Larison and the Economist
December 14, 2009 Comments Off
You say Obama, I say Osama
Paul Cruickshank thinks that if Osama is ever captured we should put him on trial:
It would be nothing short of a watershed moment, doing much to restore the public’s confidence in American institutions and the rule of law after years of being told that they were too quaint for the challenges of a new era. And it would go a long way, too, in restoring the moral high ground for the United States in the court of global opinion.
And you know what? It was surprising but not that surprising when I first mis-read this. The right-wing is so far gone at this point it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if some member of the birther fringe wanted to capture Obama and put him on trial – “doing much to restore the public’s confidence in American institutions.” It isn’t that far from what some on the right are already saying about our Muslim, fascist commander in chief who, despite government’s incapacity to do anything right, will somehow take our country from us and turn it into a socialist, European, Islamic hellhole (yes, Denmark).
And isn’t this belief in the all-powerful president strange also? When it comes to domestic policy, the president sets the agenda but not much else. He’s not really a “decider” so much as a guide. He doesn’t really enact anything. He can sign his veto and therefore halt legislation, but he can’t single-handedly tear up the fabric of our society. [Read more →]
November 17, 2009 Comments Off
Honduras: Reclaiming the American Sphere of Influence
While I took much issue with the Obama Administration’s initial response to the Honduran crisis in July, and especially the severe sanctions imposed, which achieve little more than hurting an already desperately poor population, I must admit that I’ve been quite happy with their actions in recent weeks. To be sure, the deal they helped negotiate was far from perfect from my admittedly distant perspective, but it appeared to be a fairly good faith attempt to recognize that even if the Michelletti regime has not covered itself in glory and acted illegally in forcing Zelaya into exile, the Constitutional concerns that gave rise to Zelaya’s ouster were very real and legitimate rather than manufactured power grab.
But today, that deal appears to have fallen apart in a deluge of finger-pointing. This fact leaves a whole host of thorny questions for the diplomatic community with massive implications for millions of Hondurans. First, who is to blame for the deal’s apparent collapse? Is this just kabuki theater on Zelaya’s part? On Michelletti’s? On both? Can the deal be salvaged? And most importantly, should any of this matter, especially if the elections at the end of the month turn out to be in accordance with international standards, or at least more in accordance with international standards than the “re-election” of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan?
From my distant perspective, this looks like it’s all just a chess match between Zelaya and Michelletti, in which neither side was particularly happy with the deal nor had much interest in complying with its spirit, even if they were willing to comply with its letter. Certainly, it looks like Michelletti’s attempts to seek Zelaya’s input on a short-term unity government were half-hearted at best, undertaken solely out of the desire to appease the international community. While I have no idea whether the deal required a vote on Zelaya’s reinstatement by yesterday, the delay in holding such a vote can only be described as spiteful and contrary to the spirit of the deal. At most, a vote restoring Zelaya to the Presidency by yesterday would enable Zelaya to be a lame duck President for a few months at a time when all the branches of government, including the military, have made clear that their loyalties lay with Michelletti’s faction. Zelaya will simply not have the time required to re-establish a power base within the government, and if he attempts to do so by dismissing the leadership of those other branches of government and replacing it with those loyal to him, he will quickly see the non-Chavez international community turn on him.
Meanwhile, Zelaya has to be largely aware of all of the above. Indeed, Zelaya probably never had much interest in seeing the deal fulfilled, which is why he refused to respond to Michelletti’s half-hearted attempts to form a unity government. What interest could Zelaya have in returning to the Presidency for perhaps a few months as a complete and utter lame duck? Better to ensure that the deal falls through, make a plausible case for blaming the international pariah Michelletti for that fact, and watch as the international community refuses to recognize the results of the elections. Once the elections have passed, Zelaya’s negotiating strength will likely increase dramatically as the new regime deals with widespread sanctions and intensifying international pressure and isolation.
November 6, 2009 6 Comments
savvy foreign policy thinking
July 17, 2009 2 Comments
