Showing posts with label US. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US. Show all posts

Thursday, December 18, 2008

UN split over homosexuality laws

By Laura Trevelyan
BBC News, United Nations

Sixty-six countries at the United Nations have called for homosexuality to be decriminalised.

The countries signed a declaration sponsored by France and the Netherlands demanding an end to legal punishment based on sexual orientation.

Sixty other countries of the UN's 192 member states, including a number of Arab and African states, rejected the non-binding declaration.

They said laws on homosexuality should be left to individual countries.

Gay men, lesbians and transsexuals worldwide face daily violations of their human rights.

Homosexuality is a criminal offence in more than 80 countries, while in at least seven nations, including Saudi Arabia, sex between men can be punished with the death penalty.

Considerable opposition

This month marks the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the French and Dutch governments are using this to highlight discrimination against homosexuals.

Their statement calls for an end to the execution, arrest and detention of homosexuals and transexuals.

The Dutch Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said it was a significant declaration.

Yet there is considerable opposition to this at the UN. Socially conservative countries in the Arab world and in Africa did not want anything to do with it.

Syria spoke on behalf of 60 countries, arguing that domestic laws should be respected, and claiming the declaration could legitimise deplorable acts including paedophilia.

The US was the only major Western nation not to sign the declaration.

Even though the US Supreme Court has ruled that states cannot make homosexuality a crime, diplomats claimed the declaration was not compatible with the division between between state and federal law.

France and the Netherlands hope more countries will sign up to the declaration in the future.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7791063.stm

Monday, November 10, 2008

US 'in secret overseas strikes'

The US has carried out nearly a dozen anti-terror attacks in Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere in the past four years, the New York Times has reported.

The previously unreported attacks were authorised in 2004 by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the Times quoted senior officials as saying.

The order gave US forces permission to attack terror targets anywhere in the world without prior specific approval.

The Times said the defence department declined to comment on its claims.

The White House also made no comment.

'Called off'

The paper said it had spoken to more than six officials, "including current and former military and intelligence officials" as well as senior policy makers in the Bush administration.

They said that the order, signed by Mr Rumsfeld with the approval of President George W Bush, was intended to make it easier for the US military to act outside officially declared war zones at short notice.

In total, 15 to 20 countries were covered by the mandate and attacks had been carried out in Pakistan, Syria and "several other countries," the paper reported.

Some were conducted in coordination with the CIA and one was broadcast live to CIA headquarters in Virginia, via cameras mounted on aircraft.

The paper's sources also claimed that "as many as a dozen" attacks had been called off - "often to the dismay of military commanders" - due to lack of evidence or because they were considered too dangerous or "diplomatically explosive".

The US has carried out many attacks along Pakistan's border areas recently and was blamed for an attack in eastern Syria last month.

From the BBC.

I guess this isn't surprising, but I am not sure about the wisdom of it. There are probably times when this sort of thing is necessary--a "gott'em in your sights situation." But still, much like the ticking bomb torture justification, I am not sure how often that situation ever arises and what it is likely to gain. What is most likely to happen, I would think, is that innocent people are killed in "collateral damage" and the event tarnishes the image of the US. It would be nice to know how often the attack kills its target versus the number of civilians killed.

It is not like Bush is the only one to do this sort of thing either. Clinton did the same when he attacked a training camp in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan. In the former, the attack seemed to accomplish little. In the latter I think a couple of people were killed in what turned out to be a an Asprin factory.

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Immigration Study: 'Second Generation' Has Edge

by Margot Adler


Weekend Edition Sunday, August 24, 2008 · In much of the debate over immigration, there is an underlying question: Are today's immigrants assimilating into the mainstream as easily as past generations?

The answer, at least in New York City, is an unqualified "yes," according to the results of a 10-year study involving more than 3,000 young men and women, most of them in their 20s.

John Mollenkopf, a professor at City University of New York and an author of the study, says that if you look at the children of immigrants, "the kids are doing well compared to their parents and also doing well compared to the native-born comparison groups."

The "second generation" project looked at five groups — Russians, Dominicans, South Americans, Chinese and West Indians — and compared them with U.S.-born whites, Puerto Ricans and African-Americans. Researchers found that most in the second generation were fluent in English and working in the mainstream economy. When they looked at economic and educational achievement, they found that West Indians were doing better, in general, than African-Americans; Dominicans were doing better than Puerto Ricans; and the Chinese and the Russians were doing as well as or better than native-born whites.

Because this is New York City and most study participants are the children of people who came to the United States 20 to 30 years ago, their parents either entered legally or found it relatively easy to obtain legal status even if they came illegally.

Legal immigration is more difficult today, and researchers note that this may well change the rate of assimilation. But for these five groups, "what we really find is a very rapid assimilation and becoming American," says Mary Waters of Harvard University, another author of the study, titled Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age, and recently published as a book.

Inheriting the City also uncovered cultural differences that may give the children of some immigrant groups certain advantages. Many members of this second generation interviewed for this story said their parents had pushed them to succeed academically. This is a common theme in immigrant families, even a stereotype.

Enia Titova, who came from Russia when she was 12, attended Stuyvesant, an elite New York public high school. "In a lot of Russian families, if you don't have a graduate degree, it is frowned upon," she says. "When you get a 96, parents want to know where the other four points went — that's the question, I think, in a lot of immigrant households."

But the researchers also found something unexpected: Some groups, such as Chinese immigrants, knew how to work the system more effectively than others.

"We interviewed one young woman whose mother worked in a garment factory and had very little education," Waters says. "She said her mother didn't even know what Stuyvesant was, but she knew from the other moms in the garment factory — I need to get my kid into this school."

Ling Wu Kong, who came from China when he was 2 and now attends law school, says Waters is correct. "Every time there is a student who maxes out on the SAT, their picture is prominently placed on the front page in the Chinese newspapers," he says. "They give you a pretty good idea of what to expect, so even for people whose parents don't speak English, they are able to navigate the system."

It's a little different for other groups.

Waters says researchers also met Dominican kids who had gotten into Stuyvesant, but whose parents didn't let them go to the school because they would have to take a subway and go across bad neighborhoods to get there.

Cristina Carpio's parents came from Ecuador. Now a medical student, Carpio says she went to Stuyvesant only after persuading her mother to let her go. "During the orientation week, my sister took me to Stuyvesant to ease my mother's fears," she says, adding that her sister told her mother, "Look, she knows how to take the subway, she knows how to do it on her own, she has to go to that school. There is no other way."

The study, funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, found that the children of immigrants in New York City had another big advantage: Many of them continue to live at home with their parents.

Carpio says that when she becomes an intern next year, "I will be moving back home because I can save money on the rent and pay for my loans." And Ling feels it wouldn't be right if he didn't go home. "There is this ideal in the Chinese community, when everyone lives together. I'm living at home now," he says, laughing.

That cultural difference can have huge economic consequences, says Philip Kasinitz, a professor of sociology at City University who also helped write the study. "Black Americans, white Americans and Puerto Ricans seem to share the idea that you must leave home in your teens or early 20s, and that there is something wrong with you if you are still living with your parents in your mid-20s," he says.

In New York, he notes, given real estate values, this can help the children of immigrants get their careers established and finish their education.

Although Inheriting the City paints an optimistic portrait of this second generation, it has some warnings about the situation facing native-born minorities. The researchers also say the children of undocumented immigrants tend to do worse and have a tougher time assimilating. Because legal immigration is tougher to come by today, researchers say they wonder whether the path for the next "second generation" will be as smooth.

Just an interesting addition to our past immigration debate and the debate overall. There seems to be a perspective that "new" immigrants are not assimilating as successfully as the European immigrants of the last century. But apparently that is not true, the children of recent immigrants are assimilating quite well overall. Now, one important caveat is that the children of undocumented immigrants are not assimilating as well as those of legal immigrants. Why is that? Arguably, they are less likely to engage the broader society--public school and other basic avenues for social interaction, those structures that underlie the assimilation process, are more difficult for undocumented immigrants to access. So their isolation and difficulty becoming "Americans" is partly the result of being excluded from the process of Americanization by their legal standing.

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Cold War take 2

The United States has criticised what it calls "bellicose rhetoric" from Russia over US plans to develop a missile shield in Europe.

Russia said it would be forced to react with military means if the US went ahead with its plan for a shield based partly in the Czech Republic.

The reaction was "designed to make Europeans nervous about participating" said a Pentagon spokesman.

A White House spokesman said dialogue with Russia would continue.

"We seek strategic cooperation on preventing missiles from rogue nations, like Iran, from threatening our friends and allies," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

He said the US and Russia should be "equal partners".

Moscow says siting the system near its borders could weaken its own defences, despite US assurances that it is designed to counter a threat from the Middle East, not from Russia.

It has previously threatened to aim its own missiles at any eventual base in Poland or the Czech Republic.

A deal, signed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Prague on Tuesday, allows a tracking radar base to be set up on Czech territory.

'Not our choice'

The Russian foreign ministry statement said: "If a US strategic anti-missile shield starts to be deployed near our borders, we will be forced to react not in a diplomatic fashion but with military-technical means."

Condoleezza Rice on the need for a missile shield

It said there was "no doubt that the grouping of elements of the strategic US arsenal faced towards Russian territory" would mean Moscow had to "take adequate measures to compensate for the threats to its national security".

"This is not our choice," it added.

The foreign ministry said it would continue to monitor developments but would remain open to constructive talks on issues of strategic stability.

The BBC's Adam Brookes in Washington cites Russia's ambassador to the UN as suggesting that the phrase "military-technical means" does not mean military action, but more likely a change in Russia's strategic posture, perhaps by redeploying its own missiles.

More likely still, our correspondent says, is that the Russians are trying to frighten the Czech parliament into backing out of the whole deal.

The next question, he says, is whether Poland will accept missile defence facilities as well, and how the Russians will respond to that.

The plans remain unpopular in the Czech Republic, while the US has failed to reach agreement with Poland on placing other parts of the system there.

The plans involve siting the tracking radar system in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in Poland. The US wants the sites to be in operation by about 2012.

No doubt Russia is acting in a bellicose manner and upping the anty to an unnecessary level. But still, the US should expect such a response. This is exactly how wars begin. This is classic security dilemma and the first thing you study in intro to international relations. The undergrads I teach can see this. Hell, I taught this to middle school students (albeit scary bright middle school students) last summer and they all understood it. The core here is that the US IS acting provactively by putting up the missle shield. It removes any strategic balance Russia had by having nuclear weapons (i.e. the Cold War balance). So, Realist theory predicts that Russia would react to the dimiishment in its security by threating the US and, possibly, considering pre-emptive military action. Realism is very clear on these issues, yet surprisingly even people in the Realist theoretical camp (I am looking at you Condy) seem to make the same bad choices.

Monday, July 7, 2008

BBC: "Iraq floats US pullout timetable"

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has raised the prospect of setting a timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Talks are continuing on a new security deal, but the US has said it opposes setting any timetable for withdrawal.

The UN mandate under which US troops stay in Iraq expires at the end 2008.

Correspondents say Mr Maliki may have an easier time getting the support of Iraqi MPs by proposing a deal which includes a withdrawal timetable.

US and Iraqi governments have been negotiating a detailed bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) since March and it was supposed to be concluded this month.

Many Iraqis want to see an end to the American military presence in their country, but are fearful of the consequences for security.

In violence on Monday, a female suicide bomber killed nine people and wounded 12 others in an attack on an Iraqi market, police said.

Respect for sovereignty

A statement from Mr Maliki's office quoted him as telling Arab ambassadors in the UAE: "The direction we are taking is to have a memorandum of understanding either for the departure of the forces or to have a timetable for their withdrawal."

"The negotiations are still continuing with the American side, but in any case the basis for the agreement will be respect for the sovereignty of Iraq."

It was the first time that the prime minister had specifically suggested the setting of a timetable for a US withdrawal.

US officials in Baghdad did not issue an immediate reaction to the comments.

The American position has always been that setting a timetable for withdrawal gives an advantage to insurgents who have been battling US forces since the 2003 invasion which overthrow Saddam Hussein.

A possible withdraw from Iraq has become a major issue in the US presidential election campaign and could also figure prominently in local elections in Iraq in October.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/in_depth/7493782.stm

Saturday, March 29, 2008

Do We Have a Moral Obligation to Iraq?

26, March 2008 , 13:15

by Mark Rowlands

With the possible exception of John McCain, pretty much everyone, whether on the right or left, agrees that getting out of Iraq is a good idea. Of course it is, at least in one sense of ‘good’. I don’t think anyone needs reminding that Iraq is the most serious foreign policy debacle in living memory. The war was based on a premise that was unfounded and its consequences – human, economic, and political – have been disastrous for us, and truly calamitous for the Iraqis. Of course it is a good idea to get out of Iraq. If you think this, then what must you think the word ‘good’ means? I suspect that you’re thinking about the word ‘good’ in the way that got us into this mess in the first place.

Iraq, of course, wasn’t a very nice place to live before the invasion: no country run by a psychopathic dictator whose hobby is starting wars with his neighbors ever is. But, by the standards of the region it was by no means exceptional. Indeed, many women had a freedom and access to higher education that they could only dream about in some of the neighboring countries. However, this didn’t stop us from going in and utterly destroying the country, transforming it from the merely unpleasant to the positively nightmarish – with every indication that it is going to get even worse if we should leave.

The decision turns out to be somewhat unfortunate for us too: costing over four thousand American lives, exacerbating an already weakened economy, and diverting our attention from areas – such as Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan where people who actually might want to kill us, or have tried to kill us, or have succeeded in killing us, are currently residing. We all know this.

So, naturally, we want to get out. But the terms in which our withdrawal is debated always turn on what is best for us: the good thing to do is the good thing for us. And this overlooks, of course, that we destroyed their country and made their lives s**t.

Suppose you suspect – groundlessly as it turns out – that your neighbor is throwing garbage into your yard. So, you do what seems to you to be the best thing: you invade his house and largely destroy it, rendering it uninhabitable. Realizing your mistake, you volunteer to stay on and help him or her rebuild it. But, you soon weary of this for a variety of reasons. Maybe it’s hitting you financially because you can’t go to work. So, the best thing to do – you decided – is withdraw. If you decide this, then ‘best’ clearly means ‘best for you’.

We seem to have such a hard time thinking about the foreign policy in anything other than self-interested terms. I suspect that’s because today we have a hard time thinking about morality in anything other than self-interested terms. We have, more or less, forgotten what being moral means. This is a tendency that afflicts liberals as much as conservatives. If we at least suspect that there might be a problem with our self-interested behavior, we devote our energies to inventing laughably weak reasons to excuse it. ‘The Iraqis want us to leave’, they say. Yes, some do – perhaps the majority. But this is the same majority that is likely to come out on top after the ensuing bloodshed. Alternatively, as Bill Maher argued last week, whether we leave now or in ten years, they’re still going to kill each other anyway. So, we might as well leave now. I’m not sure what evidence this assertion is based on, but it is clearly the moral equivalent of ‘you’re f****d, so f**k you!’

The point is that when self-interest is at stake, you don’t need a good reason for pursuing it – a bad one will do.

Here’s one way to think morally, a way that has a lineage that runs from John Rawls, through Immanuel Kant, to, dare I say it, a certain Nazarene carpenter. Imagine you don’t know who you are. You don’t know whether you are American, or an Iraqi Sunni, an Iraqi Shia, or an Iraqi Kurd. Then ask yourself: what would I like to happen? I don’t know what answer you would come up with. And, to be quite honest, I’m not sure what answer I would arrive at either. My point here is not about what is the morally right thing to do but how to think about what’s the morally right thing to do. If you do this, then you are at least trying to think morally as opposed to self-interestedly. Of course, you can’t really imagine this. Neither can I. Morality is not an exact science. But we can do the best we can. And, (morally) the best we can is not always (self-interestedly) the best for us.


Thursday, March 6, 2008

Air tanker deal provokes US row

Boeing's loss of a $40bn contract to build a new in-flight refuelling aircraft for the US military has drawn angry protests in Congress.

Lawmakers from Washington state and Kansas, which have big Boeing plants, voiced "outrage" that it had gone to a consortium including Europe's Airbus.

The planes will be assembled in Alabama but constructed largely in Europe.

Boeing has said it is awaiting an explanation from the military before deciding whether or not to appeal.


We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military
Statement by congressional lawmakers from the Seattle area

The new aircraft, named the KC-45A by the US Air Force, is based on the Airbus A330 and will be manufactured in partnership with US defence firm Northrop Grumman.

Its job will be to refuel the vast array of US warplanes and the contract is worth in the region of $40bn over 15 years.

It is a huge blow for Boeing, the BBC's Vincent Dowd reports from Washington.

America has around two-thirds of all such aircraft in use anywhere, and a senior figure in the company said recently if it lost this contract it could be out of the refuelling market totally for years.

'Outsourcing'

Gen Arthur J Lichte, commander of the US Air Force's Air Mobility Command, said the winning design had many advantages over Boeing's tanker.

"More passengers, more cargo, more fuel to offload, more patients that we can carry, more availability, more flexibility and more dependability," he said.

In Everett, Washington state, a few dozen Boeing workers protested outside a Machinists Union hall holding up signs saying "American workers equal best tankers" and "Our military deserves the best".

Congressional lawmakers from the state's Seattle area issued a joint statement condemning the "outsourcing" of the contract.

"We are outraged that this decision taps European Airbus and its foreign workers to provide a tanker to our American military," they said.

Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Wichita, Kansas, called for "an American tanker built by an American company with American workers".

"I hope the Air Force reverses its decision," he added.

But the news was a boon for Alabama Republican congressman Jo Bonner.

"We are so very excited about having the opportunity to help the Air Force acquire the most modern and capable refuelling tanker - a tanker assembled in America by Americans," he said.

The deal will also safeguard thousands of British aviation jobs, the BBC's Andy Moore says. Wings will be made at factories in Bristol and in North Wales.

Breaking through

For Airbus's parent company, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS), it is a long-desired and potentially crucial breakthrough into the US market, our correspondent says.

Replacing America's ageing KC-135 refuelling planes - which date back to the 1950s - has proved controversial, he notes.

In 2002, the Air Force negotiated a $23bn deal with Boeing for 100 tankers to be based on the Boeing 767.

But that deal was declared invalid after allegations of fraud.

Two Boeing executives went to jail and eventually Boeing's chief executive resigned.

Political pressure on the Air Force over the deal was led by Sen John McCain, the front-runner to win the Republican nomination for the presidential elections this year.

Our correspondent adds that two further contracts are expected later as the US Air Force replaces the rest of its ageing fleet of refuelling craft.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/business/7272272.stm

The free market versus national interest? In this I sort of see one of the key problems with the American politicians support for free trade. I have followed this discussion a little, and I hear a lot of hypocrisy. Politicians that love to rant about the virtues of the free market are howling because in a free market Airbus offers the better deal. Should US government office and the military be required to buy US-made goods or should they get to benefit from the market in the same way as all other consumers even it doesn't benefit the US economy?