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