The good and the awful
Monday, 12 April 2010
Fazal M. Kamal
As is the case in most instances, there's good news and then there's bad news. The good news is that, in the view of most observers, the economy of the United States is on the mend. There are signs that the recovery is holding its ground, though of course there are those who feel that another round of depression may come about in the second half of the year. Nevertheless, in March, 162,000 new employees were hired. Economists said the service sector expanded at the fastest rate since 2007.
In New York City it was initially feared that the turnaround would be behind the rest of the country. But that does not seem to be the case now. According to a New York University economics professor "the overall pace locally seems on par with the rest of the country." He also said that employment will grow mostly in financial services, media, advertising and law, adding, "What is a big surprise to most is the recession hasn't been worse for New York City."
However, even though there has been growth in NYC overall, some districts of the city and some segments of the population are not doing as well as the others. While the citywide unemployment rate is still at 10.2 per cent, the jobless figure for African-Americans is 15 per cent while 12 per cent of Hispanics remain unemployed. Moreover, the unemployment rates in two NYC areas are in the double digits: Bronx has 11 per cent and Brooklyn has over 10 per cent.
Consequently, in spite of talk of hopeful signs the picture actually continues to be somewhat mixed at best. Among the hopeful signs which are expected to assist in spurring growth is a government tax break for businesses hiring people who have been unemployed for more than sixty days. Companies will be able to save $6,600 per worker employed under that provision. However, observers continue to monitor the economy closely even as the silver lining seems visible.
Kabul capers
Lately the United States has been having some trouble understanding Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. He has been uttering stuff that people in the U.S. not only find incomprehensible but reprehensible as well. And that's no surprise. Because of various factors, over the years Washington has made unfortunate choices in foreign allies, as is all too well-known to numerous observers around the world. When you choose puppets with little domestic support what can you expect? (Note: Keep watching the leaders in Iraq in the not-so-distant future.)
After it was reported, extensively, that Karzai has been openly and virulently criticising the U.S. and what it has been doing in his country, and especially after it was revealed that the Afghan "leader" told some luncheon guests "that he believes the Americans are in Afghanistan because they want to dominate his country and the region, and that they pose an obstacle to striking a peace deal with the Taliban," Thomas L. Friedman commented in The New York Times, "That is what we're getting for risking thousands of U.S. soldiers and having spent $200 billion already."
Writing on Hamid Karzai's sudden desire to attack the U.S. Fred Kaplan asks, "What is to be done about Hamid Karzai? The short answer is: not much. These past few years, since the revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, the U.S. military has learned much about 'asymmetrical conflicts,' in which an ostensibly powerful nation (e.g., the United States) finds itself outmaneuvered by considerably weaker adversaries (e.g., al-Qaida, the Taliban) who have figured out how to tap our vulnerabilities. It seems that the president of Afghanistan has been learning his own lessons about how to play this game."
Mr. Kaplan goes on to state in Slate, "The Western powers have committed so much to the war because they see it as important to their security. Precisely because they have-and keep saying that they have-so much stake in Afghanistan, Karzai understands that he has much more leverage than the simple math might suggest….This may explain Karzai's latest string of eruptions. On April 1, he accused the West of trying to rig last fall's Afghan presidential elections (which, in fact, he had so blatantly rigged himself) and criticised the Western military coalition (which is all that's separating him from a rope and a lamp post) as invaders who are legitimising the Taliban as a movement of 'national resistance'."
It would have been most entertaining were it not for all the losses in lives and materials, and if the present and future of a whole nation was not in the balance. Once the darling of the major segments of the international media---except for those sections which completely appreciated the fact that you can't get much (and not much loyalty either) from propping up an unpopular leadership -- and the toast in capitals of many countries (and whose haberdashery was also madly ballyhooed) has now morphed into a serious source of ire and irritation for those same persons. Inescapably this saga is tremendously rich in irony while it is overwhelmingly disappointing to many.
Consequently, Thomas Friedman concludes his piece by noting, "We have thousands of U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan and more are heading there. Love it or hate it, we're now deep in it, so you have to want our engagement there to build something that is both decent and self-sustaining -- so we can get out. But I still fear that Karzai is ready to fight to the last U.S. soldier. And once we clear, hold and build Afghanistan for him, he is going to break our hearts." While Fred Kaplan ends by declaring, "It is now clearer than ever that the (new U.S.) strategy's success or failure is, in large measure, up to Karzai. If he hasn't proved to be a reliable partner by then, it's time for us to back someone else - or leave."
Moscow madness
Right away it ought to be underscored that the recent suicide bombings in Moscow and in some places in the northern Caucasus which have caused the deaths of many civilians are, without a sliver of any doubt, reprehensible and condemnable. However, it also needs to be noted that without resolving the core issues it is well nigh impossible to eliminate these actions. What also needs to be noted is that it has become most convenient -- especially by the suppressors, occupiers and oppressors, and more so in recent years -- to lump all acts of violence as actions of "terrorists."
As Robert A. Pope, Lindsay O'Rourke and Jenna McDermit underlined after their investigations, "Chechen suicide attackers do not fit popular stereotypes, contrary to the Russian government's efforts to pigeonhole them. For years Moscow has routinely portrayed Chechen bombers as Islamic extremists, many of them foreign, who want to make Islam the world's dominant religion. Yet however much Russia may want to convince the West that this battle is part of the global war on terrorism, the facts about who becomes a Chechen suicide attacker -- male or female -- reveal otherwise." (The New York Times, March 31, 2010)
Here's another take on the situation there. "It was the spring of 2009. (Aslan Aushev) had just left home in the Ingush central city of Nazran for work one morning when a column of armoured personnel carriers manned by masked federal (Russian) troops roared in and surrounded the house next door. As Mr. Aushev …rushed back and begged the federal officers to allow him to evacuate his family, including his 5-year-old sister, from the basement where they were cowering, thinking they would do him a favour because he is a police officer," reported Ellen Barry in the NYT.
"He was wrong," continues Ms. Barry. "Mr. Aushev told the story in a tone of liquid hatred. The Russians made him stand spread-eagled against a wall for two hours, arguing about whether to shoot him. By the time the raid was finished the trapped militants had killed themselves in a powerful explosion, but that barely registered with Mr. Aushev. His little sister emerged from the basement so terrified that, for the first time in her life, she was stuttering. He said he would never look at Russians the same way. 'They didn't respect my rank,' he said…the next day. 'From today on, I will never respect them'."
Given the conditions in that region and particularly because those areas of the Caucasus never actually formed integral parts of Russia until that was accomplished by force especially by one Mr. J. Stalin, the street hood swagger and the language of the sewer of the former KGB operative-turned-president-turned-prime minister-turned-he-man aren't going to bring peace there. Moscow has to at some point in time realise the realities of the place as well as of the fiercely independent people who inhabit those places. Genuine national urges cannot be subdued by force; it's really as simple as that.
Or as Robert Pope, Lindsay O'Rourke and Jenna McDermit concluded their assessment in the NYT, "No political solution would resolve every issue. But the subway attacks (in Moscow) should make clear to Russia that quelling the rebellion with diplomacy is in its security interests. As long as the Chechens feel themselves under occupation -- either directly by Russian troops or their proxies -- the cycle of violence will continue wreaking havoc across Russia." And the tragedy will persist.
E-mail : fmk222@gmail.com
As is the case in most instances, there's good news and then there's bad news. The good news is that, in the view of most observers, the economy of the United States is on the mend. There are signs that the recovery is holding its ground, though of course there are those who feel that another round of depression may come about in the second half of the year. Nevertheless, in March, 162,000 new employees were hired. Economists said the service sector expanded at the fastest rate since 2007.
In New York City it was initially feared that the turnaround would be behind the rest of the country. But that does not seem to be the case now. According to a New York University economics professor "the overall pace locally seems on par with the rest of the country." He also said that employment will grow mostly in financial services, media, advertising and law, adding, "What is a big surprise to most is the recession hasn't been worse for New York City."
However, even though there has been growth in NYC overall, some districts of the city and some segments of the population are not doing as well as the others. While the citywide unemployment rate is still at 10.2 per cent, the jobless figure for African-Americans is 15 per cent while 12 per cent of Hispanics remain unemployed. Moreover, the unemployment rates in two NYC areas are in the double digits: Bronx has 11 per cent and Brooklyn has over 10 per cent.
Consequently, in spite of talk of hopeful signs the picture actually continues to be somewhat mixed at best. Among the hopeful signs which are expected to assist in spurring growth is a government tax break for businesses hiring people who have been unemployed for more than sixty days. Companies will be able to save $6,600 per worker employed under that provision. However, observers continue to monitor the economy closely even as the silver lining seems visible.
Kabul capers
Lately the United States has been having some trouble understanding Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. He has been uttering stuff that people in the U.S. not only find incomprehensible but reprehensible as well. And that's no surprise. Because of various factors, over the years Washington has made unfortunate choices in foreign allies, as is all too well-known to numerous observers around the world. When you choose puppets with little domestic support what can you expect? (Note: Keep watching the leaders in Iraq in the not-so-distant future.)
After it was reported, extensively, that Karzai has been openly and virulently criticising the U.S. and what it has been doing in his country, and especially after it was revealed that the Afghan "leader" told some luncheon guests "that he believes the Americans are in Afghanistan because they want to dominate his country and the region, and that they pose an obstacle to striking a peace deal with the Taliban," Thomas L. Friedman commented in The New York Times, "That is what we're getting for risking thousands of U.S. soldiers and having spent $200 billion already."
Writing on Hamid Karzai's sudden desire to attack the U.S. Fred Kaplan asks, "What is to be done about Hamid Karzai? The short answer is: not much. These past few years, since the revival of counterinsurgency doctrine, the U.S. military has learned much about 'asymmetrical conflicts,' in which an ostensibly powerful nation (e.g., the United States) finds itself outmaneuvered by considerably weaker adversaries (e.g., al-Qaida, the Taliban) who have figured out how to tap our vulnerabilities. It seems that the president of Afghanistan has been learning his own lessons about how to play this game."
Mr. Kaplan goes on to state in Slate, "The Western powers have committed so much to the war because they see it as important to their security. Precisely because they have-and keep saying that they have-so much stake in Afghanistan, Karzai understands that he has much more leverage than the simple math might suggest….This may explain Karzai's latest string of eruptions. On April 1, he accused the West of trying to rig last fall's Afghan presidential elections (which, in fact, he had so blatantly rigged himself) and criticised the Western military coalition (which is all that's separating him from a rope and a lamp post) as invaders who are legitimising the Taliban as a movement of 'national resistance'."
It would have been most entertaining were it not for all the losses in lives and materials, and if the present and future of a whole nation was not in the balance. Once the darling of the major segments of the international media---except for those sections which completely appreciated the fact that you can't get much (and not much loyalty either) from propping up an unpopular leadership -- and the toast in capitals of many countries (and whose haberdashery was also madly ballyhooed) has now morphed into a serious source of ire and irritation for those same persons. Inescapably this saga is tremendously rich in irony while it is overwhelmingly disappointing to many.
Consequently, Thomas Friedman concludes his piece by noting, "We have thousands of U.S. troops on the ground in Afghanistan and more are heading there. Love it or hate it, we're now deep in it, so you have to want our engagement there to build something that is both decent and self-sustaining -- so we can get out. But I still fear that Karzai is ready to fight to the last U.S. soldier. And once we clear, hold and build Afghanistan for him, he is going to break our hearts." While Fred Kaplan ends by declaring, "It is now clearer than ever that the (new U.S.) strategy's success or failure is, in large measure, up to Karzai. If he hasn't proved to be a reliable partner by then, it's time for us to back someone else - or leave."
Moscow madness
Right away it ought to be underscored that the recent suicide bombings in Moscow and in some places in the northern Caucasus which have caused the deaths of many civilians are, without a sliver of any doubt, reprehensible and condemnable. However, it also needs to be noted that without resolving the core issues it is well nigh impossible to eliminate these actions. What also needs to be noted is that it has become most convenient -- especially by the suppressors, occupiers and oppressors, and more so in recent years -- to lump all acts of violence as actions of "terrorists."
As Robert A. Pope, Lindsay O'Rourke and Jenna McDermit underlined after their investigations, "Chechen suicide attackers do not fit popular stereotypes, contrary to the Russian government's efforts to pigeonhole them. For years Moscow has routinely portrayed Chechen bombers as Islamic extremists, many of them foreign, who want to make Islam the world's dominant religion. Yet however much Russia may want to convince the West that this battle is part of the global war on terrorism, the facts about who becomes a Chechen suicide attacker -- male or female -- reveal otherwise." (The New York Times, March 31, 2010)
Here's another take on the situation there. "It was the spring of 2009. (Aslan Aushev) had just left home in the Ingush central city of Nazran for work one morning when a column of armoured personnel carriers manned by masked federal (Russian) troops roared in and surrounded the house next door. As Mr. Aushev …rushed back and begged the federal officers to allow him to evacuate his family, including his 5-year-old sister, from the basement where they were cowering, thinking they would do him a favour because he is a police officer," reported Ellen Barry in the NYT.
"He was wrong," continues Ms. Barry. "Mr. Aushev told the story in a tone of liquid hatred. The Russians made him stand spread-eagled against a wall for two hours, arguing about whether to shoot him. By the time the raid was finished the trapped militants had killed themselves in a powerful explosion, but that barely registered with Mr. Aushev. His little sister emerged from the basement so terrified that, for the first time in her life, she was stuttering. He said he would never look at Russians the same way. 'They didn't respect my rank,' he said…the next day. 'From today on, I will never respect them'."
Given the conditions in that region and particularly because those areas of the Caucasus never actually formed integral parts of Russia until that was accomplished by force especially by one Mr. J. Stalin, the street hood swagger and the language of the sewer of the former KGB operative-turned-president-turned-prime minister-turned-he-man aren't going to bring peace there. Moscow has to at some point in time realise the realities of the place as well as of the fiercely independent people who inhabit those places. Genuine national urges cannot be subdued by force; it's really as simple as that.
Or as Robert Pope, Lindsay O'Rourke and Jenna McDermit concluded their assessment in the NYT, "No political solution would resolve every issue. But the subway attacks (in Moscow) should make clear to Russia that quelling the rebellion with diplomacy is in its security interests. As long as the Chechens feel themselves under occupation -- either directly by Russian troops or their proxies -- the cycle of violence will continue wreaking havoc across Russia." And the tragedy will persist.
E-mail : fmk222@gmail.com