Lately, I have taken to listening to NPR on my short drive to work in the morning. Like I have with other news sources, I have conditioned myself to get past its blatant bias (in this case, to tha left, to tha left!) and pick out the news - all while mostly learning something of which I had had no knowledge previously.
Today was no exception, as one of the exposes was on a row between the United Nations' Refugee Agency (UNHCR) and Silvio Berlusconi's borderline-comic Italian government. Fundamentally, it concerned the steps Italy is taking to crack down on illegal migration - something which we Americans, as we grasp to control the spigot of illegal migration coming across our southern border, are wrestling with, as well.
As a peninsula, Italy's coast is very porous in terms its capacity to physically absorb migrants from Africa. Mentally, however, is another story. Italy's current government makes the Bush Administration look like tree-hugging pinkos. It espouses the same, if not more, conservative values as the Bushies and is unabashedly xenophobic. Berlusconi's words about immigration: "The leftist opposition envisions and multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Italy. We do not". This is also a reflection of the Italian population, not only because they voted the current "Forza Italia" government in; but also, because Italians themselves are pretty xenophobic.
Despite its constant chiding of the cold, conservative Anglo-Saxons, most Europeans are much more racist, xenophobic, and anti-Semitic than Britons or Americans. But, relative to their European compatriots, Italians exhibit sometimes shocking xenophobia. The treatment of gypsies in Italy is merely a thread away from apartheid; who can forget the image of two drowned gypsy girls' corpses covered by beach towels as Italian beachgoers went merrily about their days. While I personally find gypsies to be dirty and annoying - the human equivalent of rats - if I saw one drowning, I would jump in and save him or her, or at least call for help. And it doesn't stop with Italians' treatment of gypsies. There have been sporadic pogrom-like episodes directed toward African immigrants, as well.
But, I digress. What are the actual steps being taken these days by the Italian government to address this issue? Are they reverting back to fascism? Hardly. Recently, the Italian navy has been intercepting ships with refugees launched from Libya - a huge staging ground for illegal migration into Europe - and towing those ships back to Libya. Seems pretty reasonable to me; we do the same thing with ships, rafts, and floating doors from Haiti and even sometimes Cuba. However, the UN Refugee Agency - itself an oxymoron - is crying foul, as it complains these refugees' rights and protections are not properly guaranteed when the Italians are boomeranging them back to Libya. Libya is not a party to the UN Refugee convention, it says.
So, who is right? Italy is crying foul, as it feels its judgement to protect its borders is being usurped by a quasi-Communist global talking shop. This is a valid point. Furthermore, how can someone's "rights and protections" be guaranteed when they are illegally coming into a country? It is my opinion that a constitution only awards you rights if you abide by its laws; the modern social contract. It is the same thing as interest groups in the US crying about the rights of illegal immigrants; they don't have any. And on top of all of this is the economic argument; Italy is already a poor performer relative to it's European peers. If scores of no-skilled immigrants join the fray looking for jobs that don't exist, it could make an already poor country even poorer.
On the other side of this, as an American, I love immigration and feel that everyone should have a shot to make a better life for himself. It's what made this country great. I do feel that if these people take the proper avenues to legally come into Italy - or any other EU member state, for that matter - they should eventually be awarded with full citizenship. Italy's, and the EU's, current obstacle course for citizenship is already appallingly absurd. Both of them, despite the current economic environment and their populations' subconcious xenophobia, should make their processes more streamlined and welcoming to immigrants.
Until such time, however, laws should not be broken. Italy needs to do what it needs to do. Thoughts?
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
A Special Place in Hell
I thought that when the cluster%$&# that was the Bush Administration came to an end, its major players (save for Karl Rove, who would continue to be a mouthpiece) would fade into obscurity, enjoying the twilight of their careers. Memoirs written here, "Meet the Press" appearances there, but for the most part, they would have gone away.
I especially thought this would apply to Richard Cheney, whose ominous influence hung over the Administration from the beginning and who is largely responsible for driving the country into the ditch we are now in. Cheney had an anti-Midas touch. WMD in Iraq "a certainty"? Discredited. A definite link between al-Qaeda and Saddam? Nope. And my personal favorite: "Deficits don't matter" (sic). Despite these ludicrous assertions, Cheney mostly operated in the shadows; it's like God cast him to be an evil genious.
Totally against character, however, Cheney has recently been out in full force, trying to vindicate in any way he can his legacy that never was. Apparently in an appearance on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Cheney basically said he hopes the President fails from a national security perspective and even said he thinks Rush Limbaugh is who the model Republican should be. To put this latter bit in context, he said this to snub Colin Powell, a man whose reputation was severely tarnished by steadfastly trying to sell Cheney's WMD argument in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Throughout the 2004 campaign - and even in 2008 - Cheney and Rove consorted to neuter the opposition by subtly suggesting if you voted Democrat, you were making the country less safe. It was cynical in 2004, cynical in 2008, and selfish in 2009. At least in the run-up to the elections in 2004 and 2008, you could make the flimsy assumption that this argument was used simply to get votes; it could be made because the one making it truly believes his national security plan is superior to his opponents'. It's morally dispiccable, but that's par for the course in American electoral politics (Obama's class-baiting in 2008 was no less admirable).
However, by not only saying the country is less safe, but openly wishing your opponent to fail (which, of course, would be at the expense of the people you swore you were protecting from 2001-2009), it's pretty clear all you care about is your own vindication - even if that means harm for innocent people in this country. "So what if the ends do not justify the means? I was right!" I think this really does reserve a special place in Hell for Dick Cheney.
I especially thought this would apply to Richard Cheney, whose ominous influence hung over the Administration from the beginning and who is largely responsible for driving the country into the ditch we are now in. Cheney had an anti-Midas touch. WMD in Iraq "a certainty"? Discredited. A definite link between al-Qaeda and Saddam? Nope. And my personal favorite: "Deficits don't matter" (sic). Despite these ludicrous assertions, Cheney mostly operated in the shadows; it's like God cast him to be an evil genious.
Totally against character, however, Cheney has recently been out in full force, trying to vindicate in any way he can his legacy that never was. Apparently in an appearance on "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Cheney basically said he hopes the President fails from a national security perspective and even said he thinks Rush Limbaugh is who the model Republican should be. To put this latter bit in context, he said this to snub Colin Powell, a man whose reputation was severely tarnished by steadfastly trying to sell Cheney's WMD argument in the run-up to the Iraq War.
Throughout the 2004 campaign - and even in 2008 - Cheney and Rove consorted to neuter the opposition by subtly suggesting if you voted Democrat, you were making the country less safe. It was cynical in 2004, cynical in 2008, and selfish in 2009. At least in the run-up to the elections in 2004 and 2008, you could make the flimsy assumption that this argument was used simply to get votes; it could be made because the one making it truly believes his national security plan is superior to his opponents'. It's morally dispiccable, but that's par for the course in American electoral politics (Obama's class-baiting in 2008 was no less admirable).
However, by not only saying the country is less safe, but openly wishing your opponent to fail (which, of course, would be at the expense of the people you swore you were protecting from 2001-2009), it's pretty clear all you care about is your own vindication - even if that means harm for innocent people in this country. "So what if the ends do not justify the means? I was right!" I think this really does reserve a special place in Hell for Dick Cheney.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Congress Should Support Military Aid to Pakistan
So, it seems as though the Obama Administration has decided to wisely call a spade a spade and address the whole "Pakistan thing" with more than just rhetoric. It seems to be a pattern lately that the Administration will think with their head and Congress will think with their...you know where I'm going.
You see, Congressional Democrats are once again losing sight of the forest for the trees. They seem to be falling into the same cookie-cutter, ideological, one-size-fits-all trap that led to the recent demise and subsequent marginalization of the Republicans. This approach is foolish and dangerous, especially when it is executed vis-a-vis a resurgent Taliban operating in a country with apparent impunity. The challenge they present is just one of the new 21st Century gray areas that Congress apparently has trouble adapting to.
So what is it they are doing? Bob Gates (with the enthusiastic blessing of his boss) is pushing Congress to give our military the same capacity to back the military in Pakistan that they have Iraq and Afghanistan. This would probably translate to better kit, better training, more armed personnel, etc. In essence, it would help to untie the one hand both we and the Pakistani military have in executing combat operations against the Taliban in Pakistan.
Seems reasonable enough. But, Democratic members of the House Appropriations and Armed Services committees are questioning "the appropriateness of providing foreign assistance for Pakistan under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense" and saying that "the responsibility for training Pakistani police and military forces resides with the Department of State." To me, the smacks of liberal, Boomer-esque aversion to military force. The resources and expertise of State are most efficient after DoD has done it's work. Left to the bureaucratic juggernaut that State is, Pakistan's army would be trained to plant flowers with plastic knives and forks, not mop up a guerrilla insurgency.
In my opinion, the challenges we face in the 21st Century call for the coordination of Defense and State. The Bush Administration didn't see this; they operated in the 20th Century vacuum of absolutes, preferring a one-sided military approach to everything. Now, it seems Congress is approaching things in the same vacuum, albeit on the other end of the spectrum.
For the sake of not just Americans, but Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans, you name it, we need to adapt to the challenges laid out before us, not quixotically hope they will adapt to how we would like to handle them. If Congress is not up to the task, we need to vote them out and replace them with people who are.
You see, Congressional Democrats are once again losing sight of the forest for the trees. They seem to be falling into the same cookie-cutter, ideological, one-size-fits-all trap that led to the recent demise and subsequent marginalization of the Republicans. This approach is foolish and dangerous, especially when it is executed vis-a-vis a resurgent Taliban operating in a country with apparent impunity. The challenge they present is just one of the new 21st Century gray areas that Congress apparently has trouble adapting to.
So what is it they are doing? Bob Gates (with the enthusiastic blessing of his boss) is pushing Congress to give our military the same capacity to back the military in Pakistan that they have Iraq and Afghanistan. This would probably translate to better kit, better training, more armed personnel, etc. In essence, it would help to untie the one hand both we and the Pakistani military have in executing combat operations against the Taliban in Pakistan.
Seems reasonable enough. But, Democratic members of the House Appropriations and Armed Services committees are questioning "the appropriateness of providing foreign assistance for Pakistan under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense" and saying that "the responsibility for training Pakistani police and military forces resides with the Department of State." To me, the smacks of liberal, Boomer-esque aversion to military force. The resources and expertise of State are most efficient after DoD has done it's work. Left to the bureaucratic juggernaut that State is, Pakistan's army would be trained to plant flowers with plastic knives and forks, not mop up a guerrilla insurgency.
In my opinion, the challenges we face in the 21st Century call for the coordination of Defense and State. The Bush Administration didn't see this; they operated in the 20th Century vacuum of absolutes, preferring a one-sided military approach to everything. Now, it seems Congress is approaching things in the same vacuum, albeit on the other end of the spectrum.
For the sake of not just Americans, but Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans, you name it, we need to adapt to the challenges laid out before us, not quixotically hope they will adapt to how we would like to handle them. If Congress is not up to the task, we need to vote them out and replace them with people who are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)