By Franklin Katunda
Washington DC -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was asked a very central question on US economic interests in Central Africa at a forum in Kinshasa, DR Congo. Unfortunately, an inquiry most Congolese have called insightful in regards to the US-Congo relations got “lost in translation”. Not only, had it lost its significance in the media coverage, but worst, given their slacking pleasure not to look into news tips and details, US media networks condensed it into another Clinton’s “saut d’humeur” sound bite.
A “key” question stolen by just another “sound bite”
This was, indeed, a very momentous question ever asked to a top US official in public by a citizen of Congo about the US-Congo relationship: China’s government economic engagement in the DR Congo, in the light of what the US-Congo cooperation should had been. The question was put out of context by a staffer who (apparently) did not understand the Congo’s accent of the student who spoke the French language, and provided a bad translation to Madam Secretary.
First, it is a shame for the State Department to recruit a language poorly-skilled staff to the highest US diplomatic affairs’ cabinet, regretfully. Than the media coverage of the forum was curtailed in the frenzy that always worships and longs for the Clinton buzz. Newscasters focused more on what they think Madam Secretary wanted to convey to Africans on her abilities vs. former president Clinton to bring about a new era in US-Congo relationships.
Result: The “I’m the Secretary of State, not my husband” was headlined on front pages of newspapers and 30 seconds “sound bite” played all day on every American TV network. The Daily News and the New York Post and others quickly “Xeroxed” the AP breaking news for their morning (August 11th) cover page. American listeners and viewers were unfairly fed with a sound bite played on almost every network, even though US journalists recognized the incident turns out to be a wrong translation of what the student’s question really meant. Interesting, business TV channels such as CNN-Money, CNBC and others Bloomberg News should have had interest in covering the story but all seem to have missed the ball… Or simply did not elaborate on another China’s gain over the US in the world’s business competition we have been losing at every inch of the way.
The release of the recorded-translation clearly casts a (female) voice translating the question by University of Kinshasa’s student (a young man), and it reads: (about the China and Congo’s relationships…)”What does Mr. Clinton think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, and what does Mutombo think about?” instead of translating: “What does Mr. President think through the mouth of Mrs. Clinton, and what does Mutombo think about?” The real argument here that one can make sense out of is to just think this: What if the incident played good for the US diplomat who happened lucky to not even dodge the question? Students from all over the world like President Obama, and students in Congo understand their aspirations in regards to the current US Administration. Any reference to Bill Clinton to reflect on China-Congo relationships won’t even cross their minds a beat, given the former president’s background on the Great Lakes conflict since the 90s.What strikes me, as I write this opinion piece here, is that the media did not extensively comment on Madam Secretary’s response, even after a clarification was made about the true meaning of the question.
Just as many Americans have not learned any consistent news on Congo’s fate in past decades. Meanwhile, China has gain significant economic interests in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan, as reported several informed-organizations. The US has been on the side lines, had timidly and sometimes just rhetorically referred to their will to “work with” these war-torn nations in order to help them recover, instead they did not effectively engage them economically.
The US government failed, to a large extent, to support them with conflict resolution during the invasion of the Eastern Congo region, the horrific mass killings in both Sudan’s Darfur region and Congo while complaining, for more than a decade, about the violence borne of sequences of civil unrests. America talked “human rights” when it comes to consequences of the war (rape and violence on civilians) but did too little when it comes to put pressure on the governments of Congo and Sudan, while China did none of these things and would never even refer to the observance of human rights when they strike a business deal. In facts, it’s not a secret to anyone that China, still a totalitarian regime, has made huge progress in economic development and diplomacy although a “red” regime. China seats on the UN Security Council without being questioned too much on plans it has to protecting and respecting the rights of its own citizens.
A call to US Media to factually and objectively report on African Affairs
A Huffington Post website writer critiqued the lack of depth in facts by US media coverage of the Congo’s conflict that required 17,000 UN peacekeepers to intervene, and yet unsuccessfully pacified. Georgianne Nienaber wrote that we (reporters) “owe Africa the same kind of attention to detail and accuracy in reporting. There is a certain sloppiness that happens in reports from Africa, and we can all do better”, she said.
A few newspapers like the NYT which report on DR Congo every other 6 weeks, sometimes with just a few short articles lost in pages 6 or 10; reporters negligently write without really attracting US scholars and citizens’ curiosity on the Congo’s crisis when, ironically, this war has been called the “worst armed conflict involving many countries since the World War II”. Radio, TV commentators and producers turn away from citizens’ calls and emails when contacted to speak out and to contribute in news analysis about the Congo during their show casts.
I personally was a guest-contributor on US-African Affairs with Voice of America (VOA) in Washington DC, and I sat down on a radio/web-TV panel that debated on the post-Congo’s 2006 presidential elections. My opinions on the topic, as always, were so pointed and my account of facts very challenging versus the scripted version they had. It’s safe to say that they did not align with the producers’ talking points on the DRC crisis, and (reason why) I never got invited again, despite my calls, emails and offers to contribute in months that followed. CNN anchor Anderson Cooper and reporter Lisa Ling for the Oprah Show played a praised but risky role when reporting stories of rape, violence and genocide in the Eastern Congo during the Bush Administration.
Anderson went with President Obama to Ghana to report on the history at slave trade site, but Anderson’s CNN remained silent on Hillary Clinton’s trip to the DR Congo… No special report, not even a press correspondent was seen to be on Clinton’s plane to Congo… Why? MSNBC only played that sound bite over a “lost in translation” question, without reporting or calling for a news analysis on the question and the town hall’s highlights. Chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell invited on three shows in two days following Monday’s forum just elaborated on what may have gone wrong with the secretary of state as a person.
What a shame to reap a worst news spotlight with such unfairness in journalism, when so many human rights advocates, bloggers, Congolese and American scholars in US, activists like Kambale Musavuli of Friends of the Congo, Jean Kamba, Abraham Luakabuanga, John Pendergast or my-self; book writers, freelance photographers and even lawmakers like former GA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney worked hard and took risks of their careers, calling for years for an exclusive spotlight on Congo since the war started?
Recent developments on the ground
The bigger Congo’s picture here is that investigative journalists in US still ignore the magnitude of the civil unrest and violence between militias, and more the illicit exploitation of minerals in Congo’s conflict zones. A recent government “launch of the operation Kimia II in the DR Congo has seen a spike in the number of sexual assaults against the women of the Kivu’s”, wrote in an editorial, Scott Morgan, web-editor of the “Confused Eagle.” One key problem, he wrote, is that the “FARDC (Government of the Democratic Congo’s Armed Forces) is not able to sustain combat operations against the Rwanda’s FDLR.
As part of the Peace Accord, the Government in Kinshasa has instructed its army (FARDC) to integrate some of the former Militia Groups into the Regular Armed Forces. The FDLR have had bases in the region since they were driven out of Rwanda, after the horrific genocide of 1994.” The FDLR (Hutu Rwandans) “have a tactical advantage of knowing the terrain” in the Kivu provinces compared to the Congolese government forces, writes Morgan.
A columnist in LA Times, Helen Winternitz, said that the Eastern region of Congo has been set by civil wars for a decade, a horrifying symptom of breakdowns through the entire government. The undisciplined Congolese army and the various militias combating the FDLR use rape as a weapon of war. As many as 200,000 women and girls have been raped, some men mutilated to the point of death in what is described as the world's worst episode in mass killing and sexual violence.
Meanwhile, on an unprecedented twist since August 1998, Rwanda and Congo’s heads of state orchestrated a quick meeting in Goma, Kivu to normalize their diplomatic relations (under US’ recommendations?) … What do the two leaders discuss when they met in Goma, days before Clinton’s trip in Congo? Not much consistent is known about. The Tutsi General Laurent Nkunda (a Rwandan-born rebel), who terrorized the Kivu’s civilian population under Congo’s “laid up” President Kabila’s watch (his accomplice), was arrested a few days before the inauguration of Barack Obama, after he benefited with an impressive military logistic support from Rwandan President Paul Kagame (his mastermind). So many unreported happenings, news stories out there…
Congolese Bloggers and Web-news critiqued some of Hillary Clinton sayings
Although Mrs. Clinton was overwhelmingly welcomed in Kinshasa, Congo’s capital city, the Agence France Press (AFP) reports that she faced “some tough questions from students.” Questions from students at a forum in Kinshasa were worth being reported in western media, and of course only a few European and Congolese local newspapers commented on.
The American public and even some high government officials don’t know the history and the recent happenings in the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), and if the conventional media won’t help with the matter, perhaps “citizen journalism” took over with tools like i-report, twitter, you tube, facebook, hundreds of Congolese news websites and many other independent blogs are beginning to help build networks of African news sharing in US. I’m not sure this can fight the coalition of powerful press agencies like the well-known AP, Reuters, AFP, Belga, Xinhua… But it’s been making a whole difference in shaping the public opinion.Signs of progress in social networking being noticed in Congo; residents of Kinshasa by-passed some of these traditional media who either report for either side of the story and just missed the point.
One web-twitter present at the forum (August 10th at 8:39 AM our time) wrote: “Town Hall ended a short while ago, that was pretty exciting, seeing HRC, Fox News, Secret Service and Mutombo in one room.” Another person twitted on Clinton’s address to Congolese students, reporting what she said at that very moment: “I came here to talk to you students before anyone in your government; I expect more transparency from your government” US News media would not broadcast even on a 30 seconds sound bite that: “A student told Clinton, to applause from the crowd, that underdevelopment (of DR Congo) stemmed from a long history of Western exploitation in the resource-rich nation, once notoriously the private fiefdom of Belgium's King Leopold II…”, as reported the AFP here.
Digging deep on the forum’s aftermath, one of the US top diplomat’s answers to Congolese created an outrage in many circles in Kinshasa; when Mrs. Clinton refused to “look back to the past”, saying she (the US) wants to “work with people who are seeking for a good future, not those who refer to the past.” An online blogger for hinterland wrote an open-letter back to Clinton saying: “This one sentence from your answers to the forum in Kinshasa is very saddening, and brings wordiness among the Congolese people, which is still traumatized by a 13 years-long war.
Your country, the US, wrote Roger Puati, wants to work with the Congolese people while suggesting that we live by your way of thinking: Never refer to the past… Meaning forget the humiliation we have endured for 10 years and even more for the past 50 years?” An expert on Central African Affairs and author of “East along the Equator”, Helen Winternitz writes in an Op-ed that “When Congo emerged from the vicious colonial rule of Belgium; the United States empowered and, as a Cold War tactic, supported Mobutu Sese Seko. Utilizing the dictator was considered a legitimate tool by American policymakers who did not worry about the long-term consequences. Mobutu fathered the corrupt and dysfunctional mode of governing that now plagues the country.
”Another Congolese appalled by Clinton’s remarks, Jean-Pierre Mbelu writes on a French/Flemish language website Congoforum.be: “In our faces, Mrs. Clinton asks us (Congolese) to turn the page on a past that holds more than 5 millions of lost lives ! “What about this? Secretary Clinton calls for trials on soldiers who raped in war zones without referring to their foreign chief-allies, past US administration’s officials and multinationals involved in secretly supporting or carrying out the invasion in the DR Congo to be tried as well or called on for their wrong deeds… Is that how the US will work with us?”
What if anything the Department of State should learn from this?
“Obama, who took an interest in Congo when he was in the Senate, has inherited the moral responsibility to make amends and help the Congolese build a government that actually works on their behalf”, says in an Op-Ed, Winternitz. The Senate bill S. 2125 from the 109th US Congress on the Democratic Republic of Congo happened to be the only foreign policy, Mr. Barack Obama (then US Senator) initiated with a bi-partisan support from twelve other US Democrat and Republican Senators. In the light of that 2006 congressional law signed by George Bush, the Obama administration cannot afford lose its “own” message.
Madame Secretary Clinton should be commended for meeting with students “before” meeting Congo’s officials (good move); she is to be saluted for clearly “voicing up” ( government officials including President Kabila) on the resolutions that borne from the last spring US Senate hearing on the DR Congo. A key message was to stop and prosecute the rape, used as weaponin conflict zones. This is the 111th congress senate hearing on Congo/Sudan where (as I reported earlier in Spring) California Senator Barbara Boxer (D) and the audience could not resist a heart breaking to the horrific account of scenes of rape and violence by among many, Mrs. Chouchou Namegabe, a Kivu-based Journalist and Activist.
In an open letter to Sec. Clinton, another Congolese US-based website’s owner urges, on the post Congo’s trip, the US to be practical if “work with” Congo is what they want, and get all rapists be tried in criminal courts. He proposes Clinton’s cabinet to “… send DNA technical experts to DRC to help collect DNA samples from former militias and soldiers who fought in the east of Congo and from children born out of rapes. By matching the DNA samples of children and militias in a DNA data center, wrote the web-writer, the paternity of these fatherless children will clearly be established.”
Editor Sylvester Ngoma believes that “… The criminals will then be excluded from the national army and brought to justice. Even new victims will be able to report to these data centers for DNA collection to help catch rape criminals. This approach will have several positive effects. Some soldiers will leave the national army on their own just by knowing that their DNA will be collected and kept in a data center. The parliament will need to pass a law mandating all soldiers who fought in the east of the country to comply to the "DNA as a Rape Deterrence Plan" (from Congovision)At the end of the dayHaving say all that, Secretary Hillary Clinton still needs to carefully do an unscripted facts check on Congo since the Rwanda genocide of 1994, and attentively review the history about the after 1997 invasion of the DR Congo by Rwandan and Ugandan militias (when Bill Clinton was President).
The State Department’s African Affairs division must sincerely determine what the public opinion in regards to the US responsibility in the conflict is, and then apply President Obama’s own policy. The Congo Senate Bill (as they call it) will empower Secretary Clinton to pressure on President Joseph Kabila’s governance style. Only the S2125 bill would help them to measure up the progress in security and the observance of human rights towards the people of Congo, and then she can finally masterfully avoid alienate, frustrate the Congolese people, but would preach the message of “Hope”, accompanied with an engaging economic and bi-lateral cooperation the US failed in the past 8 years.
It has to be known that above and beyond the differences of cultures, languages and the issue of proximity, Congo shares a common history with the US, citing the past “Cold War” as an illustration; Congo (ex-Zaire) has gone out of the way to contribute through the generosity of its people, the use of its territory militarily, its strategic resources, minerals and intelligence to strengthen US national security and preserve its interests not only in the Continental Africa, but here at home and around the world.
Fifty years since Congo’s independence, and considering the potential level of cooperation both countries can still develop, our commitment at Congoboston.com to write ( please read: to accurately translate) the opinion of the Congolese people from their French heritage to English, and into the American mainstream media, I strongly hope that today’s message of “Hope” to Congo will NOT be lost in translation again.
An Opinion Editorial by Franklin Katunda, in Washington DC
Franklin is a freelance web-writer; chief-editor for Congoboston.com. Barack Obama surrogate, expert in US politics and foreign Affairs, he actively worked for 2 years within the presidential campaign and is member of OFA, Organizing for America.
© August 18th 2009, Congoboston.com
Will Obama’s stimulus plan work……… NO
You don’t need to be great economist to figure it out. First look into why US went into this recession. Is it just irresponsible sub-prime lending by financial institution??? …….NO. That is just one of the superficial reasons which brought recession. The main reason is overall US foreign policies. For the US economy to sustain and grow, it has to do business with ALL over the world. The stimulus plan will create only short term growth. For long term sustained growth, it has to sell its products & services all over the world. To sell all over the world it has to make friends & allies. Thanks to US foreign polices over the years and mainly during George “W” Bush tenure, it has made more adversaries than allies. Even the last biggest recession in 1970’s came thanks to US foreign policy of unilaterally supporting Israel by air lifting more than 25,000 tons of military equipment for its war against its neighboring countries, which made them turn against US and block sale of oil to US. This time, its direct war with Iraq which cost it more than 600 billion and counting. Why did US did attack on Iraq when Atomic energy agencies had given it clean chit that it doesn’t have any nuclear war heads or WMD? (Till not a single was found). Effortless answer is to get rid of tyrant Saddam Hussein………..NO It was to demolish a country that was challenging the existence of Israel. US fought on behalf of Israel and itself into recession for second time. Zionist lobbies in US capitol is making US take those decision which just benefitting Israel become a more and more diabolic & regional terror, by which it not just making 57 Muslim countries adversary of US but also many other countries are becoming its foe. What is US getting in return from Israel …….. nothing except recessions & enemies. Till the time US does not close this hole in the economy, till will never grow to true potential and long term sustained growth.
In-depth Study: How much is US Tax payers are funding Israel????
Generous as it is, what Israelis actually got in U.S. aid is considerably less than what it has cost U.S. taxpayers to provide it. The principal difference is that so long as the U.S. runs an annual budget deficit, every dollar of aid the U.S. gives Israel has to be raised through U.S. government borrowing.
In an article in The Washington Report for December 1991/January 1992, Frank Collins estimated the costs of this interest, based upon prevailing interest rates for every year since 1949. I have updated this by applying a very conservative 5 percent interest rate for subsequent years, and confined the amount upon which the interest is calculated to grants, not loans or loan guarantees.
On this basis the $84.8 billion in grants, loans and commodities Israel has received from the U.S. since 1949 cost the U.S. an additional $49,936,880,000 in interest.
There are many other costs of Israel to U.S. taxpayers, such as most or all of the $45.6 billion in U.S. foreign aid to Egypt since Egypt made peace with Israel in 1979 (compared to $4.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt for the preceding 26 years). U.S. foreign aid to Egypt, which is pegged at two-thirds of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, averages $2.2 billion per year.
There also have been immense political and military costs to the U.S. for its consistent support of Israel during Israel's half-century of disputes with the Palestinians and all of its Arab neighbors. In addition, there have been the approximately $10 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and perhaps $20 billion in tax-exempt contributions made to Israel by American Jews in the nearly half-century since Israel was created.
Even excluding all of these extra costs, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation. Or, put another way, the nearly $14,630 every one of 5.8 million Israelis received from the U.S. government by Oct. 31, 1997 has cost American taxpayers $23,240 per Israeli.
The only members of Congress who even suspect the full total of U.S. funds received by Israel each year are the privileged few committee members who actually mark it up. And almost all members of the concerned committees are Jewish, have taken huge campaign donations orchestrated by Israel's Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), or both. These congressional committee members are paid to act, not talk. So they do and they don't.
The same applies to the president, the secretary of state, and the foreign aid administrator. They all submit a budget that includes aid for Israel, which Congress approves, or increases, but never cuts. But no one in the executive branch mentions that of the few remaining U.S. aid recipients worldwide, all of the others are developing nations which either make their military bases available to the U.S., are key members of international alliances in which the U.S. participates, or have suffered some crippling blow of nature to their abilities to feed their people such as earthquakes, floods or droughts.
Benefits to Israel of U.S. AidSince 1949 (As of November 1, 1997)Foreign Aid Grants and Loans$74,157,600,000Other U.S. Aid (12.2% of Foreign Aid)$9,047,227,200Interest to Israel from Advanced Payments$1,650,000,000Grand Total$84,854,827,200Total Benefits per Israeli$14,630
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers of U.S.Aid to IsraelGrand Total$84,854,827,200Interest Costs Borne by U.S.$49,936,680,000Total Cost to U.S. Taxpayers$134,791,507,200Total Taxpayer Cost per Israeli$23,240
Since 1992, the U.S. has offered Israel an additional $2 billion annually in loan guarantees. Congressional researchers have disclosed that between 1974 and 1989, $16.4 billion in U.S. military loans were converted to grants and that this was the understanding from the beginning. Indeed, all past U.S. loans to Israel have eventually been forgiven by Congress, which has undoubtedly helped Israel's often-touted claim that they have never defaulted on a U.S. government loan. U.S. policy since 1984 has been that economic assistance to Israel must equal or exceed Israel's annual debt repayment to the United States. Unlike other countries, which receive aid in quarterly installments, aid to Israel since 1982 has been given in a lump sum at the beginning of the fiscal year, leaving the U.S. government to borrow from future revenues. Israel even lends some of this money back through U.S. treasury bills and collects the additional interest.
In addition, there is the more than $1.5 billion in private U.S. funds that go to Israel annually in the form of $1 billion in private tax-deductible donations and $500 million in Israeli bonds. The ability of Americans to make what amounts to tax-deductible contributions to a foreign government, made possible through a number of Jewish charities, does not exist with any other country. Nor do these figures include short- and long-term commercial loans from U.S. banks, which have been as high as $1 billion annually in recent years.
Total U.S. aid to Israel is approximately one-third of the American foreign-aid budget, even though Israel comprises just .001 percent of the world's population and already has one of the world's higher per capita incomes. Indeed, Israel's GNP is higher than the combined GNP of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza. With a per capita income of about $14,000, Israel ranks as the sixteenth wealthiest country in the world; Israelis enjoy a higher per capita income than oil-rich Saudi Arabia and are only slightly less well-off than most Western European countries.
AID does not term economic aid to Israel as development assistance, but instead uses the term "economic support funding."
For the fiscal year ending in September 30, 1997, the U.S. has given Israel $6.72 billion: $6.194 billion falls under Israel's foreign aid allotment and $526 million comes from agencies such as the Department of Commerce, the U.S. Information Agency and the Pentagon. The $6.72 billion figure does not include loan guarantees and annual compound interest totalling $3.122 billion the U.S. pays on money borrowed to give to Israel. It does not include the cost to U.S. taxpayers of IRS tax exemptions that donors can claim when they donate money to Israeli charities. (Donors claim approximately $1 billion in Federal tax deductions annually. This ultimately costs other U.S. tax payers $280 million to $390 million.)
Israel, whose troubles arise solely from its unwillingness to give back land it seized in the 1967 war in return for peace with its neighbors, does not fit those criteria. In fact, Israel's 1995 per capita gross domestic product was $15,800. That put it below Britain at $19,500 and Italy at $18,700 and just above Ireland at $15,400 and Spain at $14,300.
All four of those European countries have contributed a very large share of immigrants to the U.S., yet none has organized an ethnic group to lobby for U.S. foreign aid. Instead, all four send funds and volunteers to do economic development and emergency relief work in other less fortunate parts of the world.
The lobby that Israel and its supporters have built in the United States to make all this aid happen, and to ban discussion of it from the national dialogue, goes far beyond AIPAC, with its $15 million budget, its 150 employees, and its five or six registered lobbyists who manage to visit every member of Congress individually once or twice a year.
AIPAC, in turn, can draw upon the resources of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, a roof group set up solely to coordinate the efforts of some 52 national Jewish organizations on behalf of Israel.
Among them are Hadassah, the Zionist women's organization, which organizes a steady stream of American Jewish visitors to Israel; the American Jewish Congress, which mobilizes support for Israel among members of the traditionally left-of-center Jewish mainstream; and the American Jewish Committee, which plays the same role within the growing middle-of-the-road and right-of-center Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee also publishes Commentary, one of the Israel lobby's principal national publications.
Perhaps the most controversial of these groups is B'nai B'rith's Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Its original highly commendable purpose was to protect the civil rights of American Jews. Over the past generation, however, the ADL has regressed into a conspiratorial and, with a $45 million budget, extremely well-funded hate group.
More recently, FBI raids on ADL's Los Angeles and San Francisco offices revealed that an ADL operative had purchased files stolen from the San Francisco police department that a court had ordered destroyed because they violated the civil rights of the individuals on whom they had been compiled. ADL, it was shown, had added the illegally prepared and obtained material to its own secret files, compiled by planting informants among Arab-American, African-American, anti-Apartheid and peace and justice groups.
The ADL infiltrators took notes of the names and remarks of speakers and members of audiences at programs organized by such groups. ADL agents even recorded the license plates of persons attending such programs and then suborned corrupt motor vehicles department employees or renegade police officers to identify the owners.
Although one of the principal offenders fled the United States to escape prosecution, no significant penalties were assessed. ADL's Northern California office was ordered to comply with requests by persons upon whom dossiers had been prepared to see their own files, but no one went to jail and as yet no one has paid fines.
Not surprisingly, a defecting employee revealed in an article he published in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs that AIPAC, too, has such "enemies" files. They are compiled for use by pro-Israel journalists like Steven Emerson and other so-called "terrorism experts," and also by professional, academic or journalistic rivals of the persons described for use in black-listing, defaming, or denouncing them. What is never revealed is that AIPAC's "opposition research" department, under the supervision of Michael Lewis, son of famed Princeton University Orientalist Bernard Lewis, is the source of this defamatory material.
But this is not AIPAC's most controversial activity. In the 1970s, when Congress put a cap on the amount its members could earn from speakers' fees and book royalties over and above their salaries, it halted AIPAC's most effective ways of paying off members for voting according to AIPAC recommendations. Members of AIPAC's national board of directors solved the problem by returning to their home states and creating political action committees (PACs).
Most special interests have PACs, as do many major corporations, labor unions, trade associations and public-interest groups. But the pro-Israel groups went wild. To date some 126 pro-Israel PACs have been registered, and no fewer than 50 have been active in every national election over the past generation.
An individual voter can give up to $2,000 to a candidate in an election cycle, and a PAC can give a candidate up to $10,000. However, a single special interest with 50 PACs can give a candidate who is facing a tough opponent, and who has voted according to its recommendations, up to half a million dollars. That's enough to buy all the television time needed to get elected in most parts of the country.
Even candidates who don't need this kind of money certainly don't want it to become available to a rival from their own party in a primary election, or to an opponent from the opposing party in a general election. As a result, all but a handful of the 535 members of the Senate and House vote as AIPAC instructs when it comes to aid to Israel, or other aspects of U.S. Middle East policy.
There is something else very special about AIPAC's network of political action committees. Nearly all have deceptive names. Who could possibly know that the Delaware Valley Good Government Association in Philadelphia, San Franciscans for Good Government in California, Cactus PAC in Arizona, Beaver PAC in Wisconsin, and even Icepac in New York are really pro-Israel PACs under deep cover?
In fact, the congress members know it when they list the contributions they receive on the campaign statements they have to prepare for the Federal Election Commission. But their constituents don't know this when they read these statements. So just as no other special interest can put so much "hard money" into any candidate's election campaign as can the Israel lobby, no other special interest has gone to such elaborate lengths to hide its tracks.
Although AIPAC, Washington's most feared special-interest lobby, can hide how it uses both carrots and sticks to bribe or intimidate members of Congress, it can't hide all of the results.
Anyone can ask one of their representatives in Congress for a chart prepared by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, that shows Israel received $62.5 billion in foreign aid from fiscal year 1949 through fiscal year 1996. People in the national capital area also can visit the library of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Rosslyn, Virginia, and obtain the same information, plus charts showing how much foreign aid the U.S. has given other countries as well.
Visitors will learn that in precisely the same 1949-1996 time frame, the total of U.S. foreign aid to all of the countries of sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean combined was $62,497,800,000--almost exactly the amount given to tiny Israel.
According to the Population Reference Bureau of Washington, DC, in mid-1995 the sub-Saharan countries had a combined population of 568 million. The $24,415,700,000 in foreign aid they had received by then amounted to $42.99 per sub-Saharan African.
Similarly, with a combined population of 486 million, all of the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean together had received $38,254,400,000. This amounted to $79 per person.
The per capita U.S. foreign aid to Israel's 5.8 million people during the same period was $10,775.48. This meant that for every dollar the U.S. spent on an African, it spent $250.65 on an Israeli, and for every dollar it spent on someone from the Western Hemisphere outside the United States, it spent $214 on an Israeli.
These comparisons already seem shocking, but they are far from the whole truth. Using reports compiled by Clyde Mark of the Congressional Research Service and other sources, freelance writer Frank Collins tallied for The Washington Report all of the extra items for Israel buried in the budgets of the Pentagon and other federal agencies in fiscal year 1993.Washington Report news editor Shawn Twing did the same thing for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
They uncovered $1.271 billion in extras in FY 1993, $355.3 million in FY 1996 and $525.8 million in FY 1997. These represent an average increase of 12.2 percent over the officially recorded foreign aid totals for the same fiscal years, and they probably are not complete. It's reasonable to assume, therefore, that a similar 12.2 percent hidden increase has prevailed over all of the years Israel has received aid.
As of Oct. 31, 1997 Israel will have received $3.05 billion in U.S. foreign aid for fiscal year 1997 and $3.08 billion in foreign aid for fiscal year 1998. Adding the 1997 and 1998 totals to those of previous years since 1949 yields a total of $74,157,600,000 in foreign aid grants and loans. Assuming that the actual totals from other budgets average 12.2 percent of that amount, that brings the grand total to $83,204,827,200.
But that's not quite all. Receiving its annual foreign aid appropriation during the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in quarterly installments as do other recipients, is just another special privilege Congress has voted for Israel. It enables Israel to invest the money in U.S. Treasury notes. That means that the U.S., which has to borrow the money it gives to Israel, pays interest on the money it has granted to Israel in advance, while at the same time Israel is collecting interest on the money. That interest to Israel from advance payments adds another $1.650 billion to the total, making it $84,854,827,200.That's the number you should write down for total aid to Israel. And that's $14,346 each for each man, woman and child in Israel.
It's worth noting that that figure does not include U.S. government loan guarantees to Israel, of which Israel has drawn $9.8 billion to date. They greatly reduce the interest rate the Israeli government pays on commercial loans, and they place additional burdens on U.S. taxpayers, especially if the Israeli government should default on any of them. But since neither the savings to Israel nor the costs to U.S. taxpayers can be accurately quantified, they are excluded from consideration here.
Further, friends of Israel never tire of saying that Israel has never defaulted on repayment of a U.S. government loan. It would be equally accurate to say Israel has never been required to repay a U.S. government loan. The truth of the matter is complex, and designed to be so by those who seek to conceal it from the U.S. taxpayer.
Most U.S. loans to Israel are forgiven, and many were made with the explicit understanding that they would be forgiven before Israel was required to repay them. By disguising as loans what in fact were grants, cooperating members of Congress exempted Israel from the U.S. oversight that would have accompanied grants. On other loans, Israel was expected to pay the interest and eventually to begin repaying the principal. But the so-called Cranston Amendment, which has been attached by Congress to every foreign aid appropriation since 1983, provides that economic aid to Israel will never dip below the amount Israel is required to pay on its outstanding loans. In short, whether U.S. aid is extended as grants or loans to Israel, it never returns to the Treasury.
Israel enjoys other privileges. While most countries receiving U.S. military aid funds are expected to use them for U.S. arms, ammunition and training, Israel can spend part of these funds on weapons made by Israeli manufacturers. Also, when it spends its U.S. military aid money on U.S. products, Israel frequently requires the U.S. vendor to buy components or materials from Israeli manufacturers. Thus, though Israeli politicians say that their own manufacturers and exporters are making them progressively less dependent upon U.S. aid, in fact those Israeli manufacturers and exporters are heavily subsidized by U.S. aid.
Although it's beyond the parameters of this study, it's worth mentioning that Israel also receives foreign aid from some other countries. After the United States, the principal donor of both economic and military aid to Israel is Germany.
By far the largest component of German aid has been in the form of restitution payments to victims of Nazi atrocities. But there also has been extensive German military assistance to Israel during and since the Gulf war, and a variety of German educational and research grants go to Israeli institutions. The total of German assistance in all of these categories to the Israeli government, Israeli individuals and Israeli private institutions has been some $31 billion or $5,345 per capita, bringing the per capita total of U.S. and German assistance combined to almost $20,000 per Israeli. Since very little public money is spent on the more than 20 percent of Israeli citizens who are Muslim or Christian, the actual per capita benefits received by Israel's Jewish citizens would be considerably higher.
I'm as struck as Mark McKinnon by the sudden, if tempered, swooning of the center-right for Obama. even Fred Barnes has had an epiphany of sorts. They are responding to his obviously sensible and accomplished picks for the economy and foreign affairs as if they have realized for the first time who "that one" actually is. He is not now and never has been a leftist ideologue. That was a paranoid fantasy that helped kill the GOP this year. He is a pragmatic, sane, reasoned centrist liberal. He doesn't want to surrender to terror or abolish capitalism - he wants to hone our fight against the Islamists to better effect and to save capitalism from itself. And the core meaning of his candidacy - an end to the polarizing culture war battles of the post-Vietnam era - is not just hype. It's real:
It appears the political classes have briefly sobered up and decided to act responsibly, selflessly and -- dare we say it -- in the best interest of the country. The times are simply so serious, so dangerous, so calamitous that we can’t afford politics as usual. And for once, politicians seem to get it. We all wish President-elect Obama success. Because there’s a good chance that if he fails, we all go down together. Way down. And let's give credit where it's due. The spirit of good will is being significantly leveraged by Obama, who has had made a series of very smart, practical, pragmatic and non-ideological picks for his cabinet. Eight years ago, George W. Bush said he wanted to change the tone in Washington. Well, a recount crippled that idea before it got out of the crib. It simply wasn't the right time for the message or the messenger.
It appears the political classes have briefly sobered up and decided to act responsibly, selflessly and -- dare we say it -- in the best interest of the country. The times are simply so serious, so dangerous, so calamitous that we can’t afford politics as usual. And for once, politicians seem to get it. We all wish President-elect Obama success. Because there’s a good chance that if he fails, we all go down together. Way down.
And let's give credit where it's due. The spirit of good will is being significantly leveraged by Obama, who has had made a series of very smart, practical, pragmatic and non-ideological picks for his cabinet.
Eight years ago, George W. Bush said he wanted to change the tone in Washington. Well, a recount crippled that idea before it got out of the crib. It simply wasn't the right time for the message or the messenger.
And Bush was never that serious about it. Obama is.
(Thanks to Andrew Sullivan. Especially today, World AIDS Day.)
At a recent event at Florida International University, the following questions were asked to the top advisors of the John McCain and Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors for Latin America.
Here is the video, Karaoke style.
Here are the lyrics.
Dear Members of "AFRICANS and AMERICANS FOR OBAMA" online group,
Fellow Americans, Congolese and Friends of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire),
I'm Franklin Katunda, community leader and organizer. Since 2001 I'm been president and editor of the Congoboston Network --that helps thousands of African immigrants to social networking online and through events. I learned about Senator Barack Obama after the 2004 DNC Convention, have learned about his judgement and character during his US Senate during the War in Iraq. I endorsed Barack Obama for US Senate Re-election in December of 2006 after he adressed my "Class of 2006" at the Universirty of Massachusetts-Boston. I did not know he was going to run for the higher office, but I have watched his US senate's moves to pass bills working with both sides of the aisles and ... I discovered the Man's mind.
I knew Obama is the "Man with the Plan", not a follower! Now, soon as he announced his candidacy in February of 2007, It was easy for me to back someone that I as a role model, a leader, a charismatic visionary; young and refreshing politician like I would like to be. I knew which candidate, against all odds of backing a least experienced candidate, to choose from Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Edwards bids, and I decided to believe and to back Barack Obama (D. Illinois) in the 2007 pre-primaries.
Currently I am a Non-paid Field Organizer, and an Online Group Coordinator; I am working on an ambitious current project to rally a voter's registration that supports and raises awarness in politics from newly African Naturalized US-Citizens. I work in campaigning for and in helping to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States of America. This year has been busy for us since the launch of the campaign in February of 2007, so we put our Congoboston's activities on hold to make sure the Illinois Senator is elected "President of the United States of America", first.
Why Barack Obama? Well, it is not because he is running for office and has a better chance at winning, but because the United States of America is seen and wanted as a strong ally by African countries, and particularly to the Congo. (Second), because among all US Senators from the 109th US Congress, Democrat Senator, Barack Obama is the only one who dared to introduce a bill that was passed and signed into law to require the Bush Administration to eefectively act on protecting the new Congolese Nation's choice of governance.
After a five years period of civil war and a coslty, unprepared and yet rigged election in 2006 in Congo, the US Senate and US House's bill was needed in DC to ensuring the welfare of not less than 40 millions of desperate Congolese, entrapped in a series of civil wars and social misery, as a result of a four decades reign of Mobutu. This is a vast and war-torn country that continues to provide to US and European Corporations tons of minerals such as the Coltan, the Uranium, the Cupper, Diamonds, and Gold. The Congo produces also a dozen of more unheard of minerals (exploited even during the recent killings that resulted in the loss of more than 5 million souls. [Read about the bill here] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-2125
In December 2006 when the bill was introduced, passed and signed into law, Senator Barack Obama, works in a bi-partisan way to make sure this bill also called the " S.2125" : Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006, could be used by both the Executive Branch of the US government and Congress as a test piece to measure how the Bush foreign affairs' cabinet would handle this country's fate. The bill tells where the US stands in its diplomatical efforts to help to prosperity and peace in Congo. Response: The US government has done almost nothing since 2006 to ensure the bill was acted upon. The War (another insurrection) has started again in the eastern Congo, President Kabila of Congo has violated human rights on numerous occasions; his operatives (army, security agencies and presidential guards) continue to persecute and/ or to murder opposition leaders; Congolese protests are being shut out, when manifestants are being killed at every occasion without our embassy getting involved in checking facts; More than ever, I strongly believe that the future of this vast country in the heart of Africa is on the 2008 US presidential ballot.
Facts About US- DR Congo Foreign Affairs
The Bush GOP Cabinet had all the diplomatical tools to run a better foreign policy in regards to the DRC, [ ...and we had not need to sit with "hostile" leaders in order to save these innocent lives], but acted timidly, according to most US and Congo's politicians, newsmedia makers and well-informed human rights and citizen's networks in the DRC and here in US. How do we know it? Check facts on the ground: The Democratic Republic of Congo has plunged once again (September 2008) into another civil unrest in the eastern region where thousands of citizens are being bodily-mutilated with machettes and displaced by dissident troops of the war lord and domestic terrosist; Sir Nkunda Batware.
This man is well-known for his fame in killings and terrorism on civilians by the US State Department's African Affairs Office in Washington DC; His prouesses are well-acknowledged by the UN's Mission and its "Bush Friend" Mission's coordinator -- Mr William Swing. Yet Kunda Batware is being ignored by our embassy officials while he should be arrested as he is the most dangerous war criminal to be "deported" to the the Hague's Court. This former rebel and Kagame's army dissident is backed by current authorities of Rwanda (Congo eastern-border neighboring country). Amazingly, Sir Batware has been a close friend and a former political ally to the current Congo's president Joseph Kabila. [Bush supports Kabila who made it to the White House for official visits more than twice in less than four years of Bush re-elect term in the Oval Office.] Both Congolese President Kabila and Rwanda's president Kagame (another beloved-Bush ally in North Eastern Africa's region) have not done enough to crack down on dissident Nkunda Batware's operatives in the Kivu Eastern Region of the Congo; a pre-condition in restoring peace and democracy in Congo, and to ensure welfare of citizens in the region.
How long are we going to count our failed US diplomacy deeds, while a clear foreign policy was pushed by a known US senator on a bi-partisan way? Why do we have to continue another four years-period of uncertainty in the Congo if the United States has a chance to elect democrat candidate to wipe the republican failure? When issues of lack of consistency and involvment in our relationships with African countries are clearly established in the current GOP agenda -- the Congo has been flagged as a threat to national security and our strategic position in Africa. Congo is a strong ally to the US since the 60s when the country became politically independent from the Belgian Kingdom.
The DR Congo had aligned itself as one of the most pro-American philophical "stronghold" in Central Africa for three decades while the country has been surrounded by socialist colors; (pro-former USSR, pro-China, pro-North Korea and even ... because of its African roots, pro-Cuba) .... The regime of Kinshasa has resisted ideals and ties to African military regimes in countries like its neighbors: the people's republic of Congo-Brazzaville, the people's republic of Angola and some left progressist leaders such as the Zambian president Kaunda (in South) or the mighty President Machel of Mocambique; far the Congo secured America's presence in southern Sudan in efforts to stop the Khartum socialist agenda, their push in Ethiopia, Guinea and so forth etc...
The Congo ( known as Zaire) has been a reliable US "pied-a-terre", serving as a US military runway (the Kamina military base) to face and to deter both the rise of a communist ideology during the 30 years long civil in the war-torn country of Angola (South-Western border) and to help the US diplomacy to reign in isolating and rallying other African countries in the region to help end the threat to human rights, segregation and racism in the South Africa's Racist White-Supremacist regime of Peter Botha.
Minerals and components used in most US weaponry and the world's telecommunication devices are put together for decades with resources extracted from the Congo's soil. Congo has offered a best terrain to most US Presidents like Jimmy Carter (D), Ronald Reagan (R), Bush Sr (R) and Bill Clinton (D) to execute very complicated but vital national security decisions in regard to the stabiltity of Africa, by establising our intelligence in the region, a competitive market and intelligence strategy that helped the US to compete with Europe and Asia. The sin about our relationship with Africa, and for this case the DR Congo, is that we often benefited from all of the above for a less sustainable cooperation tools of diplomacy in regard to how African leaders offer a better governance, a sound fiscality, and the observance of citizens' human rights.
No doubt the DR Congo should remain a strong US ally in the Central African region where the French and the Belgians did nothing to disengage the "former" Soviets-aligned "Eastern-European Regimes" to establish their strong holds and networks in Africa. Now How in the world, with today's rise of another Russia's "impulse" with Georgia and its attempts to raise fears of an imminent "cold war", are we going to afford another war-torn Congo in the midle of Africa?
Distabilized - the Congo still produces tons of extractions of its massive "Uranium", very essential to make nuclear weaponry. That we cannot afford... remaining silent in America after it has been established that many Al-Qaeda and other terrorist operatives have been seeking to exploit and engage in illicit trade of these highly dangerous materials that can provide them with real weapons of mass destruction. The world knows it, President Bush does and Congress (with what I call Obama bill) warns it too!
Breaking the Silence (0n the behalf of Congo)
Many NGOs and associations around the world are observing a "Seven-Days" or the "Congo's Week". It is an Awarness Campaign with a theme: BREAKING THE SILENCE on the behalf of the DR Congo across the US and around the world. They have gotten the attention of several media cells in Western countries: France, Belgium, US, Australia etc to learn and advocate for the Congo, at least by talking about theese atrocities that took place when elections are taking place in US. One of them, I currently hold a membership, is the "Friends of The Congo" - FOTC [please visit their website] : www.FriendsoftheCongo.org
I cannot tell you enough how important and timely right it has been for US citizens who long for justice, equality and peace and the world; for those US-born Congolese, Americans and Friends of the Congo to rein in with their vote and support only "15 days" left before the 2008 elections to pass on this message. With this November 4th's Countdown to US elections, let all remember that the 109th Congress in its Democratic Majority with the help of 12 senators: 4 prominent Republicans and 8 Democrats had joined to co-sponsor a bill initiated by Senator B. Obama (D, Illinois). This 2006 bill had unanimousely (with few amendments and fewer objections) passed, and was signed into law to ensure better foreign policy , security, development, better governance in the Congo, and yet "nothing" consistent [ in other words "just a little"] has been done to follow through.
So, I am inviting those who are willing to visit the webpage that features that ONE-week (Sunday, October 19th through Saturday 25th 2008) event at this link: http://www.friendsofthecongo.org/time_critique.php for your own knowledge, to participate or donate if you cannot attend. Students, Capitol Hill's news professionals, Graduates-Interns, Human Rights Organizers...This is a great moment to raise awarness of the American public! Overhaul, lets remember that the 2008 US presidential elections is an answer to the failures the US developped in Africa.
One among our failed approaches in diplomacy with AFRICA
The GOP's last eight years continues to prophecy without actions for the US to rely on the Department of State's reports and on our European Allies' out-of-touch lines of diplomacy towards Africa; our current foreign service envoys are still using those heavily-biased and politically-partisan lines of policies that are ( ... as old as Pres. Nixon's talking points on African Affairs; demoded in their essence like the pre-Berlin Reagan's views on our relationships with Africa; our policies have been much of the former French president Mitterand's philophy; he forecasted a "pro-but-fake" democratic way of governance in Africa) -- And no wonder we cannot be relevant in solving most crisis in Africa where the United States have common strategic and national security interests as the Europeans, but where we still lagging in being equally involved economically like the Europeans are, and even the Chinese, the Russians and South-Koreans have been.
The US cannot afford being less politically and diplomatically involved in Africa in 2008, and expect our relationships to be economically sound in trades and to earn respect from the African People. News stories and real facts on the ground show that the Russians, the Chinese, and even South-Africans are developing sound trade deals and back-door deals with or without the Congo's approval in its soil. All this is happening far ahead of Washington's less aggressive approach in its African Affairs agenda. We are talking about the Congo in a vast continent, the one Historian Frantz Fanon said: (Africa) "...It has the map-shape of a gun with its trigger located in the Congo"
[ Please check the Africa's map and the Congo's location on in to better understand the metaphore].
The DR Congo is located at the (trigger)- the heart of the African Continent (in Yellow)
He was right because like I said before, the strategic plan to position in the region comes a sustained stability, peace and democracy in the Congo. This is an African country where, if there is not a strong leadership in Washington DC, our national security interests in the region will be in a permanent danger for real. Congo's strategic location on the Africa's regional map is economically a better market to engage and invest in, and with respect to the US intelligence and our military overahaul strategies in the region, the next president of the USA should do better than "all" his predecessors.
Change We Need in our relations with AFRICA
Where have we been all this time? Good question. I will tell you what? We always have developped that mentality that to deal with Africans, we ought to be careful on who (public officials) we send out to carry the message in Africa; we are always careful in choosing our "envoys", we emphasize on their ethnic and religious backgrounds; we base our selection of diplomats or State departments Officers on what is their knowledge of the region as we anticipate "wrongly" that our African counterparts (presidents, royalties or their ministers) would line up with how Europeans lines of diplomacy would dictate our stance, given the history of Africa colonists in the 1960s. For e.g. countries like Portugal, Spain, England, France, and even smaller numbers of Germans and Italian adventureers in Africa have marked their foot-prints, cultural landmarks and have shaped political philosophies in Africa.
In 2008, just like in other continents where colonists have no longer dictate the way business should be conducted, countries and territories like Hong-Kong, Macao, Taiwan, Brasil, India and many other lands where colonists left their foot prints, citizens and their government decided to "admit" they are ready to be on their own, and to embrace new ideas, new horizons, new opportinities -- to launch new markets of the 21th century. What Can the US do at this point? It is the role of the USA, I believe, to engage a new quality diplomatic approach that restores confidence from the African People's stand point. The US have to guarantee two aspects with a new and successful diplomacy tactic in its relationship with Africa: Engaging in Economic and Strategic Security Initiatives in the Continent and to Restoring democracy and a regulated and fiscally-sustained system of governance.
The African Affairs Office at the Department of State ( during the next Obama Administration) should actively work in exploring ways to offer "sticks and carrots" to hold African leaders "accountable" to respect of their signed-and-agreed upon treaties, their local politics dealings and issue promises, their binding bi-lateral agreements with the United States. We should compete with other countries like China, South-Korea or Argentina where African leaders are NOT being asked much to qualify in dealings. Economically speaking , it is about securing America, in one hand, our trades and investments' operatives (guarantying peace and stability) for "highly" profitable African markets. On the other hand, the US should ensure civil liberties are respected, they should reward fiscally-sound governance and encourage the enactment of national laws that promote the eradication of the culture of corruption as a way to monitor the improvement, to re-enforce the laws and ensure the respect of rule of law overahaul, as the 2006 Congo's "Obama Bill" outlined.
Besides many other failures to enforcing our treaties and bi-lateral accords in the African Affairs office at the Department of State, there are these US Governemt's weak actions that did not do much US initiative to Africans in terms of reenforcing the presence with the peace corps, humanitarian organizations and educational and relief organizations on the ground to work with local networks that canvass their communities.
The US should engage pre-emptively the health and human services approach in Africa in order to prevent diseases, pandemies and better nutrition for the population. To denounce and to stop adverse trends in ways of governance that leed to recent African Nation's cases of Genocide, such as Darfour (In Sudan) , Rwanda and the Eastern-Congo. Our relationships with African Leaders have to go beyond just helping them to stay capable militarly but to offer them logistic assistance when it comes to dealing with conflict resolution of hot national topics.
Our embassies in Africa should double efforts like do their couterparts in middle-eastern regions with bi-cultural and bi-lingual envoys to deal with and to clearly decongest the national political apparatus in every country where foreign service officers are assigned to. We need to learn how culture, history and tribal aspirations can shape and benefit US present and future relationships; they have to be active, as intelligence becomes available, to not only report, but to repudiate violations of human rights and to work in these countries' educational settings. Our cooperation in education should promote an agenda that eradicate sentiments of hate and philosopies that oppose the US...
The US should assist and reward only those countries that offer a progress report with fiscally-sound ways of governance; the observance of democracy and human rights. They haven't been doing so in the last decades, because we buy into fallacious French "Mitterand" ideas that because there: "... was election in a given African country, means that country's regime is "democratic".
It's Time to Turn the Page !
The 2008 elections is a time to change course in our foreign policy and to recognize our moral and historical responsibility in regards to Africa; It is an opportunity to raise awarness to the facts that the US has crucial need of a solid "diplomatic machine", made of a new generation of effective "foreign service" officials, effective appointed-government officials, foreign affairs officers in DC and in our consulates. Paramount, the US should show a stronger leadership in the White House that will level with a better diplomacy and will apply a "Peace-and-Democracy" philosophy versus the current "Our interest-Only" approach in Africa.
Like never before there is a need of a US President and an Administration in DC that hold a pro-democracy and human rights-compliant agenda in Africa. Senator Barack Obama (author of S. 2521) has the record to prove it, maybe did not articulate much about it, but worse John McCain never been vocal (not even once) for such an agenda in Africa. He won't do it, won't promise he would look into it. We can't even hold him accountable in doing some thing about it because I doesn't KNOW much about !
Barack Obama is the only alternative to save millions of lives who die in civil conflicts, of diseases and pandemies, of lack of economic development, because of political persecutions or ethnic cleansing! I will be launching a "MySpace Outreach Page" to continue rally efforts from Americans, Congolese-Americans, Africans, Friends of the Congo and Organizations that work for peace, prosperity and the economic development of this nation. We want to help solidify and organize thousands more entities for this humanitarian cause.
I believe that Africa and the Congo's fate are definetely tied to the outcome of the US Presidential Elections.
Barack Obama, a real President in theWhite House; Change for a better World.
I'm Franklin Katunda - Barack Obama Surrogate, and I approve this Message.
Thank You !
(To be sung to the tune of "Doin' what comes natur'lly", from the Broadway musical "Annie Get Your Gun", music and original lyrics by Irving Berlin. New lyrics by Gregory Bachelis.)
Folks are scared I’m not prepared
To govern if elected
But I’ll make a great V. P.
Doin’ what the Lord tells me
(Doin’ what the Lord tells her)
Gals like me could never see
The point of facts and figures
I’ve done well politic’lly
You don’t have to know much foreign affairs
When you can see Russia from your front porch stairs
From my earliest days in the PTA
Religious/social issues were my forte'
God advises me
(God advises her)
If John McCain wants to fly with the call sign ‘Maverick’ does that make his running mate Sarah ‘Goose’ Pailin? If so, can we just refer to her as Mother Goose or Mayor Goose? I prefer Mother Goose since she, and Maverick, have such an affinity for tall tales. Anyway, it has a nicer ring to it than Sarah Putin or Sarah 'you can see everything from Alaska while becoming an expert on foreign affairs' Pailin, which doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
I’m hopeful that Mother Goose’s grasp on world politics and current events will lead to her striking a Middle East peace deal between Yasir Arafat and Golda Meir; a deal that would surely put her in the White House (which you can see it from Alaska).
Goose’s campaign suspension may be the most brilliant idea that the Maverick campaign has had in this race. Working on the premise that it’s better to be quite and let people think that you’re stupid than to speak and prove it, the Goose’s silence becomes golden. I believe Sarah Goose Pailin should be leading the Republican ticket. After all, do we want our leader buzzing around like a man possessed, or do we want a president that has been exorcised and witch proofed? Maybe Mother Goose should take Maverick to her church for some hands on help.
My advice to Maverick: Stop demonstrating what a skilled fighter pilot you are, juking your way through life at mach 2 with your hair on fire. Please suspend your “suspended campaign” campaign, and start focusing on real issues and leadership like Barack “Iceman’ Obama (head of ice, heart of fire). Do you really believe your non-political politics is fooling Americans? Your Hail Mary threat of postponing the debate did shine the media spotlight on you, but also adds to the mounting evidence of your lack of direction, dedication to me-first politics, and your contempt for the intelligence of the American people. Why don’t you propose postponing the election, the recession, and all wars? Lastly, always remember that if you have nothing to say, say it louder.
From the Associated Press Tuesday, September 23, 2008
"NEW YORK - Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, who has not held a press conference in nearly four weeks of campaigning, on Tuesday banned reporters from her first meetings with world leaders, allowing access only to photographers and a television crew."
A candidate with training wheels at a time of international and national crisis. Read more:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080923/ap_on_el_pr/palin_leaders
In a recent interview Sarah Palin said US might need to go to war with Russia.
I was just wondering what Sarah Palin's, as a potential commander in chief, war strategy be against Russia.
Would she launch 1000 missiles? 100 missiles? or just one missile as a warning shot to show the Russians what nuclear war is all about?
In a column for the British newspaper, The Guardian, Jonathan Steele offers a starkly different view of the conflict between Russia and Georgia than the filtered one we get in North America. Of course, his opinions are coloured by the fact that he is in the vicinity and has been since 2001.
Steele notes that Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has been waging an interesting campaign of lies, his biggest in this case being: "...his attempt to airbrush the fact that he created the crisis by launching an artillery barrage on the South Ossetian capital, which killed scores of civilians and 15 Russian peacekeepers."
Steele compares the Russian response to Georgia's opening to NATO's response to problems in Kosovo. He notes: "Instead of confining itself to Kosovo in seeking to protect Albanian civilians from ethnic cleansing, NATO bombed deep into Serbia proper. What Russia did to Georgia was disproportionate, but less so than NATO on Serbia a decade ago."
There is also a good analysis of John McCain's "judgment". "One of the grimmest aspects of this crisis was the degree to which John McCain emerged as an undiplomatic hawk. Before the crisis he was on record as calling Putin "a totalitarian dictator" and saying Russia should be expelled from the G8. As Russia came in to defend South Ossetia, he demanded it pay a "serious negative" price." Clearly McCain is a man with a single approach to foreign relations. War.
Referring to his own government as 'poodles', Steele asks can they not see "...the next potential US president, Barack Obama, is more nuanced? He called on Georgia, as well as Russia, to show restraint."
Wow! Restraint. Asking for sanity from both sides. Now who should be answering 3:00 am phone calls?
The whole article is well worth reading and is at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/25/georgia.russia.
In several quarters Sen. McCain is not just a 71 years old veteran and over 25 years of legislative membership as a senator of the United States of America, but as an experienced, reliable, and bi-partisan congressman with lots of wisdom, understanding and knowledge to lead the nation as the commander in chief. It is not therefore surprising that he has sorted to be the presidential flag bearer of the Republican Party as far back as the year 2000, in which he lost the nomination to the incumbent President George Bush.
Retrospectively in spite of the at times nonchalant campaigning strategy of his campaign which retrogressively portrays his rival in the current political dispensation, he has stock to his claim of being a maverick and champion of the modesty, honesty and transparency. Whether such a claim is authentic or just mere political machination and manipulation is another argument that can be debated by anybody interested in the well being of the United States of America.
Sen. McCain historically have track records of bi- partisanship in the senate as epitomizes by his earlier backing of a comprehensive immigration reform that will create the necessary opportunity for some immigrants to explore the path to citizenship after such fellows are able to meet some eligibility that will not in any way compromise the integrity of the country socially, economically and security wise.
Obama is clearly a breath of fresh air he. With the publicity he got, and all the hype surrounding him he's already made a star of himself, and already seen as the il presidente:). That is why i need you to hear what i have to say, as a Macedonian, and the USA's foreign policy would directly affect my life, like it has till now, only in a positve way.
Until now i didn't follow thoroughly, not anywhere near it, Obama's campaign, just random texts, news, comments.... Yesterday all of the news covered what Obama stated(in a speech?) concerning the Greek question. We don't have a problem with that, actually its in everybody's interest that the region is stabile and prosperous. The improvment of the Greek-USA relations is vital, because the anti-US sentiment in Greece is increasing on daily basis.
It is clear that what happens for USA, happens for the rest of the world. At least for the rest of the Occident. The proclamation of the Kosovo's independance, which was new-found freedom for it's people, is a result of Bill Clinton's politic and George Bush rose to the occasion and followed his steps. If they hadn't, another genocide would have happened - a thought which i dread. On the Balkans we had tragic, sad, and shamefull decade, starting from the 1991, when Yugoslavia fell apart. Ethnic cleansing, brutal killings, systematical rape, destruction hatred, hundres of thousends of victims this was Europe's tragic reality. All this because of few. Rome being less than an hour flight from any city in ex-Yugoslavia, a country that once was a home to millions of it's proud citizens, which all led good and decent lives.Not one victim was worth it. The ones that suffered were the weakest. Macedonia, my country wasn't involved in a war, we "got away " with a conflict, but i still feel the effects, psychologically. How would things end up, if NATO didn't intervene, in Bosnia as well as Kosovo? They say that if you don't stop injustice, that makes you an accomplice, you have blood on your hands. In case of Yugoslavia, this was whole lotta blood.
I joined this community, as i already wrote: because i feel very worried about my country, as a result of Obama's latest statements in regards to the Macedonian question. Macedonia is a very frail country, on a crossroad,"waking up" from an era, and cannot measure up to a country like Greece. Every little bit of support counts. Every little sign of good will for helping is crucial for the stability, if not to the survival. I feel obliged, for me, as an ethical creature, to my country and the destiny to the people who live here: be it Macedonian, Albanian,Serbian,Bosniak,Roma,Vlahs. Up until now this society, that is clearly multi-ethnic: worked. Unlike most Balkan countries. Pushing Macedonia into political and economic low, is simply wrong. This isn't much of an argument "it is simply wrong"... except if you're focused on doing the right thing.
In the next post, i will try writing an overview, relatively short, but elaborate enough, about what my country is all about, and how USA has a great role in most of the apsects(and as a result, it has been dubbed as McDonia because of the - much needed, i might add - support.
Matthew Yglesias writes:
I was on a radio show last night where I wound up in a debate about whether or not diplomacy was likely to be able to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue in a satisfactory manner. It occurred to me that one issue I was having that, in retrospect, often fogs these issues, is that my interlocutor wanted to conceive of diplomacy as a kind of poor man's coercive tool... Like military force is this really awesome coercive tool that maybe you're hesitant to use, so instead you might try diplomacy, but maybe diplomacy's not tough enough so we're back to force.
Fundamentally, is it any surprise that the people who think that any form of compromise is weakness when it comes to their domestic game of hardball should act any differently when they take their game on the international circuit? Remember, this is the crowd that says "Bipartisanship is another name for date rape."
AS A NATIVE of China with great affection for the Tibetan culture, I have felt saddened by the violence that erupted in Tibet in mid-March and has left a number of civilians and a police officer killed.
I learned Tibetan folk dancing during dance training in Beijing years ago. I understood from the passion of my teacher and fellow classmates that Tibetan culture is well respected among China's majority Han population. As a journalist intern, I interviewed the Tibetan singer Caidan Drolma (in the Tibetan language her names mean "longevity" and "fairies" respectively). Her smile and golden voice in the song "Emancipated Serfs to Sing the Song," which reflected her own experience, remain fond in my memories.
Here in the United States, I always detect a whiff of politics when Tibet is mentioned. Media coverage on the violence has been critical of the Chinese government. One scene that rekindled my feelings for Tibet was an interview on the privately owned television service for overseas Chinese, Sinovision, which featured an ordinary Tibetan woman on the street who emotionally pointed out that the good life of the Tibetan people had been disrupted by violence committed by a few Tibetan mobs.
Interest groups want to utilize the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games to advance their causes. But as a Wall Street Journal reader from Hong Kong responded to a Journal op-ed article calling for a "Genocide Olympics" campaign, some people "forget that the whole point of the Olympics is its explicitly nonpolitical nature."
Some people believe it is fair to vent their grievances with China, but don't see any unfairness in depriving China and its people of the dream to host the Games. In both 1936 and 1948, Chinese Olympian athletes had to detour through Asia to raise fund for their trips by performing in competitions. They ended up exhausted and defeated in the Olympics. It would be equally unfair to deprive the world's athletes of their dreams and the chance to compete in the most important global athletic competition.
Using the Tibetan issue as a cunning game of political machinations is unfair both to China and to the Tibetan people. In order not to alienate certain voters, a politician might say before an election that countries should consider boycotting the Olympic Games. But, after winning the election, he might just as easily switch positions in order not to upset domestic athletes and infuriate China. He would be a victor, but China and the world's athletes would be the victims.
Foreign reporters highlighted a few weeping monks decrying Tibet's lack of freedom in the Jokhang Temple after China organized the media trip to Tibet. Didn't the young Han Chinese man shown separately on Sinovision, whose teenage sister died in the fire set by the mobs, deserve equal coverage by western media?
It would be wrong to assume that the Chinese do not have free minds and that the government orchestrates everything. It's not surprising that blogs in China have exploded in the anti-splittist and anti-West comments of the "Fen Qing" (furious young surfers), expressing anger over the violence and the western media's one-sided, twisted reports.
Overseas Chinese have also been energized. A video on YouTube, "Tibet was, is, and always will be a part of China," produced by a Canadian Chinese student, was clicked 1.2 million times and received 72,000 comments in three days. Patriotism and nationalism are strong among the Chinese. The power of the people's voice should not be underestimated.
Historical burdens at times prevent people from moving forward. Buddhism's art of meditation offers wisdom: Let go, develop a refined awareness of the present moment, and reach a clarity of mind. This may be useful for all who genuinely care about the fate of Tibet and desire a constructive solution. As Gandhi said, God ultimately saves him whose motive is pure. Violence and political maneuvering may not necessarily help shorten exiled Tibetans' journey back home.
Anne Wu is an associate at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.
