Is the Cold War Alive and Well in America?

 

There’s a saying, "do as I say, not as I do." After the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco, President John F. Kennedy imposed a trade embargo with Cuba. The day before the announcement, so the story goes, JFK told his Press Secretary, Pierre Salinger, to go into town and buy as many Cuban cigars as he could find. Salinger returned to the White House with 1200 cigars!

Since 1961, USA/Cuba relations have, from time to time, been front and centre in the Cold War. For example, the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 had the world on the brink of nuclear war. For four days, the launch of missiles were expected. Relations between America and Cuba have never eased, despite the fact that America lawfully occupies Cuban territory at Guantanamo Bay. 

Shortly before Christmas this year, President Obama made the first public moves towards the restoration of normal relations with Cuba. Is this an indication that Fidel Castro is dying? Possibly, but if so, why not wait until he is dead? Is there growing sentiment in the American public that America’s Cuba policy is counter-productive? The evidence shows this argument has strong support. Is there acceptance that, even in the coldest of Cold War American communities, the Cold War is over? Looking at the Republican Party, the answer is “no.”

What happened after Obama’s decision to go public was a demonstration of raw politics, American-style. Mario Rubio, the US senator for Florida, which houses a huge Cuban ex-pat community, denounced Mr Obama as “feckless and naïve” and that the policy shift was “based on illusion and lies that commerce and access to goods would translate to political freedom for the Cuban people.” Let us not forget that Rubio is considering a bid for the presidency in 2016, as is Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, who called for “strengthening the Cuban embargo.”

Other Republican presidential hopefuls, including Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, have joined in the criticisms. Evidently, they want Cuba kept in a deep freeze. It seems they haven’t looked at the polls over the past year or so which, according to pollsters like the Brookings Institution Latin America Initiative, show public opinion moderating its hard line, even in Florida. Is this is yet another occasion where a Democrat says white, so the Republicans say black?

In 1996, Cubans shot down two civilian planes flown by an anti-Castro group. President Clinton stiffened the embargo. However, a few years later, Michael Moore took several American citizens to Cuba for medical treatment which the patients could not afford in America. Recently, Alan Gross, a US Agency for International Development contractor was released early by the Cubans from a five year prison sentence for espionage.

The point is, there are always two sides to an argument. There are bound to be concerns that an influx of US trade and ideas into Cuba could bring with it problems of crime and drugs and a return to the pre-Castro years in Havana. However, there is no documented evidence that the present Cuban government is corrupt and I suspect that it will strictly monitor the re-opening of relations. Another concern amongst Floridians is that many Cubans will seek entry into the United States. I cannot believe the American administration will ignore or fail to regulate this issue.

What will the Republicans in Congress do? I anticipate the usual knee jerk, following their leadership, to oppose any reforms. In other words, they will want to be seen as Cold Warriors. Why? The Cold War is over, although Mr Putin has shown a desire to re-start it. Maybe they should remember the words of Winston Churchill: “jaw, jaw, jaw is better than war, war, war.”

  

 

America's Shame: CIA Torture Scandal

Shame For You, America!

Since the Second World War, America has treated the rest of the world to stage shows, otherwise known as political scandals. Watergate, Irangate, Clintongate and Abu Ghraib have all filled our television screens and used a Brazilian rainforest of newsprint. Until now, we have seen some senior politicians and officials squirm when their wrongdoings were made public. Whilst the public was appalled by what was disclosed, it was individuals who were responsible.

However, the CIA torture scandal is different. Here we have one of America’s major institutions, the Central Intelligence Agency, in the firing line. So far no CIA names have been named but it surely cannot be long before the Justice Department lays evidence before a Grand Jury.

There has been much praise for the Senate Intelligence Committee and its decision to publish its findings but there has been criticism in equal measure. Senior Republicans are outraged that the disclosures might give help and comfort to the enemy and that retaliation activity will increase. Surely, none of America’s allies will break their treaties and no enemies of the US will cease their actions as a result. These Republicans protest too much. My guess is that politically they fear the buck will end with them.

Likewise, the President has been criticised for doing nothing during the past six years to disclose wrongdoings. Six years ago, he made his position clear. The administration would look forward, not back, there would be no Truth and Reconciliation Commission but there would be an end to torture by his government.

“Torture” is the right word to use, not the whitewash phrase, “enhanced questioning.” Also, “rendition” is just a spin on the word for “kidnapping.” If a private citizen of America or Great Britain committed such offences, he or she would be prosecuted and convicted. Why should any government that proclaims it is a nation of laws regard itself as immune?

I have heard arguments approving torture on the basis that the information obtained could save lives. The Senate Report made it clear beyond argument that such a defence was not feasible as there was no evidence to support the theory. I also am aware that George W Bush’s Attorney General approved a legal opinion that the “enhanced questions” methods used by the Americans did not amount to torture. Well, what if a court were to have him water-boarded? Would he change his mind?

My point is that torture and kidnapping is illegal and a criminal offence in any Western democracy. Governments are guilty of a crime if they engage in such practices. Further, the Report by the Senate is good news for any democracy being transparent and owning up to serious offences. There is an old saying, “air is the best disinfectant.”

Clearly, the blame for the offences lies within the upper echelons of the CIA. These people should face prosecution. If those who made the decisions have retired, they are no less culpable. But I am sure the guilty people are elsewhere too. If you look at the other scandals mentioned in the first paragraph, excluding Clintongate, where there were no guilty parties, you will find the perpetrators extended beyond the prime offenders.

In Watergate, senior Nixon advisers were involved before the event, including Senior Domestic Adviser John Erlichman and Attorney General John Mitchell. In Irangate, the National Security Agency Director Robert McFarlane and Oliver North of the National Security Council were caught out, as was the President Ronald Reagan.

As for the present scandal, I cannot believe the orders given by the CIA after 9/11 did not have White House approval. Let us not forget what the White House did to CIA operative Valerie Plame after her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, exposed the falsity of the claims by the Bush administration that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. By outing Plame, the lives of many in the Middle East were threatened. It was like an episode of Homeland.

The Plame affair ended with the prosecution of Scooter Libby, Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff. Libby received a jail sentence but was soon pardoned by Bush. The stink over the affair and the White House involvement leads me to wonder to what extent the Bush administration was involved in endemic use of torture and kidnap after 9/11. Evidence from previous political scandals leads me to believe the buck does not stop with the CIA. I await seeing how Obama’s Justice Department follows leads and investigates the wrongdoers. Furthermore, I am keen to see the extent to which the British government may have dirty hands.

Whatever the outcome, how will the West persuade the rest of the world that we live with freedom and justice if torture and kidnapping form part of government weaponry? I look for the day when all those involved in these outrages are brought to justice, both those who committed the offences and those who ordered them. Shame on them.

Ferguson and New York

Over the past few days, I have been asked why the President has done nothing about the Eric Garner case, where a black man was strangled to death by a white policeman, and about the racial disturbances in Ferguson, Missouri, following a police shooting of an unarmed black man. My response has been to ask what the President should do. “Lead,” is usually the initial reply. When I ask what manner the leadership should take, the most common response is “have the perpetrators, i.e. the police, prosecuted.”

Now, if the UK prime minister called for the prosecution of a named individual, not many would be concerned. The American President cannot do this. It is not within his executive remit. Prosecutions are matters for a Grand Jury, convened by the relevant justice department. I know of no reason why a president cannot ask his attorney general to investigate an alleged crime, but that’s as far as he can go, if he is not to stand accused of interfering with the justice process. Mr Obama can do other things, like appeal for calm and ask people to protest peacefully. This he has already done.

Since the inception of the United States, race has proved a huge hurdle. The African American has been treated unfairly, to put it mildly, and despite efforts to change the law through several constitutional amendments and Civil Rights Acts, not to mention the Voting Rights Act, an undercurrent of racism remains in America.

But before we in Europe indulge our finger-pointing, let us remember the Paris riots a few years ago, when French-Algerians protested about their treatment as second-class citizens. And here in England, not two years ago, Michael Duggan was shot by a policeman. There followed riots, first in Tottenham and then throughout London and other major cities in England. My point is that America does not hold a monopoly on poor race relations. And as resources become scarcer and middle classes and the poor feel the pressure, the risk of civil unrest will increase.

I am reminded of the words of Dwight Eisenhower, when he was told of the Supreme Court ruling in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. This was the case that de-segregated schools in America. “You can change the law but you can’t change people’s minds,” Ike complained.

It is high time that people’s minds were changed but this will be achieved only through education, whether in America or elsewhere in the western world.

Black Friday in the UK

Black Friday at Asda, a UK superstore owned by American store Walmart

This week, retail therapy becomes the national sport when shoppers in America extend their Thanksgiving holiday. For many years, American stores galvanize themselves for Black Friday, the busiest shopping day of the year.  Many people believe the name originates from the fact that retailers traditionally operated at a financial loss ("in the red") from January through November, and "Black Friday" indicates the point at which retailers begin to turn a profit, or "in the black". This is patent nonsense. If a retailer operated on such a basis, he, she or it would be out of business well before November.

In fact, the name “Black Friday” originated in Philadelphia, where it was used to describe the heavy and disruptive pedestrian and vehicle traffic that would occur on the day after Thanksgiving. Use of the term originated in the late 1950s and began to see broader use outside Philadelphia in the 1970s.

What has amazed me British retailers have used the expression this year to promote pre-Christmas sales. Why is it necessary for shop-owners to adopt an Americanism that most Brits wouldn’t understand? And why link the day to Thanksgiving, a holiday we don’t celebrate in UK? And why promote such a day here, when it is a working day? And why are we Brits promoting American holidays. Black Friday is not an isolated case. Take Halloween.

I have been fortunate enough to spend 31^st October in America. I shall never forget meeting a human-size frog-dressed bank teller in a Key Biscayne bank. On leaving the bank, a lady elf offered me a sweet, chanting “trick or loan.” Halloween is an American celebration. Children come to your door and recite, “trick or treat, money or eats.” If you ask for a trick, you may well find your front windows “egged.” And it can be loads of fun for all with pumpkins carved to look gruesome, lit up in many home windows, and kids dressed as devils and witches.

For reasons I don’t follow, Halloween has come to Britain. Where we live, kids turn up at the door, occasionally in fancy dress, thankfully often accompanied by an adult. They thrust forward a plastic bucket, demanding it be filled with sweets. But they usually say nothing, nothing at all. So, it is an exercise in “sweet-grabbing” and has little to do with ‘ghouls, goblins and long-leggedy beasties.’

Before you accuse me of sounding like the Grinch, I have no objection to spending money in stores and dressing kids up and having fun with them. This week in our village of Pinner, we had pantomime night, when shopkeepers dress up as pantomime figures and serve all sorts of goodies and drinks…at a price. Amusement rides, Christmas decorations and a real village atmosphere make the evening so worthwhile.

My objection is that we seem to be adopting American holidays without knowing why. Can you imagine Americans setting light to bonfires on 5^th November, after days of having kids in the neighborhood going around asking for “a penny for the guy?” Preposterous.

If Brits want to enjoy Black Friday, Lincoln’s birthday or any other American holiday, by all means do so but do it in the right place: America.

One other thing for good measure. Bah humbug!

Obama – Saint or Sinner?

Exasperated by the failure of Congress to overhaul the immigration system, last week the President issued an executive order that lifted the threat of deportation from millions of undocumented immigrants. Does the President have power to make law in this fashion?

Presidential executive orders are intended to help the executive branch manage operations within the federal government. The orders have full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the executive by the Constitution, or are made because Acts of Congress explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power. They are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.

Before the mid-term elections, the Congressional Republicans, led by House Speaker Boehner, talked about prosecuting the president for exceeding his powers through the use of executive orders. The Constitution is clear on this issue. A president is immune from prosecution unless he is charged with a criminal offence and exceeding presidential powers is not automatically criminal. Interestingly, The Washington Post reported that the Republicans were struggling to find a law firm in DC willing to accept the case. Washington has more lawyers per square mile than any other city in the world!

The proper course for the Republicans to take is challenge the executive order either through impeachment or an action through the civil courts. Congress could seek a declaration from the courts or “the last dangerous branch”, as Madison termed them, to set the executive order aside.

Impeachment is not a realistic option. After 3^rd January 2015, the Republicans will have a larger majority in the House, where bills of impeachment would pass. However, the 55–45 Senate majority is insufficient to convict Mr. Obama. A two-thirds majority is needed. Since the impeachment would be politically motivated and partisan, it will be seen by the voters as a huge waste of legislative time and money and doomed to fail, thus serving no purpose whatsoever.

However, a Republican-inspired law suit is highly probable. Obama himself must have some doubt as to the legality of his order. In his first term, he deflected approaches from the Latino community to use his executive powers to lift the threat of deportation from some eleven million people believed to be residing in America illegally. He said that passing new laws was for Congress. However, in 2012, the President shielded from deportation some 1.7 million immigrants aged 30 and younger whose parents had brought them to America.

Without any doubt, the right wing Republicans are spoiling for another battle with the President. Their hatred of Obama seems to go way beyond the partisan norm for unpopular presidents. I am tempted to suggest that the Tea Partiers and their cronies in American politics want Mr Obama gone for racist reasons.

What will the Republicans do now to undermine the Democrats? I anticipate they will flex their muscles in Congress by playing havoc with budget negotiations. Will there be another shut-down before Christmas? Maybe, except the Republicans may fund particular agencies so that, for example, the military and all its bases within USA can function. Is there any prospect of new legislation on any current problems during the two years of the 114^th Congress? Probably not. If the Republicans pass laws which are anathema to both the Democrats and the executive branch, there are insufficient votes in the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.

What should the Republicans do? With regards to immigration, there is cross-party belief that the American system is fundamentally flawed. They should work with Mr. Obama to produce revised and acceptable sets of laws. Likewise with budget and other issues, they should work with Democrats to produce something acceptable to the centre. In this fashion, the Republicans would demonstrate to the American voters that they can rise above partisan politics, resist fighting for ideals shared by only the few and raise their profiles for 2016. They need to remember that the new-found majorities in both Houses of Congress is on the back of a 31.4% voter turnout.

On a personal level, I find it odd that in America, a country founded by newcomers and built on the backs of nineteenth and twentieth century immigrants, there is so much opposition to people who, generally, are looking for a better life for themselves and their families through work and are willing to take on tasks that many Americans will not consider. Who will pick crops in the extreme heat of the California valleys? Who will do the menial tasks in hospitals and care homes? Who will do the dirty, low-paid work of America which keeps the middle classes in comfort? Economist J. K. Galbraith termed the conundrum, “the culture of contentment.” Surely, even illegal immigrants deserve the best efforts of legislators to make life fair for all.