As a student of Russian culture and politics, I was terribly disappointed by both politicians' obvious lack of understanding of that nation as expressed during the debate.

It is easy to vilify Putin as an evil KGB thug, but he is extraordinarily popular with his own people, and that phenomenon bears examination. The American media bandies around words like "oligarch" without a substantive discussion and analysis of the real Russia today. Shockingly unaware of the ways in which Russian society has been transformed during the past nearly ten years under Putin’s leadership, we are inclined to shrug off the fact that the current Prime Minister is considered a real hero by many. Our thinking seems to be that we are free, so we know better; if Russians adore Putin, they are wrong and we must defend them from their false thinking.

The fall of the Soviet Union was not seen as a heroic moment by most Russians; it was certainly not the harkening of the era of peace that Americans and many Europeans celebrated. Mikhail Gorbachev was not their hero; in their eyes, he was a blundering fool and even a traitor who gave away the Motherland without even a ruble in exchange. The prosperous 1990s left Russians behind, and seemingly overnight an entire nation was left penniless. People who had had sacrificed everything in the name of creating a brighter future for their children’s children were left devastated. Pensions dissolved, crime (previously unheard of) skyrocketed, health care evaporated, and the entire infrastructure of the nation crumbled. If Americans are in an uproar over our own current economic crisis, we cannot even begin to imagine the extent of the catastrophe that befell Russia.

Americans saw this as proof of the inevitability of Russia’s decline, but we were mistaken. Russia has been crushed before, but has never been long defeated. In our arrogance, we assume that we will be able to outwit or overwhelm the largest state on the planet, overlooking that we are hardly its toughest historical opponent. We forget that our erstwhile enemy is nothing if not resilient; it endured several centuries of terror under the Mongol yoke; staved off Hitler’s plans of annihilation at the cost of eating leather boot straps and one’s own pets; remade itself out of whole cloth under the banner of socialism.

Russia is massive beyond the mind’s limits of measurement and perspective. According to the CIA World Fact Book, it measures over 17 million square miles, or approximately 1.8 times the size of the US. The greatest tragedy of Russian history is most certainly the brutality that the various regimes have resorted to in order to reign-in the vast territories the state engulfed. The second greatest tragedy may be the fact that repeated invasions have proved the necessity of a strong state; in most Russian minds, the state must be strong in order to survive. It is worth mentioning to true believers in US-style democracy that Lenin’s own revolution emerged out of the instability created by the floundering democracy immediately following the Tsar’s abdication.

A similar power vacuum emerged under the inept Yeltsin years. Shock therapy, or the immediate implementation of market prices and individual ownership of state enterprises, directly led to the phenomenon of the oligarchs. In order to meet the strict output regulations during the communist years, factory managers resorted to the black market for their supply line. The technocrats at the top of each industry under the Soviet system just before it dissolved were the ones who were able to play the shadow market game the best (in order to survive, you had to meet the specified outputs regardless of circumstances to avoid being accused of sabotage).

When they suddenly became de-facto CEOs of the new private enterprises, they kept their old behavioral patterns alive; becoming not just businessmen but the captains of massive organized crime leagues.

The competitive market provided opportunities for untold millions, and competition between varying oligarchs-the new rich strong-men- began to fill the streets of Moscow with blood. Ordinary Russians continued to eat rotten vegetables to survive while the oligarchs rode around in their limousines with their mistresses; Moscow rent soared to the most expensive in the world.

It is in this context that Russians adore Vladimir Putin. There are outspoken voices to be sure; the socially inconvenient consciences that warn of a darkness ahead. We should listen to these voices, especially those informed critics such as Anna Politkovskaya, an opponent of both the war in Chechnya and Putin himself, who was gunned down in 2006. We should not content ourselves with carrying the mantel of those protestors, however, without knowing the whole story. Why are they so unpopular in their own society, and how does this reflect the difference in between the way we perceive Russia and they way its citizens see themselves?

To analyze all of Putin’s successes and crimes would take more than a single blog. For here, we should at least acknowledge the primary reasons that he retains such an overwhelming support, even in light of election irregularities and other controversies. Quite simply: He’s made the people happy by getting the nation back on track. He’s reigned in the oligarchs. Jobs have returned. Upward mobility and social expectations have risen. Crime is down. The economy is awash in petrodollars. Most importantly: after yet another wasted generation of suffering, Russians have regained their pride.

Returning to the US presidential debate, the posturing by both candidates implies that they plan to act under the assumption that it is still 1992 and the US is still triumphant. In fact, the geopolitical reality in 2008 is as different as night and day from the end of the Cold War nearly two decades ago. For the next president of the US to start announcing that we are going to somehow keep Russia in its place is patently ridiculous, especially with our military stretched so thin as it is and with the EU already desperately engaged in talks to restore their relationship with Moscow.

Just like all major states on the planet, such as China and our own, Russia has ambitions befitting its stature and capabilities. Certainly, we should not turn a blind eye to its excess, and we should not ignore the plight of those crushed beneath its wheels. However, what is needed is not the broken record of Russia-bashing, but a multi-faceted policy designed to meet the challenges of working with such a behemoth of a nation. This is the real world, and in the real world, you must deal with nations that you dislike or with which you disagree ideologically.

Times are too critical to create another enemy out of Moscow; sadly, neither candidate has either the awareness or the courage to admit this.

The debate between the two men, one of whom seems likely to lead the United States for the next four years, bordered on interminable. Neither said anything new or even significant, nor did they say nothing in an interesting way. There was no free thinking, no fresh ideas. They were campaigners seeking, if not to hit the proverbial home run, then at least not make a major slip. Both did neither.

In typical sports reporting fashion, the commentators focused on who won or didn’t lose. The PBS commentators seemed to agree that McCain looked better than he had, and Obama looked as presidential as he had to. That underscored the fact that if any viewers on the fence were shifted, those who were concerned that McCain was dangerously senile found nothing to worry them, and those who worried that Obama might not be able to function as commander-in-chief had their concerns allayed.

Still, there were enormous gaps by the pair in telling us what we needed to know. As regards the economy, both failed to speak to the scope of the current crisis and how it would affect their campaign promises. They sounded like a broken record, refusing to answer a basic question: what do they see ahead of us that they didn’t a year ago.

Obama still seems to think that $250,000 is a middle class income. McCain still believes in the trickle down theory.

On foreign policy, McCain believes that the surge was the whole war, a point Obama tried to emphasize. Most Americans are fed up with the Iraq war and most now think we should never have invaded. What Obama might have asked to McCain’s insistence on our winning in Iraq was With more than 4,200 Americans killed, 30,000 wounded, Iran made stronger, Al Qaeda is stronger, and at a cost of $2 trillions, what has been accomplished? What is our victory?

Obama was focused on Afghanistan, and in some ways, that was right. But he thinks that putting a couple of brigades of American troops is going to fix that country, and nothing could be further from the truth. If that war is winnable – a questionable premise – it will take more than another 10,000 American soldiers. Ask the Russians who had over 100,000 troops in Afghanistan; or go watch “Charlie Wilson’s War.”

The two also sparred over Russia and the invasion of Georgia. Obama used the term “unacceptable” which sounded as foolish as when President Bush said it. Of course it was acceptable; Russia invaded and no one did anything about it. Neither mentioned the fact that the U.S. had egged on Georgia and that more than a 1,000 of our own highly-stretched forces were training Georgian troops only weeks before they launched their invasion of South Ossetia.

Ultimately, there was a stark difference between the two men, and it wasn’t about skin color, it was about age. The younger man showed that he was fully informed, both bright and thoughtful, if not quite smooth. The older man looked much older; he was smooth, mostly, but he is not only past his prime, he’s past this game.

It’s been almost two years since Obama told a colleague in New Hampshire at the outset of his campaign that he thought of himself as a place holder. Curiously, he was wrong. He’s the candidate. But McCain, who survived because the field of opponents were less than he, tonight seemed like a place holder.

Had he chosen Mitt Romney as his running mate, McCain’s role on the stage in Mississippi might have made some sense, but not with Sarah Palin standing behind him. With the economic crisis, with the world in crisis, America is looking for someone who is up to the task of leading the free world; not someone who will have to hand the job over to someone else.

African-UN Peacekeepers in Darfur Train Sudanese Forces on Protection

UNAMID conducted a workshop last week on security coordination for senior and mid-level managers focusing on sharing information between UNAMID and the Sudanese government in order to bolster the security of the UN staff and property. The chief of police of the Sudanese Police Force in North Darfur, General Ahmad Atta Al Mannan Othman, said that since peace is the goal in western Sudan, working hand-in-hand will accomplish this. Coordination efforts include developing a better understanding of UN security mechanisms and guidelines for Sudanese police, national security and military intelligence.

Sudanese suspects confess to killing USAID officer

On New Year’s Day, John Granville who worked with USAID and his Sudanese driver Abdel-Rahman were killed in their car just before dawn. Five suspects are standing trial for the assassination. On Wednesday, in a video confession, two of the suspects said they shot at Granville and Rahma with a 9 mm pistol and a Kalashnikov rifle. Abdel Basit al-Hajj said that it took 12 to 15 seconds and that it was with the help of God that they killed the American infidel. Both suspects said that they were planning another attack in February on a US target when they were arrested. Sudanese prosecutor Mohamed AL-Mustafa Musa said that the group came from the town of Atbara and intended to strike Western targets.

275 rabbis urge Secretary Rice to expand Sudan arms embargo

Calling for the voluntary suspension of arms sales to Sudan, rabbis representing thousands of congregants sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice on this pressing matter. Noting that two Security Council resolutions have not affected a change in the movement of weaponry to Darfur, the letter stresses the failure of Member States in living up to their obligations to prevent the supply of arms to parties in conflict. They also point out that China provides an estimated 90% of Sudan’s small arms imports since 2004. In order to negotiate this difference, the letter calls on the Bush administration to honor broken promises and stand firmly against China on the issue of arms sales in order to fulfill its promise to Darfurians.

OIC calls for prudence before trying to arrest Bashir

The Secretary General of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, has called for prudence in proceedings against Bashir. From his perspective, he senses a consensus among different international organizations that the ICC prosecutions should take a back seat to more negotiations and action by the Sudanese government that assure the international community that they are moving in the right direction. In exchange for a gesture of good will from Khartoum towards the ICC, France may also suspend support for international proceedings against Bashir.

ICC Prosecutor to hold talks on Darfur case

Luis Moreno-Ocampo traveled to the UN this week to ask Member States not to suspend the case against Bashir. According to the prosecutor, his appeal to world leaders to protect victims challenges the international community. It runs parallel with calls by civil society and international human rights organizations and puts to the test Member States who in the interest of those who are suffering greatly in Darfur may need to stop stalling on actions that might forever bring to an end the war between the Sudanese government and members of the Darfurian tribes who have been under attack.

From My Perspective

While the ICC seeks the indictment of Bashir, this week shows increased pressure by UNAMID, leaders of the Jewish religious community, and Sudanese security forces to address international concerns involving Darfur. They seek more confidence building measures toward ending the violence. In the meantime, the Sudanese Courts are busily showing that they are still firmly committed to the war against extreme terrorist cells that are still among the top threats to international peace and security.

What is being confronted today is the lack of political will by Member States. This has been brought front and center by the ICC’s move to negotiate the differences between international community norms on human rights and security concerns and Sudanese domestic policies that cannot provide the conditions for peace that are necessary to end the genocide. The government continues its attacks on refugee camps while the region of Darfur still remains a territory in dispute. In the fight over land rights and in the attacks on the three tribes specified in frequent news stories and by the ICC, a campaign continues that does not consider the needs of the victims. They are set off to become casualties of a war where passions run high and the law does not protect the very people it was set out to protect.

Whose interests are being secured when the international community watches its principles and values get worn down by systemic lethargy? It can’t be in the interest of Sudan and its policies to continue to be isolated economically by the US and its allies. Doesn’t defining citizen rights within a border in a country whose laws may not be based on Western law hold a higher priority than where the concerns come from? Sudanese security forces can learn from UNAMID and UN mechanism.

What about enforcing some of the Security Council resolutions so that countries that do not comply with those resolutions are held accountable? If providing arms to rebel groups so that differences can be settled through armed conflict is a preferred practice then why spend time penning mandates, international law and resolutions that document concerns and are supposed to lead to enforceability? The interests of the UN are to protect the world from the scourge of war, from regular people becoming victimized, while protecting the interests of the most powerful nations and developing countries. It’s not a coin toss as to who gets to be treated according to human rights principles. It is morally distasteful to see governance take such lame duck attitudes.

What are the policy priorities in Sudan? From the perspective of the United States, according to the State Department, as of September 11, 2008, US policy toward Darfur includes the rapid deployment of UNAMID, an immediate cease-fire and protection of humanitarian workers and a political settlement for the Darfur crisis. Within Sudan, policies since 9/11 have shown their commitment to fighting terrorism, and yet what about their domestic policies? In a time when Bashir should focus his policy decisions on the economic needs of the Sudanese people, including Darfur in his decisions, Bashir chooses to continue to place more emphasis on pan-Arabic fundamentalism that increases the tensions within the disputed territory and all of Sudan and ignores the interests of the Western part of the country.

Sudan’s domestic policies are aimed at ensuring that certain Arab tribes benefit and maintain their power while those who do not belong to those tribes see their fundamental rights whittle away. What do Sudanese policies instill in its people? How do the government methods - their crackdowns - affect upcoming generations who may want to see a more comprehensive policy that has a dimension that more resembles the interests of the people it should serve? The will of the people is not delivered by being armed to the teeth, and still the arms trade goes on between China and Darfur. Policies that provide for those who are most affected by the conflict should be developed so that their fundamental rights are taken into consideration and that their grievances do not meet with policies that avoid improving opportunities for Darfurians, no matter what tribe they are from.

Although the OIC and other Arab leaders are concerned that the stability and security of Sudan is at risk if the President is indicted, I believe that peace and justice must continue to be pursued in the interest of victims of Sudanese policies that are discriminatory.

On Wednesday, as I listened to President Bush’s bail out offer-you-can’t-refuse speech laced with heavy doses of fear and panic, I was reminded of another Great Depression parallel: Hitler’s political exploitation of the Reichstag fire in 1934. Historian Anthony Read in his recent work, The Devil’s Disciples, reminds us how the Nazis hit the press to justify granting Hitler emergency powers.

Goring justified it with a lurid press statement, claiming – without producing a shred of evidence – to have proof that the ‘burning of the Reichstag was to be the signal for a bloody insurrection… and also the beginning of a general civil war.’

Hitler sought and received the issuance of an emergency decree approved unanimously by the Cabinet, and signed without demur by German President Hindenburg.

The ‘Decree for the Protection of People and State to Guard Against Communist Acts of Violence Endangering the State’ was the death warrant of democracy, and the charter for the coming Third Reich and all its iniquities. It was short and simple. Its first article removed at a stroke all the fundamental human rights enshrined in the Weimar constitution, specifically listing personal liberty, freedom of expression (including freedom of the press), rights of association and assembly, privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communication, the need for warrants for house searches, and confiscation of property.

After listening to Bush, I followed up on my intuition about the German parallel. As I read Anthony Read’s account quoted above I was horrified. If we say that the Reichstag Maneuver is the extortion of dictatorial executive power though threats, fear, and panic, the Bush presidency is defined by its use. His first application was the cram down of the Patriot Act; the second, the Iraq invasion to prevent a mushroom cloud over America. Then the threat of terror warranted the suspension of the treaties against torture and the constitutional prohibition of warrantless wire tapping. Now Bush’s prediction of collapse of the American economy is being used to shake down the American taxpayers for $700 billion by Monday to restore the free market status quo on Wall Street.

However, on Thursday conservative Republicans counter-maneuvered Bush. They are distancing themselves from their President who has "gone socialist" with the Paulson Plan that Obama favors if significant modifications are put in place to protect Americans. Conservatives are putting a game of Reichstag chicken in play. The only way conservatives will do the necessary bailout is to package it with government hating tax cuts and administration by a non-governmental entity. That way, the Reagan free market ideology that caused the Crash of '08 can remain alive and well and nobody can use the "s" word to describe Republicans who vote for a bailout.

If McCain stands with the conservatives, all this Reichstag maneuvering will have the effect of clarifying the alternatives presented to voters in this presidential election. It will be a choice between anti-regulatory free marketers who encourage Wall Street greed and advocates of a rational regulatory government that serves the interests of Americans and the health of capitalism. McCain will be standing target for Obama.

If McCain does not stand with the conservatives, he will remain a Bush echo who accepts Obama-type modifications to the bailout plan and alienates conservative Republicans.

Have you heard? University of Illinois employees- including faculty- are now forbidden to wear political buttons or park cars with bumber stickers supporting a particular candidate. They are additionally banned from attending on-campus political rallies in favor of a specific candidate.

Those who choose to do so in protest (or just in the interest of civic participation) will now be in violation of the university system's ethics policy.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/09/24/buttons "Beware the Bumper Police" explains that this is a sharp departure from past policies around the country which permitted individual political expression, while banning the use of department funds for the support of a particular candidate. Certainly, nobody would support the diversion of science lab grant money for the Obama campaign, and of course, it would be inappropriate to have a university reimburse their staff for making a donation to a particular campaign.

But this official directive is both chilling and monumentally important in the ongoing battle for freedom of expression in the US. When we lose the freedom to express ourselves during an election, what will be next? And when universities become closed to dialogue and civic debate, where will we protest at all?

In yesterday's electronic edition of The New York Times, Tara Parker-Pope examined an emerging front in the war on methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.

Entitled The Doctor’s Hands Are Germ-Free. The Scrubs Too?, Parker-Pope's article presents the frightening possibility that some of the most deadly hospital infections may be getting a free ride on doctor's clothing, especially ties and white coats but also on scrubs.

The article is worth reading for the full scoop, but what I'd like to point out here is the startling gap in health codes that she reveals between the US and Europe, and how that could be needlessly endangering the lives of many.

In Denmark, where there has been an increased emphasis not only on handwashing, but also on "sterilization, screening and clothing control," the rate of drug-resistant staph infections was 1% of the total. In the US, where there has been no protocol similar to the EU-wide one informing Danish policy, the rate of drug-resistant staph infections is 50% of all such infections.

I find it incredibly concerning that the nation that trains many doctors around the world and that considers itself to be a leader in global medicine has not even managed to establish a basic germ policy addressing this problem.

What do you think? If you are in a medical profession, what is your experience in your country? What have you experienced as a patient? I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks about both this article and the topic, so please share!

The Crash of '08 forces Americans to watch history repeat itself. In 1929 unregulated Wall Street greed brought down our economy. In the '30's our leaders had the regulatory intelligence to enact the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated investment banks that game the market from commercial banks that take in money and lend it to Americans. That was a simple but profound regulatory step. Other steps included securities regulations that required investment banks and stock promoters to disclose the risks of stock purchases so that buyers could make informed investment decisions. These regulations remained in effect through the seventies.

Ronald Reagan's presidency ushered in a new period in which New Deal era securities regulations were dismantled or put to sleep in the service of an ideology that government is bad and the only reliable regulatory force in American society is the market. That ideology licensed the free play of Wall Street greed and the wrecking of the regulatory state that contributed to the Crash of ’08.

So far the only crash remediation that has come from the Bush Administration is a dictatorial Government/Wall Street partnership that has the stench of fascism. Neither Bush nor Paulson have proposed intramural reforms to cut executive salaries or impose transparency on Wall Streeters in exchange for government welfare. Rather, they contend such reforms will hurt the recovery. Paulson’s only objective is liquefying “toxic” or “unmarketable securities” to restore the ability of banks to lend money. The Glass-Steagall repeal of the mandatory separation of investment and commercial banks makes lending by the commercial bank side of Wall Street giants depend on the ability of the investment banking side to liquefy securities for cash. Accordingly, the 700 billion bailout will only fund government purchases of “toxic securities.” Paulson doesn’t know how much the toxic securities are worth. He doesn’t know which of those securities are infected with the subprime virus. He has no idea which loans in the mortgage backed securities to be sold to Uncle Sam have gone through foreclosure, so there is no real estate securing them. According to Paulson that really doesn’t matter because liquidation is the only objective and the way to liquidate is a “market mechanism” like a “reverse auction.” The investment banks wanting to dump their toxics will “bid” a price for Uncle Sam to take them off their books. If there are no other bidders, that’s the buy price unless Uncle Sam can bid lower. The buyers and sellers in the reverse auction will be Wall Street bankers. Paulson assures us that we should not worry about conflicts of interest.

Paulson did say our existing regulatory model does not fit the contemporary financial environment. That is probably true. This is an era of linked transactions. Today's home loan is packaged into a Wall Street creation called a "collateralized debt obligation" that is resold on global markets to banks, insurance companies, and investors. In turn those COD's become the focus of a Credit Default Swap to protect the COD investors. When unqualified sub-prime borrowers failed to pay, the linked set of transactions collapsed in the Crash of '08. Paulson and Bush are not giving us an outline of a plan to prevent that in the future. All of the 700 billion will be spent to restore the unregulated pre-crash Wall Street free market system; regulation, if any, is up to the next president. There is absolutely no talk from Bush and Paulson about a long term regulation plan.

This is unacceptable. There should be no government funded liquidations without new government regulation. Congress must develop at least a concept of a regulation plan before agreeing to a 700 billion blind liquidation to restore the pre-crash status quo.

I know this rumor has been going around for a while and I’m wondering if anyone else has heard it, because today, I heard it from someone I trust – that Joe Biden is pulling out for health reasons and being replaced by Hillary Clinton.

Has anyone else heard this rumor from someone they know?

What would this mean for Obama’s campaign and America?

And if this is true, has this been the plan all along?

With the debates coming up, if it is going to happen, it would have to happen soon. Even Hollywood couldn’t come up with this stuff!

Presidency meeting in Sudan stresses on coordination with South Africa

Many issues were discussed during the meeting of the Presidency of the Republic this past week. Highlights include the necessity of coordination with South Africa in all regional and international forums for the realization of peace in Darfur. Other subcommittees and political executive committees provided briefings on their achievements. The meeting also reviewed the outcome of Mbeki’s visit to Sudan and its achievements in pushing forward bilateral relations.

Mbeki says prosecution would undermine efforts

South African President, Thabo Mbeki, says that the prosecution of al-Bashir will not bring any positive contribution to the crisis in Darfur. He has formally stated South African opposition to the ICC indictment. South Africa, along with Libya, Russia and China have asked the UN Security Council for a resolution to postpone any efforts toward prosecution.

South African President Mbeki in Khartoum

South Africa’s president Mbeki travelled to Khartoum to discuss policies to resolve the crisis in Darfur and ICC allegations. He also planned to meet Salva Kiir, the first VP and President of autonomous south Sudan. The President flew in from Zimbabwe where he mediated a power-sharing deal with Mugabe and rival Tsvangiral.

ICC may add deadly Darfur camp attack to list of war crimes

The Chief Prosecutor of the ICC, Moreno-Ocampo has stated that the ICC is trying to see if there has been a new policy put in place by Khartoum to to directly attack civilians following news of the attack on the Kalma camp. They are still try to see if this is an isolated event without authorization or if the Kalma camp attacks are more evidence in support of a genocide case against al-Bashir.

Ban Ki-Moon welcomes establishment of new Ministerial Committee

Last week the Arab League set up a ministerial committe tasked with defusing the conflict in Darfur. This week, Ban Ki-Moon has welcomed its establishment.

AU says Sudan judiciary will look into Darfur crimes

Local courts will investigate Darfur rights abuses according to Ramadan Al-Amamra, the Commissioner of the AU Peace and Security Council. He has stated that they will combat impunity in relation to the crimes that have been committed. Although he has stated that Khartoum may utilize the expertise of judges and lawyers from Arab and African countries, Sudan has rejected such proposals. He has also said that there will be formulated recommendations to enhance national reconciliation by a team of African figures. AU commission chairman Jean Ping said that they are going to create a panel of eminent lawyers to work in Sudan and that this has been accepted by Sudan. As far as African countries at the UN and their position on the ICC ruling, the Commissioner said that they will make a renewed push to invoke Article 16 of the ICC Statute to allow the UNSC to suspend the ICC prosecution for 12 months.

From My Perspective

In terms of foreign policy, it’s important to compare Mbeki’s foreign policy interests and Mandela’s. How does it compare with Mandela’s foreign policy and non-African intervention in African conflicts like Darfur? Mandela’s foreign policy came out of the context of an isolated South Africa. His foreign policy stressed human rights and democracy. He was committed to international law. Mbeki’s foreign policy stresses regional power, where he has actually worked with local dictators. He has stressed more of a development policy and has focused on macro policy problems that he inherited after Mandela. He has also stressed multilateralism. He has been criticized for his missions abroad, whereby they need to be strengthened and that he has not put more priority on having a presence in international organizations. Mandela was not opposed to foreign aid to African countries and Mbeki values less dependence on aid and foreign intervention seeing them as barriers to being taken seriously in international relations, economically and politically. He did little to fight off trade-not-aid trends. Mandela rejected trade relations that came with strings attached. He asked for the world to not look away to help make poverty history. Development has become an important part of Mbeki’s policies, but often he looks for an African solution. Although Mbeki handled a good deal of the foreign policy issues while Mandela was President, the focus of foreign policy during their presidencies is important to distinguish. While Mandela was President, foreign policy focused on the role that South Africa should play in the global community.

I raise these points, in hopes that Mbeki can use strategies like moral diplomacy that Mandela used in the case of Libya and Qaddafi and help Sudan move toward a result that will help resolve the Darfur conflict.

Barack Obama said the September 15th Crash shows the market-fixes-all theory of McCain and the conservatives is wrong. He is probably right. So what is his theory? Voters need to know. If the market can't fix it, what will? What is he offering to fix what promises to be the continuing collapse of financial and insurance markets?

We must look back at the regulatory intelligence of the New Deal securities and banking regulations that moderated the free market greed and short sighted stupidity of Wall Street. Back then, the New Deal regulatory effort was ad hoc and experimental. But it did explore a new role for the American government as the economic context manager. I see the same role for government today. Unwittingly, Bush sees it too. The Bear Stearns, Fanny/Freddie bailouts, even the Katrina recovery incompetence put government squarely in that role.

Given the Democrats New Deal roots why not affirm the context manager role of government as Obama's vision? It would put health care, job creation, immigration and a national mobilization for alternative energy development into a coherent whole that voters could understand. Democrats need to present the American people with a positive vision of government as an enlightened context manager ---not the demon to be wrecked as Republicans have advocated for since Reagan.

Barack Obama, please replace the market-fixes-all theory of the McCain conservatives with a simple easy to understand vision of the government you want to lead. If you do, the electorate could more easily buy into proposals for restoring a regulated balance to financial markets.

Egypt on talks with UN, others for deal to resolve Darfur crisis

A package deal that covers all political, humanitarian, security and legal aspects of the Darfur crisis has been submitted as a proposal by the Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheut to the UN and the AU.

World Bank stops financing Chad oil pipeline

In response to Chad’s failure to meet its commitments to allocate funds to health, education and rural-development projects, the World Bank has stopped financing the Chad-Cameroon pipeline. Chad’s commitment was to continue to channel oil revenue to the poor. Relations with the bank have worsened ever since Chad has tapped more of its oil profits for military spending to counter rebels and increased costs related to Darfur refugees fleeing Darfur.

Arab League sets up Darfur Committee

At an Arab League meeting of foreign ministers in Cairo on Monday, a decision was made to form a committee tasked with defusing the conflict in Darfur. Representatives from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Syria, Libya and Egypt will be on the committee. The committee will sponsor peace talks between the rebel groups and the Sudanese government, in cooperation with the AU and the UN.

Darfur rebels name Janjaweed figure leading recent attacks

SLM leader Abdel-Wahid Al-Nur told the Sudan Tribune that Mohamed Kheir Samijodo from the Mahr tribe is a janjaweed fighter who has executed attacks in coordination with the Sudaense army in North Darfur this past weekend. The result of the attacks was that 40,000 were displaced, according to Al-Nur. Al-Nur also criticized UNAMID for not living up to their responsibility to protect civilians.

Sudan attacks Darfur rebel positions for 2nd day forcing civilians to flee

Two rebel faction leaders of the SLA alleged that Sudanese army soldiers attacked rebel positions around the settlement of Dobo and Aradim, about 45 miles from El Fasher. Attacks also occurred on Saturday close to the town of Kutum. Both leaders, al-Helwu and Harir, reported casualties and civilians fleeing. Harir stated that the government is trying to clear the people from the area and push them north in order to control the main roads. A spokesperson from the armed forces described the military action in Darfur as stable.

My Perspective

The fight against impunity continues. Acts against the African tribes in Darfur (Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa) continue. In a rare concession, Darfur rebels have named a Janjaweed figure who led recent attacks. Little is available about Mohamed Kheir Samijodo other than he is from Mahr tribe. Armed pro-government janjaweed fighters have been photographed, however not perpetrating the acts of traumatizing individual members of these tribes. After the government attacked the IDP camp, UNAMID has moved in to restore some security to civilians at the Kalma IDP camp. The janjaweed have continued their attacks against the three tribes, while rebel leaders have often been too silent about attacks as they have chosen power struggles. They stay firmly deadlocked on furthering peaceful negotiations, instead of finding a means to address the core conflicts in the interest of all parties. These very factions have created their own set of pre-conditions to attendance at talks and do not disarm. Neither does the Sudanese government.

In order to stop the violence and impunity, the competing interests of the rebel groups need to be voiced in real dialogue to move toward unity rather than division.

It’s a stand-off that will hopefully bring forward more impressive rebel leaders like Suleiman Jamous, who was the humanitarian coordinator of the SLA. The SLA has not historically showed much concern for the effect of the war, rather they have placed more importance on their position not on abuses. However, if more rebel leaders choose to call out the Janjaweed who continue their attacks, there is more chance that they might show an understanding of humanitarian principles rather than the principles of division and discrimination, whereby they are consumed with the war.

The importance of Suleiman Jamous is significant. He worked tirelessly with the SLA for three years to mend the divisions within the SLA and was candid about the rebel abuses he witnessed. He also tried to bring humanitarian relief to displaced people and has been described as the Nelson Mandela of Sudan. He was suppressed by the government for his efforts.

In September 2005, he attended the Darfur peace talks in Abuja and voted for a negotiated settlement. In response to his decision, the rebel leader Minni Minawi had him arrested in Bir Maza. Minawi was opposed to a negotiated settlement. Severe punishments were imposed on any villagers who showed concern for Jamous’ whereabouts. This included three people who were driven around Bir Maza naked in an open truck and others who were stripped naked and beaten in broad daylight. Showing concern for a fellow villager led to cruel abuses. After being held for one month, the UN intervened and secured his release from Minawi. He was taken to a UN hospital in Kadugli and was confined there for 14 months. There he was not allowed any contact with the outside world and had an armed guard continuously at his door.

International efforts to promote the release of Jamous, included a petition and received much media attention. Finally, in September 2007, Al-Bashir agreed to release Jamous. Jamous had to pledge that he would not enter Darfur until the peace talks began. Speaking from Paris in May of this year, he suggested that peace talks begin from zero and that Abuja talks were rejected completely. He stressed that the talks need to be sponsored by the international community to guarantee implementation. It would be very interesting to hear what he has to say about Egypt’s package deal to the UN and the AU to facilitate the peace process in Darfur.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/kilkenny.asp

We know that Palin's acceptance speech was carefully crafted and well rehearsed. For that reason it is appropriate to examine the self-description she presented with the question: "What's the difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom? (pause) Lipstick (another pause for laugher)."

Considered in context, there is something "un-straight" about the sequential presentation of Palin as the lipsticked pit bull, and McCain's self-representation as the Bush-distancing, end the rancor, reach across the aisle bipartisan.

These dissonant representations may be a matter of necessity because McCain is trying to play to two irreconcilable factions in American politics: right wing fundamentalist ideologues and pragmatic independents. By trying to play to both, he loses credibility, because his campaign lapses into Orwellian double think.

At the end of the Republican convention, the comments of Howard Fineman of MSNBC suggest that Palin is going back to Alaska for a week-long crash course to clothe her fundamentalist mentality in moderate dress. But the clear and convincing evidence of that mentality so toxically displayed on Wednesday night will impeach any McCainian make over.

Her canine self-description and McCain's choice of her as a running mate, confirm their continuing commitment to the Bush neoconservative assumption that international relations and domestic politics are mano-a-mano dog fights to the death.

No change here; just more of the same ideological tyranny.

Sudan foreign minister says ruling NCP not serious about Darfur peace

The National Congress Party (NCP) is under attack by Deng Alor, the Sudanese foreign minister. He has stated that the parties must sit at the negotiating tables. Deng Alor is also a key figure of the SPLM. The foreign minister has stated that the accusations from the international community are not needed, and that instead they need consensus to solve the problems. Alor has pointed out that the NCP has no choice but to deal with the ICC and that demonstrations and protests will not solve anything.

Regarding Chinese intervention, Alor has expressed that the Chinese will not sacrifice their interests with the West for Sudan’s sake.

UNAMID radio started one month radio journalism training capacity building program

Ten local radio journalists in El Fasher have started a radio journalism training and capacity building program. Basic radio journalism training will be conducted for Darfurians by UNAMID between September and December 2008.

18 SPLM officials in Darfur suspend participation over camp attack

In response to not being informed of the government plan to conduct a raid on the Kalma camp last week, 3 ministers and 15 legislators, all SPLM, suspended their participation in executive and legislative bodies. The Darfuri SPLM officials have stated that elections cannot be held without a resolution and a return of the refugees and IDPs to Darfur. In response, a figure of the NCP, has called the action an attempt to make political gains and predicts that they will reverse their decision.

Islamic scholar lashes out at Arab Lawyers Syndicate in Cairo

A former Dean of the Islamic Law department at Qatar University, Professor Abdel-Hammed Al-Ansari has been quoted as saying, “Al-Bashir does not need the ALS to defend him, but the Darfur victims and the millions of oppressed are in desperate need of legal help from these advocates. It should be noted that a delegation of the ALS flew to Khartoum after the ICC announcement to support Al-Bashir. Al-Ansari provided a historical context for ALS backing by stating that they have also backed Syrian president Bashar Al-Assad and the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. He endorses the genocide charges made by the ICC prosecutor. He argues that the ALS always tries to ignore the victims and that they are promoting double standards. Echoing the former Dean, French-Libyan born counsel Dr. Hadi Shalluf calls the ALS a political body that serves regimes that provide them with money and that they are not acting in the interests of oppressed victims.

Report on Kalma and Turabi’s Tour

According to a tribal leader in the Kalma camp, Ibrahim Adam, more than 100 police vehicles loaded with heavily armed men laid siege on the camp searching for weapons. The IDPs refused. Thirty people were killed and ten were injured as police opened fire. An official for the South Darfur state stated that Darfur rebels had been using the camps to create agitation against the government.

Little is known about Al-Turabi’s recent visit to the African Center for Human Rights in Switzerland. He said that he conducted talks with diplomats and officials and that Switzerland was seeking to play a role in settling the Darfur crisis. His objectives were financial, political and cultural. Al-Turabi is expected to tour the US, Britain and other Western countries.

From my Perspective:

When will Darfurians have status and choice, and enjoy the means and the context for peace? The conflict has seen serious debate about foreign intervention, with calls for political, military and humanitarian-related approaches meeting various levels of support. However, as Columbia University’s Mahmoud Mamdani has stated, "Anyone wanting to end the spiraling violence would have to bring about power-sharing at the state level and resource-sharing at the community level, land being the key resource." This means that Darfurians must have choice. The timeline for this has been suggested and is described below. As perplexing, the answer to why Muslim press and leaders still seem to be in denial about the conflicts in Darfur and why it seems that Darfur has fallen into its blind spot is not to come in this piece. Instead, it will point out that a monopoly of power enjoyed by a few has continued to marginalize populations and empowered rebels to chose not to pursue power-sharing as an obvious step toward peace. This has still left many indigent Darfurians wondering when and how it will ever be safe to go about their lives without a reliance on the refugee camps, which are now also under attack.

Choice: The Darfur Peace Agreement (DPA) assigned the responsibility of enhancing cooperation and coordination among the three Darfur states (West, South and North Darfur) to the Transitional Darfur Regional Authority (TDRA). Membership of the TDRA includes Minni Minnawi (Chairman), Dr. Mohammed Suleimann Adam (Secretary General), Osman Mohamed Yousif Kibir (Governor of North Darfur), Ali Mahmoud (Governor of South Darfur), Abu el-Gasim al-Hajj (Governor of West Darfur) and Ibrahim Madibo (Chair of the Darfur Reconstruction and Development Fund). It is an interim authority, and the permanent status of the Darfur region is supposed to be determined by a referendum in July 2010. Darfuris will chose between a single autonomous region of Darfur that includes the three current states or status quo. What will Darfurians chose?

Muslim leaders: The identity that has been pushed in Sudan on a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious Sudan is a historical problem that ignores this diversity. Individual rights and freedoms have been the price for those who resist an imposed identity. There are no human rights in this context even when tribes or groups might all just want to be left to live simply with respect and dignity and access to participating in public debates that affect their lives. What is the role of Muslim leaders in current Sudan? Shouldn't they be avoiding narrow political or religious interests and embracing tackling the plight of those who are stuck in camps unsure of how they will ever return to Darfur? Shouldn't they be answering the questions of their communities who are looking for the right dialogues that lead toward setting aside the prioritization of sovereignty over curtailing and ending impunity? How can allowing people to kill each other not feel like a horrible license to kill based on thumbing a proverbial nose on what the responsibility of government is? In August of this year, the SPLM, which wants to continue to have good relations with major powers like the US, and the NCP met to draw common grounds on peace plans in Darfur. Ideological differences in the interpretation of the 2005 peace agreement have created mistrust. I hope that differences can be set aside so that national identity can include the reality of the situation: a diversity of beliefs and ethnicity.