NYC Junta

I’m avid reader and admirer of Peter Singer, his columns with Project Syndicate  (my ex-employer) are well worth reading. This month he used the recent tragic death of a trainer at Sea World by a killer whale to talk about the cruelty of animal parks and circuses.  I find myself in total agreement, if I had kids I would not take them to the zoo or a circus for the exact reasons he lays out.

I had the good fortune spend a bit of time with Professor Singer when I was in Melbourne and starting to work on a story on animal welfare in China. I read his seminal book Animal Liberation at that time and, more recently, The Ethics of What We Eat, and his views have really influenced me. One thing I was really struck by in the introduction to Animal Liberation was the fact that Professor Singer isn’t a particular animal lover per se–he just feels strongly that our views on animals are a form of speciesm that we need to rethink. His views made me question the way I eat, something that has been an ongoing process. Lately I’ve been reading reviews of Jonathan Safran Foer’s “Eating Animals” and I was struck by something I read by him in an essay on the Huffington Post. He talked about how eating ethically doesn’t have to be such a zero sum game–you can strive to eat ethically without going vegan, or even fully vegetarian. He compares it to an environmentalist who accepts that he/she will sometimes drive in a car. That was really an epiphany for me. People sneer at the term, but I like the idea of the conscientious omnivore and that is what I strive for these days, trying to avoid eating meat that has been intensively raised.

I’d love to do a Junta on this issue. People so frequently just snicker or denegrate these ideas, but I think they are being defensive and there is a lot to explore philsophically about it and it has such a direct impact on our health and how we live.

Articles animal welfare, Dawn Brancheau, killer whale, Peter Singer, Project Syndicate

The lead essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs starts off with “The Islamic Republic of Iran is determined to become the world’s tenth nuclear power”. It goes on from there to sketch out US options for containment, barely dwelling on the current arguments about whether sanctions will work, whether some military option should be used—it is a planning paper for a post-nuclear Iran. The authors take the view that Iran can be contained that if the US plays its cards right it doesn’t have to change the strategic equation in the middle east.

I don’t want to paraphrase all the author’s arguments, but a couple of points. Firstly, I find it a strange balancing act for the US to be sending senior foreign policy officials to the Gulf nations, who are also fearful of a nuclear Iran. On the one hand, we are trying to tell these “allies”, where we have military bases and from which we currently receive vital oil supplies, that we will protect them. Iran loves to incite these countries’ restive Shiite populations and Iran, similar to Japan before in the first part of the 20th century, sees itself as a liberator of Muslims in the region from western imperialism. But in the US there is a strong movement to move away from oil, to decouple ourselves from these regimes, so I would imagine leadership in those countries are complaining about mixed messages. I, for one, am tired of propping up these feckless Gulf states where the locals do no work and import south Asians to do everything while they live off their labor and oil while quietly financing terrorist activity.

It’s also hard to argue with Iran’s logic for acquiring nuclear arms. Surrounded on both sides by US forces (Iraq and Afghanistan) and mindful that non-nuclear Iraq was invaded and nuclear North Korea still hasn’t been, the Mullahs see the bomb as part of a guarantee of their continued rule. Their rhetoric and recent actions seem to almost invite a military strike against them, which they are betting will united a fractious country behind them.

I go back and forth thinking about this, and allowing Iran to go nuclear is a terrible scenario. The authors of the FP essay do a good job of laying out all the awful things that could result from Iran getting the bomb. But at the moment I think continued efforts at engagement, targeted sanctions, and assurances for our allies in the region (none more than Israel, who should receive an explicit guarantee of the US’s support in the form of being put formally under the US nuclear umbrella) should be the way to go. There is a feisty opposition movement in Iran that needs time to grow—Iranians, a huge portion of whom are young, are sick of the Mullahs and will hopefully in the near term change their own government.

Articles containment, iran, israel

George Friedman of STRATFOR is a prescient voice on global affairs, and as it happens he has just penned an article on Iran, which is timely for our upcoming discussion.

What is to become of the standoff between America and Iran? According to Friedman, sanctions cannot be effective against Iran, as the only meaningful one would be on gasoline (Iran imports 35% of its gasoline – I’d love to know why they need to do this when they have so much oil – can they not refine it?), and China and Russia will not play along with that particular sanction. Military strikes carry too much risk: they require good intelligence and massive bombardment with undoubtedly high casualties, with no guarantee that nuclear facilities will be destroyed. Plus, should such attacks occur, Iran is certain to launch counterattacks on Israel via Hezbollah, and on American forces in Iraq via its proxies there. Worst of all, Iran has the power to drive global oil prices through the roof by mining the Strait of Hormuz and launching missiles at any ships in that vital passage. For all of these reasons, STRATFOR does not find US or Israeli military strikes on Iran likely.

With diplomatic and military options ruled out, can America prevent Iran from developing nukes? Friedman argues that this is not as important as checking Iranian power in the region. We need Iran’s help, much as we needed the help of some other unsavory characters in the past:

Roosevelt and Nixon both faced impossible strategic situations unless they were prepared to redefine the strategic equation dramatically and accept the need for alliance with countries that had previously been regarded as strategic and moral threats. American history is filled with opportunistic alliances designed to solve impossible strategic dilemmas. The Stalin and Mao cases represent stunning alliances with prior enemies designed to block a third power seen as more dangerous.

It is said that Ahmadinejad is crazy. It was also said that Mao and Stalin were crazy, in both cases with much justification. Ahmadinejad has said many strange things and issued numerous threats. But when Roosevelt ignored what Stalin said and Nixon ignored what Mao said, they each discovered that Stalin’s and Mao’s actions were far more rational and predictable than their rhetoric. Similarly, what the Iranians say and what they do are quite different.

Could the Roosevelt-Stalin and Nixon-Mao alliances provide a model for an Obama-Ahmadinejad/Khomeini Khamenei [oops, confused my mullahs there] rapprochement? Friedman’s whole article is worth a read.

Articles iran, iraq, israel, oil, usa, war

As we were planning our Iran session, Jeremy and I discussed whether we would be able to find someone with direct experience of Iran – well, that is, find someone and get them to accept our invitation – given the difficulties of traveling there. Today the LA Times published a piece about the costs and benefits of reporting on Iran from inside the country. Its title sums up the analysis: “Inside view is worth risk, reporters in Iran say“. [hat tip: Cyrus Farivar]

Despite the threat of arrest, despite the government shutting down newspapers and explicitly warning the media away from certain topics, the journalists quoted (mostly anonymously) all agreed that it was still better to be there on the ground than to cover Iran from afar. Which I suppose is rather unsurprising, since if they felt differently they obviously wouldn’t be there.

Journalists have to find a balance between doing their jobs – which requires that they independently investigate the government’s claims – and preserving the access they must have to do their jobs. Even in our own country, where no journalist would ever be imprisoned for a story, think of the run-up to the Iraq war. Government claims which were being easily debunked by independent journalists and bloggers were published uncritically and repeatedly by the Washington press corps.

Valid comparison? Discuss in the comments.

Articles iran, journalism, politics, usa, writing

There’s been a flurry of awful stories out of Africa about attitudes towards homosexuality. Uganda has been considering an anti-gay bill that would in some cases impose the death penalty on homosexuals.  In Kenya a gay wedding ceremony on the country’s more liberal coast-line almost resulted in a bloodbath with locals ready to burn the house down; the police intervened and shut the whole affair down. A similar case in Malawi resulted in the two men being arrested.  Check out the story in Malawi if you want a more human face on any of these instances, really sad story, the attached pic says it all though, these two guys being mocked and physically threatened just because of who they are. In each of these cases, but in particular in Uganda, these countries have faced strong criticism from western countries, which provide a large amount of aid and hence have some leverage over these countries. Obama has denounced the Uganda bill, and Gordon Brown and other top leaders have called Uganda’s powerful president, Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, to express concern. The result has been bewilderment and anger on the part of Africans, who see their anti-gay views as part of their culture and expressions of concern as meddling in their affairs. I hope western leaders continue to hold the line on this issue and use the leverage they have appropriately to effect change. This situation reminds me of the debate about women in Islamic countries, which was much talked about in the soul-searching following 9/11, but which has generally subsided of late. Just as it is clear that is wrong that women in Saudi Arabia are treated like second-class citizens, we should be careful to avoid moral relativism when dealing with Africa on homosexuality. Their views are backwards and wrong and need to change. Some values are universal and right and tolerance is one of them.

Articles africa, gay rights, kenya, malawi, uganda, universal values

Good news out of the Afpak region, the Taliban second in command, Mullah Baradar, was captured in Karachi.  This is notable in itself, and comes as the US is leading an ambitious effort to capture the Taliban stronghold of Marja, but I was particularly happy to hear that the raid was a joint effort by Pakistan’s secret service, the ISI, and the CIA. The ISI has for a long time played both sides of the Taliban and the US for reasons clear in this article, and I think it’s critical to get the Pakistanis to abandon the Taliban as a client and work with the US to deny them sanctuary. That means attacking their strongholds in the tribal regions, which they’ve done in the last few months, and have the intelligence agencies work together to go after high-value targets.  Hopefully this raid is just the first wave of this. What if the next few months Marja falls and the Afghans seem to actually hold the city themselves and set up a semi-decent government while a joint US/Pakistan raid captures or kills Mullah Omar (who is said to be in Karachi)? That kind of thing could be a game-changer and would be some well-deserved good news for the Obama foreign policy team, which I think is actually doing a good job.

Articles afpak, foreign policy, mullah baradar, obama, taliban

Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria

If you’re frustrated by political gridlock in the US, dumb-ass tea-party idiots carrying signs that say “gun control means being able to hit your target”, then checking in on the lovely state of Nigeria might make you glad that you live here and not there, despite our problems.

In case you’re not that familiar with Nigeria, Africa’s second biggest economy, it is basically a poster-child for corruption and “the oil curse” (the idea that countries with natural resources typically suffer from horrible governments).  It also has a nasty problem in it’s oil producing region, the Niger River Delta, which is an environmental catastrophe and has a native insurgency that kidnaps western oil workers and generally wreaks havoc at will. Oh, and Nigeria also has ethnic strife, with the predominantly Muslim northerners hating on the southern Christians, and sometimes horrible internecine fighting breaks out and hundreds die.

So, the President has been ill with a variety of problems and went to Saudi Arabia in late November. Aside from a sketchy audio tape released to the BBC early last month, no one has heard from him. He might be dead, no one can say for sure. So, the Nigerian parliment finally had enough and named the vice-president Goodluck Jonathan as interim President. Gotta love it, Goodluck’s wife is named Patience. So now that the Nigerians have Goodluck and Patience, I’m sure they’ll be in great shape in no time.

Articles corruption, goodluck jonathan, horrible governments, internecine fighting, nigeria

Earlier in the day yesterday, I tweeted that I’d like to hear Obama admit the truth about the state of our Union. While he couldn’t come out and put it the way I did, I noticed that he avoided the traditional opening of the speech, “The state of our Union is strong.”

Obama opened with a frank assessment of the tough times we’re facing, but put them in a historical context so as to soften the blow of bad news. It was not until the twelfth paragraph of his speech (six minutes into it), as he concluded his introduction and came to specific proposals, that he affirmed the strength of the country.

It’s because of this spirit — this great decency and great strength — that I have never been more hopeful about America’s future than I am tonight.  Despite our hardships, our union is strong.  We do not give up.  We do not quit.  We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit.  In this new decade, it’s time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength.

I found the speech uplifting, and welcomed the return of Obama the Force. Throughout 2009, it seemed the strong, eloquent man I had voted for was taking a back seat too often, and not standing up for important principles. Despite the power of the speech, I still find fault with his policies on the war, national security, and the prosecution of war crimes which were clearly committed by our government. I will still fight him on that. But this was a welcome return of a strong leader with the right ideas on jobs, energy and education.

One of the high points was when he said we need to reject those who say his program is too ambitious, and “that we should just put things on hold for a while.” Obama’s response channeled Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, where the civil rights leader wrote, “For years now I have heard the word ‘Wait!’ … This ‘Wait’ has almost always meant ‘Never.’”

As the President put it:

For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait?  How long should America put its future on hold?

You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse.  Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy.  Germany is not waiting.  India is not waiting.  These nations — they’re not standing still.  These nations aren’t playing for second place.

I’m looking forward to the ways in which Obama might rally his party to avoid a monstrous November defeat. It will be difficult. But as he said, they still have the largest majority in decades, and we the people expect them to pass some meaningful legislation.

What did you think of the speech?

Articles, In the News obama, politics, usa

I don’t know how you can read/watch/listen to what’s going on in Haiti and not feel awful about it. But at the same time I wonder if anyone else out there rolls their eyes when they’re scrolling through their facebook feed and sees every single person putting that Red Cross text number for $10 in there, as if they were suddenly a humanitarian. A few things bother me about that kind of thing (and I’m not talking about the idiots that “like” that post). Firstly, the issue with Haiti right now isn’t money or supplies, it’s actually getting into the country and the huge lack of infrastructure to distribute aid (which was a problem before the earthquake, only exacerbated now). So really that leads to the second issue, which is that people were generally okay not kn0wing anything about Haiti and the horrible conditions in which most people live there (poorest country in the western hemisphere). When it’s thrust in their face, in particular the context of a massive natural (and I stress natural, not a war caused by human depravity) disaster people feel guilty and want to help, and it’s convenient to have a text message to off-set that guilt, and even more convenient to have facebook to advertise your altruism and urge others to do the same. I think it’s ugly to draw attention to your charity.

If this post wasn’t grouchy enough for you and you want a further dose of contrarian thinking that is most certainly both racist and misanthropic, but still a fascinating read, check out this short piece on Haiti.

Articles contrarian thinking, haiti, racisim, sanctimony, white guilt

Read this essay on the state of the music industry this morning and thought I’d post about it. It speaks to a lot of the issues that are discussed on another blog a friend runs on music where I post a lot. The biggest thing in 2009 for me musically was that I get my music almost exclusively (aside from some trading with friends) from the many blogs that are out there where you can get full albums. I thought  Jon Pareles made all the right points about how musicians are going to have to get out there and play for people rather than wait for sales of albums to keep them going. It is a changing landscape out there, creative destruction at work before our eyes, and that is surely creating hardship for people associated with music. But mostly I think it is a hugely positive trend to have access to so much music, to have the bar lowered for entering in with all the easy to use technology out there, and the chance for music to be cross-pollinated so that weird and interesting new hybrids are formed. Maybe we’ll get into this at the next Junta, which we will think will be art related.

Articles art, music