Obama's "idealism" is the new realism

Being progressive means addressing the issues that if kept unsolved will make it impossible to be even a moderate.

Terrorism, climate change and "clashes of uncivilizations" are key tests of the capacity of democracies to address vital challenges.

The threat of terrorism is in itself a brutal attack against the most progressive values of humanity and by provoking a “security backlash” it undermines the space for enlightened discourse and policies.

The destruction of the environment brings back the spectre of bare-knuckled struggle for resources and even, as Robert Kaplan would tell us, the return of barbarism.

The so-called "clash of civilizations" raises the twin dangers of either a descent into intolerance (like Berlusconi's treatment of Romanians and Roms illustrates) or a concession of fundamental freedoms and values.

That is why the unilateralism of the neoconservatives, the jingoism of the Buchanites and the arrogance of the Bush-Cheney administration are so reactionary. By imposing their views on the rest of the world, by refusing to sign the Kyoto protocols or the ICC treaty, by opting out of universal conventions on the laws of war or torture, by confusing alliances with subjection to the whims and wills of a right-wing group that has hijacked the name of America, the Bush administration has weakened the fight for democracy and human rights and made the world (and the US) less safe and less free.

That’s why also Barack Obama’s European trip was progressive. By issuing a strong call for trans-Atlantic cooperation to restore global stability and confront existing and future threats he sent the right message: in this interconnected world, alliances are necessary and essential to the US itself; and these alliances have to strive for a “better world” for us to live in and for our children and grandchildren to inherit.

"Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe", Obama said. No doubt there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice, it is the one way; the only way to protect our common security and advance our common humanity".

Contrary to his critics on the right Obama is not an illusionist or a daydreamer He is much more realist than the Perles and the Rumsfeld and the McCains in his assessment of the risks that are hovering over America and the world.

And he blends two basic aspirations and requirements of democracy: assuring security to the citizens and doing so by appealing to the sense of humanity whereas the Bush acolytes only assumed the worst in men/women and the extreme right wing, both in the US and in Europe, fans insecurity by appealing to inhumanity.

>>Keep Reading: Full Post and Comments

Obama is "ein Berliner"

The U.S. election is inviting itself to Europe, showing that there are several ways of imagining the transatlantic relations. By questioning Barack Obama’s intention to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, the symbol of German reunification, some leaders of the most conservative wing of the Christian Democratic Party seem to want to create an embarrassment for the Democrats and boost John McCain’s chances.

Erwin Huber, the leader of the CSU (the Bavarian sister party to Chancellor Angela Merkel’s CDU), has led the charge against the idea of Mr Obama speaking at the Gate. The CSU has traditionally been more to the right than the CDU. In the 80s it was very close to Ronald Reagan’s worldviews and a friend of many unsavoury right wing forces around the world. Its leader at the time, Franz J. Strauss was a friend of General Pinochet and of M. Buthelezi, the leader of the very controversial “tribalist” Inkhata movement in apartheid-era South Africa.
Besides the CDU is a founding member together with the Republican party of the Democratic Union, the international group of conservative parties.

The Social democrats, who are part of the ruling coalition, have welcome the idea of the Democratic campaign team. The mayor of Berlin has agreed.

The Gate might be an ideal backdrop for a speech about freedom…And it is not the monopoly of the conservatives who seem to think that the demise of Communism was their exclusive achievement. As if they did not remember the leading part of US liberals and European progressives in fighting the “Reds” at the outset of the Cold War. Just think of Arthur Schlesinger’s essay on the “vital center”.

The problem might be, from the CSU’s perspective, that Obama might develop a view of freedom that, we suppose, would have slammed the German social christians’ with regimes that late neo-conservative ideologue Jeane Kirkpatrick would have characterized as “acceptable dictators”.

>>Keep Reading: Full Post and Comments

For Colombia, together...

The liberation of French-Colombian Ingrid Betancourt and of her fellow hostages has been a fabulously welcome event. The joy of her loved ones was one of the best moments of international news this week, as well as the disarray of the FARC and the stupor of their fellow travellers in Latin America and elsewhere.
Colombia offers an interesting test for a more progressive transatlantic policy. For years the political scene in this Andean nation has been dominated by extremist forces, the guerrillas on one side, the paramilitaries on the other side, and the official approaches of both Washington and Brussels have excessively relied on the current president Alvaro Uribe.
From the perspective of law and order the Colombian president has indeed a lot to say in his favor. He has cornered the FARC, a brutal group accused by mainstream human rights groups of war crimes and crimes against humanity and deeply involved in criminal activities like drug trafficking, racketeering and abductions. He has drastically reduced the number of kidnappings and re-established the authority of the state in areas that were for many years lawless and off limits.
Does it mean however that he should be considered as the reference by democratic nations? Most in the human rights movement would be beg to differ on this and refer to serious flaws in Uribe’s democratic credentials. In a recent assessment Human Rights Watch has highlighted the soft treatment that has been given to the paramilitary thugs, the heirs of the true Colombian drama, the pig-headed resistance of her oligarchy to the lightest forms of social and political reform. New paramilitary groups are reappearing in the shadows of a flawed process of demobilization and disarmament. The army itself according to HRW is resuming its practise of human rights and humanitarian law abuses.
A real progressive transatlantic alternative should be proposed now in order to help Colombia to escape from its extremes. The Plan Colombia is too militaristic, too tolerant of Uribe’s conservative politics. And most European nations are following the U.S. line on Colombia.
The democratic opposition to the free trade agreement between Colombia and the U.S. might be opposed on commercial grounds. It offers however a real opportunity to remind the Colombian government that it has a long way to go to protect trade unionists and peaceful democratic dissidents against the brutalities of the extreme right. This protection for normal democratic activity is the only hope for a peaceful transition in Colombia. And both European and U.S. democrats should make it clear that their rejection of the FARC’s extremism and undignified tactics does not mean that they offer a free ride to Uribe.
This discussion could start within the international trade union movement, of which the AFL-CIO is an active and influential member. It could involve associations of journalists and human rights organizations, on both sides of the Atlantic, that have been monitoring the Colombian situation. It could be supported by religious groups that know the tragedies of the country, the fate of Indians, Afro-Colombians, poor peasants, slum dwellers.
In the 80s the violence of Central American wars was addressed by coalition of the willing, bringing together U.S. democrats, European progressives and Latin American moderates, from Senator Sanford to Costa Rican President Arias Sanchez and Swedish diplomat Pierre Schori.
The calamity of a “war of 60 years” in Colombia needs a similar mobilization. The liberation of the hostages has been a wonderful event. It should be the trigger to a new awakening, a surge in favour of a decent, human, solution to a crisis that has lasted for too long and has ruined too many lives. The conservatives will never solve Colombia’s crisis, the die-hard Stalinists either. Arthur Schlesinger would have talked of the need for “a vital center”. Yes, indeed.

>>Keep Reading: Full Post and Comments

Transatlantic network please apply

The British Council is calling for participants for a network promoting “new energy to the important North-American - European partnership, that will bring together outstanding young leaders from diverse backgrounds to address challenges like climate change, global trade, economic fairness and religious and ideological conflict".
"By connecting rising young leaders who will be in the vanguard of their leadership in the year 2020, the British Council writes, TN2020 will grow an understanding of different cultural beliefs and values that can be turned into action".
TN2020 will hold its first one-week summit, jointly hosted by Northern Ireland and Ireland, between 28 September and 4 October 2008, when approximately 100 participants from across Europe and North America will come together for a week of visits and debates.

If you want this transatlantic link to be more balanced and more progressive, please apply.
http://www.britishcouncil.org/tn2020

>>Keep Reading: Full Post and Comments