Prospects for Change in Burma: Too Many Wild Cards in the Deck?

From the US, Burma (more recently known as Myanmar) has appeared for the past two decades to be a global pariah, ruled by an isolated, paranoid, and  power-hungry military notorious for its suppression of human rights, government critics, and ethnic minorities. In the last few years it has made the news for all the wrong reasons – the continued imprisonment of opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi, the bloody crackdown on huge crowds of protesting Buddhist monks in 2007, the refusal to allow international aid agencies into the country after Cyclone Nargis killed at least 140,000 people in 2008, and holding a clearly illegitimate constitutional referendum in which 92% of Burmese supposedly supported the new constitution drafted by the ruling military junta.

US policy towards Burma under George W. Bush was to shun the military government and to stick to the strict international sanctions regime imposed on the junta. This did nothing to noticeably change Burma’s internal political situation. So now the Obama administration is trying a new tack of unconditional diplomatic engagement while continuing sanctions until the junta makes some significant concessions. The US and many Burmese would like to see three things – the release of Suu Kyi and other political prisoners, constitutional reforms, and assurances that 2010’s election will be free and fair. While committed to dialogue with General Than Shwe’s government, the US does not appear optimistic that change will happen quickly in Burma.

While this strategy alone may not bring quick or significant change to Burma, other factors are also shaking up the country’s political status quo. Aung San Suu Kyi – the incredibly popular and politically shrewd leader of the opposition National League for Democracy who has been under house arrest for most of the past 20 years after winning the 1990 elections, only to have the results ignored — has recently met with members of the junta, agreeing to help negotiate an end to sanctions on Burma by Western nations. While Suu Kyi likely believes that the sanctions have been ineffective and detrimental to the Burmese people (the standard argument for ending them), she is also making a political move.  This is based on the assumption that her favor to the junta will not go unrewarded, perhaps reminding the junta of the substantial power she still wields. Should the junta decide to release Suu Kyi, next year’s elections have a chance of being legitimate, with Suu Kyi’s NLD possibly coming to power.

In recent days, there have been hints that Suu Kyi may indeed be released by the government. This could be thanks to Suu Kyi’s recent cordial relations with the government, because of the change in US Burma policy or due to mounting international pressure. The US is leaning on other nations to put pressure on the Burmese government, and China, India, and Russia recently have joined the US and Europe in calling for Suu Kyi’s release. The calls of the three emerging powers are particularly significant given their relatively close ties and positions of influence with Burma. These new calls for Suu Kyi’s release accompany strained relations between Burma and its closest ally, China, because of border disputes and Chinese anxiety over the possibility of improved US-Burma ties.

Within Burma, politically active Buddhist monks continue to challenge the junta, pressing it to apologize for killings during 2007’s massive protests and threatening further protests if their demands go unmet. Monks inside and outside Burma have also demanded a timeline and clear benchmarks for US engagement with Than Shwe’s government.

The most likely change in the foreseeable future is the release of some political prisoners, including Suu Kyi, which could open a Pandora’s box for the junta. The more parties involved in 2010’s elections, the greater likelihood that they may, from the junta’s perspective, get out of control. Should the elections actually be held freely and fairly, countless other complicated political and constitutional issues will be raised. After this, a redrafting of the constitution could take place, which would likely deny the junta the constitutional protections that they now enjoy against prosecution for their actions while in power.

Of course, there are a host of other possible futures for Burma – the most likely being that not much will change. The junta may allow cosmetic political changes while retaining power and continuing to suppress its domestic critics, defying the international community. However, there seem to be enough wild cards in the deck now that a political shakeup in the next year is more likely than it has been for some time. Whatever happens, one hopes that life will improve for the Burmese people.

Review of Underground: My Life With SDS and the Weathermen

Underground: My Life With SDS and the Weathermen
by Mark Rudd
324 pages, Morrow, $25.99

In mentioning to people that I was reviewing his book, I’ve been surprised to find Mark Rudd less widely remembered than I’d expected.  It appears that if you didn’t arrive in college by a certain point, you don’t know who he is, the drop off in recognition coinciding with part two of the tale told in his new memoir, Underground: My Life With SDS and the Weathermen.  Up to that point he was famous long ago, no doubt.  Chairman of Columbia University’s Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and its 1968 student strike coordinating committee, he was the very model of a modern student radical.  (Although just how archetypical is disputed: a photo caption in the book calls him “the prototype of the Doonesbury character, Megaphone Mark,” but in Boston the word was that the model was local writer Mark Zanger who’d gone to Yale with Gary Trudeau.)

The events at Columbia very simply set the standard for the student activism of the day.  SDS and the Columbia Student Afro-American Society (SAS) had mounted a campaign fundamentally challenging their prominent university’s role – from the global to the local.  They wanted Columbia out of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), in Rudd’s words, “an obscure twelve-university consortium” that in the Vietnam era developed “such techniques and weapons as the use of chemical herbicides to destroy the insurgents’ jungle cover – the horrible ‘defoliation’ using highly toxic Agent Orange, and the use of airpower for counterinsurgency.”  And there “was even an IDA report on the suppression of ghetto insurgency.”   And the two organizations also opposed the school’s plan to build a new gym in Morningside Park, taking their lead from Harlem residents who considered it an unwanted encroachment upon their neighborhood.

Protests eventually led to the student take over of five university buildings.  There were over seven hundred arrests, several hundred injuries, and a student strike.  Columbia dropped both IDA and the gym.  Tom Hayden, SDS leader of an earlier day who had actually participated in the Columbia building take overs, wrote a Ramparts magazine piece calling for “two, three, many Columbias,” to echo Che Guevara’s call for “two, three, many Vietnams.”

After being expelled from Columbia, Rudd dedicated himself to helping spread the word through SDS, which was at the time the loosest of organizations.  Get five students willing to plunk down five dollars apiece for dues and you had a nationally recognized chapter and you could say and do what you wished.  But by 1968, there were many chapters where you would find a new flavor in the mix – the Progressive Labor Party.  PL were the Marxists your mother, J. Edgar Hoover, and the comic books you read as a kid all warned you about, humorless dogmatists who argued in terms that you knew must be (poorly) translated from some other language – Chinese, presumably, as they appeared to be Maoists.

PL did have the useful side effect of making some people curious enough to actually read Karl Marx and associates because they figured that no one would ever have heard of him if he was actually as ridiculous as these people made him out to be.  But as Rudd puts it, “The most pernicious effect of PL was that SDS regulars, myself included, became convinced that we needed a well-worked-out revolutionary theory – and dogma.”  And his crowd came up with a doozie: a manifesto called “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows”  (after a Bob Dylan lyric) which gave the group the name that stuck – the Weathermen.

No one who took part is likely to forget the 1969 SDS national convention.  After having your picture snapped by photographers from every government agency that maintained an interest in such things and submitting to frisking (pretty much like an airport today, but unusual for the time), you entered the vast and gloomy Chicago Coliseum for a couple of days of theater of the absurd.  First up was a group from Ohio and Michigan – literally – they leapt up on their chairs in the midst of some procedural debate and start waving Little Red Books, chanting “Mao, Mao, Mao Tse-Tung!  Dare to struggle, dare to win!”  Rudd explains that the event was intended tongue in cheek, as a sort of mockery of PL, a possibility I had not previously entertained since it had seemed of a piece with everything else that happened at the gathering.

The Revolutionary Youth Movement (RYM), a faction that had developed in the organization’s national office, comprising the Weathermen and another group with which they had already split, controlled the agenda and brought in a representative of the Black Panther Party to denounce PL and when that maneuver went bad on them, they declared PL expelled from SDS.  But since it was not clear that RYM actually commanded more support than PL, rather than try to physically eject them, RYM opted to repair to an inner chamber of the Coliseum and the two conventions proceeded at odds with one another under one large roof.  (And separate friskings for each convention.)

In the inner hall, Bob Avakian (who has himself now been underground for nearly three decades even though it’s not clear if anyone’s looking for him) delivered an amazingly fast speech retroactively outlining the principles of unity that had necessitated PL’s expulsion from SDS.  They included support for the revolutionary governments of China, Cuba, North Vietnam, and North Korea.  And when someone from the crowd shouted out “and Albania,” Avakian added “and Albania,” without missing a beat.  Now, that’s comedy – and they used to say that Maoists had no sense of humor!  Mark Rudd was elected national secretary of the truncated organization.  He announced the need to “bring the war home.”

For many campus SDS chapters, the first order of business that fall was a name change.  For the new Weatherman leadership, it was organizing for an October national action scheduled to coincide with the beginning of the trial of the “Chicago 8″ for alleged conspiracy to disrupt the 1968 Democratic Convention.  The more the Weatherman organized for it, the clearer it became that they intended to literally fight the police, and the more people decided to make other plans for that period of time.  Eventually only two hundred or so showed up for what had become known as the “Days of Rage.”

When a documentary film called Weather Underground appeared in 2003,  I went to see it with some hesitation.  It seemed a necessary enough film and yet wasn’t there still something of a glow of admiration for the Weathermen about it?  I was glad enough to find that most of the participants interviewed in the film now seemed to understand that their project had been insane. Still, I didn’t leave the theater thinking that these were a bunch of people whose political opinions I’d ever be likely to seek out.  There were a couple of exceptions, though.

I’d only met Rudd once, in 1968,  at a lower Manhattan, upper floor warren of antiwar offices in whose shared space he was, appropriately enough, running off something on the mimeograph machine, as radicals were wont to do “in those pre-Xerox, pre-digital days” he writes of.  (The book’s dates also suggest that it might really have been him that I spotted walking down Market Street, San Francisco with long hair and a beard a couple of years later; no conversation that time, however.)  But somehow I’d always had the vague impression of him sharing a certain arrogance common among some student leaders of the day – a perception that his book seems to confirm, as he notes that “In my speeches at rallies, I had taken to referring to [Columbia University] President Kirk as ‘that shithead.’”  So it came as a particular surprise to me that of all of the people in the film, the one who stood out as most profoundly chastened by the whole experience was Mark Rudd.

It is that same Mark Rudd you will find in the pages of “Underground,” which makes for a very useful book.  “Underground” gives you your fill of the background to the headlines – the “Wargasm,” the Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, the Timothy Leary jailbreak, and all the rest – with no suggestion that it was all okay because the participants meant well.

Considering it the most important student organization to have come along in decades, Rudd writes that “The destruction of SDS … was an historical crime,” a judgement buttressed by the fact that no organization of comparable significance has followed it, either.  As an anonymous analyst wrote in his FBI file, “By their stubborn adherence to pseudo-Marxist/Maoist dogma which is out of step with the present realities, RUDD and his colleagues have alienated a large segment of potential and heretofore willing followers.”  Rudd writes, “I couldn’t have said it any better.”

After seven years underground, during which “rather than doing any useful political work we were just surviving,” he surfaced to surrender.  Due to the federal government’s own illegal tactics, all of the major charges against the Weathermen had been dropped and Rudd slipped into a quiet life as a math teacher in New Mexico where he has been politically active on the local level.  Today, he calls the 1974 Weather Underground proclamation, “Prairie Fire: The politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism,” “omniscient to the point of arrogance” and the infighting that went on in its wake “beyond absurd.”  There is, however, a clear line in his mind as to when he went “over the cliff” and he writes of the Columbia Strike with pride, even including a campus map.

There’s more of Rudd’s sex life in the book than some might really want to know, but then his line “My penis was a magic wand of liberation” may make it all worthwhile.  And overall, even though you never needed a Weatherman to know which way the wind blew, in  “Underground,” Rudd has, after all these years, reestablished himself as someone whose opinion it might be worth asking.

From Bangkok to Bangalore, What Isn’t Outsourced?

In an age of shrinking economies and a time when it seems nothing is made in the USA anymore except financial scandals, many pundits say the question is not what is outsourced but simply what is not. In California, a state with governance marred by bankruptcy and disputes between Governor Schwarzenegger and the legislature, discussion of outsourcing has morphed into radical action: the governor decided last week to outsource the California legislature to China.

“Yah, I’ve had enough already with the little girlie-men in de California legislature, you know?” the governor said on Meet the Press last Sunday. “Dis is it. I’m gonna CRUSH deir little GIRLIE-MUSCLES and send dem all to China to squabble over dere! If dey don’t like it, dey can lump it. A few sessions with a bunch of tight-wadded Chinese bean counters is just what dey need. Let dem shut up and enjoy some dim sum for a change while I balance da budget.”

In Beijing, however, the Chinese government was less than receptive to the idea. “We already have provincial legislatures,” trade minister Shi Guangsheng said yesterday. “First of all, this is not a trade issue. If the Americans wish to outsource all their private-sector employment, we are more than happy to assume ownership of the American middle class. But the California Congress would most likely find little to occupy them in China. We already have provincial legislatures, and besides, we don’t have any girlie-men in China and frankly we don’t want any.”

California lawmakers aside, it is well known that just about everything else American has already been outsourced. Americans no longer even lick their own stamps, that function having been exported to dingy streets from Bangkok to Bangalore. In Bangkok, Thailand, the stamp-licking company sign, tucked away between the fishmongers and laundries, says ME LICKEE, YOU LIKEY? Inside, what looks like a sweatshop is actually a stamp-licking room with part-time workers assiduously licking American stamps and sticking them on envelopes that will be shipped back to the United States, thus explaining why U.S. First Class letters are so often delayed.

In Bangalore, India, the stamp-licking concession belongs to the Sir Leaks a Lot Corporation. Asked about the misnomer, Operations Manager Varnish Singhalong told a Demockracy.com reporter, “Ah, yes, that was an English error. Because we can’t spell very well in this organization. But it doesn’t matter anyway. We are stamp lickers, not a call center. Besides, ‘Sir Licks A Lot” doesn’t sound very dignified. “Sir Leaks a Lot” might at least suggest we are plumbers.”

New outsourcing initiatives in the U.S. include the exporting of obesity. US customers call up the International Lardbutt Company in Cambodia and buy them a gallon-sized Slurpee for five cents, which the foreign surrogate proceeds to slurp down by proxy and get fat.

And the American’s hunger pangs? “Hey, I suck it up,” said one happy male customer in Houston. “A little rumbling in the tummy is worth it. I slim down and I feel like I’m a patriot, exporting death by obesity to the heathen abroad. The time difference of 12 or 13 hours means the poor devil has to get up at three in the morning to suck one down, but hey, nobody put a gun to their heads forcing them to get paid slurping Slurpees in the middle of the night. I’d call that a pretty good job.”

As for Hollywood, it was only a matter of time. “Hollywood has essentially been outsourced to Bollywood, no doubt about it,” a studio executive who wished to remain anonymous said. “Bollywood makes more movies in a year than McDonald’s flips burgers, and for one-tenth the cost. By the way, are burgers still made here? Anyway, why should we pay Brad Pitt millions for his pretty face when we can give some crooner in India a couple of bucks and a pack of Marlboros to sing and dance around the script? We’ll save hundreds of millions a year that we can pay ourselves in bonuses.”

Are there any projects in the works? “Our first Indian film will be a Mumbai remake of Michael Clayton with Arjun Rampai in the Clooney role and Preity Zinta as the Tilda Swinton character,” the executive said. (The Swinton role of “Karen” has been changed to “Kali.” Kali is the name of the wife of Shiva the God of Death referred to in the original version.) A journalist who was shown pre-release clips from the famous Clayton ending reports a song-and-dance fest featuring a love triangle, angry parents and a hero who fights and defeats a plethora of gangsters, none of which has anything to do with the original plot, although some modified dialogue remains. “See, now, that’s just not the way to go here, Kali,” Rampai croons in sync with his dance steps. “You know, for someone as smart as you, you really are lost, aren’t you? I’m the easiest part of the equation, and you want to kill me? Don’t you know who I am? I’m a fixer. I’m a bagman. I fix anything from illegitimate caste-climbers to bent Maharajas, and you want to kill me? Five million rupees—that’s to forget about your lower-caste origins.” Kali tiptoes across the set, arms flailing, singing “This discussion will have to take place in another setting, oh yes, oh yes, take place in another setting!” Rampai swirls to her side and belts, “DO I LOOK LIKE I’M NEGOTIATING?”

Prisoner of the State, and Why It’s Relevant Today

I hate to follow up my last article about the twentieth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre with yet another Tiananmen Square-related article. I realize that there is more to China than Tiananmen Square (and human rights atrocities against religious and ethnic minorities–no upcoming articles on Tibet or the Uighurs, I promise). I am also wary of writing from dissidents within Communist countries. Not that their stories aren’t compelling, but because I always suspect that these stories are being crassly exploited by good, commie-hating, free-market-loving American publishers with an ideological axe to grind. But the newly published secret diary of former Communist Party General Secretary and moderate reformer Zhao Ziyang was described to me as a rare and fascinating look into the secretive world of Chinese politics, and so I thought it would be worth my time.

As it turns out, the partially read copy I checked out from the library is now long overdue and since I can’t renew it, my intended “book review” must be much more limited than I hoped. More complete reviews and information about the book can be found here, here, and here. I will provide a limited review, but what is even more interesting to me is that much of what played out in China in 1989 looks in certain ways similar to what has been happening in Iran since last month’s disputed presidential elections. Consequently, Zhao words take on a gravity and relevance beyond the events he discusses in his book.

Prisoner of the State is the journal of former Communist Party General Secretary Zhao Ziyang. Zhao was General Secretary at the time of the crackdown at Tiananmen Square and was placed under house arrest for his determined opposition to the violent, repressive action ordered by the Party’s hardliners. While in seclusion, Zhao secretly recorded his journal onto tapes smuggled out of the country after his death in 2005. These tapes were then complied and published as Prisoner of the State.

Zhao’s journal begins with a vivid description of the weeks leading up to the June 4 massacre in Tiananmen Square. He details the political back and forth between himself and other Communist Party leaders as they struggled over how to deal with the unprecedented protests which gained strength daily. The demonstrations began as a chance to mourn the death of a popular reformer within the Communist Party. They quickly became a chance for students, and later all segments of urban Chinese society, to vent their frustration with political corruption and to demand democratizing reforms. Zhao’s position was that by empathizing with the students’ demands, making limited reforms, and treating protesters with a soft touch, the protests were sure to die down and that they did not pose a serious threat to the Chinese state or the Communist Party. Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping was swayed by the party hawks, who saw a show of force as the best way to end the protests, reassert the Party’s power, and strengthen Deng’s standing.

The tragic events of June 4, 1989 resulted in the deaths of hundreds of protesters and the end of Zhao Ziyang’s life as a respected politician. While Zhao endured nearly two decades of confinement, China advanced along the liberalized economic path he had championed. Unfortunately, Zhao’s silencing after Tiananmen Square also meant the silencing of those politicians who had advocated political reforms and the continuing rule of a small political elite within the Communist Party who resolved to remain in power no matter how ruthless the means. By the end of his life, after years under house arrest, Zhao had come to support political ideas far more radical than those he held in 1989. In Prisoner of the State, Zhao argues that China must have a free press, an independent judiciary, additional political parties, and ultimately parliamentary democracy.

Reading Zhao’s words against the backdrop of the popular political unrest roiling Iran made them even more relevant, shedding light on what might currently be going on in Iran. The two situations are similar and quite revealing, though probably not in the ways most Americans think. Most Western media accounts of the recent Iranian protests have interpreted events extremely sympathetically, and as a grassroots uprising against reviled President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the religious conservatism of Iran’s Shiite clergy, and the repressive security forces of the Iranian state. The truth is quite a bit more complicated however. Serious political analysis of the crisis has been eschewed for glowing personal narratives and the drama of violent clashes between students and government militias. I would even go so far as to say that the picture painted by the Western media is one that it desperately wants to believe – that wants its own fantasies of a secular, non-threatening, US-friendly Iran sans loud-mouth anti-American leader to be validated by the opinions of the Iranian people.

However, what has been happening in Iran, and what happened in China in 1989, is not a full-scale popular revolt aiming to overthrow an existing government. In Iran and China, domestic protesters have had different goals and motivations for opposing their political leadership than outsiders have. Both sets of protests were possible only because there was an existing political split within the ruling powers over how to govern their respective countries. In both cases, the protests began as a show of support for political factions that showed more tolerance for dissent and change within the existing political framework. In China, Zhao represented a moderate, reformist political group of the ruling Communist Party. In Iran, presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi claims to represent a similar reformist, moderate wing of the political elite. However, what is happening in Iran may just be factional fighting with little real ideological change at stake. Mousavi – who appears more interested in fighting for his own political advancement – doesn’t appear to be the reformer Zhao was, and Western hopes that Mousavi would magically give up Iranian nuclear ambitions and live in peace with Israel and the US appear completely misplaced. Mousavi has been strongly supported by certain members of Iran’s ruling Shia clergy (particularly Ayatollah Rafsanjani) who detest Ahmadinejad for his attacks on their corruption and privilege. And though foreign media sources depicted Iran’s protests as massive public outpourings of discontent, it is fairly obvious that the protests were limited to educated upper-class students in Tehran and a handful of larger cities. Their demands are certainly not insignificant, but their point of view doesn’t seem to represent a majority of Iranians. The rural poor seem to have again backed Ahmadinejad at the polls. And, despite Western desires, demonstrators are hardly calling for a toppling of Iran’s religious leadership or an overthrow if the ideals of the 1979 Islamic revolution. Indeed, Mousavi’s strongest backers are certain members of the clergy themselves.

In any case, Prisoner of the State illuminates the hidden political complexities that can exist in any country at any time – be it China, Iran, or the US. It also provides a powerful lesson for those who wish to create simple, moralizing narratives out of events that are vastly more complex than most people know at the time they are occurring. We live in a mediated world, but the story the media tells us is rarely the whole story. Zhao has done us all a great service by smuggling his words out of China. They remain relevant as a challenge to repressive regimes that deny their citizens basic human rights, and as a reminder to each of us to think more critically about the world around us.

Reactions to China’s Tiananmen Blackout: Can’t Live With Them, Can’t Live Without Them

This June fourth marked the twentieth anniversary of pro-democracy protests in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square. These protests were violently put down by China’s government, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of (usually nonviolent) protesters and iconic photos and videos showcasing the inhumanity and intolerance of Chinese communism in the midst of the Cold War. The so-called Free World howled with outrage about China’s brutal violation of its citizens’ human rights.

While the Cold War has ended and China has become a capitalist powerhouse, China’s government has retained its iron grip. Strikingly, any acknowledgment of this week’s historic anniversary was blotted out in China (with, for legal reasons, the exception of Hong Kong where over 100,000 people gathered to mark the occasion). Any news of the event – via television, internet, radio, press, even Twitter! – was blacked out and any demonstrations commemorating the event and its victims were forbidden. And this has not been the beginning of Tiananmen Square’s erasure from public memory. Many of China’s under-20 generation know nothing about what happened there in 1989, and students do not learn anything about the incident in their classes.

Many in China and the outside world remember, however. And although world leaders and citizens spoke out this week to condemn the 1989 crackdown as well as China’s silencing recognition of the event, these words were uttered in a different context, in a different world. China and the world are so different from 1989 that these words, coming from the mouths leaders who have become increasingly friendly with China, ring somewhat hollow. For example, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested that China “should examine openly the darker events of its past and provide a public accounting of those killed, detained or missing, both to learn and to heal.” To which Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang responded, “We urge the U.S. to put aside its political prejudice and correct its wrongdoing and refrain from disrupting or undermining bilateral relations.” It is hard to see Clinton’s statement as anything besides political rhetoric. This is the same Secretary of State who visited China just this spring and refused to discuss “marginal issues” like human rights in favor of issues like the economic crisis and environmental concerns.

I’m sure that Clinton, Obama, and other outspoken world leaders and heads of state are uncomfortable with China’s lackluster human rights record. Who isn’t? But now China doesn’t fit quite so easily into the box that it used to. It was easy to condemn its human rights shortcomings and to demonize China as a godless commie dictatorship when it didn’t supply most of the cheap consumer products that we are so addicted to in the US. Or when it didn’t finance much of our ballooning national debt. It is still easy to condemn Burma’s similar 1988 and 2007 pro-democracy crackdowns because Burma still remains politically and economically insignificant on the global stage. China now occupies center stage.

These days, words condemning China are generally just that – words. Discomfort with China’s disregard for democratic values and basic human rights will not stop our businesses – or US consumers – from buying cheap goods from China. It will not stop businesses from moving factories there. Nor will it stop the US government from stepping up diplomatic and economic engagement with China, an important rising global superpower. Barring a shockingly egregious misstep on the part of China’s political leadership, relatively small issues like the Tiananmen Square blackout and even bigger concerns such as Chinese policies regarding Tibet, the rest of the world will be eager to be a part of China’s stunning rise.

Really, China is a new manifestation of an old dilemma for US foreign policy. We (and here I use “we” to stand in for the US government) claim to stand for democracy, freedom, liberty, human rights, the right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc., etc. And sometimes we do, but often we don’t. We support a Saudi monarchy/dictatorship because they ensure our access to oil. We supported the mujahaddin in Soviet-era Afghanistan because it was anti-Soviet. Then we supported a military dictatorship in Pakistan because it was anti-mujahaddin (kind of). We supported South Africa’s apartheid government for years. We armed, trained, and funded death squads and dictatorships throughout Central and South America during the 1980s and beyond (and before too). This list goes on.

China is just the latest challenge to applying lofty American ideals to the nitty-gritty of national foreign policy and bilateral relations. Perhaps one day, China’s government will give in (willingly or unwillingly) to global and domestic concerns about human rights and political freedom in China. It doesn’t look likely to happen soon however. And neither the US nor other countries have the political will to really stand up to China on such issues. In fact, conflicts with China over such issues could very well undermine the material benefits we enjoy thanks to our growing relationship with China. And, in all honesty, the compromises that the US and China are compelled to make to maintain a working, if imperfect, relationship are certainly better than another Cold War. Diplomacy and relationship building are always more complex, muddled, and morally ambiguous than outright hostility.

Teaching College in Dubai: Osama on the Screensaver

After 13 years in the desert Middle East, I carry certain sentimental longings of home: Green leaves, black clouds, hard silver rain (or soft rain of any color, for that matter), and the change of seasons.

Still, “The UAE is like a resort compared to Saudi Arabia,” say the weekend visitors who come to escape Saudi, a nation run like a vast, gender-segregated prison. They are amazed that dating is allowed, abayas (those tent-like black burkas) are not required, and you can have a real drink. Their jaws drop (the better to imbibe mass quantities of beer) and exclaim “Boy, you guys have got it made!”

Imploding economy aside, Dubai is still the place to go in the Middle East. It’s a modern-day Casablanca on steroids, a soon-to-be over-the-top, oversized, outlandish version of Las Vegas that even without the casinos will make Vegas look like a quiet hamlet in Vermont where the biggest excitement came in 1952 when Mad Dog Madden chopped down Mortimer Pumblechook’s maple tree in a fit of syrup-producer envy. Dubai Developments on hold are supposed to include replicas of the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, giant ships in the middle of the desert and, according to one account, “a huge snow dome that looks like Superman’s home planet.” Until then, Dubai’s got pubs, nightclubs (yes, alcohol flows freely), really big malls (Emirates Mall has an indoor ski slope), tropically landscaped beaches and the world’s highest concentration of hotels.

“Ah,” says my mythical cigarette-smoking fat man in the hotel café, “And how long do you staaayyy in Casablanca?–I mean, Dubai?”
“Who can tell, sir–who can tell?” I reply, patting my inside pocket to feel the letters of transit that are signed by General De Gaulle and cannot be rescinded or even questioned. “I live in Dubai. Perhaps I will die in Dubai.”

This smog-encrusted jewel by the sea supposedly sports about 100,000 British residents installed in their newly owned condos (built by Pakistani laborers laboring under slave-like conditions and wages). The Brits have apparently eschewed the old Spanish Costas for the more cosmopolitan trappings of Dubai. But do they know the summer temperature in Dubai soars to 120 degrees F. with 90% humidity? Thank goodness for air-conditioned malls with indoor ski slopes. Who knows–fake London-style drizzles and fog may be just around the corner from that Burberry shop.

In the summer of 1997, after a year of underemployment in Houston (where at least I had bought a house with my Saudi earnings) I accepted a job at a government women’s college in Dubai. Government colleges in the UAE don’t take any guff from teacher-drones. The job was well-paid, to be sure, with the usual package of tax-free salary, free housing, and annual ticket money to your home of record, but if you stick up for yourself, you’re out the door. It’s the first college I’ve seen where a teacher was fired within 10 days of his arrival (during orientation and before classes even started). This was disturbing, I thought, given that the usual procedure is to wait until instructors have actually entered a classroom and taught a few incompetent lessons before booting them out the door. The college president has to answer to the education minister–a Royal Family Sheikh. One time His Excellency saw a class picture with a male instructor and noticed one of the women students had her hand on his shoulder. Swhoosh! That was the sound of the teacher flying out the front door and onto the next plane out of here. Kissing the Sheikh’s ass doesn’t help either: the computer hardware lecturer who sat near me should have kept his mouth shut when His Perfumed Magnificence stopped by our workstations. “Would you like some tea, sir?” he offered.

The Sheikh glared at him. “WHAT ARE YOU, A LECTURER OR A TEABOY?” he thundered back.

Our abaya-clad students added to the underlying sense of anxiety, considering, for example, their reaction to the latest Palestinian intifada during which they screamed insults at the college president, who was American, and sent emails to some American teachers accusing them of being Jews. The local Arabic-language press also ranted about our college being riddled with Jews, an accusation that was both false and, of course, racist. I remember what I was doing in the Middle East on September 11, 2001, four years after I joined the college, although it’s not very dramatic. I certainly wasn’t George Clooney racing across sand dunes in an SUV, trying to save the Emir. I was in a classroom with a lot of other teachers receiving instructions on operating our new laptops.

“Have you heard about this plane crash in New York?” somebody said nonchalantly. “Something about a jetliner crashing into the World Trade Center. It’s bizarre.”

I screwed my face up. “Sounds unlikely to me,” I said. Later, as the facts filtered in, an Arab faculty member scooted past me, stopping just long enough to blurt, “I tell you something–it’s only the Israelis who stand to gain something from this!” Another was overheard saying it was about time the Americans got what’s coming to them.

Some students had Osama bin Laden screensavers on their laptops. Others came to my cubicle to dispute my intelligence and teaching methods with insulting remarks. My classes became a nightmare. Finally, the next July, I resigned from the college and took a position in Abu Dhabi at the Petroleum Institute, a men’s university where the students were surprisingly affable. It is reassuring to note that the UAE is, with a few exceptions like that silly women’s college, and compared to Saudi Arabia, actually a fairly gracious and friendly country. At least I didn’t have to listen to Rush Limbaugh.

Starry, Starry Plight: Obama and the Space Program

Space enthusiasts are watching and listening carefully to find out how President Barack Obama will support NASA during his administration. Earlier this year he gave the space agency a glowing endorsement:

When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. We cannot cede our leadership in space. We need a real vision for space exploration. Let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy.

Before we dive into recent developments, a brief review of NASA under George W. Bush is in order. NASA achieved some laudable feats in the last eight years, notably:

• It greatly expanded the International Space Station (ISS) to add more solar panels, laboratories, and living space (with contributions from other nations, notably Russia and Canada).
• It successfully landed two Mars rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) that have been sending pictures back for 5 years, much longer than originally anticipated.
• It repaired and upgraded the Hubble Space Telescope, which has sent more than half a million images back to Earth.
• It developed the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will take astronauts to the Moon and Mars.
• It launched the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has produced sensational images of Mars.

In particular, the string of successful trips to Mars stands in stark contrast to previous missions. Historically most attempts to explore the Red Planet have failed, including one notorious disaster in 1999 caused by a mix-up of measurements made with the metric and English systems.

Yet since the achievements of the Apollo program that landed astronauts on the Moon, there hasn’t been a program that has evoked the same widespread level of interest here and abroad. Indeed in March President Obama made reference to this in an answer to a reporter’s question about the shuttle program

NASA has yielded — or the space shuttle program has yielded some extraordinary scientific discoveries. But I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a sense of drift to our space program over the last several years. We need to restore that sense of excitement and interest that existed around the space program. And shaping a mission for NASA that is appropriate for the 21st century is going to be one of the biggest tasks of my new NASA director.

Sadly as of this writing, The White House’s Technology Page does not include any mention of the space program. Obama has not yet appointed a new NASA administrator, though rumors have been circulating this year about the possible pick of astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. Anyone who has seen Tyson on PBS’s NOVA scienceNOW cannot deny his charisma and enthusiasm for astronomy and space exploration. Tyson is currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York and is famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for advocating the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet.”

Financial support for NASA remains strong despite the severe worldwide recession. The fiscal year 2010 budget of $18.7 billion is $2.4 billion above the 2008 amount. The first priority listed in their budget summary is climate change monitoring and research. President Obama has repeatedly mentioned addressing global warming as a top issue, as noted in my last article.

NASA scientist James Hansen continues to be a fierce advocate for action to combat global warming. In 2006 he complained that the Bush Administration was trying to silence his dire warnings for political reasons. In December 2008, James Hansen and his wife Anniek Hansen sent an open letter to then President-Elect Obama (and his wife Michelle Obama) urging him to phase out traditional polluting coal plants, support an aggressive carbon tax plan, and encourage R&D of modern nuclear power plants.

Many people are sad to see the end of the successful space shuttle program, currently scheduled for 2010. If and when the shuttle program is canceled, Florida residents may bear the brunt of the employment fallout with 8,000 or more jobs on the line. However a congressman and congresswoman from Florida have introduced legislation to keep the shuttle program alive a bit longer.

The new Orion spacecraft and companion Ares Launch Vehicles are presently in the testing phase. NASA expects to fly the first missions in 2014 or 2015, leaving us with at least a four-year gap in the government’s space transportation system. (Private companies will carry supplies to the ISS, and the Russian Soyuz will be used to rotate crews.)

The James Web Space Telescope (JWST), often described as the successor to Hubble, is currently in development and expected to be deployed in 2013. NASA intends to keep Hubble in operation until at least that time, to avoid any interruption in data collection. JWST is substantially larger than Hubble, though lower in mass. Hubble detects light in the optical and ultraviolet ranges, and can be repaired in space, while JWST will collect data only from infrared light. Nevertheless, JWST will allow scientists to peer substantially further back into the distant past, closer to the origin of the universe.

There have been reports that Obama might combine some space programs from NASA and the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s space budget is significantly higher than NASA’s total budget, and some observers wonder whether the space vehicle gap might be filled in by the military. The merger discussions have been fueled by the fear that China has strong military intentions for its own space program.

While the U.S. must be mindful of threats to our security from other nations, a strong militarization of NASA would be an unfortunate turn of events. NASA was founded during the Eisenhower Administration to conduct non-military space activities. Obviously there is already significant overlap in personnel, and technology flows in both directions. But it would be very sad if NASA becomes distracted or subverted by security issues.

Other controversies still brewing include:

• Arguments about whether robots or humans should be sent to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.
• Whether we should ever bother going back to the Moon.
• Calls for President Obama to fire NASA’s inspector general Robert Cobb — a recent New York Times editorial accused him of being unethical and ineffectual.
• How much we should cooperate with other nations’ space programs.
• An oldie but a goodie–whether NASA should even exist given all the problems we have to solve on Earth.

Despite the criticisms and controversies, the space program is a vital part of our national identity. It has inspired generations of students young and old, capturing their imagination like nothing else. The dream of human flight and exploration will not go away as long as birds take wing and stars and planets twinkle. NASA must survive and thrive during Obama’s time in office, so we may continue to watch over our pale blue dot from space and keep looking at the stars.

(Thanks to Michael Conway for suggesting the title of this article.)

North Korea: An Uncertain Future

Last week North Korea conducted a test launch of what it claimed to be a satellite, now successfully orbiting the globe and beaming patriotic, revolutionary music to the masses. South Korea, Japan, the US, and many others assert this was no peaceful satellite launch but a provocative and threatening intercontinental ballistic missile test in violation of UN Resolution 1718, and have found no evidence of a singing revolutionary satellite in orbit. So either this test appears to have been, in actuality, a missile test or it was a failed attempt to put a North Korean satellite into orbit – both scenarios that contradict North Korea’s version of events.

President Obama, South Korea, and Japan quickly came out with withering condemnations of the launch, describing it as “provocative” and “reckless,” and calling for sharp, immediate action from the UN, possibly including further economic sanctions. China and Russia, the other two participants in the Six-Party Talks and closer to North Korea, cautioned against “an emotional knee-jerk reaction” to the test, reminding all parties to remain focused on the main goal of the Six-Party Talks – the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

Regardless of what happens in response to this immediate crisis, one has to wonder: What is going on in North Korea? Often described as reclusive and one of the world’s most closed societies, North Korea is something of an enigma – especially to Americans. Of course there was the Korean War of the early 1950s, but fewer and fewer Americans remember it, know much about it, or care about it. And to be honest, it is hard to see how that conflict – over 50 years ago – has much relevance as a way of explaining what is going on today. However, it does frame the current situation, and for that reason I will provide a brief history of the Korean peninsula and the complex and usually vitriol US-North Korean relationship since 1945.

The Cold War

In August of 1945, World War II ended, and Korea was granted independence from its Japanese colonizers. This independence came with a price however. Korea, like Germany, would be split in two – one part, essentially, to be a US puppet state, and the other to be a Soviet one. Exiles Syngman Rhee (who had been living in the US) and Kim Il-Sung (who had been in the USSR) returned to Korea to rule the South and North, respectively. Within five years, North Korea invaded the South in an effort to unify the peninsula under its own rule. Much of South Korea, including its capital Seoul, was captured by the North, prompting a massive military response from the UN – led by the US and South Korea. By the end of the conflict, at least 3 million Koreans, almost 1 million Chinese, and over 50,000 Americans had died. After the conflict was over, Korea remained divided almost exactly as it had been before 1950. Relations between the North and South have remained uneasy ever since, and tens of thousands of US troops and (until 1991) thousands of nuclear warheads have been based in the South. Over the years, clashes along the 4 km wide Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) dividing the two countries have not been uncommon. US spy ships and airplanes have been captured or shot down by the North, the North has often threateningly tunneled beneath the DMZ, and the North was responsible for the hijacking and downing of Korean Airlines flight 858 in 1987. At the same time, for 50 years after the Korean War, the US vigorously supported harsh economic sanctions against the North.

Post-Cold War

With the fall of the USSR in 1991, North Korea lost a significant supporter and has struggled with food shortages and a collapsing economy ever since. Since that time, there has been constant speculation about the North’s developing of a military nuclear program and its sharing of military knowledge and technology with nations such as Pakistan and Syria. In 1993 the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was disallowed from inspecting North Korean nuclear sites, and the North withdrew from the IAEA the next year. In 1994 Kim Il-Sung died and was replaced as North Korea’s head of state by his son, Kim Jong-Il. While the US and North Korea signed the 1994 Agreed Framework to improve relations, its implementation has been rocky, with both sides failing to fully follow through on their commitments. In 1998 the South’s new president Kim Dae-Jung introduced his sweeping new “Sunshine Policy,” a policy of engagement aimed at spurring improved North-South relations and increased cross-border trade and cooperation. The North continued developing its missile program, but largely within the guidelines agreed upon with the US and the South. At the same time, the US played a role in militarily strengthening Japan and South Korea against the North.

Efforts continued to normalize North-South and North-US relations until 2001. At that time new US President George Bush took a much more hawkish position toward the North than President Clinton had, and famously included North Korea in his “Axis of Evil” along with Iran and Iraq. This stance worsened US-North Korean relations considerably, and over the next few years North Korea defiantly expanded its nuclear program and withdrew from the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003. New governments in South Korea and Japan treated the North more coolly. Bogged down in Iraq, the Bush administration was compelled to try negotiation through the Six Party Talks – which involved the US, North Korea, South Korea, China, Russia, and Japan. Further bellicose statements by President Bush and disagreements over the terms of the Agreed Framework gave the North excuses to withdraw from the talks, and in October of 2006 North Korea tested a nuclear weapon. Incredibly, talks continued after this test, and were successful enough that some foresaw a breakthrough in US-North Korean relations in 2007; yet by late 2008 talks broke down again. Complicating matters was the reported stroke of North Korea’s “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-Il in August of 2008, creating fears about the North’s immediate future – including the stability of its political system and the fate of its nuclear weapons. However,  the US and the North worked cooperatively during this time to alleviate the effects of famines in the North and to find the remains of American servicemen killed since 1950 in the North, and war was in fact averted through diplomatic channels on many occasions.

Prelude to a Transition?

To the average American observer – myself included – North Korea’s actions are perplexing. Why exactly are they test firing rockets over Japan? Why now? What are their motivations? And more generally, why has North Korea spent so much money and risked so much global animosity on developing its nuclear weapons program? Why has it remained such a closed country? With the fall of the USSR and China’s transformation to free market heavyweight, why has it clung to its rigid form of communism? And this is just the beginning.

Here are a few thoughts, first concerning the immediate situation. Despite Kim Jong-Il’s very public appreciation for the launch, it was the first time since August that he has appeared in public, probably due to his questionable health. If he is in fact in poor health, the North may be facing a rocky transition of power and this launch may be a way of declaring North Korea’s continued military strength and its intention to proceed with a space and military program regardless of whether he continues to rule or not. Indeed, after considerable diplomatic progress in 2008, in recent months the North has been more hostile toward Japan and South Korea, has kicked out US humanitarian aid teams, and has detained two American journalists, indicating an unpredictable government possibly undergoing a significant change.

A Negotiation Tactic?

On the other hand, North Korea has used provocative military tests in the past to extract concessions from the US during the Six-Party Talks, such as having its name dropped from the US’s state sponsors of terrorism list or to procure humanitarian and development aid. So, this week’s action could be a signal that the North’s political regime is weak and in need of assistance, for which it would like to use this test as a bargaining chip.

That the North’s military activities are mainly a tactic to drive a harder bargain with the US is the accepted explanation for North Korean motives. While this is certainly part of the picture, it is hard to believe that this is North Korea’s sole purpose for developing such a large military program. Nearly a quarter of the North’s GNP is devoted to military spending, and it has 1.2 million active duty military personnel, nearly double the South’s standing military. This makes North Korea’s military one of the largest in the world, despite the fact that it is a nation of just 23 million people. So, long before the Six Party Talks, the North has been building a formidable military for its own sake, not just as a bargaining chip. The large and threatening US presence in northeast Asia since 1950 is surely a factor, as is the significant drop in military support from Russia and China in recent decades. It is not surprising that the North feels vulnerable, and its massive military is surely one reason that its government has endured and that it continues to exist at all as a nation.

Game Theory with Obama?

The US is experiencing a transition of power as well, and this launch was perhaps directed at a young, inexperienced President Obama. Before the launch, Obama’s administration indicated a willingness to pursue high-level bilateral talks with North Korea and received no answer from Pyongyang. Perhaps, the launch was an effort by North Korea to get the attention of the new administration, and to engage the US on its own terms. It could also have been, in part, a test just to see what reaction the launch would prompt from the US. Over the past few decades, the North has seemed interested in engaging with the US and the South when given the chance. Some also have argued that the recent launch does not explicitly violate UN Resolution 1718, indicating that the North wants attention, but not to actually break its obligations under 1718. This test may have been a way of gauging the sincerity of the Obama administration’s overtures to the North. If Obama can keep a cool head and avoid Bush’s war-mongering rhetoric even in a sticky situation, the North may take Obama’s offers to engage more seriously. Obama declined to use the US missile defense system to shoot down the North’s rocket, and instead sharply denounced the launch and steered the issue to the UN while working with other members of the Six-Party Talks to come up with a constructive response. Time will tell how much Obama’s strategy will differ from that of former Presidents Bush or Clinton.

Why Isolation?

As for North Korea’s more general isolation from the global community, there seem to be a few compelling explanations. The most obvious and simplistic reason is the desire of a small circle of political and military North Korean elites to retain power at any cost. Life in North Korea is hard, stifling, and unforgiving. The North’s particularly harsh interpretation of communism has propped up a family dynasty and benefited a small group at the expense of most for over 50 years. Yet today’s rulers are not as “beloved” as Kim Il-Sung and the North’s focus on military success seems to be a way of demonstrating its power and bestowing legitimacy on a regime that has few other successes to point to.

Demonizing the North Korean leadership is the easy way to explain its actions, but other factors are in play as well.  As mentioned above, the North received substantial economic and military support from both the Soviet Union and China during the Cold War. With the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 however, much of the North’s support gave way. In contrast to much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics, North Korea’s leadership has adjusted poorly to a post-Cold War world, prioritizing its own survival over a more holistic concern for North Korea’s people and place in this new world. It has remained largely isolated economically and politically and has suffered devastating famines since the early 1990s. Legitimate and imagined fears have resulted in disproportionate military spending that certainly prevents the North from investing in economic development, improving government services and infrastructure, or providing humanitarian aid to the extent necessary. This inability to adjust effectively to a new world has led to economic and political weakness that military strength has attempted to compensate for.

Additionally, as mentioned above, between 1950 and 2000 the US enforced an economic embargo on the North that isolated it from the capitalist world. That was not much of a problem during the Cold War when the North could count on support from the USSR and China, but afterward the North suffered tremendously. Economic sanctions in various forms have often been the response to the North’s more recent military activities. Intended to punish North Korea’s defiant leaders, limiting trade and aid to the North since the 1950s has contributed to the small country’s international isolation and have been an obstacle to normalized relations with other nations.

What’s Next?

What the future holds for North Korea is anybody’s guess, especially if Kim Jong-Il’s health deteriorates further. Will he remain in power, engaging with the international community in his characteristically bold and theatrical way? Will a smooth transition of power take place? Or does the country face a political upheaval with unpredictable and potentially frightening consequences in the near future? And what of denuclearizing and even reunifying the Korean peninsula? Both the North and the US show signs of wanting to increase engagement and economic cooperation, and this would certainly be preferable to the prickly and potentially disastrous path they are on now. Yet both must work hard to overcome their mutual distrust of one another while saving face and appearing not to give up too much to the other, long-feared side of the 38th parallel.

Cheney Turned Down for Radio Offer

Recently I wrote here at Demockracy.com that former Vice President Dick Cheney was interviewed for the deanship of Liberty University but that that institution was arguably too backward even for him.

I have “reported” elsewhere that Cheney screwed up a Halliburton job-interview debacle because he took a Viagra by mistake instead of a Valium and had an orgasm when the woman HR officer shook his hand.

“This was most unfortunate,” the former Vice President told me in an exclusive interview on Funk & Wagnell’s porch, “and I in fact did not get the job, and furthermore it made my pacemaker run amok.”

Later, Cheney attempted to job network with Condi Rice in what essentially turned into a sizzling date. (“You had me at ‘Good evening ladies and gentlemen,’” he told  her.) His pills were still mixed up, however, causing him to take Valium that night instead of the Viagra and fall asleep just as he attempted to kiss her.

“She’d put me to sleep before, playing Mozart on the damned piano, but this was ridiculous,” Cheney said.

It is not well known, but he was next turned down by the KAWG radio station (AWM stands for Angry White Guy) because he never shuts up even for the commercials and besides, the airwaves already have a big fat jerk who wants our President to fail.

In the latest turn of events, he appears to favor Monster.com as both rich in listings and apropos in name. Friends of Cheney, who spoke on condition of anonymity, identified a shortlist of job openings on the web site for which he expects to apply:

• FINANCIAL EXPEDITOR. U.S. arms manufacturer operating in Burma, the Congo, Zimbabwe, the Middle East, and East Los Angeles seeks disreputable mediator and agent provocateur with extensive expertise in how to lie, cheat, grease palms, blackmail, waterboard, terminate with extreme prejudice, and otherwise coerce friendly despots into lucrative weapons and construction contracts. Ideal position for cons, ex-cons, neocons, Def-Con 3 personalities, action-hero icons, and Connie Francis. Drop résumé behind loose brick at Soldier of Fortune office building and chalk-mark with an X.

• FOREST FIRE LOOKOUT. Private security company seeks Senior Forest Ranger with the kind of high-level clout that can marshal the massive resources required to divert forest fires and wildfires from expensive homes to middle and lower-income neighborhoods. Minimal weapons skills required include the ability to shoot trespassers in the face with a shotgun. Experience in culling wildlife a definite plus. Shoot your CV to our Monster.com inbox.

• FANTASTIC OPPORTUNITY FOR EX-VEEPS! What kind of watch did Mickey Mouse wear? A Spiro Agnew watch!  Are you a self-starter and a sleazy, lying former Number Two? Do you hate nattering nabobs of negativism as much as we do? Despise pusillanimous pussyfoots? If so, you’ve got what it takes! The sky’s the limit in this North American sales management position in charge of revitalizing the Dirty Time Company, former manufacturer of Spiro Agnew watches. We have now reinvented ourselves, and it goes without saying that we have outsourced our wristwatch factory to China—where virtual slave labor combined with cheap lead-based coating guarantee LIMITLESS $$$$ COMMISSIONS for our chief sales executive. If you are executive sales material, soon even Batman will be wearing a Spiro Agnew watch. Next…all of America…then France…who knows? IT’S UP TO YOU!! If you’ve got the time, we’ve got the watch.

• THE SULTAN OF BRUNEI requires a Court Buffoon for His amusement. White House experience preferred. Free housing and harem of abducted Caucasian women provided. Two-month probation period to demonstrate you can make His Highness laugh—or else. Apply to His Fragrant Worshipfulness, P.O. Box 1, Brunei Darussalam.

Scapegoats, Red Herrings, and Zombie Banks

The last 10 days has been anything but roses for the Obama administration. While the AIG bonuses are largely irrelevant in the whole scheme of things, they are a symptom of a potential larger problem facing this administration.

The AIG Distraction–How does it play in Connecticut?

When news first broke about the shenanigans at AIG that were allowable because of bonus restrictions being stripped from the bailout bill, the White House pointed a finger at already embattled Connecticut Senator, and member of the Countrywide VIP Club, Chris Dodd.  Because Chris Dodd, like Chuck Schumer and most of the congressional delegations of New York and Connecticut, is easily influenced by the Wall Street hacks, Dodd was an easy scapegoat.  To Dodd’s much maligned credit (pardon the pun), he and others would be hard pressed to be anything other than such friends of Wall Street when such a large percentage of their constituents are so reliant on Wall Street for their bread and caviar.

However unscrupulous Dodd may or may not be, there was a little fact about this story that the Obama administration apparently forgot to mention. It was their men, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, who had lobbied Dodd to strip the bonus restrictions in the first place. Senator Dodd, of course, was quick to point this out. While Geithner, Summers, and team have had barely two months to formulate a response, their ineptness to even get out of the batter’s box lately makes one wonder if Obama may have sacrificed the wrong lamb when it came to tax issues. It sure seems now that Timothy Geithner may have been a better fall guy.

What’s the Dilemma Guys?

When AIG isn’t being blamed for all of our current troubles, it’s the lobbyists. The Obama administration’s response to this situation seems to be an insistence on having it both ways. They claim the “change” mantle and a new way of doing things in Washington, but yet at the same time, they are finding that it is virtually impossible to field a competent staff to address the unparalleled challenges facing our country without hiring at least some experts who have spent some time lobbying. Virtually all of those who have had previous government experience have spent at least some time in some lobbying function. “The rotating door” is alive and well and will take decades to remedy. While efforts at stopping this trend in the long run are noble ideas, suddenly stopping this trend to hire those without any type of lobbying experience means that you de facto are eliminating most of those who have any previous top-level government experience. Of course, new blood is surely needed, but to staff the entire upper strata of government with neophytes in this current environment makes little sense. Therefore, while lobbyists may be good bogeymen to go with the AIG executives, they seem to be the least of our worries. The bigger issue seems to be an utter lack of political will on behalf of the Obama administration and many in the United States Congress.

Socialists and Communists, Oh No!

Just as no Democrat could go to China during the Cold War (Dick Nixon of course could), it seems that no Democrat can muster up the political will to do what is right–temporarily nationalize several of the larger banks. This is something that has been called for by many liberal (in the economic, free market sense) economists and publications such as The Economist. This is anything but a fringe idea.

Instead, Tim Geithner announced today that the government will form “public-private partnerships” to help out the banks. The problem with this approach is is that many economists seem to doubt that the private sector will in fact buy much of these assets.  In fact, the plan basically entails the government subsidizing private investors to buy bad assets. If the assets are in fact undervalued (as Geithner is betting the farm on), then the private investors will make it rich off of Uncle Sam’s dime.  (Of course, this would also likely mean the economy would likely start rolling again and millions of jobs may reappear–presto!) However, if the assets are not really undervalued, as Paul Krugman speculates, then these private investors will simply walk away from the losses. It seems to be more of the same–the public bearing the risk with investors reaping most of the benefits. It certainly sounds good for Wall Street–the Dow was up 500 points today!

To Geithner’s credit, he also mentioned today that there must be new regulations put in place that stop the same moral hazards that got us into this mess in the first place. The problem is that these regulations seem to be something to eventually get around to in the future. In the meantime, more of our tax dollars are going to prop up zombie banks, without much control over where the money goes. In other words, the same people who got us into this mess are still running the same companies under the same set of rules that existed for the last decade. Plus, we’re giving them more money to boot! Does anyone see a problem with this?

Is it possible that the Obama administration cannot possibly do what is economically necessary because of a fear of being called socialists? For God’s sake, they were called socialists during the entire election season and still won in a landslide. If anything, this was a landslide of socialism. You might as well own it if it what is necessary for national economic recovery. As a free marketer and University of Chicago grad, I, of course, am not a big fan of long-term government interruption of the markets. However, I also am not a fan of zombie banks being propped up by the government. The best economic (although apparently not political) solution seems to be obvious. These banks need to be temporarily taken over, divvied up, sacked of most management, and sold off once solvent again. If this is not done, we risk the chance of a lost decade similar to what Japan faced in the 1990s. Temporary nationalization sure beats a decade of no growth.

But instead, the Obama administration, lead by friends of Wall Street within the administration and Congress, apparently plan to do what’s best for the executives and what seems to be politically palatable. However, like it or not, if the economy fails to rebound in a few years, the Obama administration will be blamed for it. It’s as simple as this. They must do what’s necessary to turn around the economy, no matter what labels it may lead to. They must be bold. They must be independent. They must shed away fears of socialism and embrace what’s right. Because, in fact, showing that companies that fail will not be allowed to survive is anything but socialism. It is the true nature of the free market. Without such consequences, we encourage moral hazard and the adverse behavior that have plagued our markets in recent years. Those who make bad decisions must be held accountable for their actions. Those who fail must be allowed to fail so that there is room for the new best ideas to flourish. Every so often it is necessary to flush out the waste to achieve new growth. Sometimes government is the only entity with the buying power to successfully flush out this waste while avoiding complete economic collapse.

It is not the ideal situation. But it is the best worst option in these worst of times. It is about time the Obama administration be honest with the American people and do what’s right for everyone, not just for those in Manhattan and Connecticut. It’s time for the best economic solution for the future of our country, even if it’s not the best short-term political decision. This is what real leadership would entail. This is what real change would look like.

Next Page »