allvoices - Contributed news >> Political >> Recent

Obama taps Clinton, Gates for US 'new dawn' abroad

allvoices / contributed news — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:24:45 -0600

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer

CHICAGO – Barack Obama promised "a new dawn of American leadership" in a troubled world Monday, announcing a strong-willed national security team headed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who fought him long and bitterly for the presidency, and Robert Gates, the man who has been running two wars for George W. Bush.

The president-elect said he hadn't changed his mind about bringing most U.S. combat troops home from Iraq within 16 months but added a cautionary note — he'll consult with his military commanders first.

While his new team may be a bit more centrist — some war opponents might even say hawkish — than many Obama supporters might prefer, he said the withdrawal timetable he emphasized in the presidential campaign is still "the right time frame."

Clinton, as secretary of state, and Gates, remaining as defense secretary, will be the most prominent faces — besides Obama's own — of the new administration's effort to revamp U.S. policy abroad.

At a Chicago news conference, Obama also tapped top advisers Eric Holder as attorney general and Susan Rice as ambassador to the United Nations. He named Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano to be homeland security secretary and retired Marine Gen. James Jones as White House national security adviser.

The choices had been telegraphed days earlier but were remarkable all the same — still another major turn in Clinton's extraordinary career, a show of faith in Gates and action to support Obama's frequent talk of desiring robust debate among seasoned, opinionated people in his inner circle.

Denouncing White House "group think," Obama signaled a break from President Bush's tendency toward an insular management style and go-with-the-gut diplomacy.

"The time has come for a new beginning," said Obama, flanked by flags on a stage with Vice President-elect Joe Biden and his six newest appointees. While Gates will stay at the Pentagon, Obama said the military's new mission will be "responsibly ending the war in Iraq through a successful transition to Iraqi control."

He said a newly completed agreement between Iraq and the Bush administration covering U.S. troops signals "a transition period in which our mission is changing." He added: "It indicates we are now on a glide path to reduce our forces in Iraq."

Obama has now selected half his Cabinet, including the high-profile jobs at State, Defense, Justice and Treasury. A week ago, he named his economic team, led by Timothy Geithner as treasury secretary. And soon he plans to announce New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson as commerce secretary and former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle as health and human services secretary.

Obama's picks suggest he is mindful of his own relative inexperience; most of the appointees have decades more experience in government than he does as a former one-term Illinois senator. The selections also reflect his long-voiced desire to invite divergent viewpoints to chart the best course for the country.

"I assembled this team because I'm a strong believer in strong personalities and strong opinions," he said. "I think that's how the best decisions are made. ... So I'm going to be welcoming a vigorous debate inside the White House."

"But understand I will be setting policy as president," he added. He said he will be responsible for "the vision that this team carries out, and I expect them to implement that vision once decisions are made."

Quoting Harry S. Truman, Obama said: "The buck will stop with me."

"The time has come for a new beginning, a new dawn of American leadership to overcome the challenges of the 21st century," Obama said.

Without naming Bush or directly referring to what administration critics see as America's tarnished world image over the past eight years, Obama called for a new strategy for dealing with global issues.

"We're going to have to bring the full force of our power, not only military but also diplomatic, economic, and political, to deal with those threats not only to keep America safe but also to ensure that peace and prosperity will exist around the world," he said.

Referring to his security team, Obama said: "They share my pragmatism about the use of power and my sense of purpose about America's role as a leader in the world."

Asked by reporters about his choice of Clinton, who traded barbs with him and questioned his readiness for the presidency during the campaign, he praised her and shrugged off any suggestions of future problems.

He said of the New York senator, "She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic. ... She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in every capital and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world."

The former first lady repaid the compliment: "I am proud to join you ... and may God bless you and our great country."

Likewise, Gates said he was "honored to serve President-elect Obama."

He said he was "mindful that we are engaged in two wars and face other serious challenges at home and around the world."

"I must do my duty as they do theirs," he said of the men and women in uniform in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. "How could I do otherwise?"

At the news conference, Obama expressed sympathy for the victims of the terror attacks in Mumbai but twice declined to say whether the Indian government would be justified in pursuing terrorists in next-door Pakistan.

"This is one of those times when I have to reiterate there is one president at a time," he said. "We're going to be engaged in some very delicate diplomacy in the next days and weeks, and I think it would be very inappropriate of me to comment."

Obama had drawn criticism during the campaign — including from Clinton — when he said the United States would be justified in pursuing al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan if it had "actionable intelligence."

Clinton will give up her seat as a senator from New York to join the Cabinet. Her appointment was preceded by lengthy negotiations involving her husband, the former president, whose international business connections posed potential conflicts of interests.

Napolitano, too, must resign her current job as a border state governor. She was among the earliest Obama supporters, when Clinton seemed the likely Democratic nominee.

Gates' appointment fulfilled a campaign promise by Obama, the naming of a Republican to his Cabinet.

Holder, a former Justice Department official in the Clinton administration, led Obama's vice presidential search, while Rice was his top foreign policy adviser. Jones, meanwhile, advised both Obama and Republican presidential nominee John McCain during the campaign on national security issues. Last year he led a commission that advised Congress on progress in training Iraqi security forces.

Clinton, Holder, Napolitano and Rice require Senate confirmation. Jones, as a White House official, does not. Nor does Gates, already confirmed to his post.

Court dissolves Thai government for election fraud

allvoices / contributed news — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 01:04:48 -0600

By AMBIKA AHUJA, Associated Press Writer

BANGKOK, Thailand – The Constitutional Court dissolved Thailand's top three ruling parties for electoral fraud Tuesday and temporarily barred the prime minister from politics, bringing down a government that faced months of strident protests seeking its ouster.

The ruling set the stage for thousands of protesters to end their seige of the country's two main airports. Members of the People's Alliance for Democracy protest group at Bangkok's international airport cheered and hugged after they heard news of the verdict.

"My heart is happy. My friends are very happy," said Pailin Jampapong, a 41-year-old Bangkok housekeeper choking back tears as she jumped up and down.

Government spokesman Nattawut Sai-kau said that Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat and his ruling, six-party coalition would step down.

"We will abide by the law. The coalition parties will meet together to plan for its next move soon," he told The Associated Press.

He also said the government was postponing a regional summit in Thailand of Southeast Asian countries, from December to March.

Somchai's People's Power Party, the Machima Thipatai party and the Chart Thai party were found guilty of committing fraud in the December 2007 elections that brought the coalition to power with thumping majority.

Court President Chat Chalavorn said the court was dissolving the parties "to set a political standard and an example."

"Dishonest political parties undermine Thailand's democratic system," he said in the court's ruling.

The ruling sends Somchai and dozens of party executives into political exile, barring them from the country's politics for five years.

But other members of the three parties that escaped the ban can join other parties and try to cobble together a new coalition and choose a new prime minister.

It was expected that Somchai would remain the caretaker prime minister until then.

Thousands of members of the protest alliance have been the main Suvarnabhumi international airport and the domestic Don Muang airport for about a week, cutting off all commercial traffic to the capital and stranding more than 300,000 foreign travelers here.

At the Suvarnabhumi airport, the verdict was read out on a protest stage outside the main terminal.

"It is good because the (corrupt) politicians have been told to get out. It is good for Thailand. This is a blow for corruption," said Nong Sugrawut, a 55-year-old businessman who was among the thousands camped at Suvarnabhumi.

Politicians banned by the verdict refused to comment.

"The court just banned me and my party from political activity so I can't give you any comment," Kuthep Saikrajang, a spokesman of the People's Power Party, told The Associated Press.

India-Pakistan relations may become Obama's top priority

allvoices / contributed news — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 00:50:15 -0600

Chicago, Dec 2 'Sovereign nations obviously have a right to protect themselves.' This axiomatic comment by President-elect Barack Obama, while unveiling his national security team on Monday morning, is fraught with significant implications for India-Pakistan bilateral relations.

That it was made in response to a specific question whether India has the right to attack Pakistan in the aftermath of the Mumbai terror attacks makes it doubly important.

'Beyond that I do not want to comment on the specific situation that has taken place in South Asia right now. It is important for us to let the investigators do their job to make determination as to who is responsible for carrying out this heinous act. My administration will remain steadfast in support to India's efforts to catch the perpetrators of this terrible act and bring them to justice and I expect that the world community will feel the same way,' Obama said after making that comment.

His comments appeared to studiedly leave out saying he would necessarily stand in India's way were it to choose to target terrorists in Pakistan in the event the latter did not or could not contain them.

It was expected that Obama would be asked about the situation in India and its impact on relations with Pakistan as he introduced Senator Hillary Clinton as his choice for Secretary of State. From all available accounts, the Obama team has been paying considerable attention to the clear sharpening of the rhetoric from the Indian side in the aftermath of the terror attacks and its potential to yet again put the two countries on in a volatile embrace.

Although Iraq and Afghanistan remain important items of Obama's foreign policy to-do list, the dramatic appearance of the tensions between India and Pakistan could well constitute its top priority. Tied to the stability or lack thereof in Pakistan is Obama's passionate advocacy of defeating the Al Qaeda-Taliban combine now known to operate on Pakistani soil.

There is already some speculation whether Obama might follow up on his idea of appointing a special envoy to deal with the Kashmir issue, if only to relieve the Pakistani military from deploying major human resource and assets to border with India and diverting it to the country's northwest where the jehadi groups are in control. Once again popular current affairs show host Chris Mathews spoke of the possibility of former president Bill Clinton being asked to mediate in the dispute.

There are no indications at all whether Obama is even remotely considering a special envoy on Kashmir, but the talk has somehow remained in the air. Some experts believe that the Mumbai attacks lend particular urgency to the Kashmir issue, especially because the Lashkar-e-Taiba, whose core ideology is to challenge India's sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir, has come under serious suspicion for its possible role in the latest attacks.

The sharpening anti-Pakistan tone in New Delhi is unlikely to go unnoticed in the headquarters of the US government-in-waiting here in Chicago. There is also realization that things can clearly spin out of control in the rawness of the atmosphere in South Asia.

Not that anyone here expects that India and Pakistan might go to war and seriously mar Obama's inauguration set for 50 days from now. But the incoming administration will be seriously chagrined at the idea of starting their term having to deal with two nuclear powers, one of them a haven for Islamist groups, locking themselves in a military conflict.

The Obama administration might feel reassured that Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is not given to rash actions, but at the same time they also recognize the growing political pressures on him to act tough a few months before the general elections.

BREAKING NEWS:CERTIFICATE FROM WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDANT ,FOR NOT INVOLVEMENT OF PAKISTAN IN INDIAN RECENT ATTACKS

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:57:23 -0600

Pakistan is not involved in recent indian attacks ,need to co-operate with india regarding this issue,this was stated by white house correspondant.He said that our intelligence experts have investigated on these attacks and we have reported to presidant bush also that pakistan is not involved in any manner in this activity.Here also pakistani prime minister syed yusaf raza gillani said that if india has any solid proof regarding this ,present us we ourself will do strict and hard action on it.pakistan and india should work collectively ,to defeat such elements who donot want peace in this zone.TODAY NATIONAL SOLIDARITY COUNSIL IS BEING CALLED IN ISLAMABAD,IN WHICH ALL POLITICAL PARTIES WILL PARTICIPATE TO DISCUSS ALL ISSURES REGARDING NATIONAL SOLIDARITY.

REPORT REGARDING INTERNATIONAL AIDS DAY

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:33:43 -0600

IT IS SAID THAT IN WORLD THERE ARE NEARLY 3 CRORE 32 LAKH AIDS EFFECTED PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE WORLD AND IN PAKISTAN THIS NUMBER IS FIVE THOUSAND .in 2007 ,21 lakh people died in the world due to aids.and at internatioinal level .aids effected people contain half of them are women.25 lakh children are also effected from aids .un aids control program says that 95 percent Aids virus effected people are from under developed countries and moslly effected part of wolrld is sub sahara africa,where effected people are 2 crore 25 lakh .in the world.aids disease,came in 1987.THIS REPORT COMPILED BY PAKISTANI LARGEST AND BIGGEST NEWSPAPER DAILY JANG CELL "JANG DEVELOPMENT REPORTING CELL".ON THE DAYS OF INTERNATIONAL AIDS DAY.

Rice says she won't give Clinton too much advice

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:55:22 -0600

LONDON – Happily contemplating another woman as the top U.S. diplomat, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday she will offer advice, privately, and then get out of the way.

"She won't — and you won't — hear from me again," Rice said on the day President-elect Barack Obama named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the next secretary of state. "I will certainly not make the effort to comment on everything that is done."

Rice, in London on a farewell tour, said there's a lot to recommend the U.S. system of four-year presidential terms, and thus relatively short tours of duty for Cabinet ministers.

"You'll be a very hard act to follow," British Foreign Secretary David Miliband told her.

Rice also noted that Clinton would be the third woman among the last four people to be U.S. secretary of state. That fourth occupant of the job, Colin Powell, "was a black man, so white men are trailing pretty badly," Rice said. The third woman, Madeleine Albright, served during the administration of Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton.

The job is one of the most visible in the world, a distinction Rice has clearly enjoyed but also found confining.

"I am very fond of her, I think she has worked very hard on behalf of the country, I think she really comported herself well in the (Democratic presidential) campaign," Rice said of Clinton, who lost a tense nominating contest to Obama earlier this year.

Rice spoke to Clinton before she left Washington on Sunday, her spokesman said. Rice briefed Clinton on the aftermath of a terrorist rampage in India that has forced Rice to rearrange what had been planned as a low-stress European valedictory for a diplomat much better liked in European capitals than her boss.

Rice is scrapping much of the trip, including an evening in Rome, and flying to India to express direct U.S. condolences for the deaths of more than 170 people.

Obama did not announce his national security Cabinet until Monday, but Clinton had been the presumptive choice for weeks.

"She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic," Obama said in making it official. "She is an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in every capital and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world."

Clinton's nomination as secretary of state is another milestone for a former first lady who was the first to win elective office, the first to run for president herself and now the first to be chosen for a Cabinet position.

"I know that she will bring enormous energy and intellect and skill to the position," Rice told reporters in London. "Most important, I know her to be somebody who has what you need most in this job, which is a deep love for the United States of America and for its values, respect for differences that we may have with friends and allies, but always recognizing that the core of who we are as Americans unites us with very many around the world, particularly Great Britain," Rice said.

Rice's two-day London visit is almost certainly her last as secretary, and closes a circle begun with her first trip abroad shortly after taking the job in 2005. She made London her first stop on a European get-acquainted tour that was intended to turn the page on bad blood between the Bush administration and European allies angry about the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Things did get better, and Rice cooperated with European powers on several diplomatic projects. The Bush administration counts the evolution of Kosovo into an independent nation as one success story, and cooperation with European powers on Iran another. Rice dropped the Bush administration's previous bans on negotiations with Iran in hopes of coaxing the regime to back down on its nuclear program. That hasn't worked, but Rice got points with formerly quarrelsome allies for trying.

Rice has more goodbyes Tuesday in Brussels, where she sees NATO allies. The United States has a long-standing beef with some NATO nations over reluctance to send large numbers of fighting forces to Afghanistan, but the dispute has been cordial. The same is true for an emerging difference over engagement with Russia following last summer's war with Georgia.

The United States wants to take any cooperation with Russia very slowly, and to avoid overtly military partnerships.

Clinton Begins New Chapter with State job

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:31:49 -0600

CHICAGO (Reuters) - She may not have the title she sought, but Hillary Clinton still got what she wanted on Monday: the opportunity to "clean up" after President George W. Bush on the world stage.

Clinton, the one-time Democratic White House hopeful, became the face of President-elect Barack Obama's foreign policy, putting aside any lingering doubts about her former rival as she accepted his offer to be secretary of state.

It will mark a new chapter for one of the most tenacious figures on the U.S. political stage.

The former first lady, who made history by winning a U.S. Senate seat from New York in 2000 and then running her own nearly successful presidential campaign, brings her own political base and ambitions to the job.

As if to underscore the special nature of the appointment, Obama made a departure from his previous news conferences last week, too: he let his nominees speak.

"Before I take questions, I'd like to invite my team to say a few words. And I'm going to start with my dear friend, Hillary Clinton," he said.

Clinton, who spent the first part of Obama's news conference nodding and smiling, pledged her commitment to work by his side.

"If confirmed (by the Senate), I will give this assignment, your administration, and our country my all," she said after taking over the podium. "Thank you for this honor."

The moment drew a final curtain over a dramatic battle that ended with one historic candidate in the White House and the other pondering her future.

Clinton campaigned hard for Obama after her primary loss and has said she is unlikely to run for president again. She told reporters she decided to take on the secretary of state job because she felt she could best serve the country there.

TOUGHER TALK

On the campaign trail Clinton talked tougher than her new boss, once saying she would "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. She also criticized as "naive" Obama's call for direct presidential-level engagement with foes like Iran and North Korea.

But both she and Obama took pains to put their differences behind them on Monday, exiting the news conference in a sustained half-embrace.

For his part, Obama said Clinton would have his complete confidence.

"I believe that there is no more effective advocate than Hillary Clinton for that well-rounded view of how we advance American interests," he said when pressed about the differences the two had debated during the primary contest.

When asked during the campaign why she should follow her husband Bill Clinton as the next Democratic White House occupant, Hillary Clinton said often that it had taken a Clinton to clean up after President George H.W. Bush, so it would take another one to clean up after his son.

With an emphasis on diplomacy, Clinton signaled that change on Monday.

"By electing Barack Obama our next president, the American people have demanded not just a new direction at home but a new effort to renew America's standing in the world as a force for positive change," she said.

"We must pursue vigorous diplomacy using all the tools we can muster to build a future with more partners and fewer adversaries, more opportunities and fewer dangers for all who seek freedom, peace, and prosperity."

Source: Reuters

Another 'Khyber to Panipat' warning - Pakistan's UN envoy underscores urgency of tackling Indo-Pak tensions

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 19:12:11 -0600

It is indeed regrettable that an attempt is being made internationally to involve Pakistan through its government and people to bear the brunt of the outrage against the Mumbai incident.

We now know that to build up circumstantial evidence has resulted in some of the costliest mistakes made by mankind and the latest example has been that of the American intervention in Iraq .

History tells us that whenever the Khyber is breached, India becomes vulnerable and the flash point is always within Indian boundaries typically at Panipat. For a long time Pakistan has been trying to tell the world that the front line has shifted from Afghanistan into Pakistan and the consequences for India , Middle East and China in particular and the world in general are obvious.

Bush trying to cement his legacy we're all in trouble now!

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:52:48 -0600

Bush loosening up on his legacy President George W. Bush says history will judge him, but he is getting his own crack first. Bush is using his final 50 days in office to tout his legacy, hoping to leave a lasting impression of overshadowed progress.

On Monday, World AIDS Day, Bush was heralded for his leadership in fighting the disease, a point that even his Democratic critics readily concede.

The anti-AIDS program Bush championed in 2003 has delivered lifesaving medicine to more than 2 million people in five years, up from 50,000 people before it began. Many of those helped live in impoverished sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS is the leading killer.

"I would hope that when it's all said and done, people say, 'This is a guy who showed up to solve problems,'" Bush said at a global health forum. "And when you have somebody say there's a pandemic that you can help, and you do nothing about it, then you have frankly disgraced the office."

For most of his last year in office, Bush has shied away from legacy talk for two reasons. One is that he did not want to seem as if he were looking back when he was still running the country. The other is that he did not want to get dragged into the 2008 presidential campaign by defending his record.

That's over now. Once Democrat Barack Obama beat Republican John McCain for the White House, Bush's final agenda has shifted focus. He is still active on the crises of the day — the economic mess, the terrorist attacks in India — but he is notably carving out time to emphasize priorities of the last eight years.

That is why on Tuesday, he'll be in Greensboro, N.C., to trumpet a program that mentors children of prisoners. It is part of a nationwide mentoring program that Bush promoted in his 2003 State of the Union address, the same time he announced his Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.

On Friday, Bush will give a speech defending his efforts in the Middle East. In the coming weeks, he is expected to reflect on the No Child Left Behind Act, the signature domestic policy win from his first term; and on the two-year anniversary of a controversial troop build up that helped shore up security in Iraq.

All that follows a quietly building pattern of Bush speeches in which he has defended his record on helping veterans, promoting volunteerism, putting his stamp of judicial philosophy on the Supreme Court, and standing by trade even in tough economic times. The effort has been overshadowed by bigger news.

For example, just as Bush was talking about the global fight against AIDS on Monday, Obama was dominating cable news with the announcement of his national security team. Bush has shown no resentment about the diminishing spotlight and has gone to extra lengths to cooperate with Obama's team.

But the White House has no intention of quietly shutting off the lights.

It wants the country to remember more than the war in Iraq, the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, and all the government bailouts to help a crashing economy. Bush's highest approval this year was only 34 percent in January, and it dipped as low as 26 percent in October, according to AP-Ipsos and AP-GfK polls.

"Everybody wants to be liked," Bush said at Monday's forum when influential pastor Rick Warren chatted with him about the AIDS effort. "But being liked because you've actually done something constructive that's measurable is the best way to try to be liked."

The president, with help from Congress, was the force behind the anti-AIDS effort. At $15 billion, it was the largest international health initiative devoted to one disease. Congress has since renewed it at $48 billion to battle AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis around the world over the next five years.

More than 10 million people have received broad care of all kinds through the program.

Bush toured African nations in February, inspecting health clinics and meeting families who have found new hope. He was greeted joyously.

"I wish the American people could see what we have seen ... People literally lining the roads in Tanzania, all waving and anxious to express their love and appreciation to the American president, who represents the American people," he said Monday.

Noting the reception he sometimes gets at home, Bush said: "It was good to see them all waving with all five fingers, I might add."

Inequalities in RP deprive children of basic education—Unesco

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:59:54 -0600

By YVONNE T. CHUA

GOVERNMENTS around the world, including the Philippines, are depriving children of basic literacy and numeracy skills because they have failed to address “deep and persistent” inequalities in education.

The warning was issued by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as it launched on Nov. 25 its 2009 global monitoring report on Education for All, Overcoming Inequality: Why Governance Matters.

The report said many countries are way off-target in their goal of achieving universal primary education, one of six internationally agreed upon goals that countries like the Philippines pledged to meet by 2015.

“If the world’s governments are serious about Education for All, they must get more serious about tackling inequality,” Unesco said. It noted that inequalities in education arise from, among others, income, gender, location, ethnicity, language and disability.

Adopted in 2000 in Dakar, Senegal, the six Education for All (EFA) goals are expanded early childhood care and education, free and compulsory primary education for all, learning and life skills for young people and adults, increase in adult literacy by 50 percent, gender parity by 2005 and gender equality by 2015, and improved quality of education.

The Philippines’ own National Statistical Coordination Board declared in July that the country was “far from achieving” EFA by 2015 because of what it noted was the consistent drop in the net enrolment ratio or participation rate at the elementary level from schoolyear 2002-03 to schoolyear 2006-07.

Income inequalities

The latest Unesco report listed the Philippines as among the countries where the inequalities in education “mirror” income inequalities.

Filipino children in the poorest 20 percent receive five years less education than children from the wealthiest families, Unesco said. On the average, the poorest 20 percent have 6.3 years of education compared to the 11 years of education of the richest 20 percent.

Citing a 2007 report of the Asian Development Bank, the report also noted the widening wage gap in the Philippines between those with college education and those without.

Unesco described the Philippines as among the 21 countries with “high enrolment, low survival.” Its partial projections show that of at least 29 million children who will still be out of school in 2015, more than 900,000 will be Filipinos.

“For many of them, the share of out-of-school children from the poorest quintile is above 40 percent,” it said.

Unesco said the relationship between household wealth and survival rates is “much more salient” in the upper grades in high school.

The UN agency has consistently noted that school-age boys in the Philippines are under-enrolled in both elementary and high schools, even more so in tertiary education, and that gender disparities have been “at the expense of boys.”

Its 2009 report relates gender disparity in the Philippines to poverty. Among the poor, girls far outnumber number boys who are in high school.

Historically, boys have outperformed girls in mathematics in all grades of primary and secondary education the world over, but the picture has changed in the Philippines. Girls, Unesco said, are outperforming boys in mathematics in elementary grade.

Quality of education

Unesco raised concerns over the conditions of schools and the quality of education Filipino schoolchildren get.

Many schools and classrooms are in a state of disrepair. At least half of school heads say their “‘school needs complete rebuilding” or “some classrooms need major repairs,” the report disclosed. At least one -third of students attend schools with insufficient toilets.

Distance and student well-being are equally serious problems. Unesco said teachers in the Philippines have reported one in seven children walking more than five kilometers to attend school.

Schools also suffer an acute shortage of seating, and nearly half of students go to schools without libraries, according to the report.

Unesco found that village schools operate fewer days a year than town or city schools. Grade 4 teachers in village schools, for example, have reported teaching significantly fewer annual hours of mathematics and reading than teachers in city or town schools, it added.

Poor morale and weak motivation also undermine teacher effectiveness. For example, fewer than a third of fourth graders had teachers who thought their pay was adequate, said Unesco.

Earlier this year, Unesco also said in its midterm review of the six EFA goals

In 1991, the Philippines enacted the Local Government Code that transferred a number of functions, including the delivery of goods and services, from the national government to local governments.

In theory, decentralization is supposed to make systems more responsive to local needs and give the poor a greater voice. Unesco found, however, that in the Philippines, financial decentralization “appears to have exacerbated inequalities, with wealthier regions better placed to mobilize resources.”

The Local Government Code allows local authorities to raise revenue for education through the Special Education Fund (SEF) tax on property.

Unesco, however, noted that “spending per student from the SEF in the poorest municipalities with the lowest property values is only 13 percent of the levels in the richest municipalities and 3 percent of that in the richest cities.”

The report suggested a number of policies to remedy the inequalities in education, ranging from removal of school fees for basic education and increased public investment, to a strengthened commitment to education quality.

It calculated that the financing gap for achieving basic education by 2015 globally is around $7 billion a year, and accused the donor community of a “collective failure” to deliver on aid commitments.

The Philippines devotes less than 3 percent of its gross national product to public spending on education, and has had to rely substantially on aid to finance basic education.

It is one of the largest recipients of loans from the World Bank, along with Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Bolivia and Venezuela. In 2006 the bank extended a $200 million loan as its National Program Support for Basic Education Project. that the Philippines was “at risk” of not achieving the goals on adult literacy and gender parity.

Obama administration in between the "hope" and "change"

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:10:52 -0600

One of the first things Barack Obama did after winning the election two weeks ago was put an old-school political brawler in charge of his White House. Next, he saved Joe Lieberman. Then, he met with John McCain, and asked Hillary Clinton to run his State Department. For good measure, he's also apparently weighing whether to keep George W. Bush's Defense secretary, Robert Gates, on at the Pentagon.

This is the guy Republicans called a socialist, maybe a Marxist, and National Journal said was the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate? McCain aides were saying on Election Night that their own polling showed 60 percent of the country thought Obama was a liberal (and many voted for him anyway). Barely two weeks into the transition, that number might already be dropping fast.In fact, in his appointments, and in what can be divined of his foreign policy, there are loud echoes of the last Democratic administration, and also of that lady he beat in the primaries, the one the netroots didn't like very much. Certainly, some of Obama's supporters are getting a little nervous about what this all presages about an Obama White House. "The list [of disappointments] is getting awfully long," wrote the blogger bmaz at Firedoglake. "Almost as long as Barack Obama's arm that he used to take our money and efforts to get himself elected. All we have seen is the short arm he has used to punch us in the face and collect street cred with villagers for having done so." Open Left's Chris Bowers wrote on Friday that he felt "incredibly frustrated ... [W]hy isn't there a single member of Obama's cabinet who will be advising him from the left?" Even Pat Buchanan -- not exactly the world's most liberal guy -- apparently thinks Obama needs to throw a bone to progressives after the start the transition

But so far, the Obama administration is shaping up to be more or less exactly what Obama always said he was, in between the "hope" and "change" rhetoric: pragmatic, consensus-oriented and interested in getting things done. That's not necessarily what a lot of Democrats want him to be, though. Obama was bound to disappoint his supporters; think of the transition as the road map for how it's going to happen. And know that it won't come as a surprise to the president-elect himself; in 2006, in "The Audacity of Hope," he wrote that people tend to "project their own views" on him, and recognized what could happen as a result: "As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them."

"This has been the pattern for him historically -- the left falls in love with him because of his eloquent oratory and his, I think, genuine sense of mission to help people who are less fortunate," said biographer David Mendell. "But he has legislated from somewhere in the middle, and then once he gets into a general election campaign, he tends to squirt that direction even farther. He'll irritate people on both sides -- except the right expects him to be a Democrat, and the far left expects him to be one of them. And he's consistently disappointed the far left."

To date, the president-elect's most notable difference of opinion with his supporters is probably on the subject of Joe Lieberman. He seems to have escaped blame for the Democratic failure to punish Lieberman last week, though Senate Democrats would certainly have been tougher on the Connecticut senator had Obama not intervened on his behalf. Harry Reid, instead, is becoming the fall guy for the slap on the wrist Lieberman received. That's either evidence of denial on the part of many Obama fans, or a sign that, among liberals, Obama has far more goodwill to burn than Reid has. Blogger and author (and Salon contributor) David Sirota blames long-standing Democratic habits and not Obama for Lieberman's escape from punishment. "The Democratic leadership [on Capitol Hill] has decided that the way it is going to govern, it is going to essentially triangulate aggressively against its own party," said. "I actually don't think Obama in his policy positions he's taken since the election -- I don't think he's actually done that. It's possible that congressional leaders are actually fearing that Obama will be far more legislatively aggressive than them."

But the big sticking point for many of Obama's intra-party critics is the strong strain of Clintonism running through appointments. They can lay the failure to banish Lieberman at Harry Reid's feet but they can't rewrite the résumés of people like Rahm Emanuel.

"You could have had an administration with a sprinkling of Clinton people, it would have been fine," said Robert Kuttner, co-editor of the American Prospect and a distinguished senior fellow at Demos, a liberal think tank (and a longtime critic of Bill Clinton's centrist economic policies). "But when so many of the top people are holdovers, and he's promoting change, you have to say, wait a minute." Republicans are hoping to exploit any disconnect between Obama and his supporters -- the Republican National Committee has been sending reporters e-mail blasts of background research on each potential Cabinet pick, pointing out how many are Washington insiders with long ties to the Clinton administration or to other parts of the city's establishment.

By Mike Madden

Is Obama president yet?

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:07:44 -0600

And who's that other guy in the White House? As George Bush continues his vanishing act, Barack Obama steps into the spotlight, two months early, to calm a jittery nation. Over the weekend, a name you don't hear very often anymore surfaced in news reports. A once-prominent politician, it turned out, was on something of a farewell tour, months after most people had stopped paying him much attention (and years after most people had written off his job performance).

Yes, try though you might to forget it, George W. Bush is still president. His weekend trip to Lima, Peru, was the last scheduled overseas visit of his eight years in office -- and also about the most visible thing he's done lately. (Standing on the Treasury Department steps with Hank Paulson the morning after he returned, he didn't exactly make much news.) Bush vanished during the campaign, at the request of John McCain's aides, and hasn't really been back in the spotlight since. When he has emerged, during a time of economic crisis, to try to soothe the markets and the public, the results have been, um, counterproductive. His invisibility, and his failure to lead, have made the transition between this administration and the next that much more challenging for the man who's taking his job in less than two months. Without any of the power of the office, Barack Obama is already finding himself responsible for reassuring the nation about its future -- because Bush, apparently, can't.

"There is only one president at a time," President-elect Barack Obama said Tuesday, in a line that's becoming something of a mantra for him and his advisors. "That president is George W. Bush, and he will be president until I'm sworn in on Jan. 20."

The sentiment might have been a little more convincing, though, if Obama hadn't made that remark at his second news conference of the week; a third is scheduled for Wednesday, and at this rate, it wouldn't be entirely surprising if he popped up on TV to take questions between football games on Thursday. For 30 minutes every day, he's the virtual president. The transition team is trying for balance between getting ready to govern and respecting the guy who's (nominally) still in charge, but it's not an easy balance to strike: At this point in the Bush era, the number of people who wish Obama could simply take over already -- even suggesting, in the paper of record, that Bush just up and quit -- is growing faster than the number of Fortune 500 companies applying for federal bailouts. "It's not as if people don't know Bush is still president; this is not a mystery to anybody," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "They just wish it wasn't so."

So Obama's team is consulting with the current White House frequently, especially on economic matters, in an attempt to be simultaneously deferential and prepared. Bush spoke to Obama Monday, before the administration committed billions to saving Citigroup. Obama aides advised administration officials that they'd be pushing for a stimulus package this week. But on other issues, the transition staff is giving Bush a wider berth -- Obama stayed away from the G-20 summit in Washington this month, and avoided getting mixed up publicly in the lame-duck session of Congress (though he did ask lawmakers to have a stimulus bill ready for him to sign by the time he takes office, and Democratic aides on Capitol Hill say they're already hearing from Obama's staff more than they do from Bush's). "People, and the market, are making decisions that go beyond Jan. 20," a senior transition aide said. "We're trying to send the signals [about the future] but not have any confusion about what's happening before Jan. 20."

The level of cooperation between the transition organization and the White House may be unprecedented, especially for presidents coming from different parties (and considering that Obama's entire campaign theme could basically be boiled down to, "Had enough of that other guy yet?"). Partly, that's because Obama's transition team started to plan for the changeover in August. "This is a very organized transition," said John Burke, a political science professor at the University of Vermont who studies transitions. "They were much more organized during the pre-election period than any transition that we've seen."

That planning took on greater urgency when the financial system nearly collapsed in October. "His feeling -- particularly as the fall went on and the deterioration in the economy grew -- was that there wouldn't be time to sit around, that it was going to be very important to be ready," an Obama campaign advisor said. The transition planning was cordoned off from the campaign strategy sessions, but once Obama won, it wasn't hard to start integrating the staff from the campaign with the staff that was already looking ahead to January.

If Bush wasn't the lamest of lame ducks, of course, it might be easier to manage the transition period. But since his little dance routine while waiting for McCain in March (ahead of their only lengthy joint public event together this year), the current president has been mostly missing in action. With approval ratings hovering around 25 percent, that's not entirely surprising; when only one in four Americans still likes you, how effectively could you push any agenda? But even Bush allies say he's left something of a leadership gap that Obama has little choice but to fill. "Part of the problem we've had with the financial crisis is we haven't had a visible leader of the country on economic issues for a long time," said Vin Weber, a former House member from Minnesota and now a Republican power broker who's in frequent contact with the White House. "We have not had -- in my judgment -- a national leader speaking to the economic crisis for months and months and months. Now we have a new president, and he can fill that void."

And at some level, even Bush's own aides may realize that. Weber said administration officials quickly got over an initial dust-up over leaks from the Obama team after the 43rd and 44th presidents met two weeks ago. Now the White House staff is "by and large very impressed" by the Obama transition operation, he said. (Thanks to a relatively orderly election, it's light-years ahead of Bush's own transition -- by this time in 2000, the Supreme Court hadn't even made Bush president-elect yet.) Obama aides say the same thing about the cooperation they're getting from Bush officials.

Of course, eight years is a long time for any president to stick around, even popular ones. But these past eight years have left most Americans with a particular urge to move on. "That sense of impatience on the part of everybody -- it's very strong this time," the Obama campaign advisor said. Fortunately, there are only 55 days left to wait for a change. And both Bush and Obama seem to be doing whatever they can to speed things along.

By Mike Madden

Obama's plans for probing Bush torture

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:02:23 -0600

With growing talk in Washington that President Bush may be considering an unprecedented "blanket pardon" for people involved in his administration's brutal interrogation policies, advisors to Barack Obama are pressing ahead with plans for a nonpartisan commission to investigate alleged abuses under Bush.

The Obama plan, first revealed by Salon in August, would emphasize fact-finding investigation over prosecution. It is gaining currency in Washington as Obama advisors begin to coordinate with Democrats in Congress on the proposal. The plan would not rule out future prosecutions, but would delay a decision on that matter until all essential facts can be unearthed. Between the time necessary for the investigative process and the daunting array of policy problems Obama will face upon taking office, any decision on prosecutions probably would not come until a second Obama presidential term, should there be one.

The proposed commission -- similar in thrust to a Democratic investigation proposal first uncovered by Salon in July -- would examine a broad scope of activities, including detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, the practice of snatching suspected terrorists off the street and whisking them off to a third country for abusive interrogations. The commission might also pry into the claims by the White House -- widely rejected by experienced interrogators -- that abusive interrogations are an effective and necessary intelligence tool.

A common view among those involved with the talks is that any early effort to prosecute Bush administration officials would likely devolve quickly into ugly and fruitless partisan warfare. Second is that even if Obama decided he had the appetite for it, prosecutions in this arena are problematic at best: A series of memos from the Bush Justice Department approved the harsh tactics, and Congress changed the War Crimes Act in 2006, making prosecutions of individuals involved in interrogations more difficult.

Instead, a commission empowered by Congress would have the authority to compel witnesses to testify and even to grant immunity in exchange for information. Should a particularly ugly picture emerge, the option of prosecutions would still theoretically be on the table later, however unlikely.

In Obama's camp, there is a sense among some that such a commission would essentially mean letting Bush get away with crimes. "People have called for criminal investigations," one person familiar with the talks told me this summer as plans got under way. On Wednesday, a person participating in the talks confirmed that some people involved in the planning felt strongly that the commission would amount to "bullshit" and that Bush officials should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

But few think prosecutions are realistic, given the formidable legal hurdles and the huge policy problems competing for Obama's attention. Among them is the complicated task of closing down the military prison at Guantánamo Bay, which Obama advisors say is a priority. Some observers outside the Obama camp are also questioning how much Democrats really want exposed with regard to interrogation, since top Democrats in Congress were briefed in secret on some of the harshest tactics used by the CIA and appear to have done little, or perhaps nothing, to stop them.

Further complicating the Obama team's planning is uncertainty about what President Bush might do. On the one hand, a blanket pardon for anyone involved in the interrogations could be viewed by the public as a tacit admission of colossal wrongdoing -- after years of public denial -- which would do nothing to help Bush's tarnished legacy. Yet, if the administration fears an investigation will follow Bush out the door in January, they may not want to leave officials exposed to potentially revealing criminal proceedings. Bush might seek to frame a blanket pardon as a preemptive strike against wrongheaded, partisan retribution.

Constitutional scholars say a pardon of this kind would be an unprecedented move -- the prospective pardon of not just individuals but entire categories of people, perhaps numbering in the thousands, for carrying out the president's orders , which the White House has argued all along were legal.

Those scholars agree, however, that Article II of the Constitution gives Bush much latitude: There is no authority that can stop the president from doing so if he wishes, and there is no outside check or balance to revisit such a decision, however controversial it may be. "The president can do with pardoning power whatever he wants," explained University of Wisconsin Law School professor Stanley Kutler. "It is complete and plenary unto itself."

A blanket pardon from Bush could cover, for example, anyone who participated in, had knowledge of, or received information about Bush's interrogation program during the so-called war on terror. Not only are there potentially too many people to name without risking missing somebody, but some of the names are presumably classified.

"The classic pardon is an identifiable individual; here you are talking about potentially thousands of people involved in illegal activities," explained Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington Law School. A blanket pardon of this variety, Turley said, "would allow a president to engage in massive illegality and generally pardon the world for any involvement in unlawful activity."

There are, in fact, some constitutional scholars who believe a pardon might actually facilitate more complete participation in a fact-finding commission, by removing the threat of looming liability. "Holding people accountable is certainly nice, but in terms of healing the country and moving forward, so is actually getting a clear picture of what happened and letting the public make an informed decision," said Kermit Roosevelt at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. "If we had a pardon followed by something like a truth and reconciliation commission, that might not be such a bad outcome." (Roosevelt represents a detainee held at Guantánamo.)

The politics of it would be fraught with danger, however, and could so blemish Bush's legacy that some doubt he would go so far. "A pardon is an admission of guilt," noted Donald Kettl, a political science professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Bush has argued for years that his interrogation program was perfectly legal. With a pardon, Kettl said, Bush is essentially saying, "Gee, maybe we did not do the right thing."

It is not entirely unprecedented for a president to grant a pardon based on a category of behavior, rather than pardoning an individual by name. The day after his inauguration, President Carter pardoned all those who avoided the Vietnam draft by failing to register or by fleeing to Canada. George Washington pardoned participants in the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion. Andrew Johnson pardoned Confederate soldiers in 1865.

But these were pardons designed to foster reconciliation, handed out to categories of individuals who acted on their own conscience, rather than the president's own allegedly illegal orders. "This would be a different deal completely," explained Kettl. "It would be anticipating that people thought the official policy of the administration was wrong."

New dawn of American leadership-"defeat enemy support friends"-OBAMA

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:38:27 -0600

President-elect Barack Obama called for “a new dawn of American leadership” on Monday as he formally introduced his national security team, led by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton as his nominee for secretary of state.

“We will strengthen our capacity to defeat our enemies and support our friends,” Mr. Obama said in Chicago. “We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships.”

The new president said he was sticking to his goal of removing American combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, which he called “the right time frame,” and that this would be accomplished with safety for the troops and security for the Iraqi people.

He introduced his team one by one, starting with Senator Clinton, his former bitter rival for the Democratic presidential nomination; then Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who will stay on, at least for a time, in the new administration; Gen. James L. Jones, the former NATO commander, to be national security adviser; Gov. Janet Napolitano of Arizona to be secretary of homeland security: Susan E. Rice to be ambassador to the United Nations, and Eric H. Holder Jr. to be attorney general.

All of the nominations had been forecast, and the president-elect’s announcement contained no surprises. It did, however, contain some not very thinly veiled criticism of the Bush administration.

“Hillary’s appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness of my commitment to renew American diplomacy and restore our alliances,” Mr. Obama said, apparently alluding to the effects of President Bush’s Iraq policy — which the president-elect has bitterly criticized — on America’s international relationships.

And when the new president introduced Mr. Holder, he said: “Let me be clear: The attorney general serves the American people, and I have every expectation that Eric will protect our people, uphold the public trust and adhere to our Constitution.”

President Bush’s handling of the Justice Department has often been criticized, with much of the denunciation focused on former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who was portrayed by many Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill as little more than Mr. Bush’s personal lawyer.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy, the Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee and has been a frequent critic of the Justice Department, said Mr. Holder was a superb choice to carry out the agency’s top priority, “rebuilding morale and public confidence.”

The choice of Senator Clinton to be the country’s top diplomat has drawn the most attention in recent weeks, in part because of the months-long duel between her and Mr. Obama for the nomination that once was viewed as all but certain to go to her. But the bitterness of their contest seemed all but forgotten on Monday, as Mr. Obama introduced the senator as “my dear friend.”

“Mr. President-elect, thank you for this honor,” Senator Clinton said. “If confirmed, I will give this assignment, your administration and our country my all.”

Vice President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. called the group “one of the most talented national security teams ever assembled.”

Mr. Obama said he chose his team because he believes in “strong personalities and strong opinions.”

“I think that’s how the best decisions are made,” he said.

Barring extraordinary surprises, the confirmation of Mr. Obama’s choices seems assured. For one thing, there is a tradition of giving a new president his own team of Cabinet-level advisers. Then, too, senators from both parties who will vote on whether to confirm the nominees offered warm praise in advance.

“Strong, bipartisan and highly competent,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, said of Mr. Obama’s team. He predicted broad support from senators in both parties.

Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who will become chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said, “President-elect Obama has chosen a terrific national security team to protect our security and help restore America’s rightful place in the world.” s He promised a “swift and fair confirmation process.”

New York’s other Democratic senator, Charles E. Schumer, called Ms. Clinton “a terrific partner to work with in the Senate, and a great friend.” He said he would miss her presence in the Senate but was sure she would make an excellent secretary of state. Mrs. Clinton’s spokesman, Philippe Reines, told the Associated Press that Mrs. Clinton would keep her Senate seat until she is confirmed in her new post.

The foreign relations committee’s leading Republican, Senator Richard G. Lugar of Indiana, described the president-elect’s choices as “excellent” in a Sunday interview on ABC. “I look forward to working with each one of them,” Mr. Lugar said.

nytimes.com

The O Team

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:34:50 -0600

by Biodun Iginla, financial and news analyst for BBC News and the Economist. Research by Moira Tamayo in Puerto Rico

Obama's security line-up

Dec 1st 2008 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

Barack Obama introduces his national-security team
Reuters

THE phrase “team of rivals” has been on every pundit's lips since it became clear that Barack Obama would make Hillary Clinton his secretary of state. Coming from the title of a book about Abraham Lincoln’s cabinet, it seems to highlight that Mr Obama wants to hear dissenting opinions, including from his biggest personal rival, Mrs Clinton. But a look at his national-security line-up, which was officially announced on Monday December 1st, suggests a team that will probably gel reasonably well.

Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama sparred sharply during the primaries. Mrs Clinton voted for the Iraq war and touted her experience. Mr Obama called his stance against the war a virtue, along with his newness in Washington, DC, and his willingness to talk to America’s enemies such as Iran. Mrs Clinton responded that he was naïve. But the two were posturing for the Democratic primary voters. In truth, their positions are not so far apart, even on the Iraq war, where both want withdrawal relatively soon.

Mr Obama’s other appointments suggest he is holding to the centre ground, at least on foreign policy. Jim Jones will be his national-security adviser. The sharp-jawed former NATO commander and commandant of the Marine Corps looks the part of the hard man. But he was a harsh critic of Donald Rumsfeld’s Iraq strategy and a believer in using all the tools of American power-not just military ones. Since putting his uniform away, he has advised on the training of both Iraqi and Palestinian security forces, which will give him an insight into working with local allies.

Many thought that Susan Rice, a senior foreign-policy adviser during Mr Obama’s campaign, would get the national-security adviser’s job. Instead she will be ambassador to the United Nations, a lower-profile job than many had expected, given her closeness to Mr Obama. But the post will be returned to cabinet level, the status it had under Bill Clinton, thus Ms Rice will sit at the top table in Washington, DC, while being Mr Obama’s envoy in New York. This suggests that there will be a bigger role for multilateralism in Mr Obama's administration.

Mr Obama has dismayed many on the left of his party, but delighted centrists and the foreign-policy establishment, by deciding to keep Robert Gates as secretary of defence. Mr Gates replaced Mr Rumsfeld in 2006, and has overseen a big drop in violence in Iraq since the implementation of the “surge”. He may be a transitional figure until Mr Jones or someone else can step into the job, but the decision to keep him suggests that Mr Obama will not be scrambling to pull out of Iraq with undue haste.

Janet Napolitano will be his secretary of homeland security. As Arizona’s governor, she has experience both running a bureaucracy and keeping an eye on America’s border. She will need some nous to run the sprawling and widely criticised new department. But she is known as no Democratic softie, including on illegal immigration.

Mr Obama has made the point that he is no lefty peacenik. With a rival who supported the war, a lifelong warrior and a Republican secretary of defence in his top three foreign-policy jobs, the new young president wants the world (and critics at home) to see that he is no pushover. Will that mean that nothing much will change, disappointing many of his fans? Or will his tough advisers serve as useful cover for a new policy of talking to foes and substituting soft power for military force? For the president who campaigned saying “I’m not against all wars, I’m against dumb wars,” combining hard and soft may be no paradox.

Readers' comments

The Economist welcomes your views.

View all comments (16)Add your comment

Clinton faces big challenges now - "we are fighting two wars..."

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:30:23 -0600

Sen. Hillary Clinton's nomination for secretary of state in the Obama adminstration, as Reuters points out, "caps a year of dreams and disappointments for her often fervent supporters: Would the New York senator and former first lady be president? No. Would she be vice-president? Nope."

Though many of her suppporters surely hoped for more, the secretary of state job is no mere consolation prize. The challenges facing Clinton and the rest of the national security team are daunting, as President-elect Obama summed up today:

"We are fighting two wars. Old conflicts remain unresolved, and newly assertive powers have put strains on the international system. The spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world's deadliest technology could fall into dangerous hands. Our dependence on foreign oil empowers authoritarian governments and endangers our planet."

As the nation's chief diplomat, Clinton will be charged with repairing America's battered image in many parts of the world. She alluded to this in her remarks today, promising to "reach out to the world again." At the same time, Clinton must summon fresh American diplomatic leverage to confront a host of problems beyond the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In a sign of how quickly landscapes can shift, the terror attacks in Mumbai threaten to undermine part of Obama's strategy in the war on terror. The U.S. has stepped up its military pursuit of al-Qaida in the tribal areas of Pakistan, something Obama has vowed to continue. He has also advocated a renewed regional approach, pushing diplomacy between India and Pakistan as a conduit to closer cooperation from Pakistan on the war on terror.

But as evidence mounts that a Pakistan-based militant group was involved in the Mumbai attack, any diplomacy between India and Pakistan for the moment will be aimed at keeping the two rivals from the brink of war. As Obama has frequently pointed out, there can only be one president at a time, and on this issue, there's not much his team can do but monitor the situation and be prepared to deal with it on January 21.

Clinton also inherits the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, a problem that has plagued four presidents since Jimmy Carter brokered the Camp David accords in 1978. President Clinton fell just short of a peace deal in 2000. President Bush couldn't get it done either, despite bringing the parties together a year ago, aiming to finalize a deal before the end of his term.

Obama stressed today that Clinton, with foreign experience as first lady and in the Senate, is someone "who will command respect in every capital; and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world." Clinton's experience no doubt is an asset, but reaction from the Arab world to her appointment indicates that on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, it could also be a liability. The L.A. Times notes:

The Arab world sees two Hillary Clintons: one, the first lady who famously got ahead of U.S. policy a decade ago by advocating Palestinian statehood and remains at least verbally wedded to the goal of a U.S.-brokered peace deal; the other, a politician with lingering presidential ambitions and a BlackBerry that holds too many pro-Israeli connections.

But as longtime State Department adviser on the Middle East Aaron David Miller notes later in the article, "It really doesn't matter ... She's no longer her own actor in this ... she'll need to be empowered by the president."

Indeed, for Clinton to be effective, her counterparts around the world will have to know that she's carrying a full mandate from the president. Much has been made about whether Obama's and Clinton's clashes on the campaign trail, especially with regard to Clinton's more hawkish stance on Iran, will complicate their relationship.

Obama dismissed those notions today, but the fact remains that he and Clinton still must figure out how to deal with Iran. Aside from continuing to enrich uranium, Iran's role in the Middle East is growing, as the country asserts influence in places like Iraq and Lebanon.

Obama and Clinton also face a nuclear-armed North Korea, icy relations with Russia's Vladimir Putin and Dimitri Medvedev, and the riddle of what role China's burgeoning economy will play in the global financial crisis -- just to name a few pressing issues.

And they thought the vetting process was complicated.

--Robert Matthews

Terror in the Name of God

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:00:25 -0600

By Yoginder Sikand 01 December 2008 Muslim india

"Never forget that the life of this world is only a game and a passing delight, a show ….the life of this world is nothing but means of deception:. (The Quran, Al-Hadid: 20)"
"There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim" (Baba Guru Nanak Sahib)
According to media reports, it is possible that the recent deadly assault on Mumbai was masterminded by the Lashkar-e Tayyeba, a Pakistan-based self-styled Islamist terrorist outfit. Whether the attacks were indeed the handiwork of the Lashkar, as is being alleged, or of some other agency, such as the CIA and the Israseli Mossad, as others believe, remains to be fully investigated, but there can be no doubt that radical Islamism, like radical Hindutva, poses a major threat to peace and security in both India and Pakistan.
What makes such terror-driven self-styled Islamist groups thrive in Pakistan? It would appear that the very foundational myth of Pakistan, the so-called 'two nation theory' on which the country was founded, is itself conducive to militaristic interpretations of Islam. In a mirror image of the thesis propounded by the early ideologues of Hindutva—that the Hindus and Muslims of India were two entirely different nations and that the latter could live in India only if they agreed to turn Hindu or else be stripped of all civic rights—the ideologues of the Pakistan movement claimed that the Hindus and Muslims of pre-Partition India were two irreconcilable nations that could not live together. On the basis of this specious argument, they demanded a separate state for the Indian Muslims. This is how Pakistan came into being.
Thus, the very basis of the Pakistan movement was the myth of undying hatred and hostility between Hindus and Muslims. This so-called 'two-nation theory' remains the official ideology of the state of Pakistan, and is taught to every Pakistani child in school through carefully doctored textbooks. To question the theory, as many Pakistanis privately do, is considered a punishable crime and as akin to sedition. Accordingly, the Pakistani state has, since its inception, seen its survival as being crucially dependent on actively promoting as well as indirectly abetting anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments. As movements for autonomy in provinces increasingly restive of Punjabi domination mounted, first in the erstwhile East Bengal, and then in Baluchistan and Sindh, the Pakistani state came to increasingly rely on an instrumental use and cynical manipulation of Islam and on the bogey of Hindu or Indian domination to ensure its survival and increasingly threatened legitimacy. Naturally, this expanded the space and scope for groups, not just the Lashkar, but scores of others as well, who claimed to speak in the name of Islam to whip up anti-Indian and anti-Hindu sentiments. For them hatred of India and the Hindus were considered as among the defining features of Pakistani nationalism.
The rise of the Lashkar and similar self-styled jihadist groups thus cannot be understood in isolation from these broader political processes. These groups received a major impetus under the American-backed and hugely unpopular military dictator, General Zia ul-Haq, who cynically backed radical Islamist groups to win public support as well as to pursue the CIA-funded war against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It was at around this time that self-styled Islamist groups began entering the political arena in a major way, setting up political parties and fighting elections. This led to all sorts of compromises, to widespread corruption and to rapidly escalating militancy by different Islamist groups competing with each other to prove to the electorate their purported claims of representing and speaking for Islam. The more obscurantist a group's approach was with regard to a whole host of issues—women's rights, the Kashmir question, relations with India and so on—the more ardently 'Islamic' it considered itself to be and it presented itself so to the public whose support it sought to win.
Under Zia, several dozen radical Islamist groups were liberally funded by the Saudis and the Americans in the war in Afghanistan, but soon these went out of control. They turned against their American patrons and started dreaming of exporting their self-styled jihad to the rest of the world. Some of them, including the Lashkar, even went to the extent of calling for the establishment of a global so-called Islamic Caliphate and for conquering the entire world under the 'Islamic flag'. Whether or not the leaders of these groups actually believed all this bombastic rhetoric no one can say, but it certainly appealed to vast numbers of youth, particularly from impoverished families, who were fed on a steady diet of fanciful tales about the luxuries they would wallow in if they died or were 'martyred' in the cause of what was presented to them as a divine mission.
These groups went on to serve what were seen as the strategic interests of the Pakistani state, as for instance in Kashmir, where they were sent to battle Indian forces as well as Kashmiri nationalist groups struggling for a sovereign Jammu and Kashmir, which would be independent of both India and Pakistan. Since Pakistan was a crucial ally of the West, America chose to remain mute in the face of these developments. Likewise, these groups were solidly backed by the Pakistani state in its desperate effort to install the pro-Pakistan Taliban regime in Afghanistan, and this also received American support. The Lashkar set up several training camps in Afghanistan and gave the Taliban considerable military and moral support.
It is thus the consistent assistance given by the Pakistani state to self-styled Islamist groups that has allowed them to flourish in the country, so much so that now, when the Pakistani state has itself begun to face an immense threat from these very groups, it finds itself helpless. It is an indicator of how powerful these groups have become in Pakistan that even though the present government might want to clamp down on them it cannot do so. Large parts of Pakistan are today characterized by extreme lawlessness where the writ of the state does not run. Decades of cynical manipulation of Islam by the Pakistani state for the narrowly construed ends of Pakistan's elites have now led to a situation where even if the state wants to curb these self-styled Islamist groups it finds itself helpless. Powerful sections within the Pakistani state apparatus, including in the ISI and the Army, are fiercely averse to taking any action against these groups, and are said to be consistently providing support to them.
But is the Pakistani state serious in its claims of being determined to take on Islamist terror groups that have mushroomed across the country? It appears not, just as the Indian state has not taken any serious steps against Hindutva terror groups in India. The Pakistani government claims to have banned the Lashkar, to have frozen all its assets and to have put its leaders under arrest. But ample indications exist to suggest that, in actual fact, the Lashkar is being permitted to operate freely after being conveniently allowed to change its name and re-christen itself as the Jamaat ud-Dawa. The Jamaat ud-Dawa's website is freely accessible on the Internet, relaying incendiary, hate-driven speeches of its senior leaders, who seem to be under no control whatsoever. The Markaz's magazines in English, Arabic and Urdu continue to be published, with a reported circulation of several hundred thousand. On a visit to Lahore three years ago I chanced upon a bookshop in the very heart of the sprawling Urdu Bazaar that specializes in Lashkar literature that spews venom and hatred against India and the Hindus, but also against a whole host of Muslim groups that the Lashkar does not consider genuinely Islamic—including the followers of the Sufis, the Barelvis, the quietistic Deobandi-related Tablighi Jamaat and the Shias, all of which it brands as 'enemies of Islam' or their 'agents'. And, I was told, despite the fact that the Lashkar was officially 'banned', it still operated from its headquarters in Muridke, not far from Lahore, and also managed several dozens of centres across the country under various names. Is one to imagine that the Pakistani government is so weak in the face of radical groups as to be unable to close all these institutions down?
In this context, the question arises as to why Pakistani civil society has been unable to effectively challenge the venomous (and what I, as someone who has studied Islam for the past two decades, regard as a wholly distorted) version of Islam that is propelled by self-styled Islamist groups such as the Lashkar. This issue is particularly intriguing given the fact that radical Islamist groups have consistently received only a relatively small share of the vote in successive elections, indicating that their hate-driven vision of Islam does not appeal to the majority of Pakistani people.
There are several reasons for this, among the most salient being the fact that the liberal, progressive middle class in Pakistan is very miniscule, the country still remaining largely feudal, tribalistic and extremely patriarchal in its set-up and ethos. Efforts by the few liberal Islamic scholars that exist in Pakistan to articulate progressive interpretations of Islam on a range of issues—including women's rights, relations with non-Muslims and relations between India and Pakistan—have generally met with stern opposition and even violence from Islamist outfits, with some of these scholars being forced to flee for safety to the West. The sheer fear of being killed for publicly opposing radicals and their perverted brand of Islam keeps numerous progressive thinkers in Pakistan silent, thus perpetuating a vicious circle in which the radicals are allowed to go unchallenged. Furthermore, the state has consistently denied space to progressive Islamic scholars, fearing their potential for dissent from the official view, seeing the radicals as more pliable and amenable to manipulation. This explains, for instance, the fact that despite its bombastic 'Islamic' credentials, Pakistan is yet to produce any well-known Islamic intellectual who has sought to deal creatively with the manifold demands and challenges that modernity poses. The status of Islamic, in addition to social science, research in Pakistan is woeful, and this can be explained, in part, by the fear on the part of the establishment of voices of dissenting scholars that might challenge ruling myths. The fact that Pakistan spends less than 2 per cent of its budget on education and that numerous Vice-Chancellors of Pakistani universities are retired army generals are indicators of this mind-set.
Terrorism—and this includes terror resorted to by non-state actors as well as by the state—today poses a grave threat to the peoples of both India and Pakistan. Islamist and Hindutva terrorism feed on each other, while posing to be each other's most inveterate foes. I recall reading some years ago—I cannot recall where, though—the perverse pleasure that a senior Lashkar expressed when the BJP-led NDA government came to power. Syed Maududi, the chief ideologue of the Jamaat-e Islami, who can be considered the major architect of modern-day Islamism, is on record as having declared that he would prefer India to be an officially Hindu country to being secular because that would further his case for the 'Islamic state' that he dreamed of establishing in Pakistan. Islamist outfits in Pakistan find ready fodder for whipping up anti-Indian and anti-Hindu passions by pouncing on acts of terror and anti-Muslim violence spearheaded by Hindutva groups in India, often abetted by the state. Likewise, gruesome acts of terror committed by Pakistan-based Islamist groups are quickly seized upon by Hindutva forces in India to further demonise Muslims and to build their Hindu vote-bank. Hindu and Islamist terror thus enjoy a symbiotic or mutually beneficial relationship while claiming to oppose each other. This obvious fact must be recognized when conceiving responses to the challenge of terrorism in our region.
There are no easy solutions to the predicament we find ourselves in today. But there is surely at least one thing that we must do, and this was suggested to me by the noted New Delhi-based Arya Samaj scholar, Swami Agnivesh, who has consistently been speaking out against all forms of terror, including in the name of Islam and Hinduism as well as state terrorism. The most effective way to challenge terrorism in the name of religion, Swami Agnivesh suggested, is for Muslims to denounce and stiffly oppose terror engaged in by self-styled Islamic groups who claim to speak in the name of Islam, and for Hindus to do likewise with regard to terror spread by militant Hindu groups. Sadly, today, the approach of many of us to the phenomenon is selective and skewed, with many Hindus denouncing only the terror unleashed by self-styled Islamist groups, and many Muslims denouncing only acts of terror masterminded by Hindu groups. At the same time, many Hindus and Muslims continue to turn a blind eye to, or even support, forms of terror being perpetrated in the name of the very religion which they claim to follow.
And there is something else that we need to do as individuals, and I have found that this simple principle works wonders even at a very personal level. It might sound 'unfashionable' or even 'purile' for those who do not find any place for God in their lives, but for millions of people in India and Pakistan who do believe in some higher force, no matter what they name it, it would strike an immediate chord.
This principle I owe to Rano Devi, a landless Dalit labourer from the Bhil tribe who had been released through the efforts of a human rights' group from slavery-like conditions in the estate of a powerful landlord. I Rano met while on a visit to Sindh in southern Pakistan three years ago. A powerful woman she was—dark and tall, and walking proud and erect. A courteous hostess, she welcomed me into her one-roomed hovel built on a scrawny patch of land that a social activist friend of mine had provided her and plied me with milk-less tea and a roti, which was all that she could afford.
Rano told me her story, of how she was enslaved by a landlord, who happened to be a Muslim, and who kept her for four years in shackles. Then, after a protracted legal battle, she was released through the efforts of my friend and his comrades, all of who happened to be Muslims.
She went on to enunciate a simple but very compelling principle thus:

'
And there was another thing that Rano said that inspires me as I write these lines:

That sage advice from this impoverished Pakistani Dalit woman is, to my mind, a basic premise we need to start from in our joint struggle against terror in the name of religion and national chauvinism.

Bush sending Rice to show US solidarity with India

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:57:27 -0600

Washington, Dec 1 As a "further demonstration" of solidarity with the Indian government in the wake of Mumbai terror attacks, President George Bush has asked the Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to travel to India this Wednesday. "President Bush has asked Secretary Rice to travel to India this week in the wake of the terror attacks that killed nearly 200 people, including 6 American citizens.

"Secretary Rice will depart tonight on already scheduled travel to London. She will attend the NATO meeting on Tuesday and then proceed to India arriving in New Delhi on Wednesday," the White House Press Secretary Dana Perino has said in a Statement issued last evening.

"Secretary Rice's visit to India is a further demonstration of the United States' commitment to stand in solidarity with the people of India as we all work together to hold these extremists accountable," Perino added. Rice's tour to New Delhi will follow the Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon's two-day scheduled visit to Washington beginning today.

Menon will have talks with his counterpart in the State Department Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns. High level sources told PTI that Menon's visit will cover the gamut of the bilateral relations but Mumbai terror attacks will give further significance to the talks.

Menon is also expected to meet people in the President- elect Barack Obama's team as also with other law makers, Senators and members in the House of Representatives.

India makes strong protest to Pakistan

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:39:48 -0600

India has summoned Pakistan's high commissioner to lodge a formal protest over the attacks in Mumbai.

Indian officials have repeatedly said in recent days there is evidence the militants behind attacks that killed nearly 200 people had Pakistani links.

Islamabad has denied involvement and warned against letting "miscreants" inflame tensions in the region.

India's new home minister has vowed to "respond with determination and resolve" over the crisis.

At least 188 people were killed - including 22 foreigners - and more than 200 were injured after the attackers opened fire in several locations, including a railway station, a popular restaurant, a hospital, two hotels and a Jewish centre.

The attacks on the two hotels - the once luxurious Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi-Trident - and the Jewish centre resulted in nearly three days of running battles between elite commandos and the gunmen before the sites were secured.

'Avoid blame game'

India's foreign ministry said it had summoned Pakistan's high commissioner.

"He was informed that the recent terrorist attack on Mumbai was carried out by elements from Pakistan," the ministry said in a statement.

India "expects that strong action would be taken against those elements, whosoever they may be, responsible for this outrage," the high commissioner was reportedly told.

A spokesman for the Pakistani high commission played down the meeting, saying discussions were held in a "cordial atmosphere".

But there is no doubt India is slowly turning the heat on Pakistan following the attacks, the BBC's India correspondent Sanjoy Majumder says.

Following the attacks, the focus is on the lone gunman who survived and who is now in police custody.

According to Indian media reports, Azam Amir Qasab is from Pakistan and linked to the Pakistan-based Kashmiri militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba, or Army of the Pure. The group denies involvement.

India's Deputy Home Minister, Shakeel Ahmad, told the BBC it was "very clearly established" that all the attackers had been from Pakistan - echoing similar comments from other officials in recent days.

Indian Minister of State of External Affairs Anand Sharma called the attacks a "grave setback" to the normalisation of relations with Pakistan.

Pakistan's Prime Minister, Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, has said his country "would itself take action against the miscreants if there is any evidence against a Pakistani national".

But he cautioned India against making allegations in the media. "The blame game should be avoided at all costs as (it) may affect the state of relations between the two countries," he said.

The White House says it has heard nothing to suggest the Pakistani government was involved.

"We have been encouraged by the statements by the Pakistanis that they are committed to following this wherever it leads," spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "We would expect nothing less of them in this instance."

'Deep shock'

Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram vowed to take action over the attacks.

"I want to assure the people on behalf of the government that we will respond with determination and resolve to the grave threat posed to the Indian nation," he told reporters.

"I recognise that there is a sense of anguish and deep shock among the people of India. This is a threat to the very idea of India, very soul of India."

The government is facing growing anger over its handling of the attacks and perceived intelligence failures.

Maharashtra state's chief minister on Monday joined his deputy and Mr Chidambaram's predecessor in resigning over the attacks.

According to reports, the personal belongings of 15 men were found aboard an abandoned ship from which the attacks were launched. This has raised questions as to whether all the gunmen have been found.

Only 10 militants have been identified, but, according to a private TV channel, Azam Amir Qasab apparently confirmed there were 15 attackers.

Questions have also been asked about India's failure to pre-empt the attacks, and the time taken to eliminate the gunmen.

A report in the Hindustani Times newspaper said a militant from Lashkar-e-Toiba arrested and questioned in February told intelligence services he had inspected the five-star Taj Mahal Palace and Oberoi-Trident hotels and several other buildings in December 2007.

Quoted by his interrogator, the militant said he had passed on information to the group's operational commander.

Also, Reuters news agency quoted Damodar Tandel, head of Maharashtra's main fishermen's union, as saying he had warned the government about attempts to bring RDX explosives to Mumbai by sea but no-one acted on the information.

Unlike other countries that have been the victims of frequent terrorist attacks, India has no discernible or coherent counter-terrorism strategy that focuses both on the causes of the threat and its prevention, the BBC's defence and security correspondent Rob Watson says.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is reported to have said he plans to increase the size and strength of the country's anti-terrorist forces. bbc news

"I Got a Crush...On Obama" By Obama Girl - internet viral video

allvoices / contributed news — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:38:40 -0600

"I Got a Crush... on Obama" is an internet viral video, first posted on YouTube in June 2007 featuring a young woman seductively singing of her love for Illinois Senator and 2008 U.S. president elect Barack Obama. Produced by BarelyPolitical.com, Actress and model Amber Lee Ettinger lip-synched the song for the video, and Leah Kauffman (of "My Box in a Box" fame) provided the vocals.[1]

The concept was the brainchild of 32-year-old advertising executive Ben Relles. "I Got A Crush...On Obama" was co-written and produced by Rick Friedrich.[1] The creators sold two shirts and the red shorts used in the video in an eBay auction. One of the shirts garnered $1,000. Proceeds from the auction were donated to the Philadelphia Committee to End Homelessness