http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/ Interviews with University of Illinois faculty and distinguished visitors on global issues. en Copyright 2008 Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:14:17 -0600 http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/ http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Dr. Derrick Frazier is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research interests focus on two areas: third party conflict management and regional security. The former involves explaining the mediation process in interstate disputes, with a special emphasis on how third parties such as states and international organizations are motivated to moderate and/or terminate militarized conflicts. The latter research area explores the dynamics of regional security. Specifically, Dr. Frazier is investigating the behavior of regional powers and their importance in understanding regional security orders. Professor Frazier teaches courses on war, conflict management, international security and American foreign policy. Here, as the primary election season heats up, he discusses the foreign policy stances of the lead candidates. Any conversation about U.S. foreign policy would have to begin with the war in Iraq. What plan do the leading candidates have for troop withdrawal? How do the candidates’ records compare to their current positions? The debate about troop withdrawal clearly splits down the aisle, with the Democrats calling for troop withdrawal while the Republicans are maintaining that securing Iraq and winning the war on terror requires a strong U.S. military presence. There are, however, some differences among each of the candidates, particularly when you look at their records on Iraq. Senator Obama did not have the opportunity to vote in Congress on the original authorization for war, although during his campaign for Senate he did speak out against it. Since his tenure in office, he has managed to maintain a consistent effort against the war, culminating with several votes for proposed legislation in 2007 that sought some degree of troop withdrawal/reduction. If elected president, we could expect that he would institute this plan, probably decreasing the number of troops to minimum levels over the course of 12 to 15 months, while pursuing aggressive diplomacy to achieve political goals both in Iraq and the region. Having originally voted for the use of force against Iraq in 2002, Senator Clinton has changed her position on the war. She now supports a phased withdrawal effort which she claims will begin within the first two months of her time in office. She has provided details of a three step plan that begins with troop reductions, moves to increasing stability through aid and follows on with strong diplomacy at the regional level. Over the last two years, Senator Clinton has consistently held the position of needing to reduce troop numbers in Iraq, supporting emergency appropriations when attached to troop withdrawal provisions. Former Senator Edwards also voted for the use of force against Iraq in 2002, a decision he has claimed to regret. Since he has been out of Congress, his record is supported by consistently strong rhetoric advocating an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq. According to his plan, the U.S. would leave between 3,000 and 5,000 troops to protect the U.S. embassy and humanitarian workers. For the Republicans, Senator McCain's position stands in stark contrast to the Democrats. He believes that any withdrawal would be devastating to both U.S. and Iraqi interests, strengthening the power of Al Qaeda in the region. In fact, McCain has consistently argued that there are not enough troops in Iraq to accomplish the goals set forth by the Bush administration. He has consistently voted against any timetables or phased withdrawals proposed by the Democrats. Former Governor Mitt Romney supported President Bush and the Congress in the decision to invade Iraq. He is opposed to withdrawal, claiming this would lead to large scale civil war and regional instability. He has continuously supported the President's position on Iraq. Additionally, he wants to increase the size of the military by 100,000 which might imply he has little intention of leaving Iraq anytime soon. Put in clearer perspective, however, both Senators McCain and Obama also have plans to enlarge the size of the military by similar numbers. Former Governor Huckabee’s plans are very similar to Romney’s. He is opposed to a troop withdrawal for similar reasons and supports the surge approach. Additionally, he has made a call for regional cooperation in the struggle for Iraqi stability. People should keep in mind that all of the leading candidates are unlikely to completely remove the troops from Iraq in the short term, since that would pose serious security risks to both the Iraqi government and U.S. personnel in the country. There will most likely remain enough troops to continue the training of the Iraqi military and fighting of insurgents for the foreseeable future. Unrest on the African continent has been a common theme for many years, from Rwanda to Sudan, and recently Kenya. Have any of the major candidates formulated a policy for assisting the citizens of these countries against tyranny, oppression, even genocide? The belief in democratization and economic development as the way to move forward in Africa and eliminate the internal struggles (political, ethnic, etc…) is something that resonates deeply with all the candidates. Unfortunately during the election campaign season, these types of concerns are not as paramount to attracting voters who are, for many good reasons, focused on other issues. Thus somewhat expectedly, the leading candidates from both parties have not spent much energy on laying out concrete plans dealing with the types of problems that exist throughout the continent. To the extent that these problems are discussed, they are talked about in generalities. In other words one will often hear phrases like "the U.S. must support efforts at democratization in order to ensure peace and stability…" or "as President I will pressure those governments who deny their people freedom…" and so on. While undoubtedly genuine, such comments lack any real acknowledgement of the problems faced in many parts of Africa. An overall comparison of the Republicans and Democrats does suggest two sets of motivations in the candidates’ discussions of Africa. For the Republicans, most concerns center on instability in areas such as the Horn of Africa, specifically instability that might lead to terrorist groups establishing training bases and/or safe havens. Thus, most Republican plans will be consistent with their plans dealing with terrorism. This means increased economic aid to vulnerable areas, in addition to increased military assistance to foreign governments facing these threats. Romney, for example, has proposed a program in which small groups of U.S. Army Special Forces work with local governments to prepare strategies against terrorists and insurgents. Huckabee supports current efforts of the U.S. Special Operations Command in such areas like Somalia where similar types of cooperation have been undertaken with the government of Ethiopia and moderates inside Somalia. While the Democrats also seem to be concerned about instability and potential safe havens, most of their focus has been on human rights and development. Senator Clinton, for example, has prepared a plan for U.S assistance in Darfur and has attempted to influence President Bush in this regard. Given that HIV/AIDS transmission is a vital issue in parts of Africa as well, it should be pointed out that Clinton has proposed plans to reduce HIV transmission both in Africa and the U.S. She also has paid particular attention to implementing a rather aggressive anti-malaria program in the region. Former Senator Edwards has presented plans to deal with child poverty on a global level as well as plans for ending the conflicts in Darfur and Uganda. Throughout his campaign he has voiced his concerns with the inability of the U.S. to make headway in these areas. Obama’s comments and plans reflect those of his fellow candidates. Of particular note is his plan to double foreign aid directed toward promoting the development of infrastructure, democracy, education and public health, much of which would be directed toward Africa. Specifically, this would amount to about $50 billion dollars over the next four or five years. President George W. Bush has outlined an “Axis of Evil” during his time as president, which includes North Korea and Iran. On the other hand, Pakistan remains an ally in the “War on Terror”, despite essentially being led by a dictatorship. Do you see any of the candidates altering the U.S. position on any of these nations’ governments? Have any articulated a stance on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? It seems pretty clear that the leading Republican candidates will continue in large degree the current policies of the Bush administration vis-à-vis these particular governments. All of the leading candidates, however, have argued for putting more pressure on President Musharraf with respect to fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban along the border, although the details of what they would do have been less clear. The Democrats have all expressed a greater willingness to engage in diplomacy with these states over security issues and to put more pressure on Pakistan to democratize. In terms of non-proliferation, the Republicans have emphasized different dimensions. Romney's non-proliferation concerns have strongly focused on nuclear terrorism and Iran in particular. His plan for dealing with Iran is to increase economic sanctions and further isolate Iran. Of course, he has made it clear that military options remain on the table. Finally, he has also suggested creating an ambassador-level position to address/prevent nuclear terrorism. McCain is a staunch supporter of ballistic missile defense (BMD) as a way to deal with the “Axis of Evil” and other rogue states. This is in spite of many who would argue that support of such a program limits the effectiveness of the NPT and increases the desire of rogue states to acquire WMD. McCain’s position, however, is that this would help supplement an NPT that appears to be weakening anyway. Mike Huckabee has not articulated very much of his position on non-proliferation. If one takes a look at his website, he actually seems more concerned about Fidel Castro than events in Iran and North Korea. While Huckabee's position is not as specified as the other two Republicans, an educated guess suggests it would involve support for ballistic missile defense and strengthening our efforts against potential nuclear terrorism. As it pertains to the Democrats, Obama appears committed to strengthening the NPT, hoping to reduce U.S. arsenals as part of the effort to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. His key to strengthening the NPT appears to be in enforcing international sanctions although he has not laid out a clear plan in which that would happen. Clinton also has argued for reducing both U.S and Russian arsenals to set an example for non-proliferation efforts. Obama, Clinton and Edwards have pledged to seek approval for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to end nuclear testing. Both Obama and Clinton have also mentioned developing an international nuclear fuel bank to reduce proliferation. All of the candidates are committed to more funding and efforts at limiting access to nuclear materials in an effort to reduce the possibility of nuclear terrorism. Readers should also remember that all the candidates will need to further address nuclear energy as well, as it is the likely source for increased energy needs both in the U.S. and abroad. Increased use, however, also means additional security concerns. The Republican candidates all support nuclear energy development. The Democratic candidates have been less clear about promoting nuclear energy thus far, at least in terms of public debate. Oil prices are apparently set on a path to break records, with help from OPEC and leaders like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. What are the major candidates planning to do to address the world market for oil, and how do they plan to handle the emerging economies in India and China and their growing need for energy? None of the candidates have strongly distinguished themselves from their party opponents, with McCain among the Republicans as the possible exception. For both parties' candidates, the focus isn't so much on how to handle the emerging economies; it's been on how to handle the U.S. economy. As such, they have all discussed plans for energy independence. Mike Huckabee has been bold enough to suggest we will be energy independent by his second term in office (optimistic on two fronts to be sure). Thus, it seems safe to state that both parties and politicians in general are realizing the key to the energy problems we face lies mostly within. They all support government investments in new energy technologies such as clean coal and bio-fuels. Additionally, all of the candidates view the energy problem as a national security one, particularly given U.S. vulnerabilities in needing oil from the Middle East. As the Republicans have suggested, it seems nonsensical to fight a war on terror while at the same time providing the cash to “fuel” the enemy’s efforts (via petrodollars from sympathetic governments). The leading Republicans also support energy development alternatives to include nuclear power development and drilling for oil both offshore and in places like Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. In contrast, the Democrats have focused on energy efficiency as one way to offset the need for production. Another difference from the Republicans (except McCain) exists in the Democrats desire to eliminate government subsidies to oil companies. The Republicans would argue that these subsidies ensure continuous research and development by oil companies that might not otherwise do so. As we see on television nowadays, the oil companies certainly want to convey that message. The energy concerns as they do relate to growing powers like India and China involve the impacts on the environment. Limiting greenhouse gas emissions has become an important issue this campaign cycle. Again, how to do this tends to break along party lines more than within them. The Democrats believe the U.S. needs to demonstrate leadership regarding greenhouse gases by implementing such programs as cap and trade which would allow countries to buy emission allotments from others. This would follow signing global treaties like the Kyoto Protocol. Obama has planned a multilateral forum by the largest emitters to address the issue as a global problem. The Republicans seem willing to engage in the debate on emissions but are more concerned with the unfair advantages that might be given to China or India if the U.S. pays for its reduction of emissions through stricter standards while they do not. This has been and will be one of the largest concerns by the Republicans in signing multilateral treaties on emissions as it potentially represents a threat to the U.S. industrial economic base. McCain, however, does support a cap and trade program as part of a larger energy strategy which reduces the U.S. reliance on oil. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2008/01/illinois_professor_derrick_fra_1.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2008/01/illinois_professor_derrick_fra_1.html Wed, 23 Jan 2008 14:14:17 -0600 Dr. Adrian Burgos Jr. is an associate professor of history at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He specializes in U.S. Latino history, African American Studies, sport history, and urban history. His book, “Playing America’s Game: Baseball, Latinos, and the Color Line,” was released in June. In it, he addresses the story of Latin baseball players who negotiated the color line at every turn–passing as "Spanish" in the major leagues or seeking respect and acceptance in the Negro leagues. Here he answers questions about the issue of race in baseball’s past, present and future. The plight of African-American ballplayers in the Negro Leagues has drawn much more attention over the last decade than before, at least partially because of Major League Baseball’s recognition of Jackie Robinson’s contributions. Why do you think Latin ballplayers have not drawn as much note for what they have given the game? Latino contributions to the game have often been overlooked for a couple of reasons. Many who have studied baseball history have failed to place it in an international context, not understanding the impact of the spread of the game into Latin America and the flow of Latino talent into the Negro Leagues and organized baseball that dates back to the 1900s. Just as significant, the narrow approach fails to appreciate how the action that took place in Latin American leagues and the choices of individual black players (U.S. and foreign-born) extended the battle against Jim Crow segregation beyond U.S. territorial borders. Another reason is that many historians and journalists who chronicled the game’s history lacked the language skills to speak to the Latino players or consult Spanish-language sources to produce a full accounting that includes Latino voices. And this story extends beyond the playing field; this is best seen in the story of Alex Pompez. A U.S.-born Latino, bilingual-speaker, Pompez was a Negro League owner and, after integration, the director of international scouting for the New York/San Francisco Giants. Pompez was a central figure in the internationalization of Black baseball who later opened the Dominican talent pipeline to the majors leagues. His contribution comes most sharply into focus when we examine baseball in the Americas as a transnational circuit in much the same way that Pompez and other Latinos and Negro Leaguers approached professional baseball in that era. Through the early years of MLB, a number of different races participated as players, including Native Americans like Charles “Chief” Bender and Zack Wheat, Italian-Americans like the DiMaggios, and light-skinned Latinos like Dolf Luque. It would therefore seem like a pretty small jump to allow dark-skinned Latinos and African-Americans to play. Why did it take until 1947 for everyone to be allowed a chance in the Major leagues? Who are some of the best Latin players who never received a chance? The story of the incorporation of players from the Spanish-speaking Americas into U.S. professional baseball challenges the overly simplistic treatment of the color line that has permeated much of baseball history. Most chroniclers contend that all who were allowed into the Majors were simply “white”. Close examination of the treatment of the Latino players allowed to perform in the Majors prior to the dismantling of baseball’s racial barrier reveals that they were not necessarily received as fellow whites but as not black. This is what John T. “Chief” Meyers, Louis Sockalexis, and Bender, among other American Indian players knew all too well; these players were received as men who occupied the “red” locations along baseball’s color line, not black but not white either. Indeed, the central purpose of the color line was the exclusion of blacks and not all players of color. The inclusion of darker-skinned Latinos or African-Americans involved the dismantling of the color line and therefore a significant policy shift. There was an economic angle and benefit to maintaining the color line for the Major Leagues. Cubans, Mexicans, and other foreign-born Latinos were acquired by the Washington Senators, Boston Braves, and Cincinnati Reds and other Major League teams as a cheap alternative to U.S.-born talent. And the Latinos allowed to perform in the Majors were constantly reminded of this difference. The color line system the Major Leagues had in place ensured that the majority of Latino talent that came north performed in the Negro Leagues. The elite of this group that never received a chance to perform in the Majors include the amazingly versatile Martin Dihigo (inducted into the Hall of Fame in the United States, Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico), pitcher José Méndez, who once strung together a scoreless streak of 25 innings against barnstorming Major Leaguers in Cuba, and the powerful hitter Cristobal Torriente, one of the Negro Leagues’ most feared batters. There were dozens of other Latinos who were big league caliber that performed in the Negro Leagues; evidence can be drawn from the number of elite Latino players such as Minnie Minoso, Orlando Cepeda, and Juan Marichal, who performed as part of the generation of integration pioneers in the 1950s. These men did not develop out of the ether; they were the product of ball-playing cultures in the Caribbean and of professional teams that began touring the United States in the 1900s. David Price, the number one selection in MLB’s 2007 amateur draft, signed a contract for a reported $8.5 million. A 16-year-old Venezuelan pitcher, however, may sign a free agent contract with a team for a small fraction of that. Do you think players from foreign countries should be included in the draft, and thus subject to the draft rules? Or is the free agent path the most fair for these players, who come largely from Latin America? The two-track system for incorporating foreign-born Latinos is part of the legacy of organized baseball’s approach to Latin America as an unfettered market. This created both opportunity and, at times, chaos as organizations signed players on the cheap and made little effort to manage diversity. Joe Cambria and the Washington Senators exploited this system the most prior to baseball integration. Starting in the mid-1930s, Cambria signed Cuban players by the dozens with little more than a promise of a try-out and a one-way ticket to the States. When other organizations began to compete for Cuban prospects by offering higher signing bonuses, Cambria complained that these offers (substantially less than what U.S.-born players were receiving) were spoiling the Cubans. The Senators organization did little to prepare Latino players for what they would encounter in terms of the different cultural or racial practices in the States. The organization also lacked an institutional approach to managing diversity, lacking a single person on its managerial staff that spoke Spanish (including Cambria) and also failing to move any of its farm teams out of the segregated south to ease the transition. It would not be until the New York Giants named Alex Pompez as its international scouting director in the late 1950s that a Major League organization had in place a bilingual representative capable of managing the unique challenges involved in incorporating foreign-born Latinos. The precedent established by the Senators’ approach illustrates that fairness did not drive organized baseball’s Latin American policy of signing Cuban and other Latino players. Dick Balderson, formerly a front office official for the Colorado Rockies, aptly called the approach long embraced by many Major League organizations as a “boatload mentality.” Teams offered signing bonuses that enabled them to sign Dominican and/or Venezuelan prospects by the “boatload” in the hope that one becomes the next Sammy Sosa, Pedro Martinez, or Omar Vizquel. In so doing, organizations can come out well ahead in the financial ledger compared with what signing bonuses they pay to first-round draft picks. Moreover, the lack of regulation in this open market resulted in those who needed the most protection of Major League Rules for contracts and signings to become the most susceptible, teenaged Dominican and Venezuelan prospects. Many viewed violations of Major League rules by unscrupulous talent developers, scouts, agents, or team officials as normal business practice in Latin America. Practices such as team scouts tampering with signed contracts or keeping significant portions of a prospect’s signing bonus for themselves came under increasing scrutiny in the early 2000s. The opening of an office of the Major League Commissioner in the Dominican Republic has resulted in closer supervision of scouting and signing practices and thereby introduced a level of fairness previously unforeseen. As a result, competition in conjunction with regulation has increased the signing bonuses enjoyed by these prospects, although they still pale in comparison with what U.S.-born prospects receive as selections in the amateur draft. Detroit Tigers’ outfielder Gary Sheffield made comments recently about why the number of African-American players has declined while the number of Latin players has ballooned, saying that Latin players are “easier to control” than African-Americans. What is your take on his comments? Sheffield is partly right, but his reasoning is flawed. Major League organizations do prefer to sign foreign-born Latinos over African Americans. But this has much more to do with U.S. citizenship (and lack thereof among Dominican and Venezuelan nationals) along with economics than it does with a masculine culture about respect among African American players where they refuse to be “controlled” or a submissive culture among Latinos wherein they are easier to control. African American players are able to assert their rights as U.S. citizens not to be exploited as laborers whereas foreign-born nationals have to go through the immigration visa application process and are subject to different pressures. What is also lost in the controversy over Sheffield’s comments is the long history of this preference of Latino players over African Americans in the Major Leagues. This preference was part of what made the color line work for Major League officials until 1947: Major League teams dipped into the Latin American talent pool rather than signing talented African Americans and thus acquired cheap labor while maintaining a segregated system. In so doing they established the practice of procuring Latino talent as an alternative labor source to U.S. talent. Economics remains a significant factor today in the preference for Latino labor at professional baseball’s entry level. This preference operates at the levels of player procurement and development, for once a player makes it to the Majors he will be properly compensated for his ability and performance. The different entry points for Latinos and the U.S.-born into baseball’s development system is established through the rules that Major League Baseball sets for itself. These rules define a 16-year old born in Latin America (with the exception of Puerto Ricans, who are U.S. citizens) as eligible to be signed as an amateur free agent while U.S.-born individuals and Canadians are eligible to be selected in the amateur draft once they are age 18 or their high school class has graduated. As individuals eligible for the draft, they are better positioned to have their rights protected along with receiving higher signing bonuses. This two-track system of talent procurement ensures that Dominicans, Venezuelans, and most other foreign-born Latinos are signed at a much younger age and for far less money than North Americans. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/11/illinois_associate_professor_t.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/11/illinois_associate_professor_t.html Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:30:48 -0600 Dinshaw Mistry is an associate professor of political science and director of Asian studies at the University of Cincinnati, specializing in international relations, security studies, technology and politics, and Asian security. He spoke recently at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he received his Ph.D., about the U.S.-India Nuclear Agreement. The pact forms a strategic partnership with India and allows that country to continue to build its nuclear power program. Here, as Illinois gets set to host “India Sixty: The Critical Questions”, a commemorative symposium that ponders the future of India and its relationship with the U.S., Mistry gives his opinion on what implications the nuclear agreement will have for both the United States and India. Thirty years ago, the United States and India were anything but allies. Now the U.S. is willing to allow India to obtain and foster a nuclear program. What brought about this change in their relationship, and what specific benefits are there for each, both immediate and in the long-term? The improvement in U.S.-India relations was brought about by shifts at three levels: international, domestic, and national leadership. Internationally, the world system changed with the collapse of the former Soviet Union, and India’s political system sought to then align closer with the United States. Domestically, India’s political system rejected older socialist economic models, and opted for models based on free markets, trade, and foreign investment which made India more appealing to the U.S. At the leadership level, the leaders of both countries have been personally interested in advancing ties between the two countries. The long term benefits of a stronger U.S.-India relationship are both political and economic. Politically, both countries would coordinate more closely in world affairs and in areas of mutual interest to each country. One could see greater coordination on, for example, items at the United Nations Security Souncil, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and Asian regional security organizations. Economically, both countries gain from trade and investment. For example, a growing Indian economy requires hundreds of billions of dollars in investment in critical areas such as power, transportation, finance, banking, etc, and this will provide opportunities for U.S. firms. India has had a long and often contentious relationship with its neighbors, Pakistan and China. How do those countries perceive this agreement, and what impact will it have on those countries nuclear programs and their relationships with India and the United States? A stronger U.S.-India partnership may proceed alongside a continuing U.S.-Pakistan partnership. Pakistan still receives a few billion dollars of U.S. aid annually. Strong U.S. relations with Egypt and Israel, and with Turkey and Greece, illustrate that Washington can in fact maintain good ties with pairs of states having contentious relationships with each other. Clearly, allowing a nation to expand its fledgling nuclear program comes with some inherent risk. What proliferation concerns are there, and what direction do you feel this agreement is going to take India’s nuclear weapons program? The civilian U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement does not directly affect India’s nuclear weapons program. India will advance or restrain its nuclear weapons program independent of the civilian agreement. However, the civilian agreement can make India’s government more cautious about undermining global norms such as those against nuclear testing. Countries like North Korea and Iran are infamous for continuing to pursue nuclear technology. What does this agreement say to them, and do you think this will force them to reconsider their policies and cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors? The U.S.-India civil nuclear agreement essentially grants India access to civilian nuclear technology after about thirty years of denial of such technology and the denial was primarily because of India’s nuclear weapons program. Thus, the civilian nuclear agreement can send a strong message to countries seeking nuclear weapons that those countries would be denied civilian nuclear technology, for a long period of some thirty years, if they develop nuclear weapons. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/10/dinshaw_mistry_explains_indiau_1.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/10/dinshaw_mistry_explains_indiau_1.html Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:42:43 -0600 Tom Ginsburg is professor of law and political science as well as director of the program in Asian law, politics and society at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He has worked in several Asian countries on legal and constitutional reform issues and has lectured on constitutionalism in Myanmar, recognized by the U.S. government as Burma. Here he gives his thoughts on the current unrest in Myanmar and the problems that the nation has faced in the past and will face in the future. Myanmar has been lead by military rule since 1962. How has the Burmese government evolved over the last 45 years, and how has it been able to maintain power despite the people’s democratic election in 1990? The military deposed the democratically elected government in 1962, and General Ne Win initiated a program known as the “Burmese Way of Socialism” that began to impoverish the country, despite its abundant natural resources. There were numerous student uprisings during this period, the most dramatic of which came in 1988. That led to a military coup against Ne Win, and the current junta took power. Strangely, they made the mistake of calling for elections, but when they lost them to a civilian political party, the National League for Democracy, they refused to honor the election and jailed the popular leader Aung San Suu Kyi. She remains under house arrest. Since that time, the military has been able to maintain power through brutal repression, jailing many people who dare to speak out. Indeed, when I was there last year, nearly everyone I met had been in jail or otherwise suffered under the regime. The regime has also engaged in brutal campaigns against tribal people in resource-rich hill areas, which has given the military resources to maintain power. Some of these campaigns are genocidal in scale. The regime is xenophobic and highly nationalistic. Many of those leading the protest of the military junta currently in power are Buddhist monks, and the demonstrators as a whole have been voicing their disapproval peacefully. How do you think their role and the violence against them will affect the pressure on the dictatorship to hand over power to the democratically-elected government? Do you foresee a situation similar to India’s civil disobedience under British rule? The monks maintain a special role in Burmese society as the guardians of Buddhism. No doubt the reason the regime took so long to crush the current protests was that they did not want to be seen harming monks, but they did so anyway. It certainly cuts into their legitimacy, but that does not seem to be necessary for their continued rule. The parallel is not Ghandhian civil disobedience, but the Burmese resistance against the British, in which monks played a major role. Indeed, in some cases monks used violence to resist colonial rule. Protests in 1988 were violently repressed by the Burmese military, killing over 3000 people, but they paved the way for democratic elections two years later. Can the current uprising finally bring about change, or is the current regime too powerful and entrenched to be forced to give up power? I am not at all optimistic. The military seems to be willing to use force against its own people. Typically the only way that protests can succeed is if more or less everyone engages in them, and the courageous protests we have seen, of up to 100,000 people, are not enough. President Bush has announced increased economic sanctions against the Burmese What if any affect do you see these sanctions having? And with numerous reported human rights abuses, how can U.N. members like China and Russia continue to support the regime? Sanctions only work if they are multilateral and have the support of the target country’s neighbors. China remains the key diplomatic patron which will block further sanctions and undermine those that are in place. Most of the neighbors think that we ought to get rid of the sanctions. Thus, it is unlikely sanctions can be effective. At the same time, the sanctions do give moral support to many in Myanmar, even if they do hurt the economy. A new development is “smart sanctions” which target the regime’s leaders personally. These may have more of an effect, but with China as an alternative place for leaders to hide their money and obtain benefits, we simply lack the leverage to guarantee these will work. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/10/professor_tom_ginsburg_discuss_1.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/10/professor_tom_ginsburg_discuss_1.html Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:00:01 -0600 Dr. Clifford Singer is a professor of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is co-author of “Probability Distributions for Carbon Emissions and Atmospheric Response: Results and Methods,” a report with a unique tilt on the omnipresent issue of global warming which asks the question “How likely is very catastrophic global warming?”. Here he gives an idea of what the research he has conducted may predict for the future. You’ve utilized more of a political global warming model than a purely scientific one. How does your research vary from a purely scientific model and what effect does this have on your conclusions in comparison to most research on global warming? This question implicitly defines physical science (in this case climatology) as “scientific” and social science (in this case economics) as not (purely) “scientific.” Both the studies my colleagues and I did and the (bio)physical climatology studies reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) make enormously simplified assumptions about complex systems (including biological components in both cases) and then do rigorous quantitative analysis to come up with projected probability distributions for outcomes. Both of these are different from analyses of simpler physical systems based on basic physics principles and from the qualitative studies often done by political scientists. (Political scientists also do quantitative studies, but less commonly use them for projections of future behavior.) The distinction here is the relative emphasis on human behavior as a component of the systems under study. Humans have a role in both econometrics and physical climatology. They are carbon emitters in econometric studies, and are part of the biological system that determines rates of carbon fixation (conversion of carbon dioxide into organic compounds by plant life), such as through agriculture and forest management, when studying the physical climatology response to assumed carbon emissions scenarios. The contributors to the IPCC reports included a large complement of physical scientists (though economists are also included) and seem to be more comfortable with quantifying uncertainty in the climate response to carbon emissions than in quantifying the uncertainty in the emissions themselves. It is not that our conclusions were in any way inconsistent with the content of the IPCC report, but rather we were focusing primarily on quantifying the uncertainties in the carbon emissions and thus to a large extent asking (and answering) a different question than focused on in the fourth (and most recent) IPCC report. There is discussion within the IPCC on what to do about this, which may or may not be evident in the fifth IPCC assessment (if there is a fifth assessment). According to your models, the worst-case scenarios (average temperature increases of 7-9 degrees Farenheit) proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are unlikely. However, you believe global warming is still very likely to be serious. Considering current trends and conditions, what kind of changes can we reasonably expect on Earth over the next 100 years? Based on the IPCC Forth Assessment Report, for the carbon emissions scenarios identified as most likely within the context of the assumptions used in our study, the following effects are likely a) Longer temperate growing seasons (e.g. the U.S. and Europe) b) More droughts in parts of Africa and South America c) Probably more tropical storm damage d) Unprecedented rapid ecological change e) Ice cap melting and major sea level rise, gradually over the current millennium Ice cap melting may be avoidable by a global scale effort, specifically biological carbon sequestration (capturing carbon emissions) after this century, even if the emissions projected for this century come to pass. I have not looked for literature on this. You suggest that temperature change will affect us differently than other parts of the world. Where do you see global warming having the greatest impact, and what economic impacts do you see as likely over the next century in those regions? In general, climate change is most serious for people and countries with the lowest per capita incomes. There is particular concern about deleterious affects on agriculture in marginal rainfall areas in Africa and tropical storm impact on developing countries like Bangladesh. Populations for species other than humans are also likely to be drastically affected. Global warming is generally considered to be caused by the trapping of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. What recommendations would you make to governments around the world to reduce carbon emissions and decrease carbon levels in the atmosphere? From the point of view of effects on human populations, the most cost effective approach is probably to pay serious attention to implementing the goals of the Millennium Challenge, which aims to break the poverty cycle for over a billion people currently living at subsistence level. Proponents think that properly applied (and this is the hard part even if the money can be raised), an expenditure of about $1,000 per capita spread over 10 years could be sufficient. (At this level, the total for a billion people would be less than the estimated cost to the United States alone of the current war in Iraq.) A more orderly process for dealing with cross-border migration would also help, since some areas of the world will be more productive and others less in this century as a result of climate change, if it proceeds according to results from the assumptions we have made. There is a lot of potential for increased efficiency of energy and carbon use, particularly in the United States and Canada. Taking a long term view, this is especially the case for new construction, particularly residential but commercial construction also.. Getting this to happen is not easy, as it requires coordination between national and regional governments and the private sector, particularly at the local planning level. Both the amount of energy and carbon used in the transportation sector will be reduced substantially if import tariffs are used to keep the cost of imported oil up at a high and predictable level. (Other approaches to limiting carbon emissions from transportation are likely to be less effective.) Reducing the mileage that people drive in the United States is also potentially important. One potentially important but politically difficult response is to provide enough K-14 education funding through sources other than local property and sales taxes to allow high quality education to be available near where people work, in order to help reduce the incentive to spend lots of time and energy commuting. For developed countries to continue to substantially decrease their energy and carbon use is necessary but not sufficient for stabilizing atmospheric carbon concentrations in the 21st century. Providing developing countries like China, India, and Indonesia adequate incentives to limit their carbon emissions without affecting their growth could require the direct or indirect transfer of another trillion dollars or more from the industrialized countries that caused much of the problem in the first place. Even if such transfers could be negotiated, they would only provide a net benefit to the most severely affected human populations if they add to rather than displace the more urgent response to the Millennium Challenge. Doing it in a way that is effective in reducing carbon emissions by developing countries would not be easy, even if the will to do so evolved in the developing countries. The same is true for migration and the Millennium Challenge. The hard part is not making recommendations, but figuring out how to get some of them implemented in practice. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/09/cliff_singer_on_the_likelihood.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/09/cliff_singer_on_the_likelihood.html Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:16:13 -0600 Dan Cook, professor in advertising and in the Institute of Communications Research, studies marketing aimed at children. He is the author of The Commodification of Childhood (Duke University Press, 2004). Here, he discusses some of the subtle issues surrounding the sometimes controversial Bratz dolls, a product line born in California but popular all over the world with pre-teen, or “tween” girls. Bratz dolls, popular from Brazil to Israel and with reported worldwide sales in 2005 at $2 billion, are an international phenomenon. What are they and what makes them unique? Bratz dolls, which came out in 2001, were manufactured to be positioned as a counterpoint to Mattel’s Barbie doll. Their body proportions are said by many observers to be “more realistic” than Barbie could ever be—measured out as approximately 5’6” as opposed to the 6’2”. Their skin, hair, and eye color tend to be dark, as opposed to their blonde, blue-eyed, blanche-white counterpart. Their clothing is not directly tied to social occasions like proms or weddings, nor is it occupational dress. Instead, they are styled in the contemporary mode for young girls—tending toward tight, revealing midriff tops and skirts. Bratz wear “heavy” (according to some) makeup and big jewelry (“bling,” according to some). One area where Barbie may be more realistic than Bratz is in facial features: Bratz’s full lips and large eyes have been described as “cartoonish.” Ethnically indeterminate but sexualized through make-up and costume, Bratz have been described as looking like “party girls” and “pole dancers on their way to work.” Your research in this realm has suggested that the “Tween” marketing category “tends to produce and reproduce a 'female consuming subject' who has generally been presumed to be white, middle or upper middle class and heterosexual.” Does the worldwide popularity of Bratz suggest that this paradigm is shifting? Observers seem fond of proclaiming that Bratz are “sexualized,” and a good many have no problem calling them sluts, tarts, or prostitutes—as if the sexual life of these pieces of molded plastic was any of their business. The moral tirade against Bratz registers anxieties about white, middle-class (even suburban) girlhood felt to be under siege from the growing presence of “darker” female images and types in the form of Latina, African-American, and other girls of "color.” Bratz are thus understood to be “urban,” although they can “live" anywhere—as “urban” is code in the U.S. context for non-white and dangerous. Barbie, who was villianized for decades, now stands for some parents as a desirable (or at least comparatively preferable) female image and model. Unsurprisingly, this new valorization is occurring just when the appeal of the Mattel franchise is on the wane—seen as “uncool” and as “mom’s doll” by many of today’s tweens and teens, who relegate the icon to their under eight sisters. Outright claims about the dirty sexuality of the dolls and their implied influence on anyone who plays with them relies on a kind of “material determinism”—i.e., the notion that objects have essential properties which exert clear and measurable influence over behavior. Yet, many a feminist played with Barbie in her youth and many a pacifist had toy guns and a GI Joe. A good deal of the clothing and style of young tween girls (reflected in the Bratz outfits and styles) appear “sexy” to adult observers. But to preteen girls, Bratz’s style represents autonomy, coolness, and, sometimes, fun. Many of these girls would find it sick that someone thought that the dolls were sexy or that they were trying to be sexy by sporting a similar style. Girls this age seek maturity and independence and, when these cannot be obtained in any substantial way, they seek it out stylistically. The problem and concern here is that maturity has come to be located on girls’ bodies rather than, say, in their actions or knowledge. The dolls in this way represent an aspirational identity for their owners. Bratz is not just a doll—it is an enormous integrated marketing strategy that includes ancillary Bratz videos, books, and Web sites (themselves vehicles for more advertising), as well as other lines of dolls and products from Gameboy to stationery. Can you suggest some reasons for MGA Entertainment’s huge international marketing success? Bratz’ global success in large part rests on the openness of their meaning and use. The indeterminate ethnicity of their skin color and features has allowed them to be incorporated into any number of non-white identities. Many young mothers today do not see the styles as necessarily sexualized, inappropriate, or specifically American—but understand them to be gesturing toward a more global tween image. On the other hand, Barbie is, as cultural analysts say, “overdetermined” or “over-coded”—its meaning hemmed in by decades of use and representation. Barbie has baggage (a lot of it) including being “American.” In part, global success here is about shirking a decidedly stereotypical American image. One would think that parents in nearly every culture would be uncomfortable with their preteen daughters playing at being “sassy”—the toy industry’s euphemism for sexy. But Bratz's worldwide popularity suggests that their marketing has successfully ignored universal parental discomfort and promotes these images of femaleness with great success. Do you see a qualitative difference between the “aspirational” maturity for ‘tweens” suggested by these dolls and their marketing promotion and that of previous generations that you chronicled in your article, with Susan Kaiser,"Betwixt and be Tween: Age Ambiguity and the Sexualization of the Female Consuming Subject" in the Journal of Consumer Culture ? Many young mothers today do not see the styles as necessarily sexualized, inappropriate or, for that matter, specifically American--but understand them to be gesturing toward emulating a generalized tween girl image found in many films, television shows, and magazines. I see it as a convergence toward a global tween silhouette--not completely shared across the board, of course, but nontheless recognizable as a general mode. Most of the concern expressed about Bratz dolls deflects discussion and analysis away from the larger contexts of children’s commercial lives. From the crib onward, children in the U.S. and other wealthy nations can move through the early years of life having each “phase” accompanied by media characters—from Baby Einstein to Teletubbies to Blues Clues to Dora the Explorer to the Disney princesses. Current criticism against Bratz dolls--in addition to the ethnic and class overtones--pits one commodity against another, rather than questioning the entire trajectory and system whereby childhood and adulthood find significant social expression and meaning through brands and media images. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/05/dan_cook_looks_at_the_bratz_do.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/05/dan_cook_looks_at_the_bratz_do.html Wed, 16 May 2007 16:57:24 -0600 Ambassador Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat has had a distinguished career in the Indonesian Foreign Service. He has been with the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia since 1981 and has served as Secretary General of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Ambassador to Australia and Vanuatu, and in posts in Geneva and New York. What do you consider Indonesia’s primary foreign policy challenges? We need to elevate our country’s stature globally. With a population of 234 million, we are the 3rd largest democracy in the world, but our movement from an authoritarian regime to a democratic one hasn’t been widely recognized. Because we also subscribe to the theory that, among democracies, there will be no war, we wish this to be widely understood, because the well-being of our population depends upon it. One way to raise our profile, we believe, is through economic growth and economic success. What do you consider Indonesia’s primary foreign policy opportunities? We have become a natural resource and commodity supplier to China (rubber, palm oil) and we see China’s growth as an opportunity for us. In your opinion, what are Indonesia’s most pressing domestic issues? Poverty alleviation is a critical problem for us to address. Creating jobs by developing infrastructure—roads, bridges, and port facilities—is one way we are doing that. We have budgeted $149 billion U.S. for this purpose and currently have $225 million in hand for projects in 2005-2009. For the remainder, we are seeking foreign investment. Another challenge we face is uneven population distribution. Of our total population, 60% (140 million) live on Java. This island is the size of Alabama and only 1/14th of the country. We believe we can address this issue by devolution of power/decentralization. When provinces can manage their own resources to create more and better opportunities, population distribution is more likely to stabilize. We face environmental challenges as well. Economic growth as a source of emission of gas has become problematic, especially in big cities, where it threatens the life and comfort of the population. Although we abide by the Kyoto Protocols, most power generation in Indonesia is by oil and this is a problem. We are also working to strengthen the awareness among our people about the careless treatment of the environment/environmental degradation. National programs through the Ministry of the Environment have been formulated and advocate different policies. We have implemented a policy not to export logs—only finished products like furniture—but illegal logging is an issue and we are working to strengthen law enforcement and to cooperate with NGO’s and neighboring countries to reduce it. A wide range of reforms have been introduced since President Suharto’s resignation, including Indonesia’s first direct presidential election in 2004. What do you think are most significant among them? We have amended the constitution four times between 1998 and 2003; held free and fair elections twice from 1999-2004; devolved centralized government power to our 33 provinces; and have been able to reposition our military to be part of a democracy. Some 67% of newly elected officials have never held office and come from different parties—our people are very eager to participate in democracy. In addition, we have been able to allow a large amount of privatization of state-owned companies, particularly banks, leading to a reform of the banking system. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/05/ambassador_s_parnohadiningrat.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/05/ambassador_s_parnohadiningrat.html Thu, 03 May 2007 14:59:25 -0600 Matt Rosenstein, Associate Director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament, and International Security responds to questions in light of the cancelled elections in Bangladesh, originally slated for January 22. What are the chief characteristics of the Bangladeshi electoral system? In a word: unique. Established as a parliamentary democracy in 1972 after its 1971 secession from Pakistan, the young democracy has had its share of growing pains, including 16 years of military rule. Periodic general elections held since 1991, though largely viewed as free and fair, have typically been marked by varying levels of controversy. As a mechanism for ensuring free and fair elections, parliament passed a constitutional amendment in 1996 that enacted the current caretaker government system. When an incumbent prime minister and all 300 members of parliament (representing single-seat constituencies) complete their five-year terms simultaneously, the constitution mandates dissolution of parliament and hand-over of executive powers to a neutral, non-party caretaker government, headed by a chief advisor (analogous to a prime minister) and council of advisors. The caretaker government carries out routine government functions while assisting an election commission tasked to hold elections. The constitution stipulates that elections must take place within 90 days of the previous government’s dissolution. After the elections are completed, the caretaker government cedes governing responsibilities to the newly elected representatives. There has been street violence since the caretaker government took over in October. Why? As the 2007 elections approached, one of the two major parties, the Awami League (AL), alleged that its rival, the incumbent Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), was attempting to rig the polls by populating the caretaker government and election commission with BNP cronies. The AL called for various members of these bodies to be replaced, pressing its demands through street demonstrations. These led to violent confrontations with police and supporters of the BNP. News reports placed the tolls at 45 dead and hundreds injured during months of violence. In general terms, savvy politicians in Bangladesh have learned that street demonstrations—in the form of transportation blockades and hartals (general strikes)—are an effective means of advancing political aims. The strategy brings the country to a standstill until political grievances are addressed. Unfortunately, this tactic has a huge negative impact on both law and order and on the country’s economy. Estimates vary, but each hartal deters further foreign investment and can cost Bangladesh, already one of the poorest countries of the world, millions of dollars. The elections slated for January 22nd have been cancelled and a new interim chief advisor sworn in. What do you see as likely internal ramifications of this action? President Iajuddin Ahmed stepped down from the chief advisor position on January 12, announcing the indefinite deferment of the polls and a state of emergency. These moves were necessary. The January 22 polls were shaping up to be nothing more than a one-sided exercise, given the AL-led multi-party alliance promise to boycott them. They had also appealed to their supporters to resist the polls, which would likely have led to further violence. Ahmed’s stepping down satisfied one of the AL’s primary grievances. Promises to reconstitute the council of advisors and the election commission, and to revise the list of eligible voters (with possible introduction of voter identification cards) have also appeased the AL. The immediate result was that the AL halted the massive street protests, restoring a measure of calm. A good deal of uncertainty remains with respect to Bangladesh’s political future. It is uncertain when the elections will be held and how the BNP will respond—will they view themselves as being at a disadvantage now and challenge recent developments with demonstrations of their own? Will the AL and BNP finally be willing to engage in dialogue to arrive at consensus on revised election procedures? How effectively and fairly can the new caretaker government mediate such a dialogue? And, of course, the political elites will at some point have to come to terms with the fact that significant constitutional provisions have been side-stepped since October 2006. The caretaker system failed in many respects and has appeared vulnerable to tampering, so the polity will have to seriously reassess its efficacy and consider possible improvements. What are the security implications for the South Asia if the election doesn’t go forward? In the short term, major noticeable effects on regional security are unlikely, but either of two potential scenarios, if set in motion, could affect regional security. First, a military coup could occur. Even prior to the declaration on January 12 of a state of emergency, the army was deployed throughout the country to enforce law and order. It remains deployed, with broad powers to arrest without warrants. The country has experienced over 20 military coup attempts since its 1971 independence (some successful), so this is a clear concern that could have implications for regional stability. A second scenario involves the toppling of Bangladesh’s representative democracy by fundamentalist Islamist forces, comparable to Afghanistan’s Taliban. Powerful Islamist elements exist and want to see current democratic institutions supplanted by more authoritarian ones based on their interpretations of Islamic law. This scenario could be highly destabilizing, but remains a distant threat as long as Bangladesh’s numerous and well-established “secularists” continue their efforts to preserve and enhance the country’s democracy. Inevitably, anything that destabilizes the region brings with it the shadow of the contentious rivalry between India and Pakistan, which both have vested interests in the country’s fate. In simple terms, India wants to see Bangladesh succeed as a democracy. Pakistan embraces Bangladesh’s Muslim identity. Each values Bangladesh’s possible role as an ally against the other. Still, given the nuclear weapons they’ve trained at each other, both India and Pakistan would be very careful not to let domestic Bangladeshi politics pull them into a regional conflict. Conceivably, the situation could temporarily strain or derail the ongoing India-Pakistan peace process, but we are currently quite far from such tensions materializing over the electoral crisis. The EU and United Nations announced that they are suspending election observer missions. What will it take to have the observers return? Most analysts view these announcements as a turning point in Bangladesh’s political crisis. Once the international community made clear it would not consider the January 22 polls legitimate, political leaders were forced to pull back. As major donor organizations, institutions like the EU and the UN have tremendous influence in Bangladesh. It rankles many Bangladeshis that international interests have such influence, but that economic—and political—reality will only change once the country has acquired sufficient economic strength. For the election observers to return, they will need assurance that relatively free, fair, and, if possible, peaceful elections will take place, with broad participation from candidates in all major political parties. It will take time (indications are that it may be at least six more months before polls are held) but members of Bangladesh’s civil society appear determined to get things right. The most important thing, though, is for the Bangladeshi people to participate meaningfully in their domestic politics and know that their votes are being counted and respected.]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/01/bangladeshi_electoral_politics.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/01/bangladeshi_electoral_politics.html Mon, 22 Jan 2007 14:56:08 -0600 On January 4th , members of the 110th Congress were sworn in, following midterm elections where the war in Iraq was widely held to be a major voter concern. What of other issues with international import? Three University of Illinois faculty members weigh in on some of these. Kenneth Cuno is Professor of History; Noreen Sugrue, Coordinator , Health Policy Initiatives, Office of Women and Gender in Global Perspectives, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Jorge Chapa is Director, Center on Democracy in a Multiracial Society, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Kenneth Cuno What international implications do you see for the election of the first Muslim to Congress, Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison? The implications of Mr. Ellison's election are not huge, but on the whole they are positive. The image of the U.S. in the Muslim world has sunk to an all-time low. Much of this has to do with perceptions of U.S. policies in the Middle East: support for authoritarian regimes; support for Israeli occupation and colonization in the Palestinian territories; and the dire effects of the sanctions against Iraq followed by the disastrous invasion and occupation. America's xenophobic reaction to the September 9/11 attacks is another negative—here I mean the witch-hunt atmosphere against Muslims, which resembles the darkest days of the "Red Scares" of the 1920s and the 1950s. Some Islamophobes have tried to tar Mr. Ellison as an extremist and others have objected to his private swearing-in ceremony using a Qur'an. But he won over most Jewish voters in his district and he is taking the oath of office using a translation of the Qur'an once owned by Thomas Jefferson. Clearly, he is a savvy politician who has figured out how to unite people instead of dividing them. That may positively impress some in the Muslim world, but it won't have a huge impact on Muslim opinion in general because Muslim anger is directed at U.S. policies, not at the U.S. itself nor at individual Americans. Noreen Sugrue In the midterm elections, immigration was thought to be a major issue, yet immigration reform is absent from the Democrat's list of priorities, the so-called New Direction for America. What is your assessment of this apparent dichotomy? Immigration is a divisive issue among Democrats. To solidify her power base and appear to have party unity, speaker Pelosi has chosen to walk away during the first 100 hours from issues where divisions will come to light. In addition, the Democratic Party and the President are in closer agreement on immigration than almost any other issue. But there is no chance that the new Democratic leadership will share the spotlight with President Bush at this early stage. The top priorities laid out in the New Directions for America—raising the minimum wage, lowering interest rates on student loans, implementing the 9/11 commission’s recommendations— represent issues on which the Democratic leadership believes they have consensus. Bills can thus be drafted and passed quickly and the Democrats can show the voters a unified party that translates to tangible good things for average people. Finally, the issues the Democrats have picked for their initial priorities back Republicans into a corner. For example, if Republicans won’t support a minimum wage hike when they supported tax breaks for wealthy Americans, it will not play well with voters. So Republicans will be forced to support things they might not normally support—the Democrats are playing smart post-election politics with issues that mean something to the average citizen. Many of these bills are likely to be seen as problematic by Republicans and that is an added benefit, from the Democrat’s perspective. Immigration as an issue has none of those benefits. Jorges Chapa Many people assume that because large numbers of Latina/Latino voters are naturalized citizens, their voting is heavily influenced by international issues that affect their countries of origin, like trade agreements and immigration. Is that your analysis of the recent mid-term elections? The first point that has to be made is that Latinos are a diverse population and no one generalization applies to all. Given that, it is safe to say that Latino voters are more aware of international issues than most other U.S. voters if only because of their familiarity with foreign cultures through their own immigration or that of a friend or relative. However, in recent elections, trade issues and immigration have become important domestic issues to many U.S. voters, Latino and non-Latino. Many Latinos are employed in industries that have been hurt by NAFTA, so many Latinos and their representatives opposed CAFTA. Moreover, one factor behind the recent surge in Mexican migration to the U.S. is that many Mexicans lost their livelihood due to economic dislocations caused by NAFTA. The group of Latinos that did support CAFTA were business-people and entrepreneurs who could benefit from these expanded trade opportunities. In terms of immigration, many Latinos were probably motivated to vote because of the immigration politics of last spring. Most Latinos opposed the Sensenbrenner bill, HR 4437, which proposed drastic measures against undocumented immigrants. It also sparked massive demonstrations that likely increased voter turnout by those Latinos who could vote. There was also an increase in applications for naturalization around this time. ]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/01/midterm_elections_internationa_1.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2007/01/midterm_elections_internationa_1.html Wed, 10 Jan 2007 11:39:42 -0600 The Ambassador Series, a joint production of WSEC-TV (Springfield) and the University’s office of International Communications, Engagement, and Protocol. Ms. Jazzar, who is fluent in Arabic, French, and English, completed her MA in Diplomatic Studies at The Diplomatic Academy of London, University of Westminster, London. She began her career as a journalist, writing for francophone political and cultural magazines. Subsequently, she headed up political reporting and press analysis at the Lebanese Embassy in Paris before serving in various bureaus at the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beirut and then assuming diplomatic postings to London, New York, and Washington, D.C., where she became chargé d'affairs in August of this year.

Ms. Carla Jazzar Chargé d’Affaires Embassy of Lebanon

In late August, when the Swedish government convened, in Stockholm, the international conference for Lebanon' s early recovery, there was some optimism about ameliorating conditions in post-war Lebanon. How successful was the Stockholm conference? What are the priorities for this humanitarian and financial assistance? What is the long-term prognosis for rebuilding Lebanon’s infrastructure? The Stockholm conference gathered 60 countries and international and regional organizations. We expected to raise $500 million, but secured almost double that: $ 940 million. This in itself represents a proof of great success. As for the priorities for the humanitarian assistance, Lebanon proposed a plan to address the most urgent needs, such as rebuilding temporary houses, schools, and bridges, fixing water pipes, electricity power plants, etc. so that victims can return to their areas of residence and live in a minimum standard of decency. The most important challenge today is the success of the proposed conference of donors, to be held in Paris by the end of January 2007. Our needs are enormous and our expectations are high. Most importantly, we need funds in the form of grants, as we cannot further burden the Lebanese economy with debt. Our second objective is to be able to contain and manage our growing public debt. What is the current Lebanese perception of U.S. policy? The Lebanese perception of U.S. policy in the Middle East is not one-dimensional. It is nuanced and varies according to social, confessional, and cultural attachments. It also varies according to the level of satisfaction with the American policy towards Lebanon. Prior to the war, for instance, and because of the very favorable American policy to the March 14 Movement,* the U.S. was highly regarded among the March 14 followers. These represent more than half of the Lebanese population. However, doubts remained among the Lebanese about a possible deal between Syria and the U.S. at the expenses of Lebanon’s interests. After the war, the U.S. image in Lebanon went backward, especially because the Lebanese perceived that the U.S. opposed the cease-fire. However, U.S. officials quickly reacted to reverse this perception. In several public statements, they always stressed extreme support to Prime Minister Siniora and his cabinet. President Bush pledged in the immediate aftermath of the war $ 230 million for humanitarian, reconstruction, and military assistance. He also initiated a fund, privately supported and managed by four prominent American CEOs, with a view of involving the American private sector in the reconstruction effort. What is required to achieving sustained peace along the Lebanese-Israeli border and how does Hezbollah fit into any formula for lasting peace? Many things are required to achieve a lasting peace wit Israel. - First of all, peace could only be achieved through a global approach for resolving regional conflicts. Lebanon won’t sign any separate peace deal with Israel if that peace would cause any inconvenience for Syria or the Palestinians. We’ll go for a lasting peace all together. - Second, peace could be achieved through a real commitment to peace by the concerned parties. This commitment should be stated by Israel too. - The U.S., the EU and the international community at large should be prepared to play a pro-active role in trying to broker serious negotiations. - Parties at the negotiations should be ready to take tough and bold decisions. They should be ready to relinquish prejudices and pre-conceived ideas, bearing in mind the future of their populations. In the meantime, Lebanon could reach a sustainable truce with Israel. This truce has already been agreed upon in the 1949 armistice agreement, which proposes a military framework for border conflicts resolution. A sustainable truce could also be reached through the implementation of Prime Minister Siniora’s seven-point plan, which calls for the respect of the blue line as defined by the United Nations in 2000; the exchange of prisoners through the Red Cross; the withdrawal from the Sheba’ farms; and the cessation of all Israeli violation of Lebanon’s air, sea, and land integrity. Border conflicts should be looked at by a military commission composed of Lebanese and Israeli militaries and supervised by the UN. These are the prerequisites for a sustainable truce. These are also the prerequisites to ensure that Hezbollah joins the mainstream, dismantles its military wing, and becomes a political party. * A reference to the huge rally in Beirut on the one-month anniversary of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri's assasination, in which hundred's of thousands of confessionally diverse Lebanese demanded that Syria withdraw it forces from the country.]]> http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2006/11/global_viewpoint_with_charge_d_1.html http://www.ips.uiuc.edu/ilint/mt/interview/2006/11/global_viewpoint_with_charge_d_1.html Tue, 14 Nov 2006 15:22:55 -0600