Posts by DonnaWelles:
Nigeria, as President Muhammadu Buhari
May 30th, 2015
By Donna Welles.
This week marked the Presidential Inauguration of Muhammadu Buhari, a Muslim man from Northern Nigeria who seems to be well liked across Africa as perhaps fifty heads of state attended the ceremony.
President Buhari had returned from his trip to the United Kingdom, as Nigeria has its colonial roots in the British Isles. Notably, this is not President Buhari’s first term as Nigeria’s Chief Executive as he also held that title from 31 December, 1983 until 27 August, 1985.
Territorial gains have been made on behalf of the Nigerian Army in their efforts to neutralize Boko Haram. Regions have been reclaimed, hostages have been rescued, and a sense of moral has been restored as previously the Army was burdened by desertions, soldiers refusing to fight.
Such issues did not, in all likelihood, arise in the face of battle fatigue but were rather a manifestation of a nation-wide epidemic of corruption. Specifically, 66 death sentences for solders were handed down and 34 generals have been retired. Violence persists, however, as today the BBC reported that Boko Haram has attacked the Northern city of Maiduguri.
A peculiar energy crisis has emerged in Nigeria, one that is not rooted in either supply or demand. Rather, Nigeria’s private sector has demanded the Nigerian government to pay a lump sum of $1billion before it will turn on the pumps at Nigerian gas stations.
Finally, logistical improvements in terms of transportation have been financed by the People’s Republic of China going back to at least 2008. In 2008, the PRC paid $440million and $990million for Shipping and Auto improvements. In 2009, the PRC paid $850million for a Rail improvement. In 2010, the PRC paid $150million for a Shipping improvement. In 2012, the PRC paid $160million, $680million, and $1.5billion on Rail, Shipping, and Rail improvements.
Nigeria is Africa’s largest country. Muhammadu Buhari has replaced Goodluck Jonathan as Nigeria’s Chief Executive.
Comments Off on Nigeria, as President Muhammadu Buhari
Burundi, Paradox of Pierre N’s Second, Maybe Third Term
May 25th, 2015
By Donna Welles.
More people have died of cholera than of violence in the events surrounding President Pierre N’s decision to seek a third, or perhaps second, term in Burundi’s upcoming presidential election. Western media outlets were alerted last month when Burundi students, out of fear for their lives, asked for permission to enter the United States Embassy.
Since then, roughly 100,000 have fled, although less than 20 have died as a result of violence.
In a new development, media outlets reported yesterday that 31 people have died of cholera while in Tanzania refugee camps, although thousands are said to have been infected. Cholera is spread by infected water; Victims are dehydrated and suffer gastrointestinal symptoms.
Fear of the savage violence during the Civil War of the 1990s has scared people out of their homes, but so far the casualty figures do not resemble what happened during Hutus-Tutsis massacres of old. Another notable distinction between then and now are the weapons of choice, in the 1990s many were brutalized with machetes. Today, photos of protestors and government actors reveal grenades and projectile weapons.
The impasse revolves around the texts of two documents, the Burundi Constitution as well as the Arusha Accords which served as the Peace Agreement ending the Hutus-Tutsis bloodshed in 1993. Burundi protesters argue that neither document allows for a presidential third term.
In order to resolve the apparent conflict, as President Pierre N has in fact already served two terms as he has been Burundi’s chief executive for ten years, since 2005, Burundi’s high court has ruled that the upcoming election will in fact be President Pierre N’s second term rather than his third. Put simply, the first term didn’t count. Notably, there have been reports that the court made its decision while under duress.
So far, efforts to avoid further violence have taken the form of modern Peace Talks in Tanzania. However, while President Pierre N was in Tanzania attending them, an apparent coup took place in Burundi. The coup was thwarted and President Pierre N returned to find his office intact. Meanwhile, President Pierre N has argued that his regime is in fact legitimate, as his government sends troops to assist in the peace-keeping efforts in Somalia.
Where we are now is as follows, Parliamentary Elections are set for June 5 and Presidential Elections are set for June 26. It is unknown how fair these elections will be, but even if Pierre N is elected by a majority, it is unknown if the interests of the Tutsi minority will be represented. Burundi is comprised of 85% Hutu and 15% Tutsi. If President Pierre N is reelected, his term will be 5 years so he will serve until 2020.
24,5. 2015.
Welles, Donna E.
Washington, DC.
Comments Off on Burundi, Paradox of Pierre N’s Second, Maybe Third Term
Nathaniel Hawthorne observed American dynamism
January 4th, 2015
By Donna Welles.
Witchcraft at Salem Village. Engraving. The central figure in this 1876 illustration of the courtroom is usually identified as Mary Walcott. Source: Wikimedia Commons
Sometimes famous quotes are clandestinely autobiographical as illustrated, perhaps, by Nathaniel Hawthorne’s famous, “Families are always rising and falling in America.” My own theory as to why Hawthorne might have said that lies in his own past.
Nathaniel himself was a direct descendant of one of the judges in the 1692 Salem Witch Trials, William Hathorne. However, by the time Nathaniel was born in Salem in 1804, the family had lost its wealth and prominence in the community and Hawthorne required the financial assistance of his uncle in order to attend college. Specifically, Hawthorne attended Bowdoin College where he was elected to the Phi Beta Kappa society.
Wikipedia describes his journey to school and the people he met while there:
On the way to Bowdoin, at the stage stop in Portland, Hawthorne met future president Franklin Pierce and the two became fast friends.Once at the school, he also met the future poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, future congressman Jonathan Cilley, and future naval reformer Horatio Bridge.
Hawthorne added a ‘w’ to his name, presumably in order to disassociate himself from his famous ancestry who had been Puritans and ranking officials in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. At the age of 46, Nathaniel Hawthorne published The Scarlet Letter.
Wikipedia describes the Scarlet Letter’s publication:
“Hawthorne returned to writing and published The Scarlet Letter in mid-March 1850, including a preface which refers to his three-year tenure in the Custom House and makes several allusions to local politicians, who did not appreciate their treatment. One of the first mass-produced books in America, it sold 2,500 volumes within ten days and earned Hawthorne $1,500 over 14 years.The book was immediately pirated by booksellers in London and became an immediate best-seller in the United States; it initiated his most lucrative period as a writer.One of Hawthorne’s friends, the critic Edwin Percy Whipple, objected to the novel’s “morbid intensity” and its dense psychological details, writing that the book “is therefore apt to become, like Hawthorne, too painfully anatomical in his exhibition of them”,though 20th century writer D. H. Lawrence said that there could be no more perfect work of the American imagination than The Scarlet Letter” ‘
Nathaniel Hawthorne is a household name due to the man’s talent, work ethic, and also to the dynamics of American culture which enabled him to meet interesting people in college and climb the socioeconomic ladder. The name Hathorne, by contrast, has largely been lost to history.
One of my favorite parts of American culture is its love of meritocracy and with that comes individualism. In the Roman Empire it was also true that families would rise and fall, but it didn’t often happen within a generation as it did with Hawthorne. That, I believe, is what Nathaniel was observing.
Comments Off on Nathaniel Hawthorne observed American dynamism
Foundations of the U.S.- Israel Partnership
May 25th, 2013By Donna Welles.
“Foundations of the U.S.- Israel Partnership” because much of it was new to me.
The level of military cooperation is extraordinarily deep. The United States now provides Israel with $3 billion a year through the Foreign Military Financing program. In addition to direct military aid, the United States provides funds for the joint development of antiballistic missile systems and has pre-positioned nearly $1 billion worth of military equipment and ammunition in Israel for use by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) in emergency contingencies. U.S. military aid represents roughly 1.5 percent of Israel’s gross domestic product (GDP) and approximately 21 percent of its defense budget. Nearly three-quarters of that money is used to purchase U.S. military equipment, providing an indirect subsidy to the U.S. defense industry and ensuring that Israel has access to the best U.S. made military equipment available for foreign sales.
For several generations of Israelis and Americans, this robust partnership has been a reassuring constant.
But for those with longer memories, there is nothing inevitable about strong U.S. – Israeli ties.
As one historian has noted, the “U.S. – Israel alliance as we know it today is the cumulative product of individual decisions that could have gone another way.”
IN THE BEGINNING
There was nothing strategic about President Harry S. Truman’s recognition of Israel in May 1948. Israel was a fledgling state fighting for its independence and had little to offer the world’s most formidable power. Truman’s advisers made compelling arguments both for and against recognition. Secretary of State George C. Marshall in particular vehemently opposed recognizing Israel, arguing that is was a purely political calculation that could become a liability for the United States. Over and above political considerations, Truman made his own decision, largely based on religious conviction and his sense of moral obligation toward a persecuted minority. Although it took years to bear fruit, Truman’s decision helped set the stage for what would become one of the most special and complicated U.S. partnerships of the modern era.
Truman also based his decision on the abstract notion that Israelis and Americans shared basic beliefs rooted in liberty, democracy, and Judeo-Christian values. His strong religious impulse resonated with many Christian Americans who saw Israel’s rebirth as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. For many Christian Americans, supporting Israel has deepened their physical connection to the Holy Land. Early U.S. support for Israel was also built on the idea of a small democracy struggling for survival against the odds, all while trying to absorb hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Many Americans glimpsed themselves and the American pioneer spirit in Israel’s struggle for independence and survival. Israeli interlocutors tended to speak English well, were highly educated, and espoused a commitment to Western liberal and democratic ideals.
Truman’s recognition of Israel was a historic moment, but the first decade of U.S. – Israel ties tends to evoke bitter memories for many Israelis. After recognizing Israel, the United States remained aloof. The U.S. instinct was to mediate the Arab-Israeli conflict rather than the take sides. Under the Tripartite Agreement of 1950, the United States, France, Britain agreed to limit arms sales to all countries in the region so as to prevent an arms race from breaking out. Washington’s leading strategic thinkers successfully argued that a close relationship with Israel endangered U.S. relations with oil-rich Arab states and could strengthen the Soviet foothold in the region.
Although strategic ties were slow to take root, the 1950’s and early 1960’s were crucial years when it came to building cultural ties and the political pillar of U.S. Israeli relations. The discourses that developed during this time shaped the prevailing U.S. view of Israel for the coming decades and gave the partnership a deep political-cultural foundation. On the most basic level, anti-Semitism, which was a common feature of pre-World War II U.S. society and politics, declined dramatically after the war. AS one scholar noted, the decline of anti-Semitism in the United States helped transform Jews from “outsiders” to “insiders,” which encouraged political acceptance of Israel.
BUILDING THE POLITICAL FOUNDATION
Growing Christian affinity eventually helped nurture greater bipartisan political support for Israel. Although Democrats had largely been the champions of strong U.S. – Israeli ties during the first two decades, Republicans slowly began embracing the bilateral partnership as well. By the 1980 elections, both the Democratic and Republican platforms were highlighting Israel’s importance to the United States. With anti-communism and the Cold War at the center of his worldview, President Ronald Reagan viewed Israel as a vital ally and helped consolidate national bipartisan support for a strong U.S. Israeli partnership. Even more, President Reagan helped accelerate a process whereby Americans increasingly defined support for Israel as a “moral obligation” for the United States.
The American Christian embrace of Israel corresponded with the rise of evangelical Protestant churches and the decline in membership in the mainline Protestant denominations, which historically have been openly critical of Israel and its politics. Over time evangelical Christian support grew and was based on the theological notion that a Jewish return to the Land of Israel was necessary for the Second Coming. Spiritual ties complemented the notion that Israel and the United States share common enemies, from communism during the Cold War to Islamic radicalism after September 11, 2001, which further deepened the strong affinity that many Christian Zionists feel for Israel.
SEEDS OF STRATEGIC COOPERATION
In Israel’s early years, the United States gave Israel only a relatively small amount of economic assistance, always carefully calibrated with similar U.S. support for Israel’s Arab neighbors. Although Israel managed to obtain some surplus military equipment from the United States in the early 1950’s, France was its primary strategic partner and military supplier. The Israeli Kfir fighter aircraft was based on the French Mirage, and France assisted in developing Israel’s nascent nuclear program.
Perhaps partially in recognition of these shows of Israeli strength and usefulness, President John F. Kennedy introduced an element of warmth and commitment that had been lacking in high-level U.S. -Israeli relations. Until Kennedy, the U.S. government valued stability in the Middle East above all else. It feared that military aid to Israel would spark a regional arms race that could give the Soviet Union more regional leverage. The United States repeatedly turned down Israeli requests for more sophisticated weapons in the name of parity between Israel and its Arab enemies. That all changed in 1962, when Kennedy made a pivotal decision to sell Israel Hawk antiaircraft missiles, which became a crucial component of Israel’s defensive structure.
As Dan Raviv and Yossi Melman interpret the policy shift, Kennedy had figured out that “it was easier to live with an Israel that was getting the resources it needed to defend itself. Then Israel would not have to commit wild or unacceptable acts.” Thus, Kennedy steered the U.S. – Israeli partnership to a new level of cooperation and changed the way the United States thought about regional stability, Israeli security, and U.S. – Israeli relations.
President Lyndon B. Johnson took Kennedy’s Hawk sale one step further with his historic decision to sell Israel 210 M-48 Patton tanks in 1965, marking the beginning of the U.S. policy of providing Israel with offensive weapons. A year later, in 1966, the United States sold Israel the A-4 Skyhawk attack aircraft. The new weapons ensured that Israel had not only defensive capabilities on par with Arab armies but offensive capabilities as well. The rationale was that a strong Israel equipped with the best military technology would deter Arab armies and prevent state-to-state wars in the region. During the next decade, this concept would evolve into a long-standing U.S. commitment to preserve Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME).
These offensive weapons sales contributed to Israel’s swift and stunning victory over Arab armies in 1967, and U.S.- Israeli relations grew stronger still. Israel was a winner in the region, having defeated Soviet clients on the battlefield. Moreover, Israel’s capture of Soviet military hardware was a gold mine for U.S. military intelligence. From that point, U.S. military aid to Israel took off: from 1967 until the conclusion of the Cold War in 1991, the United States provided Israel with nearly $30 billion in military loans and grants. In a short time, Israel’s army was largely equipped by the United States, fulfilling a long-standing goal of Israel’s leadership.
Putin Outlines the Next Stage of Russia’s Journey
February 3rd, 2013Уже начиная с 2013 года, начнем выплаты дополнительных пособий при рождении третьего и последующего детей в тех регионах страны, где демографическая ситуация пока хуже, чем в среднем по стране. Таких субъектов Федерации у нас 50. Большая их часть сосредоточена в Центральном, Северо-Западном, Приволжском и Дальневосточном федеральных округах.
Possibly inspired by the international controversy surrounding the Pussy Riot verdict, another excerpt touched on issues of state-mandated morality.
Закон может защищать нравственность, и должен это делать, но нельзя законом установить нравственность. Попытки государства вторгаться в сферу убеждений и взглядов людей – это, безусловно, проявление тоталитаризма. Это для нас абсолютно неприемлемо. Мы и не собираемся идти по этому пути. Мы должны действовать не путем запретов и ограничений
 |
| Official portrait of Vladimir Putin. Source: Wikimedia Commons, Kremlin.ru |
Other RuNetizens speculated as to the likely effectiveness of these reforms as well as to Mr. Putin’s sincerity as he delivered them. Mikhail Terekhin’s LiveJournal blog distinguished between Mr. Putin’s public appearances and those of Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev before asserting skepticism that any of these reforms would come to fruition.
Это послание было гораздо интереснее слушать, чем интервью Медведева журналистам. Почему? Да потому что Путин умеет врать красиво и интересно. Медведев как-то в этом пока не очень преуспел. […] Путин в своём послании затронул почти все сегодняшние проблемы в России. Первое же вранье из его уст было сформулировано фразой: «Все, что намечено, будет неукоснительно исполняться». Даже идиот поймёт, что он врёт. Если описывать вкратце, то он сказал, что очередей в детские сады не будет, что появятся и будут развиваться 25 миллионов рабочих мест, что все те, кто на 1 января 2012 года был зарегистрирован в очереди на новое жильё из-за аварийного состояния старого, получат новое жильё. В общем, и так ясно, что очереди останутся, рабочих мест не будет, как впрочем, и нового жилья.
Finally, an interaction following a 1mim LiveJournal post placed Mr. Putin’s proposals in their historical context. Both speakers agreed that, although life in Russia had improved over the past decade, life in Russia is still difficult and it is possible that life in Russia will always be difficult. haleriy:
Никто не обещал, что мы будим жить хорошо. Обещали, что мы будем жить ещё лучше.
1mim:
Ну то что получше за 10 лет стало, тут спору нет… Но проблемы всё те же…Вечные они что ли?