Looking at the topic of Jus ad Bellum, I'm struck by the significance of the fact that most of us are so far removed from modern warfare. Those who make the decision to go to war rarely share in the burden of doing so, beyond a slightly higher tax burden. Their family and friends are rarely directly involved in the fighting, yet they are likely the largest beneficiaries of doing so. In the age of mercenary contractors, those who fight our battles are often not even fellow citizens.
In a manner akin to the Roger Waters' song "Perfect Sense", much of the rest of the country follows the wars BBC or CNN, watching bombing campaigns, the coverage of which rarely focuses on the human cost involved. The war in Iraq has claimed over 100,000 lives, including 66,000 civilians. The war in Afghanistan, meanwhile, has claimed a further 25,000 lives, including 4,000 civilians. It is questionable, at best, whether the sacrifices made in going to war have made civilians members of the coalition nations any safer.
When drilling reaches its plateau, US and UK oil companies alone will be earning in excess of $2bn in revenue per annum in Iraq. One wonders if the war would have taken place if a little more of the burden were shared by the people benefitting from Saddam's fall.
ADJB
Monday, 14 March 2011
Thursday, 5 November 2009
Healthcare in America - It's Now or Never
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" reads the Statue of Liberty, an ever-present reminder of the spirit with which America was founded. Now the richest country on earth, and the most ardent advocate of human rights internationally, it seems remarkable that nearly 50 million of its 300 million citizens have no access to basic healthcare.
A recent study at Harvard University showed that roughly 45000 people per year die in America simply because they lack health insurance (higher than the total number of deaths from homicide and drink driving combined). As Wade Henderson, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, argues, "disparities in access to quality care and the resulting prevalence of illness are woven through the entire health system and throughout the American landscape." It is with this in mind that President Obama announced to congress recently that “the time for bickering is over.”
There is general agreement amongst both parties that they need to close the loopholes within the current system which enable pharmaceutical companies to earn as much as $2 billion per year. One such loophole prevents patients from receiving treatments for recurring injuries, meaning that if a woman were the victim of repeated domestic violence, she would only qualify for treatment after the first instance. Other than stark examples such as this, however, there has been little bipartisan cooperation on the issue. Every time one hurdle is overcome, another seems to appear, leaving many wondering if we will ever see the finish line.
To be sure, this is no small problem to tackle. Politicians, voters, civil rights groups and the immensely powerful pharmaceutical lobby will all try to swing the balance in their favour and, in doing so, may once again stymie reform. Nevertheless, with the right leadership and a willingness to compromise, genuine healthcare reform might just be on the cards if moderates from both sides are willing to heed President Obama’s calls.
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina announced that, "we have more to fear from the potential of this bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country." (No prizes for guessing her party affiliation). This comment has been seen by many as an act of desperation from a Republican party which cannot afford to lose such an important political battle. It would be naive, however, to ignore the power that such comments carry within sections of an American public that views the concept of universal healthcare with suspicion. The politics of fear have been invoked before and the consequences are still visible to this day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The latest problem in the House of Representatives is over the issue of whether abortion will be funded on a government-run healthcare program. A recent letter signed by 183 members of Congress argued that "real healthcare is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life." For its part, the Democratic leadership is attempting to maintain the pro-choice status quo. Compromise will be needed if the bill is to pass but the question for speaker Pelosi is how to achieve this without alienating the liberal base of her party.
The Senate’s disagreements centre on the so-called 'public plan', whereby anyone not covered by their employers would have the option of subscribing to a cheaper government plan, thus making it affordable to those who need it. Most Democrats, in particular President Obama, have argued that such a plan must be in the bill if they are to support it. Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, argue that this 'socialist' idea is a precursor to a poorly-run government healthcare system which will make all Americans worse-off: yet another example of the pervasiveness of the politics of fear within the current climate.
In the face of a revolt from the more conservative members of his party, Senate Leader Harry Reid has touted the idea of allowing states to opt out of the ‘public plan’, thus giving flexibility to the system. Whilst this is a nice attempt at compromise, as yet nobody knows how such a system would work and even if it is possible for it work.
Nevertheless, with public opinion shifting against the idea of universal healthcare such solutions may represent the lesser of two evils. The longer the debates drag on, the bigger the partisan divides will become and the greater the chance of failure. Compromises are always difficult to make but if they are not made soon, healthcare reform may have to wait for yet another generation.
In 1943, Congressman John Dingell Sr. attempted to pass a comprehensive healthcare plan for the first time. Since then, numerous politicians have taken forward his vision and never has America been closer to realising his dream. Now, more than ever, America needs its leaders to lead.
A recent study at Harvard University showed that roughly 45000 people per year die in America simply because they lack health insurance (higher than the total number of deaths from homicide and drink driving combined). As Wade Henderson, CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, argues, "disparities in access to quality care and the resulting prevalence of illness are woven through the entire health system and throughout the American landscape." It is with this in mind that President Obama announced to congress recently that “the time for bickering is over.”
There is general agreement amongst both parties that they need to close the loopholes within the current system which enable pharmaceutical companies to earn as much as $2 billion per year. One such loophole prevents patients from receiving treatments for recurring injuries, meaning that if a woman were the victim of repeated domestic violence, she would only qualify for treatment after the first instance. Other than stark examples such as this, however, there has been little bipartisan cooperation on the issue. Every time one hurdle is overcome, another seems to appear, leaving many wondering if we will ever see the finish line.
To be sure, this is no small problem to tackle. Politicians, voters, civil rights groups and the immensely powerful pharmaceutical lobby will all try to swing the balance in their favour and, in doing so, may once again stymie reform. Nevertheless, with the right leadership and a willingness to compromise, genuine healthcare reform might just be on the cards if moderates from both sides are willing to heed President Obama’s calls.
Congresswoman Virginia Foxx of North Carolina announced that, "we have more to fear from the potential of this bill passing than we do from any terrorist right now in any country." (No prizes for guessing her party affiliation). This comment has been seen by many as an act of desperation from a Republican party which cannot afford to lose such an important political battle. It would be naive, however, to ignore the power that such comments carry within sections of an American public that views the concept of universal healthcare with suspicion. The politics of fear have been invoked before and the consequences are still visible to this day in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The latest problem in the House of Representatives is over the issue of whether abortion will be funded on a government-run healthcare program. A recent letter signed by 183 members of Congress argued that "real healthcare is about saving and nurturing life, not about taking life." For its part, the Democratic leadership is attempting to maintain the pro-choice status quo. Compromise will be needed if the bill is to pass but the question for speaker Pelosi is how to achieve this without alienating the liberal base of her party.
The Senate’s disagreements centre on the so-called 'public plan', whereby anyone not covered by their employers would have the option of subscribing to a cheaper government plan, thus making it affordable to those who need it. Most Democrats, in particular President Obama, have argued that such a plan must be in the bill if they are to support it. Republicans, and more than a few Democrats, argue that this 'socialist' idea is a precursor to a poorly-run government healthcare system which will make all Americans worse-off: yet another example of the pervasiveness of the politics of fear within the current climate.
In the face of a revolt from the more conservative members of his party, Senate Leader Harry Reid has touted the idea of allowing states to opt out of the ‘public plan’, thus giving flexibility to the system. Whilst this is a nice attempt at compromise, as yet nobody knows how such a system would work and even if it is possible for it work.
Nevertheless, with public opinion shifting against the idea of universal healthcare such solutions may represent the lesser of two evils. The longer the debates drag on, the bigger the partisan divides will become and the greater the chance of failure. Compromises are always difficult to make but if they are not made soon, healthcare reform may have to wait for yet another generation.
In 1943, Congressman John Dingell Sr. attempted to pass a comprehensive healthcare plan for the first time. Since then, numerous politicians have taken forward his vision and never has America been closer to realising his dream. Now, more than ever, America needs its leaders to lead.
ADJB
Sunday, 20 September 2009
Responsible Policies - They Won't Help You on Election Day
It is a sad indictment of our political system that politicians have become so synonomous with lies and deception. From the war in Iraq, to the Conservatives' U-Turn on grammar schools, to the Labour Party's recent admission that spending cuts are needed (after months of claiming they weren't), both the government and the opposition routinely dodge the harsh realities when announcing policies. In their desperation to get elected, politicians have forgotten that their job is not only to hold on to power but to do something worthwhile with it.
It would be wrong, however, to place the blame solely at the feet of 'power-hungry' politicians. If politicians have to think short-term to win elections, it's because that's what voters demand of them. Britain's electorate has routinely rewarded politicians who propose unachievable manifestos. When they fail in their goals we admonish them and then turn to the other side of the aisle for more of the same. British voters choose the optimistic lie over the pessimistic truth and it is to our detriment.
The reaction to Nick Clegg's recent announcement is proof enough of this. Clegg showed honesty in admitting that, with Britain's debt at record levels, he may have to delay his plans to abolish university tuition fees (estimated to cost £12.5 billion over 4 years). The reaction from both inside and outside the party has been critical, to say the least. Some have regarded the move as an abandonment of a key Lib Dem policy, others worry that this move will hurt them in the upcoming General Election, and it will. Nowhere, however, have people applauded Clegg for doing what both Labour and the Conservatives have failed to do: make responsible policy decisions in light of an enormous budget deficit.
The only way to break the cyle of short-termism is if voters demand long-term thinking from their politicians. It is time for us to stop asking for the optimistic lie and reward honesty from our leaders.
ADJB
It would be wrong, however, to place the blame solely at the feet of 'power-hungry' politicians. If politicians have to think short-term to win elections, it's because that's what voters demand of them. Britain's electorate has routinely rewarded politicians who propose unachievable manifestos. When they fail in their goals we admonish them and then turn to the other side of the aisle for more of the same. British voters choose the optimistic lie over the pessimistic truth and it is to our detriment.
The reaction to Nick Clegg's recent announcement is proof enough of this. Clegg showed honesty in admitting that, with Britain's debt at record levels, he may have to delay his plans to abolish university tuition fees (estimated to cost £12.5 billion over 4 years). The reaction from both inside and outside the party has been critical, to say the least. Some have regarded the move as an abandonment of a key Lib Dem policy, others worry that this move will hurt them in the upcoming General Election, and it will. Nowhere, however, have people applauded Clegg for doing what both Labour and the Conservatives have failed to do: make responsible policy decisions in light of an enormous budget deficit.
The only way to break the cyle of short-termism is if voters demand long-term thinking from their politicians. It is time for us to stop asking for the optimistic lie and reward honesty from our leaders.
ADJB
Sunday, 9 August 2009
Manoeuvring Early?
This morning the New York Times ran an article outlining some of the potentially catastrophic effects of climate change on national security. The article begins by stating that:
The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics.
The concerns raised here are both real and imminent. Since 9/11, political scientists have concurred that 'new security' challenges such as the environment, terrorism and disease constitute a much greater threat to the western world than traditional war. One only has to look at recent outbreaks of swine flu as well as terrorist attacks in Britain, Spain and the U.S to see that this is true. Meanwhile, there has not been a single 'hot' war between developed countries since 1945. This makes it all the more surprising that the Pentagon and U.S intelligence agencies are only now taking their first look at the potential implications of climate change for national security.
A recent report by the U.S National Intelligence Council, 'Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World' predicted that by 2025, the scarcity of natural resources such as clean water, food and oil will be a potential cause for war. Furthermore, dwindling domestic supplies of oil in the U.S make this problem particularly poignant in America. So why has it taken the Pentagon until now to commission any reports on the topic and what has finally prompted them to?
The first question can be answered by the Bush administration's obsession (bordering on fetish) for all wars Middle East, as well as their confidence (bordering on arrogance) that America was unchallengable militarily. 9/11, however, was a watershed moment in exposing this idea as a fallacy. National Security, it appears, can no longer be secured by tanks and war planes, we needed a new way of conceptualising it. Whilst President Obama has been stuck with the continuation of Iraq and Afghanistan, he is not tarnished by either the fetishes or the arrogance of his predecessor and has shown his ability to think ahead in commissioning this report. It's findings might just give 'new security' issues the spotlight they deserve.
The second question may have a little more to do with politics. The World Future Energy Summit takes place in January 2010 and president Obama has so far been unable to force Congress to act on many, if any, of the issues which will be discussed. One sure-fire way to get their attention: tie the issue into the national security debate. Neither the timing nor the findings of the report could have played any better for the Obama administration (which is probably why they commissioned it) who will be loathed to once again bow down to European leadership on environmentalism at the summit.
Now the debate has been brought front and centre, it's time to see if Obama is willing to show the kind of leadership which has been lacking in his push for healthcare reform. If he does, it may just set the wheels in motion for many of his other policy priorities to be legislated on.
ADJB
The changing global climate will pose profound strategic challenges to the United States in coming decades, raising the prospect of military intervention to deal with the effects of violent storms, drought, mass migration and pandemics.
The concerns raised here are both real and imminent. Since 9/11, political scientists have concurred that 'new security' challenges such as the environment, terrorism and disease constitute a much greater threat to the western world than traditional war. One only has to look at recent outbreaks of swine flu as well as terrorist attacks in Britain, Spain and the U.S to see that this is true. Meanwhile, there has not been a single 'hot' war between developed countries since 1945. This makes it all the more surprising that the Pentagon and U.S intelligence agencies are only now taking their first look at the potential implications of climate change for national security.
A recent report by the U.S National Intelligence Council, 'Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World' predicted that by 2025, the scarcity of natural resources such as clean water, food and oil will be a potential cause for war. Furthermore, dwindling domestic supplies of oil in the U.S make this problem particularly poignant in America. So why has it taken the Pentagon until now to commission any reports on the topic and what has finally prompted them to?
The first question can be answered by the Bush administration's obsession (bordering on fetish) for all wars Middle East, as well as their confidence (bordering on arrogance) that America was unchallengable militarily. 9/11, however, was a watershed moment in exposing this idea as a fallacy. National Security, it appears, can no longer be secured by tanks and war planes, we needed a new way of conceptualising it. Whilst President Obama has been stuck with the continuation of Iraq and Afghanistan, he is not tarnished by either the fetishes or the arrogance of his predecessor and has shown his ability to think ahead in commissioning this report. It's findings might just give 'new security' issues the spotlight they deserve.
The second question may have a little more to do with politics. The World Future Energy Summit takes place in January 2010 and president Obama has so far been unable to force Congress to act on many, if any, of the issues which will be discussed. One sure-fire way to get their attention: tie the issue into the national security debate. Neither the timing nor the findings of the report could have played any better for the Obama administration (which is probably why they commissioned it) who will be loathed to once again bow down to European leadership on environmentalism at the summit.
Now the debate has been brought front and centre, it's time to see if Obama is willing to show the kind of leadership which has been lacking in his push for healthcare reform. If he does, it may just set the wheels in motion for many of his other policy priorities to be legislated on.
ADJB
Saturday, 8 August 2009
Clinton’s African Tour – A Success Story?
After the hostility of Kenya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will no doubt be relieved to move on to South Africa, a country with whom she will have less significant problems to tackle. Nevertheless, progress must be made on issues such as corruption if the U.S is to take away any positives from this challenging tour.
Clinton was on the defensive before she even arrived in Nairobi after Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga stated that Kenya didn’t want any "lectures" on how to govern themselves. Clinton had intended to discuss governance problems, corruption, human rights and impunity within Kenya and hasn't been deterred by Odinga's words, though she did comment that she is "very disappointed" with the slow pace of discussions.
One can question the extent to which Clinton’s appearance in Kenya was ever going to be successful after she criticized the Kenyan government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the violence surrounding the elections in early 2008. In doing so, she alienated many of those who are now in power and this has kept relations between the two camps icy, at best. Clinton has not, however, been afraid to make plain some hard truths about the state of the justice system in Kenya, commenting that at one local tribunal, there was little reason to "hire a lawyer when they can buy a judge."
The South African leg of Clinton’s tour would appear to be more promising, with President Zuma stating that both South African and US administrations were hoping to take their relationship to a "higher level". Any ground made in South Africa will have to be balanced against the seeming failures in Kenya, but some positive momentum is needed if the Obama administration is to make this trip successful. With only Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia and Cape Verde left to visit during her 11-day trip, this may well be the highlight for Secretary Clinton.
Clinton's rhetoric has been a far cry from the conciliatory tone used by Obama himself, but the 'good-cop-bad-cop' routine might be just what is needed in a continent which has seen democracy after democracy fall by the wayside under an endemic culture of corruption. As one African newspaper put it, for the time being, "we need pressure from the U.S. to do what is right."
LAB
Clinton was on the defensive before she even arrived in Nairobi after Kenyan Prime Minister Odinga stated that Kenya didn’t want any "lectures" on how to govern themselves. Clinton had intended to discuss governance problems, corruption, human rights and impunity within Kenya and hasn't been deterred by Odinga's words, though she did comment that she is "very disappointed" with the slow pace of discussions.
One can question the extent to which Clinton’s appearance in Kenya was ever going to be successful after she criticized the Kenyan government’s failure to prosecute those responsible for the violence surrounding the elections in early 2008. In doing so, she alienated many of those who are now in power and this has kept relations between the two camps icy, at best. Clinton has not, however, been afraid to make plain some hard truths about the state of the justice system in Kenya, commenting that at one local tribunal, there was little reason to "hire a lawyer when they can buy a judge."
The South African leg of Clinton’s tour would appear to be more promising, with President Zuma stating that both South African and US administrations were hoping to take their relationship to a "higher level". Any ground made in South Africa will have to be balanced against the seeming failures in Kenya, but some positive momentum is needed if the Obama administration is to make this trip successful. With only Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Nigeria, Liberia and Cape Verde left to visit during her 11-day trip, this may well be the highlight for Secretary Clinton.
Clinton's rhetoric has been a far cry from the conciliatory tone used by Obama himself, but the 'good-cop-bad-cop' routine might be just what is needed in a continent which has seen democracy after democracy fall by the wayside under an endemic culture of corruption. As one African newspaper put it, for the time being, "we need pressure from the U.S. to do what is right."
LAB
Friday, 7 August 2009
Compassion - for what?
On the 8th August 1963, a fifteen-man gang hijacked a post office train travelling from London to Glasgow, stealing £2.6 million-worth of used bank notes in the process (around £38 million adjusted for inflation) in what would come to be known as 'The Great Train Robbery'. Though nobody was killed in the process, the driver of the train, Jack Mills, was beaten with a crowbar and suffered from trauma until his death in 1970.
Thirteen of the gang were arrested and convicted on 16th April 1964, whilst the other two were never tried. Just 15 months into his 30-year sentence, Ronnie Biggs (a notorious member of the gang) escaped from Wandsworth Prison by scaling the 30-foot-high fence and jumping into a waiting van. He subsequently fled to Paris, underwent plastic surgery and took on a new identity before moving to Australia and finally Brazil. Since Brazil had no extradition process with Britain Biggs lived openly there for a time whilst the British authorities watched on, powerless.
Having suffered from three strokes, he voluntarily returned to the UK in 2001 in order to receive free medical treatment from the NHS. Though arrested upon arrival, he has spent most of the time since then in hospital. Last month he was rejected for parole because he remained "wholly unrepentent" for his actions. So I am perplexed as to why Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw has chosen to grant him his freedom on "compassionate grounds" having served less than 10 years of his sentence.
I would not regard myself as tough on crime by any stretch of the imagination, but granting Biggs his freedom is an embarassment. Britain turns away thousands of asylum-seekers who simply want work and live within the system. To turn around and grant freedom to a man who has so fragantly abused it is an afront to all those who work to uphold it and those who will never get to be a part of it. Whilst many of these asylum-seekers will be forced to return to conditions of poverty, disease and war, Ronnie Biggs will spend his 80th birthday as a free man.
ADJB
Thirteen of the gang were arrested and convicted on 16th April 1964, whilst the other two were never tried. Just 15 months into his 30-year sentence, Ronnie Biggs (a notorious member of the gang) escaped from Wandsworth Prison by scaling the 30-foot-high fence and jumping into a waiting van. He subsequently fled to Paris, underwent plastic surgery and took on a new identity before moving to Australia and finally Brazil. Since Brazil had no extradition process with Britain Biggs lived openly there for a time whilst the British authorities watched on, powerless.
Having suffered from three strokes, he voluntarily returned to the UK in 2001 in order to receive free medical treatment from the NHS. Though arrested upon arrival, he has spent most of the time since then in hospital. Last month he was rejected for parole because he remained "wholly unrepentent" for his actions. So I am perplexed as to why Labour Justice Secretary Jack Straw has chosen to grant him his freedom on "compassionate grounds" having served less than 10 years of his sentence.
I would not regard myself as tough on crime by any stretch of the imagination, but granting Biggs his freedom is an embarassment. Britain turns away thousands of asylum-seekers who simply want work and live within the system. To turn around and grant freedom to a man who has so fragantly abused it is an afront to all those who work to uphold it and those who will never get to be a part of it. Whilst many of these asylum-seekers will be forced to return to conditions of poverty, disease and war, Ronnie Biggs will spend his 80th birthday as a free man.
ADJB
Sunday, 2 August 2009
Time for some Tough Love?
The path to a peaceful resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East has been a difficult one, to say the least. The last 60 years have been characterised by wars interspersed with random acts of violence from both sides. An estimated 100,000 people have been killed and one report speculates the opportunity cost to both sides from 1991-2010 is somewhere in the region of $12 trillion. The fact that so much is at stake for both sides from a religious standpoint is largely to blame for the lack of progress over this time. Utilised effectively, however, it could be the reason both sides come to the table as the potential upside of a peaceful settlement is huge for both.
On a positive note, as argued in this article, some of the major points of a potential agreement have already got broad support from both sides: borders will largely return to those of 1967 (with a few land swaps necessary to achieve this), a Palestinian state will be established (I find it shocking that this should ever have been disputed) and the right of return to Israel for Palestinians (though this must not happen to any great extent in practice if the agreement is to hold).
For any agreement to happen, however, the U.S must utilise the 'stick' more effectively. Netanyahu has been able to let settlements balloon in size in defiance of America's requests whilst pocketing $3 billion per year in foreign direct aid (Palestine, in turn, receives no aid). Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, have refused to crack down on terrorists, and in some cases encourage them, with very little pressure from the U.S. In these areas the U.S has the power to force both sides to the table if it is bold enough. For a lasting agreement to be reached, both sides must desperately want to end the status quo and see compromises on issues such as Jerusalem as the lesser of two evils.
Whilst Netanyahu is reluctant to compromise, he surely knows that Israel would be staggeringly vulnerable without U.S aid and his stance would likely change should the U.S show any willingness to cut this aid. The situation in Palestine also looks more promising with big wins possible for the more moderate Fatah party in the January elections.
The path to peace is now a realistic goal if the leaders of both sides can come together. For this to happen, America must first assume its role as an even-handed arbitrator and make the difficult choices. If ever the status quo could be broken it is under the dynamic and popular leadership of President Obama but he must seize the moment far earlier in his presidency than his predecessors. Were he to do this, he might just live up to the messianic status he holds across much of the world.
ADJB
On a positive note, as argued in this article, some of the major points of a potential agreement have already got broad support from both sides: borders will largely return to those of 1967 (with a few land swaps necessary to achieve this), a Palestinian state will be established (I find it shocking that this should ever have been disputed) and the right of return to Israel for Palestinians (though this must not happen to any great extent in practice if the agreement is to hold).
For any agreement to happen, however, the U.S must utilise the 'stick' more effectively. Netanyahu has been able to let settlements balloon in size in defiance of America's requests whilst pocketing $3 billion per year in foreign direct aid (Palestine, in turn, receives no aid). Palestinian leaders, on the other hand, have refused to crack down on terrorists, and in some cases encourage them, with very little pressure from the U.S. In these areas the U.S has the power to force both sides to the table if it is bold enough. For a lasting agreement to be reached, both sides must desperately want to end the status quo and see compromises on issues such as Jerusalem as the lesser of two evils.
Whilst Netanyahu is reluctant to compromise, he surely knows that Israel would be staggeringly vulnerable without U.S aid and his stance would likely change should the U.S show any willingness to cut this aid. The situation in Palestine also looks more promising with big wins possible for the more moderate Fatah party in the January elections.
The path to peace is now a realistic goal if the leaders of both sides can come together. For this to happen, America must first assume its role as an even-handed arbitrator and make the difficult choices. If ever the status quo could be broken it is under the dynamic and popular leadership of President Obama but he must seize the moment far earlier in his presidency than his predecessors. Were he to do this, he might just live up to the messianic status he holds across much of the world.
ADJB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
