Last week, newspapers across the country disclosed that in 2004, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld secretly authorized a policy that allowed the United States to pursue and attack al Qaeda and other terrorists in any sovereign state, even if they were not at war with the US. So far, it appears the recent cross-border operations conducted in Syria and Pakistan may have quite the precedent, and the New York Times reported that these types of actions may have extended to “other” countries, including Somalia.
After reading about this policy, what interested me more than the Bush administration’s justifications for breeching the sovereignty of other nations were the public’s comments. Responses ranged from exuberant support to outright abhorrence. A number of people were furious at the administration, drawing parallels with the Patriot Act’s violations of civil liberties, and calling these attacks the illegal operations of war criminals. On the other side of the debate, many people commented that this is what any president would have done, as it is just part of being at war and protecting America. Many other comments criticized the media’s choice to print these articles, noting that it undermines our war strategy and Obama’s future diplomatic capabilities.
While scrolling through what people had written, I tried to figure out where I stood on this issue. At first, I assumed I would side with those calling these acts illegal—all states have the same claim to sovereignty under international law! But then I realized my own hypocrisy: I have frequently argued that Sudan has little right to tout its sovereignty as a means of continuing the genocide (by claiming it is an internal matter), and I have no qualms about breeching that sovereignty in order to stop the violence. In my mind, some states just commit such egregious acts that they no longer deserve recognition as a legitimate state. But where did this leave me? Sometimes states are sovereign and sometimes they are not, with the difference depending on whether I think they are committing war crimes? That didn’t seem like a very good conclusion.
And then I wondered, is sovereignty really a moot concept in the contemporary world? The United States clearly seems to interpret it in ways that best serve our interests: it is irrelevant in the War on Terror, but it keeps us from doing anything meaningful in Darfur and from abiding by some international environmental treaties. What I began wondering was not whether state sovereignty really means anything more than the interpretation by the most powerful states, but how this international norm would serve the global community in the decades to come. As we destroy the environment and warm the globe, many other regions are likely to degenerate into Darfur-like conflicts over resources. Should states have the right to pollute as much as they want? And if the answer is no, how would it be enforced? If asymmetrical conflict between state and non-state actors proliferates, how does state A’s sovereignty factor into State B’s need to declare war on a group of people harbored within state A’s boundaries? Are multinational corporations beholden to states, or might it increasingly be the other way around? Do states have a right to bar journalists from entering into their country on the grounds of national security? What about humanitarian aid organizations? Will sovereignty continue to be a de jure reality, while its de facto status rests on interpretation?
We cannot forget that the concept of state sovereignty really only dates back to the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, and is not a given in all political thought. And we should also remember that most national borders were carved on a map by distant colonial powers, and truly reflect arbitrary divisions.
If not sovereign states anymore, then what? How sovereignty is defined will either facilitate or hinder attempts to solve the spectrum of global, regional, or inter-state conflicts now and in the future. And it will impact the ability of a country to pursue foreign policies that concomitantly serve the national interest while not being hypocritical. These are really tricky questions without clear-cut answers, but I think they raise pressing issues we should all consider, especially as the new Obama administration takes office.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Even Cynics Get Goose Bumps
The United States is characteristically a forward-looking country, and we are notorious for our sanguinity and our pursuit of the American dream. But the past eight years have really challenged that sense of eternal optimism for many Americans, and I would argue that it has been especially challenging for us youth. In reality, most of our political consciousness took place during the presidency of George W. Bush, and perhaps for some, in the last years of the Clinton administration. Most of what we know is a reality of being embroiled in wars and international hostility toward our country. In addition, while witnessing our country’s growing economic challenges and the increasingly unequal distribution of wealth, it is really hard to feel positive and it becomes difficult to imagine that there could really be an alternative.
The “youth” are always thought of as being idealists, though at times it seems we have more momentum in that direction, as in the 1960s and early ‘70s. We are reminded by older generations that our dreams for a better future are “wonderful;” though we are hardly told they are “inspiring,” as if to say that we will soon grow out of it, or that the real world will sharpen our sense of reality. We usually do not have the strongest voices, nor do we have the means to demand our voices be heard.
The constant erosion of environmental laws, rhetoric about human rights, diplomatic efforts, and pushes for greater social equality have taken a toll on many of us in this country. And it becomes a tricky situation, because our cynicism leads us to believe that political participation will not change anything, and so we abstain from politics, which only contributes to the infeasibility of political change. My own sense of optimism was truly on the line during this election, and I think in general, American optimism was set to triumph or dissipate into a deep despair depending on Tuesday’s election results. Throughout the election season, I worked hard not to get my hopes up; I tried to come to terms with the reality of the Bush administration, convinced that McCain would have a proclivity toward the status quo. The tendentious opinion pieces citing political polls did little to shake my decided views of the future, and I woke up Tuesday morning prepared for what I knew would transpire. I am glad that I was wrong.
Tuesday morning, in my American Political Thought class, we talked about how a president does not really make societal changes, nor convinces the American people to change their paradigms. Rather, the elected president represents the willingness (or lack thereof) within the people for change. What this means is that Barack Obama's win is less about what alterations he might make in Washington, and far more about the population's desires for the future. I see this as good news. It means that at the least, a substantial portion of the country is so enraged by the current political environment that they are willing to vote for change. And change does not come easily in this country, as our government is structured to prevent swift or radical transformations, and tradition or provincialism bars many from demanding it.
So what is most exciting for me about Tuesday's election has very little to do with Obama himself; what is exciting is the obvious change in the people, whose demand for a different type of politics was reflected in the polls. He is the new symbol of a shifting worldview. Obama didn't win because he altered people's goals and priorities; I think he won because people were fed up and finally ready for a political figure who could reignite their optimism and reflect their new priorities and desires. The pent up discontent with the current administration, and what has happened in our country over the past decade, was ready to explode. (Even John McCain adopted the slogan of “change” when he realized it was what people across America wanted.) Obama’s words of inspiration became a place to channel a growing momentum for change, and the spontaneous midnight parties and rallies all across the country reflected our decision as citizens to do something about it.
I think it is great that Obama has politicized and inspired so many people in our generation, and I hope that despite all of the problems and barriers he will face in his term, the majority of people can maintain hope and passion, and not become discouraged or feel let down—I promise to work on my inner cynic if you promise to work on yours…. Something shifted within the American people because we voted in an agent of change. People all over the country worked together to get him elected, and people all over the country celebrated together in the streets, hugging strangers and bridging divides. But this is not some happy ending; this is not a "hooray we got him into the White House, now I can go back to my regular life" type of moment. No, the change people apparently want will only be as strong as the sustained political movement for it. What we need to remember is that Obama is one man, and he represents one administration with limited capabilities and intense outside pressures. If we care about community and society, if we care about the welfare of everyone, if we care about the world and the environment, then Obama's victory alone is not enough. It is not just revamped policies that we need; it is a concomitant unrelenting desire and applied pressure for them, especially in all of the uphill battles this country now faces.
In the speech he gave Tuesday night, Obama said “it's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America…. It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.” Listening to those words, I battled my inner cynic who wanted to shout, “Good luck standing up to bureaucracies and big lobbyists.” I couldn’t help but think about the obstacles he, and this country, are about to face. But glancing down at my arms, I realized that I had goose bumps—I was moved by the crowd of people I saw standing before Obama. So I told myself to stop thinking cynically, to take a night off from it, and enjoy the triumph of optimism with the millions of other Americans celebrating across the country, and the millions of people celebrating across the world.
The “youth” are always thought of as being idealists, though at times it seems we have more momentum in that direction, as in the 1960s and early ‘70s. We are reminded by older generations that our dreams for a better future are “wonderful;” though we are hardly told they are “inspiring,” as if to say that we will soon grow out of it, or that the real world will sharpen our sense of reality. We usually do not have the strongest voices, nor do we have the means to demand our voices be heard.
The constant erosion of environmental laws, rhetoric about human rights, diplomatic efforts, and pushes for greater social equality have taken a toll on many of us in this country. And it becomes a tricky situation, because our cynicism leads us to believe that political participation will not change anything, and so we abstain from politics, which only contributes to the infeasibility of political change. My own sense of optimism was truly on the line during this election, and I think in general, American optimism was set to triumph or dissipate into a deep despair depending on Tuesday’s election results. Throughout the election season, I worked hard not to get my hopes up; I tried to come to terms with the reality of the Bush administration, convinced that McCain would have a proclivity toward the status quo. The tendentious opinion pieces citing political polls did little to shake my decided views of the future, and I woke up Tuesday morning prepared for what I knew would transpire. I am glad that I was wrong.
Tuesday morning, in my American Political Thought class, we talked about how a president does not really make societal changes, nor convinces the American people to change their paradigms. Rather, the elected president represents the willingness (or lack thereof) within the people for change. What this means is that Barack Obama's win is less about what alterations he might make in Washington, and far more about the population's desires for the future. I see this as good news. It means that at the least, a substantial portion of the country is so enraged by the current political environment that they are willing to vote for change. And change does not come easily in this country, as our government is structured to prevent swift or radical transformations, and tradition or provincialism bars many from demanding it.
So what is most exciting for me about Tuesday's election has very little to do with Obama himself; what is exciting is the obvious change in the people, whose demand for a different type of politics was reflected in the polls. He is the new symbol of a shifting worldview. Obama didn't win because he altered people's goals and priorities; I think he won because people were fed up and finally ready for a political figure who could reignite their optimism and reflect their new priorities and desires. The pent up discontent with the current administration, and what has happened in our country over the past decade, was ready to explode. (Even John McCain adopted the slogan of “change” when he realized it was what people across America wanted.) Obama’s words of inspiration became a place to channel a growing momentum for change, and the spontaneous midnight parties and rallies all across the country reflected our decision as citizens to do something about it.
I think it is great that Obama has politicized and inspired so many people in our generation, and I hope that despite all of the problems and barriers he will face in his term, the majority of people can maintain hope and passion, and not become discouraged or feel let down—I promise to work on my inner cynic if you promise to work on yours…. Something shifted within the American people because we voted in an agent of change. People all over the country worked together to get him elected, and people all over the country celebrated together in the streets, hugging strangers and bridging divides. But this is not some happy ending; this is not a "hooray we got him into the White House, now I can go back to my regular life" type of moment. No, the change people apparently want will only be as strong as the sustained political movement for it. What we need to remember is that Obama is one man, and he represents one administration with limited capabilities and intense outside pressures. If we care about community and society, if we care about the welfare of everyone, if we care about the world and the environment, then Obama's victory alone is not enough. It is not just revamped policies that we need; it is a concomitant unrelenting desire and applied pressure for them, especially in all of the uphill battles this country now faces.
In the speech he gave Tuesday night, Obama said “it's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment, change has come to America…. It's the answer that led those who've been told for so long by so many to be cynical and fearful and doubtful about what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day.” Listening to those words, I battled my inner cynic who wanted to shout, “Good luck standing up to bureaucracies and big lobbyists.” I couldn’t help but think about the obstacles he, and this country, are about to face. But glancing down at my arms, I realized that I had goose bumps—I was moved by the crowd of people I saw standing before Obama. So I told myself to stop thinking cynically, to take a night off from it, and enjoy the triumph of optimism with the millions of other Americans celebrating across the country, and the millions of people celebrating across the world.
Friday, October 31, 2008
The War We Can't Ignore
Today, the United States has a rare window of opportunity to encourage negotiations toward a cease-fire in Somalia, but we must take action immediately. On October 26th, one of Somalia's insurgent groups agreed to put down its arms in exchange for a promise by the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) to include it in the national military, and to set an exit plan for Ethiopian troops. While it is reported that internal fighting has weakened this particular group, and none of the other stronger insurgent groups have offered to join the deal, this is still a significant and symbolic event. The failed state of Somalia has been plagued by internal chaos and anarchy since the early 1990s. And after a failed UN humanitarian mission humiliated the United States in 1991, we have largely ignored Somalia. That is, until 2006.
By 2006, while the TFG was operating out of Nairobi, a series of Islamic Courts had sprung up throughout the country, bringing the first modicum of stability and regulation to the region in decades. The Courts’ strict adherence to Islamic law prompted much international condemnation, though many Somalis were, for the first time in years, expressing relief for the new security, order, and accountability. To the United States, it did not matter that the capital city, Mogadishu, was safer and more stable, as the administration only saw the red flag of radical Islam, taken to be a synonym for anti-Americanism and terrorism.
Then, in December of 2006, Ethiopia, which is Somalia’s historic enemy, suddenly invaded Somalia to oust the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and reaffirm the power of the TFG. The ICU leaders fled south into Kenya, and it appeared to be a quick and easy defeat of the de facto authorities. Yet within weeks, the country reverted to a state of disarray, as an ICU Islamist-lead insurgency began fighting the Ethiopian troops. A few weeks after the initial foray into Somalia, it became clear that the US had played a substantial role in the conflict: We gave Ethiopia (one of our allies in the War on Terror in the Horn of Africa) a green light to invade, and supplemented its attacks with our own air strikes against the fleeing ICU leaders. With increased attention paid to the War on Terror in the Horn of Africa, US interest in the conflict has returned.
In the past two years since the Ethiopian invasion, Somalia (particularly the area around Mogadishu) has become the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa—even worse than Darfur. The country has seen a resurgence of tribal and clan-based warfare, a multi-faceted insurgency, regional destabilization, an increase in offshore piracy, and a seemingly futile future for the Transitional Federal Government. Yet, US official policy has been to continue to support the TFG and an African Union peacekeeping mission (AMISOM), with the goal of preventing Somalia from becoming a safe-haven for terrorists, as it was, the administration says, under the ICU. Whether the ICU would have become an international threat to the United States is debatable, but what is certain is that by fomenting the current instability that is destroying Somalia, terrorism is much more likely.
Even though the recent economic crisis and upcoming elections are consuming most of our attention, we cannot forget Somalia. This first negotiation between an insurgent group and the TFG is significant, as it shows the willingness of the TFG to solve this crisis and end Ethiopian military control—both of which the Somali people desperately want. Now is the time for the United States and other global actors to show that we want peace in Somalia, and to put pressure on other insurgent groups and the TFG for further negotiations. In addition to strong diplomatic actions, greater focus must be placed on humanitarian aid, and giving tactical or financial support for peacekeepers. It is crucial that attention be directed to the needs of the Somalis as a whole, not just to individual clans and tribal leaders as in the 1990s, if the international community hopes to gain any legitimacy with the people. As we have seen time and time again in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, terrorism is much more likely when it can feed off of unstable and devastated areas. If the United States hopes to be taken seriously in the future on our international commitments to human rights, democracy promotion, and fighting terror, we must jump at this rare occasion for diplomacy, before it all falls apart again.
By 2006, while the TFG was operating out of Nairobi, a series of Islamic Courts had sprung up throughout the country, bringing the first modicum of stability and regulation to the region in decades. The Courts’ strict adherence to Islamic law prompted much international condemnation, though many Somalis were, for the first time in years, expressing relief for the new security, order, and accountability. To the United States, it did not matter that the capital city, Mogadishu, was safer and more stable, as the administration only saw the red flag of radical Islam, taken to be a synonym for anti-Americanism and terrorism.
Then, in December of 2006, Ethiopia, which is Somalia’s historic enemy, suddenly invaded Somalia to oust the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and reaffirm the power of the TFG. The ICU leaders fled south into Kenya, and it appeared to be a quick and easy defeat of the de facto authorities. Yet within weeks, the country reverted to a state of disarray, as an ICU Islamist-lead insurgency began fighting the Ethiopian troops. A few weeks after the initial foray into Somalia, it became clear that the US had played a substantial role in the conflict: We gave Ethiopia (one of our allies in the War on Terror in the Horn of Africa) a green light to invade, and supplemented its attacks with our own air strikes against the fleeing ICU leaders. With increased attention paid to the War on Terror in the Horn of Africa, US interest in the conflict has returned.
In the past two years since the Ethiopian invasion, Somalia (particularly the area around Mogadishu) has become the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa—even worse than Darfur. The country has seen a resurgence of tribal and clan-based warfare, a multi-faceted insurgency, regional destabilization, an increase in offshore piracy, and a seemingly futile future for the Transitional Federal Government. Yet, US official policy has been to continue to support the TFG and an African Union peacekeeping mission (AMISOM), with the goal of preventing Somalia from becoming a safe-haven for terrorists, as it was, the administration says, under the ICU. Whether the ICU would have become an international threat to the United States is debatable, but what is certain is that by fomenting the current instability that is destroying Somalia, terrorism is much more likely.
Even though the recent economic crisis and upcoming elections are consuming most of our attention, we cannot forget Somalia. This first negotiation between an insurgent group and the TFG is significant, as it shows the willingness of the TFG to solve this crisis and end Ethiopian military control—both of which the Somali people desperately want. Now is the time for the United States and other global actors to show that we want peace in Somalia, and to put pressure on other insurgent groups and the TFG for further negotiations. In addition to strong diplomatic actions, greater focus must be placed on humanitarian aid, and giving tactical or financial support for peacekeepers. It is crucial that attention be directed to the needs of the Somalis as a whole, not just to individual clans and tribal leaders as in the 1990s, if the international community hopes to gain any legitimacy with the people. As we have seen time and time again in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, terrorism is much more likely when it can feed off of unstable and devastated areas. If the United States hopes to be taken seriously in the future on our international commitments to human rights, democracy promotion, and fighting terror, we must jump at this rare occasion for diplomacy, before it all falls apart again.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Will You Make Extracting Coal Clean too, Mr. President?
Surprise, surprise—the Bush administration is, again, attempting to enact environmentally devastating legislation. The proposal would rewrite a law from 1983 that prohibits coal mining companies from disposing mine tailings (waste from mountaintop removal) into “valley fills” within 100 feet of any intermittent or perennial stream if the dumping impacts the quality and quantity of those water sources. In the new proposal, companies must “minimize the debris they dump,” but are allowed to dump within 100 feet of the water source if it is impossible to avoid. This last piece is not only vague—what constitutes the inability to abide by requirements?—but also gets to the heart of just how far protective environmental policy has been gutted to support lucrative corporate policy. And obviously, coal is not the only example where this is the case. I decided to bring this up, though, because with all of the talk about “clean coal,” not one politician has mentioned how they plan to make coal’s extraction process “clean.” And if you are wondering why, the answer is that it cannot be made clean, especially when the mining companies use mountaintop removal to obtain the coal.
But let me backtrack for a minute and explain what mountaintop removal (MTR) is, and how it works: Mountaintop removal is a relatively new, cheaper, and far more destructive way to mine coal. Traditionally, coal mining was a labor-intensive process, where workers entered into coal depositories through tunnels and shafts, and used tools to break off and move coal (think “Zoolander”). But in MTR, forests are first clear-cut on the mountain, then extraordinarily powerful explosives are used to blow-off its top. Next, the loose soil, rocks, and other refuse is hauled off in trucks, or pushed into the valley below. A dragline is then used to dig deeper and expose the coal, so that other giant machines can extract it. Supposedly, the mining companies are mandated to “reclaim the land,” remaking the mountain’s ecosystem. Not only is this idea nearly impossible—the destroyed ecosystems were thousands of years old and extremely complex—but a meaningful attempt at reclamation is rare.
What usually happens is that the mining company attempts to stabilize the loose rocks, and the tailings (leftover material after the coal has been removed) are pushed into the valley where they block rivers and streams. It is estimated that over 1200 miles of streams in the Appalachian Mountains has been damned, slowed, or polluted by MTR. Erosion is a huge problem, as is the tendency for non-native species to invade and proliferate. Further, the processing of coal creates “slurry,” or “coal sludge,” which is either pumped back into the hollow mountain (where it inevitably escapes) or stored in “sludge pools” at the base of the mountain. What was once a thriving and healthy ecosystem is transformed into a wasteland.
The impacts from MTR are felt in the areas around the mountain too: sludge often leaks into local water systems, and the ponds can burst, flooding and poisoning local areas. MTR destroys important animal and plant habitats, and has extremely detrimental health implications for those living in the area, as people suffer from airborne dust and debris, flash floods from erosion, and toxic water supplies. MTR, contrary to coal company rhetoric, does not create jobs—it actually eliminates jobs because it is far less labor-intensive than traditional mining techniques.
MTR is already a horrible environmental and human rights problem, and the Bush administration’s new proposed legislation will only facilitate further damage. But what is most significant, I believe, is not the egregious behavior of the current administration (I doubt anyone is surprised by this proposal), or the lack of discussion about mining coal (clearly no politician mentions it because removing coal from mountains, by definition, cannot circumvent human and environmental damages), but the failure to mention the necessary lifestyle changes we must make as a country. Finding better ways to mine and burn coal is not the answer; the way we live, and the amount of energy we use has to change. Because I am not running for political office, I can say this outright: no amount of clean or alternative energy will solve our energy problems in the long run; we have to change the way we live.
At the end of the day, this proposal will not change much: dumping mine tailings 100 feet away from water sources still causes huge problems, and mining companies already breech the 100-foot buffer zones regularly. What must change, though, is our perception about the quality of our environment, and the role we play in it.
But let me backtrack for a minute and explain what mountaintop removal (MTR) is, and how it works: Mountaintop removal is a relatively new, cheaper, and far more destructive way to mine coal. Traditionally, coal mining was a labor-intensive process, where workers entered into coal depositories through tunnels and shafts, and used tools to break off and move coal (think “Zoolander”). But in MTR, forests are first clear-cut on the mountain, then extraordinarily powerful explosives are used to blow-off its top. Next, the loose soil, rocks, and other refuse is hauled off in trucks, or pushed into the valley below. A dragline is then used to dig deeper and expose the coal, so that other giant machines can extract it. Supposedly, the mining companies are mandated to “reclaim the land,” remaking the mountain’s ecosystem. Not only is this idea nearly impossible—the destroyed ecosystems were thousands of years old and extremely complex—but a meaningful attempt at reclamation is rare.
What usually happens is that the mining company attempts to stabilize the loose rocks, and the tailings (leftover material after the coal has been removed) are pushed into the valley where they block rivers and streams. It is estimated that over 1200 miles of streams in the Appalachian Mountains has been damned, slowed, or polluted by MTR. Erosion is a huge problem, as is the tendency for non-native species to invade and proliferate. Further, the processing of coal creates “slurry,” or “coal sludge,” which is either pumped back into the hollow mountain (where it inevitably escapes) or stored in “sludge pools” at the base of the mountain. What was once a thriving and healthy ecosystem is transformed into a wasteland.
The impacts from MTR are felt in the areas around the mountain too: sludge often leaks into local water systems, and the ponds can burst, flooding and poisoning local areas. MTR destroys important animal and plant habitats, and has extremely detrimental health implications for those living in the area, as people suffer from airborne dust and debris, flash floods from erosion, and toxic water supplies. MTR, contrary to coal company rhetoric, does not create jobs—it actually eliminates jobs because it is far less labor-intensive than traditional mining techniques.
MTR is already a horrible environmental and human rights problem, and the Bush administration’s new proposed legislation will only facilitate further damage. But what is most significant, I believe, is not the egregious behavior of the current administration (I doubt anyone is surprised by this proposal), or the lack of discussion about mining coal (clearly no politician mentions it because removing coal from mountains, by definition, cannot circumvent human and environmental damages), but the failure to mention the necessary lifestyle changes we must make as a country. Finding better ways to mine and burn coal is not the answer; the way we live, and the amount of energy we use has to change. Because I am not running for political office, I can say this outright: no amount of clean or alternative energy will solve our energy problems in the long run; we have to change the way we live.
At the end of the day, this proposal will not change much: dumping mine tailings 100 feet away from water sources still causes huge problems, and mining companies already breech the 100-foot buffer zones regularly. What must change, though, is our perception about the quality of our environment, and the role we play in it.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Financial Crisis 101
Published in the Connecticut College Voice
We are in a huge financial crisis. But what exactly does this mean? Is the world collapsing around us? Should we take to the hills and hunker-down? I know a lot of us are confused about what happened, and what is happening now. I think this is partly the case because the economic lexicon is rather inaccessible to the majority, and because it is hard to find a good, clear explanation—we need some sort of Financial Crisis 101. So it was with the non-economist in mind that I interviewed Professor McKenna in the Economics department, and set out to write a basic explanation of this crisis. I hope this is helpful, because in a calamity this size, in order to make informed decisions, everyone must understand the situation and the options.
In early 2000, the Federal Reserve had set very low interest rates because the economy was doing well and there was no immediate threat of inflation. In addition, the huge trade imbalance in the US (we import more capital/goods and services than we export) meant that in effect, the rest of the world was giving us goods and services in exchange for US dollars, and then using those US dollars to buy US Treasury bills. This increased the demand for Treasury bills, which is essentially an increase in the supply of willing buyers. The effect of this is that interest rates are driven down, because when supply goes up, prices go down; the interest rate represents the price being charged for the Treasury bills. (It is in the US national interest to sell our debt at the lowest possible interest rate, so that when we pay back those who loaned us money, we are paying them less.) This was directly linked to the highly competitive and robust housing market; low interest rates encourage individuals to take out loans, and more people can therefore afford to buy homes or take out mortgages. (Low interest rates also allow businesses to borrow money for entrepreneurship, financing inventories or for investment.) So with low interest rates, banks were able to offer a huge number of mortgages to homeowners and buyers. And because many banks were trying to sell the same product, they had to offer special deals to borrowers in order to remain competitive. Because the banks wanted to make these loans, they were not as careful as they had been in the past, and relaxed traditional borrowing requirements/safety requirements. They ended up lending money to people who could not pay it back—banks issued sub-prime mortgages (mortgage loans that carry a higher risk to lenders because they are given to people with financial problems).
Economists and critics warned about sub-prime mortgages for years, and what we have seen recently is the materializing of their concerns: banks gave mortgages (loans) to many people who could not afford to pay them back, and the banks were forced to foreclose on those mortgages (take away mortgages because payments have not been made) and seize their homes. This happened over and over again, resulting in a great number of empty homes. The law of supply and demand kicked in, which meant that the excess in the supply of homes drove down the price; i.e., houses were suddenly worth less than the mortgage loans homeowners received a few years earlier. This meant that when homeowners with sub-prime mortgages defaulted, the banks lost money because they seized property that was worth less than the value of the loan they had issued. This is one aspect of the current financial crisis.
Another aspect of the mortgage problem has to do with mortgage-backed securities (a security is essentially a contract that can be assigned a value and traded; in this case, the mortgage/house is used as collateral, a means of securing the transaction). Banks want to give loans because they make a profit on the interest they charge, so when they give mortgage loans, they often then package a group of mortgages and sell them to another institution or investors. The bank then takes the money it received from the sale of those packaged mortgages and offers more loans or mortgages to other buyers. When the bank packages mortgages, they sell them to another financial institution—a sort of middle-man company. This middle-man company then asks other financial institutions to loan them money, using the money homeowners pay for their mortgages as proof that they, the middle-man company, have incoming revenue and will be able to pay back the new loan. Investors are willing to buy them because they are backed by mortgages; they feel confident in their purchases because a house is a solid, physical asset. The new loan is the new security that is backed by mortgages, and those who buy these securities receive income when the homeowners make their mortgage payments. What follows after the buying and selling of these securities is a complicated, and largely non-transparent process of buying and selling similar to the stock market. The connection to the financial crisis is that when people stopped paying their mortgages, there was a severe drop in confidence in mortgage-backed securities, which then caused a crash in their value. This is the heart of the current crisis: there has been a drop in the value of all types of assets as people have lost confidence in the system.
Greed certainly played a role, as bad mortgages were sold and investors made very risky investments in an effort to get higher yields. But greed has always been prevalent in our economic system. What is of greater concern, is the lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation in the financial system. One example concerns derivatives (a way of investing in a particular product or security without owning the assets behind it, such as purchasing mortgage-backed securities—remember, a security is a something assigned a value and traded). The variety of derivative mortgage-backed securities issued is huge, and the structures they take are so complex that only the people who deal with them on a day-to-day basis can really understand how they operate—it is hard for the government or some oversight body to regulate something that they do not understand. Also, many transactions are private, and not recorded the way stock transactions are, which makes oversight and regulation impossible. Without knowing the derivative structures and transaction records, no one can be very certain what the extent of these assets are, who is holding them, and the level of interdependence.
O.K., I hope you are still with me: the impact of the housing crisis was both caused and felt by the relevant financial institutions. And this, in conjunction with poor regulatory and oversight standards, became increasingly visible this past summer and into the fall.
One of the first public signs of this crisis was the trouble faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac this September. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the US Congress to provide funds to the housing market so that more Americans could take out mortgages and buy their homes. They are, however, shareholder-owned, private companies, and there are two of them so that there is some competition in the market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not loan money directly to homeowners, but rather buy pooled mortgages from approved lenders (like banks), and then sell those mortgages to investors; part of what the firms do is similar to the middle-man company described earlier. In purchasing pooled mortgages from a lender (Bank A), the two provide more money for it to use and give out as loans/mortgages. They also insure mortgages, providing the confidence mortgage lenders need in order to make additional loans. The two firms own about half of the US mortgage market, and almost all US mortgage lenders rely upon them. By providing the bridge between mortgage lenders and investors willing to buy mortgages, Fannie and Freddie ensure the availability of sufficient money in this sector.
What happened in early September was a direct result of the housing crisis; just as we saw earlier, mortgage defaults caused a drop in housing prices, and in the success of financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The US government decided to step in and help the two institutions by allowing the US Treasury to buy shares in the company and expand their access to credit, which gives the company the ability to borrow as much money as they need to cover any short-term cash crunches and long-term obligations, and only have to pay interest on the money when they use it. The government will also create new management, guarantee their debts (so the entities to which they owe money will be confident that they will receive their money), and provide them with more liquidity. (Liquidity refers to the ability to convert assets, which is property to which a value can be assigned, into cash. The more liquid something is, the more easily it can be converted to cash.) Mortgage-backed securities is one form of assets owned by Fannie and Freddie, and when the value of those assets decreased, it meant that other financial institutions would be less willing to loan them money, or would loan them less money. If they could sell their bad assets, however, they would have the money required to back more loans, and keep business running. So the purpose of the US bailout to the two firms was for the US to buy their bad loans, hoping that as demand for the loans increased, so too would the value of the assets. Another way to think of this is that the US bought the product of the firms (loans), which increased demand, and increased the value/price of the product. And the increase in product/asset value would mean that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have the collateral they needed for future business. The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is projected to cost taxpayers about $25 billion.
As the financial crisis widened, and before the end of September, the investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and failed; the investment firm Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America; the country’s largest savings bank, Washington Mutual, was purchased by JPMorgan Chase; and the insurance giant, American International Group (AIG), announced it too was in trouble. AIG is a major insurance corporation that issues another type of derivative, loan insurance. To explain what they do, assume Bank A loans money, or gives a mortgage, to an individual, with the expectation of being repaid. If that individual cannot pay back their loan, Bank A loses money. This is where AIG stepped into the picture: they offered loan insurance to banks like Bank A, guaranteeing that, for a set periodic fee, if loans were not paid back, AIG would give Bank A the lost money. This is just like car insurance: I pay a monthly fee, and should I damage my car, the insurance company pays for the repairs. AIG, and car insurance companies, are willing to offer insurance because they assume that the revenue from the fees they charge will offset any money they have to pay out. But part of the reason AIG almost went under was that too many people could not pay off their loans (sub-prime mortgages, for example), and AIG was forced to pay out more money than they were receiving from the regular fee payments.
Companies like Bank A and AIG expect a revenue flow from their underlying assets, which leads them to enter into new deals and derivative revenue flows. To explain this another way, they expect to make money off the first transaction (mortgage payments with interest, for instance), which allows and entices them to engage in a second, or third transaction (mortgage-backed securities or insurance, for instance). As long as money flows through the system regularly (people make their mortgage payments and banks like AIG do not have to issue more in insurance repayments than they take in) everything is fine. But when something goes wrong (people cannot repay their sub-prime mortgages) everything else is affected. People lost confidence in AIG, and no one was willing to buy new shares or buy the company, which further decreased confidence in it. It is crucial to remember how influential market psychology is to this sector of the financial system. The problem we have right now is not that there is a lack of money to buy shares, or essentially loan money to the failing banks, but that because of a crisis of confidence in the overall system, no one is willing to do so, even at high interest rates. The US government again stepped in to help AIG, and announced an $85 billion rescue plan, which included a stipulation that 80% of the institution would be owned by the US government.
The US is known as the ultimate insurer; by backing institutions it is tacitly saying that the institution will be okay. The just-passed Congressional bill to buy up to $700 billion (funded by the selling of bonds and Treasury notes) of bad loans at a lower-than-usual market price is intended to increase confidence in the financial sector. The $700 billion will be used to buy bad loans from banks (essentially buying the product of the bank), and holding on to them until the housing market improves (which the government expects will occur). If the value of the loans and assets increases, the US is hoping to sell off the loans to investors at a higher price, and make a profit for US taxpayers. Some of these loans will probably be defaulted on, but the hope is that when the market improves, there will be a willingness on the part of buyers to pay higher prices for homes, and the government will get the money back. (Think of the government as owning and selling homes). If the price the government resells it for is less than they paid (if the government loses money), then the bill stipulates that somehow the banking or financial system will be forced to pay the difference—the bill does not stipulate how this will be done, but is to be determined in the future. The bill also says that the government will receive warrants (the ability to acquire stocks in the future) from these banks. What this means is that should the loans not be paid off in the future, the government will make up the lost money by becoming a partial shareholder of the company (owning stock). As a shareholder, they would be entitled to some of the bank’s profits. The goal of the bill is to increase confidence in the financial system, though it is complicated by the inevitable uncertainty of the future.
There also has been a tremendous failure on the part of our country’s leaders to explain, in layman's terms, what is happening to the system, and why this crisis is not just about bailing out rich people on Wall Street. Any proposed bill will help “the fat cats” on Wall Street, but it will also be an attempt to save "Main Street," or everyone who participates in the real economy (the production of output and jobs). Its effects will also be felt in the global economic system. In a crisis of confidence, as we currently have, failure to pass a “bailout” will only exacerbate feelings of low confidence. This is exactly what happened when the House of Representative did not pass the originally-proposed bill on Monday, September 29th; one could literally watch the price of stocks decreasing in record-breaking drops. Times of stock volatility are evidence of uncertainty, which again, decreases overall confidence; it becomes a downward spiral. In the absence of confidence, credit dries up (no one is willing to make loans/buy stock), which decreases investment in the economy. What can follow from that situation is a decrease in both supply and demand for all sorts of goods and services, creating the great potential for a prolonged recession and a loss of many jobs throughout the economy. The same thing is true in the international economy: if the rest of the world loses confidence in the US system, they stop buying bonds (which finance a great deal of government expenditures). And as I explained earlier, if bonds stop being purchased, interest rates go up, and with higher interest rates, firms are less likely to borrow money, and overall investment decreases. With less money invested in the system and in businesses, we slip into a deep recession.
There is great danger in the common sentiment that any Congressional proposal is only “a bailout for Wall Street,” as public outcry sways the opinion of Congressional representatives; public outcry should sway political representatives in a democracy, but the public must also be informed. What happened, and is still happening on Wall Street has a direct impact on all aspects of the economy: it impacts public goods like Federal and State-funded infrastructures, the ability of students to take out loans for college, and it poses a great challenge to the myriad of businesses that provide jobs, goods and services. That being said, the specifics of the bill that was passed will make a huge difference in how this crisis is handled and in the prospects for the future.
No one can know what the future will look like, or even the impact of bank consolidation, but we have a better chance of preventing problems down the road with new regulation. The financial world changes very rapidly, and we need a new array of regulation and oversight to keep up with changes, and to modify accordingly. It is not simply that we need more regulation; we need a different kind of regulation.
I hope this article was helpful, and that we all continue to make an effort to follow the political and economic developments of this financial crisis. This is likely to be one of the most defining events of our lifetime, and it is essential that we remain informed.
We are in a huge financial crisis. But what exactly does this mean? Is the world collapsing around us? Should we take to the hills and hunker-down? I know a lot of us are confused about what happened, and what is happening now. I think this is partly the case because the economic lexicon is rather inaccessible to the majority, and because it is hard to find a good, clear explanation—we need some sort of Financial Crisis 101. So it was with the non-economist in mind that I interviewed Professor McKenna in the Economics department, and set out to write a basic explanation of this crisis. I hope this is helpful, because in a calamity this size, in order to make informed decisions, everyone must understand the situation and the options.
In early 2000, the Federal Reserve had set very low interest rates because the economy was doing well and there was no immediate threat of inflation. In addition, the huge trade imbalance in the US (we import more capital/goods and services than we export) meant that in effect, the rest of the world was giving us goods and services in exchange for US dollars, and then using those US dollars to buy US Treasury bills. This increased the demand for Treasury bills, which is essentially an increase in the supply of willing buyers. The effect of this is that interest rates are driven down, because when supply goes up, prices go down; the interest rate represents the price being charged for the Treasury bills. (It is in the US national interest to sell our debt at the lowest possible interest rate, so that when we pay back those who loaned us money, we are paying them less.) This was directly linked to the highly competitive and robust housing market; low interest rates encourage individuals to take out loans, and more people can therefore afford to buy homes or take out mortgages. (Low interest rates also allow businesses to borrow money for entrepreneurship, financing inventories or for investment.) So with low interest rates, banks were able to offer a huge number of mortgages to homeowners and buyers. And because many banks were trying to sell the same product, they had to offer special deals to borrowers in order to remain competitive. Because the banks wanted to make these loans, they were not as careful as they had been in the past, and relaxed traditional borrowing requirements/safety requirements. They ended up lending money to people who could not pay it back—banks issued sub-prime mortgages (mortgage loans that carry a higher risk to lenders because they are given to people with financial problems).
Economists and critics warned about sub-prime mortgages for years, and what we have seen recently is the materializing of their concerns: banks gave mortgages (loans) to many people who could not afford to pay them back, and the banks were forced to foreclose on those mortgages (take away mortgages because payments have not been made) and seize their homes. This happened over and over again, resulting in a great number of empty homes. The law of supply and demand kicked in, which meant that the excess in the supply of homes drove down the price; i.e., houses were suddenly worth less than the mortgage loans homeowners received a few years earlier. This meant that when homeowners with sub-prime mortgages defaulted, the banks lost money because they seized property that was worth less than the value of the loan they had issued. This is one aspect of the current financial crisis.
Another aspect of the mortgage problem has to do with mortgage-backed securities (a security is essentially a contract that can be assigned a value and traded; in this case, the mortgage/house is used as collateral, a means of securing the transaction). Banks want to give loans because they make a profit on the interest they charge, so when they give mortgage loans, they often then package a group of mortgages and sell them to another institution or investors. The bank then takes the money it received from the sale of those packaged mortgages and offers more loans or mortgages to other buyers. When the bank packages mortgages, they sell them to another financial institution—a sort of middle-man company. This middle-man company then asks other financial institutions to loan them money, using the money homeowners pay for their mortgages as proof that they, the middle-man company, have incoming revenue and will be able to pay back the new loan. Investors are willing to buy them because they are backed by mortgages; they feel confident in their purchases because a house is a solid, physical asset. The new loan is the new security that is backed by mortgages, and those who buy these securities receive income when the homeowners make their mortgage payments. What follows after the buying and selling of these securities is a complicated, and largely non-transparent process of buying and selling similar to the stock market. The connection to the financial crisis is that when people stopped paying their mortgages, there was a severe drop in confidence in mortgage-backed securities, which then caused a crash in their value. This is the heart of the current crisis: there has been a drop in the value of all types of assets as people have lost confidence in the system.
Greed certainly played a role, as bad mortgages were sold and investors made very risky investments in an effort to get higher yields. But greed has always been prevalent in our economic system. What is of greater concern, is the lack of transparency, oversight, and regulation in the financial system. One example concerns derivatives (a way of investing in a particular product or security without owning the assets behind it, such as purchasing mortgage-backed securities—remember, a security is a something assigned a value and traded). The variety of derivative mortgage-backed securities issued is huge, and the structures they take are so complex that only the people who deal with them on a day-to-day basis can really understand how they operate—it is hard for the government or some oversight body to regulate something that they do not understand. Also, many transactions are private, and not recorded the way stock transactions are, which makes oversight and regulation impossible. Without knowing the derivative structures and transaction records, no one can be very certain what the extent of these assets are, who is holding them, and the level of interdependence.
O.K., I hope you are still with me: the impact of the housing crisis was both caused and felt by the relevant financial institutions. And this, in conjunction with poor regulatory and oversight standards, became increasingly visible this past summer and into the fall.
One of the first public signs of this crisis was the trouble faced by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac this September. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the US Congress to provide funds to the housing market so that more Americans could take out mortgages and buy their homes. They are, however, shareholder-owned, private companies, and there are two of them so that there is some competition in the market. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do not loan money directly to homeowners, but rather buy pooled mortgages from approved lenders (like banks), and then sell those mortgages to investors; part of what the firms do is similar to the middle-man company described earlier. In purchasing pooled mortgages from a lender (Bank A), the two provide more money for it to use and give out as loans/mortgages. They also insure mortgages, providing the confidence mortgage lenders need in order to make additional loans. The two firms own about half of the US mortgage market, and almost all US mortgage lenders rely upon them. By providing the bridge between mortgage lenders and investors willing to buy mortgages, Fannie and Freddie ensure the availability of sufficient money in this sector.
What happened in early September was a direct result of the housing crisis; just as we saw earlier, mortgage defaults caused a drop in housing prices, and in the success of financial institutions, including Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The US government decided to step in and help the two institutions by allowing the US Treasury to buy shares in the company and expand their access to credit, which gives the company the ability to borrow as much money as they need to cover any short-term cash crunches and long-term obligations, and only have to pay interest on the money when they use it. The government will also create new management, guarantee their debts (so the entities to which they owe money will be confident that they will receive their money), and provide them with more liquidity. (Liquidity refers to the ability to convert assets, which is property to which a value can be assigned, into cash. The more liquid something is, the more easily it can be converted to cash.) Mortgage-backed securities is one form of assets owned by Fannie and Freddie, and when the value of those assets decreased, it meant that other financial institutions would be less willing to loan them money, or would loan them less money. If they could sell their bad assets, however, they would have the money required to back more loans, and keep business running. So the purpose of the US bailout to the two firms was for the US to buy their bad loans, hoping that as demand for the loans increased, so too would the value of the assets. Another way to think of this is that the US bought the product of the firms (loans), which increased demand, and increased the value/price of the product. And the increase in product/asset value would mean that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would have the collateral they needed for future business. The bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is projected to cost taxpayers about $25 billion.
As the financial crisis widened, and before the end of September, the investment bank Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy and failed; the investment firm Merrill Lynch was bought by Bank of America; the country’s largest savings bank, Washington Mutual, was purchased by JPMorgan Chase; and the insurance giant, American International Group (AIG), announced it too was in trouble. AIG is a major insurance corporation that issues another type of derivative, loan insurance. To explain what they do, assume Bank A loans money, or gives a mortgage, to an individual, with the expectation of being repaid. If that individual cannot pay back their loan, Bank A loses money. This is where AIG stepped into the picture: they offered loan insurance to banks like Bank A, guaranteeing that, for a set periodic fee, if loans were not paid back, AIG would give Bank A the lost money. This is just like car insurance: I pay a monthly fee, and should I damage my car, the insurance company pays for the repairs. AIG, and car insurance companies, are willing to offer insurance because they assume that the revenue from the fees they charge will offset any money they have to pay out. But part of the reason AIG almost went under was that too many people could not pay off their loans (sub-prime mortgages, for example), and AIG was forced to pay out more money than they were receiving from the regular fee payments.
Companies like Bank A and AIG expect a revenue flow from their underlying assets, which leads them to enter into new deals and derivative revenue flows. To explain this another way, they expect to make money off the first transaction (mortgage payments with interest, for instance), which allows and entices them to engage in a second, or third transaction (mortgage-backed securities or insurance, for instance). As long as money flows through the system regularly (people make their mortgage payments and banks like AIG do not have to issue more in insurance repayments than they take in) everything is fine. But when something goes wrong (people cannot repay their sub-prime mortgages) everything else is affected. People lost confidence in AIG, and no one was willing to buy new shares or buy the company, which further decreased confidence in it. It is crucial to remember how influential market psychology is to this sector of the financial system. The problem we have right now is not that there is a lack of money to buy shares, or essentially loan money to the failing banks, but that because of a crisis of confidence in the overall system, no one is willing to do so, even at high interest rates. The US government again stepped in to help AIG, and announced an $85 billion rescue plan, which included a stipulation that 80% of the institution would be owned by the US government.
The US is known as the ultimate insurer; by backing institutions it is tacitly saying that the institution will be okay. The just-passed Congressional bill to buy up to $700 billion (funded by the selling of bonds and Treasury notes) of bad loans at a lower-than-usual market price is intended to increase confidence in the financial sector. The $700 billion will be used to buy bad loans from banks (essentially buying the product of the bank), and holding on to them until the housing market improves (which the government expects will occur). If the value of the loans and assets increases, the US is hoping to sell off the loans to investors at a higher price, and make a profit for US taxpayers. Some of these loans will probably be defaulted on, but the hope is that when the market improves, there will be a willingness on the part of buyers to pay higher prices for homes, and the government will get the money back. (Think of the government as owning and selling homes). If the price the government resells it for is less than they paid (if the government loses money), then the bill stipulates that somehow the banking or financial system will be forced to pay the difference—the bill does not stipulate how this will be done, but is to be determined in the future. The bill also says that the government will receive warrants (the ability to acquire stocks in the future) from these banks. What this means is that should the loans not be paid off in the future, the government will make up the lost money by becoming a partial shareholder of the company (owning stock). As a shareholder, they would be entitled to some of the bank’s profits. The goal of the bill is to increase confidence in the financial system, though it is complicated by the inevitable uncertainty of the future.
There also has been a tremendous failure on the part of our country’s leaders to explain, in layman's terms, what is happening to the system, and why this crisis is not just about bailing out rich people on Wall Street. Any proposed bill will help “the fat cats” on Wall Street, but it will also be an attempt to save "Main Street," or everyone who participates in the real economy (the production of output and jobs). Its effects will also be felt in the global economic system. In a crisis of confidence, as we currently have, failure to pass a “bailout” will only exacerbate feelings of low confidence. This is exactly what happened when the House of Representative did not pass the originally-proposed bill on Monday, September 29th; one could literally watch the price of stocks decreasing in record-breaking drops. Times of stock volatility are evidence of uncertainty, which again, decreases overall confidence; it becomes a downward spiral. In the absence of confidence, credit dries up (no one is willing to make loans/buy stock), which decreases investment in the economy. What can follow from that situation is a decrease in both supply and demand for all sorts of goods and services, creating the great potential for a prolonged recession and a loss of many jobs throughout the economy. The same thing is true in the international economy: if the rest of the world loses confidence in the US system, they stop buying bonds (which finance a great deal of government expenditures). And as I explained earlier, if bonds stop being purchased, interest rates go up, and with higher interest rates, firms are less likely to borrow money, and overall investment decreases. With less money invested in the system and in businesses, we slip into a deep recession.
There is great danger in the common sentiment that any Congressional proposal is only “a bailout for Wall Street,” as public outcry sways the opinion of Congressional representatives; public outcry should sway political representatives in a democracy, but the public must also be informed. What happened, and is still happening on Wall Street has a direct impact on all aspects of the economy: it impacts public goods like Federal and State-funded infrastructures, the ability of students to take out loans for college, and it poses a great challenge to the myriad of businesses that provide jobs, goods and services. That being said, the specifics of the bill that was passed will make a huge difference in how this crisis is handled and in the prospects for the future.
No one can know what the future will look like, or even the impact of bank consolidation, but we have a better chance of preventing problems down the road with new regulation. The financial world changes very rapidly, and we need a new array of regulation and oversight to keep up with changes, and to modify accordingly. It is not simply that we need more regulation; we need a different kind of regulation.
I hope this article was helpful, and that we all continue to make an effort to follow the political and economic developments of this financial crisis. This is likely to be one of the most defining events of our lifetime, and it is essential that we remain informed.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
First Presidential Debate: Overview, Highlights, and Analysis
Published in the Connecticut College Voice October 1, 2008
Summary of the Debate
First Question: Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
Obama: Discussed the need for oversight, insurance that taxpayers get money back and receive gains “if the market -- and when the market returns,” the need to make sure “that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes,” and the need to address the housing crisis and help homeowners. He ended the segment by declaring that the current crisis “is the final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies,” i.e., the trickle-down theory.
McCain: Stressed the need for bi-partisanship, and for any financial package to include measures for transparency, accountability, oversight, and it must “have options for loans to failing businesses.” He also said that we must create jobs and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
In the follow-up segment:
Obama: Said he was optimistic about the plan, and emphasized that he warned about the sub-prime mortgage crisis years ago. He also criticized the “economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad,” and said that we must fix both short-term and long-term problems in the financial system concomitantly.
McCain: Seemed flustered about the package, but answered that “sure” he would vote for the plan as a US Senator. He then proceeded to discuss how he too warned about the looming financial crisis, and how his administration will be famous for holding people accountable. McCain also said that he has “a fundamental belief in the United States of America. And…under the right leadership, our best days are ahead of us.”
Second Question: Are there fundamental differences between your approaches to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?
McCain: Said spending must be controlled, particularly earmark spending, and stressed that Obama has requested millions of dollars of Federal money as the Illinois Senator.
Obama: Noted that earmark spending accounted for $18 billion in last year's budget, which is not a lot compared to the $300 billion in tax cuts for wealthy corporations and individuals proposed by McCain. His economic plan calls for a tax cut for 95% of working families.
In the follow-up segment:
McCain: Again stressed the money Obama requested, the threat from earmark spending, and that he has a maverick reputation in the Senate. He also mentioned that Obama’s plan calls for new Federal spending programs, while he wants to cut spending and keep taxes low.
Obama: Rebutted by saying that he proposes to close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas, and “make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage”—earmark spending reform will not be enough.
McCain: Said he wants to cut business taxes to keep businesses in the US and create jobs, and that he wants “every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care…[and] to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America”.
Obama: Stressed that McCain’s proposals do not fix corporate loopholes, but just add taxes over them, and that his health care tax credit system is a bad policy because it leaves the health care of individuals to the unregulated open market, which cannot solve everything.
Third Question: As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billions, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?
Obama: Said it is hard to anticipate the tax-revenue for future years, especially as the economy is slowing down, but that certain proposals will be delayed. He said we must “eliminate programs that don't work, and…make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less”. He gives priority to energy independence, fixing health care, education reform, and rebuilding infrastructure to ensure America remains competitive in the global economy.
McCain: Said that we must cut government spending, and do away with ethanol subsidies and cost-plus contracts in defense spending. He stressed that he was the candidate more fit to bring spending under control.
Follow-up segment: (both were again asked if they were proposing major changes)
Obama: He would look for savings in defense spending, and acknowledged that the current financial crisis will affect the Federal Budget.
McCain: Suggested “a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs,” and criticized Obama’s proposals for inefficiencies, and for their over-spending.
Fourth Question: What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?
McCain: Said “the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict,” and stressed that defeat would have been dangerous—but that the tactics and strategy of General Petraeus have been successful
Obama: Stressed that the real issue was whether we should have invaded in March 2003, and that he opposed it from the beginning because it was a distraction from the fight against al-Qaeda and the search for Osama bin Ladin.
Follow-up segment:
McCain: The next president will have to deal with issues of how and when to exit, and the legacies left behind, not whether we should have invaded. He then stressed his travel experience and the success of the surge, which he had promoted all-along, as evidence that he would better equipped to make decisions. McCain also said that both General Petraeus and bin Ladin believe the central battleground is in Iraq.
Obama: Said that McCain acts as if the war began in 2007 (with the surge), while ignoring the fact that it was a “tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.” He clarified that he opposed increasing defense spending bills without timetables, and that the central front of the war on terror is Afghanistan.
Fifth Question: Do you think U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?
Obama: Said we need more troops, and that we cannot separate Iraq from Afghanistan. He also said that we must pressure the Afghan government to work for its people, get the poppy trade under control, and “deal with Pakistan” (i.e., they have not used the billions of dollars we have given them to get rid of terrorist safe havens).
McCain: Acknowledged it was wrong for us to “wash our hands” of Afghanistan so early on, and that we need a surge in troops there. He said he was not willing to use our aid payments as leverage against the Pakistanis, and that what we really need is for the Pakistani people to be on our side, and for them to help us root out terrorists.
Follow-up segment:
Obama: Clarified that he never said he wanted to attack Pakistan, but that if the US has al-Qaeda members, or bin Laden, etc, “and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” He also mentioned that our support of Musharraf was part of the reason we have no legitimacy in Pakistan. Also accused McCain of saying we could “muddle through” Afghanistan while focusing on Iraq.
McCain: Emphasized his record of involvement with national security issues, stressing that he was better fit to make tough decisions about military commitments. He also said that General Petraeus acknowledges that we will fail in Iraq if we follow a specific withdrawal timetable (what Obama proposes), and that failing there will have calamitous effects in Afghanistan and American national security interests in the region.
Sixth Question: What is your reading on the threat of Iran right now to the security of the United States?
McCain: Said that a nuclear Iran threatened the existence of Israel, and would likely cause a regional nuclear arms race, and he proposes that a group of democratic states join together to put meaningful sanctions on Iran. Also noted that Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents, and that overall, the country is a threat to global security. He also criticized Obama’s willingness to engage in diplomacy without pre-conditions as naïve and dangerous.
Obama: Said that he thinks the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization, and that they pose a giant security threat. But, unlike McCain, he supports “tough direct diplomacy” with Iran. He also defended his diplomacy proposals—“the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks”—on empirical grounds.
Seventh Question: How do you see the relationship with Russia? Do you see them as a competitor? Do you see them as an enemy? Do you see them as a potential partner?
Obama: Said “a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region”. He also stressed that we must enforce the cease-fire and removal of Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, while also supporting other democracies in the region.
McCain: Criticized Obama’s initial response to the Russian invasion, and spoke of the connections to energy. He also mentioned his travel and contact records in the region.
Follow-up segment:
Obama: Said he did not differ much from McCain, and further drew connections to NATO expansion and energy independence.
McCain: Continued the debate about energy policy.
Eighth Question: What do you think the likelihood is that there would be another 9/11-type attack on the continental United States?
McCain: Stressed that America is safer today than it was on 9/11, but that we have to strengthen our technological and intelligence capabilities—without the use of torture.
Obama: Said that in some ways we are safer, but that we still have a long road ahead: we must deter nuclear proliferation and terrorist groups like al-Qaeda by focusing more on Afghanistan, and that we also must fix America’s poor global image.
Follow-up segment:
McCain: Again remarked that Obama “doesn’t get” that losing the war in Iraq will cause us to lose the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Said Obama does not have the knowledge and experience to make the types of foreign policy decisions required as President, but guaranteed that “as president of the United States, [he knows] how to heal the wounds of war, [he knows] how to deal with our adversaries, and [he knows] how to deal with our friends.”
Obama: Said “we have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens…and the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.”
Highlights of the Debate:
1) Obama repeatedly saying under his breath or over McCain’s comments, “John, that’s just not true….”
2) McCain repeatedly saying that Obama “just doesn’t understand…”
3) McCain’s creepy smile and references to his age (and his old pen).
4) Obama’s tendency to interrupt and speak over McCain and Lehrer.
5) …And the winner: when McCain said, “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict” (no, really?)
Analysis of the Debate
In the first section of the debate, the candidates were asked three questions about the current US financial crisis. Both candidates repeated the proposals and figures they have been saying all week, but it was interesting to watch them argue back and forth. Stylistically, in this section, Obama certainly had the upper hand. He put a somewhat flustered McCain on the defensive, and articulated his position and policy proposals in a clearer, calmer fashion. As could be predicted, neither candidate was willing to give specifics about the impact of the financial crisis on their administration’s spending, though at one point, McCain suggested “a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs” (I hope he was joking around.) They debated the merits of the trickle-down theory, defense spending, and the funding of Federal programs, all the while agreeing on the need to create more jobs, increase oversight in the financial sector, and cut unnecessary spending. McCain’s focus on earmark spending appeared inane when compared to bloated defense budget figures and the extra Federal revenue expected by closing corporate loopholes.
In the second section, the candidates were asked five questions about foreign policy—particularly about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and the relative level of security in the US. Stylistically, in this section, McCain, whose area of expertise is national security and foreign policy, controlled the debate, and put Obama on the defensive for most of the time. Obama, however, held his own, knew his facts, and intelligently articulated his point of view. I don’t know how other Americans received McCain’s consistent “Obama just doesn’t understand” approach, but I found it sounded empty, particularly because the debate was less about facts, and more about approach, strategy, and tactics. McCain’s military and travel experience was apparent, and I was surprised that Obama did not mention his usual “fresh face in politics will change things” argument. I was most interested in the areas where they clashed, such as how to deal with Iran, Pakistan, and whether there should be a withdrawal timetable in Iraq. We’ve heard them make all of the same arguments on the campaign trail, but it was interesting to watch them fight it out at the podium.
I thought Obama’s argument for negotiating with Ahmadinejad could have been stronger than “what we have been doing has yet to work,” because McCain’s belief that we do not negotiate with terrorists/rogue states has a deep moral tradition and following in the US. I thought they both made strong arguments for dealing with Pakistan: they both asserted, supported, and defended their individual approaches and willingness to pressure Pakistan. I thought Obama took a bit of a hit when McCain noted that the next President will have to contend with exiting Iraq, not whether we should have invaded in the first place, though Obama’s point about McCain “liking to pretend the war started in 2007” was strong. Both candidates acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan is absolutely related to the war in Iraq, though McCain opposes setting a timetable for troop withdrawal, and Obama was very critical of McCain’s past willingness to declare Afghanistan a success, and move on to Iraq. I wish that the candidates had discussed their proposals for non-military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the vagueness of pressuring Iran and supporting democracy. Neither saw Russian aggression as fomenting a new Cold War, but both criticized Russia’s actions and called for supporting weak democratic states in the region. Neither candidate made any mention of Chinese ascendancy, or the possible restructuring of the world system and global power distribution, two important things I wish they had discussed.
Overall, I appreciated Jim Lehrer’s efforts to get the candidates to talk to one another, and I enjoyed the liveliness and humor in their attempts to talk over each other. As expected, both candidates proposed vague policies, but, interestingly, were challenged and forced to get more specific in the rebuttal segments. Most objective analysts of the debate declared a tie, with neither candidate dominating the discussion overall nor landing a “knockout punch.” I agree with this assessment, and look forward to this week’s Vice Presidential debate, for that might be more likely to sway the candidates’ pre-election standings.
Summary of the Debate
First Question: Where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?
Obama: Discussed the need for oversight, insurance that taxpayers get money back and receive gains “if the market -- and when the market returns,” the need to make sure “that none of that money is going to pad CEO bank accounts or to promote golden parachutes,” and the need to address the housing crisis and help homeowners. He ended the segment by declaring that the current crisis “is the final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies,” i.e., the trickle-down theory.
McCain: Stressed the need for bi-partisanship, and for any financial package to include measures for transparency, accountability, oversight, and it must “have options for loans to failing businesses.” He also said that we must create jobs and eliminate our dependence on foreign oil.
In the follow-up segment:
Obama: Said he was optimistic about the plan, and emphasized that he warned about the sub-prime mortgage crisis years ago. He also criticized the “economic philosophy that says that regulation is always bad,” and said that we must fix both short-term and long-term problems in the financial system concomitantly.
McCain: Seemed flustered about the package, but answered that “sure” he would vote for the plan as a US Senator. He then proceeded to discuss how he too warned about the looming financial crisis, and how his administration will be famous for holding people accountable. McCain also said that he has “a fundamental belief in the United States of America. And…under the right leadership, our best days are ahead of us.”
Second Question: Are there fundamental differences between your approaches to what you would do as president to lead this country out of the financial crisis?
McCain: Said spending must be controlled, particularly earmark spending, and stressed that Obama has requested millions of dollars of Federal money as the Illinois Senator.
Obama: Noted that earmark spending accounted for $18 billion in last year's budget, which is not a lot compared to the $300 billion in tax cuts for wealthy corporations and individuals proposed by McCain. His economic plan calls for a tax cut for 95% of working families.
In the follow-up segment:
McCain: Again stressed the money Obama requested, the threat from earmark spending, and that he has a maverick reputation in the Senate. He also mentioned that Obama’s plan calls for new Federal spending programs, while he wants to cut spending and keep taxes low.
Obama: Rebutted by saying that he proposes to close corporate loopholes, stop providing tax cuts to corporations that are shipping jobs overseas, and “make sure that we have a health care system that allows for everyone to have basic coverage”—earmark spending reform will not be enough.
McCain: Said he wants to cut business taxes to keep businesses in the US and create jobs, and that he wants “every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care…[and] to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America”.
Obama: Stressed that McCain’s proposals do not fix corporate loopholes, but just add taxes over them, and that his health care tax credit system is a bad policy because it leaves the health care of individuals to the unregulated open market, which cannot solve everything.
Third Question: As president, as a result of whatever financial rescue plan comes about and the billions, $700 billion, whatever it is it's going to cost, what are you going to have to give up, in terms of the priorities that you would bring as president of the United States, as a result of having to pay for the financial rescue plan?
Obama: Said it is hard to anticipate the tax-revenue for future years, especially as the economy is slowing down, but that certain proposals will be delayed. He said we must “eliminate programs that don't work, and…make sure that the programs that we do have are more efficient and cost less”. He gives priority to energy independence, fixing health care, education reform, and rebuilding infrastructure to ensure America remains competitive in the global economy.
McCain: Said that we must cut government spending, and do away with ethanol subsidies and cost-plus contracts in defense spending. He stressed that he was the candidate more fit to bring spending under control.
Follow-up segment: (both were again asked if they were proposing major changes)
Obama: He would look for savings in defense spending, and acknowledged that the current financial crisis will affect the Federal Budget.
McCain: Suggested “a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs,” and criticized Obama’s proposals for inefficiencies, and for their over-spending.
Fourth Question: What do you see as the lessons of Iraq?
McCain: Said “the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict,” and stressed that defeat would have been dangerous—but that the tactics and strategy of General Petraeus have been successful
Obama: Stressed that the real issue was whether we should have invaded in March 2003, and that he opposed it from the beginning because it was a distraction from the fight against al-Qaeda and the search for Osama bin Ladin.
Follow-up segment:
McCain: The next president will have to deal with issues of how and when to exit, and the legacies left behind, not whether we should have invaded. He then stressed his travel experience and the success of the surge, which he had promoted all-along, as evidence that he would better equipped to make decisions. McCain also said that both General Petraeus and bin Ladin believe the central battleground is in Iraq.
Obama: Said that McCain acts as if the war began in 2007 (with the surge), while ignoring the fact that it was a “tactic designed to contain the damage of the previous four years of mismanagement of this war.” He clarified that he opposed increasing defense spending bills without timetables, and that the central front of the war on terror is Afghanistan.
Fifth Question: Do you think U.S. troops should be sent to Afghanistan, how many, and when?
Obama: Said we need more troops, and that we cannot separate Iraq from Afghanistan. He also said that we must pressure the Afghan government to work for its people, get the poppy trade under control, and “deal with Pakistan” (i.e., they have not used the billions of dollars we have given them to get rid of terrorist safe havens).
McCain: Acknowledged it was wrong for us to “wash our hands” of Afghanistan so early on, and that we need a surge in troops there. He said he was not willing to use our aid payments as leverage against the Pakistanis, and that what we really need is for the Pakistani people to be on our side, and for them to help us root out terrorists.
Follow-up segment:
Obama: Clarified that he never said he wanted to attack Pakistan, but that if the US has al-Qaeda members, or bin Laden, etc, “and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.” He also mentioned that our support of Musharraf was part of the reason we have no legitimacy in Pakistan. Also accused McCain of saying we could “muddle through” Afghanistan while focusing on Iraq.
McCain: Emphasized his record of involvement with national security issues, stressing that he was better fit to make tough decisions about military commitments. He also said that General Petraeus acknowledges that we will fail in Iraq if we follow a specific withdrawal timetable (what Obama proposes), and that failing there will have calamitous effects in Afghanistan and American national security interests in the region.
Sixth Question: What is your reading on the threat of Iran right now to the security of the United States?
McCain: Said that a nuclear Iran threatened the existence of Israel, and would likely cause a regional nuclear arms race, and he proposes that a group of democratic states join together to put meaningful sanctions on Iran. Also noted that Iran is aiding Iraqi insurgents, and that overall, the country is a threat to global security. He also criticized Obama’s willingness to engage in diplomacy without pre-conditions as naïve and dangerous.
Obama: Said that he thinks the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization, and that they pose a giant security threat. But, unlike McCain, he supports “tough direct diplomacy” with Iran. He also defended his diplomacy proposals—“the idea is that we do not expect to solve every problem before we initiate talks”—on empirical grounds.
Seventh Question: How do you see the relationship with Russia? Do you see them as a competitor? Do you see them as an enemy? Do you see them as a potential partner?
Obama: Said “a resurgent and very aggressive Russia is a threat to the peace and stability of the region”. He also stressed that we must enforce the cease-fire and removal of Russian troops from South Ossetia and Abkhazia, while also supporting other democracies in the region.
McCain: Criticized Obama’s initial response to the Russian invasion, and spoke of the connections to energy. He also mentioned his travel and contact records in the region.
Follow-up segment:
Obama: Said he did not differ much from McCain, and further drew connections to NATO expansion and energy independence.
McCain: Continued the debate about energy policy.
Eighth Question: What do you think the likelihood is that there would be another 9/11-type attack on the continental United States?
McCain: Stressed that America is safer today than it was on 9/11, but that we have to strengthen our technological and intelligence capabilities—without the use of torture.
Obama: Said that in some ways we are safer, but that we still have a long road ahead: we must deter nuclear proliferation and terrorist groups like al-Qaeda by focusing more on Afghanistan, and that we also must fix America’s poor global image.
Follow-up segment:
McCain: Again remarked that Obama “doesn’t get” that losing the war in Iraq will cause us to lose the war against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Said Obama does not have the knowledge and experience to make the types of foreign policy decisions required as President, but guaranteed that “as president of the United States, [he knows] how to heal the wounds of war, [he knows] how to deal with our adversaries, and [he knows] how to deal with our friends.”
Obama: Said “we have weakened our capacity to project power around the world because we have viewed everything through this single lens…and the next president has to have a broader strategic vision about all the challenges that we face.”
Highlights of the Debate:
1) Obama repeatedly saying under his breath or over McCain’s comments, “John, that’s just not true….”
2) McCain repeatedly saying that Obama “just doesn’t understand…”
3) McCain’s creepy smile and references to his age (and his old pen).
4) Obama’s tendency to interrupt and speak over McCain and Lehrer.
5) …And the winner: when McCain said, “I think the lessons of Iraq are very clear that you cannot have a failed strategy that will then cause you to nearly lose a conflict” (no, really?)
Analysis of the Debate
In the first section of the debate, the candidates were asked three questions about the current US financial crisis. Both candidates repeated the proposals and figures they have been saying all week, but it was interesting to watch them argue back and forth. Stylistically, in this section, Obama certainly had the upper hand. He put a somewhat flustered McCain on the defensive, and articulated his position and policy proposals in a clearer, calmer fashion. As could be predicted, neither candidate was willing to give specifics about the impact of the financial crisis on their administration’s spending, though at one point, McCain suggested “a spending freeze on everything but defense, veteran affairs and entitlement programs” (I hope he was joking around.) They debated the merits of the trickle-down theory, defense spending, and the funding of Federal programs, all the while agreeing on the need to create more jobs, increase oversight in the financial sector, and cut unnecessary spending. McCain’s focus on earmark spending appeared inane when compared to bloated defense budget figures and the extra Federal revenue expected by closing corporate loopholes.
In the second section, the candidates were asked five questions about foreign policy—particularly about Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia, and the relative level of security in the US. Stylistically, in this section, McCain, whose area of expertise is national security and foreign policy, controlled the debate, and put Obama on the defensive for most of the time. Obama, however, held his own, knew his facts, and intelligently articulated his point of view. I don’t know how other Americans received McCain’s consistent “Obama just doesn’t understand” approach, but I found it sounded empty, particularly because the debate was less about facts, and more about approach, strategy, and tactics. McCain’s military and travel experience was apparent, and I was surprised that Obama did not mention his usual “fresh face in politics will change things” argument. I was most interested in the areas where they clashed, such as how to deal with Iran, Pakistan, and whether there should be a withdrawal timetable in Iraq. We’ve heard them make all of the same arguments on the campaign trail, but it was interesting to watch them fight it out at the podium.
I thought Obama’s argument for negotiating with Ahmadinejad could have been stronger than “what we have been doing has yet to work,” because McCain’s belief that we do not negotiate with terrorists/rogue states has a deep moral tradition and following in the US. I thought they both made strong arguments for dealing with Pakistan: they both asserted, supported, and defended their individual approaches and willingness to pressure Pakistan. I thought Obama took a bit of a hit when McCain noted that the next President will have to contend with exiting Iraq, not whether we should have invaded in the first place, though Obama’s point about McCain “liking to pretend the war started in 2007” was strong. Both candidates acknowledged that the war in Afghanistan is absolutely related to the war in Iraq, though McCain opposes setting a timetable for troop withdrawal, and Obama was very critical of McCain’s past willingness to declare Afghanistan a success, and move on to Iraq. I wish that the candidates had discussed their proposals for non-military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan beyond the vagueness of pressuring Iran and supporting democracy. Neither saw Russian aggression as fomenting a new Cold War, but both criticized Russia’s actions and called for supporting weak democratic states in the region. Neither candidate made any mention of Chinese ascendancy, or the possible restructuring of the world system and global power distribution, two important things I wish they had discussed.
Overall, I appreciated Jim Lehrer’s efforts to get the candidates to talk to one another, and I enjoyed the liveliness and humor in their attempts to talk over each other. As expected, both candidates proposed vague policies, but, interestingly, were challenged and forced to get more specific in the rebuttal segments. Most objective analysts of the debate declared a tie, with neither candidate dominating the discussion overall nor landing a “knockout punch.” I agree with this assessment, and look forward to this week’s Vice Presidential debate, for that might be more likely to sway the candidates’ pre-election standings.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Buffalo Field Campaign: Connections to Global Injustice
(Published in the Earth First! Journal March/April 2008)
There are times and places, many times and places, where cruelty exists. There are times and places where lives are disrupted, where babies are murdered and mothers taken. Times and places where the unparalleled beauty of the natural world stands in stark contrast to the human activity in the same area. But I do not need to tell you this. You have seen it in the newspapers, heard it in stories and read it in history. Political corruption, government ineptitude, malignant alliances and plundering of the natural world are all rampant. Families who are driven from their homes and rendered into vulnerable refugees are subject to harassment and a deplorable lifestyle that will be ignored by most. They become homeless refugees forced to wander across their homeland. “Management” is used as a guise for power, control and the unfettered ability to accumulate.
This could be the beginning of an article about a whole myriad of issues: worker’s rights in China, the Zimbabwean economy, our forests, the Amazon, the polar ice caps—the list could go on. But this time, it is about the plight of the American buffalo. This issue embodies and exemplifies many larger themes of injustice. The deeper one delves into the politics of the buffalo, the more elucidated its connections to other global social, political, environmental and economic issues become.
Millions of buffalo were slaughtered throughout the 19th century as part of the US government’s calculated plan to “manage” the western US and its indigenous peoples. This systematic killing continued until only 23 of the original tens of millions of buffalo remained, and the people who depended on them were no longer able to live freely. Only after the population had dipped to 23 were plans instated to save the only genetically pure herd of wild buffalo—much to the ire of the livestock industry. Still, buffalo harassment and slaughter has continued.
After the particularly bloody Winter of 1996-1997, when more than a thousand buffalo were killed by the Montana Department of Livestock, Buffalo Nations—now the Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC)—was formed. BFC, co-founded by Mike Mease and Lakota activist Rosalie Little Thunder, has, with the help of more than 3,000 volunteers, spent the past 11 years fighting for greater tolerance and expanded habitat for the buffalo.
As usual, this year’s forecast for the Yellowstone buffalo is grim. In order to find food in the Winter, buffalo migrate outside of the invisible boundaries of Yellowstone National Park and into lower elevations—mainly West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana. Once outside of the park, buffalo are no longer considered “wildlife” and are instead classified as a “species in need of disease control,” because politics trumps science. Cattle ranchers fear the transmission of brucellosis and the loss of Montana’s brucellosis-free meat status. Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that affects wildlife and livestock, often causing a miscarriage in an animal’s first pregnancy. It was first transmitted to American wildlife by European livestock in the early 20th century. Though there has never been a documented case of a wild buffalo transmitting the disease to livestock, this inflated potential “threat” frames them as pariahs.
The buffalo’s status as a threat, as well as the protocol for handling them as such, is detailed in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). The plan was drafted in 1999, by the Montana Department of Livestock, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the long-term “management” of Yellowstone buffalo. This piece of legislature helps the livestock industry at the expense of buffalo and all people and creatures who coexisted and depended on these amazing animals.
There is, however, a brief window of time when buffalo are considered wildlife. For the past three years, from November 15 through February 15, state and tribal hunting tags have been issued. In the 2006-2007 hunt, 67 buffalo were killed, and as of early February 2008, more than 100 have been killed this season. Conveniently, once the hunt is over, buffalo are no longer wildlife in the eyes and policies of the Montana government—and more severe forms of management resume.
Winter is rough on buffalo, but Spring usually proves to be worse. They are hazed, harassed, captured, quarantined and/or sent to slaughter to prevent their presence on their traditional calving lands and historic range. Hazing is when federal and state agents play modern cowboys, using horses, motorized vehicles and even helicopters to force the buffalo back into the park. At times, hazes starkly resemble news footage from other government-sponsored wars and genocidal campaigns across the globe. The IBMP allows for repeated and continuous hazing, even at times of the year when there are no cattle in the vicinity. Brucellosis can only live outside of the body for 24 hours in direct sunlight, a fact that further illuminates how ridiculous it is to haze buffalo months before cattle return to the area. Hazing operations exhaust buffalo—forcing them to run for hours without breaks—and have killed newborn calves. Hazing is a barbarous and inhumane—not to mention wasteful, largely unsuccessful and inept—way to “manage” the last free-roaming and wild American buffalo.
In this issue, like in so many others, taxpayer dollars are funding an asinine policy and aiding in the destruction of the natural world. Meanwhile, Montana cattle ranchers, like agribusinesses across the country and throughout the world, receive huge subsidies.
History provides numerous examples of indigenous peoples being exploited by settlers and corporations. Those whose lives were once so interconnected with the buffalo are no exception. They are also at the heart of this issue. Plans to slaughter buffalo were concomitantly designed to destroy native populations. Just as the buffalo are confined to the national park, reservations have been delineated and assimilation policies legislated for people. A historic connection was severed so that money could be made across a tamed and managed country. Today, many native people are trying to re-establish their ancient relationship with the buffalo and introduce them onto their reservations. In this light, the National Park Service’s announced plans to capture and slaughter upwards of 1,700 buffalo this Spring is even further enraging.
The National Park Service, during its Summer fly-over, counted about 4,700 buffalo—a population size the IBMP deems too large for reasons that are entirely political. Buffalo advocates view this number as a step forward in buffalo restoration, noting that pressure from the livestock industry, not science, is behind the IBMP. Almost 5,000 buffalo should easily be able to survive in this area—as this ecosystem once provided for many, many more. Buffalo could roam, feed and live throughout the greater Yellowstone ecosystem—ideally, all the way to Appalachia. But that will not be the case this year, according to the previously mentioned plan for a Spring slaughter.
BFC is not just a small wildlife advocacy group. It is a group fighting against injustice in both this and so many other causes. The buffalo issue is a microcosm of inequality and injustice on the global level. It is, at its heart, the same battle that Darfur activists fight, and it affects its victims the same way government neglect and other acts of violence do. The campaign’s actions foment change on a local and macro scale.
I am often asked, “Why buffalo? Why the Buffalo Field Campaign?” These are questions to which I might respond with a discussion of how incredible the buffalo are, or how management of them disgusts me. It seems to me that, truthfully, I am fighting the same battle against global injustice as any other activist. This is the same battle against corporate or government greed, the same battle against environmental destruction and the same battle for the rights of the less powerful. This is the same fight for what so many of us believe is right and good.
There are times and places, many times and places, where cruelty exists. There are times and places where lives are disrupted, where babies are murdered and mothers taken. Times and places where the unparalleled beauty of the natural world stands in stark contrast to the human activity in the same area. But I do not need to tell you this. You have seen it in the newspapers, heard it in stories and read it in history. Political corruption, government ineptitude, malignant alliances and plundering of the natural world are all rampant. Families who are driven from their homes and rendered into vulnerable refugees are subject to harassment and a deplorable lifestyle that will be ignored by most. They become homeless refugees forced to wander across their homeland. “Management” is used as a guise for power, control and the unfettered ability to accumulate.
This could be the beginning of an article about a whole myriad of issues: worker’s rights in China, the Zimbabwean economy, our forests, the Amazon, the polar ice caps—the list could go on. But this time, it is about the plight of the American buffalo. This issue embodies and exemplifies many larger themes of injustice. The deeper one delves into the politics of the buffalo, the more elucidated its connections to other global social, political, environmental and economic issues become.
Millions of buffalo were slaughtered throughout the 19th century as part of the US government’s calculated plan to “manage” the western US and its indigenous peoples. This systematic killing continued until only 23 of the original tens of millions of buffalo remained, and the people who depended on them were no longer able to live freely. Only after the population had dipped to 23 were plans instated to save the only genetically pure herd of wild buffalo—much to the ire of the livestock industry. Still, buffalo harassment and slaughter has continued.
After the particularly bloody Winter of 1996-1997, when more than a thousand buffalo were killed by the Montana Department of Livestock, Buffalo Nations—now the Buffalo Field Campaign (BFC)—was formed. BFC, co-founded by Mike Mease and Lakota activist Rosalie Little Thunder, has, with the help of more than 3,000 volunteers, spent the past 11 years fighting for greater tolerance and expanded habitat for the buffalo.
As usual, this year’s forecast for the Yellowstone buffalo is grim. In order to find food in the Winter, buffalo migrate outside of the invisible boundaries of Yellowstone National Park and into lower elevations—mainly West Yellowstone and Gardiner, Montana. Once outside of the park, buffalo are no longer considered “wildlife” and are instead classified as a “species in need of disease control,” because politics trumps science. Cattle ranchers fear the transmission of brucellosis and the loss of Montana’s brucellosis-free meat status. Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that affects wildlife and livestock, often causing a miscarriage in an animal’s first pregnancy. It was first transmitted to American wildlife by European livestock in the early 20th century. Though there has never been a documented case of a wild buffalo transmitting the disease to livestock, this inflated potential “threat” frames them as pariahs.
The buffalo’s status as a threat, as well as the protocol for handling them as such, is detailed in the Interagency Bison Management Plan (IBMP). The plan was drafted in 1999, by the Montana Department of Livestock, the National Park Service, the United States Forest Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks for the long-term “management” of Yellowstone buffalo. This piece of legislature helps the livestock industry at the expense of buffalo and all people and creatures who coexisted and depended on these amazing animals.
There is, however, a brief window of time when buffalo are considered wildlife. For the past three years, from November 15 through February 15, state and tribal hunting tags have been issued. In the 2006-2007 hunt, 67 buffalo were killed, and as of early February 2008, more than 100 have been killed this season. Conveniently, once the hunt is over, buffalo are no longer wildlife in the eyes and policies of the Montana government—and more severe forms of management resume.
Winter is rough on buffalo, but Spring usually proves to be worse. They are hazed, harassed, captured, quarantined and/or sent to slaughter to prevent their presence on their traditional calving lands and historic range. Hazing is when federal and state agents play modern cowboys, using horses, motorized vehicles and even helicopters to force the buffalo back into the park. At times, hazes starkly resemble news footage from other government-sponsored wars and genocidal campaigns across the globe. The IBMP allows for repeated and continuous hazing, even at times of the year when there are no cattle in the vicinity. Brucellosis can only live outside of the body for 24 hours in direct sunlight, a fact that further illuminates how ridiculous it is to haze buffalo months before cattle return to the area. Hazing operations exhaust buffalo—forcing them to run for hours without breaks—and have killed newborn calves. Hazing is a barbarous and inhumane—not to mention wasteful, largely unsuccessful and inept—way to “manage” the last free-roaming and wild American buffalo.
In this issue, like in so many others, taxpayer dollars are funding an asinine policy and aiding in the destruction of the natural world. Meanwhile, Montana cattle ranchers, like agribusinesses across the country and throughout the world, receive huge subsidies.
History provides numerous examples of indigenous peoples being exploited by settlers and corporations. Those whose lives were once so interconnected with the buffalo are no exception. They are also at the heart of this issue. Plans to slaughter buffalo were concomitantly designed to destroy native populations. Just as the buffalo are confined to the national park, reservations have been delineated and assimilation policies legislated for people. A historic connection was severed so that money could be made across a tamed and managed country. Today, many native people are trying to re-establish their ancient relationship with the buffalo and introduce them onto their reservations. In this light, the National Park Service’s announced plans to capture and slaughter upwards of 1,700 buffalo this Spring is even further enraging.
The National Park Service, during its Summer fly-over, counted about 4,700 buffalo—a population size the IBMP deems too large for reasons that are entirely political. Buffalo advocates view this number as a step forward in buffalo restoration, noting that pressure from the livestock industry, not science, is behind the IBMP. Almost 5,000 buffalo should easily be able to survive in this area—as this ecosystem once provided for many, many more. Buffalo could roam, feed and live throughout the greater Yellowstone ecosystem—ideally, all the way to Appalachia. But that will not be the case this year, according to the previously mentioned plan for a Spring slaughter.
BFC is not just a small wildlife advocacy group. It is a group fighting against injustice in both this and so many other causes. The buffalo issue is a microcosm of inequality and injustice on the global level. It is, at its heart, the same battle that Darfur activists fight, and it affects its victims the same way government neglect and other acts of violence do. The campaign’s actions foment change on a local and macro scale.
I am often asked, “Why buffalo? Why the Buffalo Field Campaign?” These are questions to which I might respond with a discussion of how incredible the buffalo are, or how management of them disgusts me. It seems to me that, truthfully, I am fighting the same battle against global injustice as any other activist. This is the same battle against corporate or government greed, the same battle against environmental destruction and the same battle for the rights of the less powerful. This is the same fight for what so many of us believe is right and good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
