Breaking News

Come on everyone! Wake up. There have been a couple of reports arguing that the US now has a new “softer” foreign policy. Somehow, the argument goes, George Bush has seen that light and shifted toward a more “engaged” foregn policy, in contrast to the machismo driven yee-haw nonsense of the last few years. Kind of Texas meets Old Europe or something. Here’s the New York Times contribution to this revisionist view: Bush’s Shift: Being Patient With Foes

NONSENSE!! Bush isn’t changing because he wants to. He’s changing because he has to. His idiotic “shoot first ask later” foreign policy acheived nothing except get us into a quagmire in Iraq. It has certainly not solved either the Iran or Northe Korean problems, and it has managed to isolate America thereby making realistic, long term solutions harder to attain.

So this supposed change is not voluntary, it is not the thought out re-orientation of policy engineered by our Condi, nor is it the result of delicate pressure from well meaning allies like Blair. No. It is the result of unmitigated failure. Bush’s foreign policy has been a disaster. No amount of revisionism will alter that fact.

Yet another Bush mess to clean up! Ugh.

No surprise, except if you’re one of Bush’s bubble people, but the violence in Iraq continues unabated. I suppose that Cheney will claim everything is coming under control and that the insurgency is in its last throes. Or maybe the Administration will just say that the good news is not being reported. The New York Times reports the latest violence here: Brazen Daytime Violence Continues in Baghdad

There is nothing that the Administration can say: the situation is grim even after years of American control, hundreds of billions of dollars, and the depletion of the US armed forces. Iraq remains a mess.

Still as our George has said: it’ll be someone else’s mess before long. I love that sense of responsibility!

The House of Representatives takes the cake for gall. It has passed an aggressive anti-immigration law that takes a hard line against illegal immigration. Basically the House wants to round up and deport the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now living here. The point is that it chooses now, after passing the law, to have a “road trip” to allow the average citizen to voice an opinion. Shouldn’t they have asked folks first, before passing the law? Apparently not in this strange alternative universe we now live in. Now my question is: even if you are opposed to illegal immigration [a perfectly reasonable position] doesn’t the idea of rooting out 12 million people sound drastic, if not impossible. Think of the turmoil. Think of the cost. Think of the damage to local economies. And think of the long lasting polarisation within American politics and society. Is that all worth the purity of “making people stick to the law”? I don’t think so.

On a brighter note: David Kennedy had an excellent article entitled “Can We Afford To Be A Nation of Immigrants?” in the Atlantic Monthly magazine, it was originally published in 1996, but has been included in their website as being relevant to this week’s Aspen Institute “Ideas Festival”. [I would post the link here but its hidden behind their sibscription wall!] He gives us a ton of food for thought and helps frame the discussion. For instance he bursts the myth that immigrants were “pulled” to the US by its shining light of opportunity. The facts don’t support that assertion: the greatest flood of immigrants were from Europe in the late 1800’s and from Latin America [particularly Mexico] in the past twenty years. Both those floods appear to have been a result of rapid population growth at home coupled with industrialization. For instance the European population more than doubled in the 1800’s. While the local economies grew quickly they could not generate enough jobs for the huge new populations. So folks left in droves. Some 70 million Europeans emigrated to new countries during that time and only half came here. The other half went to places like Australia, Canada, and Argentina. If America was a shining beacon, as it so claims, then those other places must have been even more so: both Canada and Australia had larger shares of their populations having been born abroad than America did by 1910. A similar pattern now exists in Mexico whose economy simply cannot generate enough jobs for its rapidly growing population.

The big difference between the two huge waves of immigration is assimilation. None of the European groups were large enough to impose themselves on their new home. They tried to avoid assimilation: the rapid growth in the number of Catholic schools is testimony to the incoming Catholic immigrants desire not to assimilate into what was then a strongly Protestant country. But because the immigrant population was fragmented amongst so many ethnic and religious groups none had the critical mass necessary to avoid eventual assimilation. That is not the case with the Mexicans. The proximity of Mexico, the ease of travel back and forth, and the intense concentration of Hispanic immigration has created the very real prospect of an immigrant population that, for the first time, does not need too assimilate. It has the critical mass, especially in places like Texas and California to maintain its own traditions and language.

It is this phenomenon that requires careful thought and plenty of discussion. There is the possibility of a real challenge to the nature of America. Indeed there may be a challenge to what it means to be American. If the potential issues raised by this wave of immigration are not handled with care, rather than the political posturing we are now experiencing, the groundwork will be laid for years of tension and a possible conflict in the areas most affected. It is not for nothing that some Mexicans refer to the “Reconquest” of the territory the US invaded and seized only a century or so ago. While that kind of talk is nowadays in jest, continued jingoistic talk about walls and barriers along with pictures of families being rounded up and interned could easily harden that language into sonmething far more ominous for the Union.

So all in all now is the time for sober talk not shallow drum beating electioneering. The subject of immigration lies too close to the heart of America to be played around with for a few extra votes this November.

For those who may have missed it, there was an interesting mistake at the recent US – Russian meeting. Notably the microphone was left on by accident while our Condi was chatting with her Rusian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. The Washington Post reports the incident here: A Spat Over Iraq Revealed On Tape

I think this exchange was the highlight: at one point Lavrov talks about those missing WMD that some Republicans [Santorum et al] say have now turned up. He argues, rightly that if the Republicans are correct, then the international community, in the interests of non-proliferation, need some assurances from the Iraqi and American governments that the WMD’s have been disposed of. He brazenly sticks the WMD argument back on the US. He says the absence of proof of disposal would become a major source of concern. It’s a luscious moment: Lavrov says he’s taking the Republican’s pre-election discovery of WMD’s more seriously than the US, and therefore George Bush, is. Surely this cannot be the case? Surely the mystery discovery of WMD is not just an election gambit? Did Lavrov say any of this with a straight face? Imagine it: “Condi, I insist that the international community be briefed, urgently, by the Iraqi’s and your good selves on the status of these WMD’s. This is a matter of grave international concern. How will you prove the elimination of this threat? etc etc”

No. Surely the Russians wouldn’t stoop to calling the Republicans liars would they? Surely not.

Don’t you hate those activist judges? The Supreme Court, who’s recent decisions had taken a decidedly conservative bent, has ruled that the Bush Administration to try Guantanamo inmates in secret, kangaroo style courts, was unconsitutional. Well, duh! Here’s the New York Times report on the decision: Ruling Leaves Uncertainty at Guantanamo

The whole concept of Guanatanamo is an abomination. It’s very existence is an affront to everything the US supposedly stands for. So it’s encouraging that even these reactionary, backward looking justices saw through the Bush rhetoric about war, secuirty and so on to do the right thing. Their decision forces the Administration to find another way to try people held in the gulag. Up until yesterday the administration had held that they could put someone on trial in secret, not reveal the evidence that the trial was based upon, prevent the defendant having access to an attorney, and even prevent the defendant from attending their own trial. All of which was done in the name of defending freedom! Stalin would have been proud of Bush’s methods.

What’s worrying is the Bush immediately came out and said he’d try to get around the Supreme Court decision. He just won’t give up being a dictator. The sad part is that many in Congress appear to be ready to pass legislation allowing Bush to continue his evil ways. Even to the extent of withdrawing from the Geneva Conventions.

All of which shows just how far the US has slipped from the summit it once occupied. That’s the world’s loss. But is a greater losss for America: it cannot claim to be the home of the free as lon g as Bush clings to his Stalinist ways.