President Obama’s historic trip to Cuba solidified a shift in the US-Cuban relationship toward one of economic diplomacy while giving the leaders of both Cold War foes a chance to open air grievances in a face-to-face Press conference. Obama’s would-be successors, however, were busy giving lip service to the powerful Jewish special interests at the pro-Israel AIPAC Conference. Although even political rogue Donald Trump felt beholden to follow the political custom of coddling Israel, Bernie Sanders, who did not attend the conference, provided Israel with the blunt, yet evenhanded, criticism for its mistreatment of the Palestinian People that it desperately needs to survive.
Despite declarations by US politicians to prioritize Israeli security above all other US interests in the Middle East, the simple truth is that Israel faces a growing threat the US cannot fight. For those who truly care about the future of Israel, and the unique American-Israeli relationship, it is wise to accept the criticism of people like Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama. The Obama Administration has been criticized for giving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the cold shoulder, but the US needs to be able to criticize the policies of the Israeli government and the Israeli government needs to be criticized when it engages in destructive policies that create security threats.
Comments
Donald Trump’s rapid ascend to the center of the political world has been fueled by one controversy after another. Although Trump has said enough distasteful and troubling remarks throughout the 2016 Primary Election to offend pretty much everyone, including his stalwart horde of supporters, he has contributed to the political process by fracturing the alliances that have allowed the political establishment to shun outsiders, which is forcing special interests to reveal their priorities. He has also forced the world to face uncomfortable issues, such as racial tensions surrounding illegal immigration and Muslim migration into the US, through his blunt stances against these groups.
The strength of democracy is rooted in the ability of people to freely express their needs and wants, so the interests of the entire population can be properly addressed in a balanced fashion. The ability to recalibrate public policy to reflect the interests of the population, instead of adhering to the interests of a stagnant political class, enables functional democracies to thrive over long periods of time with added stability. In accordance, Trump’s influence is an opportunity to infuse new blood into the world of the political elite. It is also a chance to openly and honestly confront public policies that are misaligned with the interests of the American People as a whole. Money, politics, military might, religion, community support, law, media, knowledge, and technical skills are all sources of power. More and more, those who derive power from these various sources also depend on technology to remain relevant in the modern world. Because traditional sources of power now depend so heavily on the expertise of the technologically savvy, the true power of the modern world rests in the hands of those who control information technology and the flow of information. This means hacktivists, such as the “Anons” belonging to the loosely affiliated group Anonymous, have the power to empower the oppressed or oppress those they oppose.
Although groups and movements like Anonymous are controversial, because members are more than willing to circumvent laws that shield wrongdoers, Anonymous members have helped fight the Islamic State, expose child sexual predators, and support Arab Spring Revolution protesters. Despite their shared anti-censorship agenda, they have targeted hate groups like the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church. Where these attacks appear to have been motivated by the harm caused by these groups, not just their offensive views, the recent push by Anonymous members to attack Presidential candidate Donald Trump appears to be very close to the kind of censorship they oppose. In the wake of the 2008-2009 Great Recession, growing economic disparity, and the all-around failure of capitalist policies to serve the interests of average people, socialism has grown in popularity. Where Europe has long flirted with socialist parties, self-proclaimed “Democratic Socialist” Bernie Sanders and his enduring challenge to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton is a clear affront to the capitalist philosophy that has long dominated US political and economic thinking.
In countries like Brazil, however, the failure of socialism teaches us the need for balanced policies. Brazil has erupted into another round of democratic upheaval with an impressive 1.3 million protesters rallying for the ouster of Leftist President Dilma Rousseff amid ongoing economic turmoil and the prosecution of her Workers’ Party predecessor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva over corruption charges. Although facing impeachment and charges related to her campaign finances, Rousseff’s wrongs pale in comparison to the kleptocratic opposition figures who have built their careers on corruption and crony capitalism. Hoping to use the wave of civil discontent to reassert control over Brazil’s government and economy, Rousseff’s accusers are the same individuals who used the guise of capitalism to redirect national wealth to their cronies and deprive the impoverished of much needed opportunity. Russia’s justification for military intervention in the Syrian Civil War is, in part, to prevent the conflict from degrading into the same situation seen in Libya. After five years of fighting among rival factions, over half of the population displaced, and the country’s civil infrastructure decimated, Syria has probably been in a far worse condition than Libya for some time. That said, the unfortunate reality is that both Syria and Libya face a steep uphill battle to stabilize and rebuild their countries. Talk of dividing Syria to ease the conflict between the Assad regime and rebel factions has merits, but South Sudan offers some lessons that must be learned no matter what solutions are tried.
After decades of brutal oppression and civil war, the independence of South Sudan offered hope to a never-ending conflict. Sadly, South Sudan and its armed forces have followed in the African traditions of mass rape, murder, and corruption that have caught the world’s attention since the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. Where the purge of Saddam Hussein’s Ba'ath Party members from all government and military positions sowed the seeds for an armed insurgency in Iraq, efforts to integrate armed opposition forces into the South Sudan military created the same problems. It appears dividing Sudan, unlike the Dayton Accords following the Bosnian War, did very little to resolve the underlying conflicts. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|