Ben Webster: “How Long Has This Been Going On?”

This is the Ben Webster Quartet -- Ben Webster on tenor saxophone, Kenny Drew on piano, Nils Henning Orsted Pederson on bass, and Alex Riel on drums – performing “How Long Has This Been Going On?”

Benjamin Francis Webster (1909 – 1973) was born in Kansas City and considered one of the three most important “swing tenors” during his lifetime along with Coleman Hawkins and Lester Young. Nicknamed “The Brute”, he had a tough raspy and brutal tone on stomps (with his own distinctive growls), yet on ballads he would play with warmth and sentiment.

You can watch him here perform “Flying Home” and here performing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.”

The Russians in Georgia

Michael Walzer has these thoughts on the Russian incursion into Georgia:

This is an unjust war. That may seem obvious here in the U.S., but the Russians have worked hard to justify their attack, using the humanitarian language that everyone now uses to defend military operations in other people’s countries. It is important to address their claims, especially because they have received some credence in Europe. It is also relatively easy to do that since reporters and human rights activists have been allowed into parts of Georgia now under Russian control. As a result, we know that the South Ossetian city of Tskhinvali has not been destroyed by the Georgian army. “Fighting appears to have been concentrated in two neighborhoods, while buildings in the rest of the city stood intact,” reports the New York Times (August 13, 2008). “Entire residential neighborhoods appear unscathed.” Nor is the Russian claim that the Georgians killed or injured 2,000 civilians credible. Human Rights Watch, checking the local hospital, has come up with the figure of 44 dead and 273 wounded in clashes between Ossetian separatists and Georgian soldiers—and one doctor told reporters that the majority of the wounded were soldiers (New York Times, August 15, 2008). The Putin government apparently believes that anything less than the Big Lie won’t be persuasive, and this Big Lie may be effective in Russia, where the government dominates the media. It shouldn’t be credited in the rest of the world. This isn’t a humanitarian intervention, and it isn’t a peacekeeping operation.

Russian intentions are not benevolent and there is every reason to believe that propped up with oil wealth they will start re-asserting the power of the old empire. The ideological force behind this move is not Communism of the old Soviet Union but nationalism of a Russian state previously humbled by the break-up of the Soviet entity and a devastated economy.

The movement of Georgian soldiers into South Ossetia was reckless, certainly, but it wasn’t the reason—it was only the excuse—for the Russian invasion. The reason lies in American policy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in the years since 1989, which the Russians have interpreted, not implausibly, as aiming at and achieving a significant reduction in their power and prestige. I don’t think that the policy was necessarily wrong, or wrong at all, but it was, like President Saakashvili’s Ossetian adventure, reckless. We never reckoned on a Russian response or planned for it or consulted with our allies about what might have to be done. Russia’s strategic aggressiveness in Georgia obviously took the Bush administration by surprise. Just like the Iraqi insurgency. Just like the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Just like the victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections. Just like the fall of Musharraf in Pakistan.

Yes. The failure of intelligence has yet again blindsided the United States to see this coming in order to try to prevent this war. In fact, based upon previous statements of encouragement from the White House, Georgians seem surprised the U.S. did not rush to Georgia’s aid. The poor intelligence and empty rhetoric reflect a failure (or lack of) thoughtful policy for the region and, in particular, Russia. What policy exists seems ad hoc – just like Iraq, just like Afghanistan, just like Palestine, and just like Pakistan.

It is clear that another victim of this administration’s obsession with Iraq has been the complete neglect of East-West relations as it pertains to Russia. The world cannot afford such a lapse in attention from the next administration in Washington.

The European response has been particularly weak, and we have to worry that the weakness is due to European dependence on Russian oil—which would be greatly heightened if the pipeline across Georgia and Turkey were cut. I don’t think that the Russians invaded Georgia for the oil; I don’t think that America invaded Iraq for the oil. But oil is a factor in imperial politics, and the EU needs to think about a version of Russian domination that is commercial rather than political or military—an “empire” entirely appropriate to the twenty-first century. One response that the Russians would notice would be a large-scale campaign for conservation and a massive investment in alternative sources of energy.

Foreign policy and energy policy cannot be seen as separate. The primary source of oil is from countries whose democratic credentials are marginal at best and all too frequently are hostile to the West. Yet our insatiable demand for more and more oil – much of it wasted, for example, in gas-guzzling vehicles – only puts more wealth in the coffers of those with unfriendly intentions. There is not enough oil on U.S. (or Western) territory to offset this demand. Only energy conservation and energy diversification can do that.

You can read his entire piece here. (Hat tip to Jeff Weintraub.)

Phil Woods: “Speak Low” (1995)

This is Phil Woods on the alto saxophone, Chris Neville on the piano, Larry Gales on the bass, and Sherman Ferguson on the drums performing “Speak Low” in 1995.

Phil Woods (born 1931) is an American jazz saxophonist, clarinetist, bandleader and composter. He studied music at the Manhattan School of Music and The Julliard School. Upon graduation he acquired a reputation as the preeminent bop saxophonist of the day.

His recordings have been nominated for seven Grammy Awards and won four. In 2007 he received the Jazz Master Fellowship Award from the National Endowment for the Arts.

You can see him here playing “And When We Were Young” in 1968.

Red paint campaign to symbolize the blood of victims of the Burmese dictatorship

As the world tuned into the opening of the 2008 Summer Olympics in China students in Burma (a.k.a. Myanmar) spray-painted schools, government facilities and other public buildings with red to symbolize the blood the victims of the “8888 Uprising” twenty years ago. On August 8, 1988, the Burmese pro-democracy movement rose up against the military dictatorship in peaceful demonstrations. The dictatorship responded by crushing the movement that included the murder of at least 3000 people.

Last fall activists from a new pro-democratic movement demonstrated peacefully around this south Asian country. Again, their movement was brutally suppressed by the military dictatorship.

Yet, the movement remains alive, however weakened.

Thilo Thielke offers this assessment in Der Spiegel:

A protester outside the Burmese embassy in London marks the 20th anniversary of the 1988 uprising.

The culprits came shortly before midnight. It was raining, and the traffic was light on Uyza Road in downtown Rangoon at this late hour. They sprinted across the street, pulled out their spray cans, painted a red cross onto a yellow traffic sign and disappeared into the darkness again.

The red crosses and bursts of color that are now appearing with more and more frequency in the country's major cities are meant to signal renunciation, disgust and resistance. They are the signs of a new opposition movement known as the "Red Campaign." Its members, young university students, operate in small groups of no more than five people. They risk everything for their underground struggle against the omnipotent state.

Secrecy is their highest priority, because the junta of stone-faced generals that has ruled Burma with an iron fist for decades has its spies everywhere and treats its enemies ruthlessly. When a wall at a university was found covered with inflammatory flyers a few days ago, it was the military, not a cleaning crew, that was promptly brought in.

The flyers read "Remember 88," a reference to the August 8, 1988 uprising against the military regime of former dictator Ne Win. At the time, one million Burmese took to the streets in typically Buddhist nonviolent protest, demonstrating for a democratic society. Thousands died in a hail of bullets when the military fired on the people. Although Ne Win eventually relinquished power and proposed a multiparty system, the next junta soon came to power in a military coup, and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest for years.

Suu Kyi is still not permitted to leave her home. Last Friday additional security, in the form of roadblocks, a fire truck and special police, was sent to guard her house, which is already surrounded with barbed wire. On the anniversary of the uprising demonstrations were staged to express solidarity with the graceful 63-year-old winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, but only abroad, in front of the embassies of Burma and its protector, China. There were protests in Bangkok, Manila and Tokyo to demand freedom for Burma and for Suu Kyi.

But things remained quiet in Burma, where the junta retains tight control over the country. Only one silent protest march was reported, in the city of Taunggok, where up to 50 people were arrested.

As the protests by Buddhist monks a year ago showed, open resistance requires great courage. As a result, most forms of resistance today are of the hit-and-run variety, such as the red color brigades' spray-painting campaign. Nevertheless, the historic date of 8/8/88 has remained significant to the Burmese, who are very superstitious and preoccupied with symbols of all kinds, as a constant reminder of the fact that the generals are prepared, at all times, to secure their hold on power with extreme violence.

Another movement, called "88 New Generation," uses poster campaigns. One of their leaders goes by Nay Myo Khaing, which, of course, is not his real name. The 40-year-old man, a teacher, looks around nervously and his hands shake. He destroys his notes during our conversation, anxious not to leave any traces behind. Almost all of his fellow dissidents are now in prison. Khaing says the government has seldom hunted down its opponents as mercilessly as now. For the past few days Khaing has been wearing a black T-shirt and a pair of black jeans -- as a sign of mourning and in silent protest.

Red was the color of the hour in September 2007, when tens of thousands of monks, wearing their traditional robes, spent days marching through the streets of Rangoon. The images circled the globe, and the government of General Than Shwe, 75, faltered briefly but then quickly recovered. A wave of arrests and a few killings were the result.

Since then even more fear has prevailed in Burma, and the depth of poverty and suffering among the Burmese has increased since Cyclone Nargis devastated the country. The military, with its roughly 400,000 soldiers, did virtually nothing for weeks, inaction for which the sorely afflicted and tolerant Burmese are unlikely to forgive them.

"The government has never been hated as much as it is now," says Nay Myo Khaing. But can his movement take advantage of popular resentment and turn it into political energy? Khaing seems at a loss, as the monsoon rain drums down onto the corrugated metal roof. Protests are planned for the fall, he says, but everything remains vague. Dissidents like Khaing are hesitant to pin down any plans, not knowing which activists will even be at large then -- or whether, once again, their plans will be foiled.

The people feel humiliated, spied upon and locked up. E-mail services are being blocked and newspapers censored, and the only content approved by the government consists of dull propaganda. But the Burmese are running out of the strength they need to rebel against these conditions. "Even the monks have withdrawn, after so many of them disappeared into the prisons," says Khaing. "Now our only hopes rest with the students, and more and more of them are joining us."

Khaing is especially disappointed by the international community. Of course, he says, the United States has been providing the opposition with massive amounts of financial assistance for the past year, but most of the money ends up in the hands of Burmese exile groups in Thailand. Besides, Khaing adds, nothing will change unless China is put under pressure. "The Chinese defend the regime because they want to retain control over Southeast Asia. They see us a market and they are lusting after our natural gas."

Then Khaing stands up without a sound and disappears into the throngs of Rangoon, a city of six million. He doesn't like to stay in one place for more than 15 minutes.

Miles Davis: “'Round Midnight” (1967)

This is the Miles Davis Quintet (Miles Davis, Wayne Shorter, Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter, and Tony Williams) performing “’Round Midnight” in Stockholm during 1967.

Miles Davis (1926-1991) was on the forefront of almost every development in jazz following WW II until his death including bebop, cool jazz, modal jazz and jazz fusion.

It’s time to address the Iraqi refugee crisis

Six years after the invasion of Iraq, approximately 15% of Iraqi citizens have been displaced. Those with the means – which means often the very people with skills needed to rebuild Iraq – have fled the country. Others are displaced internally. The issue has been ignored by the Bush administration in part because the recent lull in violence has been bought, in part, at the price of ridding various communities of minority members and bringing them back might spark renewed fighting.

The United States resettled 900,000 refugees from Vietnam following the war in Southeast Asia and 12,000 refugees from Iraq following the first Gulf War. Yet the U.S. has been dragging its feet on accepting Iraqi refugees and has cleared fewer than 6000 for resettlement after six years of war.

But while humanitarianism may be the overriding concern at this time it is not the only issue at stake. As the experience of the displaced Palestinian community proves, unresolved problems involving refugees can be a destabilizing influence in any region. Addressing the needs of Iraqi refugees is not only the right thing for the United States and the international community to do but also in everyone’s best interest.

Spencer Ackerman has this overview in the Washington Independent:

Even with the Iraq war yielding reduced levels of violence, a new Brookings Institution report details what could be the next Iraq-related security crisis in the Middle East: the millions of Iraqi refugees.

Years of turmoil have created an acute Iraqi refugee crisis. Early on in the war, thousands of educated and wealthy Iraqis -- the backbone of a middle class -- fled the chaos of their country for the relative stability of neighboring Jordan and Syria. The deterioration into marked sectarian violence led to another wave, sending anyone who could afford to leave Iraq outward. As the volume of refugees mounted, both Jordan and Syria have largely stopped admitting Iraqi refugees in order not to exacerbate domestic social problems. Current estimates hold that there are one million Iraqis living in Syria; 500,000 in Jordan, and another 500,000 spread throughout the Middle East. In addition, 2.7 million Iraqis have been displaced internally due to sectarian violence, as Shiites moved into Shiite areas and Sunnis moved to Sunni enclaves in search of security.

This refugee crisis poses a serious challenge to security in the Middle East. "The implications of the refugee crisis that is the result of our ill-conceived Iraq misadventure should not be understated," said Rand Beers, a former senior counterterrorism official in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. "The displacement of millions—both internally and to neighboring nations—only increases the potential for regional volatility and radicalization."

Elizabeth Ferris, a senior foreign-policy fellow at the moderate think tank, writes in "The Looming Crisis: Displacement and Security in Iraq" that the millions of refugees generated by the war -- most estimates place the total of internal and externally displaced Iraqis at more than 4 million, or approximately 15 percent of Iraq's entire population -- will influence Middle Eastern security in unexpected ways for decades to come.

"If the refugees do not receive sufficient support from the host governments and the international community," Ferris writes, "there is a very real danger that political actors will seek to fill the gap as they reportedly now do inside Iraq. It is important to remember that both Hezbollah and Hamas derive much of their popular legitimacy from the fact that they created effective social support systems to help needy people when governments were unable to do so."

Iraqis in exile are traumatized people. A March 2008 finding by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, or UNHCR, found that 80 percent of Iraqi refugees "reported being witness to a shooting"; nearly 70 percent reported "interrogation or harassment by militias or other groups with threats to life"; 23 percent had been kidnapped; and 75 percent "knew someone close to them who had been killed or murdered." Host governments in the region, Ferris writes, often do not provide adequate social services, treating Iraqi refugees as "guests" rather than citizens, in order to preserve the appearance that the refugees will return to Iraq. "But," Ferris writes, "guests -- unlike recognized refugees -- do not have rights." Repeated efforts to interview Ferris were unsuccessful.

The decision to treat Iraqi refugees as temporary instead of resettling them has everything to do with the Palestinian experience, according to Marc Lynch, a Middle East expert at George Washington University. The U.N.'s Palestinian relief agency, known as UNRWA, created sprawling refugee camps for millions of displaced Palestinians. But "UNHCR has not done anything like that" for Iraqis, Lynch said. "It's been a very important thing for the Jordanian government especially, and for other governments, not to want create a refugee situation like the Palestinians."

****
Iraq has more than 2.7 million people internally displaced. Owing to intimidation and violence, the once-mixed capitol of Baghdad became a substantially Shiite city in 2006. Most Iraqi governorates, already beleaguered by chaos and insurgency, have not been able to provide basic social services to internally-displaced people. Ferris cites a U.N. study showing nearly one in four internally displaced Iraqis "live in abandoned public buildings, former military barracks or other collective settlements" that frequently "lack basic utilities and are vulnerable to violent attacks." Only 22 percent of internally-displaced Iraqis have access to national food rations. "Any [security] gains achieved by the surge," she writes, "can quickly be erased by inadequate policies toward the displaced."

While there has been a recent push by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to resettle some refugees and internally-displaced people, much of it has been for show. An earlier study by Refugees International found that resettlement is, in fact, often a tactic of continued sectarian conflict, with various militia groups placing Shiite in formerly-Sunni homes and vice versa. Maliki, Ferris writes, "lacks political will to recognize either the magnitude or the potential consequences of the displacement. To do so would be an indication of the government's failure to protect its people."

The U.S.'s response to the refugee crisis has been vexed by similar political concerns. Fewer than 6,000 Iraqis have been cleared for resettlement in the U.S., meaning many Iraqis who collaborated with U.S. efforts in the occupation have been abandoned -- a situation literally dramatized in New Yorker writer George Packer's acclaimed play "Betrayed." U.S. policy to refugees and internally displaced Iraqis largely consists of "funding multilateral aid organizations," Ferris writes. The Bush administration plans on spending $281 million on humanitarian assistance to Iraq this fiscal year -- about 11 percent of what the U.S. spends each week on the Iraq war. The primary reason for such parsimony, Ferris writes, is "an aversion to admitting that the safest option for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis is to flee the country."

All this leads to a substantial pool of recruits for terrorists; for increased instability in Iraq's neighbors, and for continuing to fuel the Iraqi insurgency, said Beers, now the head of the liberal National Security Network. "We’ve seen elsewhere in the world the devastating effect forced mass migration can have," Beers said. "At this dangerous time for America’s national security both in the region and beyond, we need a much stronger effort to address the vulnerability of the millions who have fled their homes in Iraq. The alternative is a cauldron of unrest and instability boiling over into violence, extremism, and chaos."

U.S./Russia relations: Pursuing policy in a vacuum

Nobody comes away from this Georgia-Russia conflict over South Ossetia looking good. The Georgia government badly bungled efforts to hold the Ossete people within the Georgian state sparking an armed confrontation with Russia that now jeopardizes not only the status of South Ossetia but also Abkhazia. The heavy hand of Russia’s military response against this tiny little country only reminds Russia’s neighbors of the old days of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union when countries on its borders were bullied into direct or indirect control by Moscow. (Russia’s siding with an ethnic indepence movements in Geogia is not without irony given Russia’s brutal suppression of an indepence movement in nearby Chechnya.)

And the failure of intelligence has yet again blindsided the United States to see this coming in order to try to prevent this war. In fact, based upon previous statements of encouragement from the White House, Georgians seem surprised the U.S. is rushing to Georgia’s aid. But the poor intelligence and empty rhetoric reflect a failure (or lack of) thoughtful policy for the region and, in particular, Russia. What policy exists seems ad hoc. Given the importance Russia (and the Soviet Union) played in U.S. foreign policy for the better part of the 20th Century, this is truly amazing. The collapse of the Soviet Union offered up a rare opportunity to redefine the relationships between nations. Instead, it looks like we may be entering a second Cold War.

Max Bergmann has these thoughts on the subject at Democracy Arsenal:

There is a lot of talk about what a mistake it was to support/offer NATO membership to Georgia. How this was naturally going to antagonize Russia and now how the idea of NATO enlargement is such a bad idea because it would naturally antagonize Russia. This to me represents a badly mistaken reading of the situation and grossly dismisses the amazing success NATO enlargement has been.

The fact is that NATO expansion was one of the most successful post-Cold War policies, as it helped anchor fledgling democracies in Eastern Europe to the west and enabled and facilitated EU expansion. Did Russia consistently view NATO expansion with trepidation and hostility? Yes. But measures were taken by the Clinton administration to assuage Russian fears. Namely, efforts were made to include Russia to a significant degree in NATO. But the important point was that NATO expansion was rooted in broader U.S. - Russia dialogue.

The problem with Bush's policy toward Georgia was not support for NATO expansion or its support for a democracy on Russia's borders. The problem was that we pursued this policy in a vacuum.

For the last 8 years the Bush administration has had no Russia policy and had no corresponding approach to address Russian concerns about democratic governance along its borders. Instead, the Bush administration only cared about two things 1. Maintaining the warm relationship between Bush and Putin at apparently any cost and 2. Expanding missile defense. Our support for the colored revolutions and NATO expansion was completely divorced from any coherent policy toward Russia.

In the meantime Russia has grown stronger over the last decade fueled by its vast energy resources and became more hostile toward democracy both within Russia, as well as along its borders. Instead, of engaging or confronting Russian hostility toward democracy and its neighbors (ie. its eviction of democratic civil society groups, its conducting of cyber attacks against Baltic EU members, its connections to poisonings, its manipulation of oil and gas pipelines against its neighbors, etc. etc.) the U.S. turned a blind eye, and Europe followed. Instead, the "big" issue of discussion between the U.S. and Russia was over a strategically useless missile defense system. We went to the mat on that but failed to mention all of the other issues.

There is a ton of blame on all sides of this conflict. But the strategically stupid thing on our part was not our support of Georgian democracy, but doing so in a vacuum.

Eliane Elias: “So Danço Samba” (2005)

This is Eliane Elias performing “So Danço Samba” at the San Javier Jazz Festival (Spain) in 2005. Elias was born in 1960 in São Paulo, Brazil and currently resides in New York. She is a Brazilian jazz pianist, arranger, vocalist and songwriter.

The Russian conflict with Georgia: What is the Bush administration doing?

What are we to make of this war in the Caucasus Mountains? The situation in Georgia is pretty clear. According to Anatol Lieven in the Times, “the majority of the Ossetes living south of the main Caucasus range in Georgia wish to unite with the Ossetes living to the north, in an autonomous republic of the Russian Federation; and the Georgians, regarding South Ossetia as both a legal and an historic part of their national territory, refuse to accept this.”

What is also clear is the Russians have always looked favorably upon the pro-Russian Ossetes and unfavorably upon the anti-Russian Georgians. And what is very clear is that the Bush administration, after emboldening the Georgian government with weapons and promotion of NATO membership, has been complete blindsided by the Russian invasion of South Ossetia and contrary to the threatening rhetoric has no plan of action. Given Russia’s long history of border conflicts and the fact the once near bankrupt nation is now strengthened by oil money how can the Bush administration really be surprised Russia is asserting its power?

Fred Kaplan has this assessment in Slate

… it is worth asking what the Bush people were thinking when they egged on Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's young, Western-educated president, to apply for NATO membership, send 2,000 of his troops to Iraq as a full-fledged U.S. ally, and receive tactical training and weapons from our military. Did they really think Putin would sit by and see another border state (and former province of the Russian empire) slip away to the West? If they thought that Putin might not, what did they plan to do about it, and how firmly did they warn Saakashvili not to get too brash or provoke an outburst?

It's heartbreaking, but even more infuriating, to read so many Georgians quoted in the New York Times—officials, soldiers, and citizens—wondering when the United States is coming to their rescue. It's infuriating because it's clear that Bush did everything to encourage them to believe that he would. When Bush (properly) pushed for Kosovo's independence from Serbia, Putin warned that he would do the same for pro-Russian secessionists elsewhere, by which he could only have meant Georgia's separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Putin had taken drastic steps in earlier disputes over those regions—for instance, embargoing all trade with Georgia—with an implicit threat that he could inflict far greater punishment. Yet Bush continued to entice Saakashvili with weapons, training, and talk of entry into NATO. Of course the Georgians believed that if they got into a firefight with Russia, the Americans would bail them out.

Bush pressed the other NATO powers to place Georgia's application for membership on the fast track. The Europeans rejected the idea, understanding the geo-strategic implications of pushing NATO's boundaries right up to Russia's border. If the Europeans had let Bush have his way, we would now be obligated by treaty to send troops in Georgia's defense. That is to say, we would now be in a shooting war with the Russians. Those who might oppose entering such a war would be accused of "weakening our credibility" and "destroying the unity of the Western alliance."

This is where the heartless bastard part of the argument comes in: Is Georgia's continued control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia really worth war with Russia? Is its continued independence from Moscow's domination, if it comes to that, worth our going to war?

At this point, the neocons would enter the debate—in fact some, like Robert Kagan, already have—by invoking the West's appeasement of Hitler's annexation of the Sudetenland in 1938. ("A quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing," is how Neville Chamberlain famously, and catastrophically, brushed away the aggression.)

A few counterquestions for those who rise to compare every nasty leader to Hitler and every act of aggression to the onset of World War III: Do you really believe that Russia's move against Georgia is not an assertion of control over "the near abroad" (as the Russians call their border regions), but rather the first step of a campaign to restore the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe and, from there, bring back the Cold War's Continental standoff? If so—if this really is the start of a new war of civilizations—why aren't you devoting every waking hour to pressing for the revival of military conscription, for a war surtax to triple the military budget, and—here's a twist—for getting out of Iraq in order to send a few divisions right away to fight in the larger battle? If not, what exactly are you proposing?

The same question can be asked of the Bush administration. Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly called Saakashvili on Sunday to assure him that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered." We should all be interested to know what answer he is preparing or whether he was just dangling the Georgians on another few inches of string. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the Security Council, "This is completely unacceptable and crosses a line." Talk like that demands action. What's the plan, and how does he hope to get the Security Council—on which Russia has veto power—to approve it?

Regardless of which side started this conflict, and quite apart from its tangled roots (read this and this, for starters), the crisis holds a few clear lessons for the next American president.

First, security commitments are serious things; don't make them unless you have the support, desire, and means to follow through.

Second, Russia is ruled by some nasty people these days, but they are not Hitler or Stalin, and they can't be expected to tolerate direct challenges from their border any more than an American president could from, say, Cuba. (This is not to draw any moral equations, only to point out basic facts.)

Third, the sad truth is that—in part because the Cold War is over, in part because skyrocketing oil prices have engorged the Russians' coffers—we have very little leverage over what the Russians do, at least in what they see as their own security sphere. And our top officials only announce this fact loud and clear when they issue ultimatums that go ignored without consequences.

In the short term, if an independent Georgia is worth saving, the Russians need some assurances—for instance, a pledge that Georgia won't be admitted into NATO or the European Union—in exchange for keeping the country and its elected government intact. (Those who consider this "appeasement" are invited to submit other ideas that don't lead either to Georgia's utter dismantlement or to a major war.)

If a newly expansive Russia is worth worrying about (and maybe it is), then it's time to bring back Washington-Moscow summitry. Relations have soured so intensely in recent years and over such peripheral issues (such as basing a useless missile-defense system in the Czech Republic) that a new president—not just his secretary of state, but the president himself—could do worse than sit down with Medvedev and/or Putin, if just to lay out issues of agreement and disagreement and then go from there. It's staggering that no such talks have taken place so far this century.

In the long term, the best way to take Russia down a notch (along with Iran, Venezuela, and other hostile powers overflowing with oil money) is to pursue policies and fund technologies that slash the demand for oil. The Georgia crisis should make clear, if it isn't already, that this is a matter of hard-headed national security.

Russian intentions are not benevolent and there is every reason to believe that propped up with oil wealth they will start re-asserting the power of the old empire. It is clear that another victim of this administration’s obsession with Iraq has been the complete neglect of East-West relations as it pertains to Russia. The world cannot afford such a lapse in attention from the next administration in Washington.

Governor Tim Kaine on the Charlie Rose show

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has been mentioned in the media as being near the top of the list of potential running mates for Barack Obama. Kaine was elected governor of Virginia in 2005 after serving as Lt. Governor for Virginia (2002 to 2006) and Mayor of Richmond (1998 to 2000). Previously Kaine had served on Richmond City Council, was a successful civil rights attorney and worked as a missionary in Honduras.

Governor Kaine is interviewed on last night’s Charlie Rose show.

U.S. health care: paying more, getting less

Gershom Gorenberg calls attention to a recent report on the performance of our national healthcare system by the Commonwealth Fund.

The report shows that Americans pay a lot more but receive a lot less for health care compared to other countries. Gorenberg quotes the report as scoring the U.S. an overall 65 out of a possible 100 on 37 core indicators of performance well behind other Western nations. Additionally, access to health care declined from 2006 to 2008.

According to Gorenberg:

In what may be the most striking measure, the U.S. had the highest number of deaths that could have been prevented by care - 110 per 100,000. Portugal did better, and so did Greece. In “healthy life expectancy at age 60″ - meaning the number of healthy years you can still expect to live at that age - the U.S. was also close to the bottom. Infant mortality? In the U.S., the rate is 6.8 per 1,000 births, compared to 5.3 in Canada and 3.3 in Finland. The 10 healthiest states in the U.S. came had more infant deaths than Denmark, slightly less than Canada as a whole.

The Commonwealth Fund, alas, didn’t include Israel in its charts. So I emailed my friend Gary Ginsberg, health economist to the world, and asked him for some comparisons. His answers: The infant mortality rate in Israel is 3.9 per 1,000 - better than Denmark, worse than Finland. Sadly, health in Israel shows inequality - the picture is significantly worse for non-Jews. So the infant mortality rate for non-Jews is 6.7 - still better than the U.S. national average.

In Israel in 2002, a man had a healthy life expectancy 16.8 more years, a woman of 18.2 more years. In America, the matching figures were 15.3 years for men, 18.1 for women.

The reason for these differences is pretty obvious: The United States, an underdeveloped country, lacks universal, socialized medical care. The free market flunks at health care. The invisible hand marks up the cost and provides shoddy goods.

Ah, but some well-off Americans might protest: Those pesky figures are for everyone in a country. If you are insured and well-off in America you will live longer and better because of the fabulous hospitals, the incredible techniques.

The incidental evidence is poor on that as well. Check this from the New York Times today: American doctors put in artificial joints that have already proven flawed and that wouldn’t be used in other countries - because the other countries have a national registry that reveals problems quickly, and the U.S. doesn’t. Skip all the arguments about exactly why the U.S. doesn’t. They boil down to: no national health care system. The free market is good at giving you expensive care, not necessarily good care.

You can read Gorenberg’s entire piece here. You can read the report here.

Johnny Griffin: “My Little Suede Shoes”

Johnny Griffin died today at age 80. He was a bop and hard bop tenor saxophonist. Griffin was known as the "fastest tenor in the west", for the ease with which he could execute fast note runs with excellent intonation. He played with many of the big names in jazz since he starting performing in the 1940’s. His last concert, July 21, 2008 was played in Hyères, France.

The Johnny Griffin & Art Taylor Quintet performs “My Little Suede Shoes” above.

Europe witnesses the 44th president of the United States

U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama spoke before a cheering crowd of over 200,000 in Berlin, Germany yesterday. "The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand," Obama said, speaking not far from where the Berlin Wall once divided the city. As Gerhard Spörl in Der Spiegel puts it, Europe is witnessing the 44th president of the United States:

… Barack Obama is a passionate politician who is fixated on -- and takes very seriously -- his desire for a better world. That he is an impressive speaker who knows how to casually draw his audience into his image of the world -- one who doesn't have any need to resort to the kind of cheap effects that tend to prompt the uproarious applause of an audience. That he is a typical American -- an idealist in the true spirit of the American success story who is now very casually making his claim to becoming something akin to the president of the world.

He also could have said: We are a world power, the only one on the planet at the moment, and I intend to act as if this were the case. But you're also allowed to participate in the attempt to try to save the world -- at least a bit of it. In that sense I am different from George W. Bush, very different. Indeed, Barack Obama has his own sound -- it's more utopian, he speaks of the general human desire for better conditions for all of humanity; and he speaks of the longing for strong and dynamic presidents and chancellors who are capable of acting on a global scale. With this drive and this radiance, he managed to drive Hillary Clinton out of the campaign. It is also the way he will outpace John McCain by November 4. It is the way he took the hearts of Americans by storm, and it is the way he is now taking Europe by storm.

***
Europe is witnessing the 44th president of the United States during this trip….

Hopefully, President Obama can repair the image of the United States, which has plummeted around the world since the beginning of the 21st Century.

Oscar Peterson Trio: “A Gal In Gallico” (1958)

Oscar Peterson Trio (Peterson on piano with Ray Brown on bass and Herb Ellis on guitar) performing “A Gal In Gallico” in 1958.

How much does John McCain really know about foreign policy?

There seems to be an assumption among the media that Senator John McCain has substantial experience in foreign policy and that somehow automatically translates into wise leadership internationally. But is that a fair assumption?

There are his multiple gaffes such as his referral to "the Iraq-Pakistan border," or calling the Czech Republic "Czechoslovakia" (three times), or confusing Sunnis with Shiites, or saying that the U.S. troop surge preceded (and therefore caused) the Sunni Awakening in Anbar province. Fred Kaplan wonders, “Were they gaffes—slips of the tongue, blips of momentary fatigue? Or did they reflect lazy thinking, conceptual confusion, a mind frame clouded by clichéd abstractions?” Of course, McCain gets a pass by the press whereas if Obama said anything like this he would have been declared too inexperienced to qualify for the presidency.

However, what is disturbing about McCain is less the not-well-thought-out comments he makes to the press off the top of his head but some of his supposedly well-thought-out foreign policy proposals.

Fred Kaplan examines a few of those proposals:

… Quite apart from the gaffes, in formal prepared speeches, McCain has proposed certain actions and policies that raise serious questions about his suitability for the highest office. As president, he has said, he would boot Russia out of the G-8 on the grounds that its leaders don't share the West's values. He would form an international "League of Democracy" as a united front against the forces of autocracy and terror. And though it's not exactly a stated policy, he continues to employ as his foreign-policy adviser an outspoken, second-tier neoconservative named Randy Scheunemann, who coined the term "rogue-state rollback" and still prescribes it as sound policy.

Evicting Russia from the group of eight leading industrial nations may have some visceral appeal, but it has at least two drawbacks. First, all the G-8's other members are opposed to the notion. Second, the main issues that concern the G-8—for instance, climate change, energy policy, nuclear nonproliferation, and counterterrorism—cannot be fully addressed without Russia's participation.

The idea of a League of Democracy has a nice ring, especially given the United Nations' frequent obstructionism in the face of human misery and common danger. The obstructionism stems in part from vetoes by Russia or China, which, of course, would not be members of this league. But there are a few problems here as well. First, democratic nations often differ on high-profile issues (e.g., the invasion of Iraq, the rules of engagement in Afghanistan, the Kyoto Treaty, etc.). Second, very few of the world's pressing problems break down along the lines of democracies vs. nondemocracies, either by topic or constituency. Third, creating such an overtly ideological bloc as a central tool of foreign policy would only alienate the excluded nations—and possibly incite them to form an opposing bloc. The challenge is to find common solutions to global problems, not to encumber them in a new Cold War.

As for rolling back rogue states, one would hope that McCain has learned some lessons from George W. Bush's failures as even Bush himself has done, albeit belatedly—for instance, in deciding to negotiate with the North Koreans (though not until after they tested an atomic bomb). Someone should ask McCain: Would he cut off those talks? Does he value Scheunemann's advice? If so, which rogues does he hope to topple next, and with whose army does he plan to do it? (Ours is overbooked at the moment.)

In other words, how much does John McCain really know about foreign policy after all? It's a question to be asked and answered, not brushed away as impertinent.

George Benson & McCoy Tyner: “Alligator Boogaloo”

Guitarist George Benson and pianist McCoy Tyner perform “Alligator Boogaloo”. They are backed up by Avery Sharpe on bass and Aaron Scott on drums.

Catholic Church condemns birth control in the Philippines

Despite the fact 1.4 million unplanned pregnancies contribute to an annual population growth of 2.34 percent in the Philippines while its ranking on the Human Development Index declines, the Roman Catholic Church still condemns the use of the pill and other forms of contraception. One couple reported below they were counseled to use the natural method of having sexual intercourse when the woman is not fertile and if they desired sex at other times to simply watch a movie or look at one another.

Here is the story by Stella Gonzales:

As World Population Day was being marked on Jul. 11, Tess and Andy were attending a family planning seminar as a requirement for their forthcoming wedding. It turned out to be window into one of the major problems besetting the Philippine population programme.

Because their seminar was conducted by a doctor-volunteer in a Catholic church in Manila, Tess and Andy (surname suppressed) were expecting the facilitator to toe the church’s line against artificial contraception. But they did not anticipate the kind of information that was given them and several other couples.

They said the doctor told seminar participants that the pill was an abortifacient (a device that acts after human life has begun) and that condoms do not protect against HIV (the virus that causes AIDS). "Yet she did not present any scientific evidence to back her claims," Tess told IPS.

Tess was stunned when the doctor, again with no proof, said some babies had been born with an intrauterine device (IUD) stuck in their heads.

Andy, a Scandinavian who has travelled to various parts of the world, said the seminar was "one of the weirdest" experiences he has ever had. As he listened to the doctor, Andy said he was thinking to himself: "This can’t be happening. It’s something that happens only in the movies."

He said that while he was aware that people in some African countries were being told that condoms do not work against HIV, further aggravating the AIDS problem there, he never expected to hear the same line being disseminated in a country such as the Philippines.

Tess said the doctor promoted only natural family planning methods, where couples who do not wish to bear children are supposed to have sex only when the woman is not fertile. "I asked what couples were supposed to do when they wanted to have sex during an ‘unsafe’ period. She said we should go watch a movie or just look at each other," Tess recounted.

***

The country’s population, with an annual growth rate of 2.34 percent, is projected to hit 90 million this year. Last year, the Philippines’ human development index (HDI) ranking fell seven places, to number 90. In comparison, its South-east Asian neighbours Vietnam and Indonesia saw significant improvements in their HDI.

President Gloria Arroyo, despite clamour from various sectors, has refused to lay down a comprehensive national population policy. Arroyo, a devout Catholic, has instead left it to local governments to come up with their own programmes.

Former President Fidel Ramos said Arroyo’s "ambiguousness" towards her population policy "has put mothers’ lives and health, together with their babies, at risk for the sake of political expediency and religious traditionalism."

During his presidency, Ramos implemented a population programme that resulted in bigger funding for reproductive health, more family planning workers, and -- at the end of his term in 1998 -- a lower population growth rate.

The Catholic church, which is seen to be politically influential because 85 percent of the population is Roman Catholic, vehemently opposed the programme. But Ramos, a Protestant, stood his ground. The next president, Joseph Estrada, also had a strong population programme but was ousted after only three years in power.

Arroyo, who took over in 2001, hewed close to the church’s stand and has not changed her position on the issue. …

***

In nearby Quezon City, Joseph Juico, a local councillor, said he was moving his scheduled wedding from a Catholic church in the city to another venue after a priest allegedly threatened not to give him communion on his wedding day because of a population management ordinance he had introduced. That measure, approved earlier this year, provides access to artificial contraceptives and free sterilisation.

Adding fuel to the fire was a pastoral letter issued a few weeks ago by a Catholic bishop saying that politicians who push for "abortion" should not be given communion in parishes. In the eyes of the Catholic church, contraceptives such as the pill induce "abortion."

The pastoral letter was apparently in reaction to reports that several members of Congress were going pushing for a bill that would provide for a national policy on reproductive health and population development. That measure includes "sexuality education" for elementary and high school students and the allocation of a "gender and development" budget for the Commission on Population.

***

Studies have shown that there are about 1.4 million unplanned pregnancies in the country each year, of which one-third ends in abortion, a criminal act in the Philippines.

You can read the entire article here.

Karadzic finally arrested for war crimes

Radovan Karadzic has been arrested on an international warrant for war crimes. He was a fugitive from justice from 1996 until this week. Karadzic was a proponent of Serb nationalism during the breakup of Yugoslavia and under his military leadership of Serb forces in Bosnia during the early 1990’s many atrocities were committed against non-Serb civilians.

Russ Baker’s 2004 article reminds us of the scale of Karadzic’s crimes:

One really shouldn't engage in atrocity one-upmanship, but it's arguable that compared with such more famous current and recent fugitives as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, Karadzic, wins the odiousness sweepstakes. A remarkably public front man for genocide in the former Yugoslavia, the disarmingly avuncular Bosnian Serb leader dispensed lies to packed press conferences while his soldiers laid siege to Sarajevo (where he previously worked at the main hospital) and went village to village, locking families inside houses and setting them afire, bringing women to detention camps where they could be mass-raped. Along with his general and fellow fugitive Ratko Mladic, Karadzic is accused of responsibility for all manner of atrocity, most notably the 1995 massacre of about 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the U.N. safe area of Srebrenica, the single worst crime committed in Europe since World War II.

Heather Hurlburt notices the trend towards international accountability for crimes against humanity:

For an institution that has been ridiculed, assaulted and accused of non-existence in recent years, international law -- and more important, international accountability for crimes committed against one's own citizens -- is having a pretty darn good run right now.

Today comes the news that, in response to yet another round of European Union pressure, the Serbian government itself arrested indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic -- a far cry from the days of NATO troops chasing him futilely around the Bosnian countryside seven years ago. Looks as if the Hague is his next stop. (Karadzic, in case you've forgotten, ordered the killings of 7500 Bosnian Muslim men and boys at Srebrenica in 1995, shelled Sarajevo, and used UN peacekeepers as human shields. ….)

And last week we had the International Criminal Court indictment of Sudanese President Omar Bashir for his leadership in the mass killings in Darfur. To be reminded of what he has done, check out the ENOUGH Project's list of his misdeeds here. …

Human Rights Watch's Richard Dicker has a sober, net positive appraisal of the ICC's first five years here. Suspects indicted in four countries but no one brought to trial; a first trial stopped because of problematic evidence rules; financial and law enforcement support from member governments that is not what it should be.

Speaking of member governments, you will notice something interesting about this trend -- from the EU in the Balkans to the states parties to the ICC, progress toward a small-bore, excruciatingly slow but nonetheless forward-moving mechanism of international justice has taken place pretty much without the United States or even, in the case of the ICC, against the will of our government. That business about being the sole superpower and nothing of importance being decided without us? Maybe think again.

We can only hope this trend picks up steam.

Maliki: Tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq should be limited

On the eve of a visit to Iraq by Senator Barak Obama, Der Spiegel published an interview with Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. In that interview Maliki stated his government’s position that U.S. armed forces should leave Iraq as soon as possible and basically endorses Senator Obama’s 16-month timetable for withdrawal. Here is a portion of the Der Spiegel interview:

SPIEGEL: Germany, after World War II, was also liberated from a tyrant by a US-led coalition. That was 63 years ago, and today there are still American military bases and soldiers in Germany. How do you feel about this model?

Maliki: Iraq can learn from Germany's experiences, but the situation is not truly comparable. Back then Germany waged a war that changed the world. Today, we in Iraq want to establish a timeframe for the withdrawal of international troops -- and it should be short. At the same time, we would like to see the establishment of a long-term strategic treaty with the United States, which would govern the basic aspects of our economic and cultural relations. However, I wish to re-emphasize that our security agreement should remain in effect in the short term.

SPIEGEL: How short-term? Are you hoping for a new agreement before the end of the Bush administration?

Maliki: So far the Americans have had trouble agreeing to a concrete timetable for withdrawal, because they feel it would appear tantamount to an admission of defeat. But that isn't the case at all. If we come to an agreement, it is not evidence of a defeat, but of a victory, of a severe blow we have inflicted on al-Qaida and the militias. The American lead negotiators realize this now, and that's why I expect to see an agreement taking shape even before the end of President Bush's term in office. With these negotiations, we will start the whole thing over again, on a clearer, better basis, because the first proposals were unacceptable to us.

SPIEGEL: Immunity for the US troops is apparently the central issue.

Maliki: It is a fundamental problem for us that it should not be possible, in my country, to prosecute offences or crimes committed by US soldiers against our population. But other issues are no less important: How much longer will these soldiers remain in our country? How much authority do they have? Who controls how many, soldiers enter and leave the country and where they do so?

SPIEGEL: Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the US troops will finally leave Iraq?

Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that's where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

White House attempting to redefine abortion to include many types of contraception

The Bush administration is attempting to re-define abortion so broadly as to include many types of contraception. This is part of a larger proposal by the Department of Health and Human Services to cut off federal aid or grants to individuals or institutions that, according to the administration, discriminate against nurses and other health care providers or researchers who object to abortion.

Common usage and understanding of the term “abortion” generally refers to the surgical procedure for the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus and not to oral contraceptives or emergency contraception as would be included in this proposal.

This is from Tuesday’s New York Times:

The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.

Under the draft of a proposed rule, hospitals, clinics, researchers and medical schools would have to sign “written certifications” as a prerequisite to getting money under any program run by the Department of Health and Human Services.

Such certification would also be required of state and local governments, forbidden to discriminate, in areas like grant-making, against hospitals and other institutions that have policies against providing abortion.

The proposal, which circulated in the department on Monday, says the new requirement is needed to ensure that federal money does not “support morally coercive or discriminatory practices or policies in violation of federal law.” The administration said Congress had passed a number of laws to ensure that doctors, hospitals and health plans would not be forced to perform abortions.

In the proposal, obtained by The New York Times, the administration says it could cut off federal aid to individuals or entities that discriminate against people who object to abortion on the basis of “religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception.”

“We worry that under the proposal, contraceptive services would become less available to low-income and uninsured women,” Ms. Gallagher said.

Indeed, among other things the proposal expresses concern about state laws that require hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims who request it.

Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, said, “Why on earth is the Bush administration trying to discourage doctors and clinics from providing contraception to women who need it?”

Christina Pearson, a spokeswoman for the department, declined to discuss the draft. “We don’t normally comment on whether we are considering changes in regulations,” she said.

The (real) price of cheap oil

Many or all of us complain about the high prices we pay as the gas pump these days. But the few extra dollars out of our pockets is nothing compared to what many people in oil producing countries pay in the devastation of their communities and lives to subsidize our dependence upon this limited natural resource. Johann Hari takes a look at Nigeria:

When you cry for cheaper oil, do you know what you are really asking for? …

To understand, you need to know the story of the Niger Delta, a once lush land of mangrove swamps at the base of Nigeria. In the late 1950s, in the final days of British imperial rule, Shell's local subsidiary discovered it lay on top of vast pools of oil. Britain immediately became its number one user, with the US close behind. In the long decades since, more than $200bn worth of oil and gas has been pumped from beneath the Delta people's feet.

So you would imagine the Niger Delta must now be an oasis of riches, with its 30m people bathing in wealth. But no: they live with nothing and die by the age of 40. While the lifeblood of twenty-first century techno-life is pumped from their land, they live in the Stone Age, with no schools, no hospitals and barely any electricity. They have felt three effects from the petrol. Their land has been poisoned by oil spills; the fish they lived off have been turned into stunted, toxic rarities; and when they ask for compensation, they are shot at.

Here's just one everyday story about how that feels, unusually well documented because some journalists happened to be there. In October 1998, there was a leak of raw petroleum near one Delta village. Somehow – a stray cigarette, perhaps – a spark hit it, and a huge fireball whooshed up to incinerate over 700 people.

Three years later, the journalist Greg Campbell went back to see some of the victims. They had received no medical treatment. Christiana Akpode, a 24-year-old mother, could barely walk; her legs were forced into a permanent kneel. Campbell explained: "Her legs are hard to look at: from the shin to the knee, her legs are little more than red and purple scabs bleeding white pus. She scratches this section incessantly. Her days are spent warding away flies from the open wounds." As the journalist left, she pleaded: "You should kill me."

The people of the Niger Delta have not watched this destruction of their homeland – for us – passively. They signed petitions, went to the oil barges to ask for a fair share of the proceeds, and refused to co-operate with the oil companies. The response? According to Human Rights Watch, the Nigerian military – hungry for its own hefty cut of the cash – beat, tortured or killed them, sometimes with the active help of some of the oil companies.

For example, in 1998, more than 100 ordinary villagers went to one of Chevron's barges to ask peacefully to speak to the company's managing director. They were told to wait.

They saw helicopters approaching, and assumed they were Chevron spokespeople – until the gunfire began. Two of them were shot dead. Others were taken away and tortured. The rest managed to flee. A Chevron spokesman admitted the corporation flew in the Nigerian soldiers who did the shooting – and that the protestors they murdered were unarmed.

Peaceful protests had been swelling in popularity since the early 1990s – so the movement's leaders were seized. The head of the local Internal Security Task Force, Lieutenant-Colonel Paul Okuntimo, made clear why, in a 1994 memo that was later leaked: "Shell operations are still impossible unless ruthless military operations are undertaken," he wrote, including "wasting targets ... especially vocal individuals." (Shell claims the memo is fake, and if it is real they find it "abhorrent".) One of the arrested leaders, the playwright Ken Saro-Wiwa, said: "This is it – they are going to execute us. For Shell." In his final plea before he was hanged, he asked: "Why should the people on oil-bearing land be tortured?"

After that, silence. The people were too terrified to act. But two years ago they tried a new tactic. Non-violent resistance got them massacred, so some turned to violent resistance. The Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (Mend) emerged from the mangrove swamps to vandalise oil pipelines and kidnap oil industry workers. "We are not communists or even revolutionaries," their spokesman explained. "We are just extremely bitter ... We are people who would rather be with our families raising our children, sending them to school. We want all this to be over, but what future do our children have?"

Mend has issued three simple demands. It wants $1.5bn in compensation already awarded to it by the courts for damage to the environment; a 50 per cent claim on all oil pumped out of their land; and the release of their captured leaders. That's it. A former oil worker hostage of Mend told Vanity Fair: "Their grievances are legitimate ... To be out in the swamp with no water or electricity, of course they're upset. They are looking through our fence at golf courses and tennis courts where the floodlights are on at midnight [when] they are without electricity for days."

Mend has so much support in the Deltas that it has now been able to disrupt oil pumping by 30 percent. This shooting up of the pipelines is one of the main reasons why oil prices have shot up across the world. There are two possible responses now. The first is to meet Mend and the Delta's demands: let the people have a fair share of their own oil profits. The second is to violently suppress the population with a renewed mass terror.

***
An old woman from the Delta tries, in the new American documentary Sweet Crude, to talk directly to you. She says: "I'd like people all over the world to realise there's a segment of humanity suffering as a result of oil production – ordinary men, women, children. They should think about them and not think simply of energy. Think of us as people. That's more important than anything."

But while we are unrepentant junkies, howling for cheap petrol, will we be able to hear her?

You can read the entire piece here.

The challenge of a national security that is fundamentally flawed

Andrew J. Bacevich graduated from West Point in 1969 and served in Vietnam in 1970 and 1971. He continued in the military retiring as a Colonel in the early 1990’s. He earned his Ph.D from Princeton University in the history of American Diplomacy and has taught at West Point, John Hopkins University and Boston University. His son followed his career path into the military and was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad in May of 2007.

Bacevich has been a conservative critic of Bush foreign policy and presents this assessment of the Bush presidency in yesterday’s Boston Globe:

FEW AMERICANS, whatever their political persuasion, will mourn George W. Bush's departure from office. Democrats and Republicans alike are counting the days until the inauguration of a new president will wipe the slate clean.

Yet in crucial respects, the Bush era will not end Jan. 20, 2009. The administration's many failures, especially those related to Iraq, mask a considerable legacy. Among other things, the Bush team has accomplished the following:

· Defined the contemporary era as an "age of terror" with an open-ended "global war" as the necessary, indeed the only logical, response;

· Promulgated and implemented a doctrine of preventive war, thereby creating a far more permissive rationale for employing armed force;

· Affirmed - despite the catastrophe of Sept. 11, 2001 - that the primary role of the Department of Defense is not defense, but power projection;

· Removed constraints on military spending so that once more, as Ronald Reagan used to declare, "defense is not a budget item";

· Enhanced the prerogatives of the imperial presidency on all matters pertaining to national security, effectively eviscerating the system of checks and balances;

· Preserved and even expanded the national security state, despite the manifest shortcomings of institutions such as the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff;

· Preempted any inclination to question the wisdom of the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus, founded on expectations of a sole superpower exercising "global leadership";

· Completed the shift of US strategic priorities away from Europe and toward the Greater Middle East, the defense of Israel having now supplanted the defense of Berlin as the cause to which presidents and would-be presidents ritually declare their fealty.

By almost any measure, this constitutes a record of substantial, if almost entirely malignant, achievement.

Bush's harshest critics, left liberals as well as traditional conservatives, have repeatedly called attention to this record. That criticism has yet to garner mainstream political traction. Throughout the long primary season, even as various contenders in both parties argued endlessly about Iraq, they seemed oblivious to the more fundamental questions raised by the Bush years: whether global war makes sense as an antidote to terror, whether preventive war works, whether the costs of "global leadership" are sustainable, and whether events in Asia rather than the Middle East just might determine the course of the 21st century.

Now only two candidates remain standing. Senators John McCain and Barack Obama both insist that the presidential contest will mark a historic turning point. Yet, absent a willingness to assess in full all that Bush has wrought, the general election won't signify a real break from the past.

The burden of identifying and confronting the Bush legacy necessarily falls on Obama. Although for tactical reasons McCain will distance himself from the president's record, he largely subscribes to the principles informing Bush's post-9/11 policies. McCain's determination to stay the course in Iraq expresses his commitment not simply to the ongoing conflict there, but to the ideas that gave rise to that war in the first place. While McCain may differ with the president on certain particulars, his election will affirm the main thrust of Bush's approach to national security.

The challenge facing Obama is clear: he must go beyond merely pointing out the folly of the Iraq war; he must demonstrate that Iraq represents the truest manifestation of an approach to national security that is fundamentally flawed, thereby helping Americans discern the correct lessons of that misbegotten conflict.

By showing that Bush has put the country on a path pointing to permanent war, ever increasing debt and dependency, and further abuses of executive authority, Obama can transform the election into a referendum on the current administration's entire national security legacy. By articulating a set of principles that will safeguard the country's vital interests, both today and in the long run, at a price we can afford while preserving rather than distorting the Constitution, Obama can persuade Americans to repudiate the Bush legacy and to choose another course.

This is a stiff test, not the work of a speech or two, but of an entire campaign. Whether or not Obama passes the test will determine his fitness for the presidency.