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.

ADJB

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

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

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

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

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

Post-Racial? Apparently Not...

Nearly two weeks ago, police were dispatched to the home of "Skip" Gates, a renowned Harvard professor, on suspicion of burglary after one of his neighbours saw two black men forcing open the front door. As it turns out the two men weren't burglars, it was merely Gates and his driver trying to open his jammed front door on his return home. Unfortunately, the incident did not end there. Upon arrival, the police ordered Gates to provide i.d whiched proved the house was his own. Gates refused, as he felt it was a violation of his rights, and suggested that the policeman's request was racist (which it was, though probably unitentionally). After a heated exchange, Gates was arrested for being disorderly (though the charges have since been dropped).

Opinions are divided on whether this incident is indicative of a larger race relations problem or simply a one-off incident. Some even suggest that race had nothing to do with the officer's request, he was simply doing his job. This is to ignore the bigger trend, however, as the following post argues:

White folks are quite comfortable with this notion that there is a pattern of racist behavior in America. They are reluctant, however, to say that any individual instance is about race. So what happened to Skip Gates wasn't racist. Neither was what happened to Shem Walker. Or Sean Bell. Or Oscar Grant. Or Officer Omar Edwards.

Every individual instance must be rationalized, but then at the end of the year when the stats are compiled we rant and rave against a pattern of behavior, against institutional racism.

Institutional racism is nothing more than a pattern of individual behavior that has become institutionalized. Redlining is just a lot of White folks deciding where non-whites can live. Poll taxes were nothing but a lot of White folks making it really hard for Black folks to vote.

They say the personal is political. Well the individual is the collective.

This highlights an important point and one which needs to be addressed if we are to be honest about race relations in America. The fact is, had Gates been a white man, he would likely not have been asked to produce i.d and would not have later been arrested. When we take a "no-one's to blame" attitude towards instances like this or characterise them as the result of a "rogue" police officer it acts as a barrier to genuine reform. Without being honest about why this incident happened we cannot hope to stop it happening again (possibly the aim of certain people).

Race relations by their very nature have been tied up in identity politics in recent times and I believe this has held back progress. Where they have become part of a culture war between Republicans and Democrats, only the latter has been willing to devote time and effort to ensuring that the civil rights and liberties of minority groups are protected. This has ensured the prevalance of de facto racism long after minorities have been granted equal rights in law.

If there is any positive that can be taken from the incident it's that it has exposed the myth of post-racial America as a fallacy. In the wake of President Obama's election many believed that the past problems that minority groups had faced were over and that we had reached the goal of a colour-blind society. The fact that a prominent black scholar became a suspect in his own home puts paid to that idea.

Closing our eyes or making excuses for instances such as this does nothing but perpetuate the inequalities we know exist. In this light I'm pleased to see that Gates and the officer have been invited for a beer at the White House with President Obama. It's a publicity stunt, certainly, but in talking to 'real' people about a very real problem, we might just make some progress.

ADJB

Progress Imminent on 'Mandatory Minimums'?

Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (where I was fortunate enough to work last summer), has released an article commenting on the now famous comment from Senator Sessions that he wanted to "do that crack thing" with Senator Leahy and Mr. Henderson.

Whilst Sessions' comment was a slip of the tongue rather than an indication of any serious problem, the point he was alluding to is a rather serious one: that of mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine in the United States. As Henderson describes the problem,

"Defendants convicted with just 5 grams of crack cocaine — enough to yield only about 10 to 50 doses and weighing less than two packets of sugar — are subject to a five-year mandatory minimum sentence. But when it comes to powder cocaine, you have to be caught trying to sell 100 times as much — 500 grams, which yields between 2,500 and 5,000 doses — to be subject to the same mandatory minimum of five years."

Due to mandatory minimum sentences, the average sentence for first time offenders is now 10 years and 6 months in prison. This is 59% longer than the average prison sentence received by convicted rapists and only 18% less than the average sentence received by those convicted of manslaughter or murder.

For many, this absurd policy is rooted in a new form of racism. Though only 13% of drug users in the United States are black, they comprise 38% of those arrested for (and 59% of those sentenced for) drug offences and this is in no small part down to mandatory minimum sentences. The majority of crack cocaine users are black, whilst the majority of powder cocaine users are white. Mandatory minimums ensure that the majority of people who are arrested and sentenced for drug offenses are black.

That the most senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee is advocating reform on this issue is proof enough of the failure of mandatory minimums to solve America's drug problems. More importantly, his support may be enough to encourage other Republicans of this, and enable America to rid itself of this racist policy once and for all.

ADJB

Minor Resistance is a Start

Today the U.S Senate came within two votes of passing an amendment which would have allowed holders of gun permits from one state to legally cross borders into other states in possession of these guns.

The amendment was heavily opposed by a number of mayors across America who felt it posed a significant threat to safety, an argument that is hard to challenge. Disappointingly, several influential Democrats voted in favour of the amendment, (not least the majority leader, Harry Reid) almost doing enough to make it law.

That this amendment came so close to being passed is a worrying sign that attitudes towards gun safety have not changed in America of late (possibly owing to the NRA's great success in framing the national debate). Nevertheless, for the time being Americans can be thankful that, as Mayor Bloomberg put it, "lives have been saved with the defeat of this amendment." But how long will it last?

ADJB

Ken Saro-Wiwa - He Dared to Challenge Them

On November 10th 1995, Ken Saro-Wiwa watched on as eight of his friends and collegues were hanged in front of him. Shortly afterwards he become the ninth, and so ended the life of a brave, talented and righteous man. His 'crime'? To question the actions of Shell and the Nigerian government, who were subjecting his people to unbearable living conditions. That he should die through such violent methods at the hands of a military dictatorship was in direct contrast to the way he lived his life: using peaceful protests to empower the powerless.

Signs of his political leanings were evident as early as 1973 when he was dismissed from his job as Regional Commissioner for arguing that the people of Ogoni (of which he was one) deserved greater autonomy. His real immersion into politics came in 1987, however, when he was appointed by Nigeria's dictator, Ibrahim Babangida, to help with Nigeria's transition to democracy. Sadly, he was unable to achieve this, largely owing to Babangida's lack of willingness to relinquish power.

Soon afterwards Saro-Wiwa began to take a more active interest in the plight of the Ogoni people. Since Shell had begun drilling there, they no longer had access to clean water, clean air, or land on which they could cultivate crops (in an area where most worked as farmers). Furthermore, regular explosions from the oil pipelines made the area unsafe to live in.

Saro-Wiwa helped create the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (MOSOP), a non-violent group which aimed at securing the rights of Ogoni people, and soon became its leader. He organised marches and drew international attention to their cause in the face of extreme violence and intimidation from the local police. In response to one protest, police were summoned the request of Shell and killed 80 people and destroyed 500 homes. In total 2,000 Ogoni people were killed and a further 80,000 made homeless by police raids in the area.

Saro-Wiwa travelled across the globe raising awareness of the plight of the Ogoni, who were at the mercy of a powerful oil company who controlled a corrupt Nigerian government through bribery. Facing threats to both himself and his family, becoming an international figurehead for this cause was dangerous, to say the least. Nevertheless, he was so successful in doing so that Shell was forced to leave Nigeria in 1993.

This success, however, would cost him his life. Following a corrupt trial in which witnesses were openly bribed by both Shell and the Nigerian Government, Saro-Wiwa and eight others (later dubbed the 'Ogoni nine') were sentenced to death for inciting violence. Four other Ogoni chiefs were killed by police not long before. Worldwide condemnation and the highlighting of the corrupt nature of the trial were not enough to save Saro-Wiwa but, in his own words, "I may be dead, but my ideas will not die."

Shell is currently being sued in a New York court for its crimes against the Ogoni people, echoing Saro Wiwa's words that, "the crime of [Shell's] dirty wars against the Ogoni people will be punished." A win in this trial would go some way to rewarding the great risks taken by many Ogoni people, not least Ken Saro-Wiwa, whose courage never faltered in the pursuit if what he knew to be right.

ADJB

Bombing Makes the Price Go Up

I was disappointed to read today that allied forces in Afghanistan have begun bombing opium fields in Afghanistan, regarding it as a central pillar of the ongoing operation. I can't help but think back to the days of Plan Colombia, when the U.S tried a similar tactic in order to stop the flow of Cocaine across their borders. This simplistic tactic failed because, whilst they may have destroyed the crops, in providing no viable alternative to the farmers in the region, they simply replanted them. To this day, America's per capita consumption of Cocaine is second only to that of Spain. The amount America spends on fighting the drugs trade regularly mirrors the amount that the Americans spend on drugs each year. In other words, the methods used thus far do not work.

So it is to my great dismay that the Obama campaign has chosen to follow the same flawed path as many previous administrations. Their reasons for doing so, only they will know. The reality is, however, that unless bombing raids are allied with viable alternatives for farmers in the region, they will be no more successful than Plan Colombia.

To be fair to the Obama administration, they have made fledgling attempts at this through providing subsidies and resources for growing different crops and have made some progress in doing so. Nonetheless, the amount spent on bombing these fields still far outweighs the money spent on providing aid to those affected, and this needs to change. When farmers can earn $5,385 per hectare cultivating opium and just $575 per hectare growing irrigated wheat (according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), the current incentives are not sufficient.

In the current climate, destroying the only source of income for many in the Helmand province will likely lead to an increase in poverty and make the region a target for anti-western groups such as Al-Qaeda. Thus, if we are unable to provide immediate support for those worst affected we risk making the region even more dangerous than before we arrived. Furthermore, bombing the region will add to growing resentment towards western 'imperialism' and risks scuppering the goodwill which came in the wake of President Obama's election.

Whilst I am not specifically against the boming raids per se, we must spend more on the 'carrot' and less on the 'stick' as the raids alone will neither lower opium output, nor bring peace long term peace. Providing alternatives to opium production will help to win over support from the Afghani people so we can work in collaberation, not conflict. If we make no attempts to do this, our efforts will simply raise the price of Heroin, making richer the very people we are meant to be fighting.

ADJB

Atheism - A Dirty Word?

I was shocked to read in this week's Economist that whilst only 5% of Americans would not vote for a black candidate, as many as 53% would not vote for an Atheist. Coming from a largely secular society this seems not only absurd, but in contradiction of certain principles to which Americans pay a lot of lip service. Where is the tolerance, freedom to worship and seperation of Church and State when the majority of Americans freely state that they would discriminate against a person based on their religious beliefs? In giving people the freedom to worship we must also respect their right not to worship.

Many communities have been successful in highlighting instances of discrimination and (rightfully) making them taboo. Atheists, on the other hand, rarely have entire communities from which to launch similar efforts, thus giving them a weaker position. By their nature, churches, synagogues and temples are places not only of worship, but of strong community spirit and this is to be applauded. Nevertheless, such communities place a great deal of power, and therefore responsibility, in the hands of a small number of people. This should not be abused and where condescesion and abuse towards 'non-believers' is accepted (or even encouraged), they should be denounced in the same way as racists and sexists.

Granted, discrimination against atheists rarely manifests itself in the same kind of violent methods which could be seen in the days of the Civil Rights Movement. Nevertheless, intolerance here is an obstacle to the true freedom to worship and should be highlighted and challenged.

In the meantime, we can only hope that, as the article suggests, not all of those who answered the question knew what an atheist was.

ADJB

Sotomayor's Questioning

Much of the question's directed at Supreme Court Nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor today focused on trying to pin down whether she will be an activist judge. Sotomayor was at pains to distance herself from the idea that she will be the kind of judge who, in President Obama's words, make decisions based on "what is in the judge's heart". She argued that the job of a judge was not to make law, but rather interpret the facts presented to them within the existing framework of law.

When questioned on abortion and gun control, Sotomayor argued that Rowe vs Wade is settled law (indicating she would not change it, unsurprisingly) and that she supports the second amendment (much to my disappointment, as I have mentioned elsewhere).

Mundanely, and yet typically, much was made of Sotomayor's comments about "a wise Latina woman", a throwaway statement she made while talking to a group of students in 2001. It says much about this process that this has become such a central pillar of the discussions. Senator Graham mentioned that, for him to have made a similar comment would have landed him in a lot of trouble. It still amuses me how the vast majority of federal court judges are white males (as are politicians) and yet Senator Graham still makes an attempt to place them as victims when somebody actually makes note of this fact. It was a play-on words, let it go!

ADJB

The G8 Summit Finale: Food For Thought?

Leaders of the G8 nations have today pledged $20 billion, $5 billion more than expected, in order to boost food supplies within many of the world's poorest nations. It is hoped that this investment will partly fund an initiative for these nations to develop their own agriculture and, ultimately, become self-sufficient. But has the G8 actually done enough for these nations?

President Obama believes that we have a "moral obligation as well as a national security interest" to help developing nations in becoming self-sufficient. Furthermore, he sees this as an achieveable target. By providing significant resources to these poorer nations, the G8 countries can begin fulfilling this ‘moral obligation’ and highlight the fact that food security should not be synonymous with food aid. Obama’s words, however, will likely raise questions as to whether this aid is being given out of real altruism, or as a pre-emptive protection against the emergence of 'new security threats' to developed nations. When observed in this way, his words can be seen as somewhat paradoxical, how are we fulfilling a moral obligation if we are providing this aid in order for ourselves to remain ‘safe’?

President Obama also specified that this monetary assistance should not be seen as an end in itself in providing a helping hand to developing nations. Rather, that institutions such as the World Bank will also play a key role in what will hopefully be the poorer nations triumphant journey to self-sustainability. It is positive to see that the G8 nations are aware that simply throwing money at these nations will not solve their problems.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi stated that the key message from African nations is that the G8 has lived up to its commitments, but has it really? Some aid organizations have criticized the figure pledged, as the promise made in the 2005 G8 summit - to increase annual aid levels to sub-Saharan Africa by $25bn by 2010 - has not been fulfilled. Furthermore, the summit’s host, Italy, has come under fire by aid agencies for cutting aid this year. In addition, with the UK giving more aid as a percentage of GDP than both the USA and Japan combined, we must question whether all G8 countries are entirely committed to solving these problems?

Certainly, the head of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Agency, Jacques Diouf does not think so. Diouf criticises the aid pledged, stating that it falls short of what is needed. Nevertheless, he regards it as a "big jump" forward compared to what was expected before the summit. Details of the deal, and the time frame within which the promises will be delivered are yet to be confirmed, contributing to condemnation that the G8’s smoke-and-mirrors approach to its commitments leaves a lot to be desired.

So, as another G8 summit comes to a close, we once more have seemingly promising pledges from the leaders of the G8 nations. However, one must ask whether these promises live up to the expectations that many, predominantly aid agencies, had and to what extent the G8 nations will stand by their pledges and commitments.

LAB

Kurdistan - Rebellion Ignored?

The Holocaust is rightly remembered as the most tragic example of ethnic cleansing that the world has seen in living memory. Reminders of this, such as the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC and the permanent Holocaust exhibition at the Imperial War Museum in London are a testament to the western world's determination not to forget this tragedy. Yet, whilst we have remembered this one instance, we have at times ignored many similar examples from elsewhere in the world. Once such example is that of the Kurdish people.

During World War I, large scale ethnic cleansing by young Turks resulted in the 'forcible deportation' of an estimated 700,000 Kurds, more than half of whom died or went missing in the process. In response, Western nations (under the leadership of Great Britain) gave an assurance that they would henceforth act as protectors of the rights of the Kurdish people, much as they would later do with the Jews in Europe. This is as far as the comparison goes. Whilst the west kept its promise to the Jews in giving them their own nation state (and significant aid for the purpose of protecting it), they have watched on as the people of Kurdistan have been subject to further ethnic cleansing (180,000 murders at the hands of Saddam Hussein's regime) and have had to make do with semi-autonomy over the region of Kurdistan.

With Kurdistan sitting on top of some of the largest oil and gas reserves in the Middle East, control over the region is, understandably, a hotly contested issue. The Iraqi establishment is loathed to agree to any arrangement whereby Kurdistan's regional government would receive all (or even a section) of the profits from exporting these raw materials whilst the Kurdish people see these natural resources as their birth right. Despite (weak) attempts from the US to leverage a fair compromise on the issue, the Iraqi government has so far only allowed the Kurds to sell oil from newly discovered fields, refusing to give them a share of the profits from the other fields in their territory (which is where much of the true value lies).

Recently, however, Kurdish members of the Iraqi parliament have attempted to fight back by attempting to push through a new constitution for the semi-autonomous region which "enshrines Kurdish claims to territories and the oil and gas beneath them", though you would not know it from the non-existant coverage of it in the western media (with the exception of the New York Times).

Such a move should have provoked an agressive response from both Iraq and the US, who had hoped to withdraw their troops in the near future. Yet, whilst the Iraqis have responded as expected, there has been a deafening silence from the US. This is remarkable at a time when they desperately need more troops to deploy in Afghanistan.

We must question why, after nearly a century of oppression, the Kurdish minority have chosen now to act. They are gaining strength in the region, certainly, but to make such a bold move alone would be naive at best. When looking at the US's military position, one would naturally assume that it is not in their interests to support the Kurdish cause. To only look at military objectives, however, is to ignore a greater problem for America in the region.

American oil companies have struggled to gain permits from the Iraqi government in recent times, causing much frustration to some in Washington. The Kurdish regional government, on the other hand, has been more than willing to grant permits to foreign oil companies in return for a small slice of the profits. Thus, in times of economic strife, KRG (Kurdistan Regional Government) control over the remaining oil fields in Kurdistan could bring some much-needed revenue to some U.S businesses.

Is the US living up to its promise to protect Kurdish interests or simply trying to further endow its ailing economy? It seems that business interests have trumped military interests once again.

ADJB

It's Not the Numbers that Count, it's the Message

The United States and Russia have 95% of the world's nuclear weapons between them, a throwback to the days of the Cold War and the 'wisdom' of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Stockpiles of nuclear weapons have since decreased to the levels of the start of the Cold War and, yesterday, Presidents Obama and Medvedev negotiated a treaty to reduce this number further. Though, a small step (they both still have enough weapons to blow up the world several times over) this is a strong signal of intent from both sides that disarmament is on their respective political agendas.

President Obama has vowed to ratify the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and hold a conference on non-proliferation at some point in the near future but, until now had not spent a huge amount of political capital on the issue. That has now changed and, with it, we may begin to see a thawing of relations with the Kremlin, particularly ass a deal for information sharing and nuclear trade between the two countries was included in the package, something which would have been unthinkable even a decade ago.

Obama may still struggle to compromise with Russia on issues such as the European missile defence shield and Georgian independence but finding common ground on certain issues is often a stepping stone to finding solutions on more potent disagreements. Certainly, this is progress. Furthermore, progress on this issue may yet put pressure on Iran and North Korea to halt their nuclear programmes (though it will likely not stop them). A cynic may even go as far as to say that fears over new nuclear powers arising within striking distance of Russia, the U.S and Israel are what forced these two historical rivals to the table.

And so it is with great irony that the two nations who started and dominated the race to build nuclear stockpiles should lead the efforts to eradicate them. That this will set off a wave of like-for-like responses elsewhere is doubtful, but the intent is there and that is certainly a start.

ADJB

Let Zelaya Return

Having been ousted in a military coup last week and forced into exile, President Zelaya has boarded a plane to return to Honduras and is flying there as we speak. Honduran military leaders have vowed to arrest him for treason if he lands, which will fan the flames in the short-term and may prove to be a mistake on their part in the long-term.

The response outside of Honduras is notable for the broad support which Zelaya has received despite being closely allied with the normally unpopular President Chavez. Obama has thrown his support behind the exiled President, the World Bank has threatened to suspend aid if Zelaya is not reinstated and Chavez went as far as to threaten an invasion.

Yet for all the verbal support, little has been done so far. Realists would argue that this is because, despite a clear breach of a previously stable democracy, it is not in the interests of any would-be interveners to act in this instance (with the possible exception of Venezuela). The U.S would have been the most likely but with troops still stationed in Iraq and the current 'surge' in Afghanistan they would be loathed spread their troops any further. Add to this the fact that Honduras consumes less than 0.5% of U.S total exports, there is little danger to the U.S economically. Furthermore, with the politics of Latin America shifting to the 'right' in recent years, they will see little political danger in another 'left-leaning' ally of Chavez disappearing from power.

The real reason, however, may be Zelaya's decaying support in Honduras. It is difficult to restore a leader, even in the name of democracy, who is no longer wanted by the vast majority of his people. Having won election by a margin of less than 4% on a 'tough on crime' mantra, his approval ratings have fallen to the low 30s owing to, among other things, a significant rise in crime during his presidency. Significant changes in policy positions, attempts at dubious constitutional reforms (to allow him to serve further terms in office) and poor fiscal management have characterised his time in office and undermined his support to the point where he would struggle to wield much power should he return to office. In addition, with only 6 months left of his last term in office (despite his best efforts), most countries will take the pragmatic position that it's just not worth the hassle to muscle him back into power.

Were Zelaya to be arrested, however, it may shame the international community into action. Thus opponents may be wiser to let him see out his final hours in office as a 'lame duck', rather than impulsively wrestling him from power before his time is up. Patience would most certainly be a virtue here, but this is Latin American politics so we shall have to wait and see what happens.

ADJB

Nicely Timed, Mr Souter!

Justice David Souter's recent announcement that he wishes to step down from the U.S Supreme Court could scarcely have come at a better time for the Democrats. Just a few days ago, Senator Arlen Spector of Pennsylvania announced his decision to run as a Democrat in 2010, bringing the Democrat's official tally in the Senate to 59. With Al Franken the current favourite to win Minnesota's contested seat, the Democrats have the potential to get the 60 Senators they need for a filibuster-proof majority. Such a majority would give the Obama administration significant leeway in choosing their nominee with the potential to fill the vacancy with a strong liberal candidate. In doing so they could balance out the strong conservative presence of Justices Thomas and Scalia and give themselves a more sympathetic bench to work with over the next three-and-a-half years. Furthermore, knowing that Justice Ginsburg's retirement may not be far away (sadly, owing to being diagnosed with Pancreatic Cancer) President Obama may still have further opportunities to shift the balance of the court to the left.

Yet for all the possibilities that Obama's liberal base must be anticipating, there is a growing consensus that Souter's replacement won't be quite such a bold choice. Many who know Obama from his days as a Law Professor at the University of Chicago have said that he is unlikely to plump for an activist, though he is interested in finding the kind of person who appreciates the real-life consequences of Supreme Court decisions.

In his press conference to announce Justice Souter's retirement, Obama gave indications as to the kind of nominee he might be looking for. "Independent", having "the quality of empathy" and an appreciation for "constitutional values" were all significant indications and notably none of them indicates a shift to the left.

Certainly, the Obama administration will not have been surprised by this opportunity and may well already have a good idea of the names they want on the shortlist. Many are expecting a female nominee, and with good reason: 48% of law school graduates in the US last year were female and yet only 1 of the 9 seats of the highest court in the land is held by a woman. With that 1 likely to retire soon, also, we may yet see Obama appoint 2 women to the bench before the next elections.

It is certainly high time we saw more women sitting on the Supreme Court and minorities also, particularly given the high number of qualified candidates who would fit such a description. Nevertheless, in looking for a restrained centrist, I feel that the Obama Administration may be missing a significant opportunity to make a lasting impact in reversing the conservative nature of the court. Obama must surely understand the value of an active court in breaking political stalemates. Whatever reservations he may have about their lack of legitimacy, it would be naive to ignore the potential positives that could come with an active liberal on the bench. If he let's this opportunity pass, it could set back many of the causes he holds dear for decades.

ADJB

Gun Laws in America - Safeguarding the Right to Kill

On January 29th, 1979, 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer opened fire at Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California, killing the Principal and Head Custodian of the school, as well as wounding 9 others. When asked why she had done this, Spencer replied, "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day." The rifle that she used was a Christmas present from her father, legally bought and given to her. Until the moment she pulled the trigger, Brenda was yet to commit a crime.

Just as shocking, however, is the fact that this kind of incident is commonplace in a country which endeavours to be the world's conscience. It is sad that such barbaric incidents should continue to occur, unabated, for fear of inciting the wrath of the gun lobby, but they do. When Seung-Hui Cho killed 32 people and wounded many more at Virginia Tech in April 2007, in what was the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S history, the idea of banning guns was not even mentioned, let alone pursued.

What has surprised me most when broaching the subject with Americans (and progressives at that) was their response that "guns make people safer." It seems as if people have been told this for so long that it has come to be accepted as truth. When looking at the figures for gun deaths, however, this notion appears comical. If you combine the populations of the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Spain, Canada and Holland, all of whom have strict gun laws, you get a population which is slightly larger than that of the United States: in 2002 (the most recent year for which I could find data) the aforementioned nations had a combined total of 1,793 gun deaths, whilst the U.S had 30,694. With 17 times the rate of gun deaths it is hard to argue that guns make people safer.

The electorate's lack of education on the issue is a symptom of the problem, though, rather than the cause. It is not apathy and support for the gun lobby that has made them such a powerful force, rather it is the gun lobby systematically stamping out opposition to it in Congress which has led us to this point. In 2004, the NRA had a total income of over $200 million. This money was used to finance attack ads against candidates who favoured greater restrictions on guns and to fund "public education intitiatives" which promote ideas, such as "guns make people safer." The Brady Campaign, the NRA's largest opponent, could only dream of having such resources.

Recently, the U.S Supreme Court overturned the D.C handgun ban by citing it as "unconstitutional", yet another setback in the fight to lower the rate of gun deaths in the U.S. The Supreme Court's decision was predictable, with the current balance of the court lurching so far to the right, but disappointing nonetheless. How either Spencer or Cho represented "well-regulated militia[s]" is beyond my reasoning but the Supreme Court certainly felt that their's was a cause worth protecting. How many more must fall before people take notice?

The end of this battle is nowhere near but I can only hope that politicians will suit up for it some time soon. Debate on this issue can only be a good thing since the facts are on our side. It has certainly been a long time coming.

ADJB