Populism, the political opiate of the people

(from the Bangkok Post, Published: 29/06/2010)


by PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

Populism pits the "people" against the "elite" in order to foment change. Demagogues use half-truths, truisms and outright lies to make it happen.

For better or worse, populism has been on the upswing in Thailand in the last 10 years, roughly corresponding to the rise and fall of Thaksin Shinawatra's rule.

Although Thailand has seen populist behaviour before, most especially under the boot of Plaek Phibulsonggram who was a contemporary of Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo, and who was to some extent influenced by the rabid populism that transmuted into fascism at the time, it wasn't until Thaksin's arrival on the national stage that the Thai term prachaniyom was coined to replace the English-loan word for populism.

The good news for a Bangkok establishment fearful of red shirts taking to the streets again is that populist movements tend to fall apart rather quickly, typically due to the lack of sustainable infrastructure and hard-to-resolve internal contradictions, or, more simply, just by becoming unpopular.

Even populist leaders such as Thaksin who managed to scale the heights of power tend to fall, and fail, rather quickly, because taking over the top slot instantly converts them into a symbol of a new, unjust elite, an easy target for a fresh wave of resentment on the part of those who feel betrayed or excluded from the spoils of power.

The bad news for the establishment is this. Populism isn't conjured up out of thin air or pulled out of the ether. It is rooted to the earth, a reflection of real and perceived problems on the ground. It clings to pre-existing fault lines, makes claim to them, manipulates them, exacerbates and explodes them, in the hopes of triggering a seismic shift in power.

(full article posted here) Read more on this article...

Israel's announced modification of its blockade of Gaza

Cross-posted with "From the Field"

Israel's decision to adjust its punitive blockade of Gaza is mainly intended to deflect international pressure that has grown since May 31st, when Israel commandeered the aid flotilla in international waters and killed nine activists.  The Israeli announcement, incidentally, came in English and was not repeated in Hebrew according to Haaretz.

The blockade has been severely criticized by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC is an organization that goes out of its way to maintain a neutral stance, which it feels allows it to function effectively in conflict areas.  When it does take a position based in international law, it does so in a measured way.  Thus, the ICRC's finding that Israel vis-a-vis Gaza is not meeting its responsibilities under international humanitarian law, and is practicing "collective punishment" is important.  Furthermore, the ICRC has reiterated its position that the blockade is not merely a humanitarian issue.   Israel's "closure" of Gaza denies the people living there the opportunity to sustain normal economic opportunity and development. 

Of course, the blockade of Gaza was progressively tightened following the electoral victory of Hamas in 2006 with significant encouragement and support from the U.S. government.  The point was precisely to undermine the credibility of Hamas and sow discontent among Gazans.  After the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit in June 2006, and especially after Hamas thwarted Fatah's (U.S. supported) effort to topple it from power in 2007, Israel was even more invested with keeping the blockade in place.

Israel is now betting that by adjusting the arbitrary terms of reference for the shipment of food and consumer goods into Gaza, and by permitting limited construction to occur, it will be able to keep the blockade in place.  Perhaps so. 

My own reaction to Israel's decision is quoted in part in the Washington Post.  My full comment follows:

Israel's government is attempting to retain the blockade of Gaza by allowing international NGOs to import some raw materials while denying Gazans the materials they need to reconstruct their simple homes, to move out of tents and hovels into barely adequate homes. If Israel was serious about improving the living conditions of Gazans, it would stop preventing the exports of agricultural goods and allow the strip's simple manufacturing sector to resume making and selling everyday essentials. This latest decision by Israel is an arrogant in-your-face to the US and other concerned members of the international community. Watch the US government spokespersons for their reaction. If they commend Israel, then you may discount Obama's commitment to Middle East peace making heavily. 

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, described the newly announced adjustments to the blockade as only "a step in the right direction."  Obama has described the Gaza humanitarian situation as "unsustainable."  Gibbs repeated that yesterday.  Will the U.S., in concert with the EU, keep up the pressure to end the collective punishment of Gaza and allow the Gazans to attempt to create a viable economy, or will the pressure ebb?  It is obviously too soon to tell, but one lesson of recent weeks is that absent diplomatic pressure, the status quo will continue.

A skillful diplomatic effort led the U.S. would end the punitive blockade, and lend renewed momentum to the flagging efforts of George Mitchell.  It is hard to imagine such an effort succeeding without the release of Gilad Shalit, a move toward reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and an effective long-term ceasefire between Israel and Hamas.   That is a tall order, but Obama's aides insist he is deeply committed to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. Read more on this article...

BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS

This essay was first published in the Bangkok Post on May 24, 2010 as "The pain and sorrow of two cities in crisis"


September 11, 2001 might well have been the worst day ever in the history of New York, but it was pretty much just another day in Bangkok.

I was riding in a taxi from Soi Aree to Sukhumvit when I first got news that my hometown had been struck by some kind of shocking attack. The Thai driver, who had his radio on, was upset. Then he told me, in a kind and commiserating way, that a plane had hit New York's World Trade Center. I understood every word he said, but somehow it didn't add up. I tried to convince myself that I had misheard, so shocking was the news.

A short time later I was with a group of mostly American friends, watching TV in horror as the second tower came down. We found what scant comfort could be had at a time of a great human tragedy by obsessively searching for information on TV and online, commiserating quietly.

The next day I had to teach even though my mind was numb, still in mourning for my hometown, the news full of apocalyptic images. I took the skytrain from Soi Aree to Siam and walked to the faculty of communication arts at Chulalongkorn University. Before class, I heard some students chatting to one another in the hallway.

"Did you hear about the World Trade?"

"No. What happened?"

"A plane crashed into it."

"Taay leao! Right there in Ratchaprasong?"

"No, silly, World Trade Center in New York."

"Oh, you had me worried for a minute."

I said nothing, but the ignorance and apathy of the second speaker left me feeling sick. I went to the dark, air-conditioned faculty meeting room, where a group of students was gathered, watching TV. Finally I thought, someone who will understand. But they were watching a badminton match broadcast from Malaysia and were reluctant to change channels. Again, I felt a silent pain I couldn't express.

On my way back to my office, I saw a fellow ajarn in the hallway, choked up, with tears in his eyes. He said how sorry he was to hear the news from New York. He didn't say much, he didn't have to; he understood.

I felt reconnected with the human condition.

In the days that followed, I carried a sense of inner pain that wasn't easily translated. I was offended by what was and wasn't on Thai TV, at once not enough news, but too much sensationalism. But what really riled me was seeing a televised report of a hair styling contest in which one of the Thai contestants had her hair done up in a double beehive, representing two towers, complete with a toy plane crashing into one of them.

I stopped watching TV. But the newspapers by then were all reporting the callous words of then prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who, when asked about the terror attacks on America, replied thus.

"Mai pen rai," said the prime minister, "rao pen klang." (We are neutral).

He said Thailand was neutral so it was no matter of concern.

Ouch.

Neutral between what two sides? Killing and being killed? Terrorists and victims of terror? What was there to be neutral about?

And even if Thailand didn't happen to be a close ally of the United States, wouldn't a word or two of sympathy be in order, just on humanitarian grounds?

Now Bangkok has been struck with a huge tragedy and in an odd parallel to 9/11, Bangkok's "World Trade Center", now renamed CentralWorld, has been hit so bad by arsonists it looks like the Pentagon after a jet crashed into it.

If my own feelings about New York, and my adopted home of Bangkok are any guide, it's not just a hole in a building, but a hole in the heart of the city. And the photo of a tattered Thai flag and wide-eyed modernist statue backed by the gutted building will no doubt become an icon of the shock and pain for many.

What has happened in Bangkok in recent weeks has created an open, gaping wound that will take years to repair.

For many Thais, foreign news coverage of domestic turmoil rubs salt in an open wound, especially when it is rife with error, lacks balance, makes sensational claims and tries to fit Thailand's tragedy into simplistic narrative frames in between frequent commercials. CNN, which seems to work on the assumption that anti-government forces are always right, even during riots (except in the US), gives undue airtime to overly made-up, puffy-haired announcers with fancy graphics tools who make ignorant comments about Thailand.

No better are the surprisingly insensitive comments about the torching of Bangkok made by famous academics, such as "All of this is justified", or "The farmers of Thailand have stood up!"

Just what farmers would that be in reference to?

Much of the academic comment to date reeks more of intramural red versus yellow intrigue akin to a heated sports match than a heartfelt concern for people on the ground.

As I came to understand after 9/11, even trivial comments hurt people when they are down.

There was a sense then, and now, of disbelief. If only it were a dream, or if one could turn back the hands of time, but you wake up each day and the hard truth is still there.

But time does heal, and facing the truth squarely does help. New Yorkers were distraught, at times riven with rage and riled up by callous comments made by cavalier commentators who chose to see 9/11 as just desserts or as someone else's problem.

US President Barack Obama has been prudently silent, despite the efforts of Thaksin's lawyer/PR flack who is angling to extract a trumped up "human rights" condemnation of Thailand at a time when the country that offered to come to Lincoln's help with a supply of elephants during the US Civil War requires the understanding of an old friend.

After 9/11, New Yorkers got back to their lives and eventually the tragedy was put into perspective and taken in stride.

Best of all, New Yorkers emerged from the political crisis as open and big-hearted, tolerant and as cosmopolitan as ever.

New Yorkers discovered that terror ceases to intimidate and divide when hatred and fear are let go of and people instead come to grips with the problem in a way that allows them to fortify their spirit while getting on with their lives.

At a time in the life of my country when I required quiet commiseration and understanding, many individuals in Thailand, including a taxi driver, my students and my colleagues at Chula, reached out with quiet understanding.

I wish to share the same sentiment with the good citizens of Bangkok and the provinces who have been hurt by recent events and are still reeling with shock, sadness and disbelief.

Philip J Cunningham is a freelance writer and political commentator Read more on this article...

THE LONG RED ROAD TO RATCHAPRASONG

RED SHIRT PROTEST LEADER JATUPORN PROMPHAN ON THE RED STAGE AT RATCHAPRASONG, BANGKOK ON MAY 16, 2010


(published in the Asia-Pacific Journal on May 17, 2010 as "The Long Winding Red Road to Ratchaprasong and Thailand’s Future")

PHILIP J. CUNNINGHAM

The sniper shooting of Seh Daeng, Maj. Gen. Khattiya Sawasdipol, on May 13, 2010 by an unknown assailant while chatting with foreign reporters has brought to rupture the standoff between Reds and Yellows in the heart of Bangkok and signals a new stage in the movement and its repression. Seh Daeng, whose nickname means “red commander”, was the reddest of the red shirts, while his daughter, now at his side in the hospital, is a staunch supporter of the yellow shirts, illustrative of the convoluted politics of the era. To better put in context the convoluted politics of the present day, and to identify some of the key heroes and villains and historic reference points being talked about on both sides of the barricades in Bangkok, a brief review of Thai social activism follows

The road to the red-shirt takeover of the Ratchaprasong intersection in the heart of Bangkok’s busiest shopping district is a long and winding one. Political activists are not unlike historians in that they frequently point to events in the past to understand what is happening in the present. For the sake of context, a few milestones on Thailand’s bloody road to democracy will be introduced to better understand the democratic and revolutionary claims and pretensions of the red and yellow shirted activists today.

(to read the entire text, please click here) Read more on this article...

RED ALL THE RAGE

by philip j cunningham

Thanks to internet technology and the media savvy of the money people backing Thailand’s combative red shirts, it is possible to take a virtual seat right in front of the rebel stage at Rajprasong and listen to speeches, live music and public service announcements morning, noon and night.

The camera focus is usually steady and tight, making it impossible for the virtual observer to judge the size, mood or makeup of the crowd, let alone sense the heat, chaos, confusion and odors of the gathering, but one gets a good sense of performer personality and talent, with varied gifts of gab and occasionally outright inspiring rhetoric.

For the key speakers, their fame as activists precedes them. Nattawut Saikua and Jatuporn Promphan and Wisa Khanthap are among best word-slingers and deservedly get the prime time slots.

Other orators sound rather shrill and humorless, as they repeat the rote, but ever shifting, party line espoused by “The Core.” One day it might be a call to end martial law, another day an absurd complaint about Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban going to have a coffee with the police instead of putting himself under arrest.

(from Bangkok Post, May 13, 2010)

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE TEXT Read more on this article...

THE AUDACITY OF MENDACITY

(from the Bangkok Post, "Where lies the truth amid the mendacity?" May 3, 2010)

by Philip J Cunningham


I watch the unfolding of massive street protests in Bangkok from a geographic distance, but not without emotional identification as I work from a library, putting the finishing touches on a paperback version of a book about the Tiananmen student protests of 1989.

Flamboyant Maj-Gen Khattiya Sawasdipol has compared the red shirts to the students at Tiananmen, one of many careless comments that serves to obscure rather than illuminate what is really motivating the protesters.

Suffice to say the Beijing students, provocative though they were, relied entirely on peaceful expression and carried no weapons --not slingshots, not M79 grenades, not spears, not clubs-- and though agents provocateurs did appear as if from nowhere during the orgy of violence of the June 4 crackdown itself, there were no black-clad Ninja hiding behind civilian shields, aiming their guns and rifles at military targets.

It's a terrible challenge to understand what's happening on the streets of Bangkok, and there's scant comfort in noting that almost no observer, whether on the scene, in the academy, in the newsroom or barracks or halls of governance seems to have a clear grasp of what's going on either.

Impatience for a crackdown is palpable, though there is still a chance for patient, peaceful measures to work. A bloodbath cannot be entirely discounted, especially if the military acts peremptorily in reaction to perceived divisions within its ranks or simply by being goaded into a merciless show of force.

(to read the entire text, please follow the link here) Read more on this article...

THE GRAY LADY GETS IT WRONG, AGAIN

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM


The New York Times set the tone for its recent China quake coverage with a devious headline:

“After Quake, Tibetans Distrust China’s Help”


What’s wrong with the headline, affixed to an April 17, 2010 report from China by Times staffer Andrew Jacobs?

Let’s first consider headlines you are unlikely to ever see on the pages of the New York Times or any other decent newspaper.

“After 911, Jews Distrust America’s Help”

“After Katrina, Blacks Distrust America’s Help”

Now take another look at the NYT headline. It’s simply not up to good journalistic standards, is it? In fact it is insulting, if not borderline incendiary.

To say that “Jews distrust America’s help” is to be crude and insensitive. Such a headline commits a double indignity, slyly suggesting that Jews are not really American and Americans are not really Jews.

Ditto for any ethnic group you chose to test the decency of the headline with. Black, white, Irish, Italian or whatever ethnic group you like. It is insulting and it is inaccurate.

And it strikes close to home, so the NYT wisely avoids it.

Now what about China? Ethnic Tibetans in Qinghai are Chinese citizens. Even the Dalai Lama agrees with that.

So what business do the suits on 41st Street in Manhattan have declaring independence on behalf of ethnic Tibetans in Qinghai?

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE TO GO TO FRONTIER INTERNATIONAL) Read more on this article...

BLESSED ARE THE FUN-MAKERS

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

The sight of red-shirted protesters in Bangkok taking a break from the incendiary heat of political battle to gently douse one another with water in the spirit of Songkran past and present is a small but meaningful step towards repairing dangerous social ruptures and healing the pain of recent political violence.

By taking time out to celebrate a common cultural identity grounded neither in race, religion nor flag, but a delightful folk tradition that elevates fun-loving to a degree rarely seen elsewhere, Thai street combatants have shown a depth of character and resilience that bodes well for resolving civil discord and restoring a sense of normalcy.

The Khao San Road area was hard hit by conflict but was also the site for some transformative fun of the sort that had the world media raising a collective eyebrow.

Going from bullets to buckets of water in a few short days is jolting to the senses, and confounds the media narrative of doom and gloom in the streets, but it does show a glimmer of hope for a peaceful resolution to a seemingly intractable conflict.

(to read the full article, please go to http://jinpeili.blogspot.com/ or click here) Read more on this article...

Israel and Palestine - Two States for Two Peoples: If Not Now, When?

[Crossposted with From the Field.]

The Boston Study Group on Middle East Peace started its regular meetings in September 2008. Its members all have a strong interest in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some have been intensely engaged with this subject for decades. Others have closely followed the conflict within the context of their professional work in conflict resolution, international law and international relations, religion and U.S. foreign policy.

The group’s principal contribution is the jointly written policy statement entitled Israel and Palestine—Two States for Two People: If Not Now, When? The statement stands as a collegial, collective enterprise that represents a consensus view of the group.

Prior to drafting the policy statement, each member undertook to research and write a background paper on one of the topics integral to our policy statement. The group as a whole discussed drafts of each of these seven papers (now chapters in this report), thereby benefiting each other with respect to both substance and organization.

Read more on this article...

STOP ROCKING THE BOAT

We live in age of political extremism. It's not necessarily a reflection of the tough issues of the day; there have been tougher times to be sure, and it's not just bad manners; politicians have probably always been street fighters at heart, despite their grinning photo-ops, and their groomed appearances to the contrary.

Today's noisy 24/7 media overload may be part of the problem inasmuch as bad news sells better than good; discouraging scandal entertains more than encouraging statistics, and misinformation on the internet has a life of its own.

But there is something about the uncompromising vitriol of the current age, perhaps magnified by the paradigm shift in digital communication, that is ripping the social fabric to shreds and threatening the health, safety and resilience of entire nations as a whole.

The worst thing about the morass of politics today is the myopia of spoiler politics; if one side fails to get its way, it responds to no higher calling than to ruin it for the other side. It's like two people fighting to get on a raft, each pulling the other off, willing to risk drowning rather than cooperate with a rival.

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE) Read more on this article...

TWO TIGERS, ONE MOUNTAIN

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

US-China relations have gotten off to a less than roaring start in the Year of the Tiger, but the venom of mutual incrimination can be avoided if both sides engage in some retrospection and put things in an historical perspective.

Indeed, the positive achievements of the world's most important bilateral relationship are so numerous, profound and complex, that it has become part of the landscape and second nature to younger generations who never experienced the frigid depths of the Cold War and the polarizing antipathies in which the global East and global West defined one another as the quintessential enemy.

While there's no space to enumerate the many people-to-people initiatives that made today's peaceful economic integration of two great economies possible, it is worth reminding ourselves that the rich and constant exchange of people and goods across the Pacific that we take for granted today was almost beyond imagination just a generation ago.

Because the mutual gains of economic interdependence and intellectual and cultural exchange have been such game-changers the accomplishments and sacrifices of previous generations may be obscured from view. Those who have contributed to US-China amity have built so sturdy an edifice that we find ourselves standing on a foundation of good deeds and accomplishments so massive that it is almost impossible to view as a whole.

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE) Read more on this article...

Goldstone Commission member draws fire for noting that Hamas did respect the June-November 2008 ceasefire

[Cross-posted with "From the Field"]

Desmond Travers, one of the four members of the Goldstone Commission, has drawn fire for noting that an Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, initiated in June 2008, was being respected by Hamas, at least until Israel punctured the ceasefire early November 2008.* In an interview in Middle East Memo, a London-based website that focuses on the Middle East and seeks to promote “fair and accurate coverage” of the Middle East, Travers claims that only two rockets were fired into Israel the month before Israel’s Gaza operation began. Travers is correct, but he should have been more precise. While the ceasefire technically expired in December 2008, in early November Israel broke the ceasefire by launching a raid into Gaza.

Here is what Travers said to interviewer Dr. Hanan Chehata:

HC - Israel claims that its attack on Gaza was based on self-defence. In your opinion is their claim of self-defence enough of a reason to justify their attack on Gaza last year?

DT – No, I reject that entirely. No, my first sentence is that Israel, like every other country, has a right to defend itself. However, it should be borne in mind that the number of rockets that had been fired into Israel in the month preceding their operations was something like two. TheHamas rockets had ceased being fired into Israel and not only that but Hamas sought a continuation of the ceasefire. Two had been fired from Gaza, but they are likely to have been fired by dissident groups.

HC – For how long had there been a ceasefire?

DT - From June [2008]. And Hamas sought an extension of the ceasefire with Israel and Israel said no. To be honest, Israel might have had a very good reason to refuse an extension of the ceasefire because we all know, in the counter-insurgency world, that ceasefires are opportunities for insurgents to re-arm and re-equip but unfortunately they have never offered that as an explanation, but it is possible, if I’m trying to be fair to them [the Israelis].

Travers is correct. The ceasefire was working. According to Israeli data, including “The Six Months of the Lull Arrangement,” a study prepared by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (released in December 2008), from June 2008 until November 4, 2008 a ceasefire (“lull” in the Israeli report) produced a significant reduction in missile and rocket from Gaza into Israel. Israel significantly reduced its attacked into Gaza during that period as well. Israeli compiled figures, indicate that 20 rockets and 18 mortar shells were fired from Gaza. 17 of the rockets and 15 of the mortar rounds reached Israel. Of those that reached Israel, the numbers per month, from June to October were 9, 6, 11, 3 and 2, respectively. To quote the report (at p. 7):

During the period of the ceasefire, according to the Israeli “Hamas was careful to maintain the ceasefire and its operatives were not involved in rocket attacks. At the same time, the movement tried to enforce the terms of the arrangement on the other terrorist organizations and to prevent them from violating it. Hamas took a number of steps against networks which violated the arrangement, but in a limited fashion and contenting itself with short-term detentions and confiscating weapons.

On November 4, Israel launched a raid into Gaza, which it justified as being necessary topre-empt a Hamas operation. At least six Hamas members were killed. Hamas denies that it was preparing an operation, and it retaliated by firing rockets into Israel. Thus did the ceasefire end.

Even after the November incident, Hamas was wiling to extend the ceasefire, but with several provisos, notably an end Israel’s crippling blockade of the strip. Israel rejected the Hamasconditions and the ceasefire expired in Decemver. Arguably, when Hamas refused to extend the ceasefire, it was a gift to Israel “on a gold platter,” to borrow the metaphor of the Egyptian Foreign Minister (see my “The Gaza War: Antecedents and Consequences” for more details).

On December 27, 2008, Israel launched the Gaza war with the tragic and troubling results that are elaborated in the Goldstone Report.

*For instance, see the comments of Alan Dershowitz who accuses Travers of having an "anti-Israel agenda" and defying the historical record. Dershowitz has recently drawn fire himself for allegedly calling Judge Richard Goldstone a "moser", a Jew who informs on other Jews. Dershowitz later stated that he did not know what the Yiddish term meant, a claim that strains credulity.

Read more on this article...

THE BANALITY OF NOT BEING EVIL

By Philip J Cunningham


There’s something irremediably banal about Google’s corporate motto. It’s hip, it’s hype and it’s hypocritical.

"Don't be evil" is a curiously negative construct; eschewing evil is not necessarily about doing good. In sum, a sophomoric yet shrewd manner of self-presentation that is not without its believers.

It speaks to the informal, idealistic ethos of a student-run Silicon Valley garage start-up, even though Google is now a multibillion-dollar entity with nearly 20,000 employees and computer links and arrays vast enough to map, copy and store billions and billions of private bits, day after day.

But pretending not to be a big company does not make Google a small company any more than their witty motto means they are doing good.

There are numerous shades of gray between not doing evil and evil, especially if one’s core business is information mining in service of advertising.

Neither the super suave Mad Men nor real life ad men pretend their business is about maintaining a high moral standard. Advertising, an ethically-challenged field of endeavor in the best of times, favors the big-wigs rich enough to afford its product, while seeking to indoctrinate the little guy, --capitalism’s answer to communist propaganda.

But Google’s difficulty in hewing to its motto extends beyond ad revenue to brave new frontiers of surveillance, digital profiling, and the questionable storage of vast information files on individuals that would be the envy of the old Stasi or KGB.

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE CLICK HERE) Read more on this article...

IS AMERICA LOSING IT?

BY PHILIP J CUNNINGHAM

It's one thing when fear of terror causes people to lose their nerve, quite another when they start losing their minds.

The Obama administration appears to be on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

It's not clear if it's terrorists, real and imagined, who have got the Democratic establishment all jittery or if it's just the usual Republican Party suspects, know-nothings in all important respects except for their uncanny ability to unnerve their Democratic rivals.

President Obama, like many a Democratic pol from the days of LBJ onward, seems spellbound by calls from the right that he be tough on terror, bullish on "free markets" and aggressive in military affairs.

(CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING) Read more on this article...

BARACK OBAMA DOES THE WORLD

by Philip J. Cunningham

It’s official. US President Barack Obama, long suspected of being the type of person who wanted to have his cake and eat it too, wine and dine with Wall Street while tossing rhetorical crumbs to the poor, dispossessed and hungry, all the while hobnobbing with the rich and famous and amassing draconic executive privilege, has, in his Nobel speech, just proved himself to be the world’s biggest phony.

The two-faced master of the mellow sound-bite has just outdone himself in trying to convince a jaded world that war is peace, that imperialism is liberation, that down is up and two plus two equals five. Even at this most international of events, in a world that desperately needs some leaders willing to look beyond their own narrow self-interests of the nation state, he preaches America the good, America the beautiful, America the just. Music to the ears of a stateside schoolchild or your died-in-the-wool Yankee xenophobe, perhaps, but hardly cosmopolitan in spirit.

Rather, his speech is mean-spirited. He goes out of his way, and beyond the bounds of decency, in his effort to show that war is necessary and American warfare is especially just. His argument is lame and conflicted. He says war’s been around for a long time so, hey, get used to it. If he was making a speech in favor of legalization prostitution or opium, there might be some point in making the “oldest profession” kind of argument, but surely that flimsy line of thinking has no place coming from a man who has unique and unparalleled access to the world’s most deadly nuclear arsenal. Surely that pale logic doesn’t justify a war, any war, the war of the moment, the Af-Pak War of Obama’s design, just because there have been wars in the past.

Obama gets shockingly narrow and parochial at times, saying in effect that America is good and anyone who opposes America is bad. He pins war crimes on the other guys, but doesn’t begin to address war crimes of his own nation. Suspicion of American is not justified, it’s “reflexive.”

(TO CONTINUE READING, PLEASE LINK HERE)


Read more on this article...