly’s part. One more thing, let’s move forward and stop with the negativity. Let’s rather focus on the real issues and find out where these candidates stand on education, the environment and health care.

Here's another:

I’m writing in response to Mr. Weintraub’s article "Westly says he’ll apply eBay lessons to government." The title explains why I’m voting for Steve Westly on June 6. His record of transforming eBay from an obscure online company to one of the world’s most commonly used websites shows that he has the experience to lead California into the 21st century.

This vision of innovation is what differentiates Steve Westly from his opponent. He understands that in order to compete in a global world, California must invest in its students.

That’s why I particularly like Westly’s promise to make community college free for all students who commit to finishing a two-year degree or to transferring to a four-year university. If we are to remain the envy of the world economically, it all starts in investing in our students. We need a governor who understands technology and innovation and possesses a vision for the future. Steve Westly has the proven track record. If Steve Westly can do with it eBay, I bet you he can do the same for California.

Technorati Tags:

California Primary
Steve Westly

Why vote for Steve Westly?

I don't want to come off sounding like a campaign ad, but if you live in California and you believe that Arnold Schwarzenegger should have stayed in Hollywood making movies and not crafting policy in Sacramento, then I suggest you look closer at the Democratic gubernatorial candidate I believe will lead California into the future. That candidate is Steve Westly. Yup, the same Steve Westly who is the present State Controller for the state of California and the same Steve Westly who helped found the online conglomerate, eBay.

The facts and his record speak for itself. Steve is not a career politician. The man could be lying on a hammock in Tahiti overlooking a blue ocean like in those posh Corona ads on television not giving a care in the world about politics and Californians. But no! This Steve Westly actually entered the public arena to make a positive difference for the state of California.

How do you know, you might ask? I spent three days with the man on a bus tour down the heartland of California's Central Valley where unfortunately some of California's poorest reside. Why did Steve visit these people? The answer is quite simple, they're Californians too!

There Steve spoke to hardworking immigrant farm workers, shook hands with concerned community leaders and answered tough questions in non pre-scripted town hall meetings. I found his solutions sensible, pragmatic and optimistic all rolled into one. In immigration, Steve believes that undocumented immigrants are entitled to become citizens but also believes that they must pay their back taxes, learn to speak English, and show commitment to a country that they have come to love.

In education, Steve has a different approach from our current governor. Unlike Arnold who wanted to make teachers easier to fire, Steve believes that teachers are the heroes of public education. “They just need more resources and training to become great teachers,” he said. I can attest to that as a former public high school teacher myself. The problem is not with our first year teachers. Last year Californians showed they understood that very point when they voted against the Governor's teacher tenure initiative.

The problem in education lies in the curriculum and Steve understands that a cookie-cutter approach won't cut it. As such, he advocates for more local control in our school districts and understands that teachers should decide what is best for our students and not Sacramento.

Perhaps his most daunting promise is to make California community colleges free to all students who commit to do the following: earn a two-year associates degree, transfer to a four-year college or earn a vocational degree. While other politicians may make promises and move on without ever explaining how to pay for it, Steve actually described how he'll pay the $158 million cost.

Citing his record as State Controller, Steve told his audiences how he held California's largest companies accountable in paying their fair share in taxes. After a kind letter threatening an audit, the State Controller's office received four hundred checks from California companies amounting to $400 million dollars to fill California's coffers. Simply said, that amount could have paid for free community college tuition for California's deserving students three times over. "It's an investment worth making for California's future," Steve reiterated up and down the valley.

What has Arnold done with community college tuition fees? He's doubled it which forced 180,000 of California students to drop out from community colleges.

Why then should you vote for Steve Westly on June 6? He has a proven track record. He took eBay from a company made up of twenty young people sitting on folding lawn chairs in a one room office to one of the world's most successful online businesses employing over 11,000 employees and millions of online buyers and sellers.

We need a governor who understands California's future from a twenty-first century lens. From my experience as a guest on his campaign, I believe Steve Westly possesses the right vision for California and its people. But as Levar Burton would say in Reading Rainbow, don't just take my word for it, research it yourself. Visit www.Westly2006.com.

Technorati Tags:

California Primary

Worst Case Scenario: Pre-emptive attack on Iran makes no sense

This editorial appeared in the Sacramento Bee on Tuesday, April 11th, 2006. It summarized my sentiments about the brewing Iran situation.

Is the United States planning to use military force against Iran in the hope of preventing it from developing a nuclear arsenal? The idea seems absurd on its face, given the price Americans have already paid in Iraq and the likelihood that a new war would only worsen a bad situation in the Middle East.

Yet both the Washington Post and Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker, report that the Bush administration is studying military options. Hersh also says that using tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities is being considered.

There are so many reasons why attacking Iran is premature at best that it's hard to believe the administration would go beyond having a contingency plan for a worst-case scenario. But some analysts believe it would.

It would be reckless to use military force barring evidence of a greater threat than is now apparent. While Iran continues to defy international demands to stop enriching uranium (now President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims they have enriched enough uranium to power a small nuclear reactor), widespread fears that it plans to build nuclear weapons, while well grounded, do not justify pre-emptive war.

President Bush says he still favors diplomacy and calls the media reports "wild speculation." One must hope that's true. Iran is a more formidable adversary than Iraq was. It could unleash terrorist groups in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories; it could cut off oil exports and block the Strait of Hormuz to other Persian Gulf countries' exports, sending already high oil prices soaring; its hard-line regime could use a U.S. attack to stir up nationalist sentiment and crack down on domestic reformist elements; and while bombing Iran's nuclear plants might set back its presumed weapons program, such a strike would be unlikely to end it if Iranian leaders are as determined as U.S. leaders believe them to be.

By attacking, the United States would assume a burden that would be very costly in every sense, provoking political turmoil in an election year. It might also deal a serious blow to relations with America's principal ally, Britain, whose foreign secretary says a military attack against Iran would be "completely nuts."

Some critics say they believe Bush and key aides, despite the setbacks in Iraq and the resurgence of anti-Western forces in Afghanistan, remain in a state of denial. They cite a recent administration National Security Strategy document, for example, that calls Iran the most serious threat to U.S. security. Against that, one must hope that the president, as he says, remains committed to a diplomatic course. Indeed, it's conceivable that the stories were generated by dissident Pentagon and other officials seeking to put the White House on the defensive.

A diplomatic solution to the clash of wills over Iran's nuclear program will not be easy. Russia and China, who have veto power in the United Nations Security Council, strongly oppose both the use of force and tough sanctions against Tehran.

Still, the worst thing the United States could do now is to launch another war of choice that is likely to worsen, not improve, U.S. security and standing in the world. Military contingency plans are a prudent option. But going beyond that in the absence of a clear and present danger would compound mistakes already made, inflame opposition to Bush at home and possibly destroy what's left of the coalition of the willing mustered against Iraq.

Technorati Tags:

Iran

Coming to Public Judgment on Illegal Immigration

At a time when there is public outcry for a serious debate on the issue of illegal immigration, the problem in holding a thoughtful discussion on the issue is that it is so complex, so multi-faceted, can be framed from so many different angles, that it becomes muddled from the very beginning of the conversation. Couple the discussion with a partisan debate and it becomes even murkier.

In Daniel Yankelovich’s landmark book, Coming to Public Judgment, he discusses that democracy can work only if people have wrestled with the issue inside and out. In this immigration debate, the American public has not yet solidified a national consensus needed to cope with this issue. In a sentence: The American public has still yet to achieve public judgment. While I believe that most people understand the context of the issue, most have still yet to fully comprehend the consequences of their opinions. This stems either from not fully knowing the implications of their opinions or from their inability to reconcile their values.

Coming to public judgment is a normative process. Yankelovich defines “public judgment” as

“[P]ublic opinion that exhibits (1) more thoughtfulness, more weighing of alternatives, more genuine engagement with the issue, more taking into account a wide variety of factors than ordinary public opinion as measured in opinion polls and (2) more emphasis on the normative, valuing, ethical side of questions than on the factual, informative side.”

While I admit that I still have yet to come to public judgment, it is evident as I listen to NPR and other radio talk shows that I am not alone: the American public is also presently struggling with this process.

With this definition in mind, solidifying public judgment on the issue of illegal immigration can only be determined by the values one holds and weighing the consequences to these questions:

• Have immigrants who have crossed the border illegally broken the law?
• If they broke the law, what is a fair and just punishment?
• Do their actions warrant deportation?
• Are there alternatives to deportation?
• Are they deserving of the American dream?
• Do they benefit the economy by working in jobs that Americans are not willing to supply?
• Do they hurt the economy and burden the American taxpayer by receiving government assistance?
• Do they pay taxes?
• Are they law-abiding people?

In thinking about these questions, coming to public judgment means reconciling one’s values. One has to mull over and carefully weigh the values of freedom, justice, equal opportunity, compassion, and integrity when considering these questions.

Since there is no formal mechanism to measure public judgment, we hold our elected officials accountable to provide a solution consistent with the nation’s public demand. It is evident that the proposal offered by Senate Judiciary Committee carefully considered the questions above and offered this happy medium. The provision states:

"Under the McCain-Kennedy plan for the 12 million undocumented workers already in the United States, [these immigrants] can apply for temporary status for six years, must demonstrate past work history, pay a 2 thousand dollar fine, undergo rigorous background and security checks, learn English and American civics, make good on back taxes, and satisfy additional criteria. Then if they wait until everyone already waiting their turn is processed through system they can apply for a green card. It is not amnesty, as opponents of the measure contend; rather it would give immigrants an incentive to come forward and an opportunity to earn legal status."

The same process of introspection applies when considering this proposal.

• In your opinion, do you believe that this proposal could be classified as amnesty?
• Is the two-thousand dollar fine and other conditions adequate punishment?
• What are the implications of this proposal?
• Will this encourage or deter illegal immigration?
  

According to Yankelovich, if one understands what is at stake, does not waver in opinion and achieves consistency within an issue, then one can declare that he or she has achieved public judgment. Only when we have reconciled our values and in thinking and re-thinking our perspectives on an issue will we be able actively advance the democratic process, confident that in the end that we will make sound policy.

___________________

Recommended Reading

Daniel Yankelovich, Coming to Public Judgment. New York: Syracuse UniversityPress: New York, 1991.

Technorati Tags:

Immigration

The Proper Way

I am proud to say that I am one of millions of naturalized American citizens today, who not being born in this country have adopted this great country as my own. My father immigrated to this country legally and had to go through the long and extensive process of acquiring a working visa. When he finally arrived, he immediately petitioned my mother and me to join him. After a few months, we were reunited as a family. My parents today, I am proud to say, are also naturalized citizens.

It bothers me to hear when immigrants illegally enter the country. I am of the opinion that it short changes the American dream. Since more than half of undocumented immigrants come from Mexico, it is important to examine their motivations in coming to this country illegally. Most Mexican undocumented immigrants when asked why they came into the United States often justify their actions because they believe they had no other choice. Their responses would oftentimes mention their economic plights--there are no jobs in Mexico, no opportunities--and therefore had to leave because their families were starving. So they cross the border (illegally), hero-like, risking their very lives to enter this country to find better opportunities. But, unlike the Chinese a century ago who would go back to their home country after accumulating some wealth, Mexican undocumented immigrants, without an ocean to deter them, refuse to go back, and instead bring their families illegally into the United States.

The point here is that the root cause of this problem lies not in the United States but with the Mexican government. President Bush understands that this is President Fox’s problem. The Mexican government has failed to provide adequate social and economic opportunities for the Mexican people. It is important to bear in mind that the Mexican people do have a choice: they could go to their families for assistance first, then the church, and as a final resort, their government for help. But they opt out of these options and decide to illegally enter the United States.

My gripe with this matter is the simple fact that there is a right way and wrong way to enter this country. By stepping into this country illegally, undocumented immigrants have already broken the law, and that in my opinion, should not be tolerated by any legal immigrant or naturalized citizen who themselves sacrificed to enter this country the legal, right and proper way.

Technorati Tags:

Immigration

A Sophisticated Enemy

It’s difficult to gauge the mental state of Osama Bin Laden. Is he, as the president claims, actually on the run, or is he in his natural element planning his next attack, waiting for the right time to exploit the vulnerabilities that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has still yet to address?

Two things remain sure. Bin Laden remains defiant as he declares to the world today that he will not be taken alive (as broadcasted by a militant website), and his operatives continue to survey our country’s most susceptible targets.

Prior to 9/11, the intelligence community knew the gravity of the threat al-Qaeda posed to the country but failed to convince Washington policymakers to share the same sentiment. The 9/11 Report informed us that Clinton's Defense Secretary, William Cohen and Joint Chiefs of Staff head General Hugh Shelton took al-Qaeda lightly. When a cruise missile retaliation against al-Qaeda for the embassy bombings in Africa was proposed, both Cohen and Shelton dismissed the proposal believing it was a waste of million-dollar weapons to hit only “jungle gym” equipment, to use Shelton's words.

Since then, policymakers, with the creation of DHS, are finally getting on the same page with intelligence officials. As for the American public, I fear that four and a half years of calm since 9/11 have made us less cognizant of al-Qaeda—their sophistication and capabilities. Below, I outline some misconceptions that I hope will give the reader a better understanding of who our enemies truly are and what they are capable of doing.

Al-Qaeda suicide bombers are uneducated and come from poor economic backgrounds.

Untrue. In fact, most of the suicide bombers that carried out the attacks on 9/11 came from well-to-do families who were then radicalized by extreme Islamic clerics to adopt anti-western sentiments. For example, the head of the Hamburg contingent, Mohammad Atta, who flew American Airlines Flight 11 into the World trade Center, was an Egyptian who grew up in a middle-class family and received a degree in architectural engineering. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, came from a religious family from Kuwait and was educated in the United States.

Al-Qaeda operatives are immigrants.

False. In fact there is a growing trend that al-Qaeda operatives are recruiting more and more U.S. citizens, primarily in prisons where criminals are being exposed to radical Islam. An example is Jose Padilla. A U.S. citizen born in Puerto Rico, Padilla converted to Islam after his last jail sentence and was radicalized by al-Qaeda operatives shortly after his release.

Al-Qaeda is an unsophisticated enemy.

Nothing could be more false. The 9/11 attacks proved that al-Qaeda was sophisticated enough to use technology such as the Internet and cell phones to advance communiqués. We learned that al-Qaeda was thorough in their planning and surveillance, capable of forging passports and other sensitive documents. According to a high ranking DHS official, al-Qaeda uses similar assessments used by DHS to determine how they could exploit potential targets.

In order for ordinary Americans to remain vigilant, it is important to understand who the enemy is, how they think and operate. Today they continue to plan and conduct surveillances in the United States as evidenced by the father and son tandem of Umer and Hamid Hayet (the former is a U.S. citizen) who were arrested by the FBI in Lodi, California accused of conducting terrorist (jihadist) activity. According to a high ranking DHS official, the Hayets are not an exception. In fact, we know that terror cells continue to operate in our country and they know where our vulnerabilities lie. A camera tape DHS recently recovered showed a wide angle shot of the Hollywood sign which then zoomed to a vital communications tower directly behind it. This is evidence enough to show that terrorists know our weaknesses.

Bin Laden makes no secret that he defeated the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan by draining blood and treasure. Today, he attempts to do the same with our country. In the end, it is important that the American people recognize al-Qaeda as a sophisticated and confident enemy that should not be underestimated. I hope this post serves as a reminder that we, as citizens, should continue to remain vigilant; aware of our surroundings and keen to report any suspicious activity. It is in this confidence and trust that we find in each other that will help to keep our country secure.

Technorati Tags:

Al-Qaeda
Osama Bin Laden

A Paradoxical World

At a time when eighty nations compete in the winter Olympic Games in Torino, Italy, as a symbol of global unity, political intrigue, terrorism, and intolerance dominate the world’s headlines.

We live in a paradoxical world, you and me. We say we value liberty, and then use it to mock our enemies (Danish newspapers satirizing the Prophet Mohammad).

We say we love freedom, and then use force to promote it (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

We say we use justice and the rule of law as our standards, and then exercise torture and secrecy (Abu Grahib and CIA “rendition”).

We promote free elections, and then fail to recognize and support the winning, majoritarian party (Hamas).

We say we want to secure peace, and then use war to justify pre-emption (Iraq).

We claim that our military operates by rules of engagement that attempts to prevent harming the innocent, and then we drop smart bombs that kill more innocent people than our enemies (CIA operation to bomb our enemies in Pakistan).

Can we truly say we represent the best of what democracy has to offer?

It is not a surprise to me why al-Qaeda and our other enemies despise us. While we continue to have the audacity to tell our enemies to change, we have lost our credibility by having failed to abide by our own principles and standards. It is time for Washington to step down from its pedestal and re-examine and re-evaluate its actions. This scripture comes to mind:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

Technorati Tags:

Iraq
Values

Holding the Danish Media Accountable

Like many of our freedom-loving, devout Muslim brothers and sisters, I was appalled to hear about the Danish newspapers’ decision to continue to publish degrading cartoons that satirized the Prophet Mohammad and then hide under the protection of “free speech.”

In the West, we have grown accustomed to making fun of people. It is embedded in our cultural mainstream. From political cartoons to late-night comedy shows, one only has to turn on the television to see political figures and famous movie stars being ridiculed left and right. We have become a society of thick-skinned people anesthetized to being mocked.

It is this cultural trait which the East does not fully understand. They are offended when someone or some group ridicules their culture. The Danish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad were not at all funny to them, as evidenced by their outrage.

So where am I going with all this? While our culture has accepted ridicule and satire as a norm, I personally don’t condone it. It’s demeaning, debasing and simply plain wrong. As a Christian, I don’t want Jesus Christ ridiculed, but it has happened. Muslim rioters around the world should understand that they have not been the only victims. How many times have Jews been ridiculed, or Sikhs, or Buddhists? The fact is we’ve all been derided at one time or another.

One of my graduate school professors devotes his life to the pursuit of “the search for reasonableness and human dignity under constitutional law.” The problem with free speech is that it has no mechanism for accountability. The issue here is not about curtailing free speech or even the protection of liberty, as critics like Michelle Malkin would argue. The Danish newspapers continue to publish because they want to attract worldwide readership through this sensationalism. It serves no other basis than to sensationalize and humiliate, brining forth a new type of journalistic jingoism. I mean, how many times have you read Danish newspapers before this issue was brought to light?

The solution lies in holding the media more accountable for their actions. Editors need a standard. The real issue is not about protecting liberty but the ethical use of liberty. I suggest, as my professor would also suggest, that the media consider reasonableness and human dignity as a criterion when deciding what and what not to publish.

At a time when we want to reach out to our Muslim brothers and sisters, to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, to build shared meaning within the Muslim world, these cartoons have only stirred the flames of hatred even more, making a mockery of free speech. We should rather be focusing on promoting the best of what democratic core values has to offer: that of respect and human dignity.

Technorati Tags:

Denmark
Cartoons

A Mid-Morning Rant

I asked my wife what her opinion of the Danish comics was. She sat down and wrote this reply.

"People have been talking left and right about the Danish cartoons of the prophet Mohammad. Some are furious at the Danish for such mockeries; some angry at Muslims for their public demonstrations of outrage. What neither side sees is a lose-lose situation. This country has been caught in a Catch-22 in which we either bow and scrape to the moral debasement of the media or to the economic influence of the East.

This is not the first time a famous character has been made fun of in print. Just hop on Google and you’ll find comics of any famous character, including religious icons. Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, we’ve all had our share in the satire spotlight. Why should Mohammad be any different? The West is a culture of making fun. Otherwise, late-night television would cease to exist and several comics would be out of jobs. We make a living of making fun of others. Modern-day Western society has learned to have a thick skin and take pleasure in being made fun of. This means enough people recognize our names and personalities to make fun of us. So what’s so different about this?

The difference is who’s doing the “insulted” dance. The US is currently walking a very thin line when it comes to relations with the Middle East. Their oil supply is a powerful reason for politicians to smile and talk peace, even while soldiers fight wars in the streets. The East is as intelligent as we are; we just don’t realize it. They are taking this for everything they can. By crying “censorship” and trying to shut down the media machine, they have just broken through what we feel is our greatest privilege and honor – our right to say what we think. It’s a greater blow than any building they could bomb.

On the other hand is that media machine. Why does the media come up with outrageous stories, commercials and shows that scandalize the public? Because people will pay attention to them. It’s a sad but true fact: people find "good" boring. The corrupt, the inept, the insane and the outright stupid get more attention from the paying public than anything else – and the media cashes in on it every day. If you don’t believe me, look at the magazines on the checkout stand or watch primetime TV. Danish media is doing better than ever. Do you think they’re going to stop now that they have world-wide attention? If anything, someone has to think of something new to push the envelope and get attention away from them. The East has been a media darling for years. The Danes simply picked up a new piece of the pie.

So who wins in this nice little stare down? If the East is able to convince the media to censor the comics, what else will be demanded? Will books that slander the prophet be burned? What about songs, art, and the spoken word? Will these be censored too? If so, we have lost everything that free speech stands for. On the other hand, if the media goes untouched, the degradation of the human spirit will be allowed to continue unchecked. The argument of free speech is the same that allows the KKK, Nazis, pornography and all other cancers on the human race to spawn their ideas onto the public mind. Until humanity is willing to cry out with one voice and whole-heartedly refuse and reject such media, it will continue to exist and grow, swollen with money from gossip-greedy consumers."

Technorati Tags:

Denmark
Cartoons

Department of Homeland Security Heeding 9/11 Commission's Recommendations

For those of us who have had the opportunity to read the 9/11 Report, the findings of the Commission were quite startling. Even before September 11th 2001, the FBI and the rest of the intelligence community knew that the chance of an impending, catastrophic attack on U.S. soil was likely.

In fact, a domestic attack had already occurred in 1993 when Ramzi Yousef attempted to unsuccessfully topple the World Trade Center towers with a truck bomb, which injured a thousand Americans, killing six. Next, our humanitarian expedition to Somalia resulted in two black hawk helicopters being shot down by people we now know had links to al Qaeda. Then came August 1998, when our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed killing 224 people. This was followed by the attack on the USS Cole on October 2000 which killed 17 American sailors. These attacks culminated to a crescendo on that fateful day we will never forget on September 11th, 2001.

Those events prompted the creation of the 9/11 Commission to investigate, report, and recommend their findings to the American people to explain in better detail, how and why the attacks happened that day. The purpose of this post is to show how far the Department Homeland Security (DHS) has been able to meet the recommendations as outlined by the 9/11 Commission Report.

The 9/11 Report identified four major areas of concern when it was first published two years ago: (1) the lack of imagination; (2) ineffective policy; (3) limited capabilities and (4) inadequate management by our intelligence community. In short, the Commission illustrated the lack of coordination and information sharing among intelligence agencies, especially between the FBI and CIA. These agencies’ disparate cultures and jurisdictions allowed al Qaeda operatives to slip through the system, giving them the opportunity to plan and execute the attacks. The 9/11 Executive Summary encapsulates the effects of decentralization and lack of coordination best:

“Those working counterterrorism matters did so despite limited intelligence collection and strategic analysis capabilities, a limited capacity to share information both internally and externally, insufficient training, perceived legal barriers to sharing information, and inadequate resources.”

To address the above concerns, the 9/11 Commission outlined the following recommendations to establish a better system to prevent terrorist attacks:

• Target terrorist travel, develop an intelligence and security strategy.
• Design a comprehensive screening system that addresses common problems and sets common standards.
• Determine, with leadership from the president, guidelines for gathering an sharing information in the new security systems that are needed, guidelines that integrate safeguards for privacy and other essential liberties.
• Base federal funding for emergency preparedness solely on risks and vulnerabilities.
• Make homeland security funding contingent on the adoption of an incident command system to strengthen teamwork in a crisis, including a regional approach.

With these recommendations in mind, I had a unique opportunity to recently hear from a high ranking official from DHS speak about the importance of building coordination and cooperation across government agencies and the private sector (For security’s sake, I will keep the official’s name anonymous). From his talk I was able to ascertain whether or not DHS was actually heeding the recommendations set forth by the 9/11 Commission. I discovered that DHS was in fact on track.

This official held the intelligence community’s longstanding culture accountable for the problem of coordination and the ensuing intelligence failures that led up to the attacks on 9/11. Prior to 9/11, the self interests of these agencies drove them to maintain their missions, organizational identities and jurisdictions. As long as these agencies continued to compete for resources and prestige, cooperation and information sharing remained difficult to achieve. So how has DHS been able to improve these management and cultural barriers?

The official recounted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, which followed the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission that brought 22 agencies under the same umbrella, as a monumental achievement. "Never has there been a restructuring of federal agencies this massive since the New Deal," the official said. This new department has centralized the intelligence community by creating a system of networks and incentives that allow for interagency cooperation while maintaining a form of decentralization that allows each agency to continue to do what they do best. For example, cooperation is achieved by the expansion of the National Crime Information Center, more commonly known as NCIC. This computerized database of documented criminal justice information is available to virtually every law enforcement and intelligence agency worldwide, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Decentralization is also maintained as each agency continues to perform their assigned tasks, but critical intelligence is passed to DHS intermediaries where analysts attempt to piece the puzzle together through coordination with other agencies.

Homeland security funding is also on the right track, thanks to Michael Chertoff. Funding is now based on risk assessment of critical infrastructure. The Urban Area Security Initiatives (UASI) homeland security grants are now distributed to metropolitan regions rather than individual cities to force cooperation and coordination across jurisdictional lines. To better address coordination for first responders, DHS is currently in the process of completing a National Asset Database (NADB). According to the official, this database will allow first-responders to develop emergency action plans, brining all the strategies and initiatives into one database allowing first-responders to react more quickly and effectively during terrorist attacks. DHS is also critically examining ways to reduce threats by changing critical infrastructure vulnerabilities based on economic and social consequences of potential targets.

According to this official, we are securing our country more effectively as evidenced by al Qaeda’s shift of attacks from hard to softer targets. From the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, to train stations in Madrid and London on 2/11/04 and 7/7/05 respectively, to hotels in Amman on 11/9/05, Jordan. This is a clear indicator that governments around the world are better securing critical infrastructure, making it difficult for terrorists to assualt high-profile targets.

Clearly, DHS is on the right path as it takes the 9/11 Commission's recommendations and turns them into reality. While we may never know of the successes that DHS has had in preventing terrorist attacks, our only guage of their success lies in the fact there has not been an attack since 9/11. This means that the federal government is doing its job in keeping the country secure. However, this does not mean that we ought to relax our guard; rather it calls for more increased vigilance on our part. While DHS continues to move forward in securing our country, it is imperative that we remain vigilant too; our country's safety depends on it.

Technocrati Tags:

Homeland Security
9/11 Report

The Time to Trust Hamas

While Hamas is considered a terrorist group, it did win a plurality (44%) though not a majority of the popular votes in the recent Palestinian elections. While our policy prohibits us from negotiating, or in this case, funding terrorists, it is becoming more apparent that we must make an exception in the case of Hamas.

The irony in this situation, which has probably got a lot of Washington officials scratching their heads, was that in our quest to support democratic elections, the Palestinian people voted in a party we didn’t approve of, the outcome of which had always been a risk in the democratic process. But now that Hamas has legitimately won authority, Washington and its allies must now proceed carefully in its dealings with Hamas.

In this post, I argue that the United States, Europe, the UN and Russia (the Quartet) should trust Hamas. While the Quartet should still be wary of Hamas’ extremist views which call for the dismantling of Israel, it must look forward to the possibility of building a more stable Palestinian government. Ironically, despite the Quartet’s (and the media’s) concerns over Hamas’ victory, Helen Cobban from the Christian Science Monitor argues that it may have brought us closer to peace.

Before I lay out some recommendations, it’s probably wise to give a brief background to explain why Hamas won and Fateh didn’t.

Fateh and the late Yassir Arafat had their chance to resolve their disputes against Israel under the Oslo Peace Accords and the subsequent “road map” to peace. Regrettably, Arafat’s stubbornness and poor leadership that prevented him to control his party led Fateh to ultimately fail in its goal to establish a free and independent Palestinian state. Furthermore, years of corruption and graft instilled by Arafat have only left the Palestinian people in poorer states and the situation with Israel at a standstill.

While Arafat exhausted all his means to stay in power, the Islamic Resistance Movement or Hamas, on the other hand, became a positive social force for all Palestinians. Hamas’ internal discipline allowed them to build hospitals and provide care for ordinary Palestinians. What Fateh couldn’t provide, stability and welfare, Hamas did. Thus, the election last week was not an aberration. The Palestinians believed it was time to change the status quo. They had had enough of the corruption and nepotism of Fateh, and as a result, they elected a new party who they believe would bring about real change.

As the media reports escalated violence between Fateh and Hamas’ respective supporters, it is incumbent upon the international community to intervene. Now that Hamas has legitimized itself as the majority party, it must be able assert itself in the political process. In order to do this, the Quartet must fund Hamas or face the repercussions of a Palestinian civil war.

Washington, while willing to support the secular Fateh, cannot turn its back on Hamas. The fact that Hamas only won 44% of the popular vote means that the party must cooperate with Fateh and other groups to actually get things done. Encouragingly, Ms. Cobban reports that Hamas’ leaders are in favor to form a national unity government, to work closely with President Mahmoud Abbas, and push for a cease-fire with Israel. Therefore, it would be in Washington’s best interest to fund Hamas, to muster all of its diplomatic resources to encourage all the parties involved (primarily Fateh and Hamas) to stop the violence and to take the battle into the political arena. This would be the first step to build a new, more stable and viable Palestinian government; a strong government that may be the key to move the peace process along.

The following are my recommendations that the Quartet should undertake:

1.) Recognize Hamas. The Quartet must eventually recognize Hamas. To not do so would undermine the election process and the will of the Palestinian people. The fact that Hamas only won 44% of the popular vote should reassure Washington that the party might moderate their views as it is forced to cooperate with other parties, including Fateh.

2.) Continue funding. The Quartet cannot afford to take sides between Fateh and Hamas. It must eventually fund all sides (all parties) that have a stake in building a stable and strong Palestinian government.

3.) Support dialogue between all parties, especially Fateh and Hamas. The Quartet should encourage all sides to end the violence and enter into negotiations in the building of a stable Palestinian government.

4.) Persuade Israel to recognize the new Palestinian government. Israel must also recognize Hamas’ victory. While this may remove Abbas as the key negotiator in the peace process, negotiating with a unified and stable Palestinian government is in Israel’s best interest as it will guarantee security during peace talks.

I encourage readers to read Helen Cobban’s article entitled "Hope for a Mideast resolution could grow with Hamas leadership.” There, Ms. Cobban eloquently describes the context of Hamas’ victory and outlines her own recommendations on international intervention.

While most of the media raises questions about Hamas' victory, I share Ms. Cobban’s optimism that it might actually be a step in the right direction. The key for the international community is once again patience and support.

Technocrati Tags:

Hamas

A Sensible Solution to Solving Iran's Nuclear Program Dilemma

After reading George Perkovish's article entitled, "Stopping the Iranian Bomb – Part II" this morning, I discovered that Iran is actually playing a dangerous game of truth or dare with the international community. The two parties involved in deciding whether Iran should tell the truth or force the dare are, of course, the United States and Europe on one side, and the Russians and Chinese on the other.

Iran's present diplomatic strategy is one of effective belligerence in an attempt to test how far the United States and Europe will go before it takes serious action against Tehran. Thus far, this coalition desires Iran to tell the truth about its nuclear intentions, but at present, is wary of the repercussions of the dare (UN sanctions that would ultimately lead to higher gas prices at home and more instability in the region).

On the other hand, Russia and China also want Iran to tell the truth about its nuclear program, as suggested by Russian President Putin's offer to enrich uranium for Iran in Russian territory, but are afraid of choosing the dare (imposing sanctions) as it would force Moscow and Beijing to sever economic and diplomatic ties with Tehran. This would result in Moscow losing a viable weapons buyer and Beijing out of a much needed energy supplier.

For Iran, keeping the other parties guessing its intentions would be its best strategy. In fact, Tehran doesn't want to tell the truth nor does it want the dare. Tehran understands that telling the truth (or disarming) would only play into the hands of the Americans and Europeans, which means abandoning its quest to produce nuclear technology on its own, while accepting the dare (sanctions) would compel its high level government officials to dismiss IAEA inspectors. This act would signal to the international community that Iran had something to hide all along (its intention to actually use nuclear technology for the development of weapons). Furthermore, Iran knows that expelling the IAEA inspectors would isolate it from its empathizers in Russia and China. This would further legitimize sanctions as Russia and China would ally themselves with Europe and the United States in solidifying the UN Security Council's decision to impose sanctions and force Iran to tell the truth. That scenario would pit Tehran against the international community, and that would be a lose-lose situation for President Ahmadinejad and Tehran.

For Tehran, the present strategy is to hold out; pitting both parties against each other to buy more time and leverage to leave the game altogether. In fact, Tehran is presently implementing this strategy as cited by its recent attempts to expose Washington's close ties with Israel, by allowing that country to possess nuclear weapons (though Israel has not formally denied or admitted it has nuclear weapons under the NPT) in an attempt to damage the United States' already battered image around the world while deflecting the issue from Iran's nuclear program to the United States' credibility. In order to maintain the status quo, Iran must also continue to play the role of the victim, as it possesses the right under the NPT to produce nuclear technology for peaceful means. Maintaining this image keeps Russia and China in limbo in their policy towards Iran, which plays very much to President Ahmadinejad's advantage, preventing the international community from taking action.

The international community's game plan to ameliorate this already tenuous situation must be to strengthen the activities of the IAEA (see last post) and build consensus in the UNSC, which means bringing Russia and China into the bandwagon. In order to convince Russia and China, Mr. Perkovish suggests that the UNSC must lay out a specific strategy to make Tehran look like the aggressor and not the victim. By magnifying Tehran's belligerence and showing the world that it is not in step with the international community's demands, Moscow and Beijing would have no choice but join the United States and Europe to exert pressure on Tehran. In fact, Tehran has indirectly helped the international community in this objective. President Ahmadinejad's incendiary remarks have only continued to fuel distrust of the Iranian government, and Tehran's recent refusal over Russia's proposal to enrich uranium in Russian territory has placed Iran's intentions into serious question.

So how does UNSC pursue to diffuse this situation? Mr. Perkovish suggests the following:

"In the coming days, European and US leaders should clarify, when Iran’s nuclear case is sent to the Security Council, that the Council’s demand on Iran be straightforward and non-punitive: Iran should resume suspension of activities related to producing fissile materials as long as the IAEA cannot resolve unanswered questions as to whether Iran’s nuclear activities are solely for peaceful purposes. To enable the IAEA to do its job, the Council should mandate, under Chapter VII, that Iran satisfy the IAEA’s call for improved and timely access to sites, individuals, and original files.

"The goal is to induce the Iranian public and a core group of leaders to end their country’s isolation and integrate into the international system, and to show that this will happen if Iran foregoes acquiring inherently dual-use nuclear capabilities and ceases supporting organizations that conduct terrorism. To achieve this, Iranians must see that the world is unusually united. A non-punitive Security Council resolution will carry this message better than a sanctions-heavy resolution, infeasible anyway, because Iran’s radicals would rally less resistance to an international community that is acting temperately. If Iran rejects the terms of even a temperate resolution, then China and Russia and other Security Council members would be more willing to ratchet up the pressure. And when the ratchet turns due to Iranian belligerence or unreasonableness, internationalists competing for power in Tehran would have a stronger basis for demanding changes in their government’s course."

Inclusion to the international community and pressure by the UNSC along with the IAEA would bring Iran in line according Mr. Perkovish. If there is one advice I would suggest to diplomats and policymakers dealing with this situation, it would be to not impose sanctions but rather exercise patience. The steps to sanctions are a long one as outlined by BBC's Paul Reynold's article. There are better and more peaceful options as George Perkovich and Pierre Goldschmidt suggest. The international community, however, must be swift to act upon their recommendations.

UN Security Council Needs to Bolster IAEA

I wrote in my last post that one of the major hindrances preventing Iran from being referred to the UN Security Council (UNSC) are both Russia and China's close economic ties to Tehran (Russia in weapons, China in oil). It will be up to EU3 and United States to convince Russia and China that Iran is in fact, attempting to produce nuclear weapons.

Should China and Russia agree to bring Iran in front of the UNSC there is still the possibility that one or both could exercise their veto power preventing sanctions. If Russia or China should decide to exercise this authority, then the present situation in Iran remains in status quo. In other words, the situation doesn’t change. The IAEA would still consider Iran in violation of "non-compliance" under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and hostilities between Tehran and those who are opposed of Iran possessing nuclear capabilities will continue to escalate.

I proposed in my last post that the problem was with the UN and the subsequent divisions among its five permanent members, but after reading Pierre Goldschmidt's short, yet informative article titled, "The Urgent Need to Strengthen the Nuclear Non Proliferation Regime” published in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, I realized that my analysis was broad in scope.

While the solution also concerns the UNSC and the involved cooperation of its five permanent members, Mr. Goldschmidt, who by the way is the former Deputy Director General of the IAEA and head of its Department of Safeguards from 1999 to June 2005, suggests that the problem of nuclear nonproliferation could be solved in more peaceful terms. The solution would be to bolster the activities and effectiveness of the IAEA.

He recommends:

“action by the United Nations (UN) Security Council to adopt a generic binding resolution that would establish three peaceful measures for containing crises when a state is found by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to be in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations. These measures are strengthening the IAEA’s authority to conduct the inspections necessary to resolve uncertainties, deterring the noncompliant state from thinking it could withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and then enjoy the benefits of ill-gotten material and equipment, and suspending sensitive fuel-cycle-related activities in the state.”

In brief, Mr. Goldschmidt’s paper attributes the problems in North Korea and Iran stemming from the weaknesses of the NPT and the IAEA’s inadequate enforcement of its safeguard systems. This makes complete sense since the problem of nuclear nonproliferation starts from the IAEA’s inability to enforce its standards on non-compliant states. The international community, as Mr. Goldschmidt suggests, must “strengthen the authority of the IAEA to exercise its improved capacity in precisely the situations where it is most necessary: when a state has been found to be in non-compliance with its safeguard undertakings.”

I am not going into further details here; Mr. Goldschmidt does a more eloquent job in explaining the specifics. I welcome the reader to visit the above link.

The bottom line is that the trouble with the IAEA emerges as a systems problem. It highlights the growing importance of public administration in international and institutional studies, especially in a global world; tackling the problem at its origin before it escalates.

While Mr. Goldschmidt’s recommendations (to bolster the IAEA) may very well turn out to be the means to achieve a peaceful process in this already serious situation, it cannot be accomplished unless all five permanent members of the UNSC agree to it. Thus, this does not underscore the importance of cooperation among the five permanent members of the UNSC which still determines the stability of the world.

A Divided United Nations

With the escalating hostilities increasing in Iran and North Korea, it is only a matter of time when the world will once again turn the spotlight on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) as the forum responsible for safeguarding the world’s security.

Likening the UN as a court, with the five permanent members of the UNSC, (United States, Russia, England, France, and China) representing the jury, the cases of Iran and North Korea continues to be deliberated even outside of the courtroom. Should it ever go to trial, there is no doubt, from this author’s mind, that the verdict will be split: the United States and Europe on one side and China and Russia on the other.

This split, (which constitutes the internal division in the UN) among the five permanent members reveals the UN’s most glaring institutional weakness. Without delving into institutional theory analysis, the problem with the UNSC is that it lacks any form of internal control, consistency and accountability among the five permanent members and does not provide incentives for them to compromise. While each member has veto power to check another, the UN, like the League of Nations that preceded it, lacks the ability to exercise power and authority over its members. For example, it did not stop the United States from taking unilateral military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime, nor has it been able to reform and effectively regulate the provisions of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in which several countries have taken advantage of its loopholes.

The problem with the UNSC is that unlike a jury, its five permanent members are not impartial. In making a decision, all have a stake in the outcome. Each government has its own national interest and political agenda they want to pursue in an attempt to steer the UN towards its desired course.

A closer examination of the nuclear weapons issue in Iran and North Korea clearly delineates the division among the five permanent members. In both cases, the UK, France and the United States want these countries to disarm while China and Russia lean more in support of Tehran and Pyongyang by encouraging diplomacy. Why? Because history and national interest has already made up each juror’s mind.

In the case of Iran, the EU3 (the UK, France and Germany) and the United States fundamentally distrust Tehran alleging its close ties to terrorist groups and fearing nuclear proliferation in the region. China and Russia, on the other hand, have a closer relationship with Tehran. Russia considers Iran a viable weapons buyer and has had a longstanding relationship with the country since the Iraq-Iran War. China maintains a close relationship with Tehran since it understands the strategic importance of tapping Iran's oil reserves to help it sustain its economic development.

Interestingly, the case with North Korea is similar and also reveals the same split among the five permanent members. Europe and United States call for North Korea to disarm, perceiving Kim Jong Il as a threat to the stability of the region while Russia and China have friendlier ties with Pyongyang. Whether it is the common bond of the old communist system they all once shared, it's obvious that Russia views Pyongyang as a viable trading partner while China considers it as one of its closest allies stemming back from the Korean War.

While the UN, in most people's eyes, represents a supranational institution capable of sustaining global leadership, in reality, only masquerades as a formal process, where the world can discuss but not actaully act upon its problems. The resolutions it ratifies, while recognized by the world, are loosely enforced.

Times have changed. Gone are the days of the Cold War where the United States and Soviet Union reigned supreme. This also marks in what I believe to be the beginning of the end of US supremacy in world affairs, as Washington slowly loses its influence to dictate its desired foreign policy to the world. The decision to go to war with Iraq may have been its last gasp as it continues to learn the repercussions of its decision ($200 billion and rising with 2200 of its soldiers dead and rising).

This new millennium has transformed the global geopolitical landscape. Once dominated by the United States as the world's only preeminent superpower for the past sixteen years after the fall of communism, we now enter a world of multi-power states, with the emergence of the EU, China and Russia; a landscape in which the world has not seen since the end of the nineteenth century. These countries’ newfound roles in the world stage have curtailed Washington’s influence and have dispersed power multilaterally. As a result, compromise among the five permanent members is more important than ever if the world is to maintain stability today. Unfortunately, divisions among these nations are slowly starting to unravel (as China secretly aids Pyongyang and Russia debates its position with Tehran) which may bring about a repeat of secret alliances and combinations common among the nineteenth century superpowers the years preceding WWI. It was to untangle these secret allainces that the League of Nations was created. Today, the world finds itself in a similar situation. This time the UN takes center stage and carries with it the burden of finding a resolution.

Sadly, it is an inadequate institution sorely in need of reform if it is to reconcile these differences and find solutions to the growing problem of nuclear proliferation. The next rounds fought in the UNSC will determine the institution's sustainability and hold with it the world's stability.

World Affairs: A Week in Review

As a close observer of world affairs, I find that the events transpiring in the Middle East and other hot spots around the world troubling and should cause the American public to take pause. I outline the following as a brief recap of what’s happening around the world.

Iraq

Recent election results are believed to have increased the already fragile sectarian divisions in the country. The ratification of the new constitution hinges on the Shias and Kurds and their ability to give the Sunni minority sufficient authority in the new Iraqi government. If the US coalition fails in its attempt to encourage compromise among these groups in the constitutional process, then the possibility of a civil war increases.

Israel & Palestine

Due to Prime Minister Sharon’s debilitating stroke that has left him seriously incapacitated, acting Premier Ehud Olmert has the overwhelming responsibility of carrying out the talks with the Palestinians, which has led to positive outcomes in the peace process. However, without Sharon’s charismatic presence and direction, the continuance of the negotiations looms in doubt. Meanwhile, President Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah, due to the lack of internal discipline within the group, is losing ground to Hamas who views Israel as a threat. Should Hamas win enough support during the Palestinian elections scheduled for January 25, the result may jeopardize the peace process.

Iran

The EU recently ended talks with Iran in regards to its alleged nuclear weapons program and is in the process of reporting it to the UN Security Council. The implications of sanctions against Iran are great for a region that has already suffered much turmoil. Sanctions would increase anti-US and anti-Israel sentiments in the region making it difficult for our troops to secure an already fragile Iraq.

North Korea

Multilateral talks have not resumed since November of last year. The US maintains its allegations that North Korea is pursuing illegal activities in counterfeit and money laundering in order to finance its nuclear weapons programs. Talks are at a standstill.

What these problems share is the possibility that the issues will be brought before the UN Security Council. Unfortunately, the UN, as an institution, has its own problems and may not offer the best of solutions. I will elaborate on this matter more in my next post.

In the meantime, it is imperative that the American public does not turn a blind eye to these matters. I invite the reader to further consider the importance of these events, the repercussions of which can make for a more destabilized world.

Schwarzenegger and Alito Go to the Middle

While reading through newspaper articles this morning about California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and judicial nominee Samuel Alito, I discovered they actually had more things in common and in fact share a similar plight.

Both are fighting for their political/judicial careers in the face of harsh criticisms from the Democrats. Both are the focal points of their respective constituencies. And both are attempting to pull off the same strategy in moving towards the middle: Schwarzenegger, in his recently proposed budget calling for increased spending, and Alito, in his judicial confirmation hearing, stated that he would keep an “open mind” in the issue of abortion.

I am not going to evaluate their specific policies or positions here, but explain more about the nature of politics. Why moving towards the middle make for an effective strategy for political players on one hand, and a political smokescreen for the American public, on the other?

What exactly are both Schwarzenegger and Alito doing? For the political novice, this means treading softly among the enemy’s den, or more accurately, political maneuvering. The only way to achieve political power in our government is to reassure and convince political opponents that we won’t trample on their interests. In order to placate both sides of the aisle, it becomes a political necessity for Schwarzenegger to prudently choose to cut or fund those programs that will make the least political wakes, and for Alito, to not reveal any position that may bias him in front of the Judiciary Committee and cost him senate approval votes.

As Americans, we elect our leaders because we trust them to make sound policy, to represent us fairly in the political process. We imbue the same faith in our judges (albeit, they are appointed) to be fair and thoughtful in their opinions when handing down legal decisions. Yet, in order to implement the budget, like in Schwarzenegger’s case, or to be confirmed a seat in the highest court in the land, in Alito’s case, it requires both to move towards the middle if they are to achieve political or judicial authority.

What does this mean to the American public? The consequences are apparent. Critics and pundits alike jibber-jabber about it all the time. “We’re not looking at the real issue here…what Alito will actually do,” a Harvard law professor told CNN’s Anderson Cooper, “the questioning [by the Judicial Committee]is partisan.” In the budget debate, similar rhetoric is used. While the interests are more diffused, they can still be delineated among party lines. The political process becomes a game of who can successfully jump more hoops or avoid being trapped by their political opponents. For the American people who admire and expect integrity, honesty and openness from government officials, this game has become extremely frustrating. As a result, the public becomes disillusioned by the process.

What the political process makes us lose sight of are the genuine intentions of the political actor. The mist of politics obfuscates what the real person would actually say or do. In the end, that is a shame. Unfortunately, it’s the reality of the political process; the natural consequences of Madison's Federalist 10 and 51, where he constructed an array of checks and balances and compromise begetting compromise.

I believe this is what turns a lot of Americans off about politics. They see the political process as a sham, and all politicians and judicial nominees are two-faced liars, unable to be trusted because it's all about winning the prize. But that’s the nature of politics. Not everyone will get everything they want, the perfect budget and justice not exluded. If you ever find yourself feeling this way, rest assure, our political system is most likely working the way it should.