The New Nation - Internet Edition

How will military greet Obama?

Jen DiMascio Jen Dimascio

Barack Obama will enter the White House without any military experience and with a playbook that emphasizes diplomacy, behind a president who waged two wars and presided over some of the largest-ever defense budget increases.

So, how will President Obama be received at the Pentagon? Much depends on his first moves.

One of his senior security advisers, former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), said even though the president-elect has experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he'll need a strong defense team that works together well.

"He will have to pay a lot of attention to a secretary of defense and the close advisers to the secretary," Hamilton said. "The whole military, national security establishment will be watching that with care."

And since the military is trained to follow orders, insiders say it is receptive to the change of command.

The military needs to be ready to offer its advice while scrupulously avoiding any attempt to shape the agenda, said a senior defense official familiar with the transition. "It is to everyone's benefit to shorten the learning curve for whoever is coming in," he said, especially because this is the first wartime transition since 1968.

Senior officers will be ready to follow the orders of Obama, who has not stirred any detectable negative response in the military command, said Dov Zakheim, who was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon comptroller. And if they balk, one former senior officer pointed out, there are plenty of other officers to be promoted.

President Bush wasn't shy about using the military, but his relationship with top military commanders was sometimes sour, particularly over issues related to the war in Iraq.

Early on, Bush deferred to Rumsfeld, his first defense secretary, who dumped Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki after he told Congress more troops were required for the invasion of Iraq. And while active-duty generals muted public criticism for the rest of Bush's term, retired generals spoke out.

In 2004, retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni raised early concerns about the execution of the war. Then in 2006, six retired generals went public with their concerns.

Bush responded with a surge of forces, and extended officers' tours of duty from 12 to 15 months for a force already strained by multiple, lengthy deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan.

In his book "The War Within," Bob Woodward detailed how that decision was made over the objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

And failing to listen to military advice is one of the easiest ways to burn a bridge with the military, said Zakheim, now a consultant for Booz Allen Hamilton.

Retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, one of the revolting generals, supported New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's ill-fated run for the Democratic presidential nomination before becoming an adviser to Obama. But after a recent Obama national security team meeting in Richmond, Va., Eaton said he had been impressed by Obama's listening skills.

What led to the generals' revolt, Eaton said, was that Bush had consolidated too much power in Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. And when power is tightly held, Eaton said, the result is a "very myopic view of the world and foreign policy."

That has changed when Robert Gates replaced Rumsfeld as defense secretary and Adm. Michael Mullen took over as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Eaton said. And they are working better with other agencies and better understand the nature of the deteriorating war in Afghanistan.

Diplomacy and cultural awareness will be critically important to fighting insurgents along border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, said an Army lieutenant colonel who recently served there. It is vital, said the officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, to avoid publicly condemning the contributions of either country, and he hopes the next president will make a change to current practices.

Obama might enjoy a honeymoon with the Pentagon, but his relationship with it will require some careful navigation.

Issues like Iraq, which remain highly unpredictable, could disrupt relations with the military and Obama's liberal Democratic base of support. Despite recent talk about success, "so many of the fundamental questions in Iraq remain bitterly unresolved," said Hamilton, now director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Security is just the first step. But political reconciliation remains distant, and continuing ethnic and regional tensions could erode the gains, Hamilton said.

The budget is another delicate issue. Obama and his team have pledged to take some time to review the issues before making drastic changes.

In Congress, however, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is already calling for a 25 percent cut in defense spending.

With the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the broader fight against terrorism, Zakheim and other experts predict defense budgets will only flatten, not decline. But because of calls to increase the size of the Army and Marine Corps and the Pentagon's plans to buy weapons already exceeds the budget, some weapons programs appear certainly in line for delays or cuts.

Obama and his advisers have said they don't intend to make drastic cuts for early in the administration, but they will be immediately pressed with budget decisions to finance the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A potential minefield with the military for Obama, say lobbyists and analysts, would be a quick decision to take on a controversial policy such as "Don't ask, don't tell."

President Bill Clinton took office in 1993 pledging to end the military's ban on gays serving in the military. But without enough congressional support, he settled on the fence-straddling policy that allowed gays to serve, as long as they did not disclose their sexual orientation. And the fight played out early in his term, burning up credibility with the military.

The Human Rights Campaign, which has lobbied to overturn the policy isn't in a rush for Obama, who also supports repeal, to act.

"This discriminatory policy has been in place for 15 years, and we understand that it is not going to be repealed overnight," said campaign's communication director, Brad Luna.

(Source: Internet)

My expectations of Obama

Professor Abdullah al-Ahsan

All human expectations always involve some degree of hope and fear: Barack Obama's election victory is certainly a huge transformation in history, and naturally it engages us in both. "Yes, we can" has created dream and hope; and under the circumstances the expectations are very high. "If there is anyone out there who still doubts that America is a place where all things are possible; who still wonders the dream of our founders is alive in our time; who still questions the power of our democracy, tonight is your answer," was the first sentence of the President-elect's victory speech at Grant Park, Chicago. It is this dream of our founding fathers that continues to generate hope for humanity's future in a world mired by vicious ideas of the clash of civilizations.

Enthusiasm and hope! These were undeniable characteristics of this 2008 election: I was driving by the Lake Shore around 4 pm on the Election Day, and saw large crowds were already gathering around Grant Park area to listen to Barack Obama's victory speech. Most people I spoke to about this participation told me that they wanted to be part of this historic moment for change in world history. I watched the event on the screen, and when I opened my email I found the following message:

"I'm about to head to Grant Park to talk to everyone gathered there, but I wanted to write to you first. We just made history. And I don't want you to forget how we did it. You made history every single day during this campaign -- every day you knocked on doors, made a donation, or talked to your family, friends, and neighbors about why you believe it's time for change. I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign. I want to thank all of you who gave your time, talent, and passion to this campaign. We have a lot of work to do to get our country back on track, and I'll be in touch soon about what comes next. But I want to be very clear about one thingt All of this happened because of you."

The message was addressed to me with my first name and signed as Barack. This was impressive: The President-elect took the grass root supporters into account even before heading to deliver his victory speech! He wanted to share his joy first with those who were away.

I guess he wrote this to three or so million donors to his campaign funds; for, I don't have any other connection with him other than occasionally donating to his campaign funds; and I was receiving messages from Michelle Obama, David Plouffe and others in the campaign team. This personal touch inspired me: Both my wife and I managed to travel all the way from Kuala Lumpur to vote in Chicago. Our youngest son, who became a voter in June 2008, worked for Moveon.org first in voters registration and then to call voters on behalf of Obama campaign in Richmond Virginia. Since Virginia was considered a swing state, he worked so vigorously that even on the Election Day he spent most of his time calling voters in the area. We all were eagerly waiting to get Virginia results; and as soon as Virginia went blue all the news channels declared the final result estimate and John McCain conceded defeat.

This was a very joyful moment for all of us in the family and we congratulated our son who worked so hard in Virginia. We also congratulated our relatives in Florida.

Although I am registered as an independent, I have been a supporter of Obama even before the primaries. I was disturbed when in his speech at AIPAC, Washington Obama declared his imprudent support for Jerusalem to be part of the State of Israel. To me this would constitute a major departure from his stand on justice. I was particularly impressed with his stand on justice throughout the campaign.

When during the early days of his campaign his former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright blasted what he understood as white controlled American democracy, Obama didn't immediately abandon the pastor for the sake of his immediate political goal: He delivered one of the most outstanding speeches in Philadelphia by explaining the history of race relations in America.

The choice of the location for this speech was superb: What other site could have better echoed the dreams for human dignity! This defense of the Pastor was very risky; this could have jeopardized his credibility to mainstream white voters; and yet he stood for values. However, when the Pastor continued with his rhetoric, he disassociated himself from the priest. Again this was very meaningful: How long must we blame one generation for misdeeds of earlier cohort?

But did Obama manifest his respect for human dignity on the question of Jerusalem? Let us remember one event of 1948 when the question under consideration turned grave. The UN unanimously appointed the Swedish diplomat Count Folke Bernadotte, the grandson of King Oscar II who had earlier risked his life to rescue about 11,000 Jews from German concentration camps, to mediate between the Jews and Palestinian Arabs. After studying the situation carefully he recommended the city to be part of Arab territory; but he came under heavy pressure both from British and US administrations to revise the proposal. He then submitted another proposal and recommended the city to be placed under international supervision. The next day on September 17, 1948 he was gunned down in Jerusalem by terrorists. Barack Obama's stance on Jerusalem will do a gross injustice not only to Palestinians, and the great soul of the Count, but also to the world body - the United Nations. No, I don't want to be unrealistic: I don't anticipate Obama administration restore rights of the Palestinians. I am not even expecting punishment of the Count's murderers, but I surely think that any change must begin by empowering the world body: It is only through the restoration of the UN to its dignity and by recognizing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights shall we fulfill the dream of our founding fathers.

Dream? I have one too, Barack. During the campaign you have succeeded in invoking renewed patriotism not only in Michelle, but in many of us at the grass root level as well. As for me: My dream is to be able to live in a world where everybody recognizes everybody else's dignity, where each other's interests are settled by upholding human values. I believe that this dignity originates from God's act of creation. All human beings are equal: All of us are created in His Own Image: He has blown His Spirit into all of us. I long for the day when we all shall be civilized enough to live on this planet peacefully.

(Abdullah al-Ahsan is a professor at the Department of History and Civilization

International Islamic University Malaysia. Emails: ahsan @iiu. edu.my; abdullahahsan02 @yahoo.com)

The food crisis

Aileen Kwa

The high food prices that have sparked riots in many parts of the developing world - from Indonesia, India and Bangladesh to Cameroon, Cote d'Ivoire and Haiti -should come as no surprise. These are only the latest in a series of events many developing countries have suffered as a result of opening their borders and neglecting domestic agriculture.

A large number of developing countries have conscientiously implemented World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditions and World Trade Organisation (WTO) commitments. They have applied the given structural adjustment policies - and have seen the damaging consequences to their domestic agricultural sector.

The consequence has been the certain erosion of their capacity to produce their own food.

In the era of stronger state control in the 1970s and even the early 1980s, domestic food markets in the developing world were often in the hands of state marketing boards and cooperatives. Marketing boards would guarantee floor prices, and provide fertilisers and seeds. They also controlled import volumes, redistributed food where there were production shortfalls, and purchased commodities from cooperatives.

These marketing boards were not always run in the best possible way; there were many instances of corruption or inefficiency, but they did fulfill certain critical functions. Farmers were provided a market to sell their produce to, which meant they had a livelihood. Prices were stable even though they were often lower than what farmers would have liked.

As a result of these policies, many developing countries were either net food exporters, or at least were nearly food self-sufficient.

All that has changed over the last 20 years. Investment support to farmers was done away with. Small farmers were told to produce for the international market, and their markets were opened to producers from outside. Rather than supporting staple crops, government support went to the export sector. Since all would specialise in the products where they had 'comparative advantage', gains were supposed to accrue all round.

But rather than producing winners, millions of the poorest subsistence farmers were knocked out of their own markets. Imports took over what was previously produced by local people. Over the last 20 years, the production capacity in many countries has severely diminished.

The Philippines has been one prime example of such policies. "During the 60s and 70s, we were self-sufficient," Jowen Berber of Centro Saka, an NGO working on agrarian issues with farmers, told IPS. "That was the time that the government was heavily investing in rice - irrigation, infrastructure, marketing support and production support such as credits and inputs. But when the government stopped those incentives and subsidies, rice production slowly decreased."

Berber said "the acreage of irrigated land has also been falling because the government has not been maintaining irrigation facilities. We also have a very high level of post- harvest losses in rice - up to 35 percent because our post-harvest facilities are very old."

Instead of supporting farmers with guaranteed prices as before, Berber said "the government now intervenes to buy less than 1 percent of the domestic rice that is produced. They are buying more imported rice than our own local rice."

A study on import surges by David Pingpoh and Joean Senahoun, commissioned by the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) in 2006, noted that the Cameroon government support to the rice sector was removed in 1994 through implementation of IMF and World Bank policies. The fertiliser market was privatised. Rice yields of poor farmers dropped as fertilisers became unaffordable. Tariffs were liberalised, and annual rice imports doubled from 152,000 tonnes to 301,000 tonnes between 1999 and 2004.

This opening rendered the country vulnerable to the policies of other countries. At the time, India was de-stocking its rice surplus, and rice imports from India increased from 7,900 tonnes in 2001 to 60,300 tonnes in 2002. As a result of this import surge, rice farmers were hard hit, and many left the sector. Land for rice cultivation dropped 31.2 percent between 1999 and 2004.

According to the FAO, Cote d'Ivoire also saw imports flooding in when the market was opened up. As a result of implementing commitments at the WTO, Cote d'Ivoire removed import restrictions on key agricultural goods, particularly rice. Duty on all agricultural products was set at a maximum of 15 percent, except for 25 tariff lines.

Reacting to the push by the WTO leadership, the World Bank and the UN to stitch up the Doha Round so that further liberalisation can assist in resolving the food crisis, Henri Saragih, international coordinator of the global network of peasant farmers La Via Campesina writes, "Protecting food has become a crime under free trade rules. Protectionism has become a dirty word. Meanwhile, countries have become addicted to cheap food imports, and now that prices are shooting up, hunger is raising its ugly head."

(Source: Just commentary)