July 29, 2006

Illegal Immigration: A Second Best Option for Europe

Filed under: Immigration — Atta Addo @ 8:57 pm

For many who have been following news of illegal immigration from impoverished African source countries into Europe—a perilous journey that often takes the lives of 40% of those who attempt it—the Euro-African Ministerial Conference on Migration and Development held in Rabat, Morocco from the 10th to the 11th of July this year was very welcome news.

The Conference was the first of its kind, bringing together Ministers from some 57 European and African countries to find new ways for controlled immigration to Europe and stem the influx of illegal migrants from impoverished African nations. The landmark of the conference was the adoption of an action plan that combined strategies to control illegal immigration routes with development aid to dissuade illegal migrants from coming to Europe and instead staying in their home countries to improve their livelihood. Europe also pledged some 18billion euros (USD22.7billion) over a seven-year period to assist African source countries to improve conditions for would-be migrants.

Despite the monumental shift this conference represents for the fight against illegal immigration–being the first intercontinental effort of its scale and importance–it may sadly not yield any profound results. This is because illegal immigration is merely an indicator of the push factors that exist in source countries: poverty,underdevelopment,lack of opportunities, corruption and general despair in the political process. These factors can never be eliminated by mere intervention of any sort and thus the conference plan of action will only go so far. Several of the measures adopted were in fact in line with previous repressive controls like patrolling and detentions;superficial solutions to the deeper problem.

In the best analysis I’ve read yet of why this conference might fail like all the others prior, Gregory Noll, a professor of International Law at Lund University in Sweden, argues that:

The annual sum of €2.5 billion ($3.16 billion) offered to the African participants by the Europeans in Rabat is not trivial, but is far less than would be needed for such a “buy-out”. The conclusion must be that the EU and its member-states do not possess the economic muscle required to match that of the migrant networks. This fundamental fact is often forgotten in “the fight against illegal immigration”. If African governments accept a deal that disadvantages their countries and peoples in financial terms, it must really be in bad faith.

Despite the truth of Prof.Noll’s assertion, I prefer to look on the brighter side. Even though the skeptics are right to warn against overexpectations of the conference, it is hoped that the resulting action plan from the conference–if adhered to–will ameliorate the problem if not solve it completely. Given that the best option of dealing with the migration hump (the dynamic between income adjustment and migration) is practically impossible, the next best option is for this novel intercontinental effort to succeed. For Europe, facing despair in its fight against illegal immigration,this second best option is clearly better than doing nothing.

Comments (4)

July 28, 2006

Name This Country

Filed under: Africa — Michael Jaskiw @ 9:07 pm

Name this country: it remains enveloped in simmering violence which appears ready to erupt into a larger war. The elected government is powerless and disintegrating, at the mercy of a radical Islamic organization. Shipments of weapons pour in as nearby nations choose to support their allies in a proxy war.

The answer? No, not Lebanon. No, not Iraq either. Back from relative obscurity to reclaim its status as a US security concern, it’s Somalia. Though overshadowed by the continued fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, the situation in Somalia is rapidly deteriorating. The official government suffered a major blow this week in its stronghold of Baidoa. Cabinet member Abdallah Deerow Isaq was shot and killed as he left a mosque on Friday. The death came one day after 18 other members of the government resigned, disgusted with the efforts of their own regime.

But the assassination was perhaps not the most alarming event in Somalia this week. On Wednesday, a plane landed (no small feat: it was the second plane to land at the airport in 10 years) in the capital, Mogadishu. A spokesperson for the fundamentalist Islamic government that controls the capital called it a shipment of “sewing machines.” Barring a new found passion among local Islamic militants for producing upholstery, the shipment almost certainly consisted of land mines, guns, and rockets from Eritrea.

Ethiopia and Eritrea (who have fought their own bloody wars) seem poised to used Somalia as their new battleground. The official Somali government has enlisted Ethiopia’s help for retaining order of a region that has seen decades of uninterrupted chaos. This allegiance with a primarily Christian country is acceptable neither to Somalia’s Islamic fundamentalists nor to Ethiopia’s long time rival, Eritrea. The forecast? Escalating violence with an off-chance of foreign attention and involvement.

Comments (1)

July 27, 2006

No Turning Back: How Did Foreign Policy End Up This Way?

Filed under: General — Omar Abdelsamad @ 11:50 pm

This week is not only significant for the newfound war on Lebanon, but it is also the week in which the Suez Crisis occurred 50 years ago. In a particularly interesting analysis of its implication for international relations, the Economist relates and analyzes how the actions of six countries effectively laid the framework for the system of relations the world deals with today.

In the Suez crisis, President Nasser of Egypt–the British had recently ended their occupation of the country–attempted to nationalize the Suez Canal in order to fund the building of Aswan’s High Dam. Unhappy with the result, the British and French colluded with the Israelis to win back the canal. The Israelis would invade the Sinai Penninsula, afterwhich the British and French would rush in as peacekeeping troops to reclaim the canal. Unexpectedly, President Eisenhower stopped England short by threatening to cut off its much needed IMF funds if the incursion continued. This is where, the paramount shift occurred. The British retreated, failing in the eyes of the French. The French, unhappy with Britain’s allegiance to the United States, pledged an independent government, developing its own nuclear technology and military autonomy. The Russians took advantage of the situation to fund Egypt’s dam. All of these issues can be seen in the current state of international affairs.

In exchange for being the United States’ lapdog, Britain gained superior military technology and influence. France’s self-reliance allowed slightly less intimidating armed forces, yet did pave the way for objecting to situations in which it did not find favor. The French government objected to both the second Iraq war and the current Israeli war on Lebanon.

Ever since that period in time, England has refused to disagree with its more powerful ally. While many British support a more independent foreign policy, Tony Blair’s government still falls in line with US wishes. The Iraq war and the Lebanon war are not only suported by both regimes, but British officials seem to directly mimic the supporting claims of their US counterparts.

Russia gained favor with the Arab states, giving it an unusual deference toward the region. When Israel began bombing Lebanon once again, Russia was one of the first to object. Unfortunately for the Arab states, Russia lost the superpower battle, both through the cold war and economic distress, making it a poor protector.

The Suez crisis was where the world’s governments lost their grit, their resolve, and their independence. When Britain lost its autonomy, so did the world. Many countries are more than willing to disagree with the United States, but they will not take action on their own. In Rome this week, the United States faced off against most of the civilized world–including the UN, the EU, and the Arab League–and won. No action was taken because no group of countries dares to cross the world’s superpower. The Suez crisis was the beginning of the United States’ monopolization of world foreign policy.

Looking back, France was the first to experience what many the world over are experiencing in the arena of international affairs. They were abandoned in the Sinai by the British, left to watch already decided world affairs pass them by, incapable of influence. That is what world governments are now feeling: the idea that they may do as they wish, as long as it pleases the United States. For once, perhaps world governments should take a page from the French: standing up for their rights and the rights of others. Hundreds of civilian lives could be spared today if even a small contingent of supporters, say the EU, demanded an immediate ceasefire with a threat of action for non-compliance. The United States would be incapable of somehow punishing the whole of Europe and governments would be more influential as a result. Through that autonomy, they could bolster the United Nations, eliminating the much abused Security Council veto power, allowing a true global forum interested in the well-being of its constituancies. Thenceforth, as in the Suez, UN peacekeeping “blue hats” could be brought in to Lebanon, Palestine, Sudan, and other extremely troubled regions. World diplomacy would experience a massive restructuring, allowing the United Nations to fulfill its intended purpose: to protect against war, guard human rights, promote social progress, and unite the world.

Comments (2)

Where’s the ‘Fair’ in Free Trade?

Filed under: Trade — Khary Francis @ 11:24 pm

Free trade according to the WTO is roughly defined as trade on ‘a level playing field’. In other words free trade involves fair trade, so that not only are goods and services exchanged with a minimum of tariffs and trade barriers but that conditions of production or service provision are equitable among all involved parties.

As far as I understand, a trade in agricultural goods produced with the benefit of monetary aid given to farmers by their rich governments who can afford such corporate welfare programs does not constitute fair trade. All things equal, would you not expect the student who went to private school to be more successful, bear more fruit if you will, than the kid who went to PS 117?

This variance of the circumstances under which agricultural goods are produced in the subsidy-heavy developed world versus the developing world produces a foreseeable disadvantage for the latter party when it comes to competitiveness in the global market. When disadvantage of circumstance (not ability) becomes foreseeable, is that not considered unfairness? If we choose to ignore such unfairness is that not injustice? Why must certain parties in the Doha free trade negotiations pretend that agricultural subsidies don’t eliminate the ‘fair’ in free trade?

Comments (1)

Oil And Tyranny Don’t Mix

Filed under: Economics, Latin America — Atta Addo @ 11:33 am

The BBC reports of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s trip to Russia to purchase arms. Russia ignored US concerns regarding the purchase and has approved the sale of 30 Sukhoi Su-30 fighter jets and 30 helicopters to Venezuela at a total cost of $1 billion. Additionally, Venezuela plans to buy 100,000 Russian-made AK-103 assault rifles and wants to set up Kalashnikov production factories on its soil.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, speaking at a Congressional hearing, accused President Chavez of leading a “Latin brand of populism that has taken countries down the drain.” The leftist President Chavez seems to have made it his raison d’etre to oppose the United States and make anti-globalization remarks whenever he finds opportune.He has already forged alliances with Iran,Iraq,Cuba,Belarus and a host of other troublesome regimes. He is believed to have scheduled a trip to North Korea in his current tour but later cancelled. In short, he is bedfellows with the Axis of Evil and almost all the Rice-designated Outposts of Tyranny.

But behind the demonization of Chavez by Washington and his own antidemocracy stance which has elicited this, US concerns over Chavez’s rule goes beyond democratic governance or the lack of it as this leftist website somewhat truthfully reports:

Behind Washington’s propaganda campaign against Chavez, however, is not any concern about the growth of “tyranny” in Venezuela, but rather concern over the threat posed by the Chavez government to the profits of US corporations. Chavez is leading a popular process known as the “Bolivarian revolution” that is challenging US domination in the region and redistributing wealth and political power to the 80% of Venezuelans who live in poverty.

Venezuela supplies up to 15% of US oil imports and the US purchases up to 60% of Venezuela’s oil output. A key goal of the Chavez government has been ensuring full government control over Venezuela’s oil industry in order to use its earnings to eradicate poverty. This has put Venezuela at odds with US oil corporations, and therefore at odds with the US government.

With the Bush Administration currently bogged down by Iraq, North Korea and now the Lebanese conflict, Venezuela has taken the back burner and President Chavez is taking the time to shop for some new arms. As Saddam Hussein found out, oil and tyranny don’t mix–not when US energy and economic interests are at stake. This is what President Chavez fears most–the Bush administration’s threat to his presidency because of Venezuela’s strategic importance to the US– thus, this is not the last we will hear of him.

Comments (0)

July 26, 2006

Iraq Redux

Filed under: Middle East — Michael Jaskiw @ 10:53 pm

Saddam Hussein, whose hunger strike was forceably ended so that he could return to trial (avoiding death by starvation for long enough to recieve death via the Iraqi justice system) is not the only one in the Middle East recieving little sympathy while begging for his own life.

This Tuesday, an Israeli shell landed 300 meters from a UN observer base in Southern Lebanon. Over the next six hours, UN officials made 10 phone calls to demand that the Israeli Armed Forces stop artillery fire in the area. By 7:20 PM, the post had been destroyed and 4 UN observers inside killed.

While the death of the UN observers comes across as both tragic and senseless, it is also the most illustrative example of the growing similarities between Israel’s incursion into Lebanon and the United States’ continued war in Iraq. The first commonality is a credibility gap: both George Bush’s and Ehud Olmbert’s administrations are conveying messages difficult to reconcile with the visible, reportable facts. Just like a ‘Mission Accomplished’ banner seems out of place amid a violent and prolonged insurgency, promises that Israel is mounting a controlled and precise attack against Hezbollah tend to ring hollow after a glance at the rising Lebanese civilian death toll.

The second similarity is the grind towards a stalemate. This situation is obvious in Iraq, less so in Lebanon. A former Israeli intelligence official has commented that “these may be the best Arab troops we’ve ever faced.” Hezbollah, with its increasingly sophisticated weapons and willingness to use guerilla tactics, has proved difficult to root out of civilian areas. This is not to say that Israeli airstrikes have not been effective in reducing Hezbollah’s capacities. However, the Israeli use of force could reach a critical mass after which additional strikes, raids, and troop presence will yield little result: the question is whether Israel will realize when it has reached this point

The final similarity is the lack of a coherent end-game. On face, Israel has a simple mission: to end the threat to its citizens from Hezbollah, much like the US had the straightforward task of toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime. The problem lies in the aftermath (as the United States has learned). Does Israel simply withdraw after having destroyed enough Hezbollah strongholds, leaving a crippled nation and government to its own devices? Does it being another occupation of Southern Lebanon (the previous one, ending in 2000, having lasted 18 years) to pre-empt any attempts on the part of Hezbollah to regroup? It is difficult to provide simple answers to such questions, let alone live up to them.

The comparisons above certainly need some perspective. Israel’s incursion has lasted days, while the US’s continued occupation of Iraq is measured in years. The Israeli death toll remains in the dozens, while the US’s has soared through the thousands. Nonetheless, some thought should be given to the idea that razing a country to stop a terrorist threat is straightforward on paper but painful in execution.

Comments (0)

July 25, 2006

Meanwhile, in Other News…

Filed under: South Asia — Krister Anderson @ 5:08 pm

There is nothing that the international news media, particularly cable news networks, does better than focus on one particular issue. I am not saying Lebanon is not important (posts on this blog have certainly elucidated the importance of the current conflict in the Middle East) but there have been other news stories during the past two weeks that merit attention. I am particularly interested in the recent developments in Pakistan and the discovery of a new nuclear reactor. How the United States reacts to this development may shape its nuclear weapons policy more broadly.

The age of commercial satellites has made intelligence analysis, which was once strictly a government enterprise, something that any joe shmoe with enough money and a little bit of know how can do. As such, it is not surprising that that analysts at the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington DC discovered the construction of a massive nuclear reactor capable of producing hundreds of pounds of plutonium, which could eventually be turned into nuclear weapons. While it is reassuring that US intelligence services were aware of the construction, the question as to why this has not been picked up a major story remains. I only bring this up because the US is set to approve the sale of 36 brand new F-16 jets to Pakistan. This sale is still heading for approval, as the Washington Post reports, despite the discovery. Here is why this lack of concern raises an eyebrow.

The United States is currently playing nuclear hardball with Iran and North Korea and is, by most accounts, making little progress. Negotiations with Iran are going nowhere and, although all 6 parties in the North Korea talks will be at the same event, the ASEAN Security Forum in Malaysia, on Friday, they will not have a meeting on the North Korean nuclear program. However, another nuclear state that has drawn the ire of the US, though not to the same extent, is expanding its weapons capabilities and getting F-16 jets. This does not strike me as the way to do business in preventing nuclear proliferation. If the United States is committed to slowing the spread of nuclear technology and controlling the number of nuclear weapons in the world, which I believe it is, given its focus on Iran and North Korea as well as its recent initiative with Russia to control nuclear material, the United States should play hardball with every nuclear state. Yes, I know that Pakistan is an ally in the war on terror, but it also is an unstable state that could go a very different direction if the current regime were to lose power. While Pakistan may never use this new reactor to produce nuclear weapons material, its latent capability in a country that has a rather unstable political situation should concern the United States.

It is probably too late now to stop the sale of the F-16 jets or the construction of this plant. However, I believe the lack of US response sends the wrong message as the United States attempts to control the spread of nuclear material, arguably its greatest security threat. Just because the United States is wrapped up in negotiations with North Korea and Iran over their development of capabilities does not mean that it should not try to limit the nuclear capabilities of established powers. If the United States wants to project a hardline policy on nuclear weapons, it should do so on all fronts, even with our allies.

Comments (2)

A Call For Peace

Filed under: Middle East, Terrorism — Lake Wang @ 12:42 am

In a matter of days, the Middle East has once again shown why it is the most volatile region in the world. But this time, there is a clear aggressor and victim.

Through its incursion into Lebanon, Israel has helped legitimize the Anti-Semitic sentiment that exists throughout the region. Instead of confronting Hezbollah through channels that do not involve artillery shells and the death of innocent civilians, Israel has done a disservice to all those that are working for world peace. True, Hezbollah initiated the attack on Israel, but is the pride of a country worth the lives of hundreds of innocent civilians and the destruction of a country’s infrastructure? When the Israeli foreign minister was asked whether the invasion of Lebanon really was necessary, his response was that if Hezbollah was sending rockets at Israeli cities, then Israel will continue the war. But when did two wrongs make a right? Did he forget the saying “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”?

Much like countless other conflicts, pride plays a huge part in the initial decision for the declaration of war. Even if Israel is successful in crushing Hezbollah, it would have made many other enemies. The problem with war is that it often leads to even more war. When Hezbollah is gone, many other anti-Israel terrorist organizations will form as a result of being able to use this war as a propaganda tool. Only good will and cooperation can permanently put an end to long-standing conflicts.

After this conflict is over, what will be outcome? Perhaps Hezbollah will be neutralized, but the costs are far too great. Israel would have made some new enemies, a country will be in ruins and hundred(perhaps thousands) of innocent lives will be lost. But if Israel is strong enough to end this conflict now by actually listening to the UN and the opinions of the international community, perhaps it can still solve this conflict peacefully and without the lost of many innocent lives. International organizations exist for a reason, perhaps now is the time to use them.

Comments (2)

The Disillusioning of the Great Dream

Filed under: General — Omar Abdelsamad @ 12:08 am

The American Dream is still quite strong in the United States. Illegal immigrants still risk life and limb to smuggle themselves across the border, solely to better their lives and get a piece of that beautiful dream. Parents, uniquely, govern their own corner of optimistic Americana by telling their children the characteristic “optimism clause” in which they detail the promise of endless opportunity. Children are told they can do anything they set their mind to, even being president, saving the world, or triumphing over various evils.

Of course, anyone can be president of the most powerful country in the world. As long as he isn’t black or hispanic or female or muslim or poor or any other type of non-Christian minority in an adverse socioeconomic condition. Catholics are welcome to apply, but they must be good. Perhaps upon bestowing the “Dream” upon their children, parents should also serve them with a list of limiting conditions, detailing the fact that their offspring will most likely never have a chance at their desired dreams, standing by as caste-like tunnelvision takes control of their lives.

It is true that many children escape the lower rungs of US society, gaining ground with education and more fruitful jobs than their parents. Statistically, the children of immigrants (especially illegal) do better than their parents, but what about those who do not do better or do the same? What if one of these “limiting conditions” is the fact that poor schools in poor neighborhoods typically educate (or fail to educate) poor pupils whose families cannot afford to pay for a private school or move to a more wealthy school district? Those children will be less likely to be the doctors, CEOs, and leaders of the free world. None of this is the fault of the students, but of a situation they had no control over.

Yet what is refreshing about younger generations is their propensity to believe in the possibility for change–that they can change anything if they try. Yes, children can hold a bake sale and save their local humane shelter, but applying that same effort to issues such as genocide in Darfur, civilian casualties in Lebanon, and famine in North Korea doesn’t really accomplish much. The desire and intent is there. They write; they lobby; they hope; and they pray. What does not change, however, is the situation. As with their parents before them, they eventually become disillusioned, losing sight of their goals because of a sense of uselessness.

Then why do so many feel inclined to impart the vision of the “American Dream”? Perhaps it is because the disillusioned still hold out hope that the future generations will not find themselves in the same situation. They hold out hope that the next generation will pick up where the adults left off, creating the change that they wish had happened during their youths. Perhaps it is part of the “New American Dream.” The one in which the schools are improved, where anyone can be president, and where a singular person with positive thoughts for the benefit of mankind can create change.

We’re all just waiting for someone to come along and get us started.

Comments (0)

July 24, 2006

For Free Trade, a Bad Case of the Mondays

Filed under: Agriculture, National Politics, Trade — Eric Lee @ 11:00 pm

Early this Monday morning, word trickled out of Geneva: no deal.

The Doha Round of negotiations on free trade had collapsed. The New York Times reported that it appears unlikely that an agreement will occur in the final two years of the Bush Administration.

While not as big of a story as the ongoing conflict in Lebanon, the failure of the talks was undoubtedly a blow for all involved. And like most multilateral arrangements, there will be finger-pointing all around.

The failure also demonstrated the numerous political dimensions of a topic not usually considered to be sexy at all: agriculture. The farm lobbies in the United States and Europe are very effective at lobbying their respective governments. It certainly doesn’t help that the first primary in US presidential races is in Iowa, where candidates that dare speak against farm subsidies court political death. And in top tier developing countries like Brazil and India, these governments wish to protect their farmers because they comprise a big part of their economy and population.

The central dispute (very much reduced and in layman terms) is this: Developed countries and top tier developing countries all very much wish to protect their home grown agriculture. Unfortunately, these high barriers hurt the poorest countries since for poor countries, agriculture is one of the few areas where they have a comparative advantage. So, all the developed countries know they need to cut back on subsidies, the problem is, by how much?

While many in the media probably will either place blame equally or just blame the Bush administration, for once, the Bush administration deserves a bit more credit than it will get.

Bush has deviated from the free market ideology occasionally, but this time, Bush, perhaps because he no longer needs to face an election, actually took the politically daring stand and advocated deep cuts (up to 60%) and stood strongly for free market principles. But the Europeans complained that the cuts were too much and of course the farm lobbies cried bloody murder. Bush wanted big cuts over cosmetic cuts because he wanted serious change, unfortunately, the other nations choose national interests over a win-win and principled situation.

So what’s next? More bilateral and regional agreements will be spotted. For around the same time, the US and ASEAN inked an agreement for cooperation on a wide swath on issues, including trade. The only good news in a very bad case of the Mondays for free trade.

Comments (3)