Would Electing Obama or McCain have the Most Impact On Improving the U.S. Image Around the World?

When I realized that this global image problem was the key reason that I was planning to vote for Senator Obama, I wondered if that was just my viewpoint. Was this a valid idea or an idea that other people shared?

I decided to ask acquaintances and friends who were born in other countries or who were steeped in another culture this question, in order to explore an international consensus…. or not.

I set out to find out, first with my friend who lives in Luxemburg. For over 30 years she has owned and managed an empire of department stores in Luxemburg. She has a capitalist’s vested interest in world affairs. A lovely blonde woman who wears her authority like a magician’s cloak, Marie Antoinette Scholer answered my question immediately and forcefully. She had obviously already given this some thought.

Her reply, “It is going to take a lot to change that image! I do not know which of them would be better. When I listen to the debates, they both sound like they are saying the same thing. It is not the American people, we Europeans are angry and disappointed with, it is the politics. “

I replied, “But politics are decided by people. We can change the politics by changing the people making those decisions.”

“That’s true,” she replied, her tone somewhat skeptical.

I asked, “ What is your opinion of Obama?”

“I have questions about him. Is he politically knowledgeable? Does he know about diplomacy and the way politics work in the states? Politics is a rat’s race. There are rat traps. You have to weave your way through them. He’s very green. Is he tough enough?

Your presidency is not for sissies. You have to be tough as nails. He’s intelligent, but…..Is he willing to sack people who are not doing their jobs?”

These are all good questions, and I am not sure of the correct answers. If the answers to these are all “yes-s”, then Marie Antoinette thinks he would be good at his job. None of her responses actually answered my question about improving our global image. I came away from the interaction with the feeling that she thought it was doubtful that we can improve our image by one election, no matter who wins.

The next person for the interview is Carlos Suarez, who has a Stanford University Ph. D. and is from Venezuela. He is passionate about Venezuelan politics, so I was sure he had an opinion on this. Being bi-lingual, he was able to teach our interpersonal skills seminar to non-English speaking parents of school children all around the Bay area. Carlos has spent some time in Mexico,but returned recently. His words tumbled out fast. His voice was full of emotion as he answered these questions.

Carlos’s answer, “ Obama would be better for the international community’s view of the US. America talks multi-cultural, but doesn’t always walk it. The US should act out the principles of democracy in specific ways. This is very important. Obama is a consensus builder. That is very welcome to have in a democracy.

I would also like to see the end of 8 years of cowboy diplomacy.

In my opinion, most of the world would like to see a match of idealistic democratic principles and specific actions.”

My friend, Lilia Shirman, is a Business Development Consultant in the San Francisco Bay Area, was born in Odessa in the Ukraine, but came to the US as a pre-teen.

Lilia’s answer: “I don’t know. People love to hate the US because we are better off than they are. Bush has been deadly for our global image. McCain would send the message of ‘tough’. Obama would send the message of ‘go along with’ and be ‘UN compliant.’

It depends on who is viewing us. Obama is seen as ‘nicer’ but will be viewed with less respect than McCain. Russia and the former Russian countries would respect McCain more than Obama because he does come through as ‘tough’. The Arabs only understand force and strength. They do not respect compliance and agreement.
The Europeans would be happy with Obama, but the Arabs need to perceive us as ‘tough’; that’s what they understand. I find it strange that Obama must know this about the Arabs, but still he talks about negotiating and agreements. “

Next, I phoned Al Ikemoto, who is Japanese by culture though born in Northern California at one of the re-location camps for Japanese during the Second World War. His Father had been born in Sacramento but raised back in Japan, so Al is second generation American but still enmeshed in his Japanese heritage. Al is a Martial Arts expert who has trained hundreds of policemen during his long career. He is now partially retired, but he and his wife are raising two grand-children, one just turned 2 and the other 3 and one half.

Somehow, the question changed as the words came out of my mouth. My question for Al was phrased as, “ Would Obama or McCain have the greatest impact on the US global image?”

He answered my question with a question, “Positive or negative?”

“Either way, ” I answered.

“In the long run, Obama would have a negative impact on our global image, except in the Muslim countries. There it would be positive.”

We talked a bit, then he finished with, “Obama is still pretty green.”

Nina Moore is an expert in Real Estate in the San Francisco Bay area. She was born in Egypt and grew up in Cairo. She arrived in the US in her twenties. Nina reminds me of the bust of Queen Nefertiti. Her black hair is swept back and up as if she is wearing a dynasty crown as does the Queen. She still has relatives in Egypt; some of her in-laws are Muslims, so I was focused on hearing her emphatic reply:

“Definitely! Obama would have a positive impact because of his diversity and his philosophy, which is to sit down and talk. How on earth can you find a solution for differences if you are not willing to find out what the other group wants?”

Lena Osher, MD, a practicing children’s psychiatrist from Russia who still carries a slight Russian accent, answered quickly, because she had a patient waiting upstairs.

“I think Obama would have a bigger impact on America’s image. There are too many variables to know whether it would be positive or negative. It depends on the position of the person judging.” She jumped up and disappeared upstairs.

Deepika Bajaj arrived in the US approximately ten years ago, from India, worked in New York for a time then came to the San Francisco Bay area. She founded a successful web site, Invincibelle.com, for women in business making the transition from one culture to another.

Deepika responded, “Obama makes a better candidate to improve the image of US globally. He has consistently emphasized on diplomacy and has touched on a crucial factor about the war - if we are looking for Osama then why are we in Iraq? This resonates with the international community. Also, Obama's story is a true American story and would boost America's image, it would give people a sense of the promise of America, the ‘land of opportunities’ type of story.”

I did not interview Colin Powell, but over the weekend he gave his answer to my question in a TV interview. The former Secretary of State seems to have switched parties from Republican to Democrat, when said he was voting for Obama and that the next administration would have “to fix the reputation that we’ve left with the rest of the world.”

My other culture steeped interviewees did not all agree with me, but
Colin Powell and I are definitely on the same page.

For the last ten years or so, the Serbs have been in danger of disappearing - yes, that's right, completely and utterly - a decrease in numbers of Serbs has been blamed on "new trends coming from the west", such as contraception and "women who pursue carrier instead of trying to conceive", together with "more and more gay people popping up all the time because of the latest fashion."

Campaigns launched to try and help with this matter, both governmental or private, didn't appear to be working - it seemed as if the Serbs just refused to mate and multiply! There was Patriarch calling for women to multiply, there were TV shows titled "It's time for babies!", even the latest agreement between ruling coalition partners includes the paragraph that says they will try to help increase the number of Serbs, not to mention various other subliminal messages in the press and TV and so on. But nothing helped.

Why don't the women just simply start having babies, that can't be so hard, right? Nobody knew what's wrong.

Until couple of days ago a blog post entitled Why Serbs should simply die of white plague (white plague is an informal term used for nations with not enough Sarah Palins) hit a nail on the head.

Blogger Krugolina described what it is like for her to give birth to a child in Serbia or more precisely, in a Serbian state-owned hospital. After she got an enormous amount of email by other women who had the same bad treatment like she did, she started a website Majka Hrabrost (Mother Courage) dedicated to horror stories from Serbian maternity wards, cold and cruel nurses and doctors who treat mothers like farmers treat cows. Unless you have a good connection in a hospital or enough money to bribe all the nurses and doctors that need to be bribed. Stories from Serbian women who gave birth abroad, in the West, helped create a comparison between what it's like for a mother in Serbia and how it should be if some money is invested in educating doctors and nurses, together with creating better conditions in hospitals.

So it turns out that instead of spending all that money on TV shows, campaigns, sponsored articles and other ways of shouting "Give birth!" the government should have spent it on renovating the hospitals, and making it easy for women to deliver a baby.

Krugolina is invited to have a chat with the Serbian Health Minister, after a petition she made got couple of thousand signatures in two days and after the press got hold of the story. She currently invites people on her blog to suggest questions she might ask the Minister. It is a case of a simple citizen action that could actually help change the current poor state in Serbian maternity wards.

Sudan Launches Peace Initiative for Darfur

Amid accusations that the recent initiative that was launched by the ruling National Congress Party is merely window dressing, a conference was held to discuss the implementation and goals of the peace initiative. Various rebel groups and observers did not attend and dismiss the initiative as a means to avoid the arrest of President Bashir. Any effective settlement of the conflict will need to encourage rebel participation. Turabi’s Popular Congress Party also did not attend. The initiative is being supported by the SPLM, however they are divided from within. A few within the SPLM believe that without Bashir there is no guarantee of an implementable peace agreement.

A new round of talks are being set to be held in Qatar.

People of Sudan Lead the Way in Resolving Darfur

The Sudan People’s Initiative has the support of about 33 political parties. It is meant to bring Sudanese and non-Sudanese together to discuss representation and participation of the people, and mechanisms for post-conflict rehabilitation. Djibril Bassole, the AU-UN negotiator Darfur recognizes the initiative as a precursor to the Qatar initiative. Bassole believes that the government’s commitment to the initiative is essential. The Embassy of the Republic of Sudan states that the Initiative should not merely be rejected because it comes from Khartoum and that the rebels’ recent emboldened stance to fiercely boycott these efforts, based not on reading or consideration of the text of the initiative, reveals that it is a reaction to ICC recent actions.

IDPs demand security, Khartoum announces demobilisation

The spokesperson for the IDP’s, Hussein Abu Shariati, has called for disarmament of the pro-government militias and armed groups before peace talks begin. Reports indicate that Khartoum plans to begin DDR (disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration). According to Adriann Verheul, chief of the UN program supporting the government DDR program, this could be the largest DDR operation in the world.

Minawi talks to Asharq Al-Awsat

Mani Arkoi Minawi, a former rebel leader, now the senior assistant to al-Bashir, is participating in the Sudanese People’s Conference. In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, he told the newspaper that he is focusing his concerns on the will to find a solution, the arrival of assistance to the victims and the implementation of regeneration projects. He provides a dismal report on the lack of improvement in agriculture and farming due to the terrible security problems. He states that all the parties have contributed to the instability of the situation for various reasons. He also maintains that development funding through the Arab Development Fund never translated into action. He also asserts that once there is political will for a solution, then he will play a role between armed groups and the government in preparation for reconciliation.

Darfur Violence Displaces 1,000 People a Day, UN Chief States

The UN Secretary General has diagnosed that the quantity of displacements per day in the region of Darfur is too high and therefore has made it impossible for the UN peacekeeping forces to subdue the hostility as a result of the civil war. The UN chief blames the Sudanese government for putting in place obstacles that impede peace efforts. Those obstacles include multiple customs checks, long checkpoint delays and visa issues. The conditions for peace have been hampered by this series of impossible demands and the fact that a military solution is being implemented. The Sudanese government disputes UN figures on the number of displaced and that it is undermining UNAMID or aid efforts.

From My Perspective

Policy Recommendations

* Enable reintegration and recovery in local women’s groups that are monitored by international organizations.

* Enable and reintegrate IDP’s into a trust building relationship with international monitors and local authorities. Officials could conduct various town hall meetings so that the IDP’s in camps can be part of a process to establish best practices and programs that reflect restorative purposes to respond to war injuries. They need to directly and fully participate in the response to the crimes if peace is the goal.

* Work toward building restorative programs that hold the four key values of restorative justice: encounter, amends by offenders, reintegration and inclusion. Having victims, offenders and community members discuss the crime and aftermath and realize a way to restore the whole society to allow for the contributions of each part of society is highly recommended.

Moving forward should not feel like people are being asked to accept being cheated as a condition to accept the forward momentum toward peace. In the current mechanisms, people are being asked to accept that the relationship is an ongoing process of cheating each other. Continuously asking people to accept conditions where they are subjected to unusual scorn and that their experience be silenced or that they accept second class citizenship is not political. If various political parties can’t seem to move beyond old social constraints, then they impede social progress and the norms of the world in which we live in. They should provide an opportunity to stop being mistreated and participate in recovering their dignity and rights, without fear of retaliation.

* Transform cultural relations among the diverse tribes to move beyond differences that have become hardened, toward common interests that bridge diverse people together. The various groups need to relate in a way that does not feel threatening to their way of life. In other words, conducting workshops that bridge people toward understanding each other should not be based on needs and wants. They should be purely on communication toward a constructive way to coexist, without allegiances being built on a struggle for scarce resources or that requires victims to set aside their interests for the benefit of their oppressors in exchange for an end to the offensives. Workshops should focus on integration and help build a communication style that does not provoke violence or asks for unreasonable concessions that do not promote healing within communities.

* Campaigns that strip people of who they are need to stop. They are merely ways to de-legitimize what people stand for. To ask a person to set aside the practices that they value in order to continue to promote the conflict is not a good convention to adopt; it’s unwise. It is merely an illusory assumption that states that society suffers unless those who appear to offend others are stripped of their values or asked to not demand societal change. Civil war victims do not need to conform to the so-called moral majority in order for peace to be accepted in a region and for discrimination to be normalized. To encourage an individual or a group to give up its rights so that they can take steps that are not in their best interests is not lawful or a good practice.

Republicans often say that courts should apply the law, not create it. It was really quite a stretch for the California Supreme Court to say that the Constitution of California already contains a right for same-sex marriage, when the Constitution doesn't say a word about it. The truth is: it's a new issue. To those who say the Court got it wrong, I say: I agree. It's for us to decide. Now, let’s make the right decision. And that right decision, in my view, is to allow same-sex marriage in California.

Republicans believe deeply that government should be limited. Government has no business making distinctions between people based on their personal lives. That’s why, as a Californian and a Republican who has held elective office at the federal and state levels, I will be voting No on Proposition 8.

Same-sex couples already exist, so do different-sex couples. Californians in these relationships are our firefighters, nurses, police officers and small business owners. They pay taxes and contribute to our economy and our society. Californians come in different shapes and sizes; that's what’s made our state great. If two people want to make their relationship more stable, and commit more deeply to each other, that can only be good for California. That's true whether the couple is gay or straight.

We've seen the walls fall down that once stood against women's rights; the same has been true for racial equality. When my mother was born, women still couldn't vote in many states. When I entered school, black and white couples couldn't get married in many states. It’s easy to forget those things but it wasn’t all that long ago. Someday, we'll tell our children that, when two adults in our state who wanted to get married were told they couldn't, we had the chance to change that. I want to be able to tell the next generation that I was part of ending discrimination, not making it a permanent part of the law.

Republicans also care about jobs; and as a business proposition, it makes no sense to support Prop. 8. Discrimination at any level is bad for business. California has always made itself stronger by welcoming, not excluding, people who want to work hard and build better futures for themselves and their communities. What kind of a message does it send to workers, of any background, that we are willing to codify discrimination into our state constitution?

Gay couples are asking for a chance to play by the rules. We can give them that chance. For those of us who are proud of our party’s and our state’s reputation for fairness and against discrimination, our choice is very clear: No on Proposition 8.

Sudan President Says Only DNA Test Can Prove Rape in Darfur

The President of Sudan, has questioned claims of rape in Sudan and called all the claims by women in the camps fabrications. He is fully convinced that no mass rape took place as a tool of war and that DNA tests can be performed on children who are born from women who claim to have been raped to prove guilt or innocence in the claims against the accused. Bashir has stated that rape is not in the tradition of the Darfuris and he could not answer how the names of all militia members who are accused in the sexual assaults could be collected.

Sudan Detains Notorious Figure from Darfur War

Bowing to pressure, Sudan arrested a tribal leader accused of numerous atrocities by the ICC. Ali Kushayb, a former commander of the Janjaweed militia has an ICC arrest warrant on 51 counts of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity. Sudan’s justice minister confirmed that the former Janjaweed commander will be tried by the country’s own courts and that he will be held accountable. Sudan argues that Kushayb acted alone in Darfur in conducting acts against humanity while he denies any responsibility for the Janjaweed. Complicating matters, it also states that he fought in an official militia, the Popular Defence Force, and that he was implementing the counter-insurgency strategy of the Government that resulted in his committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. Thousands of gunmen were led by Kushayb in Darfur in malicious acts to convey the government’s displeasure with the civil war. Kushayb is charged with 504 murders, 20 rapes and forcing 41,000 people from their homes.

Darfur Officials Return to Work after Attack Protest

As a result of a clash of opinions on government crackdowns on the Kalma camp for displaced people in south Darfur last month, 18 SPLM ministers and politicians went on strike from their regional administrative duties in Darfur. The SPLM leaders have decided that rather than stay on strike, they will work toward establishing a firmer commitment to search for peace and protection of civilians in Darfur. Resuming their work in their official capacity even after protesting the raid may be seen by Darfurians as a hopeful step toward a representative government that acts in its interest and finds excessive force intolerable.

Sudan Completes Probe into Darfur Militia Leader

Although there is no trial set, prosecutors in Sudan, who revived investigations into alleged war crimes earlier this year, have completed an investigation into an accused militia leader, Ali Kushayb. Kushayb is linked to killing and looting in Sudan’s Darfur. Two others have also been investigated.

UN Welcomes Report of Detention of Darfur Crimes Suspect

The spokesperson for the UN, Michele Montas has acknowledged that Ban Ki-Moon has welcomed the detention of militia leader Ali Kosheib for crimes in Darfur.

My Perspective:

Despite all of the snubs that the international community has faced from Khartoum for showing concern, and, all the lack of behavioral change on Khartoum’s part (even given the strikes by regional government officials trying to represent the interests of the displaced), the civil war prevails over the daily rhetoric toward building a peaceful land for a people to live a dignified life. Maybe the right to a dignified life is being considered by Sudanese leaders at this moment. Maybe it’s possible that recent moves to imprison one of the janjaweed leaders are signs that justice might be getting a better chance in a place where traditional lands have been taken forcefully through malice and war. Who knows what makes a people walk into the lives of those who live peacefully and assume that they have the right to ask for understanding for being victimized. In previous international conflicts, soldiers who were simply implementing their duties couldn’t bark up the chain of command, rather they were going to have to explain their innocence by stating they were simply acting on orders. Generally, this can be seen by studying transitional justice in various countries around the world. Ultimately, the right to a dignified life might really have been achieved more directly by victims through means of restorative justice and through the spirit of ubuntu.

Although the list of international vulnerable groups is long, I want to point out one that stands out from a recent article I read from the Hastings International and Comparative Law Review. In the article by Jo M. Pasqualucci, “The Right to a Dignified Life (Vida Digna): The Integration of Economic and Social Rights with Civil and Political Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System,” the author discusses the State’s obligation for extra protection for vulnerable groups under the Inter-American Human Rights System. In two cases that have come before the Inter-American Court, Yakye Axa and Sawhoyamaxa cases against Paraguay, the facts of the case show that people had lived in destitution in temporary settlements and for several years alongside the roads leading to their ancestral lands. The Court found that in the Yakye Axa case the State was obligated to provide basic needs for those who were not able to regain their ancestral lands, and that in fact, the State was liable for the violation of the right to life of the Yakye Axa People for not making positive steps toward allowing them dignified lives.

Sudan is not an OAS member of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Therefore, how it protects the interest of vulnerable groups in camps with the same interests in mind must be considered from different angles. We can learn from history. National governments have in the past facilitated discussions when vulnerable groups are cast aside for big interests who lay claims to lands. A case in point is the Nuba people versus large-scale commercial agriculture with government approval in Sudan. The Nuba tribes are found in central Sudan, and when they were thrown off their lands, many of them sided with the rebels. In 2002, when the Swiss government and a US initiative led to Nuba talks, the result was a temporary ceasefire agreement. Since then, the Nuba people continue to try to fight for their tribal rights.

Sudan has a constitutional, statutory and civic system of laws that co-exist with both Sharia and indigenous African customary norms and institutions. Indigenous customs are not codified. I hope to find more articles about the planning that has continued for procedures to grant the IDPs legal title to land. It’s worth noting that the IDPs have valid concerns about returning to their lands. A case in point is in Saraf Umra in West Darfur. In December 2006, IDPs were called to a meeting and informed that their IDP status was over. They were given an ultimatum: return to your lands, or settle as residents. Upon returning to their homelands, they found that they had been bulldozed. Fewer than 20,000 IDPs had to return IDP camps, unregistered. A similar situation arose in the Kalma camps where IDPs fled during a raid in October 2007 and could not return the following day to the Kalma camp or any camp for that matter. Many IDPs are still missing.

Although humanitarian efforts to focus the international community’s attention on the status of living of IDPs in the camps and in terms of voluntary return and land occupation are critical, importance should also be placed on the lack of access to the inter-tribal tensions within the camps between armed leaders and IDPs. A breakdown in law and order in camps, armed militias and paramilitaries within the camps, and camp sheikhs resolving local criminality with little police presence has contributed to increased criminality in the camps. The vast majority of IDPs in camps in government-controlled areas, not supporters of the DPA, are in direct conflict with the authority that is responsible for protecting them. Confusion as to which body (the Sudanese government or international bodies) should take the lead on protection of civilians and camp coordination has remained. Effective camp coordination as a result is a goal not a reality. Government officials often harass and closely monitor NGOs and UN agencies involved in these functions. It is important to note, that in order to avoid placing civilians (IDPs) at greater risk, attention to this concern must be careful of inter-tribal relations and focus on human rights and address the complex security challenges in the camps.

There’s some instructive irony in the fact that Sarah Palin is drop-dead gorgeous. The irony is that she would have many of us just drop dead. Intellectuals, scientists, academics, journalists, and atheists for a start. And anyone else who would cross her, challenge her, probably even just ask her a question.

The irony exists only because we are such supplicants to appearances, especially men to good-looking women. Remember in "The Maltese Falcon" when Bogie explained how his partner could only have been shot by letting a good-looking woman – bloody Mary Astor – get close enough to him without his drawing his gun.

Perhaps it is why we find such fascination in pretty celebrities getting into trouble. Consider Paris, Britney, and Anna Nicole who were marketing figures who garnered oceans of ink and years of broadcast time for shear vapidity...covered by good looks

Oh sure, women swoon for sexy men; for remarkably unhandsome men, too, those with power, like Henry Kissinger.

But back to the governor. Here is a woman who has garnered zillions of adherents, mindless in their appreciation of her, unswayed by what she represents. Sakes alive, the girl believes the Earth began only 6,000 years ago. She thinks it was her god’s idea that we should invade Iraq. And she is ready to condemn her own daughter to a marriage with hockey trash.

How is that we are so easily swayed by a pretty face? Why doesn’t it matter that her thinking is from a century or two ago? What does it say about our culture that we would even consider that she might fill the shoes of Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt?

It’s shocking when you think about it. And perhaps this time we might climb down from that shock and parse how we are making decisions about our leaders.

Hey guys, rethink the meaning of "If looks could kill." Please.

There is an old saying that Russia feels secure only when expanding. After 1990, what was going around came around and the states forcibly included in the Soviet Union gained or regained independence. However, Russian government never lost the desire to mess with their affairs and, when possible, to swallow parts of them. The Russian invasion in Georgia after the attempt of Georgian authorities to regain control over the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is just the latest example.

For the record, I believe in self-determination and think that if people (people, not the mafia) of the regions in question truly want to separate from Georgia and join Russia, this insane wish must be granted. I don't think sending Georgian troops there was a good idea. Pointing guns at people is unlikely to convince them that they are better off under your rule.

However, while agreeing with Russian President Medvedev that "Georgia must allow the provinces to decide whether they want to remain part of Georgia", I'd ask him, what about Chechnya? Why are other states oblived to give their breakaway regions self-determination but Russia may wage genocide until the last person wishing independence is dead?

And don't the above described developments remind anybody of Nazi Germany that went on a "peacekeeping" mission to defend the allegedly mistreated ethnic Germans in Sudetenland and quickly ended up occupying the entire Chechoslovakia?
I first wrote the above text on my blog in mid-August. I am afraid that nobody is thinking of Georgia anymore.

Darfur civil society, tribal leaders discuss peace and reconciliation

The Darfur-Darfur Dialogue and Consultation (DDDC) is an autonomous and non-politicized process owned by Darfurians. It facilitates a broad and inclusive consultation process and helps Darfurians find solutions to the root of the conflict in Darfur. The DDDC aims to bring the view of Darfurians into the peace process. Last Wednesday, civil society members and tribal leaders met at the Nyala University Center for Peace and Development Studies. Although the article does not share some of the views that were voiced during the meeting, it does note that the range of topics included were aimed at identifying common ground issues. In opposition to the DDDC's recent meeting, JEM spokesperson Ahmed Hussein Adam said that the only way a healthy environment can exist for the DDDC is after the hostilities and violence have ended not before that. Before this end, the spokesperson suggests is conducting the dialogue in an "acrobatic" way.

Under Secretary-General Alain Le Roy meets with Internally Displaced Persons

Representatives of El Fasher IDPs met with Alain Le Roy, the Under Secretary-General of UN peace operations. It is part of an effort to interact with the local community.

Ukraine May Offer Helicopters for Darfur

The President of Ukraine, Viktor Yuschenko, met with the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon and has been exploring the possibility of deploying Ukrainian military helicopter and personnel to Darfur. The Secretary General has had further discussions with the Ukrainian defense minister in New York. It is not clear whether Khartoum will accept the Ukrainian help. Ban has urged Khartoum to cooperate to ensure full and swift deployment of UNAMID. The force remains small due to obstruction from Sudan's government, UN bureaucracy, and a shortage of helicopters and equipment, according to UN officials, human rights groups and Western diplomats.

Darfur JEM denounces African-Arab efforts to defer ICC move

This week the Sudanese Vice President Ali Osman Taha spoke before the UN Assembly General. He declared that no peace could be reached unless the ICC prosecutor suspended the request for an arrest warrant for Bashir. JEM condemns any attempts to obstruct ICC jurisdiction on Darfur crimes. They condemn the efforts of the African Union and the Arab League to back Sudanese efforts to suspend the indictment. JEM is ready for talks to be held in Qatar. JEM's spokesperson, Ahmed Husein Adam, has stressed that peace and justice can be pursued simultaneously and rejects calls to exchange one for the other. The SLM-Unity spokesperson, Mahgoub Hussein, has also rejected a bargain on international justice. He has expressed that justice is a first step for peace. The Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim binn Jabr al-Thani supports the ICC suspension because it would allow Qatar to host the mediation to end the conflict.

Sudan reports surrender of rebel unit

UNAMID received information from the Sudanese military that 116 Darfur rebels have surrendered and handed over 13 vehicles. The rebels belong to the JEM.

Palin Team Originally Opposed Divesting of holdings to protest Darfur

Although Sarah Palin has suggested that she was at the forefront of Alaska's campaign to divest from Sudan, the record shows that her administration was against the divestment first. HB 287 was introduced to the Alaska House of Representatives last January. It encouraged divestment. Palin's representative, Deputy Revenue Commissioner Brian Andrews, stated in a committee hearing that the passing of the bill would not help the afflicted in Sudan and would increase administrative costs. Palin's change of heart actually occurred in March, when she spoke with Democrat Les Gara when she showed sympathy for the bill. This is after the bill died in committee. Palin put her sympathy to action in April when her administration supported Senate Bill 227 on divestment. However, the bill also died in committee.

From My Perspective

This week sees American politics once again flaunt irresponsible claims and disguises. They hope that fact checkers or citizens who like to have a good faith relationship with those seeking political office will just lower their standards. Go ahead lie to us, what do we care, right? It's not impressive to make bad faith statements to win over people who don't think that running to the front of the line to self-aggrandize is all that impressive. Especially that’s true, when we’re talking about how spending for some means considering where their investments go. It's the type of bad faith move that Americans don't need. It's as bad as the fear and loathing approach taken by Palin on other foreign policy interests.

As far as within Sudan itself, JEM seems ready to move toward ICC indictments of Bashir, but not ready to allow civil society and tribal leaders in Darfur to begin talking before peace happens. Then there's disagreement on which should come first, peace or justice or should they be pursued on a dual-track. UNAMID's effort to strengthen its force by getting more support to meet transportation and equipment needs is getting more contributions by world leaders. This occurs while the UN reaches out to the IDPs in El Fasher to bridge the gap between aide groups and those who have been forced into the crossfire. The assumption might be that those who are targets of the hate crimes will simply disappear or not fight back.

What are the costs in not meeting a mutually agreeable solution in Darfur? How do different societies live alongside one another? That's probably on the minds of those traumatized by getting into a pretty hopeless situation where the odds haven't been in their favor for a while for wanting human security and their rights restored. Did the people who are displaced step out of line and how long do they pay for that if they did? Coexistence might be on the minds of the Janjaweed or at least maybe it could be eventually. There are various perspectives on this. If a group of people can be dehumanized and made invisible, and the leadership doesn't see a better way to govern or is unwilling to change its policies, can the representatives of that government be convinced that there are many interests that need to be met in the people they serve? This week, Bashir stated that the people are the referees and need to make their own choices; is that principle going to be reflected in Sudanese domestic policies and actions taken to encourage the displaced that they have nothing to fear and can live securely, eventually not needing to live in refugee camps? Wouldn't Sudan benefit from addressing the concerns throughout the international community economically, politically and socially?

Depending on how important it is to win a fight, we might look at the Darfur situation as unstoppable and that both sides will continue to increase attacks on each other. However, there's a way out for the victims and for those who continue attacks on each other. There is actually no victory to be had in Darfur. Darfurians and Sudanese have a few choices: participate in developing a society that will satisfy them or live in fear of attacks and be misused as a tool or obstacle to an ultimate goal.

What do the different interests want ultimately? The DDDC is hopefully getting closer to understanding what civil society wants. If the demands can be met for the various interests, it's possible that all the interests could help each other out of the bad situation where the benefits of saving each life on all sides far outweighs the worse choice of continuing down a destructive path. Ultimately, the responsibility to choose improvement over denying people their right to live experiencing life beyond feeling fear, pain, humiliation, and sadness lies on those who still have that choice and who can show they consider quality living a better option than the making of a circumstantial underclass.

The WIP is proud to present a free event in New York City on November 6th sponsored by The President's Office For Diversity and Community Affairs, Teachers College Columbia University.

What: Women as Social, Political and Economic Agents of Change

When: November 6th at 7:30pm

Where: Millbank Chapel, 525 W. 120th Street, New York, NY

With Featured Guests:

Individuals with disabilities are invited to request reasonable accommodations. Address these requests to the Office of Access Services for Individuals with Disabilities at (212) 678-3689, keller@tc.edu, or Deaf and Hard of Hearing Services at (212) 678-3853 V/TTY, jaech@tc.edu.

With Palin’s folksy “There-you-go-again-Joe-looking-backward” line, McCain/Palin handlers launched their pitch to disengage the campaign from the Bush years. Don’t look back to the domestic and international wreckage Bush leaves. Don’t seek future solutions for the problems of financial collapse and global warming by examining how they occurred in the past and who is accountable. Ignore the past …and Bush. Just clean house, cut taxes, drill baby drill, and seek the city on the hill. Above all, forget the logic of cause and effect and the relationship between problem and solution.

This pitch is insulting to American voters including Joe Six-Pack. It is especially insulting to the intelligence of women. In an election year in which a woman, Hillary Clinton, was finally recognized for her equivalent or greater governing expertise, Palin’s debate presentation was a demeaning portrait.

A pitch that requires voters to dismiss intelligence, rationality, and above all, information and knowledge, is a disgrace. In these critical times we need leaders who are our best and our brightest.

Darfur This Week

UNAMID police deployment (from 12 countries) nears 50% of authorized strength

During the last month 189 police advisors, including 17 female advisors, from 12 countries have arrived in Darfur to join UNAMID. They are training Community Policing Volunteers in the camps and are training Sudan Police to improve their standards of policing to meet international acceptable standards. They are also training patrols in the IDP camps.

Sudan UN envoy says Georgia war eased international pressure on his country

Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Mahmood, Sudan’s envoy to the UN, told the Inner City Press that the conflict between Georgia and Russia shifted focus from Sudan and relieved international pressure. He also stated that Sudan is opposed to the independence of Kosovo.

US Presidential Candidates answer questions on Darfur

Three organizations asked the Democratic and Republican candidates ten questions about their plans of action on the continuing crisis in Darfur. The interview is very helpful in understanding what the candidates’ position are on Darfur and their views on the ICC, UNAMID and their approaches to foreign affairs with countries doing business with Sudan and US punitive measures.

Key differences in the candidates include:

On how to engage China to use its leverage to help end the genocide:

Obama: he has urged more constructive approach to Sudan in talks with Chinese Ambassadors
McCain: he will have discussions with Chinese leaders and states that China should pay the price for obstructionism if it blocks the alleviation of the humanitarian disaster

On bringing to justice perpetrators:

McCain: support granting ICC jurisdiction and calls for Khartoum to comply with its obligation to turn over perpetrators to be brought to trial
Obama: supports ICC and having indicted criminals turned over to ICC if they travel overseas and calls for political and economic pressure on Khartoum

On making Darfur a priority:

Obama: Yes, from day One
McCain: Yes, denouncing the genocide is not enough and we must provide assistance to victims

on failure of CPA agreement of 2005:

McCain: very critical of failure and that the objective must be human security and inalienable right of self-determination of people in Darfur
Obama: wants more preventive policies

on how they would promote lasting peace:

Obama: implement CPA of 2005 in full; appoint a senior special envoy for all of Sudan to fulfill this mission to ensure implementation; work with regional leaders in the international community to rekindle peace process
McCain: honor peace accords on the books including rights of citizens of South Sudan to determine whether they want to be part of Sudan

on ensuring UNAMID is well deployed:

McCain: says he would do more than currently is being done to aid the force and to address the problem that Sudan has been allowed to hamstring the size of the force by a string of delaying tactics and impossible demands. He would work closely with allies to assure flow of assistance and protection
Obama: while acknowledging the obstacles that Sudan has introduced in terms of UNAMID deployment he calls for stiff penalties to be imposed by the US and broader international community for these obstructions. He would work with allies to impose sanctions in response to obstructions. He also would work with NATO to develop a plan for enforcing the UN ban on offensive military flights by the Government of Sudan. He would reduce Chinese support for Khartoum. He would increase monitoring of UN arms embargo and ensure full effectiveness of UNAMID. He would assist African countries to enhance their readiness to deploy.

Darfur Janjaweed leader criticizes 2nd VP agreement with Minnawi

Musa Hilal was appointed in January 2008 as an advisor for the Ministry of Federal Government. Formerly having robbed a bank and widely regarded as the top Janjaweed leader in Darfur, he has denied on videotape any leadership roles in any atrocities. According to Human Rights Watch, government documents have urged that security units allow the activities of the mujahedeen and those who in the name of Hilal secure the vital needs in North Darfur. Those who act in the interest of Hilal have been known, through witness accounts, to prevent people seeking to return to farming lands outside Kebkabiya in Merguba. Instead, it has become known as the land of Musa Hilal.

In an interview with Al-Sharq Al-Awsat newspaper, he criticized an agreement between the Second Vice President Al Osman Taha and the senior presidential assistant Minni Arcua Minnawi which renews both sides’ adherence to the DPA and puts in an order to enforce it within a month. Hilal says that Minnawi has gotten more than he deserves.

Doha urged to act in Darfur refugee crisis

At a seminar on the prospects of peace in Darfur organized by the Doha-based Arab Democracy Foundation (ADF), Dr. Mohamed Suleiman, director of the Institute for African Alternatives in London, said that the conflict in Darfur started as a result of dispute over water resources and grazing, but after the Islamists came to power it turned into a conflict about identity and ideology.

In response to Qatar’s interest in brokering a peace deal between the parties of the conflict, Dr. Suleiman stated that Qatar is not ready to do so and requested that Qatar take other measures currently to convince the Sudanese government to stop killing the Darfur people.

The head of the Darfur People League in Qatar called upon the armed militia groups in Darfur to meet in Doha. The head of the Sudanese community in Qatar urged that the rebels should put down their weapons and practice their rights by participating in elections. Both defend that Qatar would be a good place for talks since it is neutral.

My Perspective

International pressure on Sudan needs to increase. The open ended war that has gone on has not provided closure on direct actions taken on Darfurians and for those who can not rest until there is more than an acknowledgement of the conflict. Is it possible that Darfur may become another South Ossetia or Abkassia? What will be decided in July 2010 by referendum? I’m not sure, but I do know that we can look at other international conflicts and see that from voting booths of many continents, people chose to demand their liberty. That liberty was for all kinds of reasons: race, religion, freedom to live without fear, and a freedom to not be persecuted or to be treated as criminals. The differences among people can be seen as either threatening or can cause an interesting cultural exchange that does not necessarily lead to the loss of one’s cultural identity.

That liberty is in the eyes of the small child who sees the world as holding opportunities for a life worth living. It is that liberty that is protected by the laws that were written by those who stayed in touch with the needs of the people. It is the liberty that fearful refugees find foreign when they have been reduced to merely surviving.

When we look at the societies that people are born into, cultural identity and national integrity are important. Still when we hear radical leaders argue that they see it as a threat to the sovereign character of a country when the international community sees a difference in norms in how they are treating people within a nation’s border, we cannot allow this to be an obstacle in our pursuit of peace and justice in the world. In fact, the Treaty of Westphalia is the foundation on which the nation state system worked since its inception. It has been modified since the 1600s most notably by the Charter of the UN.

Resolution 1244 approved in 1999 by the UN Security Council also seriously changed the dimensions of how tall of a curtain nation states around the world could build to avoid the international accountability. The world turned into what has been called the post-Westphalian world. That resolution on Kosovo redefined the sovereign character of the nation state. To emphasize that the world watches very critically while a government does not comply with international norms to stop an internal conflict rather adds to it, a series of agreements by the UN on Human Rights among Member States were shaped. These were calls for cooperation among all nations. When a nation argues that it is its sovereignty that it protects, this is actually no longer a valid argument when choosing whose interests are being served. We are in a post-Westphalian world. NATO and the UN worked together to enforce that there were legitimate concerns by the international community and that there were sufficient grounds to question the behavior of the Yugoslav government in terms of human-rights considerations. This was pursued even given the fear that countries would be held accountable for their own governance. It established a precedent.

If a people are against a government’s policies, it is not the government’s option to destroy those people. It is their responsibility to defend their policies or to consider why the policies are not being well received. It has been well documented in many news sources, that the Janjaweed, backed by Khartoum, kill members of tribes that are known to be critical of Sudan’s policies in regards to their own welfare and then move onto to the very land where they have performed their vicious attacks. That’s war with the purpose of genocide.

Now for the evidence. There have been numerous victim accounts - including drawing of children, accounts by raped women - statements by international human rights NGOs, and news sources around the world that have brought to light the statements of witnesses to crimes and struggles regarding the peace agreement and support for measures to end the violence. Increasingly, we watch UNAMID strengthen its efforts and share its policing knowledge, norm-building efforts and confidence-building measures to improve the living conditions and fight the winds of oppression and imposed control that leave a people to continue a fight without the means to end it. For what purpose?

There’s still a lack of human security in Darfur. If I were sitting in a refugee camp wondering about how my non-Arab Muslim faith had anything to do with the access I should receive to natural resources, I might wonder why I had to have endured racial epithets and had to live in fear. If I were in that camp, I might not know about the “Documenting Atrocities in Darfur” report on Darfur Genocide that was released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in September 2004. (Interviews in that report reveal incriminating evidence of the acts of violence experienced and witnessed in Darfur. Those statistics include 55% witnessing or personally experiencing the destruction of personal property, 61% witnessing or personally experiencing the killing of a family member, and 81% witnessing or personally experiencing village destruction. One of the findings in that report said that 91% of the refugees said that many villages were not defended at all against attacks.) With the pain of repression sitting squarely on my chest and having deeply rooted itself into my being, how would all of those interviews bring me back to regaining what was lost?

How can it? The people who sit in the refugee camps deserve to reclaim what has been lost. It is in everyone’s interest. Everyone loses otherwise.

In her NY Times "Lesson Plans" blog post entitled 'The Cross-Cultural Classroom', Christina Shunnarah describes the challenges of working as an educator in one of the nation's most diverse communities.

The issues she raises are not for educators alone, however, but for everyone living in America today.

How do we learn to live together when our underlying beliefs about raising children, a work ethic, the role of religion in life, concepts of beauty, perceptions of time and personal space, and approaches to problem solving, for example, differ so drastically among our nation's many cultural groups?

Shunnarah advises us that learning about other cultures is a first step, but ultimately, we cannot possibly learn every detail about every other society on the planet.

Instead, what we can do, and what we should all do, is to keep an open mind. Perhaps, we don't know everything because we know one way of doing it. Perhaps, our way is not the only way to live. Perhaps, there is enough room here for everyone's own perspective, if we are brave enough to treat differing points of view with respect and dignity.

As refugees and immigrants from around the globe continue to seek their futures on our shores, we cannot afford to selfishly and rigidly guard our own culture from any changes. We should instead seek to understand and to engage those around us, no matter what their food smells like or how their words sound.

An engagement of citizens with one another... isn't that, after all, the original American ideal?

Leo, Tobey, Forrest, Ellen, Eva, Sarah and the rest of Hollywood tell YOU not to vote. Why? Watch to find out!

When Speaker Pelosi stepped to the microphone in the House of Representatives before the vote on the first bailout bill and said, "the party is over," she announced a new brand politics that can deal with the Wall Street meltdown and the Iraq mess as well.

At the moment of her announcement, the United States faced the final collapse of Reaganomics and the wreckage of a thirty-year conservative frenzy to deregulate corporate enterprise. On its knees, Wall Street plead for a massive subsidy to bail out the corporate occupants of the credit and financial markets who had run amok and were too big to fail. Government had to perform resuscitation with 700 billion dollars to prevent the loss of credit availability for Main Street Americans.

Some in Congress asked the appropriate question: "What do the tax payers get for this revival infusion?" The answer others gave was the same answer that had been given in past bailouts: "Paybacks."

Paybacks can consist of the government becoming an equity partner in the dysfunctional enterprise and the beneficiary of its recovery in the market place. Government gets a "subsidization interest" for the capital it infused. If a collapsing company doesn't want the subsidy, fine. It can collapse. If it accepts the subsidy, government gets intramural influence to restructure, dispose of assets, and fire incompetent executives. The government also acquires an enforceable financial stake in the company's future.

Several steps are necessary before we can see how the payback approach can solve the Iraq mess. First, we must dismiss all the liberation, security, victory, battle-ground-of-the-war-on-terror talk of Bush and McCain as a colossal fraud covering an agenda to establish a puppet government to make deals with multinational oil companies. Second, we must cope with our national shame for having sacrificed the lives and wrecked the bodies and minds of young Americans for government-subsidized corporate imperialism in Iraq. Third, we must accept the reality of oil imperialism and inspect it for its problem solving opportunities.

The legal core of Iraq oil imperialism is the proposed Oil & Gas Law that would privatize oil exploitation and grant long term contracts to multinational oil companies. The financial terms of the Oil Law live in Chapter VII entitled "Fiscal Regime" that would obligate multinational oil companies to pay the taxes imposed by the Iraqi laws and a royalty in cash or in kind equal to 12.5% of the "Gross Production measured at the entry flange of the Main Pipeline." The multinationals get the net after payment of those taxes and the royalty.

A President of the United States seeking to end to the war of occupation could ask, "What subsidy payback opportunity does the proposed Oil Law offer American taxpayers and the people of Iraq?"

The possibilities include amending the "Fiscal Regime" to provide that two new entities will receive a significant cut of "Gross Production." One entity could be an Iraqi War Reconstruction Trust administered and distributed in the sole discretion of Iraqi trustees who represent Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish interests. Another entity could be a Subsidy Reimbursement Trust for the American Taxpayers whose cut would payback the billions Americans have spent for the imperial enterprise to date.

The long term Iraqi oil exploitation contracts could be made periodically renewable depending on the multinationals' compliance with their payment obligations to all parties to the contracts. If the companies don't want to take the amended deal, fine. Some other multinational will.

Hopefully American and Iraqi leaders will activate their problem solving creativity and consider the potentials of payback politics to bring at least some economic justice to their countries.