The Difficulty of Debt Relief

Aside from the many humanitarian issues that have been ravaging Haiti in the last month, there are many other issues that have been plaguing the small Caribbean nation. Perhaps the most important economic disparity that Haiti suffers is the massive amount of debt they owe to the IMF, World Bank, and other western creditors.

Although debt relief to Haiti was already discussed and passed by the IMF last July, there are many other lingering issues that have yet to be resolved. Before the earthquake, there was no deal brokered between the World Bank and Haiti about the prospect of Haitian debt relief; approximately 27% of Haiti’s external debt is owed to the World Bank.

On February 7 the G7 – the world’s seven richest countries – agreed on a tentative plan that would relieve Haiti of its debt to these nations. This is a gesture that will be of great help to Haiti. On the other hand, it is a short term solution that industrialized nations are using as an excuse to “fix” poorer nations without creating a long term development plan.

In 2005 the IMF went through a process they called the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative where they cancelled the debt of heavily indebted countries. One of these countries was Nicaragua. Ben Beachy, an independent educator working for Witness for Peace, was working in Nicaragua when these programs were enacted. He noted that, “Just after pledging $201 million of debt relief for Nicaragua, the IMF has also promised to reactivate its stalled economic program with the country, meaning a new IMF loan package of about $100 million.”

This is common neoliberal double speak. They first allow for the cancellation of a debt that was clearly never going to be diminished any time soon, and replaced it with another loan that the country cannot afford. Not only that, but they riddle the loan with stipulations that dictate the social and economic policies of the debtor. These tighter regulations cause impoverished nations to cancel the only social programs they have protecting their people from abject poverty.

In the case of Nicaragua, it lead to an across the board decrease in healthcare. What resulted was a mass humanitarian setback where thousands of sick Nicaraguans could not access public hospitals that they had previously relied on for simple treatments such as infections and broken bones.

With the things that western nations and organizations have pledged to Haiti, upwards of 70% of its debt will be absolved. Although this will allow the Haitian government to focus more on rebuilding its nation, 80% of the Haitian population still lives under the poverty line, 27% live in abject poverty, and the country is posting a negative GDP growth.

After all the cameras leave Haiti, and everyone in the western world feels great for contributing money to such an impoverished nation, they will still be suffering, and they will still be in need. Haiti needs debt relief that does not have predatory stipulations and they need help rebuilding their nation.

-mike

A Nobel Critique of Afghanistan

You guys know how it works. This should be in the October 22 issue of The Circle. Enjoy:


On October 7, the War in Afghanistan entered its ninth year. Like the Vietnam War, there seems to be no clear mission other than the elimination of the, “bad guys,” that are ideologically opposed to the United States. Considering that Obama is to receive the Nobel Peace Prize and that there is a potential troop increase on the table in Washington, the political climate is ripe for true change.

But will there be any change in the strategy on Afghanistan. Just as General Westmoreland told President Johnson in 1968 that a troop surge in Vietnam would stabilize South Vietnam, General McCrystal is telling President Obama that a troop surge in Afghanistan in 2009 will stabilize the country. We all know what happened
in Vietnam, and I’m afraid of a repeat in Afghanistan.

There are some negative signs that only seem to dictate a negative outcome in Afghanistan. Like fighting the Viet Cong forty years ago, the Taliban are a decentralized military entity that is fighting on territory they are familiar with against troops on their lands. Trying to take out the Taliban hiding in the mountains is nothing short of a logistical nightmare.

Also, the fact remains that the Taliban is not Al Qaida. The US originally sought to take out Al Qaida and its networks but has been preoccupied with the Taliban in Afghanistan for years. Nearly everyone knows now that Al Qaida is predominantly in Pakistan, which is nearing anarchy itself. So, while Al Qaida is operating in Pakistan, the United States continues to keep its attention on nation building in Afghanistan.

The fact also remains that many Afghanis are still quite hostile towards westerners. In some incidents – such as an incident involving a Canadian Air Force Captain – Afghani civilians have attacked military personnel attempting friendly contact. Additionally, if 2009 could tell us anything about the situation in Afghanistan, it would say that violence is at higher levels now than it has been since the war began.

On top of all this, the Afghani government is a joke. The Afghani judiciary is so weak that it is laughable. The Afghani government as a whole is so corrupt that it holds nearly no legitimacy with the Afghani people. This is all very reminiscent of the incredibly fragile, puppet South Vietnamese government. This is not to mention that Afghani President Hamid Karzai has been accused of election fraud from the August presidential election.

With the situation the way it is, and the prospects of a positive change fading with every senselessly violent day in Afghanistan, I as a pacifist call upon President Obama to earn his Nobel Peace Prize. End combat operations in Afghanistan and put an end to the Bush Wars.

Regardless of Obama’s previous actions that caused him to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he will not earn it until the conflict in Afghanistan is over. It is time to put an end to this war before it truly becomes the modern Vietnam.

-mike

Defending President Obama

I wrote this article for The Circle, but (as I always do) I am publishing it here first. I wrote this article from the perspective of an internationalist with special consideration for diplomacy, enjoy:


To the surprise of nearly everyone in the world, President Obama was selected by the Nobel Committee to receive the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Naturally, his selection has raised many questions. His selection was made, however, on sound rhetoric based in the principles of international diplomacy and politics.

The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to the individual who has done the most for world peace in the previous year. Most notably for Obama, is that he reversed the jingoistic – and at times borderline xenophobic – foreign policy of the previous administration; in doing so, he single handedly changed the attitude of most of the world toward America.

It also must be noted that individuals who promote world peace do not necessarily partake in specific actions. International diplomacy is incredibly formal, most of the attitudes and actions of individual nations are played out through speeches and gestures. In this way Obama’s contribution to peace is seen.

Some of Obama’s first actions as president set the tone for what the Nobel Committee dubbed as, “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” During his inaugural address he stated, “to all those other peoples and governments who are watching today…know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more.”

These are strong words for an individual who just took office, that he is ready to help lead the world towards peace. His actions continued over the next few months. First, Obama signed an executive order closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, put an end to torture, and began withdrawing troops from Iraq.

In his first formal interview as president, he spoke with an Arab satellite network reaching out to the Islamic world. He later gave a speech in Cairo reaching out further to nations and peoples who had been so greatly dejected by the previous administration. Additionally, Obama has put pressure on Israel to desist their movement onto Palestinian settlements, refused to support radical right-wing coup leaders in Honduras, and has continued voicing his support for a nuclear free world.

To Obama’s credit, many world leaders have congratulated and shown their support for his award. Simply the list of individuals congratulating him, shows the span of his actions. Obama has been supported by public figures in France, Germany, Russia, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Indonesia, Japan, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and by IGO’s such as the United Nations, NATO, and the International Atomic Energy Agency. Former recipients of the prize such as Wangari Maathai, Desmond Tutu, Mikhail Gorbachev, Mohamed Elbaradel, Shimon Peres, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and last year’s recipient Martti Ahtisaari have also expressed their support.

Meanwhile, on the domestic side, opponents of President Obama have been quick to criticize him. Most notably of the dissidents is the RNC chairman Michael Steele who attempted to portray Obama as, “unworthy.” So, while most of the world celebrates Mr. Obama and his strides towards peace, the minority political party in America has to resort to derisive politics. As one Floridian congressman put it, “If Obama somehow ended world hunger, they would try to blame him for overpopulation.”

It is time to put politics aside, because peace is more important that politics. America, your president just won the Nobel Peace Prize, let’s be proud of it.

-mike

Intershiping equates to life searching

Published in The Circle some time in September, enjoy:


Imagine you just landed a great job, but then they tell you that you must commute everyday for an hour and a half by train and they won’t pay for your commuter pass. In fact, they don’t pay you at all. That’s the reality for many Marist students – including myself – who become interns on that dreaded slice of isle known as Manhattan.

I had a summer internship with a side project of a major political party. At first I thought this was great news. I’m a political science student and I got an internship with a political party; that makes perfect sense! But then I started thinking about what I was really going to be doing, and that really trounced my mood.

Interns for political parties do two things. They either call constituents to ascertain support or information or they talk to constituents to ascertain support or information. The first point means sitting at a table all day with a list of phone numbers to call where about 90% of those on the other end are either not home or refusing to answer their phone. The second point means standing in a square or park in the hot New York sun asking passerby’s for their support. It truly is a lose – lose.

I was stuck in the unfortunate situation where I had to be knowledgeable and excited for a policy that I was not too fond of. This was the one thing that truly crossed me morally about this past internship. The busy work that I had to do never fazed me, I simply input the information into the computer. What truly got to me was the fact that my job was to convince people that a policy that I believe will be ineffective is the way to go.

I began to have a very hard time collecting signatures and calling voters because of this dilemma. What made the whole situation even worse was seeing my friends out advocating for the policy I’m in favor of while I was stuck with my job. Fortunately enough for me, I was able to finish my internship early before things came to a peak.

My internship made me think about my career options. There was one good thing about this summer; it convinced me that working for a political party isn’t the right thing for me. I could never have a job where I am forced to advocate, sell, contribute to, or create something I am morally and ethically against. Fortunately enough for me, there are many different career options within the realm of politics where I could find something that suits me.

It may take a long time for me to discover what I truly want to do, but I know I won’t be content with something I can’t support. I think that is something everyone should consider, whether or not they are truly content with their career path. We are all in college for a reason, to learn and discover what makes us tick.

Unfortunately for us though, we will have to be interns and do things that we will look back upon and laugh. But for now, we just have to suck it up and try the world out.

-mike

Article: Impure Tea Party Absurdity

There is an amazing thing about grassroots organization; it could lead to populist change. The grassroots is the place where you find fresh ideas brimming from personal experiences. It’s how women obtained the right to vote, how segregation ended, and how the Vietnam war ended. More often than not, grassroots organizations have been the forerunner of social change in the United States.

This notion has been tarnished by some recent rash actions. The so called “tea parties” that took place on April 15 were far from the principles present in the Boston Tea Party in 1773. The Boston Tea Party was a rejection of the massive corporate tax cut the British government created for the British East India Company, the largest corporation in the world at that time. The colonists – knowing that the BEIC would put them out of business – revolted against the tax by dumping the tea into Boston Harbor. The tea parties of 2009, on the other hand, were gross misrepresentations of this historic event.

Although the organizers of these “tea parties” claim that it was in the spirit of the original tea party, there were many discrepancies that would say otherwise. For one, these events were virtually sponsored by the biggest corporate news spin machine of them all, Fox News. In the week leading up to the “protests,” Fox News would run on-screen prompts revealing locations of the protests as “Fox News Channel Tax Day Tea Parties.” Although this “news” network claimed they had no sponsorship of the event, they continuously claimed ownership of the events with these on-screen prompts.

Another large discrepancy between the two events is the organizers of the events. The Boston Tea Party was carried out by angered colonial merchants. The new tea party was organized and funded by the right-wing think tank Freedomworks whose founder is far-right conservative Dick Armey. Freedomworks gets their funds from the likes of Steve Forbes and ExxonMobil who has contributed up to a quarter million dollars a year.

This, “representation of the people,” seems to me like less of a true grassroots movement and more like a corporate puppet scheme involving hundreds of thousands of US citizens. I can understand one supporting the principle of these protests – lower taxes – but I urge people to understand where something is coming from before they jump on board. If this were a true movement for the lowering of taxes on families, it would include an increase in corporate tax to make up for the loss of tax revenues from the family tax cuts.

This movement was truly absurd. It was advertised as a “populist” uprising of people who reject tax hikes while in reality it was an orchestrated scheme by right-wing businessmen and politicians to smear the Obama administration. So as many donned the phrase, “Don’t tread on me,” in reference to the American fight against their colonial ruler, the power elite push their corporate agenda with Americans as their pawns.

As Jane Hamsher puts it, “Before any media covering these events accept the idea that this was just a grass roots outpouring of populist sentiment, they ought to take a look behind the curtain -- where Dick Armey is laughing and counting his cash.”

-mike

Article: Shunning His Holiness

Another article written for Marist College's weekly The Circle. It should be out on campus March 26.

It saddens my heart to hear that the South African government will not allow the Dalai Lama to participate in a peace conference in Johannesburg. In a statement, the South African government wrote that they did not want to stress their relations with China, an important economic ally to the country. Although it is difficult for the country to rectify its role as a leader of the developing world, I would expect better from their government.

Although South Africa has only been a democracy for 15 years, they have demonstrated great pragmatism in the field of human rights and peace. As the spiritual leader of millions of conflict ridden people and one of the most respected peace advocates in the world, the Dalai Lama is the symbol of harmony and hope in the world; barring him from participating in the conference would be a distinct step back for South Africa.

This decision on the part of the South African government is being described by some solely as a “business” decision. This is quite clear as the South African government is engaging in a very poor attempt to please the Chinese government, one of South Africa’s largest trading allies. As a nation that has overcome so much oppression and segregation, South Africa should understand the importance of peace.

Many Nobel peace laureates who were planning on attending the conference are now planning on not attending because of the absence of his holiness. Desmond Tutu, the former archbishop of Cape Town and a Nobel peace laureate, is one of the absentees who was quoted in saying that excluding the Dalai Lama is “disgraceful.”

One issue that is clearly not being addressed here is that peace is not something that a government can deny on the basis of business. Although the Dalai Lama advocates for a free Tibet, it doesn’t mean that he is going to slander the Chinese government during the conference nor does it mean that South Africa’s relationship with China is going to be jeopardized.

More than anything else in the world now, peace is something that we should all be striving for. Through all the turmoil of the global society, with the interconnectedness of the world becoming ever clearer, peace is becoming more of a necessity. Excluding his holiness from the proceedings at this conference is not going to achieve any additional positive outcome for the world.

We will only achieve peace if we all strive for its attainment, people and government.

-mike

Article: Common (Liberal) Sense

Here is another article I wrote for Marist College's newspaper The Circle. It's due out on campus Thursday March 5.

Considering all the hardships this country is facing, one of America’s greatest founding fathers is becoming progressively more notable. As the government is shifting gradually towards liberalism, Tom Paine is now one of the more important ancestral figures. Paine’s importance derives from his discussions on the necessity to embrace change and to break from unnecessary and cruel tenants.

In the introduction of his pamphlet, Paine writes, “A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.” I think this quote applies to the current debate in Washington over economic policy. For too many years now, we have been embracing “trickle down” economic policy while deregulating important governmental welfare functions. It is time for us to stop embracing a system that we perceive to be right, and begin to embrace a system that, at first, seems to be the enemy.

I know it is difficult to break from the status quo, but we are living thorough very trying times and there is a need to try new policies. Change must come now at the first realization of wrongs. The change will break from customs, and we cannot be afraid of it. For too long this government has been allowing for the suffering of the least fortunate; individuals who have been suffering at the hands of budgets designed to benefit the wealthy.

So the “redistribution” of the nation’s wealth to benefit those who have been suffering – to provide them affordable healthcare, education, and services – is bad? Have you ever heard of the saying “we’re only as good as our weakest player?” This nation will continue to be weak if we do not help the weakest individuals in this nation. No longer should this country be the country of unregulated corporations, it is time for it to become the nation of the people.

To those who do not want to pay their share: you can afford to live comfortably while paying slightly higher taxes. It is much easier for an individual to pay more taxes if they are making a quarter of a million dollars than it is for someone who is making less than $35,000. For that, I applaud Mr. Obama. As Paine noted, “Those who want to reap the benefits of this great nation must bear the fatigue of supporting it.” In an equal and just society, every individual who is well off should bear the responsibility of helping those who are unable to support themselves.


It is time for this country to stop believing in the mantra that capitalism is always right. People in this country are suffering at this very moment because of simple issues like malnutrition and improper health care. We must now seek alternative models that will, in the end, help those who are suffering the most. With this logic, our country will improve from the bottom up, not the top down.

-mike

Article: The new wave of Liberalism

This is an article I wrote for Marist College's newspaper The Circle and is due out on campus Thursday February 26. Enjoy...



With all the ideological struggle in America over the alleged culture war, it seems natural for there to be massive backlash by the political right in response to the changes Mr. Obama is attempting to push through in Washington. But the change from conservatism to liberalism is nothing new, particularly in American politics. What we may see now, though, is a general shift in public opinion and governmental policy that will reflect a more liberal model.

It isn’t too much out of the ordinary to see minor sways in the government’s policy nor is it uncommon to see slight changes in public opinion over the course of 20 years or so. What is major is seeing a complete realignment of public opinion to another ideology. This type of massive shift is usually a result of massive social and political unrest. We saw this with the election of Roosevelt in 1932 and the election of Reagan in 1980, the public changed their political alignment towards another political view based on economic hardship.

Now we are confronted with a new scenario: was the election of Obama a response against the conservative America built by Reagan, Gingrich, and the Bushes? This is a possibility. It seems as though the voting public dramatically swayed towards liberalism and, in doing so, gave the Democrats a mandate to try out their policy. Pundits have been noting that it seems as though America is fed up with the conservative economic and foreign policy of the previous administrations including Clinton.

The issue now is to what extent is the government going to liberalize. I find it hard to believe that the government will sway as drastically left as conservative pundits are speculating. Although the conservatives are worried about the extent to which the government will liberalize, they must allow Obama to try out his policies to try and better America

It is time for welfare reforms, to increase funding into education, and to mend one of the most tattered healthcare systems in the industrialized world. Who knows? We may even catch up to Europe in our quality of healthcare. We may even catch up to Cuba!

The conservatives have had their opportunity to lead the country, they have been doing so for the last 28 years. Now it is liberals turn to try and run the country with their policies. Trends dictate that within the next 20 years – if Obama succeeds in leading the new liberal movement – there will be a transition back to conservative politics.

I would like to close this article with a quote from conservative columnist Bill Kristol: “Liberalism’s fate rests to an astonishing degree on Obama’s shoulders. If he governs successfully, we’re in a new political era.”

-mike

Article: Prison Reform

This is an article that I wrote for Marist College's newspaper The Circle in December 2008.

One of the largest problems facing the United States that does not get enough attention is our broken criminal justice system. Over the last 35 years, the number of incarcerated persons has increased by nearly 700%. Half of the increase is from non-violent drug offenders whose incarceration has increased 402% since 1985.

Part of the problem is that the laws that are currently on the books were drafted twenty, even thirty years ago. In New York, drug laws were intended to be very harsh towards offenders under Governor Nelson Rockefeller in the mid 1970s. At the federal level, harsh mandatory sentencing and the three strike rule were established under the socially conservative policies of Ronald Reagan.

Whether these laws intended to or not, they have been tearing apart inner cities since their enactment. These drug laws are more stringent on drugs more common amongst the poor like marijuana and crack cocaine while more "expensive" drugs such as cocaine hold lighter offenses. What has resulted is a large influx of low level non-violent drug offenders who may have done nothing more than had drugs in their possession at a routine traffic stop.

A common misconception with the criminal justice system is that we can, "arrest and imprison our way our of a crime problem." Under that logic, why do we continue to imprison people at alarming rates while our crime rate has stabilized and is decreasing nearly annually? The answer is that incarceration is a business and the government is more interested in making money than rehabilitating alleged criminals.

The eerie fact is seen quite clearly in the recidivism rate, or the percentage of prisoners who return to prison upon release. Inmates who receive no rehabilitation have a recidivism rate hovering in the 70s while studies have clearly shown that the more counseling and education prisoners receive the lower and lower their recidivism rate drops.

The federal government made the situation worse when in 1994 they decided not to issue Pell grants to any prisoner; Pell grants that would have allowed them to pursue an advanced degree while incarcerated. While congress cuts more programs for prisoners and the prison population continues to grow I sit here and wonder why the government isn't doing anything positive while they continuously make the situation worse for prisoners.

My thought on congress: misconception and greed. Many believe that just because someone is incarcerated they are automatically a "bad guy" but often dismiss the grounds on which they were convicted and their offense. If I may mention it again as well, prison building is a business, a business that the government makes a lot of money off of, and they wouldn't want to see anything happen to their money.

So what can be done? With the new president elect hopefully this issue will be addressed, but I'm not getting my hopes up. This is one of those issues that has to be voiced by the people. I will continuously be advocating for prison reform in the hope for a more just and equal society. As Dr. King said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."



This article was published just before I started a letter writing campaign to try and free political prisoner Mumia Abu-Jamal. I would like to say that I mailed 74 letters to Governorn Rendell of Pennsylvania and I hope our efforts have made a difference. As I had said in the article we the people must fight to reverse these injustices and better our society.

Power to the Peaceful!
-mike