A Message of Hope and Determination

One thing will always be extremely dear to me: A letter that my Dadima (Paternal Grandmother) wrote to me about the 1947 Partition of India and Pakistan. At that time I was in fifth grade and was really moved by it. I have saved this wonderful piece of history in a special place where I keep all of my memories. Whenever I read it, it brings tears to my eyes. I am so glad that I was curious enough about my heritage and roots to ask Dadima to write to me about it. This is truly one piece of paper that I can never give up.

The partition, the biggest forced migration in the history of the world, was an extremely frightening and difficult time for the 14 million people who faced it. I find it hard to imagine how so many innocent people could be forced to leave their homes and to suffer from such a terrible ordeal. People who had once been friends and lived side by side became enemies. My family was lucky to escape their house just as their neighbor's house was being burned in the middle of the night, unexpectedly all of a sudden. They fled for their lives, and were forced to leave everything behind--all of their dreams, their home, and everything they had.

My great grandmother, Sara, quickly wore three shirts, one on top of the other. That is the only thing she had time for. My great grandfather was lucky enough to quickly pick up his and his children's degrees and a few important documents. There were people at the front of the house ready to kill them with guns as they would try to escape. Luckily they were able to jump over the back wall of the house. How scared they must have been. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in this senseless killing. They ran, they walked, and they hid in dark jungles for three and a half days. They were lucky to head in the right direction and finally arrive at the UN refugee camp at the border with the newly created Pakistan. There they had their first meal in three and a half days, a meal of lentils and half a pita bread each (daal and roti).

My family had lost everything. All they had was each other and a spirit of hope and determination. In spite of their difficulties, they never gave up. After all they had the most precious gift of all--life. With hard work, love, and understanding they rebuilt their new lives together. I am proud to say that after much sacrifice and struggle they became doctors, lawyers, business people, engineers and professionals in many other fields.

Such is the story of my family and millions of other Pakistani's. It is a story that I can never forget, a story of endless possibilities when you do not give up, a story of hopes and the dreams that came true with the new-found independence. Everyone put aside their differences and united to build their new nation, Pakistan.

But somewhere along the way, the country lost its way. We need to help Pakistan find its way again and to bring back the hope. People and nations have suffered greatly. And it is important to bring back democracy to Pakistan, peace, security, and justice for all. We must not let all the sacrifices go waste. It is time for everyone to work together and to let the hope shine through.

Short term fixes will keep us going in circles and we have seen that. It is time for us here in America to realize how important it is to develop a long term strategic relationship with the people of Pakistan. We in America just cannot afford to loose in this vital area.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was a wonderful idea in the comments section of my article "Education and Poverty in Pakistan" that every Pakistani abroad should support the education of one poor child in Pakistan. I extend this challenge to all and I would not limit this to Pakistanis and Pakistan alone. Let all of us who can, support at least one struggling child to get education in some impoverished part of the world. Remember for most people the cost will be very little. Small efforts like this can truly help to make the world a better place.

Other articles in this series:

Hope Within Pakistan-July 5, 2008
Education and Poverty in Pakistan-July 13, 2008
Women of Pakistan-July, 28, 2008

A Message of Hope and Determination-August 12, 2008

Myra Chaudhary

Myra is a junior at Brandeis University. She is majoring in Economics and International and Global Studies.

The ad in question doesn't talk about that issue or Barack Obama's stand on that issue. Kerry said, "it doesn't mention offshore drilling. What it talks about--it tries to insinuate that his celebrity is somehow all he has." That is the point.  The McCain campaign is trying to attack Barack Obama's character by bringing in questionable associations to people that have nothing to do with this Presidential campaign and nothing to do with the issues that the American people are grappling with this year.

Kerry referenced a speech that Joe Lieberman gave ten years ago on the Senate floor about morality in public discourse: "Even you, Joe, 10 years ago, you went to the floor of the United States Senate, and you said that our public life is coarsening. You said that the society's values are shrinking. That's an ad that plays to the worst instincts in America, which is to diminish someone's character."

Maybe Senator Lieberman would do well to review what he said on the Senate floor in that speech in July, 1998:

The news media, I am afraid to say, which itself has been infected by that anything-goes mentality--not always, but often infected by the anything-goes mentality pervading the entertainment culture--seems too often to fan the flames of controversy. The result is not so much an honest, engaged debate about values, but a culture war echo chamber that only heightens the average citizen's distorted sense that the country is locked in a mortal moral struggle.

We need that "honest, engaged debate" not some "cute" diversion that seeks to distort the facts on the important issues that face this country.  A campaign based on "look over here, bright shiny stuff" does not further the public debate, it coarsens it. Let's talk about the real issues that the American people face and put these negative, insulting attacks that are meant to demean the character of others on the shelf.  The country deserves better than this. 

A New Strategy Against Extremism and Terrorism
By John Kerry - July 31, 2008

I just got back from giving a speech this morning at the Center for American Progress where I tried to lay down a baseline about how you actually win the struggle against radical extremism and terrorism -- and the new mindset required to do it. I wanted to continue the conversation, and TPM graciously agreed to host it here.

Here's the deal -- we don't need a rebranding -- this isn't a semantics game -- we need a wholesale rethinking. Instead of a military-dominated "war on terror," we should be fighting the global counterinsurgency campaign it always should have been. We need to fold our military efforts to capture and kill today's terrorists into a larger "information war" designed to prevent tomorrow's from ever being recruited.

I start from the premise that our current strategy is not working. Five years ago, Donald Rumsfeld famously asked: "Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us?" So where are we today? Attacks -- historic highs; Al Qaeda -- reconstituted along the Afghan-Pakistan border. The Taliban -- resurgent. Hamas -- tightening its grip on Gaza. Hezbollah -- running a state within a state in Lebanon. The answer to Rumsfeld's question, I'm afraid, is no -- not by a longshot.

So what does a global counterinsurgency doctrine tell us about the war on terror? What's the correct take-away?

First -- understand the real battlefield. In a local counterinsurgency, the people are the center of gravity and the core objective is to isolate the insurgents by winning the support of the local population. Applied globally, the battlefield is the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates said: "We cannot capture and kill our way to victory." He's right. Which is why you fight not just a military battle but an "information war." Frankly, Al Qaeda is fighting an information war - even including an online town hall meeting conducted by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

We need to fight one too.

Second -- Another core principle of counterinsurgency doctrine is that "the more force you use, the less effective it is." Those aren't my words, they're General Petraeus'. And if you read the front page article in today's Washington Post they're pretty damn close to Secretary Gates' words too. Our most important weapons are often non-military: Ironically, some of our military's most significant successes against extremists have actually been humanitarian efforts after an earthquake in Pakistan and a Tsunami in Indonesia.

Third -- legitimacy, legitimacy, legitimacy. Without legitimacy, winning over hearts and minds is impossible. That's why this Administration's embrace of torture and indefinite detention has been so self-defeating. Our enemies have already overreached in places like Anbar and Amman, and we need the moral authority to capitalize on their failures. That starts with shutting down Guantanamo and making clear once and for all that the United States does not torture. Period.

Fourth -- know your enemy. Counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes understanding our enemy. The theorist David Kilcullen has described Al Qaeda as 60 different organizations in 60 different countries, loosely linked by a shared ideology. Taken together, these groups form a global insurgency. The goal of Al Qaeda is to draw these disparate extremists into their broader struggle against the West, sometimes with logistical support, but more broadly by offering a unifying narrative: "Islam under attack."

Fifth -- be nimble. To defeat the enemy, we must adapt as they adapt and tailor our response to circumstances on the ground. In some places, that means development projects and television broadcasts. In others, it means visits to sheikhs in their tents and - when necessary - it means Predator strikes on high value targets. We can't fight Al Qaeda in sixty countries by ourselves, and so we have to recognize the importance of strengthening relationships and working with foreign governments and security forces.

Sixth -- and finally -- we must prevent local grievances from rising to a global level and drawing small groups of disaffected people into the larger struggle. That's why we need to draw the right connections and recognize how each theater impacts the others.

Obviously -- seen through this lens, invading Iraq was a grave mistake: We diverted resources from Al Qaeda. We failed to differentiate between a secular dictator and religious terrorists and in so doing played directly into Bin Laden's hands. Our own intelligence agencies called our presence in Iraq a "cause celebre" for terrorists worldwide.

And rather than ads about Britney Spears which insult Americans, we ought to have one hell of a debate about this: The Administration misunderstood the facts Đand when it comes to events in Iraq, John McCain continues to misstate those facts and mangle history. We need to set the record straight.

Look, I've known John McCain for years as a fellow Vietnam veteran and a friend. But I just think his recent judgment has been dead wrong. We need to spell out the details here very clearly.

A quick example: as a testament to his superior judgment, John recently declared that the surge -- and I quote -- "began the Anbar Awakening I mean that's just a matter of history." In fact, history shows just the opposite.

Let's look at what happened: tensions between Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and Sunni leaders were apparent nearly two years before the surge - culminating in battles in May 2005. Why? Al Qaeda was brutal, disrespectful to tribal sheikhs, and bad for local business.

Colonel Sean MacFarland and his Ready First Brigade arrived in Ramadi in June 2006, with Al Qaeda fully in control, and - on their own - launched an extensive outreach campaign to win over the local population, starting with the local sheikhs. They emphasized getting local police forces out into neighborhoods by deputizing tribal militias. This culminated in September 9, 2006 - four months before the surge was even announced - when a young Sheikh Sittar Albu Risha declared the Anbar Awakening and created the Awakening Council. That created a snowball effect. And, as MacFarland noted, with the 2006 US election approaching "a growing concern that US forces would leave Iraq" made tribal leaders open to our overtures. By late October, nearly every tribe around Ramadi had either joined the Awakening or was openly considering it. As security improved, a major campaign was launched to rebuild Ramadi, culminating in the Ramadi Reconstruction Conference in January 2007.

For those of you keeping score, this is the point in the story where the surge actually begins. Bush announced the surge on January 10th 2007. By the time those troops arrived, Colonel MacFarland had actually rotated out of Iraq.

These aren't small details -- we can't draw the right lessons from the reduction in violence if we don't understand what actually happened: The actions that led to the Awakening reflected our understanding that U.S. military action alone would not defeat the terrorists: we needed to win over the population by co-opting the tribal sheiks, utilizing indigenous security forces, and delivering goods, services and good governance. Moreover, the reduction in violence depended on many other factors -- the sectarian segregation of formerly mixed neighborhoods, Sadr's August 2007 ceasefire, and -- with US military support -- the Iraqi security forces' success in reclaiming the streets of places like Basra from Shi'a militias.

In other words? Not merely "the surge." Not merely more troops. Counterinsurgency. When you say "the surge began the Awakening" you have it exactly backwards and you're drawing all the wrong lessons" in particular that the military can solve what are fundamentally political problems.

That's why I think there's a big choice in this election: McCain is taking a global counterinsurgency and trying to shoehorn it into the old "war on terror" rubric that doesn't do justice to the lessons our troops have learned the hard way.

The big picture is this: winning a war of ideas will not only enable us to defeat the terrorists, but will also restore our ability to affect positive change in other arenas. Let George Bush be remembered for an overly narrow militarized focus on fighting terrorism at the expense of our moral authority and our standing in the world. Let the next President fight terror by emphasizing the best about America to usher in a new paradigm of using force wisely, and in so doing allow us to emerge from this struggle stronger and better able to lead the world into the 21st century.

The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NIHLC) praised Senator Kerry for the work he did in getting the provision establishing a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation through the Congress.

In 2000, Kerry wrote the first National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation to construct, rehabilitate, and preserve 1.5 million units of housing over the next 10 years.

"For too long, our nation's poorest citizens have gotten the short of the stick when it comes to housing. By establishing the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund we will help our most vulnerable families live in decent, safe and affordable rental housing," said Senator Kerry. "Foreclosures are devastating thousands of families across Massachusetts each and every day and this housing bill will finally help them stay in their homes and help put our economy on the road to recovery."

"The National Housing Trust Fund campaign began under Senator Kerry's leadership when he introduced a bill to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in 2000. With the enactment of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 today, together we have achieved success. The result is a renewed commitment by the Federal government to solving the housing problems of the very poorest families in our nation, who have been overlooked and neglected for too long," said Shelia Crowley, President and CEO of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

The NIHLC has been engaged in the fight to pass this legislation for years.  Sen. Kerry, as the above passage notes, filed this bill initially in the 106th Congress in 2000.  It has been a long fight to get this needed initiative passed and establish a way to help a lot of families obtain a means to get housing. This is truly a great accomplishment and it's great to see the NIHLC celebrate the passage of this needed initiative.

Mrs. Bhutto was an inspiration to a lot of people around the world.  She was a leader and a symbol of the possibilities open to women in Pakistan. Myra Chaudhary once again offers some perspectives on Pakistan and what Mrs. Bhutto and her message meant to so many Pakistanis the world over.  Again, Myra is not writing as a foreign policy expert but as an American with roots in Pakistan. These blog posts are a wonderful way to share some insights into a country that is critical to the future of the Near East and critical to America's foreign policy plans in a troubled region of the world.

Women of Pakistan

My thoughts go back to that beautiful New England autumn day when I met Benazir Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. There she was a beautiful and graceful woman who had been in such a powerful position-- leading a country of 160 million. Loved and supported by millions, the first ever woman prime minister of a Muslim country and also the youngest prime minister to be elected twice. She was a woman who had gone through struggles and hardships beyond imagination. There was an air of elegance to her. You could feel her wisdom. Every gesture of hers was a testament to her strength and determination. But what touched me most was her simple human side. The way she talked about her children and expressed how difficult it was to be away from them. How she spoke with such compassion and warmth. I fondly remember how she looked at the blue sky and the red-orange leaves and said "this is my version of heaven on earth". Little did I understand what she had meant then: that the simple little joys of life are often its biggest pleasures.

Four years later, on an ordinary day in December while on school vacation, things changed. I woke up, and then I heard the devastating news of her assassination. How could anybody be so cruel as to take the life of this woman, a mother of three beautiful children? How could they deprive a nation of a much needed leader? Why did they do that?

Benazir was a symbol of hope, courage, and determination. She was very progressive and she never gave up her struggle for democracy. She was loved by millions but she was also feared by many because of that same strength and determination. She was a threat to them. And that is why they wanted to stop her. They knew they could not, so they took her life. What a terrible tragedy. She is gone but her legacy to never ever lose hope will live on.

Such are the stories of the ongoing struggles of the people of Pakistan and the women who have never stayed behind. This goes back to even before Pakistan was created. Fatima Jinnah the sister of the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinah, stood by the side of her brother all the way to the creation of Pakistan. Then, it was in 1965, when Fatimah Jinnah, ran for president. One million people came to support her on her 293 mile campaign train route called the "Freedom Special". People were so energized by her words that they kept on pulling the emergency breaks at each station, begging her to speak and delaying her train by 22 hours. It is so inspiring that even so long ago one woman was able to captivate such large audiences. She tirelessly fought against a dictator. People were very fond of her and began to call her Mother of the Nation (Madar E Millat), embodying hope, equality, justice, and unity.

Women in Pakistan have continued to play a very important role. They are actively involved in the government, politics, and society at all levels. They are doctors, business women, engineers, lawyers, diplomats, ambassadors, artists, teachers, writers, poets, singers, workers, farmers, mothers, wives, students, and the list goes on and on. The current speaker of the national assembly is also a woman. Women in fact are a strong part of the fabric of society in Pakistan just like they are in America.

We need to remember, though, that a vast majority of the population in Pakistan lives in rural areas many of which are lacking even basic facilities and amenities. This is especially true in the remote areas. In our struggle for peace in this very important part of the world, let us not ignore the importance of woman. Women are central to a family and it all begins there. We cannot afford to leave these women behind. The world needs to help empower them with possibilities and keep hope alive.

I dedicate this little piece to the struggling women of Pakistan and women all over the world.

Other articles in this series:

Hope Within Pakistan- July 5, 2008
Education and Poverty in Pakistan- July 13, 2008

Women of Pakistan- July 28, 2008

A Message of Hope and Determination- August 12, 2008

 

-Myra Chaudhary

Myra is a junior at Brandeis University. She is majoring in Economics and International and Global Studies.

 

• Kerry worked with Senator Gordon Smith (R-Oregon) to include the Mortgage Revenue Bond Provision, which provides an additional $11 billion of tax-exempt private activity bonds to housing finance agencies. The provision would allow the proceeds from the bonds to be used to refinance subprime loans, provide mortgages for first time homebuyers and for multifamily rental housing. This means that approximately $209 million in targeted mortgage relief will be available to the homeowners of Massachusetts, which could result in as may as 1,000 new loans in Massachusetts. Nationwide this would result in close to 87,000 additional loans.
• The bill also contains provisions to amend the Service Members Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by extending the period a lender must wait before starting disclosure procedures from 90 days to nine months after a service member has returned from active duty and capping interest on mortgages at 6 percent for one year after a serviceperson completes his/her services.
• The bill also establishes a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund, introduced by Kerry and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) which requires Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to set aside a portion of their profits of which, 65 percent will be used for the Housing Trust Fund (approximately $3.4 billion over ten years), and 35 percent will go toward a Capital Magnet Fund to leverage affordable housing development and community development activities. In 2000, Kerry wrote the first National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation to construct, rehabilitate, and preserve 1.5 million units of housing over the next 10 years.
• The bill includes $3.92 billion for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program which will help local communities fight the effects of foreclosure. Earlier this year, Kerry, along with Senator Edward Kennedy, sent a letter to the Senate leadership underscoring the need for $2 billion in additional funding for CDBG in the upcoming housing legislation.

Senator Reid said today that 8,500 people receive a foresclosure warning every working day in America.  That's 8,500 working families that have to face the agony of being forced out of their homes.  This bill offers some relief to those hard-pressed Americans who simply want to be given a chance to fairly pay off their loans and keep their homes.  Congratulations to all who helped this bill pass.  The American people won this victory today and thousands of people will be the beneficiaries of this legislation.

The overarching question here is, having looked at the immediate situation, is now: where do we go from here? What is the appropriate U.S. response to the situation in Zimbabwe?

The situation on the ground in November was dire, and has become even more so in the ensuing months. As the currency devalues further from, when I was there, $1 USD to $1.3 million Zim dollars to the rate now of $1 USD to $5 billion Zim dollars, the government simply prints out worthless bills (when the paper is available to do so) in larger denominations that must be carried around in backpacks. This is a currency that was once pegged, one to one, to the British pound. The actual foreign exchange (or, forex) rate is established on the parallel market: in the bus while crossing the border from South Africa where people yell out numbers and the price rises and falls as if it were the New York Stock Exchange; in living rooms where teethy professionals who have abandoned their jobs to work as full time forex dealers regale you with (unsubstantiated) stories of assisting the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe sell the forex he stole from the Zimbabwean people for a higher price than those very people, who still diligently queue for days outside of its main Harare branch on the rumor that they will be able to access their accounts, will ever receive. Good people sighed as they told me that it costs them more to get to work than they make in a month, but that somehow (bartering, importing, pilfering) they survive. A mother cried as she told me what the Bank told her when she tried to pay for her son's college tuition- that the Bank had no more money, not even for Zanu-PF party loyalists like herself. 

As for party loyalty, it's become confined to the individuals who are able to drive Hummers in a country without petrol; go to the arcade in a brightly lit mall near Mugabe's Presidential compound in a country without electricity for a majority of the time I was there; and eat out in restaurants on Friday nights while the majority of the population starves as they wait for the individuals in their towns who can afford to get through and back to South Africa on a Greyhound come back with huge tubs of imported luxuries like bread, flour, and cooking oil. Even Zanu-PF loyalists who I talked to said that at this point they just needed their country back on track: Zanu-PF and MDC be damned. Whoever could make a difference at that point needed to step in immediately- and that was from a member of Zanu-PF, in November.

And with good reason. At the pro-Mugabe seed and fertilizer rally I attended, the domestic workers who were the main participants gave half-hearted fists when the revolutionary song was sung and the Zanu-PF rally cry chanted. All they were looking forward to is the high price the seed and fertilizer would fetch on the parallel market- as domestic workers they really had no use for such things. The organizers of the event (local Zanu-PF politicians) were even quite friendly, although one of them quickly cautioned me off of taking pictures of the event- they "liked me" and wanted to see me again. When I asked what they meant, they smiled and plainly said that they wouldn't want the CIO to take away their new American friend- the CIO, or Central Intelligence Organization, is Mugabe's personal secret police force (I was fortunate enough to be able to tour a newly built CIO housing complex later in my trip, built brand new near the Presidential compound). I still managed to get some videos taken of the event, which are posted below.

The seed and fertilizer which I sat atop of late at night on a local politician's flatbed, whose heart (or, at the very least, pickup) I had bought my way into, never even reached the people at the rally, much less the people who might actually utilize them. As we drove along the highway and people pointed out the vast acreages of "white man's land" that used to be maize, wheat, and generally edible products, irony hit like a hammer. One well-maintained and functioning plot still owned by a white man was a cow farm. Apparently Robert Mugabe believes that milk does a body so good that it will hold over his starving populace until the politics of princes are sorted out.

Not that milk is an affordable commodity any longer. While I was there it cost $20 million Zim dollars to get from the Low-density suburbs to downtown Harare and back. For workers regardless of collar-color, it was an almost unthinkable sum where a monthly salary could have been $2 million Zim dollars, and yet people still got to and from work (these days the population has become even more harried and less able to commute due to the drastic increase in inflation). They afford this the same way we were able to buy petrol in a country supposedly devoid of it: the gas was distributed off the back of another pickup truck in front of a gas station by the attendants who used to work there. A main method of sustenance is to take from ones job and sell whatever one takes, be it petrol or computer services or lightbulbs, on the parallel market for a market price.

The plight of Zimbabwe's people deserves a rapid regional solution with heavy influence from the major international powers, like U.S. and the U.K, that support democratic resolutions and regional stability. That said, when such strong divisions exist not only in the international and regional community (UN and AU, respectively), it creates a delicate situation regarding what action to be taken. The AU recommends a Kenya-like unity government to be adopted until the election issues have been sorted out. However, from statements given by MDC and Zanu-PF spokespeople, it seems unlikely that either side will readily agree to working together. Just as it is unlikely that Mugabe will give up power unless forced to, based on his treatment of the runoff elections and statements made since to international media and at the AU summit. On the other hand, the MDC seems unwilling to negotiate unless Mugabe is willing to admit the election's illegitimacy- a similarly unlikely scenario.

The United States has presented a draft resolution to the UN, placing travel bans and asset freezes on 14 members of the Zanu-PF party (technically on "anyone who helped the government 'undermine democratic processes"), and an embargo on arms shipments to Zimbabwe. If the majority of the UN Security Council who voted for the resolution are able to persuade Russia and China that these sanctions are not an interventionist intrusion into the national sovereignty of a sovereign nation but appropriate measures for the international community to take against a tyrant and his entourage, Mugabe may be further encouraged to come to the negotiating table.

Even if Mugabe and the Zanu-PF can be persuaded to negotiate, it would not effect a real change on the ground until after negotiations took place.
As to whether sanctions would work or not, Mugabe's elite base of support does rely on a great deal of deliverable goods, and would be sincerely disrupted by the proposed travel bans and asset freezes, especially if influxes of foreign currency are ceased to the men at the top. The arms embargo, while a useful step, is less likely to affect the outcome of this situation- Zimbabwe, and specifically Mugabe's party, seems to have enough weapons and enough of a militia force to continue to inflict their will upon the unarmed populous and, more importantly in the post-election environment, against targeted members of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) party.

The Senator has previously called for Mugabe to step aside after the initial March 29th election , but much has changed since then. With regional leaders calling for a coalition-style government, and all parties involved saying that the solution must come ultimately from Zimbabwe, it seems unlikely that the U.S. will take a strong stand for Mugabe's outright removal at this point. As President Thabo Mbeki steps up the pressure on negotiations between Zanu-PF and MDC members due to the pressure placed on him at this month's G8 meeting, it looks like the best option right now for a new dawn in Zimbabwe is at the negotiating table.

Rhick Bose is a member of the Class of 2009 at Boston College in Chestnut Hill, MA majoring in International Studies

Fred Jennings is Senior at the Elliott School of International Affairs at The George Washington University in Washington, DC.

Part 1, the current situation

By the dawn's early light last week in Zimbabwe, the runoff election took place despite sharp criticism from the international community and the African Union. On June 27th, the second round of voting was carried out. Those unwilling to go to the polls were, in some areas, taken there by armed militiamen.

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew, stating that the violence and bloodshed surrounding the upcoming elections had made a free and fair election impossible. Thus, Mugabe went unopposed in the decisive run-off election.

The day after the elections, President Bush made a statement calling for strong sanctions on Zimbabwe as a follow-up to a joint statement by G8 countries on June 27th. On June 30th, this was followed by a US draft resolution to the UN titled "Draft Elements for a Chapter VII Sanctions Resolution." It would levy travel bans and freeze assets for members of the Zimbabwe African National Union - Patriotic Front (Zanu-PF), Mugabe's political party, and would place an embargo on arms sales to Zimbabwe like the controversial shipment from China that happened in April of this year. (Humans Rights First has an excellent summary of China's arms sales to Zimbabwe.) This resolution was introduced into the Security Council agenda on July 12, and vetoed by Russia and China. The U.S. and U.K. characterized the veto as "incomprehensible" and saying it "called into question Russia's reliability as a G8 partner." 

Apart from the stated reason of noninterference in what Russia and China had deemed to be Zimbabwe's "internal affairs," a possible reason for the veto could be time to gauge the effectiveness of the recent high-level negotiations held in South Africa between the ruling Zanu-PF and Morgan Tsvangirai's MDC with mediators representing South African President Thabo Mbeki. Progress remains to be seen however, as Tsvangiari has characterized the meetings as "talks about talks."

According to journalist Caiphas Chimhete and allAfrica.com, the current violence may be less widespread but is much more coordinated:

" University of Zimbabwe political science lecturer Eldred Masunungure said the attack on MDC activists and their properties by suspected Zanu PF supporters was an attempt to pressure the opposition party to the negotiating table. 'If you look at the violence, it is no longer targeted at the general public as it was prior to the 27 June election but at key MDC activists. It an attempt to force them to the negotiating table,' Masunungure said.

He said soon after the March election, the violence was directed at the general public in order to force them to vote for Mugabe. But now the violence was targeting key MDC officials."

Despite strong statements by the UN, AU, and many leading nations both African and Western, very little international action has been undertaken yet to relieve the plight of the Zimbabwean people. Notably, Botswana, a neighbor country with longtime relations with Zimbabwe, has called for barring Mugabe from the African Union and the South African Development Community (SADC) . More recently, the Botswana Defense Forces have been deployed along the Botswana-Zimbabwe border, and Botswana has severed diplomatic ties with Zimbabwe .

For more information, Reuters has organized a fairly comprehensive and digestible "Factbox" entitled "What might the world do about Zimbabwe?"

 

Rhick Bose is a member of the Class of 2009 at Boston College in Chestnut Hill, MA majoring in International Studies

Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware recently held a hearing in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about American relations and outreach to the Pakistani government and the Pakistani people. He said how Sen. Kerry and the other members of the Committee absolutely believed that if there is one area of the world that America needs to "get right" in terms of how it conducts diplomatic efforts, it's Pakistan. Sen. Biden spoke about America's efforts being concentrated in military aid and that we also need to assert what is called our "soft power" in the region. That soft power was on display in October of 2005 when the Kashmir region of Pakistan suffered a devastating earthquake. American relief workers, doctors and aid agencies immediately responded to the people of Pakistan and offered humanitarian services. Aid spent on education, infrastructure, food programs and so forth pays powerful dividends to the Pakistani people and presents America as a positive friend that Pakistanis can rely on as allies.

    Pakistan has been experiencing many serious problems. It cannot be expected for everything to be fixed overnight. It is very important though to establish goals and set up priorities. What is needed most is a stable democratic government, basic essentials for all, access to proper education and healthcare and justice for ALL.

    Pakistan provides a very large number of highly skilled professionals including doctors, engineers, scientists and many others all over the world .That is something surely to be proud of. But wait a minute and look more carefully. Why do we let so many beautiful minds go to waste? There is so much difference between the rich and the poor there. That is so sad. Only if everyone truly had opportunities what a beautiful world it would be. I know that once given a chance people have a lot of potential.

    There is one poor family I personally know in Pakistan with a remarkable story. The husband earned a living selling somosas, a fried snack made with potatoes and flour, on a cart for less than an American penny a piece. The wife washed dishes and clothes for a living. In spite of their hardships and very meager resources, they sent their eldest son, Saleem, to school. By the time he finished high school, some of his family members told him that he had studied enough. This boy never gave up. He was very brilliant and determined so he went to college, which he paid for by tutoring wealthy students. He eventually became a Charted Accountant. He persuaded his sister to study, and helped her to get her B.A. and M.A. They were able to earn enough money to leave the servant quarters of the house where the mother washed dishes and moved to a house of their own. All of this happened because of education. Education opened doors for them to possibilities which they could not have dreamed of otherwise.

    Three years ago, I went to a Human Development foundation event in Boston where I saw a video of a little girl in a Pakistani village, living in extreme poverty. She excitedly said that "When I grow up, I will study and become a doctor!"( "Jab mein bari hon gi main doctor banoon gee!") I was really moved and still see her face. Why should she not be able to fulfill her dreams? There are many children like this who are eager to learn. This is the kind of excitement and energy that Pakistan needs to invest in. Once ignited, this fire will never be extinguished. It must be the biggest priority and a goal to provide education to all in Pakistan.

    Poverty and ignorance is a very dangerous combination. It can trap people in inescapable circles and could lead to frustration and despair. It not only makes one vulnerable to disease and suffering but to all kinds of exploitations. This is especially true in remote areas.

    The world needs to help Pakistan provide its people with education and provide them with possibilities.

    It may sound simplistic but it is well proven to be the strongest weapon and a solution to many complex problems. For when there are possibilities there is hope. And when there is hope, life is worth living.

    Other articles in this series:

    Hope Within Pakistan--July 5,2008

    Education and Poverty in Pakistan--July 13,2008

    Women of Pakistan--July 28th, 2008

    A Message of Hope and Determination--August 12, 2008
   

Myra Chaudhary

    Myra is a junior at Brandeis University. She is majoring in Economics and International and Global Studies.

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession."

"We have become a nation of whiners," he said.  "You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline" despite a major export boom that is the primary reason that growth continues in the economy, he said.

I have traveled to Pakistan many times throughout my life.The memories of my visits will always be very dear to me. I continue to stay in touch with my relatives who live in the province of Punjab in the northeast. My family has been quite active in the Pakistani Association of Greater Boston, Association of Pakistani Physicians of North America, and Human Development Foundation. In Massachusetts, there are literally thousands of Pakistanis, all who are a very special part of my life. My fascination and understanding of Pakistan has intensified through interactions with a range of people including professionals, prime ministers, diplomats, ordinary shop keepers, poor servants, and Pakistanis of all ages and views.

It would be naïve not to recognize that Pakistan is experiencing problems. But it would be equally foolish to think that everything in Pakistan is bad. The Pakistan that I know is full of children happily playing in fields, fragrant flowers, mango trees, people meeting friends at shops, families and friends celebrating weddings, holidays together, and ordinary people trying to live their lives in peace and happiness. Pakistanis have an immense love for any kind of music, singing, poetry, fashion, dancing, and parties. The culture is a vibrant celebration of love, family, and life.

Pakistanis are generally kind, hardworking, charitable people. My own grandmother has been actively involved in the Rotary Club, which travels throughout Pakistan and the world gathering donations for needy children, establishing schools and community centers for women and children, taking care of the sick, and helping families in need. I have seen many other similar compassionate acts in Pakistan and in America.

Pakistan desperately wants peace, prosperity, hope, democracy, freedom, safety, education, healthcare, elimination of poverty, and an end to terrorism. A vast majority of the people are moderate and progressive. They are totally against terrorism, religious fundamentalism and madrassas, all things which have caused them a great deal of suffering. Their wishes and goals are not any different from what America wants.

There are stories in American newspapers about the Taliban making inroads in the Northwestern Frontier privince of Pakistan.  This is the area of the country that shares a border with Afghanistan and also shares a lot of the same problems due to poverty, lack of educational opportunites and rural remoteness. Pakistan is a large and very diverse country. Most Pakistanis want a country that functions under constitutional guidelines and according to an established rule of law. 

As Americans, it is in our interests not to alienate the Pakistani people, a vast majority of whom want what Americans want; democratic rule and educational and economic opportunities for the people.  America can help to bring hope to the Pakistani people and develop friendship between our two countries. I hope to continue this discussion about Pakistan in some future blog posts.  Feel free to ask me any questions in comments to this post.  I will check back in and answer them regularly.

 Others articles in this series:

Hope within Pakistan -- July 5th, 2008

Education and Poverty in Pakistan-- July 13th, 2008 

Women of Pakistan-- July 28th, 2008

A Message of Hope and Determination-- August 12th, 2008

-Myra Chaudhary

Myra is a junior at Brandeis University. She is majoring in Economics and International and Global Studies.

That cause and the ideals of the American Revolution can get lost in all the bunting and fireworks that we associate with the 4th of July. The phrases most people know by heart from the Declaration of Independence are the stirring pronouncements that "all men are created equal" and that we have a right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Yet the Declaration is more than even those profound words. It is a full fledged bill of indictment against a callous government that didn't want to listen to the concerns of its citizens.

Thomas Jefferson's Declaration lays out a complete case for why the American colonies had to separate from an unfeeling government that was no longer concerned with the rule of law or the rights of a whole citizenry under that law. King George III, through his Ministers had broken faith with his American subjects. Jefferson laid out a whole series of actions he felt demanded a break for America from political union with Great Britain. Among these affronts to freedom were:

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

These are just a few of the charges that Jefferson included in his argument for American Independence. Great Britain had lost the moral and ethical right to any claim of governance over America and the free people of the colonies because of these abuses of power. Governments exist to secure the rights of the people, Jefferson wrote, and when basic rights are ignored and purposefully disregarded, then a change in governments is mandated. As the Declaration states in the preamble:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

These are the founding sentiments of the American experiment in democracy. This is the document that John Hancock signed that long ago hot July day in Philadelphia with an extra large signature so that, in his words, "fat George can read it without his spectacles." (Okay some things, like Massachusetts wit and bluntness never change.)

John Adams, the "Colossus of Independence" knew the significance of these actions. America was a small nation of under 3 million people. Great Britain was the most powerful nation on earth at that time and it was by no means certain that the colonies would prevail in their fight. Adams himself, along with all his co-signers of this impertinent document, could have been signing their own death warrants. They risked hanging for the offense of treason if the War for Independence had gone the other way. Yet Adams called for celebrations of what had happened in July in Philadelphia when he wrote to his wife Abigail about the adoption of Independence:

The Second Day of July 1776, will be the most memorable Epocha, in the History of America.

I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.

You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. -- I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. -- Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.

--  Letter from John Adams to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776, "Had a Declaration..." [electronic edition]. Adams Family Papers: An Electronic Archive. Massachusetts Historical Society. http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/

Happy 4th of July. This is indeed a glorious celebration of "We the People" and the reverence we hold for the rule of law. This last paragraph of the Declaration is what Mr. Adams found so transporting and transformative. I think most Americans would agree with him; this is what we are about as a people.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

 

In hopes of nipping any criticism in the bud, the campaign brought on board a man quite familiar with how these types of attacks gain legs: Bud Day, a fellow POW who was part of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth squad that had worked so hard to defame Sen. John Kerry's own Vietnam record.

On the conference call, Day - in addition to the other participants - decried comments made by Gen. Wesley Clark over the weekend, in which he questioned whether McCain's war experience really qualified him to be commander-in-chief. Defending McCain's service, Day was quick to personalize his remarks.

"Things were very difficult for [McCain]," he said. "He was horribly wounded in his extremities, and it was questionable if he would survive his experience. He set a high standard for himself because the Vietnamese tried to release him and he showed courage by refusing that to come about. We had an opportunity to watch a president in office, a Democrat who was extremely ineffective during those years. [McCain] learned an awful lot from that... General Clark spent a month in Vietnam, got badly wounded and was evacuated, that was his experience. I say let's hold the two of them up and compare them."

That Day would politicize Vietnam in his defense of McCain is not surprising. During the 2004 campaign, he said of Kerry: "My view is he basically will go down in history sometime as the Benedict Arnold of 1971." And after appearing in a national advertisement for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign, Day formed the Vietnam Veterans Legacy Foundation, an extension of the Swift Boat effort.

Asked to compare the attacks he helped launched against Kerry in 2004 to those being waged at McCain today, Day said the defining issue was truthfulness.

"The Swift Boat attacks were simply a revelation of the truth, the similarity does not exist here. What the Swift Boat campaign was about was to lay out John Kerry's record. John Kerry has never produced any evidence to deny that. We are producing the evidence of these attacks right now to show that those remarks were completely inaccurate."

The irony of it all is that McCain publicly deplored the Swift Boat ads back in 2004, saying they were reminiscent of the smear campaigns launched against him during his initial White House run in 2000.

"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," said the Senator.

Not willing to let the irony go unnoticed, Kerry lashed out at McCain, on Monday, for using the same smear merchant he once decried.

"Colonel Day's comments today only further highlight the McCain campaign's disregard for a new kind of politics," said Kerry. "John McCain condemned these kinds of attacks in 2004 when he called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth 'dishonest and dishonorable.' Senator McCain should condemn these remarks and cut ties with the Colonel and anyone else connected to SBVT. Day's comments only serve to disparage all those who served on swift boats in Vietnam."

 

The South Carolina primary in 2000 was a nasty affair that had some Republicans using smear tactics against fellow Republican John McCain.  Senator Kerry strongly condemned these sleazy attacks and joined with 4 other Vietnam veterans in the Senate to write a letter of support on Senator McCain's behalf.  As the online magazine Salon noted in 2000,

Then the five Vietnam veterans in the Senate -- Max Cleland, D-Ga., Bob Kerrey, D-Neb., John Kerry, D-Mass., Chuck Robb, D-Va. and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., four Democrats and a McCain supporter -- fired off a letter to Bush calling on him to "publicly disassociate" himself from the "false" allegations.

"We believe it is inappropriate to associate yourself with those who would impugn John McCain's character and so maliciously distort his record on these critical issues," the letter said.

 

It is inappropriate for Senator McCain  to associate himself with those who would impugn John Kerry's character and so maliciously distort his record on these critical issues. It was wrong in 2004 and it is wrong today.  Bud Day may not know this, but John McCain should.

Since the March 29^th election, which Tsvangirai and the Movement for Democratic Change party won, there has been an escalating debate over the possibility of fair elections. Mugabe and his ZANU-PF party have been blamed for the violence and arrests surrounding election issues- including intimidation, violence against political activists, kidnappings, and killings. Several of the opposition party’s leaders have also been arrested. While the UN, along with several African leaders, has called on Robert Mugabe to cease these violent acts and ensure a fair election, Mugabe’s party has placed blame for the violence on the opposition.

On April 30^th, the senate passed John Kerry’s resolution calling for Robert Mugabe to accept the election and step aside. It was co-sponsored by Senators Obama, Isakson, Coleman, Dodd, Clinton, Biden, Leahy, Cardin, Feingold, and Durbin.  It called on Mugabe to accept the results of the March 29^th election and begin the transition of power, and condemned Zimbabwe’s ruling party for manipulation of the political process and the use of excessive force. The full text of the resolution is available here:  http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=296753

It remains to be seen whether the June 27^th runoff election will run smoothly. Few are optimistic since the aftermath of the first election. Mugabe has even made statements that some have interpreted to mean he will hold onto power regardless of the election’s results. This is a difficult period for the people of Zimbabwe, and politics actions taken now may have a major impact on the region’s political precedent for years to come.

 --  Frederic Jennings

Fred Jennings is Senior at The George Washington University in Washington, DC.  He is majoring International Relations at the Elliott School. He also writes on international relations at his own blog at blog.simnatic.com.

###

 I remember what environmentalism meant years ago, when I bought a certificate entitling me to one acre of rainforest, thereby protecting it from deforestation or conversion into grazing land. I remember learning that through the small contributions of everyday people, we could affect the future even of something as massive as the Amazon, something as precious as the planet Earth. In those days, it seemed that the countries directly in control of the most fragile ecosystems didn’t know how to manage them properly, and that the United States needed to urge them to adopt new and greener policies. I worried that Brazil would realize too late that the “lungs of the world” were more valuable than the simple sum of their lumber and acreage.

Fast-forward fifteen years, and the picture has turned upside-down. Brazil has taken the lead in greening its economy, successfully scrapping petroleum-based fuels in favor of a cleaner, home-grown ethanol derived from sugarcane. For our part, the United States has fallen behind the international environmental movement of Kyoto and beyond. Now it seems that the rest of the world is looking to Washington to adopt greener policies and reclaim the lead in scientific and industrial innovation.

The bill currently before the United States Senate may be our next great chance to return to the forefront of the green revolution. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act proposes a sweeping cap-and-trade system designed to lower greenhouse-gas emissions gradually over the next four decades. Like most legislation, the bill is certainly imperfect: Senator Kerry, a strong environmental champion, himself admitted weaknesses he hoped to address in the coming days. But, as Senator Warner said today on the floor, “the value of this debate is to have some exchange between us.” Many in the press are already describing the bill as doomed. Yet even if it does not pass, the Senate and the nation will be better-off for having deliberated one possible solution to climate change.

If only the G.O.P. were willing to take advantage of the opportunity for discussion. Watching today’s floor debate, one can’t help but notice the picture of disarray painted by the fumbled talking points of the Republican members. Senator Inhofe indicted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as “the ones who started this,” and disparagingly referred to “that science-fiction movie” better known to the world as former Vice President Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. Senator Barrasso lambasted the bill for not containing a definitive guarantee that every Wyoming coal worker would be awarded a new job in the renewable energy industry, never mind that the bill actually does contain provisions for training green-collar workers. (I wonder whether he truly would support a piece of legislation that mandated which American citizens were to work for which companies.)

And how about when the same Senator Barrasso predicted that without the burgeoning coal industry, the entirety of rural America would be without electricity? Even a fellow Republican caught the sheer absurdity of that claim: within minutes, Senator Grassley was speaking on the floor about the fantastic wind-energy sector thriving in his rural domain of Iowa.

Senator Lieberman made the point early in the afternoon that the name of the Climate Security Act is apt because it “is not only an environmental protection bill, not only an economic growth bill: this is a national security bill.” Climate change threatens the stability of our food supply, the survival of our coastal cities, and so much more. Why does it seem like Senate Republicans are so unwilling to have a productive discussion about change?

###

It's nothing short of scandalous just how much the Department of Defense has been able to get away with during George Bush's two terms as President. Without adequate oversight, the people running the Pentagon have been able to manipulate the system and break more rules than ever before.

There's always been a revolving-door problem in Washington, where government officials turn around and go to work for the same people they're supposed to be regulating. But under the Bush administration, the problem has grown exponentially. This is especially true in the defense industry these days, thanks to its ever-increasing reliance on outside contractors to do the heavy lifting. Defense officials quit their government jobs, go to work for defense contractors, then go back to work as hired guns for the government again.

There's always been a problem with inefficiency, waste, and downright corruption in military purchasing and logistics management. But here, again, the problem has grown exponentially while George Bush has been in office. Not only have hundreds of billions of dollars been wasted during the Iraq war, where despite all the outlay there's still a persistent shortage of the right equipment in the right places at the right time, but tens of billions of dollars in cash and assets have simply disappeared. Gone missing, off the books, vanished. That's an awful lot of money that the Pentagon just can't account for.

There's always been a problem with the government trying to spin the facts and massage the message, something the Bush administration has perfected all the way across the board. This especially applies to military matters in times of war, from the deliberately inflated body counts in Vietnam to the carefully-controlled reporting from Iraq. The Pentagon has always known how to use propaganda to advance its aims. But never before has it had so many people on its payroll applying propaganda directly to its own citizens at home.

But now, finally, the official oversight system in Washington is starting to do something about it. The Government Accountability Office is now taking on the Department of Defense in several key areas of concern:

-- They're addressing the DoD Pipeline problem, in which thousands of former DoD officials have resigned in the last few years and gone right to work for the defense contractors they were originally overseeing. (In fact, GAO reports show that 65% of those thousands of officials work for just the seven largest contractors in the system.)

-- They're pushing the DoD to retool its logistics and supply-chain tracking systems to reduce waste, fraud, and mismanagement. Those systems have been hopelessly out of date for years, and are not adequate to handle the size and complexity of our current military operations.

-- They're investigating the Boeing/Northrop dispute over the Air Force's recent decision to buy a new fleet of air refueling tankers, along with a rapidly growing number of other contested contracts.

-- They're digging into the Pentagon's recently-exposed propaganda pundits program. And now so is the DoD's own inspector general's office, thanks to angry House Democrats who pushed through an amendment to the appropriations bill demanding an investigation into the government's use of paid shills to push propaganda to its own citizens.

The GAO investigations and rulings can only accomplish so much, of course. As a non-partisan Congressional investigative arm, its focus is on contracting procedures and administrative issues. It can't enact legislative reforms or alter the system of checks and balances by which our government is supposed to operate. (Only Congress can do that.) But it certainly can do a lot just by enforcing the rules and making sure the system works. And it's good to see that the General Accountability Office is finally starting to hold the Department of Defense accountable again. 

BOSTON – Senator Kerry today issued the following statement on Senator Kennedy’s illness.

“Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy family have faced adversity more times, in more instances, with more courage and more determination and more grace than any family should ever have to face even just once.

“He’s helped millions and millions of people, in so many ways, at so many different times, from countless big pieces of legislation in Washington to the most personal of issues.

“Now, everybody needs to pull together on behalf of Ted. We must pull for him and his family and remember that Teddy is one unbelievable fighter.

“Over the weekend, I saw him and he’s in a fighting mood, and I’m confident that he will continue to draw strength from his tower of strength in Vicki, from each of his children and grandchildren, and from his unbelievably loving and caring family, both in Boston and from his extended family of Americans and people all over the world.

“I know that Ted is determined to fight this because he wants to continue his fight for the people of Massachusetts and he wants to continue to fight for everything that he believes in here in the United States Senate and throughout our country.

“Teresa’s and my prayers – and the prayers of a nation – are with my good friend and his family in these most trying of times.”

###

Three years after environmental groups sued to force the Interior Department to consider protecting polar bears under the Endangered Species Act, the Bush administration today listed the species as threatened — on track to be endangered by midcentury because of shrinking summer sea ice in a warming Arctic.

But the administration shaped its decision in a way that does not force restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, even though scientists have said the building greenhouse effect is the main influence driving up global temperatures. Administration officials added that existing protections of the bear, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, were stringent and sufficient. And they also made clear that oil and gas exploration and extraction showed no evidence of harming the bears and would not be hindered by the decision.

Today’s announcement was one big step towards confronting the reality of what climate change is doing to some of the world’s most endangered creatures living in some of our most fragile ecosystems. The polar bear has become the mascot of all we could lose to climate change and it is critical that we fight to save this species even as we wage a larger battle against global warming. Between one-sixth and one-fifth of the world’s polar bears live on the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Last summer, government scientists predicted that, as a result of climate change, polar bears may disappear from the U.S. and its waters entirely by 2050 – and that estimate doesn’t even take into account potential effects from new oil and gas activities.

So the question is – where do we go next? The clock is ticking. The next step is to secure the long-term survival of the species by ensuring that the polar bear habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is protected from the threat of oil and gas drilling. Here’s where the rubber hits the road: even while the Interior Department was slowly taking steps to give these bears ESA protection, the Bush Administration opened almost 30 million acres of polar bear habitat to oil and gas exploration, a move that by their own admission threaten polar bears. Again, don’t take my word for it: MMS itself acknowledged in its Final Environmental Impact Statement on Lease Sale 193 that oil and gas development will harass and ultimately even kill polar bears. Already, massive amounts of seismic activity are being planned for this summer in both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas.

Yes, today was a victory – but it’s up to all of us and some good old fashioned activism to make sure it’s not a pyrrhic one. I will fight hard to pass legislation I introduced early earlier this year in the Senate, which would halt all exploration activity in the Beaufort and Chukcki Seas at least until we better understand the full impact of drilling on the polar bear and other imperiled species.

- Posted by Senator John Kerry

“Even if oil was flowing, it would be too small amount to reduce the price” of crude or gasoline, said Daniel Weiss, energy expert at the Center for American Progress, a think tank in Washington.

“President Bush’s claim ignores the primary causes behind record high oil prices: a cheap dollar, high demand from China and India, and speculators driving the price up. Drilling and sullying the Arctic would not address any of these causes of high oil prices,” said Weiss.

This fight is as critical as it is symbolic. Roads, pipelines, and other developments would irreversibly damage this national treasure. President Bush and pro-drilling forces cite special-interest junk science to argue that they can limit the damage by drilling in only 2,000 acres. But oil is scattered throughout the refuge, so drilling in 2,000 acres could mean 40 separate 50-acre footprints. Even they know the line they’re selling is bunk.

We can counter this by telling the truth about our energy future. We import 2.5 million barrels of oil from the politically toxic Middle East every day, and our consumption of foreign oil has risen to 55 percent. I don’t want fragile and often unfriendly regimes to hold America’s energy security in their hands, but we need to remind a country weary of conflict in the Middle East that drilling in the Arctic won’t make a dent in our oil dependence. The U.S. Geological Survey has concluded that there are only 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in ANWR. That amounts to just a six-month supply for the U.S. Irreversibly damaging a truly wild place is an unacceptable price to pay for such a small payoff.

We can’t drill our way to energy independence. We have to invent our way there, by harnessing the entrepreneurial spirit that made our country great. We can conserve energy and make our cars run farther on a gallon of gas. We can increase our investment in clean-energy products and create hundreds of thousands of jobs along the way. What we can’t do is buy into the myth that America’s energy future lies under the snow of ANWR.