(Eulogy, Funeral Mass, December 15, 2010)
The Lord Has Given, and the Lord Has Taken Away
Our family would like to thank each and every one of you for coming to our mother’s funeral this morning, and for your kind thoughts and prayers. They are a source of comfort in this our time of mourning.
For these are indeed the saddest days of our lives. Our mother has always been there for us. She is the light of our home, the sunshine of our lives. We have been lucky to have this wonderful woman as our mother. She was strong-willed and independent, never wanting to be a burden to anyone. She was the epitome of an ideal mother – stern yet kind, strong yet compassionate, wise, and fair and just in her dealings with others. She taught us good habits and encouraged us to lead virtuous lives, inculcating in us integrity, honesty, and modesty. She taught us to be charitable to others, to value education, to succeed, and to excel.
Education is of paramount importance to my parents. I’d often hear my father say that the only legacy they could give us was education. [Our parents worked hard to put their 10 children through college.] They taught us to work hard and to achieve whatever we wanted out of life.
Our mother loved gardening. She’d often say that when she was among her plants, her aches and pains go away. She loved her roses; she loved her evergreens. She knew the right season for each one of them.
She also loved politics, as she was attuned to things around her. In my daily phone conversations with her from Washington, D.C. , I was discovering how [politically] smart and insightful she was, as she seemed to have an answer to every political question I’d ask.
Most of all, she loved her children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren. Indeed, her life revolved around her family. Her life was dedicated to her family.
And we love her dearly. So that when her health started to decline in August, our fervent wish was that she be blessed with one more season of everything: one more Thanksgiving (that was granted to us, but barely), one more Christmas, one more New Year’s Day celebration, one more birthday in January, one more spring season, one more blossoming of her rose garden.
But as man proposes, God disposes.
In early September, she asked to be taken to the hospital. She felt something was wrong, and she wanted to know what was ailing her. Thus began what to her was a struggle with modern medicine. At the hospital, they ran a battery of tests on every conceivable ailment attacking our mother. Still and all, they could not explain why her platelet count remained low, despite massive transfusions. With everyone in the family taking turns on a daily 24-hour watch, we watched her decline even further. How to explain all this to mother who, ever in charge, would like to know what was ailing her. But mother knew better. She knew she wouldn’t get well in a hospital bed. And having been told that nothing much could be done, we brought her home.
Fr. Richard Neuhaus, a philosopher and a former Lutheran minister who became a Catholic priest, in his wonderful piece, “Born Toward Dying,” said that the last time we spend with the dying and they with us takes place many days and many hours before the final goodbye.
Well, our last time with our mother was those three weeks she spent at home. No more moanings, which she did a lot of when she was in the hospital; just frustrations at things she could not do anymore. We placed her blossoming roses right outside her window to remind her that she was home. [We did everything we could to make her feel comfortable, hoping that she would still get better. Her old doctor said she was feisty and fought till the end.] During those three weeks, her one question remained: “what is ailing me?.” To which we did not have an answer. To her, to know is to conquer, and to conquer is to love.
So the Lord gives, and the Lord takes away.
We thank Him for having blessed us with this wonderful mother. From the exemplary life she has lived and from the many prayers she has received, we are certain that she is in a happy place with my father, even as we look forward to the day when we get to see them again.
Mom, thanks for everything! We already miss you! But as you’ve taught us by example many, many times before, we will face this moment of loss with courage, faith, and white-winged hope, knowing that your love for us is as constant as the sun that comes out and shines every morning.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Random Thoughts . . .
South Korea’s Call
In regard to the latest provocations of North Korea against South Korea -- when China and North Korea are eager to resume the Six-Party Talk, one cannot help but wonder if this diplomatic effort is just being used by North Korea and China to advance North Korea’s interests. According to this article, “After quitting the six-nation talks in April 2009, North Korea has shown it is eager to restart them to gain much-needed fuel oil and aid in exchange for nuclear disarmament. However, North Korea's recent revelation that it has developed a large uranium enrichment facility, giving it a new method for making material for bombs, has further called into question its intent to disarm.”
I think that the best way on the part of the United States to engage North Korea is to eschew these diplomatic maneuverings, stand behind South Korea in its declarations of defending its national security interests against the North, and provide it, as a partner and ally, with the military assistance that it needs. Strong statements made by the South Korean President and the newly-installed Defense Minister against the North suggest strength and a sense of national purpose. "If North Korea carries out a military provocation on our territory and people again, we must retaliate immediately and strongly until they completely surrender," Kim Kwan-jin said in a speech Saturday to senior military officials. Hear! Hear!
Coeds Rooming Together at GWU
Where have our sensibilities gone? I know I am not the only one who is indignant over this (to read the WP article, click here). I have friends who can write treatises about the natural roles and natural dynamics between males and females, about the moral and gender boundaries that should govern the actions of the young in their interactions with one another, about natural basic appetites that must be properly channeled into evolving, growing, and ultimately consummating of human desires based on human affections and reason. I can think of two unintended consequences that can come out of this new way of social living among students: they may become either sex-crazed (for sex and partners are free) or asexual (emerging from a displaced disposition that sharing a room with the opposite sex makes you cool, non-judgmental, and progressive in your thinking). Dorm living could now be fraught with sexual tensions. That or it could be devoid of them.
Why the Urgency Behind the Repeal of DADT policy?
“I think if we spent five solid days on this bill – we came in at 9 in the morning and we worked until 7 or 8 at night, I think it’d be hard for anybody to say . . . that we haven’t had opportunity for a good, thorough debate,” so said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), commenting on the testimony of military commanders before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday, Dec. 3rd, 2010.
With 2 million Americans unemployed, a national security that is facing terrorist threats, a foreign policy that recently has been undermined by Wikileaks revelations, etc., why would our lawmakers consider the issue of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" of paramount importance? As Ed Rogers puts it, . . . Obama will again appear to have priorities that are wildly different than those of average American voters. Friday’s unemployment report reinforces the desperate need for serious economic initiatives that unleash the American private sector to drive economic growth and create Jobs” (Washington Post, Sunday Opinion, Dec. 4, 2010).
In regard to the latest provocations of North Korea against South Korea -- when China and North Korea are eager to resume the Six-Party Talk, one cannot help but wonder if this diplomatic effort is just being used by North Korea and China to advance North Korea’s interests. According to this article, “After quitting the six-nation talks in April 2009, North Korea has shown it is eager to restart them to gain much-needed fuel oil and aid in exchange for nuclear disarmament. However, North Korea's recent revelation that it has developed a large uranium enrichment facility, giving it a new method for making material for bombs, has further called into question its intent to disarm.”
I think that the best way on the part of the United States to engage North Korea is to eschew these diplomatic maneuverings, stand behind South Korea in its declarations of defending its national security interests against the North, and provide it, as a partner and ally, with the military assistance that it needs. Strong statements made by the South Korean President and the newly-installed Defense Minister against the North suggest strength and a sense of national purpose. "If North Korea carries out a military provocation on our territory and people again, we must retaliate immediately and strongly until they completely surrender," Kim Kwan-jin said in a speech Saturday to senior military officials. Hear! Hear!
Coeds Rooming Together at GWU
Where have our sensibilities gone? I know I am not the only one who is indignant over this (to read the WP article, click here). I have friends who can write treatises about the natural roles and natural dynamics between males and females, about the moral and gender boundaries that should govern the actions of the young in their interactions with one another, about natural basic appetites that must be properly channeled into evolving, growing, and ultimately consummating of human desires based on human affections and reason. I can think of two unintended consequences that can come out of this new way of social living among students: they may become either sex-crazed (for sex and partners are free) or asexual (emerging from a displaced disposition that sharing a room with the opposite sex makes you cool, non-judgmental, and progressive in your thinking). Dorm living could now be fraught with sexual tensions. That or it could be devoid of them.
Why the Urgency Behind the Repeal of DADT policy?
“I think if we spent five solid days on this bill – we came in at 9 in the morning and we worked until 7 or 8 at night, I think it’d be hard for anybody to say . . . that we haven’t had opportunity for a good, thorough debate,” so said Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), commenting on the testimony of military commanders before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday, Dec. 3rd, 2010.
With 2 million Americans unemployed, a national security that is facing terrorist threats, a foreign policy that recently has been undermined by Wikileaks revelations, etc., why would our lawmakers consider the issue of repealing "don't ask, don't tell" of paramount importance? As Ed Rogers puts it, . . . Obama will again appear to have priorities that are wildly different than those of average American voters. Friday’s unemployment report reinforces the desperate need for serious economic initiatives that unleash the American private sector to drive economic growth and create Jobs” (Washington Post, Sunday Opinion, Dec. 4, 2010).
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Does Karzai Understand Partnership?
In today’s Washington Post article, “Karzai calls on U.S. to lighten troop presence,” Karzai laments the “visibility and intensity” of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, arguing that their increased presence would only worsen the war and encourage Afghans to join the Taliban: “The time has come to reduce military operations,”he said. “The time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in Afghanistan . . . to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily Afghan life.”
Karzai is particularly critical of night raids, which, he said, terrorize the people: “The Afghan people don’t like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us” (that is, between Karzai and the U.S. military).
But not seeing the end-goal of U.S. military operations, Karzai seems to misunderstand the terms of this partnership. He is misconstruing his role as a worthy partner. He said, “If a partner means a silent spectator of events conducted by Washington, if that kind of partner you seek, well, I’m not that partner . . . Nor the Afghan people.” But a partnership entails thinking as one, aligning the mission objectives of both parties into one, pooling their resources together, and reinforcing each other so that instead of separate units of forces pursuing the same end, a unified force will emerge to accomplish with effectiveness the same goal.
It seems this is an aspect of the U.S.-Afghanistan partnership that is not clear to Karzai. Instead of being on the same page with the U.S. military and NATO forces in their fight against the Taliban, he seems to be pursuing a different agenda. What he should be doing is supporting their goals instead of pitting them against the Afghan people. He should be waging a PR campaign among his people, explaining to them why these forces need to engage in certain operations and why they should be considered allies and the Taliban the enemies. With Karzai’s encouragement, popular support should be directed to the former and antipathy to the latter.
Posing a negative, defensive, and contrarian stance against foreign forces is perhaps Karzai’s way of projecting strength and commanding respect on the world stage. But the exact opposite is happening instead. Pride, strength, respect, and wisdom of a leader come with recognizing what is right and just for his people, even if that would mean partnering with those foreigners on boots.
Karzai is particularly critical of night raids, which, he said, terrorize the people: “The Afghan people don’t like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us” (that is, between Karzai and the U.S. military).
But not seeing the end-goal of U.S. military operations, Karzai seems to misunderstand the terms of this partnership. He is misconstruing his role as a worthy partner. He said, “If a partner means a silent spectator of events conducted by Washington, if that kind of partner you seek, well, I’m not that partner . . . Nor the Afghan people.” But a partnership entails thinking as one, aligning the mission objectives of both parties into one, pooling their resources together, and reinforcing each other so that instead of separate units of forces pursuing the same end, a unified force will emerge to accomplish with effectiveness the same goal.
It seems this is an aspect of the U.S.-Afghanistan partnership that is not clear to Karzai. Instead of being on the same page with the U.S. military and NATO forces in their fight against the Taliban, he seems to be pursuing a different agenda. What he should be doing is supporting their goals instead of pitting them against the Afghan people. He should be waging a PR campaign among his people, explaining to them why these forces need to engage in certain operations and why they should be considered allies and the Taliban the enemies. With Karzai’s encouragement, popular support should be directed to the former and antipathy to the latter.
Posing a negative, defensive, and contrarian stance against foreign forces is perhaps Karzai’s way of projecting strength and commanding respect on the world stage. But the exact opposite is happening instead. Pride, strength, respect, and wisdom of a leader come with recognizing what is right and just for his people, even if that would mean partnering with those foreigners on boots.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Pandering to Youth and Black Votes
It is not by accident that President Obama is campaigning hard among youth and black voters these days, the two voting blocs that made possible his victory (53-46 million in popular votes) over Senator McCain in 2008. The 7 million vote difference was made possible by huge turnouts from these two groups on election day. For the upcoming November elections, Obama is counting on them once again.
No one could fault African-Americans for supporting Obama wholeheartedly in 2008 because they took pride in having a black candidate vie for the highest political office in the land and win it. By supporting him, they were, in a big way, telling the world that in America, regardless of one’s background, anyone could make it.
No one could also fault the young for casting their vote for Obama with vigor and enthusiasm. With a fresh outlook on the political world they were about to inhabit, they did believe in his message of hope. Their idealism convinced them that indeed change is possible.
But has Obama delivered for them during the past two years? Has he made good on his message of change? If unemployment is any indicator of his inability to deliver, it is most evident in these two groups, hardest hit by the current economic crisis.
For Obama to go back to them and solicit their votes once again despite empty promises could only mean one thing: he is just using them. It seems he has no respect for their ability to make intelligent and good decisions for themselves. It seems he is viewing them as these unenlightened, naive, and gullible voting blocs that could be persuaded by any message he presents to them.
During the 2008 campaign, there were nagging suspicions that perhaps the black community had been dealt the racial card, while the youth were viewed as malleable and naive. The way Mr. Obama is pandering to them these days, perrhaps both suspicions are true after all.
No one could fault African-Americans for supporting Obama wholeheartedly in 2008 because they took pride in having a black candidate vie for the highest political office in the land and win it. By supporting him, they were, in a big way, telling the world that in America, regardless of one’s background, anyone could make it.
No one could also fault the young for casting their vote for Obama with vigor and enthusiasm. With a fresh outlook on the political world they were about to inhabit, they did believe in his message of hope. Their idealism convinced them that indeed change is possible.
But has Obama delivered for them during the past two years? Has he made good on his message of change? If unemployment is any indicator of his inability to deliver, it is most evident in these two groups, hardest hit by the current economic crisis.
For Obama to go back to them and solicit their votes once again despite empty promises could only mean one thing: he is just using them. It seems he has no respect for their ability to make intelligent and good decisions for themselves. It seems he is viewing them as these unenlightened, naive, and gullible voting blocs that could be persuaded by any message he presents to them.
During the 2008 campaign, there were nagging suspicions that perhaps the black community had been dealt the racial card, while the youth were viewed as malleable and naive. The way Mr. Obama is pandering to them these days, perrhaps both suspicions are true after all.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Voting in California
Even the Los Angeles Times admits that the Democratic candidates it is endorsing are not that great. In its endorsement page last week, it had this to say about Jerry Brown Brown, the Democratic candidate for governor who is running against the Republican candidate, Meg Whitman, former CEO of Ebay:
We don’t see him as California’s savior but instead as a kind of experienced mechanic who will know how to get a few more miles out of the state’s falling machinery. . . No longer the fresh young candidate of new ideas whom Californians first elected governor in 1974, Brown is now older and, The Times believes, wiser leader. . . Republican Meg Whitman’s solution for the state too often seem based on popular but wildly inaccurate clichés about how the state got into its current fix and how to get it out.
What these inaccurate clichés are, it does not say. Meg Whitman did not run a successful billion-dollar corporation on clichés, for sure.
And about Barbara Boxer, incumbent Democratic candidate who is running for the US Senate against Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, the Times went on to say:
The Times sometimes is exasperated with Boxer but in the end backs her over Carly Fiorina because issues matter, and we find Boxer on the right side of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the environment to transportation.
As if the current problems of California revolve around healthcare, environment, and transportation! And what is it to be on the right side of these issues, anyway?
With 14.2 % unemployment and a $20 billion deficit, California needs leaders who can run the state on sound principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise and who can exhibit level-headedness, decisiveness, and innovativeness. As former CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, Whitman and Fiorina are formidable and effective (see today’s Fox News Sunday's interview). They are fresh blood with new ideas on one hand. Boxer and Brown, on the other, come across as tired, old politicians who have made a career out of politics. Perhaps what California needs is a CEO for a governor who can steer the ship of state away from “politics as usual” to something that will work right for the state and for every Californian.
The stakes in these elections are indeed high. The only thing that Californians need to do to make the most out of it is to vote intelligently, make wise choices, despite promptings from their political and media elites to vote along partisan lines.
We don’t see him as California’s savior but instead as a kind of experienced mechanic who will know how to get a few more miles out of the state’s falling machinery. . . No longer the fresh young candidate of new ideas whom Californians first elected governor in 1974, Brown is now older and, The Times believes, wiser leader. . . Republican Meg Whitman’s solution for the state too often seem based on popular but wildly inaccurate clichés about how the state got into its current fix and how to get it out.
What these inaccurate clichés are, it does not say. Meg Whitman did not run a successful billion-dollar corporation on clichés, for sure.
And about Barbara Boxer, incumbent Democratic candidate who is running for the US Senate against Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, the Times went on to say:
The Times sometimes is exasperated with Boxer but in the end backs her over Carly Fiorina because issues matter, and we find Boxer on the right side of issues ranging from healthcare reform to the environment to transportation.
As if the current problems of California revolve around healthcare, environment, and transportation! And what is it to be on the right side of these issues, anyway?
With 14.2 % unemployment and a $20 billion deficit, California needs leaders who can run the state on sound principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise and who can exhibit level-headedness, decisiveness, and innovativeness. As former CEOs of Fortune 500 companies, Whitman and Fiorina are formidable and effective (see today’s Fox News Sunday's interview). They are fresh blood with new ideas on one hand. Boxer and Brown, on the other, come across as tired, old politicians who have made a career out of politics. Perhaps what California needs is a CEO for a governor who can steer the ship of state away from “politics as usual” to something that will work right for the state and for every Californian.
The stakes in these elections are indeed high. The only thing that Californians need to do to make the most out of it is to vote intelligently, make wise choices, despite promptings from their political and media elites to vote along partisan lines.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Ahmadinejad’s Art of Mockery
Once again, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad succeeded in making a mockery out of our media and foreign policy establishments. They just simply fell into his trap. All he needed to do was dole out “exclusive interview” privileges, and the media went gaga over him. As to how exclusive an interview is if it is done with every major media outlet in the country – ABC, NBC, Fox News, I do not know. Even Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal seemed smitten by Ahmadinejad’s cunning and guile during a breakfast meeting with journalists to the point that he even thought the Iranian leader was the smartest guy in the room (I hope he was just being sarcastic).
The foreign policy establishment didn’t do any better, either. Hoping that by welcoming him they could talk him into agreeing to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, they accorded him diplomatic hospitality. The United Nations hosted him once again, providing him with a forum with which he launched his vitriol attacks against the enemies of his country. His latest pronouncement -- that the 9/11 attack was US-orchestrated -- is even more outrageous than the previous ones, prompting President Obama to issue a statement, calling the remark “inexcusable” and out-of-step with the Iranian people:” "’It was offensive. It was hateful. And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable,’ Mr. Obama told BBC Persia, according to a transcript provided by the White House.”
So why do the UN, the State Department, and the media talk to this guy? Why do they take him seriously, dignify his existence, and provide forums for his irrational discourses? From the moment he issued a statement denying the Holocaust , that should have provided the international community, and, everyone for that matter, a clue that this guy should be ignored and marginalized.
If the right solution to the Iran problem is regime change, the best way to begin is for the outside world to view this man as a joke. As it is, the way we give in to his publicity-seeking stunts, the joke is on us, really. He is mocking us, and we refuse to see it.
The foreign policy establishment didn’t do any better, either. Hoping that by welcoming him they could talk him into agreeing to stop Iran’s nuclear enrichment program, they accorded him diplomatic hospitality. The United Nations hosted him once again, providing him with a forum with which he launched his vitriol attacks against the enemies of his country. His latest pronouncement -- that the 9/11 attack was US-orchestrated -- is even more outrageous than the previous ones, prompting President Obama to issue a statement, calling the remark “inexcusable” and out-of-step with the Iranian people:” "’It was offensive. It was hateful. And particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable,’ Mr. Obama told BBC Persia, according to a transcript provided by the White House.”
So why do the UN, the State Department, and the media talk to this guy? Why do they take him seriously, dignify his existence, and provide forums for his irrational discourses? From the moment he issued a statement denying the Holocaust , that should have provided the international community, and, everyone for that matter, a clue that this guy should be ignored and marginalized.
If the right solution to the Iran problem is regime change, the best way to begin is for the outside world to view this man as a joke. As it is, the way we give in to his publicity-seeking stunts, the joke is on us, really. He is mocking us, and we refuse to see it.
The Mindanao Peace Talk
When the Philippine government’s chief negotiator welcomed the latest announcement of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a rebel group that is negotiating on behalf of the Filipino Muslims in Mindanao, that it is no longer seeking independence from the Philippines and is instead seeking a status similar to a US state, one can’t help but think that this peace talk is off to a bad start. Just the day before this announcement, the rebel group was seeking a sub-state status. The chief negotiator, Dean Marvic Leonen of the University of the Philippines Law School, was quick to add, however, that the rebel announcement Wednesday "will definitely pave the way to finding an understanding for a politically feasible arrangement that maintains the territorial integrity and the fundamental premise of people's sovereignty in one republic.”
How so, I wonder? The fundamental premise of the solution is that a change in structure will pave the way for the redistribution of the political and economic resources of the country, with Mindanao getting its fair share this time around. Hence, the idea of a sub-state, and now a federal arrangement that will afford the Mindanao Muslim leadership "state jurisdiction" over parts of Mindanao while leaving the bigger issues (foreign policy, national defense, etc.) to the national government.
If that is indeed the correct solution, then all regions of the Philippines should be subjected to the same federal arrangement, lest a region, like Bicol, for instance, be made to feel neglected (as what will surely happen if all resources are poured into Mindanao). If the intent of this approach is to correct alleged neglect and past injustices committed against the people of Mindanao, how could the solution lie in structures, in bureaucratic arrangements? ARMM has not worked out, so why would this one work? (ARMM stands for Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which has its own government. Its leadership has been accused of committing massive graft and corruption.)
For this peace talk to succeed, the Philippine government must lay down the proper foundation for genuine peace. And this entails the surrender and disarmament of the MILF and other insurgent groups. Disarmament is first and foremost a necessary condition upon which genuine negotiations can proceed.
A structural solution will only institutionalize and legitimize secession. No matter how the rebels sugarcoat secession through structural solutions, everyone knows that the separation they are seeking for will only benefit themselves and the Muslim ruling elite, at the expense, of course, of the general Muslim population.
The republican solution is always there, for anyone to employ. An understanding of the duties and obligations of leaders and citizens that makes possible a government that rules by consent and that rules for the common good of all while recognizing the rights of each and every individual eliminates tribalism and elitist politics that are too common in Mindanao politics.
How so, I wonder? The fundamental premise of the solution is that a change in structure will pave the way for the redistribution of the political and economic resources of the country, with Mindanao getting its fair share this time around. Hence, the idea of a sub-state, and now a federal arrangement that will afford the Mindanao Muslim leadership "state jurisdiction" over parts of Mindanao while leaving the bigger issues (foreign policy, national defense, etc.) to the national government.
If that is indeed the correct solution, then all regions of the Philippines should be subjected to the same federal arrangement, lest a region, like Bicol, for instance, be made to feel neglected (as what will surely happen if all resources are poured into Mindanao). If the intent of this approach is to correct alleged neglect and past injustices committed against the people of Mindanao, how could the solution lie in structures, in bureaucratic arrangements? ARMM has not worked out, so why would this one work? (ARMM stands for Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao which has its own government. Its leadership has been accused of committing massive graft and corruption.)
For this peace talk to succeed, the Philippine government must lay down the proper foundation for genuine peace. And this entails the surrender and disarmament of the MILF and other insurgent groups. Disarmament is first and foremost a necessary condition upon which genuine negotiations can proceed.
A structural solution will only institutionalize and legitimize secession. No matter how the rebels sugarcoat secession through structural solutions, everyone knows that the separation they are seeking for will only benefit themselves and the Muslim ruling elite, at the expense, of course, of the general Muslim population.
The republican solution is always there, for anyone to employ. An understanding of the duties and obligations of leaders and citizens that makes possible a government that rules by consent and that rules for the common good of all while recognizing the rights of each and every individual eliminates tribalism and elitist politics that are too common in Mindanao politics.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Communism: 'The Greatest Fantasy of Our Century'
Fidel Castro’s recent pronouncement that the Cuban model is not working should serve as notice to those who still cling to communism that their ideological struggle will lead them only to an empty promised land. That whatever it is they are still fighting for – a utopic vision of total classlessness -- is just that – a utopia. Cuba’s experience is but another concrete affirmation that social justice and equality based on socialized ownership of property is untenable.
This should give Filipino communists (and communists everywhere for that matter) a jolt: there is nothing there for you at the end of the communist rainbow. For three decades now, Filipino communists have subjected the “toiling masses” of Filipinos to their ideological high-mindedness. Equipped with a sense of moral and intellectual superiority, they have taken it upon themselves to wage a fierce revolution on behalf of and for the Filipino poor. They have considered it their duty to liberate the Filipinos from the shackles of U.S. imperialism as they believe it to be the root cause of all the problems of the Philippines. Once freed from imperial domination, they argue, Filipinos would be able to partake in a socialized and fair distribution of their country’s wealth.
The communists’ delusional fantasy revolves around the notion that the utopian vision will become a reality someday, that the future is knowable. The “iron laws of economic necessity” and the “scientific inevitability of history” could only lead to the realization of the communist revolution. To Marx, history is nothing but “a chain of cause-and-effect successions of certain types of society, following the preceding one with inexorable necessity.” The future is not open to possibilities, they say, and that the aims of the revolution will certainly come to fruition, giving birth to a society that is going to be completely free from material oppression. The certainty of the future gives communists a perspective on how to view the problems of the present: they are transitory and will soon come to pass. The future is more real than the present “because it is the ultimate destiny toward which everything present is moving” [Niemeyer, The Communist Mind].
It is this framework of thinking that encourages communists to get on with their ideological struggle. Despite hard evidence everywhere (the collapsed Soviet Union, a China that has hitched its economic destiny onto the free-market enterprise, and now Cuba’s broken model), the faithful ones continue with their fight. As to the reason why, Leszek Kolakowski has this explanation to offer:
. . . it is a certainty not based on any empirical premises or supposed “historical laws,” but simply on the psychological need for certainty. In this sense Marxism performs the function of religion, and its efficacy is of a religious character. But it is a caricature and a bogus form of religion, since it presents its temporary eschatology as a scientific system, which religious mythologies do not purport to be [Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism . . .].
But if that reasoning is not enough to convince these communists to give up their fight, just take a long, hard look at Cuba: their present predicament is the future you’ve been fighting for.
This should give Filipino communists (and communists everywhere for that matter) a jolt: there is nothing there for you at the end of the communist rainbow. For three decades now, Filipino communists have subjected the “toiling masses” of Filipinos to their ideological high-mindedness. Equipped with a sense of moral and intellectual superiority, they have taken it upon themselves to wage a fierce revolution on behalf of and for the Filipino poor. They have considered it their duty to liberate the Filipinos from the shackles of U.S. imperialism as they believe it to be the root cause of all the problems of the Philippines. Once freed from imperial domination, they argue, Filipinos would be able to partake in a socialized and fair distribution of their country’s wealth.
The communists’ delusional fantasy revolves around the notion that the utopian vision will become a reality someday, that the future is knowable. The “iron laws of economic necessity” and the “scientific inevitability of history” could only lead to the realization of the communist revolution. To Marx, history is nothing but “a chain of cause-and-effect successions of certain types of society, following the preceding one with inexorable necessity.” The future is not open to possibilities, they say, and that the aims of the revolution will certainly come to fruition, giving birth to a society that is going to be completely free from material oppression. The certainty of the future gives communists a perspective on how to view the problems of the present: they are transitory and will soon come to pass. The future is more real than the present “because it is the ultimate destiny toward which everything present is moving” [Niemeyer, The Communist Mind].
It is this framework of thinking that encourages communists to get on with their ideological struggle. Despite hard evidence everywhere (the collapsed Soviet Union, a China that has hitched its economic destiny onto the free-market enterprise, and now Cuba’s broken model), the faithful ones continue with their fight. As to the reason why, Leszek Kolakowski has this explanation to offer:
. . . it is a certainty not based on any empirical premises or supposed “historical laws,” but simply on the psychological need for certainty. In this sense Marxism performs the function of religion, and its efficacy is of a religious character. But it is a caricature and a bogus form of religion, since it presents its temporary eschatology as a scientific system, which religious mythologies do not purport to be [Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism . . .].
But if that reasoning is not enough to convince these communists to give up their fight, just take a long, hard look at Cuba: their present predicament is the future you’ve been fighting for.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Is There Islamophobia in America?
Whoever introduced the notion of “hate and Islamophobia” in America’s national discourse has done this country a disservice. For one, it goes against the grain of what America stands for. America's spirit of tolerance is grounded on the key principle of equality, indeed, one of the principle pillars upon which this nation of immigrants was founded. The principle of equality requires that we respect each and every human being as our equal inasmuch as each is bestowed with God-given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- natural rights that all men acquire by virtue of their being human. It is this very principle that enables immigrants in America to live in harmony with one another. It is the principle that afforded the civil rights movement an opportunity to offer a corrective to America’s unfinished business with slavery. Equality is what has prevented America from sliding into a country of ethnic and racial divisions so commonly found in countries reeling from ethnic conflicts.
Talks about hate and Islamophobia have put America on the defensive. When President Obama cast the debate on the GZ mosque issue in constitutional terms such as religious liberty, he put the US Constitution on the defensive. But the US Constitution is not on trial here. America is not on trial here. What he succeeded in doing was to change the subject of our national conversations, from whether belief-systems and subcultures of incoming immigrants eager to settle in this country could be made compatible with America’s culture of liberty, to whether America is acting contrary to its Constitution when it deals with these beliefs and whether Americans have become hate-mongers and Islamophobic!
John Esposito, professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, thinks that indeed there is Islamophobia in this country. In this article, “Islamophobia in America: Where Do We Go from Here?,” he says that Islamophobia like anti-Semitism, hostility towards or discrimination against a person because of their faith or racial group, runs deep in our society.”
But it wasn’t so prior to 9/11. A recent NY Times article, “Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life,” tells the story of Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, a construction worker who was hired to work at the World Trade Center before it was attacked. Being a Muslim, he wanted to know where he could do his daily prayers. He learned from his fellow Muslim workers about a prayer room on the 17th Floor of the south tower. He went there regularly for months, "first doing the ablution known as wudu in a washroom fitted for cleansing hands, face and feet, and then facing toward Mecca to intone the salat prayer." He noticed that on any given day, his companions in the prayer room “might include financial analysts, carpenters, receptionists, secretaries and ironworkers. There were American natives, immigrants who had earned citizenship, visitors conducting international business — the whole Muslim spectrum of nationality and race.”
If it seems we are experiencing racial and religious divisions in our country right now, it is because of those who have talked us into it. Labeling is a dangerous game. Whenever one gives a label or a name to something, he gives life to it; he makes it happen. Hate-mongering and Islamophobia have now become part of the American lingo.
Talks about hate and Islamophobia have put America on the defensive. When President Obama cast the debate on the GZ mosque issue in constitutional terms such as religious liberty, he put the US Constitution on the defensive. But the US Constitution is not on trial here. America is not on trial here. What he succeeded in doing was to change the subject of our national conversations, from whether belief-systems and subcultures of incoming immigrants eager to settle in this country could be made compatible with America’s culture of liberty, to whether America is acting contrary to its Constitution when it deals with these beliefs and whether Americans have become hate-mongers and Islamophobic!
John Esposito, professor of International Affairs and Islamic Studies at Georgetown University, thinks that indeed there is Islamophobia in this country. In this article, “Islamophobia in America: Where Do We Go from Here?,” he says that Islamophobia like anti-Semitism, hostility towards or discrimination against a person because of their faith or racial group, runs deep in our society.”
But it wasn’t so prior to 9/11. A recent NY Times article, “Muslims and Islam Were Part of Twin Towers’ Life,” tells the story of Sinclair Hejazi Abdus-Salaam, a construction worker who was hired to work at the World Trade Center before it was attacked. Being a Muslim, he wanted to know where he could do his daily prayers. He learned from his fellow Muslim workers about a prayer room on the 17th Floor of the south tower. He went there regularly for months, "first doing the ablution known as wudu in a washroom fitted for cleansing hands, face and feet, and then facing toward Mecca to intone the salat prayer." He noticed that on any given day, his companions in the prayer room “might include financial analysts, carpenters, receptionists, secretaries and ironworkers. There were American natives, immigrants who had earned citizenship, visitors conducting international business — the whole Muslim spectrum of nationality and race.”
If it seems we are experiencing racial and religious divisions in our country right now, it is because of those who have talked us into it. Labeling is a dangerous game. Whenever one gives a label or a name to something, he gives life to it; he makes it happen. Hate-mongering and Islamophobia have now become part of the American lingo.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
On Drug Legalization and Mexico’s Drug War
Proponents of drug decriminalization strongly believe that Mexico’s drug war could come to an end if marijuana were made legal. Drug legalization, they argue, could instantly eliminate crime and violence and reduce the loss of lives. By legalizing it, businesses surrounding drug smuggling would disappear, thereby diminishing the cartels’ immense profits (60 % of which come from marijuana) that are being used for recruitment, arms purchases, and bribes. In addition,
. . . legalizing marijuana would free up both human and financial resources for Mexico to push back against the scourges that are often, if not always correctly, attributed to drug traffickers and that constitute Mexicans' real bane: kidnapping, extortion, vehicle theft, home assaults, highway robbery and gunfights between gangs that leave far too many innocent bystanders dead and wounded. Before Mexico's current war on drugs started, in late 2006, the country's crime rate was low and dropping. Freed from the demands of the war on drugs, Mexico could return its energies to again reducing violent crime.
Of course, those who oppose drug legalization especially from this side of the border question the social costs that come with legalizing drugs inasmuch as legalization will increase drug consumption. Are these drugs inherently addictive? If so, what will be their long-term effects on individual health and social well-being? Will drug consumption lead to other kinds of crimes? Will it lead to lung diseases the way cigarette smoking does? Will drug consumption impact families and cause social problems that will lead to the creation of more welfare programs? James Wilson, professor of political theory and senior fellow at the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy at Boston College, has brought up these arguments in this old article, “Legalizing Drugs Makes Matters Worse." In a book review published by the Claremont Review of Books, he argued that social taboos against drug consumption work: “more generally, addiction is less common when the values of the culture are hostile to it and more common when those values erode. One of the ways society makes its values clear is by making actions against those values illegal and reserving praise for people who act in accordance with them.”
To be convincing, proponents of drug legalization must offer a thorough cost-benefit analysis of drug decriminalization against drug prohibition, including estimates of future social costs that may possibly come with increased drug consumption. Likewise, those who continue to believe in the wisdom of drug prohibition must look into why the war on drugs seems to be not succeeding at all.
In a way, all this represents the classic tension between individual rights and the common good. Introducing individual responsibility into the equation that would make individual rights compatible with the common good is, of course, a winning combination.
. . . legalizing marijuana would free up both human and financial resources for Mexico to push back against the scourges that are often, if not always correctly, attributed to drug traffickers and that constitute Mexicans' real bane: kidnapping, extortion, vehicle theft, home assaults, highway robbery and gunfights between gangs that leave far too many innocent bystanders dead and wounded. Before Mexico's current war on drugs started, in late 2006, the country's crime rate was low and dropping. Freed from the demands of the war on drugs, Mexico could return its energies to again reducing violent crime.
Of course, those who oppose drug legalization especially from this side of the border question the social costs that come with legalizing drugs inasmuch as legalization will increase drug consumption. Are these drugs inherently addictive? If so, what will be their long-term effects on individual health and social well-being? Will drug consumption lead to other kinds of crimes? Will it lead to lung diseases the way cigarette smoking does? Will drug consumption impact families and cause social problems that will lead to the creation of more welfare programs? James Wilson, professor of political theory and senior fellow at the Clough Center for the Study of Constitutional Democracy at Boston College, has brought up these arguments in this old article, “Legalizing Drugs Makes Matters Worse." In a book review published by the Claremont Review of Books, he argued that social taboos against drug consumption work: “more generally, addiction is less common when the values of the culture are hostile to it and more common when those values erode. One of the ways society makes its values clear is by making actions against those values illegal and reserving praise for people who act in accordance with them.”
To be convincing, proponents of drug legalization must offer a thorough cost-benefit analysis of drug decriminalization against drug prohibition, including estimates of future social costs that may possibly come with increased drug consumption. Likewise, those who continue to believe in the wisdom of drug prohibition must look into why the war on drugs seems to be not succeeding at all.
In a way, all this represents the classic tension between individual rights and the common good. Introducing individual responsibility into the equation that would make individual rights compatible with the common good is, of course, a winning combination.
“Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone”
The fate and life of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, the Iranian widow sentenced to be stoned for adultery, hangs in the balance. In July, due to international pressures, Iranian authorities indicated they might not carry out stoning for the time being, but the woman could still face execution by hanging.
Stoning is an inhumane and cruel form of punishment. It is barbaric. The Vatican, in a public statement issued recently, condemned it as a brutal form of punishment. Sajad, the widow’s son, has made appeals to Pope Benedict XVI, and the Vatican is using its diplomatic channels to stop the execution.
Talks about hypocrisy and self-righteousness and unchecked clerical power on the part of Iran’s moral guardians may come across as Western pontificating. So, I’ll turn to prayers instead, hoping that Christ’s teaching on this subject may teach spiritual leaders of other faiths that God’s mercy is as human as it is divine.
1 Jesus went to the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the middle, 4 They say to him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what say you? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, even to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said to her, Woman, where are those your accusers? has no man condemned you? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more. [John 8:7]
Stoning is an inhumane and cruel form of punishment. It is barbaric. The Vatican, in a public statement issued recently, condemned it as a brutal form of punishment. Sajad, the widow’s son, has made appeals to Pope Benedict XVI, and the Vatican is using its diplomatic channels to stop the execution.
Talks about hypocrisy and self-righteousness and unchecked clerical power on the part of Iran’s moral guardians may come across as Western pontificating. So, I’ll turn to prayers instead, hoping that Christ’s teaching on this subject may teach spiritual leaders of other faiths that God’s mercy is as human as it is divine.
1 Jesus went to the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the middle, 4 They say to him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what say you? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the oldest, even to the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the middle. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said to her, Woman, where are those your accusers? has no man condemned you? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn you: go, and sin no more. [John 8:7]
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Still On a Campaign Mode
I hope these things are just coincidental. But I have been noticing that in areas where the current Administration is weak, like the economy, its officials are quick to condemn the Bush Administration (which, to be fair, had its share of bad decisions that had contributed to our current economic woes). But in areas where the Administration thinks it is gaining ground, like the Iraq war, it is quick to claim credit, regardless of what the Bush Administration has done early on during the war, especially in 2006 when Iraq was slipping into a quagmire, amidst a spiraling ethnic-driven civil war.
Indeed, the Obama economic team is on the defensive these days, in light of disappointing news about the country’s economic recovery this summer, which, according to this WSJ article, is a result of current bad economic policies. Their line of defense hinges on blaming the economic mess they believed they inherited from the previous Administration. In today’s CNN interview, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development said that at the onset they did everything they could to address the housing crisis that was at the core of the financial crisis, with good results, but did add that the economic recovery is now being slowed down by a new challenge that has cropped up since, namely, unemployment. However, the job problem is now on their watch. It was a problem pleading attention as early as middle of last year. But instead of focusing on how to bolster the job market, the Administration spent a significant amount of its political capital persuading Congress to pass a health care legislation.
Come Tuesday, when US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq, I anticipate that the Obama speech will take credit for and claim victory over the Iraq war.
While governing involves being wise and decisive in decision-making, it also entails being responsible for the consequences of its decisions, of owning things up, be they good or bad. It is giving credit where credit is due and admitting mistakes if mistakes are made. If a regime makes decisions based on what is politically expedient, it is not governing. It is campaigning for that political power to remain in its hands.
Indeed, the Obama economic team is on the defensive these days, in light of disappointing news about the country’s economic recovery this summer, which, according to this WSJ article, is a result of current bad economic policies. Their line of defense hinges on blaming the economic mess they believed they inherited from the previous Administration. In today’s CNN interview, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development said that at the onset they did everything they could to address the housing crisis that was at the core of the financial crisis, with good results, but did add that the economic recovery is now being slowed down by a new challenge that has cropped up since, namely, unemployment. However, the job problem is now on their watch. It was a problem pleading attention as early as middle of last year. But instead of focusing on how to bolster the job market, the Administration spent a significant amount of its political capital persuading Congress to pass a health care legislation.
Come Tuesday, when US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq, I anticipate that the Obama speech will take credit for and claim victory over the Iraq war.
While governing involves being wise and decisive in decision-making, it also entails being responsible for the consequences of its decisions, of owning things up, be they good or bad. It is giving credit where credit is due and admitting mistakes if mistakes are made. If a regime makes decisions based on what is politically expedient, it is not governing. It is campaigning for that political power to remain in its hands.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Political Stalemate in Iraq
In his recent trip to Baghdad, Vice-President Joe Biden urged Iraq’s political leaders to get on with the business of governing as the post-election deadlock has prevented elected officials to form a new government. Biden’s message is urgent particularly because U.S. combat operations are winding down and a significant number of U.S. troops are set to leave Iraq soon. Biden recommended that all sectarian groups play a meaningful role in the formation of the new government, although Ayad Allawi, one of the contenders for the prime ministership, said that Biden did not really offer specific proposals on how to break the stalemate. His answer was, “well, it’s up to the Iraqis.”
Well, it seems it’s not up to the Iraqis. They couldn’t do it. If they could, we would not be witnessing such political wrangling and blatant display of power-grab among elected officials. Perhaps no one is giving in because to do so would be tantamount to political suicide. Perhaps they are afraid of each other. Perhaps Iraqi institutions are not strong enough to overcome Iraqi factions’ fractious self-interestedness.
And perhaps the solution lies outside, far from Iraq’s toxic political climate. Why not form a 10-man international commission of decent and thoughtful human beings (whether they be former leaders of nations or technocrats or academics or businessmen, or all of the above, combining from within themselves knowledge and practice, philosophy and politics, vision and strategies) to act as a caretaker government for one year to lay down the fundamentals of a functioning, free, and prospering Iraq with complete objectivity, professionalism, a sense of justice, and a genuine disinterestedness for the well-being of all Iraqis? I’m sure reasonable and fair Iraqi officials will not find the idea too far-fetched.
Well, it seems it’s not up to the Iraqis. They couldn’t do it. If they could, we would not be witnessing such political wrangling and blatant display of power-grab among elected officials. Perhaps no one is giving in because to do so would be tantamount to political suicide. Perhaps they are afraid of each other. Perhaps Iraqi institutions are not strong enough to overcome Iraqi factions’ fractious self-interestedness.
And perhaps the solution lies outside, far from Iraq’s toxic political climate. Why not form a 10-man international commission of decent and thoughtful human beings (whether they be former leaders of nations or technocrats or academics or businessmen, or all of the above, combining from within themselves knowledge and practice, philosophy and politics, vision and strategies) to act as a caretaker government for one year to lay down the fundamentals of a functioning, free, and prospering Iraq with complete objectivity, professionalism, a sense of justice, and a genuine disinterestedness for the well-being of all Iraqis? I’m sure reasonable and fair Iraqi officials will not find the idea too far-fetched.
Citizen Watch in Mexico
President Felipe Calderon’s call for citizen participation in his campaign against the cartels is a smart move, especially because the nature of the game is changing: the cartels are no longer just trafficking drugs, they are usurping the powers of the state. In today’s Washington Post article, Calderon said, “The behavior of the criminals has changed and become a defiance to the state, an attempt to replace the state.” Indeed, there is an atmosphere of fear in the country, and the criminals seem to be gaining the upper hand, ruling like warlords, Mafia-style. In this campaign, Calderon is asking the public to be vigilant and to report to the authorities anyone who may be involved in protecting the cartels, whether they are prosecutors, judges, police, mayors, or governors.
At stake is nothing less than the sovereign will of the Mexican people. In a republican setting, a people’s sovereign will gets translated into a vote for a government that rules by people’s consent. The usurpation of state powers by illicit criminal organizations threatens this democratic arrangement, where the rule of law is replaced by the rule by men, and the constitutional order by force and intimidation.
“We have an organized crime and a disorganized society,” said Calderon. For a respectable country with a great historic past, Mexico cannot allow the mob to gain the upper hand. As it is, the mob is making the country move backward instead of forward. A strong yet responsible government co-opting an enlightened citizenry can put an end to it.
At stake is nothing less than the sovereign will of the Mexican people. In a republican setting, a people’s sovereign will gets translated into a vote for a government that rules by people’s consent. The usurpation of state powers by illicit criminal organizations threatens this democratic arrangement, where the rule of law is replaced by the rule by men, and the constitutional order by force and intimidation.
“We have an organized crime and a disorganized society,” said Calderon. For a respectable country with a great historic past, Mexico cannot allow the mob to gain the upper hand. As it is, the mob is making the country move backward instead of forward. A strong yet responsible government co-opting an enlightened citizenry can put an end to it.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
“Why the Left remains politically insignificant”
William Esposo of Philippine Star reproaches the Philippine Left for being ineffective in selling their ideology to the Filipino people. In his attempt to explain why Filipino communists remain politically insignificant, aside from the influence of the Catholic faith in Filipino thinking, he also argues that Filipino communists have not really succeeded in branding and selling their product effectively:
With their decision to participate in the electoral process, we had hoped that the Extreme Left will finally evolve to something more palatable to Filipino political sensibilities. Alas, they still behave like the proverbial old dog that is already incapable of learning new tricks. They’ve not changed their rhetoric. They’ve not changed their venue, the streets. They’ve simply refused to change and try to be acceptable.
. . . What makes our Leftists most pathetic is that they’ve become anachronistic and they do not even know it. If they had an iota of marketing sense, a grasp of strategy, they should have evolved already into a new and acceptable political brand and product.
. . . The best marketing organizations will not even attempt to repackage what is already perceived as a bad product. That would be wasting good money in trying to salvage something bad. They would rather create a new brand and get a fresh start that will be unencumbered by a negative association.
But it’s not the branding that is marginalizing the Left. It’s much, much more than that! It’s the nonsensical worldview of the communists and the futility in their argument that simply cannot pass the scrutiny of reason. For any commonsensical, hard-working Filipino, these communists are the ones causing enormous sufferings to the Filipino people.
Their typical argument revolves around their messianic mission of liberating the Filipino people from “the shackles of U.S. imperialism,” regardless of the means to achieve it. Indeed, its leadership, Jose Ma. Sison, has repeatedly argued that the root cause of all the problems in the Philippines could be traced to its long history of foreign dependence on America’s imperial domination, and, as a consequence, to the plunder of the country’s resources and the exploitation of its cheap labor by greedy American multinational companies.
But where is the evidence for this? In fact, study after study indicates that global trade (yes, via those greedy MNCs) contributes to Asia’s economic growth. While multinationals reap profits in the Philippines, as any corporation should, they provide jobs and technical assistance to hundreds of thousands of Filipino workers, thereby contributing to the country’s economic growth.
Rather, as Third World scholars would agree, the factors that cause Third World underdevelopment are the following: endemic graft and corruption among local politicians, ethnic wars, lack of capacities, skills, and attitudes that encourage individual responsibility, lack of strong institutions and the rule of law, and the pervasive influence of certain cultural values and religious beliefs that are anathema to progress and prosperity.
Filipino communists have nothing to offer but their long record of crimes committed against the Philippine government, the Filipino people, and foreign nationals caught in their ideological war. At least during the three decades of war that they have waged against the country, they are responsible for, among others : a) the loss of thousands of civilian and military lives killed in one way or another during this insurgency; b) the political instability that has disrupted the country’s economy through loss of investor confidence (Philippine economic growth has been one of the slowest among Southeast Asian countries), and, consequently, to loss of jobs and government revenues; c) the diversion of tremendous amounts of government resources designated for social services (such as education) towards supporting anti-insurgency military operations.
Instead of asking why the Philippine Left has remained politically insignificant, I think the proper question to ask is why the Philippine Left continues to exist. It should have been banished from the intellectual, moral, political, and economic landscapes of the country a long time ago.
With their decision to participate in the electoral process, we had hoped that the Extreme Left will finally evolve to something more palatable to Filipino political sensibilities. Alas, they still behave like the proverbial old dog that is already incapable of learning new tricks. They’ve not changed their rhetoric. They’ve not changed their venue, the streets. They’ve simply refused to change and try to be acceptable.
. . . What makes our Leftists most pathetic is that they’ve become anachronistic and they do not even know it. If they had an iota of marketing sense, a grasp of strategy, they should have evolved already into a new and acceptable political brand and product.
. . . The best marketing organizations will not even attempt to repackage what is already perceived as a bad product. That would be wasting good money in trying to salvage something bad. They would rather create a new brand and get a fresh start that will be unencumbered by a negative association.
But it’s not the branding that is marginalizing the Left. It’s much, much more than that! It’s the nonsensical worldview of the communists and the futility in their argument that simply cannot pass the scrutiny of reason. For any commonsensical, hard-working Filipino, these communists are the ones causing enormous sufferings to the Filipino people.
Their typical argument revolves around their messianic mission of liberating the Filipino people from “the shackles of U.S. imperialism,” regardless of the means to achieve it. Indeed, its leadership, Jose Ma. Sison, has repeatedly argued that the root cause of all the problems in the Philippines could be traced to its long history of foreign dependence on America’s imperial domination, and, as a consequence, to the plunder of the country’s resources and the exploitation of its cheap labor by greedy American multinational companies.
But where is the evidence for this? In fact, study after study indicates that global trade (yes, via those greedy MNCs) contributes to Asia’s economic growth. While multinationals reap profits in the Philippines, as any corporation should, they provide jobs and technical assistance to hundreds of thousands of Filipino workers, thereby contributing to the country’s economic growth.
Rather, as Third World scholars would agree, the factors that cause Third World underdevelopment are the following: endemic graft and corruption among local politicians, ethnic wars, lack of capacities, skills, and attitudes that encourage individual responsibility, lack of strong institutions and the rule of law, and the pervasive influence of certain cultural values and religious beliefs that are anathema to progress and prosperity.
Filipino communists have nothing to offer but their long record of crimes committed against the Philippine government, the Filipino people, and foreign nationals caught in their ideological war. At least during the three decades of war that they have waged against the country, they are responsible for, among others : a) the loss of thousands of civilian and military lives killed in one way or another during this insurgency; b) the political instability that has disrupted the country’s economy through loss of investor confidence (Philippine economic growth has been one of the slowest among Southeast Asian countries), and, consequently, to loss of jobs and government revenues; c) the diversion of tremendous amounts of government resources designated for social services (such as education) towards supporting anti-insurgency military operations.
Instead of asking why the Philippine Left has remained politically insignificant, I think the proper question to ask is why the Philippine Left continues to exist. It should have been banished from the intellectual, moral, political, and economic landscapes of the country a long time ago.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Ancestral Domain
The newly-installed President of the Philippines, Noynoy Aquino, during his State of the Nation Address, promised to resume peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front in November, but without provisions on ancestral domain: “We will learn from the mistakes of the past administration, which sprung upon the people an agreement reached without consultation with all concerned . . . We are not blind to the fact that it (the memorandum on ancestral domain) was done with political motivation, and that the interest behind it was not that of the people.”
This is welcome news! For the longest time, I have been arguing against the wrongheaded principles that informed the Mindanao policy. Claiming land ownership on the basis of historic right would only lead to the legitimization and institutionalization of ethnic division in Mindanao.
For the next peace talks to succeed, the only thing left for the insurgents to do is to disarm themselves, with the Philippine government guaranteeing amnesty to those who will surrender. These conditions breed trust and confidence between negotiating parties. Without them, the promised peace talks will not achieve anything.
This is welcome news! For the longest time, I have been arguing against the wrongheaded principles that informed the Mindanao policy. Claiming land ownership on the basis of historic right would only lead to the legitimization and institutionalization of ethnic division in Mindanao.
For the next peace talks to succeed, the only thing left for the insurgents to do is to disarm themselves, with the Philippine government guaranteeing amnesty to those who will surrender. These conditions breed trust and confidence between negotiating parties. Without them, the promised peace talks will not achieve anything.
Informal v. Illegal Immigration
This insightful piece, "Immigrants and Crime: Time for a Sensible Debate," by Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at Stanford University, makes distinctions between crimes committed by illegal immigrants who, just like any groups of immigrants, come to this country to pursue their dreams even if it would mean breaking the law (Fukuyama labels these acts informal) and crimes committed by illegal immigrants who engage in gang and drug violence. He said, “The gardeners and maids who cross the border illegally are very different from the tattooed Salvatrucha gang member who lives by extortion and drug-dealing.” His call for a sensible debate on this matter is indeed sensible.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
“Birth Tourism” and Birthright Citizenship
Any immigrant wanting to live in the United States will tell you that the road to citizenship is not easy. Aside from the long wait and other legal requirements, citizenship has to be earned and demonstrated by paying homage and exclusive allegiance to the U.S.
However, Chinese consultants promoting “birth tourism” in China think that a U.S. citizenship can be bought. According to this WP piece, a Chinese consultancy in Shanghai can place a pregnant woman in one of the three Chinese-owned “baby care centers” in California for $1,475 for a three-month stay – that is , until the baby is born. The purpose is to take advantage of this country’s birthright citizenship – “the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship.” These consultants are quick to add that everything they do is legal: “We don’t encourage moms to break the law – just to take advantage of it.”
And U.S. officials agree. They say it is not a crime to travel to the U.S. to give birth so that the child can acquire U.S. citizenship. Says a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing: “You don’t deny someone because you know they’re going to the U.S. to have children.”
But this is a superfluous interpretation of the 14th Amendment , which says that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Prof. Ed Erler of the California State University, San Bernardino, points out that American citizenship has two components: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. He said that the present-day belief that anyone born in the US is automatically subject to its jurisdiction renders the jurisdiction clause superficial and without force:
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Certainly, Chinese parents who come to the US to take advantage of the package that comes with “birth tourism” will not know what lessons in American civics to impart to their U.S.-born children. For citizenship entails much more than what is expedient and profitable.
However, Chinese consultants promoting “birth tourism” in China think that a U.S. citizenship can be bought. According to this WP piece, a Chinese consultancy in Shanghai can place a pregnant woman in one of the three Chinese-owned “baby care centers” in California for $1,475 for a three-month stay – that is , until the baby is born. The purpose is to take advantage of this country’s birthright citizenship – “the policy whereby the children of illegal aliens born within the geographical limits of the United States are entitled to American citizenship.” These consultants are quick to add that everything they do is legal: “We don’t encourage moms to break the law – just to take advantage of it.”
And U.S. officials agree. They say it is not a crime to travel to the U.S. to give birth so that the child can acquire U.S. citizenship. Says a U.S. Embassy spokesman in Beijing: “You don’t deny someone because you know they’re going to the U.S. to have children.”
But this is a superfluous interpretation of the 14th Amendment , which says that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Prof. Ed Erler of the California State University, San Bernardino, points out that American citizenship has two components: birth or naturalization in the U.S. and being subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. He said that the present-day belief that anyone born in the US is automatically subject to its jurisdiction renders the jurisdiction clause superficial and without force:
Indeed, during debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the citizenship clause, attempted to assure skeptical colleagues that the new language was not intended to make Indians citizens of the U.S. Indians, Howard conceded, were born within the nation’s geographical limits; but he steadfastly maintained that they were not subject to its jurisdiction because they owed allegiance to their tribes. Senator Lyman Trumbull, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, rose to support his colleague, arguing that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant “not owing allegiance to anybody else and being subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.” Jurisdiction understood as allegiance, Senator Howard interjected, excludes not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” Thus “subject to the jurisdiction” does not simply mean, as is commonly thought today, subject to American laws or American courts. It means owing exclusive political allegiance to the U.S.
Certainly, Chinese parents who come to the US to take advantage of the package that comes with “birth tourism” will not know what lessons in American civics to impart to their U.S.-born children. For citizenship entails much more than what is expedient and profitable.
Political Freedom v. Economic Freedom
I’ve always wondered why people are debating over whether political freedom should precede economic freedom or vice-versa . . . as if one could exist without the other, as if one could make do at the exclusion of the other. To Aristotle, the nature of the whole is the completion of its parts.
However, there are indeed countries out there that seem to exhibit one form of freedom at the expense of the other. China, for instance, well on its way to an unprecedented level of economic prosperity in its history, has an authoritarian capitalist system. Its authoritarian culture has enabled its government to engage in capitalist ventures and economic activities without receiving as much opposition or resistance from its people. The problem with this economic arrangement is wealth has not trickled down, with the Communist Party officials remaining as the main beneficiary of China's booming economy. Dissent in the form of labor unrest especially in rural areas does take place, until the CCP so decides it’s time for a political crackdown.
I guess the success of a market solution to the world's problems will always hinge on political reforms. If we have enlightened statesmen at the helm, a fair court system that is in place, rules that have teeth, etc., then the market will always work. Agitated Chinese laborers protesting for fair wages and fair labor practices will need a channel with which to redress their grievances. Conversely, greedy private-entrepreneurs-turned-mafias who are now willing to use every power they have to maintain their wealth need to be reined in.
But political reforms only work if politics is viewed in its rightful sense, i.e, that it is there to dispense justice for the sake of achieving the common good; that it is supposed to secure and protect individual rights; and that it is not merely for administrative or regulatory functions. If we develop contempt for it because of its corrupt politicians, administrative overreach, and wasteful mismanagement, then the very power that can transform society towards the good will continue to remain in the hands of these thugs.
However, there are indeed countries out there that seem to exhibit one form of freedom at the expense of the other. China, for instance, well on its way to an unprecedented level of economic prosperity in its history, has an authoritarian capitalist system. Its authoritarian culture has enabled its government to engage in capitalist ventures and economic activities without receiving as much opposition or resistance from its people. The problem with this economic arrangement is wealth has not trickled down, with the Communist Party officials remaining as the main beneficiary of China's booming economy. Dissent in the form of labor unrest especially in rural areas does take place, until the CCP so decides it’s time for a political crackdown.
I guess the success of a market solution to the world's problems will always hinge on political reforms. If we have enlightened statesmen at the helm, a fair court system that is in place, rules that have teeth, etc., then the market will always work. Agitated Chinese laborers protesting for fair wages and fair labor practices will need a channel with which to redress their grievances. Conversely, greedy private-entrepreneurs-turned-mafias who are now willing to use every power they have to maintain their wealth need to be reined in.
But political reforms only work if politics is viewed in its rightful sense, i.e, that it is there to dispense justice for the sake of achieving the common good; that it is supposed to secure and protect individual rights; and that it is not merely for administrative or regulatory functions. If we develop contempt for it because of its corrupt politicians, administrative overreach, and wasteful mismanagement, then the very power that can transform society towards the good will continue to remain in the hands of these thugs.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Calling the Shots in Afghanistan
The death of Staff Sgt. Christopher Cabacoy last Monday, July 5th, 2010 in Afghanistan hits close to home. He is a nephew of a friend’s friend, who proudly said that his nephew died defending the freedom of his country. A recipient of numerous awards and decorations, this young man’s life was cut short by an IED attack in Kandahar. He left behind a wife and a son.
There has been a spate of attacks on American servicemen this early part of the summer. At least 23 have died so far during the month of July. Yet in today’s Washington Post headline story, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai is resisting General Petraeus over his plans to expand, empower, and arm village defense forces that will guard villages susceptible to Taliban control. Karzai fears that the effort will lead to the formation of more militias, hence, to the strengthening of warlordism that he thinks is at the core of Afghanistan’s perennial state of insecurity.
His deeper fear, I think, has to do with potential threats to the central government that may come about through decentralizing power from the center to the periphery. By empowering local institutions such as those village defense forces, Karzai’s political hold at the center will diminish. His top-down approach is not working, however. And there seems to be no institutional check with which to curb the power at the center. The Afghans’ best and only defense against a corrupt, inept central government can be found at the local level, in and among themselves.
President Karzai needs to understand that as long as the United States government is underwriting Afghanistan’s security, with resources that include the precious lives of U.S. service men, General Petraeus has the right to call the shots in the way that he sees fit . . . for the success of his mission and for the welfare of Afghanistan.
There has been a spate of attacks on American servicemen this early part of the summer. At least 23 have died so far during the month of July. Yet in today’s Washington Post headline story, Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai is resisting General Petraeus over his plans to expand, empower, and arm village defense forces that will guard villages susceptible to Taliban control. Karzai fears that the effort will lead to the formation of more militias, hence, to the strengthening of warlordism that he thinks is at the core of Afghanistan’s perennial state of insecurity.
His deeper fear, I think, has to do with potential threats to the central government that may come about through decentralizing power from the center to the periphery. By empowering local institutions such as those village defense forces, Karzai’s political hold at the center will diminish. His top-down approach is not working, however. And there seems to be no institutional check with which to curb the power at the center. The Afghans’ best and only defense against a corrupt, inept central government can be found at the local level, in and among themselves.
President Karzai needs to understand that as long as the United States government is underwriting Afghanistan’s security, with resources that include the precious lives of U.S. service men, General Petraeus has the right to call the shots in the way that he sees fit . . . for the success of his mission and for the welfare of Afghanistan.
Monday, July 5, 2010
China’s New Morality Campaign
Chinese youths are getting too hip, so say the crusaders of China’s new morality campaign, those government censors who are in charge of policing morality among the young for their changing lifestyle and perceived immorality. Case in point is a Chinese reality television show, “If You Are the One,” a popular matchmaking show that reveals basic human desires too “modern” for the government nannies to handle (e.g. a female contestant wanting a wealthy man with a flashy car). The goal of the morality campaign, according to this article, “For China, Modernity Can Go Too Far,” is to “eradicate all social evils” and advocate a healthy, civilized and high-minded lifestyle,” and to bring China back to its traditional morality.
Of course the Chinese are resisting. Some of them argue that with the opening up and reforms, society’s attitudes have changed: “For ages, the government has condoned a materialistic value system, and now they are reaping the fruits of it. To put the blame on the public is just lame.” Others have become cynical, given the many reports of indiscretion committed by the Communist Party officials themselves.
It seems, in this age of openness and information explosion, that Chinese civil society is outpacing the totalitarian march of the Communist Party, although towards a different direction. It should be so. And it would behoove the Chinese Communist Party to be cognizant of the fact that the flourishing of its human capital and the sustainability of its economic prosperity rest on the people’s exercise of their rights. It breeds creativity, inventiveness, assertiveness, and accomplishments, for it hinges on the premise that every individual has the capacity to make the right decisions for himself. The problem with nanny states (and for that matter, theocratic states) is they see the exercise of these rights as a threat to their power.
As to that 24-year old fashion model who, during the TV show, refused a bicycle ride offer from a poor and unemployed bachelor, saying she would “rather cry in a BMW than ride a bicycle while laughing,” provoked, of course, the wrath of government nannies who accused her of possessing a materialistic, “gold-digging” attitude and barred her from the show. In her defense, another contestant argued, “Even if the show is censored, these kinds of thoughts exist in real life.” . . . and added, “She just asked for a BMW; she didn’t ask for a Benz or a Ferrari.” Now that’s another subject for another blog posting.
Of course the Chinese are resisting. Some of them argue that with the opening up and reforms, society’s attitudes have changed: “For ages, the government has condoned a materialistic value system, and now they are reaping the fruits of it. To put the blame on the public is just lame.” Others have become cynical, given the many reports of indiscretion committed by the Communist Party officials themselves.
It seems, in this age of openness and information explosion, that Chinese civil society is outpacing the totalitarian march of the Communist Party, although towards a different direction. It should be so. And it would behoove the Chinese Communist Party to be cognizant of the fact that the flourishing of its human capital and the sustainability of its economic prosperity rest on the people’s exercise of their rights. It breeds creativity, inventiveness, assertiveness, and accomplishments, for it hinges on the premise that every individual has the capacity to make the right decisions for himself. The problem with nanny states (and for that matter, theocratic states) is they see the exercise of these rights as a threat to their power.
As to that 24-year old fashion model who, during the TV show, refused a bicycle ride offer from a poor and unemployed bachelor, saying she would “rather cry in a BMW than ride a bicycle while laughing,” provoked, of course, the wrath of government nannies who accused her of possessing a materialistic, “gold-digging” attitude and barred her from the show. In her defense, another contestant argued, “Even if the show is censored, these kinds of thoughts exist in real life.” . . . and added, “She just asked for a BMW; she didn’t ask for a Benz or a Ferrari.” Now that’s another subject for another blog posting.
Who is the Imperialist Now?
This Washington Post article debunks the long-held prejudices of communists and leftist liberals the world over against America: that America is not an imperialist (a typical communist line of attack) and that the war in Iraq (contrary to the anti-war, America-is-an-occupier charge by the liberal left) has in fact paved the way for economic globalization. The article, entitled, “Risk-tolerant China Investing Heavily in Iraq as U.S. Companies Hold Back,” begins by saying that even though China and other countries did not participate in establishing peace and security in Iraq, they have started to take advantage of a potentially profitable business climate there:
China didn't take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or the bloody military battles that followed. It hasn't invested in reconstruction projects or efforts by the West to fortify the struggling democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
But as the U.S. military draws down and Iraq opens up to foreign investment, China and a handful of other countries that weren't part of the "coalition of the willing" are poised to cash in. These countries are expanding their foothold beyond Iraq's oil reserves -- the world's third largest -- to areas such as construction, government services and even tourism, while American companies show little interest in investing here.
Granted that American businessmen are wary of Iraq’s security situation and have not cashed in (another lesson for the communists: in the world of free markets, investments are private decisions made not by governments but by private investors), nevertheless, this whole matter should not be treated only as a question of risk tolerance. It is a question of national character (or lack thereof), not to mention comity and friendship that nations belonging to the so-called community of nations must observe. There is no such thing as free lunch. If these countries want to do business in Iraq, they must at least help underwrite its security. It is, as they should know by now, a (pre)requisite for profitable investments and economic development.
But if they would rather talk principles, they should begin with this question: who is the imperialist now?
China didn't take part in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq or the bloody military battles that followed. It hasn't invested in reconstruction projects or efforts by the West to fortify the struggling democracy in the heart of the Middle East.
But as the U.S. military draws down and Iraq opens up to foreign investment, China and a handful of other countries that weren't part of the "coalition of the willing" are poised to cash in. These countries are expanding their foothold beyond Iraq's oil reserves -- the world's third largest -- to areas such as construction, government services and even tourism, while American companies show little interest in investing here.
Granted that American businessmen are wary of Iraq’s security situation and have not cashed in (another lesson for the communists: in the world of free markets, investments are private decisions made not by governments but by private investors), nevertheless, this whole matter should not be treated only as a question of risk tolerance. It is a question of national character (or lack thereof), not to mention comity and friendship that nations belonging to the so-called community of nations must observe. There is no such thing as free lunch. If these countries want to do business in Iraq, they must at least help underwrite its security. It is, as they should know by now, a (pre)requisite for profitable investments and economic development.
But if they would rather talk principles, they should begin with this question: who is the imperialist now?
Sunday, July 4, 2010
“America, One Door at a Time”
This witty, funny survey of the America’s racial backgrounds, taken by Peter Carlson, a retired newspaperman who took on a temporary job at the Bureau of Census so that he “could meet the American people in all their wacky glory,” bespeaks of a good-natured, happy disposition of old and new Americans hailing from every corner of the world that could only come from finding a home, of being at home in America. It also bespeaks, perhaps in an unconscious way, of a deep love for this country and a sense of gratitude for its many blessings.
So on this 4th of July, happy birthday, America!
So on this 4th of July, happy birthday, America!
Sunday, June 27, 2010
The Empty Piety of Terrorists
The trial of Faisal Shahzad, the Time Square would-be bomber, once again spotlighted the twisted reasoning of terrorists. Taking advantage of the publicity that comes with this trial and knowing full well that his words would be used by other terrorists to justify their murderous plots, Shahzad announced his case against America. Pleading guilty to terrorism-related charges, he said:
I want to plead guilty and I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because – until the hour the U.S. pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
He also said that he intended to damage buildings and injure or kill people because: "I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attacks . . . We Muslims are one community." When asked about why he would have killed innocent pedestrians in Times Square, he replied: "Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same."
I had blogged before about themes similar to Shahzad’s self-righteous indignation: “Does Suicide Bombing Have a Moral Equivalence?” and “The Jihadi Elite and the Communist Elite.” There is no need to repeat the arguments here. But I do want to add that unless the civilized world is quick to offer direct rebuttal to these pontificating terrorists, we must not give them and their messages the light of day anymore. That is, we must not let them use these forums and communication tools with which they are able to pull off their publicity stunts. There are many unsuspecting, impressionable young minds out there that we need to protect from these false messages.
I want to plead guilty and I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times forward because – until the hour the U.S. pulls it forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes in Somalia and Yemen and in Pakistan and stops the occupation of Muslim lands and stops killing the Muslims and stops reporting the Muslims to its government – we will be attacking [the] U.S., and I plead guilty to that.
He also said that he intended to damage buildings and injure or kill people because: "I am part of the answer to the U.S. terrorizing [of] the Muslim nations and the Muslim people, and on behalf of that, I'm avenging the attacks . . . We Muslims are one community." When asked about why he would have killed innocent pedestrians in Times Square, he replied: "Well, the [American] people select the government. We consider them all the same."
I had blogged before about themes similar to Shahzad’s self-righteous indignation: “Does Suicide Bombing Have a Moral Equivalence?” and “The Jihadi Elite and the Communist Elite.” There is no need to repeat the arguments here. But I do want to add that unless the civilized world is quick to offer direct rebuttal to these pontificating terrorists, we must not give them and their messages the light of day anymore. That is, we must not let them use these forums and communication tools with which they are able to pull off their publicity stunts. There are many unsuspecting, impressionable young minds out there that we need to protect from these false messages.
Media Reporting: Sensationalism v. Patriotism
In light of the political/military fiasco that the Rolling Stone article has brought about in regard to the untimely removal of Gen. Stan McChrystal from his Afghanistan command, one can’t help but wonder whether members of the press can appreciate the distinctions between sensationalism and patriotism. For in this case, obviously, the reporter chose to engage in sensationalism. If this is not clear to the reporter and his editors, David Brooks puts things in perspective in this New York Times article, “The Culture of Exposure,” where he argues that off-the-record trash talk, especially in Washington DC, happens to everyone:
Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.
The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. . . McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched.
. . . By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.
The media in the US have grown too big for their breeches. We ordinary readers would simply like to read objective and factual reporting. That is the true vocation of good journalism, anyway – to treat its readers to objective and professional reporting. In areas of national security where the fate of the republic hangs in the balance, we expect them to exercise some prudence and common sense. If this reporter gets the big picture, publicly airing locker- room, gung-ho talk among members of the military is not prudent. It is also not patriotic. It is sensationalism.
Senators privately moan about other senators. Administration officials gripe about other administration officials. People in the White House complain about the idiots in Congress, and the idiots in Congress complain about the idiots in the White House — especially if they’re in the same party. Washington floats on a river of aspersion.
The system is basically set up to maximize kvetching. . . McChrystal, like everyone else, kvetched.
. . . By putting the kvetching in the magazine, the reporter essentially took run-of-the-mill complaining and turned it into a direct challenge to presidential authority. He took a successful general and made it impossible for President Obama to retain him.
The media in the US have grown too big for their breeches. We ordinary readers would simply like to read objective and factual reporting. That is the true vocation of good journalism, anyway – to treat its readers to objective and professional reporting. In areas of national security where the fate of the republic hangs in the balance, we expect them to exercise some prudence and common sense. If this reporter gets the big picture, publicly airing locker- room, gung-ho talk among members of the military is not prudent. It is also not patriotic. It is sensationalism.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
"Peddling Influence" in the Philippines
Sensing that the U.S. government is seeking to influence the presidency of Ninoy Aquino, the newly-elect President of the Philippines, Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago of the Philippine Senate last week reminded Aquino of a resolution they both passed before, recommending the abrogation of the “Visiting Forces Agreement” between the Philippines and the United States so that “its lopsided provisions against Filipinos could be reviewed.” In this Philippine Star article, Santiago was quoted as saying, “I’m very concerned that America is showing its hand too early – giving him the big build-up. So that it is going to provoke the suspicion in the minds of many that America is intending to manipulate the Aquino presidency.”
This is baffling to me. Given that the Philippine government has been dealing with insurgencies being waged by communist groups, Muslim secessionist movements, and international terrorists for decades, VFA has provided much-needed technical and logistics assistance to the Philippine military. If there are lopsided provisions in the agreement, those indeed must be reviewed. But they must also be weighed against the national security interests of both countries. It seems though that anti-American sentiment is what is driving Philippine foreign policy to adopt a hard stance against U.S. military training and exercises in the country. All in the name of nationalism!
Nationalism can be dangerous if and when it slides into irrational sentiments such as close-mindedness and xenophobia. When a people judge other peoples on the basis of their ethno-linguistic identities, such a people will develop a myopic view of the world and of themselves. Other Asian countries, the likes of Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, understand the strategic importance of how to couple national security interests with international military alliances. And so they cling to U.S. military protection without in the least becoming insecure or unpatriotic about the national interests of their respective countries. Patriotism, which is a better version of nationalism, does not mean close-mindedness the way Burma defines it (which explains why Burma remains the poorest country in Asia). It doesn’t mean being anti-U.S. or anti-foreign the way the communists define it. It means positioning one’s country from a position of strength, taking what it can to promote its national interests while giving what it can towards building a more stable, secure, and peaceful world.
The newly-installed Philippine presidency must think long-terms when it comes to its security needs and problems. Such policy concerns must be thought through with objectivity and reason. For sure, the question of whether the country needs military protection from its allies is something that cannot be answered by the narrow-minded prejudices of its lawmakers.
This is baffling to me. Given that the Philippine government has been dealing with insurgencies being waged by communist groups, Muslim secessionist movements, and international terrorists for decades, VFA has provided much-needed technical and logistics assistance to the Philippine military. If there are lopsided provisions in the agreement, those indeed must be reviewed. But they must also be weighed against the national security interests of both countries. It seems though that anti-American sentiment is what is driving Philippine foreign policy to adopt a hard stance against U.S. military training and exercises in the country. All in the name of nationalism!
Nationalism can be dangerous if and when it slides into irrational sentiments such as close-mindedness and xenophobia. When a people judge other peoples on the basis of their ethno-linguistic identities, such a people will develop a myopic view of the world and of themselves. Other Asian countries, the likes of Japan, South Korea, and Singapore, understand the strategic importance of how to couple national security interests with international military alliances. And so they cling to U.S. military protection without in the least becoming insecure or unpatriotic about the national interests of their respective countries. Patriotism, which is a better version of nationalism, does not mean close-mindedness the way Burma defines it (which explains why Burma remains the poorest country in Asia). It doesn’t mean being anti-U.S. or anti-foreign the way the communists define it. It means positioning one’s country from a position of strength, taking what it can to promote its national interests while giving what it can towards building a more stable, secure, and peaceful world.
The newly-installed Philippine presidency must think long-terms when it comes to its security needs and problems. Such policy concerns must be thought through with objectivity and reason. For sure, the question of whether the country needs military protection from its allies is something that cannot be answered by the narrow-minded prejudices of its lawmakers.
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Iran’s Green Movement
The National Endowment for Democracy awarded its 2010 Democracy Award last week to the Green Movement of Iran, those street protesters who a year ago braved the streets of Tehran in order to challenge the legitimacy of the current regime and demand liberal reforms. I attended the ceremony, which was made extraordinarily poignant by the absence of the recipients.
“What if the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement?” is the subtitle of a Washington Post Saturday editorial, “Iran’s Chance for Change.” It went on to say that supporting the Green Movement would have been a good way to weaken the regime and its nuclear program. (I believed this was the way to go a year ago, during the time that Iranian protesters were most in need of help.) Alas, after a year (of diplomatic failures), “the administration has been inching in this direction.” Finally, but inching in this direction? What would it take to make them move forward and fast? What is it about all this that is difficult to understand? Could it be that some members of the Administration are simply clueless as to what a good Iranian policy entails? Or could it be that some of them are being duped by the enemies?
I wonder, had the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement a year ago, would some of these street protesters have made it to DC to pick up their award?
“What if the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement?” is the subtitle of a Washington Post Saturday editorial, “Iran’s Chance for Change.” It went on to say that supporting the Green Movement would have been a good way to weaken the regime and its nuclear program. (I believed this was the way to go a year ago, during the time that Iranian protesters were most in need of help.) Alas, after a year (of diplomatic failures), “the administration has been inching in this direction.” Finally, but inching in this direction? What would it take to make them move forward and fast? What is it about all this that is difficult to understand? Could it be that some members of the Administration are simply clueless as to what a good Iranian policy entails? Or could it be that some of them are being duped by the enemies?
I wonder, had the Obama Administration fully sided with the Green Movement a year ago, would some of these street protesters have made it to DC to pick up their award?
A Fatwa Condemning Terrorism
It is unexpected, this fatwa issued by the Council of Senior Ulema, Saudi Arabia’s top religious leadership, which condemns violence being waged by terrorist groups and the underground network that finances it [“A Saudi Fatwa for Moderation,” Washington Post, June 13, 2010].
That the most senior religious body in the kingdom is making this call is significant in many ways, one of which is that rival fatwas from a lesser religious authority will not be able to challenge it. Terrorist groups already see it as a threat and are expressing negative reactions online. It is being hailed as representing a new voice of moderation coming from no less than the Muslim clerical establishment itself.
Hopefully, this convulsion will lead to a deeper crack in the system that will pave the way for more religious freedom and liberty of conscience. It happened within the Catholic Church around the fourteenth century when both ecclesiastic powers and political powers were vested in the papacy.
That the most senior religious body in the kingdom is making this call is significant in many ways, one of which is that rival fatwas from a lesser religious authority will not be able to challenge it. Terrorist groups already see it as a threat and are expressing negative reactions online. It is being hailed as representing a new voice of moderation coming from no less than the Muslim clerical establishment itself.
Hopefully, this convulsion will lead to a deeper crack in the system that will pave the way for more religious freedom and liberty of conscience. It happened within the Catholic Church around the fourteenth century when both ecclesiastic powers and political powers were vested in the papacy.
“Deporting the ‘Son of Hamas’”: Is the INS Serious?
This renders me speechless . . . What is there to say? That there is indeed a contradiction between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law? That even those who aid the United States in its global war on terror are not immune from the nuances of immigration laws? That there is no moral equivalence between the good deeds of freedom fighters and the technicality of a law?
The INS has no case against Mosab Hassan Yousef . . . certainly not in the court of reason, justice, and common sense; not even in the court of law.
The INS has no case against Mosab Hassan Yousef . . . certainly not in the court of reason, justice, and common sense; not even in the court of law.
Challenges in North Korea
I am not a soccer fan, but I am pleasantly surprised to find out that North Korea has a team competing in the World Cup. I don’t know anything about the North Korean team (or how they were able to get to play in the World Cup). They must have the support of their oppressive regime, and they must be a privileged lot in an otherwise repressed society where slavishness and poverty are a way of life.
Still and all, sports is supposedly an apolitical thing where physical prowess determines the outcome of a competition. The North Korean team probably made it to the World Cup on the basis of merit. And their achievements should not be cast aside just because they are beholden (maybe) to a tyrannical regime.
And I am thinking beyond sports. I hope that every game the North Koreans play, or for that matter, every game that is played during the tournament, is being aired on TV and radio stations in North Korea. That will be a treat to the people, their narrow window through which they could get a glimpse of the outside world.
This Washington Post op-ed piece, “Screams from North Korea,” portrays a picture of a people who have no idea of a better life outside of their country. Their minds, according to the author, have been nurtured by a tyranny, conditioned for loyalty, and fed on lies. How does a mind shaped by all these change? How does one convince North Koreans of a kind of life different from theirs when they don’t even know of the alternatives out there?
Their only sources of outside information are defectors who provide stories of freedom and opportunities that they have found in their new life. One said that from leaflet drops, he got to view images of people wearing all sorts of different clothes (enough to “spark a revolution of the mind”). Smuggled radios and cellphones from China have become important tools for disseminating information from outside. Defectors are “seeding doubts that might someday become dissent.” Like those imprisoned in Plato’s cave but got to see the outside world, these enlightened defectors are doing everything they can to tell those who are left behind that there are other realities out there, far better than the one they live in.
Closed societies like Burma and North Korea need our help. Deeply-entrenched tyrannical regimes should be removed by force. But there’s also that people-to-people “civil society” obligations that the lucky ones like us, who were able to leave Plato’s cave, owe to those who are still living in the darkness of ignorance. In this 21st century of individual rights and liberties, of free-market enterprise and prosperity, of accessible technological tools and the information revolution, no groups of people anywhere in the world should wallow in ignorance, slavishness, and poverty.
As to the North Korean soccer team, I‘ll be rooting for them, hoping that at the end of the tournament, they, too, will defect so that they can tell the world their story.
Still and all, sports is supposedly an apolitical thing where physical prowess determines the outcome of a competition. The North Korean team probably made it to the World Cup on the basis of merit. And their achievements should not be cast aside just because they are beholden (maybe) to a tyrannical regime.
And I am thinking beyond sports. I hope that every game the North Koreans play, or for that matter, every game that is played during the tournament, is being aired on TV and radio stations in North Korea. That will be a treat to the people, their narrow window through which they could get a glimpse of the outside world.
This Washington Post op-ed piece, “Screams from North Korea,” portrays a picture of a people who have no idea of a better life outside of their country. Their minds, according to the author, have been nurtured by a tyranny, conditioned for loyalty, and fed on lies. How does a mind shaped by all these change? How does one convince North Koreans of a kind of life different from theirs when they don’t even know of the alternatives out there?
Their only sources of outside information are defectors who provide stories of freedom and opportunities that they have found in their new life. One said that from leaflet drops, he got to view images of people wearing all sorts of different clothes (enough to “spark a revolution of the mind”). Smuggled radios and cellphones from China have become important tools for disseminating information from outside. Defectors are “seeding doubts that might someday become dissent.” Like those imprisoned in Plato’s cave but got to see the outside world, these enlightened defectors are doing everything they can to tell those who are left behind that there are other realities out there, far better than the one they live in.
Closed societies like Burma and North Korea need our help. Deeply-entrenched tyrannical regimes should be removed by force. But there’s also that people-to-people “civil society” obligations that the lucky ones like us, who were able to leave Plato’s cave, owe to those who are still living in the darkness of ignorance. In this 21st century of individual rights and liberties, of free-market enterprise and prosperity, of accessible technological tools and the information revolution, no groups of people anywhere in the world should wallow in ignorance, slavishness, and poverty.
As to the North Korean soccer team, I‘ll be rooting for them, hoping that at the end of the tournament, they, too, will defect so that they can tell the world their story.
Sunday, June 6, 2010
China’s One-Child Policy: Social Engineering and Its Costs
Social engineering especially concerning family life could only lead to negative societal consequences. As the most natural and most fundamental of social units, the family provides the conditions for the natural growth and development of its members, towards their becoming good human beings and useful citizens. Tampering with these natural duties and obligations is undermining the very purpose of human existence.
China is about to reap such negative consequences. Its coercive population control effort, the one-child policy that it launched some 20 years ago aimed at curbing the growth of its population, in general, and its female population, in particular, is a massive case in social engineering. Those who don’t comply are subject to either forced abortion or sterilization. Chai Ling, a former leader of China's 1989 pro-democracy movement, in this inspiring and enlightening essay, "China's one-child policy: As brutal and hypocritical as ever", condemns China’s one-child policy as barbaric and its consequences catastrophic.
What are the results of this coercive population control measure? Chai Ling enumerates them: 1) 100 million missing girls; 2) a growing gender imbalance of 120 boys over 100 girls being born (worse in rural areas where the ratio is 130 boys over 100 girls) – the prediction is such that in just 10 years, there will be 30 to 40 million more boys than girls under the age of 20 in China. (Sociologists are worried about problems of social instability -- that in the event that Chinese males are unable to find women to marry, cases of rape and other sex-related crimes will ensue); 3) the suicide rate among Chinese women is five times the world average, and is the No. 1 cause of death among rural women in China.
All this is tragic. Let it serve as a lesson to autocrats and totalitarian regimes the world over: no amount of political power in the world can alter the dictates of natural and familial living.
As to Chai Ling, she only has prayers for the women of China:
Since moving to the U.S., I have been blessed to marry the man of my dreams, and we have three beautiful daughters. Every June 1 [China’s "Children's Day"], I make sure to remind them how lucky we are to live in a country that values personal freedom more than hollow public pageants. When I tuck them in, I give them a kiss, read them a story and say a prayer for the women in China, that one day soon they may have the same freedom and safety that I have found in America and which is the birthright of my three little girls.
China is about to reap such negative consequences. Its coercive population control effort, the one-child policy that it launched some 20 years ago aimed at curbing the growth of its population, in general, and its female population, in particular, is a massive case in social engineering. Those who don’t comply are subject to either forced abortion or sterilization. Chai Ling, a former leader of China's 1989 pro-democracy movement, in this inspiring and enlightening essay, "China's one-child policy: As brutal and hypocritical as ever", condemns China’s one-child policy as barbaric and its consequences catastrophic.
What are the results of this coercive population control measure? Chai Ling enumerates them: 1) 100 million missing girls; 2) a growing gender imbalance of 120 boys over 100 girls being born (worse in rural areas where the ratio is 130 boys over 100 girls) – the prediction is such that in just 10 years, there will be 30 to 40 million more boys than girls under the age of 20 in China. (Sociologists are worried about problems of social instability -- that in the event that Chinese males are unable to find women to marry, cases of rape and other sex-related crimes will ensue); 3) the suicide rate among Chinese women is five times the world average, and is the No. 1 cause of death among rural women in China.
All this is tragic. Let it serve as a lesson to autocrats and totalitarian regimes the world over: no amount of political power in the world can alter the dictates of natural and familial living.
As to Chai Ling, she only has prayers for the women of China:
Since moving to the U.S., I have been blessed to marry the man of my dreams, and we have three beautiful daughters. Every June 1 [China’s "Children's Day"], I make sure to remind them how lucky we are to live in a country that values personal freedom more than hollow public pageants. When I tuck them in, I give them a kiss, read them a story and say a prayer for the women in China, that one day soon they may have the same freedom and safety that I have found in America and which is the birthright of my three little girls.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
The Meaning of Their Sacrifice
As we honor the dead and the living during this Memorial Day for their utmost sacrifice for God and country, it is good to revisit Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” to remind ourselves about the meaning and purpose of their sacrifice.
The Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
The Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met here on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled, here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but can never forget what they did here.
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they have, thus far, so nobly carried on. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Capitalism as the Great Equalizer
This quote from Milton & Rose Friedman's book, Free to Choose, says it all:
Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.
Socialism’s utopian vision of a classless society is exactly the opposite of the above. Its notion of equality is premised on a false reading of human nature. That is why those who have lived under socialist regimes have become equal, yes, but equal only in poverty and slavishness as they remain beholden to powerful totalitarian governments. They are certainly not equal in rights and liberties that bring out the best in every human being. For socialists have only an abstract notion of the “people.” They love them only from afar and view them only as a collective whole. Even though the likes of Chavez claim to work on behalf of the people, socialists do not have respect for the ability of the “masses” to think and decide for themselves. This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party, the vanguards of “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the revolution. Hence, in a condescending way, socialist regimes believe that they must continue to think for the masses, order them around, tell them what is good for them because they, the vanguards, know better and think better.
Socialism fails to see the character and freedom-loving nature of every human being. While its collective analysis of human events fails to grasp the worth and dignity of each individual, free-market capitalism empowers individuals, challenges them to be creative and inventive, and turns them into strong, assertive, competitive, and accomplished human beings.
Industrial progress, mechanical improvement, all of the great wonders of the modern era have meant little to the wealthy. The rich in ancient Greece would have benefited hardly at all from modern plumbing — running servants replaced running water. Television and radio — the patricians of Rome could enjoy the leading musicians and actors in their home, could have the leading artists as domestic retainers. Ready-to-wear clothing, supermarkets — all these and many other modern developments would have added little to their life. They would have welcomed the improvements in transportation and in medicine, but for the rest, the great achievements of western capitalism have rebounded primarily to the benefit of the ordinary person. These achievements have made available to the masses conveniences and amenities that were previously the exclusive prerogative of the rich and powerful.
Socialism’s utopian vision of a classless society is exactly the opposite of the above. Its notion of equality is premised on a false reading of human nature. That is why those who have lived under socialist regimes have become equal, yes, but equal only in poverty and slavishness as they remain beholden to powerful totalitarian governments. They are certainly not equal in rights and liberties that bring out the best in every human being. For socialists have only an abstract notion of the “people.” They love them only from afar and view them only as a collective whole. Even though the likes of Chavez claim to work on behalf of the people, socialists do not have respect for the ability of the “masses” to think and decide for themselves. This premise is central in Marxist-Leninist thought: the herd must be led by a party, the vanguards of “enlightened ones,” towards the right path of the revolution. Hence, in a condescending way, socialist regimes believe that they must continue to think for the masses, order them around, tell them what is good for them because they, the vanguards, know better and think better.
Socialism fails to see the character and freedom-loving nature of every human being. While its collective analysis of human events fails to grasp the worth and dignity of each individual, free-market capitalism empowers individuals, challenges them to be creative and inventive, and turns them into strong, assertive, competitive, and accomplished human beings.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
“The New International Order:” America, One Among Many
When Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad trash the United States and get away with it, one can’t help but wonder if the U.S. is losing its grip on world affairs. Whenever the State Department bases its decisions on the consensus of the international community, it sends out mixed signals to its friends and enemies that the U.S. is either afraid to live with its own decisions or feels obligated to explain itself to the rest of the world.
Both bespeak of weakness, which is the last thing that this country’s foreign policy needs right now. For if the leadership in Washington gets it right, it should know that these actions can only ultimately lead to the decline of a powerful America as we know it.
But in yesterday’s speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Barack Obama promised to shape a new "’international order’ as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America's role in promoting democratic values around the world,” through diplomacy. He spoke about the importance of cooperation and partnerships “to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.”
The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,'" he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds.
Meanwhile, America continues to face threats from at least two radical forces: Islamism and a reemerging communism that is being spawned by autocratic rulers in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the epitome of everything that America is fighting against, are joining forces with other countries and building alliances in order to defeat a common enemy that is the U.S.
Dealing with the global economic crisis, sustaining global growth, helping countries alleviate poverty – all these require international cooperation and collaboration. But these are traditional areas of international cooperation and collaboration for which there are institutions and diplomatic tools already in place.
Otherwise, the world remains a dangerous place.
Socrates teaches us in our meditation of the human condition that we must always begin with reality, wherever it takes us. It is important to realize that global realities present different challenges, and that the strategies that we map out in response to these challenges should be informed by an accurate reading of the human condition and its manifest realities.
Both bespeak of weakness, which is the last thing that this country’s foreign policy needs right now. For if the leadership in Washington gets it right, it should know that these actions can only ultimately lead to the decline of a powerful America as we know it.
But in yesterday’s speech at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, President Barack Obama promised to shape a new "’international order’ as part of a national security strategy that emphasizes his belief in global institutions and America's role in promoting democratic values around the world,” through diplomacy. He spoke about the importance of cooperation and partnerships “to confront the economic, military and environmental challenges of the future.”
The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times,'" he said in prepared remarks. "Countering violent extremism and insurgency; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; combating a changing climate and sustaining global growth; helping countries feed themselves and care for their sick; preventing conflict and healing its wounds.
Meanwhile, America continues to face threats from at least two radical forces: Islamism and a reemerging communism that is being spawned by autocratic rulers in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. Chavez and Ahmadinejad, the epitome of everything that America is fighting against, are joining forces with other countries and building alliances in order to defeat a common enemy that is the U.S.
Dealing with the global economic crisis, sustaining global growth, helping countries alleviate poverty – all these require international cooperation and collaboration. But these are traditional areas of international cooperation and collaboration for which there are institutions and diplomatic tools already in place.
Otherwise, the world remains a dangerous place.
Socrates teaches us in our meditation of the human condition that we must always begin with reality, wherever it takes us. It is important to realize that global realities present different challenges, and that the strategies that we map out in response to these challenges should be informed by an accurate reading of the human condition and its manifest realities.
Punishing North Korea
South Korea is banking on the UN Security Council to punish North Korea for the sinking of its warship that killed 46 of its sailors. Most likely, the UN will condemn the attack, impose sanctions, and cut trade ties between the North and the South, North Korea’s source of hard currency. For its part, the US State Department will see to it that North Korea will be added again to its list of states that sponsor terrorism.
But how would all these measures diminish the military prowess of an isolated “Stalinist regime”?
For all the world's indignation over this autocrat’s totalitarian rule, his international law violations over missile testings, the sinking of a South Korean naval ship – all legitimate causes for war for which only the North Korean people will benefit in the end -- perhaps an effective retaliatory act to the sinking of South Korea’s naval ship should revolve around the idea of how to incapacitate North Korea’s missiles, especially those pointed down south. Talks along these lines rather than economic sanctions will perhaps have some impact on North Korea’s military prowess.
But how would all these measures diminish the military prowess of an isolated “Stalinist regime”?
For all the world's indignation over this autocrat’s totalitarian rule, his international law violations over missile testings, the sinking of a South Korean naval ship – all legitimate causes for war for which only the North Korean people will benefit in the end -- perhaps an effective retaliatory act to the sinking of South Korea’s naval ship should revolve around the idea of how to incapacitate North Korea’s missiles, especially those pointed down south. Talks along these lines rather than economic sanctions will perhaps have some impact on North Korea’s military prowess.
On Governance in Iraq and Afghanistan: U.S. Is Just Making Do
For as long as America foots the bill in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, leaders of these countries do not have a right to ask America to back off even on matters political. But that’s what Maliki did when he warned the US in this piece, “Political Angling Amid Uncertainty in Iraq,” that any interference the US makes in Iraq’s political process could only be detrimental. When a State Department’s assistant secretary suggested in light of Iraq’s recent elections that “top contenders for prime minister should consider accepting other positions to speed up the process” . . . Maliki said it was not America’s place to get involved.
Any astute student of world affairs would say that the US is only “making do” in Iraq and Afghanistan on things related to governance and political stability, for obvious reasons. America did transfer that political responsibility to local leaders at a time when they were not ready in the ways of republicanism and self-rule.
That is exactly the same mistake Woodrow Wilson committed in the Philippines. Many a time, I do wonder whether the Philippines would have turned out a successful constitutional republic early on had Wilson not implemented (with urgency) a “Filipinization” of its political process. I also wonder if a “Marshall Plan” approach to Iraq and Afghanistan would have changed the political calculus there in a way that it did in Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany rose from the ashes after their WW II defeat through massive infusions of economic resources from outside. But that defeat provided a blank slate on which these two countries were able to rewrite their political destiny.
But it seems late for hindsights now; we just have to make do.
Any astute student of world affairs would say that the US is only “making do” in Iraq and Afghanistan on things related to governance and political stability, for obvious reasons. America did transfer that political responsibility to local leaders at a time when they were not ready in the ways of republicanism and self-rule.
That is exactly the same mistake Woodrow Wilson committed in the Philippines. Many a time, I do wonder whether the Philippines would have turned out a successful constitutional republic early on had Wilson not implemented (with urgency) a “Filipinization” of its political process. I also wonder if a “Marshall Plan” approach to Iraq and Afghanistan would have changed the political calculus there in a way that it did in Japan and Germany. Japan and Germany rose from the ashes after their WW II defeat through massive infusions of economic resources from outside. But that defeat provided a blank slate on which these two countries were able to rewrite their political destiny.
But it seems late for hindsights now; we just have to make do.
Of Moderate Muslims
Professor Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University is hopeful that the majority of the Muslim population around the world will take back from the radical minority extremists the rightful authority to interpret a moderate, modern version of Islam. To view his National Review interview video, “The U.S. & the Middle East with Fouad Ajami, click here.
In another video presentation, the Heritage Foundation featured former Afghan presidential candidate, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, about his views on the future of Afghanistan: that amidst political wranglings and major disagreements among Afghan government officials and confusions on the part of international players on how best to approach the problems of Afghanistan, interested parties (the US and the rest of the world) must always take the side of the people.
These are voices of reason. We must pay heed to what they say.
In another video presentation, the Heritage Foundation featured former Afghan presidential candidate, Dr. Abdullah Abdullah, about his views on the future of Afghanistan: that amidst political wranglings and major disagreements among Afghan government officials and confusions on the part of international players on how best to approach the problems of Afghanistan, interested parties (the US and the rest of the world) must always take the side of the people.
These are voices of reason. We must pay heed to what they say.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
The Politics and Geopolitics of Immigration
“The GOP’s harsh immigration stance will cost it,” so says Michael Gerson in this piece, “A Suicidal Stand on Hispanics” (Washington Post, Friday, May 14th), where he admonishes fellow Republicans about their anti-immigration position and the political fallout that can potentially come from it. While defending the GOP from the Democrats’ charge that the Party is becoming an “anti-immigrant party” (Gerson does argue that being offended by those who break immigration laws, or expressing concern about illegal abuse on public services, or believing that enforcement should precede immigration reform do not necessarily make one an anti-immigrant), he points to elements within the Republican ideological coalition that are anti-immigrant, specifically, “those who believe that Hispanics, particularly Mexicans, are a threat to American culture and identity.”
And so he raises this alarm:
Immigration issues are emotional and complex. But this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.
Indeed, Republicans should find this alarming, and, for the sake of the party’s future, must pay heed.
But even more alarming is the potential geopolitical fallout that can come from not pursuing “a good neighbor policy” towards Mexico. Given its internal problems (including out-of-control drug cartels whose profit-seeking activities may at some point be exploited by terrorists from Latin America and the Middle East), Mexico needs assistance and support from the US, whether that takes the form of free trade, or open immigration, or something else. Although it is not a failed state, Mexico has problems that affect the US directly. A stable Mexico is America’s geopolitical stake.
Observing the American Union's fortune in having Canada as its neighbor up north and Mexico down south, Tocqueville once said that the Union did not dissolve because it had no great wars to fear: “The great good fortune of the United States is not to have found a federal Constitution enabling them to conduct great wars, but to be so situated that there is nothing for them to fear.”
It is indeed our fortune to be surrounded by neighbors whose principles of politics and government, cultural beliefs, and ways of life are similar to ours. We ought to be thankful.
And so he raises this alarm:
Immigration issues are emotional and complex. But this must be recognized for what it is: political suicide. Consider that Hispanics make up 40 percent of the K-12 students in Arizona, 44 percent in Texas, 47 percent in California, 54 percent in New Mexico. Whatever temporary gains Republicans might make feeding resentment of this demographic shift, the party identified with that resentment will eventually be voted into singularity. In a matter of decades, the Republican Party could cease to be a national party.
Indeed, Republicans should find this alarming, and, for the sake of the party’s future, must pay heed.
But even more alarming is the potential geopolitical fallout that can come from not pursuing “a good neighbor policy” towards Mexico. Given its internal problems (including out-of-control drug cartels whose profit-seeking activities may at some point be exploited by terrorists from Latin America and the Middle East), Mexico needs assistance and support from the US, whether that takes the form of free trade, or open immigration, or something else. Although it is not a failed state, Mexico has problems that affect the US directly. A stable Mexico is America’s geopolitical stake.
Observing the American Union's fortune in having Canada as its neighbor up north and Mexico down south, Tocqueville once said that the Union did not dissolve because it had no great wars to fear: “The great good fortune of the United States is not to have found a federal Constitution enabling them to conduct great wars, but to be so situated that there is nothing for them to fear.”
It is indeed our fortune to be surrounded by neighbors whose principles of politics and government, cultural beliefs, and ways of life are similar to ours. We ought to be thankful.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
American Muslims and Prejudice
Mr. Walied Shater, a former Secret Service agent whose past assignments includes serving at the US Secret Service’s most important division, the Presidential Protective Division, in a Washington Post op-ed piece today pleads for a better treatment for his fellow American Muslims. He argues that because of an anti-Muslim rhetoric that “has reached epic proportions in broader U.S. society -- largely tolerated, rarely condemned,” American Muslims feel under siege.
This siege mentality, he says, is caused by many factors: toxic rhetoric from fringe hate groups, the demonization of Muslims by Hollywood, questions of loyalty by conservative commentators, etc. He goes on to say that . . . “Nothing is more debilitating to the psyche of American Muslims than to have those positions in authority remain silent after such comments or, worse, contribute to the hostility.” He then urges U.S. leaders to do much more to help bring American Muslims into the mainstream.”
I think, though, that Mr. Shater is barking at the wrong tree. For one, where ethnic interpersonal relations in America are concerned, Americans nurture their friendships and personal dealings with other people not in accordance with what their leaders ask them to do but in what take place at community settings (say, in a soccer game, or at a church potluck party, or during a picnic in the community park). It is in these places where strangers become friends as each tries to bring out the best in him for the other. It is also there where prejudices and stereotypes fade away. Neighborliness feeds on kindness even as it builds communities.
Mr. Shater is raising the wrong issue, one that may even make the Muslim community in America separate and isolated. The right issue to raise is to ask what American Muslims (and, for that matter, the rest of the immigrant community) can bring to this country that will make it even more enriched and accommodating as it already is. To do so is to provide opportunities for immigrants to turn themselves into vibrant, strong, and useful citizens.
Indeed, in order to combat prejudices and stereotypes, we have only to prove ourselves otherwise.
This siege mentality, he says, is caused by many factors: toxic rhetoric from fringe hate groups, the demonization of Muslims by Hollywood, questions of loyalty by conservative commentators, etc. He goes on to say that . . . “Nothing is more debilitating to the psyche of American Muslims than to have those positions in authority remain silent after such comments or, worse, contribute to the hostility.” He then urges U.S. leaders to do much more to help bring American Muslims into the mainstream.”
I think, though, that Mr. Shater is barking at the wrong tree. For one, where ethnic interpersonal relations in America are concerned, Americans nurture their friendships and personal dealings with other people not in accordance with what their leaders ask them to do but in what take place at community settings (say, in a soccer game, or at a church potluck party, or during a picnic in the community park). It is in these places where strangers become friends as each tries to bring out the best in him for the other. It is also there where prejudices and stereotypes fade away. Neighborliness feeds on kindness even as it builds communities.
Mr. Shater is raising the wrong issue, one that may even make the Muslim community in America separate and isolated. The right issue to raise is to ask what American Muslims (and, for that matter, the rest of the immigrant community) can bring to this country that will make it even more enriched and accommodating as it already is. To do so is to provide opportunities for immigrants to turn themselves into vibrant, strong, and useful citizens.
Indeed, in order to combat prejudices and stereotypes, we have only to prove ourselves otherwise.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
What To Make of the Iraq Elections
Between Ayad Allawi’s recommendation to place Iraq under an impartial, internationally supervised caretaker government “to prevent the country from sliding into violence and counter what he says are efforts to change the vote results” and Nour al-Maliki’s rejection of it because it would undermine Iraq’s sovereignty, who between these two contenders for Iraq’s highest political office has a disinterested vision for a stable and united Iraq? If Allawi is willing to put his political future on the line and the welfare of his country in the hands of impartial (outside) judges, it is probably because he understands that the conditions in Iraq for genuine republicanism are still untenable. That is probably a sign of a reasonable and pragmatic leader who is willing to give up his own personal ambitions for the sake of what is good for his country.
Maliki’s interest in protecting Iraq’s sovereignty against foreign interference seems noble but idealistic. As it is, ethnic factionalism continues to divide Iraq. National reconciliation programs are unable to bridge the gap that divides the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. For as long as ethnic division rules the day, a united and stable Iraq cannot come about. If it is true that Maliki is protecting Iraq’s sovereignty in the name of nationalism, two questions need to be asked: one, which Iraq is he protecting? And two, if there is indeed a fully functioning Iraqi nation, why should nationalism in all its close-mindedness be good for that country right now?
Maliki’s interest in protecting Iraq’s sovereignty against foreign interference seems noble but idealistic. As it is, ethnic factionalism continues to divide Iraq. National reconciliation programs are unable to bridge the gap that divides the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites. For as long as ethnic division rules the day, a united and stable Iraq cannot come about. If it is true that Maliki is protecting Iraq’s sovereignty in the name of nationalism, two questions need to be asked: one, which Iraq is he protecting? And two, if there is indeed a fully functioning Iraqi nation, why should nationalism in all its close-mindedness be good for that country right now?
Touched by Grace
I had blogged before about Mosab Hassan Yousef right after his interview with CNN when his book, Son of Hamas, first came out. I was struck by what he said: that the only way to peace in the Middle East is to follow the Christian teaching, “love your enemies.” Having lived with terrorists as a Hamas insider and later as an informant for Israel’s intelligence agency, he has been part of a Middle East conflict that has seemed to elude any attempt at peaceful resolutions.
So I read his book, curious about what he has to say. Who could be a better source of insight about all that is wrong in the Middle East than Mosab himself who has lived his life through it all! What he offers, as I read through, is not a political treatise for conflict-resolution. Nor is it a guideline for political settlements that is usually invoked at peace negotiations. His is simply a witnessing to a moral truth, his moment of grace: to love your enemies is to be free, and goes about proving it. Even Christians have difficulty understanding this paradox: it is in overcoming one’s hatred and pride that one becomes free.
As a student of politics, I, of course, would like that this abstract, moral truth be translated into concrete policy prescriptions, into some kind of a set of guidelines that takes into account hard facts on the ground. I think, though, that Mosab is telling us that all these will come about only after we recognize and embrace this moral truth. If Jews and Palestinians will sit down together, with each other’s best interest at heart, he asks, can’t peace be far behind?
The Bible study Mosab attended in West Jerusalem included a Jewish man named Amnon who later on was imprisoned during the entire time that Mosab himself was in prison for refusing to serve in the Israeli military. Mosab has this to say:
He was there because he refused to work with the Israelis; I was there because I had agreed to work with them. I was trying to protect the Jews; he was trying to protect Palestinians.
I didn’t believe that everybody in Israel and the occupied territories needed to become a Christian in order to end the bloodshed. But I thought that if we just had a thousand Amnons on one side and a thousand Mosabs on the other, it could make a big difference. And if we had more . . . who knows?
So I read his book, curious about what he has to say. Who could be a better source of insight about all that is wrong in the Middle East than Mosab himself who has lived his life through it all! What he offers, as I read through, is not a political treatise for conflict-resolution. Nor is it a guideline for political settlements that is usually invoked at peace negotiations. His is simply a witnessing to a moral truth, his moment of grace: to love your enemies is to be free, and goes about proving it. Even Christians have difficulty understanding this paradox: it is in overcoming one’s hatred and pride that one becomes free.
As a student of politics, I, of course, would like that this abstract, moral truth be translated into concrete policy prescriptions, into some kind of a set of guidelines that takes into account hard facts on the ground. I think, though, that Mosab is telling us that all these will come about only after we recognize and embrace this moral truth. If Jews and Palestinians will sit down together, with each other’s best interest at heart, he asks, can’t peace be far behind?
The Bible study Mosab attended in West Jerusalem included a Jewish man named Amnon who later on was imprisoned during the entire time that Mosab himself was in prison for refusing to serve in the Israeli military. Mosab has this to say:
He was there because he refused to work with the Israelis; I was there because I had agreed to work with them. I was trying to protect the Jews; he was trying to protect Palestinians.
I didn’t believe that everybody in Israel and the occupied territories needed to become a Christian in order to end the bloodshed. But I thought that if we just had a thousand Amnons on one side and a thousand Mosabs on the other, it could make a big difference. And if we had more . . . who knows?
The Irony of Philippine Elections
Enlightened citizens who live in a democracy look to elections as mechanisms with which to effect change, both in leadership and in policy directions of the country. The irony of Philippine elections is it perpetuates the status quo of old-style, personality-driven politicking that judges candidates on the basis of their dynastic legacy, celebrity status, or social and economic standing.
This Washington Post article, “In the bright glow of a political legacy,” rightly portrays Benigno Aquino III as a legacy candidate. A low-key personality, who, several months ago had no intention of running for president, Aquino was catapulted to national fame when her mother, former President Corazon Aquino, died of cancer. Her death, according to the article, evoked “a mass outpouring of grief” . . . “that fired up the dynastic machinery of Philippine politics,” and her son “has come to embody a national yearning for decent leadership . . .” Despite an unimpressive political resume, Aquino seems poised to win the elections, although he’d be the first to acknowledge that “his candidacy was an invention of voters nostalgic for the moral clarity they associate with his parents. ‘It became an entry point,’ he said. ‘All of this became possible because of the people.’”
But who is driving the people to make these political choices? Where do Filipinos get their political education but from the political elite and the mass media who constantly intrude into their daily lives with all kinds of propaganda messages. How much of the people’s political choices is driven by political hysteria, or by celebrity endorsements, or even by bribes (for in many parts of the country, vote-buying is still the norm)?
I posed these questions to my friends in the Philippines. Some of them did say that since the Filipinos are genuinely disgusted by the rampant corruption committed by their politicians, and Aquino, whose record is thin but clean, is deemed more promising than the rest. But while this premise can only be half-true, the rest is fallacy. And it affirms my point: that Philippine politics revolves around personalities rather than on institutions (yes, those cold, hard, and impartial institutions whose check-and-balance mechanisms can correct the very corruption that eats at the heart of Philippine politics), and on the rule of law that replaces the whimsical, capricious rule by men.
Elections are supposed to be partisan battles over principles and visions.
This Washington Post article, “In the bright glow of a political legacy,” rightly portrays Benigno Aquino III as a legacy candidate. A low-key personality, who, several months ago had no intention of running for president, Aquino was catapulted to national fame when her mother, former President Corazon Aquino, died of cancer. Her death, according to the article, evoked “a mass outpouring of grief” . . . “that fired up the dynastic machinery of Philippine politics,” and her son “has come to embody a national yearning for decent leadership . . .” Despite an unimpressive political resume, Aquino seems poised to win the elections, although he’d be the first to acknowledge that “his candidacy was an invention of voters nostalgic for the moral clarity they associate with his parents. ‘It became an entry point,’ he said. ‘All of this became possible because of the people.’”
But who is driving the people to make these political choices? Where do Filipinos get their political education but from the political elite and the mass media who constantly intrude into their daily lives with all kinds of propaganda messages. How much of the people’s political choices is driven by political hysteria, or by celebrity endorsements, or even by bribes (for in many parts of the country, vote-buying is still the norm)?
I posed these questions to my friends in the Philippines. Some of them did say that since the Filipinos are genuinely disgusted by the rampant corruption committed by their politicians, and Aquino, whose record is thin but clean, is deemed more promising than the rest. But while this premise can only be half-true, the rest is fallacy. And it affirms my point: that Philippine politics revolves around personalities rather than on institutions (yes, those cold, hard, and impartial institutions whose check-and-balance mechanisms can correct the very corruption that eats at the heart of Philippine politics), and on the rule of law that replaces the whimsical, capricious rule by men.
Elections are supposed to be partisan battles over principles and visions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)