New War?

There is a huge crisis going on in the Republic of Congo right now. CNN recently reported that Jaya Murthy, spokesman for the U.N. Children's Fund in Goma, said that 1.1 million North Kivu residents -- about 20 percent of the population -- have been displaced in violence since December 2006. The UN is warning the high risk of death for several children that will be affected by malnutrition, malaria, and respiratory infections. The UN is making attempts through helicopter to deliver milk to several of the hungary children, but it is very difficult. The international community has committed to sending the over 3,000 troops needed in the area, but no one country is taking responsibility for delivering those troops yet. Question is, what should the United States do about this? Should Obama commit to helping the atrocities happening in the Congo? As much as we need to work on our own economy, doesn't millions of people dying and being displaced take a little precedence? Even if its not in our country? There are several interesting articles about this topic in the Economist and New York Times if you want to check them out. The Economist especially had a good one called "What the Congo means for Obama."

Is Obama Leaning To a Republican Candidate?

According to CNN, Obama is getting advice from former national security adviser for the Bush Administration, Mr. Brent Scrowcroft. Shocking? Not anymore after knowing that Obama started talking to him before he was selected for president elect. When asked if he shall choose to select republicans in his cabinet, Obama commented, that he would at least choose one. May it be perhaps, that he already has a name to this Republican and it starts with a "B" and ends with a "t"? It would make sense, considering that Obama's aide quoted that the president-elect "respects and admires Gen. Scowcroft's bipartisan, pragmatic approach to foreign policy". He also opposed the war in Iraq. But will this seal the deal to remain in office?

Foreign Aid

Dear Barack,

You should increase US foreign assistance from $25 billion per year to ensure the US does its share to meet the Millennium Development Goals in your yearly budget. You may receive heavy criticism for this from Congress because of our ever increasing debt and financial crisis at home. However, doing this will signal to many of the most underdeveloped countries in the world that the United States wants to target new spending towards strategic goals, including helping the world's weakest states to build healthy and educated communities, reduce poverty, develop markets, and generate wealth. Foreign spending is always unpopular in America, but your best chance of passing this is while your popularity is high. That is not to say that you should not be focusing most of your attention on stimulating the economy, just that you need to keep in mind people are suffering outside of the United States too.

Aide to Africa

It’s on record countless times that you want to help AID’s victims in Africa. Your words have been very inspiring, but no offense; I’ll believe it when I see it.
In 2007 the Bush administration budget for AIDs in Africa was almost $4 billion.

Great.

However in 2001, the UN estimated that Africa would need $3 billion for basic treatment and prevention alone. Today, there are more cases, and treatments are more expensive.

I realize it would upset Americans. We are in an economic crisis and have little money to spare, but no one said being president would be easy.

We are currently giving the bare minimum to help retard a disease that kills over 8,000 thousand people a day. In the first 100 days of your presidency I want you to agree to at least double the funding. Preferably by going to Africa to speak to the millions of sufferers, and signing a bill to put the process in order. What’s the point of assuring a bunch of Americans who cannot understand the extent of the plague? By making a promise to the victims, you will be obligated to go through with the proposal.

Let's see your money where your mouth is.

Nuclear Energy

During your campaign you always kept the issue of nuclear energy on the backburner. That made political sense by not alienating the far left of your party during the primary, and opposing Yucca Mountain helped you win Nevada in the general election. But now that you won, it’s time to take another hard look at nuclear. As you said during your campaign, it is going to take a comprehensive energy policy in order to break America’s dependence on foreign oil, and nuclear needs to be part of the solution. Although nuclear already provides nearly 20 percent of U.S. energy, the construction of a new nuclear power plant has not been approved in the United States since the tragic accident at Three Mile Island nearly three decades ago. The fear surrounding nuclear energy has not caught up with science and new developments in safety standards. Pebble-bed reactors (PBR) are meltdown-proof, and by approving the construction of a new reactor you could assure the American public that nuclear energy can be a safe, clean, and reliable component of our energy strategy. The real issue then becomes storage. It won’t be popular, but you’re going to need to find a place to store nuclear waste underground (preferably not in Nevada, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Missouri, North Carolina, or Virginia if you plan on getting re-elected).

new

Dear Barack,
Healthcare was the issue centering your campaign and you vowed to execute this legislation in your first term as president. Therefore, this is an urgent issue that Americans need passed. However, you have yet to make any indication on how America will proceed with this overhaul.
According to the Los Angeles Times, groups representing retirees, businesses, and labor unions are all calling for a comprehensive healthcare letter from the Business Roundtable addressed to you. John Castelani, the president of this organization, quotes, “we need to follow through…this remains one of the most important issues facing the country”.
Their plans are influenced by what your plan promised. The question now is what you plan to do to show the American people that you are going to live up to your word and make change. It would be wise to openly invite the major insurance companies to the white house for a summit to discuss your demands for them lower costs for the consumer. This supports your vision of creating competition between the companies. Lastly, it is essential for you to shake their hands publically and assertively. This will signal the American people of your devotion to aid the uninsured, low-income families.

Obama and Nuclear Energy

Solar, wind, hybrid cars, bio-fuels, and... nuclear? During the 2008 presidential campaign, both major candidates spoke about the need to pursue new sources of energy in order to end America’s dependence on foreign oil, but there was one part of this energy solution that president-elect Obama usually kept behind the curtain. For decades, nuclear energy has been a contentious issue on the American political stage. Its supporters claim that it is a safe, clean, and necessary solution to America’s energy crisis, while the other side calls it dangerous, expensive, and unsafe. The strongest opposition to nuclear has consistently come from the far left of Obama’s own party, which made it a particularly difficult issue to address during the Democratic primary. Yet, from the beginning, Obama did include nuclear in his list of energy solutions on the campaign trail. Which raises the question, how will he address the issue as president and what are his greatest challenges in implementing his vision for nuclear energy?

While nuclear energy currently provides 20 percent of America’s total energy, but despite new advances in safety, a new nuclear power reactor has not come online since 1996 and construction of new reactors has not been approved since the tragic nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979. However, given the new the invention of meltdown-proof pebble-bed reactors (PDR), the concern over a Chernobyl-type disaster has diminished. The new issue now is nuclear storage, which is where the tricky politics come into play since no state wants to store nuclear waste in their backyard.

AIDs in Africa

AIDs In Africa


Every day 8,000 die for one reason. Overall, 40 million have died, 5.7 million being from South Africa.

True to popular opinion, George Bush has made plenty of mistakes, but I have to praise him for his efforts to help the AIDs in South Africa. Over the past five years, his presidency has donated over $15 billion to help.

As Bush’s time comes to an end however, I wonder if Barack Obama will continue the aide to Africa.

Many Africans were just as thrilled with the election results on the November 4th as the students that filled the streets of Berkeley that night. Not only did this mark a huge step for them as a race, but they are optimistic that Obama will help Africa even more.

Of course Obama wants to help the crisis, but with the economic problems in the US, it’s going to be pretty difficult to find the money and the support.
Obama said in his World AIDS Day speech, “Our first priority in Congress should be to reauthorize this program when it expires in 2008. Our second priority should be to reassess what's worked and what hasn't so that we're not wasting one dollar that could be saving someone's life.”

That sounds nice and most people want to say the same, but will it actually happen? Furthermore, who will Obama elect to head the process? And where will the money come from? Would congress allow him to spend the money when our country is in danger economically?

In an article by the Australian Business with the Wall Street Journal, the author wrote, “Africa must fend for itself and the senator, whose father was Kenyan, should deliver the bad news quickly: no money, no reason and no time. The US is broke; with Wall Street and Motown thrusting the begging bowl into Congress, there is no cash for foreign aid other than famine relief and the occasional bung to solve a foreign policy crisis.”

He’s right that this may not be a top priority, but it is crucial that the continent gets help. Every day 8,000 lives are lost. For Americans statistics like these are very intangible because Africa is so far from our day to day lives. If we can lessen that statistic or at least keep it from growing, Africa will be able to advance technologically and we will decrease the chances of the disease jumping the waters to America.

It’s reassuring that Barrack is optimistic; however, he’ll also need to start being realistic about this issue soon.

Obama on Human Rights

He has vowed to close Guantanamo, and he has promised to end the U.S. policy of torture. But for now, the President-Elect has made no comment on the possible investigation of human rights violations during the War on Terror. Granted, this is a tricky issue. On one hand, it would be inefficient and emotionally troubling to dig up all the war crimes committed in the past eight years. As difficult as it seems, maybe we should just move on. However, is it possible to rebuild our global image of hope and justice without punishing those responsible for these atrocities? Can we legitimately pursue international human rights when back home we walked away from the tragedy of water boarding or Guantanamo? The line President-Elect Obama must walk is thin, and slippery slopes lay on both sides. Instead of turning a war crimes prosecution into political revenge or letting human rights abusers simply walk off stage, Obama should set up a panel to investigate the abuses and display the facts to the public. Depending on the public’s reaction, the name of the game will either be prosecution or pardon. This major human rights issue should not be allowed to fade until we say so.

Obama and the World

As the 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Obama has some tough decisions to make that could define the rest of his presidency. On his 101st day of office, he will be attending the April 30th Global Summit to help solve the global economic crisis currently in the midst. His decisions will not only impact America's standing in the world, but will decide the fate of several developing and underdeveloped countries who have been hurt by the crisis as well.

Many world leaders are hoping for the new president to work with them in creating more regulation in the world market and a better system for dealing with development aid going into Third World countries. President Bush strongly believed in the free market during the November 2008 summit and continued defending it to the very end, with some compromises. Overall, few decisions were made, with rich countries promising to provide fiscal stimuluses if they could afford to do so. The G20, group of leaders from the twenty most powerful countries, agreed to begin the stalled Doha Round of global trade talks by the end of the year and countries should to employ protectionism. For his part, President-elect Obama remained away from the Summit, stating that America only has one president at a time. Instead, he sent two former secretaries of state to the meeting to gather information.

Although no one is sure of how Obama will address the world leaders because he has no history or such decisions. However, as part of his presidential campaign he did state in the senate that he would double development funding to Africa by 2012. His stand on regulation in the American economy might make him open to reforms in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to make them more transparent and provide for greater input from Third World countries.

This would be a major improvement for most developing countries, allowing their governments more power in deciding what their people actually want and need, instead of receiving funding that only increases their difficulties. More regulation on the world market may also serve to create better working conditions for laborers in most of the Third World if seen through properly. There is also a down side that too much regulation may slow down the free market economy, preventing us from getting out of the economic crisis. It will be part of Obama's challenge to decide how much regulation is enough.

Currently, the richest countries which make up about 5% of the World Bank have most of the power, while the rest of the countries that make up 95% of the institution and have very little power. China and India both complained about this during the November 2008 Summit. India said that the G7 is no longer a sufficient group to deal with world problems, and the structure needs to change to reflect economic realities. China also wants more regulation.

The Washington Post has stated that “China got a promise of a bigger role for developing countries in global finance. Beijing had been pushing for developing countries to have more influence at the IMF and other global bodies, and its foreign ministry called the summit an "important and positive" step toward "the reform of the international financial structure."

Let us hope such change continues.

Obama, America and Russia

Should Sarah Palin get her binoculars and start watching what those Russians are doing from her backyard? I think that Senator John McCain answered the question when he said that looking into Putin’s eyes, he could see three letters—“KGB.” Why is Russia returning to political, social and economic government control reminiscent of the Soviet era? The question is complicated, but it can be attributed to several trends. In the past two decades, there was a period when Russia was in a serious economic downfall. With economic instability came dissatisfaction with the administration. However, the economy was only a background force because Russians are used to living in meager economic conditions. In the past 80 years, there have not been a lot of economic improvements for the majority of the population. There is something more important to Russians—a sense of national pride.
Vladimir Putin came to power during the period of Russia’s economic revival, when oil prices were going up, boosting the Russian economy and restoring its prominence in world oil markets. Russians welcomed the Putin administration they believed that it restored confidence in the motherland by regaining the feelings of nationalism lost a decade earlier. Russians are willing to deal with the fluctuations of the market and the control by the government as long as there is a sense of pride in the country. Russian nationalism (see an interview from The Los Angeles Times with Russian nationalist Aleksander Dugin) is a potent force because it is upheld by hatred of America and its values. Russians are used to looking for a scapegoat instead of examining the social and political problems at home. Indeed, in the legendary Soviet movie The White Sun of the Desert a character expressed the sentiment of many Russians about the country’s potential and its bitter reality --“Za derzhavu obidno.”
The Republican administration may have transitioned to a Democratic one, but the Russian authority remains the same. Undoubtedly, there will be a different approach on both parts in forming the relationship between the countries. America will have to watch out for Russia’s influence on Iran and Venezuela (see an article on oil from The New York Times), and Russia will be sure to consider what America does in the Balkans. However, the goal of the relationships will not necessarily change. The more important issue is what will be the new approach? The Russian press thinks that it will be easier to work with Obama than his predecessors because the general assumption is that Obama is a “socialist.” Russian communists welcome Obama’s victory because they believe that he will be more lenient and not have the warlike mentality of the previous administration. America’s opinion of Russia, on the other hand, will not change no matter who the Russian president is.
Obama has to learn from the mistakes of his predecessors and not expect that Russia will act in a way that benefits the United States. Even if Russia will greet Obama with a rosy-cheeked peasant girl with a round loaf of bread and salt on an embroidered cloth, it does not mean that Russia is going to make any concessions.