Indiana Poll Results Likely to Mislead in Run-up to Tuesday Vote

In contrast to North Carolina, Indiana does not permit, by law, the use of automated polling calls. Polling organizations are finding, in particular in this primary race where the racial overtone has been so powerful, that people will not tell the truth about their voting intentions when asked by a human being.

Automated polls however, are eliciting very accurate results as people are apparently more comfortable giving a very honest answer about their voting preference to a recorded human voice powered by computer. This difference in accuracy between polls administered by phone rooms of human pollsters and automated poll results accounts for some of the terrible misses by news organizations during this primary season. CNN for example was 10 points off in Iowa, largely attributable to using the less accurate human administered poll.

The interesting side note here is that apparently several polling operations don't know this, as several have used automated polling calls already in the state, and the attorney general is actively considering taking legal action against them.

Vote Suppression In Indiana

The Supreme Court today upheld Indiana's voter id law requiring voters to show a photo ID in order to be allowed to vote. Opponents of the law argued state laws designed to stem voter fraud will disenfranchise large numbers of Indiana voters who might lack proper documents to prove their voting eligibility. They argued that the burden imposed by the law of obtaining photo ID would keep a non trivial number of people from exercising their right to vote, particularly those who go to the polls to vote and are turned away for lack of proper ID. The law permits those to fill out a provisional ballot, but they must then go to the circuit clerks office to verify their identity before that vote can be counted. The law was passed to prevent a particular brand of voter fraud, voter impersonation, in Indiana. There has never been a case of voter impersonation in Indiana's recorded history.

Some reaction around the blogosphere:

From LaShawn Barber:

I’m pleased the court understands that no matter who you are, what color, or how old, you’re expected to be a responsible, law-abiding citizen reasonably intelligent enough to get yourself down to the local DMV and obtain a driver’s license or non-driver’s license ID before you can vote.

From Abdul Hakim-Shabazz of Indiana Barrister

I have yet to see what the problem was with Voter ID. You need it to cash a check, rent a car and in some cases get into a bar. So I don’t see what the big deal is. And to make matters worse, Voter ID has been on the books for two years if you haven’t gotten an ID by now, maybe you shouldn’t be going to the polls.

I agree with both of the sentiments above. I do not believe the argument that this law is unduly burdensome on the right to vote is a particularly strong one. Because the fundamental right to vote is whats involved here, you can certainly make the argument that we ought to weigh the issue of placing burdens, impediments or any level of inconvenience on the exercise of that right very carefully. Nonetheless its a tough argument to make that asking of people to show photo ID as we do in order for them to do a whole slew of other everyday activities is so unduly burdensome as to rise to the level of a constitutional violation of the basic rights of citizens. Moreover, the solution is pretty simple which is that people should do something they ought to do in any event which is to obtain legal ID. For those of us who worry that people will be disenfranchised by this, mobilizing ourselves to make sure that the vast majority of the community is empowered with ID to cast their vote is what we should be doing. Legislatively, there is no reason that the law cannot be amended to make its provisions regarding provisional ballots and mechanisms for obtaining ID easier and more convenient.

Having said all that, lets also keep it real. This law was intended to suppress votes. It was championed by the republicans, ostensibly to prevent voter impersonation fraud, a crime which has never been committed and which as a potential corruptive influence on elections is really a fairly remote possibility. As a practical matter, you are not going to get enough people to participate in a conspiracy to affect an election by impersonating voters which would have any appreciable effect. So the republicans fought hard and we spent state dollars to defend a law that doesn't solve a real problem. That means that it was really intended for other purposes and that purpose was to suppress a class of voters who are typically expected to fall into the democratic column.

Now that the Supremes have upheld it, we can expect to see a slew of similar laws around the country that are put forward by republicans ostensibly to prevent voter impersonation, but as this is an imaginary problem, are really being passed for their effect of suppressing some voters. I will not be surprised to see other types of restrictions or requirements passed which use other types of potential vote fraud as justification. The result within a few years may be a slew of restrictions which when viewed as a whole operate to suppress a significant number of voters. This kind of rigging of democracy is quite frankly, evil. We as republicans should stand for the expansion of the franchise, not its suppression. This is the type of dubious legislative action which keeps me a reluctant republican.

Obama Unbowed

Words for Warfare

After the Pennsylvania loss, some people feel sick and fatigue at Hillary's win. Everyone hoped that the race would be closer to being over. Now it looks like a very long haul to Denver. So as not to underestimate the enemy, we must be prepared to win by ONE VOTE.

Some people feel down. Some feel angry, especially after watching the media do a butcher job on Obama and Hillary's nasty smear campaign. Some feel that this is not fair.

If everything were fair, we would have an unfair advantage. I relish the thought of a ONE VOTE win. Maybe if people looked at it this way, they will not underestimate the enemy and the battle ahead.

You got to love the taste of your own blood in your mouth.

Eddie Griffin - Former Black Panther

Armegeddon in Denver

Clinton's win in Pennsylvania has now set the stage for the Clinton end game to wrench from Obama's grasp the Democratic nomination, despite a lead in pledged delegates, popular vote, states won and money raised. Absent a brilliant political move by Obama on the level of his race speech (I don't put it past him, he's a brilliant politician) I don't see him avoiding this fate. His race is a political impediment now and becomes moreso with each day. Clinton is pressing themes that use the dissonance of his racial heritage in the minds of white voters to add potency to her argument that he is not electable.

Clinton will not concede, nor will the supers force her out, and the fact that they will not and have not is proof positive that her strategy is working. She does not have to get their endorsement now to win. She merely has to deny Obama their endorsement and keep them on the sidelines, delaying their public commitment. Her very presence as a continuing candidate after the end of the primaries in June implicitly calls his electability into question. To win now, Obama must strike a mortal blow somewhere in these remaining contests and damage her so badly that her campaign collapses. He's playing the resource card to full effect, stressing and straining her campaign. She may have raised $2.5 million in 2 hours following the PA win, but her comeback story has not yet ignited a small donor base as large as his. There is danger that his donor base growth could stop expanding and indeed even contract if pessimism about his run takes hold from the attrition of her scorched earth strategy. Its another reason he must find a way to knee cap her. However, this is the Clintons we're talking about. He is unlikely to be able to achieve such a blow and they are unlikely to make a critical enough mistake that he can exploit.

To win, Clinton merely has to survive the primary season with an intact campaign. That gets her to the convention, and her presence there is a defacto rejection by the party of Obama as nominee. The supers are not going to kill off her campaign before June, which actually means they are not going to do it at all. They have essentially bought Clinton's argument that Obama's electability is suspect and are preserving the option to throw Obama's nomination under the bus at the convention. That is all the opening that Clinton requires.

The talk of a brokered convention is a fantasy and indeed it is a fantasy because it represents the best case scenario to be achieved in a confrontation between the Obama and Clinton camps at the convention. A brokered convention would mean that the defeat of Obama's nomination run by racial swiftboating would be achieved in some way that is palatable to Obama and his supporters and the democratic party electorate at large in a circumstance where Obama leads in delegates, popular vote, states won and money raised. Not...gonna....happen.

The more likely manner in which the convention will be described is fratricidal, because at the convention, what is there going to be to broker besides humiliation? Obama will lead in delegates, probably still lead in popular vote, states won and he'll still be crushing Clinton in the money race. But the party is going to come to him and say, you should take the VP spot. For the good of the party. No one should doubt his response is going to be some variation of "go f**k yourself".

Clinton is playing a game of chicken with the party. My advice to Obama in Denver this August when this scenario plays itself out? Play a little chicken with the party too. Obama should tell them that if they deny him the nomination when he leads in every metric, that he will leave the party and run as an independent, taking the black vote with him. Blacks will want an alternative and Obama should give it to them. He has the campaign machine and the money to do so. The democrats don't win the White House without the black vote. Period. Full Stop.

Permitting the destruction of Obama's historic run in this manner WILL suppress the black vote, as they withhold their votes from Clinton and permit her to crash and burn in November. Sharpton will protest in the streets of Denver, Hillary's black supporters will be vilified and the Democrats will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Its going to be jaw droppingly ugly political history in motion in August, because in the minds of reasonable black Americans this scenario would not be possible if Barack were a white candidate.

If Obama Were White......Our PA, IN, NC Prediction and the Clinton Convention Endgame

Another media hit job, I mean, debate has come and gone, another event in the slow motion destruction of the Obama campaign. On the eve of the South Carolina primary, with Obama poised to win by a wide margin, I predicted that we had seen the beginning of the defeat of the Obama campaign. I said then "the Clinton campaign has succeeded in two things. 1. making Obama a "black" candidate in the minds of white voters and 2. diminishing Obama's stature, bringing him down, in the eyes of voters, to the level of typical politicians, to frankly, their level."

I have watched the continuing battle with great hope that Obama would be able to shatter the trick box of race he has been put into, but I remain doubtful that he can do so. Clinton is pressing coded "themes" that all play upon Obama's black identity for their potency and her campaign is merely a preview of the republicans. His comments framing small town Pennsylvanians as bitter towards the government used to assert he is an elitist, code for "uppity negro". The fierce criticisms of America made by his pastor ascribed to him, framing him as an "angry black man", a natural predicate characteristic which when coupled with the non issue of not wearing a lapel flag pin, damns him as unpatriotic as well.

Following the Philadelphia debate, Clinton is again actively baiting him, using his criticism of the poor performance of the moderators of the ABC debate to paint him as weak, untested and unprepared for the fight, trying to goad him into an overreaction or ill advised attacks and with some success. Once again, as she did in the runup to Texas, she seeks to lure him onto her ground, the close combat of the politics of personal destruction, a black art of which she is a dark aficionado, employing the lessons she learned at the hands of her republican tormentors so well.

Obama did not want this to be about race. Now, race is the dominant subtext and its influence and presence in this nomination battle can't be ignored. So lets go there for a moment. Ferraro said Obama would not be where he was if he was white. I think I may agree with Ferraro. Because I'm starting to wonder "if Obama were white, would he already be the nominee by now?". Leading in delegates....leading in popular vote...leading in number of states won....leading in the money race....but he is still questionable as the nominee?

If he where white, would the party sit by while Clinton is permitted to bloody him up for the general election, even though she cannot achieve the needed numbers of delegates even if you assume the most favorable outcome for her in all the remaining contests? It is a fact that the only way she can achieve the nomination is to politically destroy Obama, either directly or by pouncing on a misstep he makes. The democratic party could end this , but they have chosen not to do so, leaving Obama to twist. Despite protestations that we will have a nominee by June, I think not. Clinton has made it clear she does not intend to withdraw, and frankly, its the only route she can go if she is determined to win. She intends to fight in every remaining contest and take the battle all the way to Denver, where it will become a knife fight on the convention floor. The Clintons know how to play this game, and so far they have managed to intimidate the rest of the democratic party into going along with this mad scheme.

And truly, this way lays madness for the democrats. Because if Clinton is permitted to carry out her tactics of attacking Obama all the way to the convention, damaging him enough to beguile the supers to give her their support for the nomination, blacks will walk away from the party in large numbers in November. Some will stay and vote with Clinton, but most will stay home. It does not require all of us to stay home in order for the dems election hopes to be sunk. Democrats don't win without the black vote. Period, full stop.

Bloggers (like me) will be screaming from the rooftops in that scenario that if blacks give their vote to Hillary after winning the nomination dirty, you are suckers and unworthy of respect. Lets also be clear. The VP spot on the ticket for Obama in that scenario won't do, even if she were to sincerely offer it. I and most of the black community would lose all respect for Obama were he to take it and consider it to be a very foolish thing for him to do. So here is the other racial subtext; is the democratic party risking losing the black vote, its most dependable, reliable voting bloc without which it does not win, because they just don't think we'll walk away, even after a slap in the face like Hillary stealing the nomination? Because they perhaps think blacks will get over any indignity? I suppose Hillary assumes that she'll lure blacks back into the fold with the promise of electoral bribes in the form of government programs and positions in her government for those blacks who stood with her. Its worked in the past, why not now?

I believe all such thinking to be quite erroneous. With blacks supporting Obama at 80% and above, the idea that they will simply turn off their allegiance to his run after the Clinton's finish their Tonya Harding routine is simply silly. Apparently the dems are willing to risk it and too intimidated by the Clinton machine to shut it down. The Clintons are betting the farm on winning this game of political chicken with the party. They figure, "hey, it will be a little ugly, but we will get all the Negroes back on the plantation by November, or at least enough of them, so don't worry". Thats the game they are playing. Its a scorched earth, bare knuckles, anything we can get away with fight.

So all of that being said, here's our prediction for NC, IN and PA. Hillary will win PA tomorrow and she will do so by a margin of 9%-15%. Energized by that win, she will have enough momentum and fund raising to continue to draw Obama missteps with her attacks and his off message reaction. She will lose in NC, but she will manage to squeak out a narrow win in Indiana. She will continue to eke out small spurts of momentum in the primary contests to follow and thereby sow fear, uncertainty and doubt among the supers, making them stay their hand before the convention. The Democratic leadership will not prevent this battle from going to the convention because they are both too intimidated by the Clinton machine and too timid to risk the potential alienation of blue collar white voters. If Hillary is not forced to concede the nomination battle by either campaign losses or orchestrated pressure from the democratic party to withdraw before the last primary contests in June, its over.

The nomination fight will go to the convention. Obama has already lost.

Political Season Joins Empowered Black Perspectives Radio Show to Talk About Dunbar Village

I participated in a discussion about the Dunbar Village case on Friday, April 18th on the Empowered Black Perspectives Radio show. You can check out the show right here. Unfortunately, my line got dropped just before the end of the show, but thankfully not in the middle of a comment. So give the show a listen and let me know how you think I did in discussing the issues.

Chinese Geopolitics and the Significance of Tibet

By George Friedman (Honorary Political Season Contributor)
This is a timely post with direct relevance to various pro-Tibet protests and campaigns.

China is an island. We do not mean it is surrounded by water; we mean China is surrounded by territory that is difficult to traverse. Therefore, China is hard to invade; given its size and population, it is even harder to occupy. This also makes it hard for the Chinese to invade others; not utterly impossible, but quite difficult. Containing a fifth of the world’s population, China can wall itself off from the world, as it did prior to the United Kingdom’s forced entry in the 19th century and under Mao Zedong. All of this means China is a great power, but one that has to behave very differently than other great powers.

Analyzing Chinese Geography

Let’s begin simply by analyzing Chinese geography, looking at two maps. The first represents the physical geography of China.

The second shows the population density not only of China, but also of the surrounding countries.

China’s geography is roughly divided into two parts: a mountainous, arid western part and a coastal plain that becomes hilly at its westward end. The overwhelming majority of China’s population is concentrated in that coastal plain. The majority of China’s territory — the area west of this coastal plain — is lightly inhabited, however. This eastern region is the Chinese heartland that must be defended at all cost.

China as island is surrounded by impassable barriers — barriers that are difficult to pass or areas that essentially are wastelands with minimal population. To the east is the Pacific Ocean. To the north and northwest are the Siberian and Mongolian regions, sparsely populated and difficult to move through. To the south, there are the hills, mountains and jungles that separate China from Southeast Asia; to visualize this terrain, just remember the incredible effort that went into building the Burma Road during World War II. To the southwest lie the Himalayas. In the northwest are Kazakhstan and the vast steppes of Central Asia. Only in the far northeast, with the Russian maritime provinces and the Yalu River separating China from Korea, are there traversable points of contacts. But the balance of military power is heavily in China’s favor at these points.

(click image to enlarge)

Strategically, China has two problems, both pivoting around the question of defending the coastal region. First, China must prevent attacks from the sea. This is what the Japanese did in the 1930s, first invading Manchuria in the northeast and then moving south into the heart of China. It is also what the British and other European powers did on a lesser scale in the 19th century. China’s defense against such attacks is size and population. It draws invaders in and then wears them out, with China suffering massive casualties and economic losses in the process.

The second threat to China comes from powers moving in through the underpopulated portion of the west, establishing bases and moving east, or coming out of the underpopulated regions around China and invading. This is what happened during the Mongol invasion from the northwest. But that invasion was aided by tremendous Chinese disunity, as were the European and Japanese incursions.

Beijing’s Three Imperatives

Beijing therefore has three geopolitical imperatives:

1. Maintain internal unity so that far powers can’t weaken the ability of the central government to defend China.
2. Maintain a strong coastal defense to prevent an incursion from the Pacific.
3. Secure China’s periphery by anchoring the country’s frontiers on impassable geographical features; in other words, hold its current borders.

In short, China’s strategy is to establish an island, defend its frontiers efficiently using its geographical isolation as a force multiplier, and, above all, maintain the power of the central government over the country, preventing regionalism and factionalism.

We see Beijing struggling to maintain control over China. Its vast security apparatus and interlocking economic system are intended to achieve that. We see Beijing building coastal defenses in the Pacific, including missiles that can reach deep into the Pacific, in the long run trying to force the U.S. Navy on the defensive. And we see Beijing working to retain control over two key regions: Xinjiang and Tibet.

Xinjiang is Muslim. This means at one point it was invaded by Islamic forces. It also means that it can be invaded and become a highway into the Chinese heartland. Defense of the Chinese heartland therefore begins in Xinjiang. So long as Xinjiang is Chinese, Beijing will enjoy a 1,500-mile, inhospitable buffer between Lanzhou — the westernmost major Chinese city and its oil center — and the border of Kazakhstan. The Chinese thus will hold Xinjiang regardless of Muslim secessionists.

The Importance of Tibet to China

Now look at Tibet on the population density and terrain maps. On the terrain map one sees the high mountain passes of the Himalayas. Running from the Hindu Kush on the border with Pakistan to the Myanmar border, small groups can traverse this terrain, but no major army is going to thrust across this border in either direction. Supplying a major force through these mountains is impossible. From a military point of view, it is a solid wall.

Note that running along the frontier directly south of this border is one of the largest population concentrations in the world. If China were to withdraw from Tibet, and there were no military hindrance to population movement, Beijing fears this population could migrate into Tibet. If there were such a migration, Tibet could turn into an extension of India and, over time, become a potential beachhead for Indian power. If that were to happen, India’s strategic frontier would directly abut Sichuan and Yunnan — the Chinese heartland.

The Chinese have a fundamental national interest in retaining Tibet, because Tibet is the Chinese anchor in the Himalayas. If that were open, or if Xinjiang became independent, the vast buffers between China and the rest of Eurasia would break down. The Chinese can’t predict the evolution of Indian, Islamic or Russian power in such a circumstance, and they certainly don’t intend to find out. They will hold both of these provinces, particularly Tibet.

The Chinese note that the Dalai Lama has been in India ever since China invaded Tibet. The Chinese regard him as an Indian puppet. They see the latest unrest in Tibet as instigated by the Indian government, which uses the Dalai Lama to try to destabilize the Chinese hold on Tibet and open the door to Indian expansion. To put it differently, their view is that the Indians could shut the Dalai Lama down if they wanted to, and that they don’t signals Indian complicity.

It should be added that the Chinese see the American hand behind this as well. Apart from public statements of support, the Americans and Indians have formed a strategic partnership since 2001. The Chinese view the United States — which is primarily focused on the Islamic world — as encouraging India and the Dalai Lama to probe the Chinese, partly to embarrass them over the Olympics and partly to increase the stress on the central government. The central government is stretched in maintaining Chinese security as the Olympics approach. The Chinese are distracted. Beijing also notes the similarities between what is happening in Tibet and the “color” revolutions the United States supported and helped stimulate in the former Soviet Union.

It is critical to understand that whatever the issues might be to the West, the Chinese see Tibet as a matter of fundamental national security, and they view pro-Tibetan agitation in the West as an attempt to strike at the heart of Chinese national security. The Chinese are therefore trapped. They are staging the Olympics in order to demonstrate Chinese cohesion and progress. But they must hold on to Tibet for national security reasons, and therefore their public relations strategy is collapsing. Neither India nor the United States is particularly upset that the Europeans are thinking about canceling attendance at various ceremonies.

A Lack of Countermoves

China has few countermoves to this pressure over Tibet. There is always talk of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That is not going to happen — not because China doesn’t want to, but because it does not have the naval capability of seizing control of the Taiwan Straits or seizing air superiority, certainly not if the United States doesn’t want it (and we note that the United States has two carrier battle groups in the Taiwan region at the moment). Beijing thus could bombard Taiwan, but not without enormous cost to itself and its own defensive capabilities. It does not have the capability to surge forces across the strait, much less to sustain operations there in anything short of a completely permissive threat environment. The Chinese could fire missiles at Taiwan, but that risks counterstrikes from American missiles. And, of course, Beijing could go nuclear, but that is not likely given the stakes. The most likely Chinese counter here would be trying to isolate Taiwan from shipping by firing missiles. But that again assumes the United States would not respond — something Beijing can’t count on.

While China thus lacks politico-military options to counter the Tibet pressure, it also lacks economic options. It is highly dependent for its economic well-being on exports to the United States and other countries; drawing money out of U.S. financial markets would require Beijing to put it somewhere else. If the Chinese invested in Europe, European interest rates would go down and U.S. rates would go up, and European money would pour into the United States. The long-held fear of the Chinese withdrawing their money from U.S. markets is therefore illusory: The Chinese are trapped economically. Far more than the United States, they can’t afford a confrontation.

That leaves the pressure on Tibet, and China struggling to contain it. Note that Beijing’s first imperative is to maintain China’s internal coherence. China’s great danger is always a weakening of the central government and the development of regionalism. Beijing is far from losing control, but recently we have observed a set of interesting breakdowns. The inability to control events in Tibet is one. Significant shortages of diesel fuel is a second. Shortages of rice and other grains is a third. These are small things, but they are things that should not be happening in a country as well-heeled in terms of cash as China is, and as accustomed as it is to managing security threats.

China must hold Tibet, and it will. The really interesting question is whether the stresses building up on China’s central administration are beginning to degrade its ability to control and manage events. It is easy to understand China’s obsession with Tibet. The next step is to watch China trying to pick up the pieces on a series of administrative miscues. That will give us a sense of the state of Chinese affairs.

Race Hustlers 2.0 for the Millenial Generation

Fellow bloggers Shecodes and Villager, authors of the blogs Black Women Vote and Electronic Village respectively, were contributors to the Bloggers Roundtable at NPR recently. The topic: Are Civil Rights Groups Obsolete? The discussion was prompted by the fairly sorry performance of the NAACP and Al Sharpton in response to the Dunbar Village gang rape case. The NAACP and Sharpton after months of ignoring the case, decided to engage in some advocacy on behalf of the rape suspects from which they relented only after dedicated activism by a group of women bloggers and their allies.

The discussion concluded that while not quite obsolete, civil rights organizations clearly have not figured out their next evolution. Or have they? Enter Color of Change. A portion of their stated mission:

Using the Internet, we will enable our members to speak in unison, with an amplified political voice. We will keep them informed about the most pressing issues for Black people in America and give them ways to act. We'll bring attention to the needs and concerns of Black folks.

When I turn my attention from their mission statement to the action campaigns they have initiated, the issues they focus on differ very little if at all from those of older civil rights organizations like the NAACP. Voting rights, police brutality, responses to racially insensitive statements, criminal defendant/prisoner rights and Katrina which gave them their start seem to be Color of Change's stock in trade.

Their stated goal is to give black Americans a political voice. What is different is the mechanisms they use to spread their message (the web) and the primary audience they target (the young). But the voice they want to bestow differs not at all from the existing black establishment, in tone or content. The tactics and approach are the same old dance of victim identity. Look at the Jena Six, their most notable accomplishment. What was the most impressive piece? They made a huge march happen, but as I asked some time ago, is the march the only thing in our playbook? To be fair, they raised money for the Jena Six's legal defense. I wonder if COC is picking up the legal defense tab for the civil suit brought by the parents of Justin Barker against the Jena Six parents?

Some of the campaigns are inane exercises in ineffective naivety. Take for example their campaign to stop genocide in Darfur. Their goal: to get at least 100 people from each congressional district to send a letter to President Bush, urging him to push for a UN Security Council resolution which would create a peacekeeping force with the power to stop the violence. Send a letter to BUSH to URGE him to PUSH for a UN resolution? How timid and inconsequential is that? Or the whiny and irrevelant campaign to complain to the RNC about Sen. George Allen and his macaca statements. Without exception, COC's campaigns are exercises in whinyness or entreaties for government action to do something for black people.

In short, they are as myopic in outlook and lacking in proactive, strategic relevance as the NAACP, the Urban League, PUSH, the National Action Network and others. For all the Move On.org money, the nice website and the huge mailing list, at bottom, their just the next generation of race hustlers.

China: The 2008 Olympics as a Major Activist Inroad

Today, this blog is participating in In Solidarity: Global Day for Darfur called by Modern Musings and supported by Black and Missing But Not Forgotten, BlackPerspective.net, Black Women Vote, CEO Mum, Darfur: An Unforgivable Hell on Earth, Eddie G. Griffin, Electronic Village, Musings of the Night, My African Diaspora, Regina's Family Seasons, Slant Truth, Take Political Action, The Jose Vilson, Trav’s Thoughts, UltraViolet Underground, Vanessa Unplugged, What About Our Daughters and others.

Analysis courtesy of Strategic Forecasting. Also, be sure to watch the Featured Video on Darfur.
Fidelity Investments has sold off more than 90 percent of its holdings in Chinese state-owned oil giant PetroChina, Fidelity announced in May 16, 2007. Although the company declined to explain the sale, it almost certainly is related to pressure from human rights and religious activists.

Activists argue that, as the primary oil field operator in Sudan, PetroChina is propping up the Khartoum regime responsible for the genocide in Darfur, so putting pressure on PetroChina is viewed as a way to pressure the Sudanese government indirectly. Fidelity's move marks an important strategic turning point in the battle between human rights groups and China over the Darfur region, and sets the stage for a far more powerful strategic thrust that will emerge during the summer -- one in which Darfur activists move from a financial divestment campaign to one focused on the 2008 Olympic Games.

Activists have long sought effective pressure points on China, and the Olympics look to be the answer. More specifically, activists are eyeing the list of Western corporate sponsors that are investing tens of millions of dollars in the Olympics and in companion marketing campaigns designed to run before and during the Olympics.

Olympic sponsorship in 2008 means more than in most past years. For Beijing, giants such as Kodak, Coca-Cola, McDonald's and General Electric are not simply the means to put on a good show; they are integral to its efforts to radically change international perceptions of China and establish its new place in the world. Beijing can control most of the variables that come its way -- the protesters, media investigations into corruption and other potential public relations problems that usually come with hosting the Olympics. And, with the sites chosen and no backup available, it can largely ignore the International Olympic Committee. What Beijing cannot control, however, are the decisions of the games' sponsors and the pressures placed upon these companies in the West.

Through the Olympic sponsors, activists have determined that the year leading up to the Olympics offers a unique opportunity to use market mechanisms to change Beijing's policies. The first Western movement to begin to capitalize on this vulnerability is the Save Darfur Coalition, which turned Sudan into a pariah state with which no Western company will do business only to have its efforts undermined by Chinese state-owned enterprises. Many other issues could have taken this mantle, but it appears that Darfur-focused activists have taken the lead on exploiting Olympics-related vulnerabilities -- and will manage the most effective Western campaign to change China's policies.

The coming year will determine whether activists can actually make Beijing blink. Moreover, it will determine how groups active on issues other than Darfur deal with the likelihood that the more focused Darfur coalition will overshadow their use of this golden opportunity.

Olympic Sponsorship

The decision to become an Olympic sponsor is a strategic one for companies. The price of sponsorship is steep -- estimated at roughly $55 million -- but that pales in comparison to the broader investment these companies make. The largest and most familiar sponsors have attached their most valuable asset, their brands, to the games, and have built long-term marketing plans in which the Olympics play an integral part.

With so much invested, Olympic sponsorship has always brought tension. The 2004 Athens games, which were twice threatened with a move to an alternate city due to poor organization, created stress among investors. Sponsors now have established offices in future Olympic cities, where they work as closely as possible with municipal authorities to ensure that the logistics and setup are on track.

In the years since 2001, when the 2008 games were awarded to Beijing, the games have carried an added political dimension for sponsors. Beijing recruited sponsors not just as sources of money, but as partners, and for large multinational corporations trying to learn how to operate in China the opportunity to work with Beijing was tempting. Those who signed on as sponsors see the success of these games not only as an opportunity to build their market share in the West, but also as a way to increase their presence in China. Beijing also subtly offered improved market access and other preferential treatment to companies that threw in behind the 2008 games.

Beijing, in order to assert itself on the international stage, has spent billions of dollars preparing for the games. It brought in the best stadium architects to build venues and hired Stephen Spielberg to choreograph the opening and closing ceremonies. In addition, the Chinese have razed entire neighborhoods to ease transportation and shuttered industries to clean Beijing's air. If it can be bought, Beijing is buying.

The support and presence of high-profile Western companies provided one thing that Beijing could not buy: legitimacy. The thinking is that the participation of major corporate icons will give a degree of continuity with previous Olympics, and that by extension China will be seen as a modern country rather than a developing one or, more negatively, as the killer of Tiananmen Square, the violator of human rights and the repressor of basic freedoms.

Activists who succeed in portraying corporate sponsors of Beijing's Olympics as supporters of China's behavior would undermine not only the companies' marketing efforts, but also Beijing's plan to use the games as a coming-out party

Darfur

The human rights controversy surrounding the civil war in Darfur has been growing since 1998. Khartoum's operations in Darfur mostly target Christians, and the issue surfaced from the concerns of evangelical Christian organizations active in Africa. By 1999, Darfur had emerged as a mainstream human rights concern, and organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch joined religious groups in calling for the United States and other Western governments to impose sanctions on the regime in Sudan.

Sudan essentially was a pariah state by the late 1990s, so it was obvious even at the beginning of the movement that diplomatic pressure on Sudan would be of limited value. Instead, recognizing the country's dependence on its southern oil production -- and on the companies that turn the resource into revenues for the regime -- activists focused on the corporations. With the flight of most Western companies in the first half of this decade, Khartoum, rather than lose its oil revenue, turned to China. Thus, through PetroChina the Asian giant has managed Sudan's oil operations and kept the money flowing into Khartoum.

Beyond the funding aspect, however, PetroChina's entry into Sudan has stood as a major symbol for Western human rights activists, who have come to view state-owned oil and resources companies as the most significant barrier to their ability to use market campaign pressure to change policies in developing countries.

In response to the globalization of corporations' operations and the rise of the World Trade Organization, human rights groups have come to rely increasingly on codes of conduct and other marketplace initiatives, such as the Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative, to hold corporations accountable for their activities in developing countries. Western companies in particular are sensitive to allegations that they are complicit in human rights violations. State-owned enterprises abroad, on the other hand, are insulated from these pressures, and have begun to thrive in those places that Western companies dare not operate.

In human rights discussions, this is termed the "parastatal problem." It is the chief unsolvable barrier to successful efforts by nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to use corporations as instruments of change in developing countries.

'Genocide Olympics'

Bumping up against the parastatal problem, the Save Darfur Coalition has begun to build toward using Olympic sponsors as leverage against Beijing. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed article published in late March, actor and activist Mia Farrow and her husband called for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. The threat will fall on deaf ears, as the vogue of boycotting Olympics -- started by U.S. President Jimmy Carter in 1980 and re-tried in 1984 by the Soviets -- had no diplomatic effect and only made the boycotters' citizens angry.

The Farrow op-ed, however, contained a more serious threat: As long as China's state-owned enterprises remain in Sudan, the coalition aims to attack Olympic sponsors directly and rebrand the 2008 games as the "Genocide Olympics" (a term first used by Amnesty International to describe China's internal human rights record and the human rights implications of its foreign policy). More sensationally, the coalition threatened to name Stephen Spielberg the "Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing games," a reference to the German filmmaker whose documentary of the 1936 Berlin games glorified the Nazi regime in the broader context of the Olympics. Spielberg now publicly calls for China to change its policy toward Sudan.

The threat to boycott is idle talk, but the threat to change the perception of the games is not. The Save Darfur Coalition includes many of the most talented corporate campaign groups in the world, and the realistic opportunity to change the situation in Darfur is attractive to Western activists of almost all stripes. In addition, the public has a high level of awareness of Darfur as a controversial issue, and most U.S. consumers recognize that China has a controversial human rights record. Sponsors are likely to be sensitive to allegations that they are supporting a "Genocide Olympics" and will take their complaints to Beijing. Given these factors, then, the campaign has an excellent chance of attaining at least some degree of success.

That said, defining "success" is a difficult task. China cannot simply stop the genocide in Darfur with a wave, and it must make a move that simultaneously satisfies its critics, has a chance of changing what is happening on the ground in Darfur and results in China's continued presence in Sudan. (Sudan supplies more than 5 percent of China's oil.) One problem is that China remains one of the last countries with any leverage against Sudan, so it is valuable to activists and governments alike as a point of communication with Khartoum. If pushed too hard, Khartoum could simply open to another state-owned company immune to Western public condemnation, kicking China out. Ultimately, China has few options. It could agree to try to convince Sudan to allow more U.N. and Africa Union peacekeepers into Darfur, but that would end the campaign only if the Save Darfur Coalition agreed that such a deal was sufficient.

In focusing the "Genocide Olympics" campaign squarely on Darfur, however, human rights groups are using a one-time opportunity to achieve a relatively modest goal -- and are passing up a unique moment to effect major change in China.

Falun Gong is another group that appears to recognize the unique opportunity the Olympics offer. This summer, Falun Gong is planning a wave of protests and actions that will bring world attention directly to China's human rights record. Other organizations -- labor, environmental, religious -- also could try to swoop in and use the Olympic moment.

China might be able to manage activist campaigns effectively and relatively peacefully. However, should pressure on internal fronts -- from Falun Gong or other human rights, democracy or free-expression activists -- get too high for Beijing to handle temperately, it could consider using Darfur as a public relations safety valve. Giving in and basically agreeing to work with NGOs on Darfur would satisfy critics by addressing what is for Beijing a third-tier issue.

Here are some things you can do, courtesy of Modern Musings and Dream for Darfur.

All actions sponsored by Dream for Darfur

1. Write to the ambassadors of the US, the UK, Russia and France to the UN. Urge them to help China insist that Khartoum stop its obstruction.

2. Email or call the Olympic Corporate Sponsors.
Send a letter to companies sponsoring the 2008 Olympics, hosted by China. (Dream for Darfur’s email system will let you do this with the touch of a button.)

3. Pledge to turn off the commercials of Olympic Sponsors during the Games. Olympic corporate sponsors have been silent about China’s financing of the Darfur genocide, even as the sponsors are spending billions to enhance China’s image as Olympic host. If sponsors continue to ignore China’s complicity in the Darfur genocide, we will ignore their million-dollar ad campaigns.

4. Write to the UN Special Adviser on Sport for Development and Peace.
Mr. Adolf Ogi represents the UN Secretary-General in contacts with international sports bodies. Tell him you are concerned that the world will gather for the Olympics while the people of Darfur are being slaughtered.

5. Petition the International Olympic Committee.
Urge the IOC to work with the international community to ensure that China uses its leverage with the government of Sudan to help stop the genocide in Darfur, and avoids tarnishing the 2008 Games in Beijing.

Organizations dedicated to ending the genocide in Darfur

• 24 Hours for DarfurSave Darfur
• Darfur Genocide
• Amnesty International
• Eyes on Darfur
• Human Rights Watch
• Crisis Group
• United States Holocaust Museum
• Dream for Darfur

Bitching About Negro Chicken Dinners is Not Accountability

Hat Tip to Mo'Kelly

Obama supporter Cornel West blogged his dissapointment regarding Obama's decision not to attend the King commemoration events in Memphis, a sentiment later co-signed by Tavis Smiley in a radio commentary. I don't generally rant here at the season, but I'm going to depart from SOP today.

West and Tavis both work my nerves with this kind of "blackness" litmus test. Obama is busy running a campaign for the nation's highest office. While it certainly would have been nice if Obama could have attended, that he did not go does not change or affect a damn thing of consequence in the lives of black people.

Tavis and West's reaction is no different than the people jumping on Obama for Wright's comments. Its the same logic. So what would they have us believe? That Obama don't care about black folks because he passed on the King events? Is that what we are going to be doing to the brother from here out, jumping in his grill every time he doesn't show up for some purely symbolic stuff and claim he is distancing himself from black folk for political reasons? Because he doesn't come and genuflect at some civil rights icon as the West and Tavis think he should? Its bull.

Obama has got to take care of business. King is dead and he gon stay dead whether Obama came to lay a wreath or not. Stop hating on the brother over BS that is less important than the herculean task he is trying to accomplish.

If Obama becomes president, I'll appreciate it if he shows up for every negro dinner, event and awards show, that will be real nice. But if he never goes to a one, but spends his time being a damn good president and taking care of business in a way that means I as a citizen can take care of business, I will be perfectly fine with that. As Dyson said at the SOBU, stop hatin on Negroes!

Whether Obama shows up in Memphis is not critical in any way, shape or form to the issues facing black people. It would have been nice for him to go, but whether he was there or not doesn't matter in the big scheme of life. As I read it, they are complaining that Obama is trying to put distance between himself and race issues, coming off the J.Wright controversy. Lets assume they are correct. SO WHAT!? Obama is trying to win an election, one in which he has to overcome the political impediment of being black. If he were running to be president of black america, then I would say it mattered, but he's not. He's running for POTUS. He's got to juggle and manage the impact of racial dynamics on his campaign, like it or not.

This idiotic idea that he must put his blackness front and center every damn day as apparently West and Tavis would prefer is just plain stupid. The brother can't escape the race perceptions of his actions and never will from white people and black people. Just because he is currently the most prominent black man in America and poised to make history does not mean that he has to sign on for every symbolic black event or thing in order to demonstrate his negro bona fides again and again.

He's got to get the damn job. Tavis and West bitching because he didn't come to the cultural equivalent of a really big Negro chicken dinner is just frikkin stupid. These are the same guys who sat around at the SOBU talking up and down about accountability (see my political videos). Is this the kind of BS they want to hold him accountable for, that he didn't come to the big Negro chicken dinner? When they talked about accountability, I thought we were talking about policies and practices, the rule of law, educational investments, stuff like that. But it seems like what they want to hold him accountable for is proving his blackness by genuflecting before the sacred cows of the civil rights establishment. Thats the kind of BS thinking that produces a moribund NAACP that doesn't get why representing rapists at Dunbar Village is wrong, or an Urban League that puts out a compact with America thats little more than a wishlist of government programs and says squat about what black people will do to solve their own problems.

This brother is playing for the history books and their big accountability, finger wagging, stern voice of disapproval is because he didn't come to the big chicken dinner? Thats house negro thinking and they should both get their heads out of their ass.

Black Accountability Resource: Scholarship Opportunities

There is an email circulating around that asserts that black students are leaving scholarship money for college on the table. I suspect there may indeed be some truth to that, so I thought I would recirculate the wonderfully actionable information about scholarship opportunities contained in the email. If you have a student or know a student in your family or someone else's that needs financial support for college (who doesn't), then please pass this along.


1)Bell Labs Fellowship for Underrepresented Minorities

2) Student Inventors Scholarships

3) Student Video Scholarships

4) Coca-Cola Two Year College Scholarships

5) Holocaust Remembrance Scholarships

6) Ayn Rand Essay Scholarships

7) Brand Essay Competition

8) Gates Millennlum Scholarships (major)

9) Xerox Scholarships for Students

10) Sports Scholarships and Internships

11) National Assoc. Of Black Journalists Scholarships (NABJ)

12) Saul T. Wilson Scholarships (Veterinary)

13) Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund

14) FinAid: The Smart Students Guide to Financial Aid scholarships)

15) Presidential Freedom Scholarships

16) Microsoft Scholarship Program

17) Wire dScholar Free Scholarship Search

18) Hope Scholarships &Lifetime Credits

19) William Randolph Hearst Endowed Scholarship for Minority Students

20) Multiple List of Minority Scholarships

21) Guaranteed Scholarships

22) BOEING scholarships (some HBCU connects)

23) Easley National Scholarship Program

24) Maryland Artists Scholarships

26) Jacki Tuckfield Memorial Graduate Business S cholarship (for AA students in South Florida )

27) Historically Black College & University Scholarships

28) Actuarial Scholarships for Minority Students

29) International Students Scholarships &Aid Help

30) College Board Scholarship Search

31) Burger King Scholarship Program

32) Siemens Westinghouse Competition

33) GE and LuLac Scholarship Funds

34) College Net Scholarship Database

35) Union Sponsored Scholarships and Aid

36) Federal Scholarships &Aid Gateways 25 Scholarship Gateways from Black Excel

37) Scholarship &Financial Aid Help

38) Scholarship Links (Ed Finance Group)

39) FAFSA On The Web (Your Key Aid Form &Info)

40) Aid &Resources For Re-Entry Students

41) Scholarships and Fellowships

42) Scholarships for Study in Paralegal Studies

43) HBCU Packard Sit Abroad Scholarships (for study around the world)

44) S cholarship and Fellowship Opportunities

45) INROADS internships

46) ACT-SO bEURoeOlympics of the Mind 'A Scholarships

47) Black Alliance for Educational Options Scholarships

48) ScienceNet Scholarship Listing

49) Graduate Fellowships For Minorities Nationwide

50) RHODES SCHOLARSHIPS AT OXFORD

51) The Roothbert Scholarship Fund

The Double Standard of Black Accountability Applied

The meltdown occuring in Detroit City government has now entered what can only be viewed as an embarrassingly painful slow motion train wreck phase. Kwame Kilpatrick and Christine Beatty have been charged with 12 and 7 felony counts respectively. They were required to surrender to police, they were booked and mug shotted.

As we watch this mess unfold, we stand in jaw dropped awe of the denial and disregard of Kwame's corruption being exercised by a large portion of the voting populace, many members of the clergy and the corporate leadership of the city. It is absolutely distressing to watch people you might otherwise believe to be reasonable make excuse after excuse for the behavior of Kwame and his administrative minions. It is a failure of black accountability that the majority of the city's citizens and corporate leadership are not leading the charge for regime change at city hall. In fact, Kwame actually has a legal defense fund with a variety of committee members who have signed their names in support of it. I considered it shocking some of the nationally known people supporting this foolishness, specifically Willie Brown- Former Mayor of San Francisco and Michael Eric Dyson. How either of them could bring themselves to lend their credibility to a manifest crook, liar and thug masquerading as a mayor, I simply don't understand. But I digress from my main point.

Though the focus has been quite clearly on Kwame, we have kept an eye on how Christine Beatty is faring . As many know, she resigned her position as chief of staff shortly after the scandal broke. We identified Beatty as Kwame's mystery guest for his massage at a NC resort via the Detroit cousin's friend network. While Beatty is out of a job and facing serious legal consequences, many in the city and notables like Willie Brown are rallying to the mayor's side. The corporate fat cats who bailed out the mayor's re-election effort that Beatty helped engineer are aiding Kwame with their silence support. The citizenry continue to support him, but little love seems to be flowing Beatty's way at all. He's got a legal defense fund, and it only seems fair to us that Beatty should be included in it as well. The citizens of Detroit and the legal fund committee should be demanding she be added as a beneficiary, especially given their repeated assertions that Kwame will be fully vindicated. So the unemployed Beatty is getting no help to pay her legal expenses and her lawyer is not cheap. She suffered another setback in court as well when the magistrate refused her request to leave the state to seek work and required her to wear a tether which reports her whereabouts, though it does not restrict her to her home.

So Beatty is out of a job, facing massive criminal liabilities with custody of two children and is now restricted to the state and cannot go elsewhere to seek work without the court's leave. At the same time, she certainly is not going to get work in Michigan. Meanwhile, her ex, Da Mayor, has got a legal defense fund, vocal supporters and can leave the state to carry out his official duties (prior notice to the court of course).

We repeat our advice to Ms. Beatty. Have your attorney run to Ms. Worthy's office, cut a deal for immunity and spill your guts.

NAACP Answers on Dunbar: What We Learned

Well, I've been traveling out of town for the past few days getting some much needed RR with the family but of course keeping an eye peeled on the blogosphere and the Dunbar Village accountability campaign being waged on the NAACP. Since I was on the road, I missed the blogtalk radio show on Dunbar Village on Thursday night. Representatives from the NAACP, Adora Obi Nweze, President, Fl State Conference NAACP and Richard McIntire, the NAACP national spokesperson joined the Black Women's Roundtable hosted by WAOD to respond to the stinging and scathing criticism the NAACP has been receiving.

I listened to the archive of the show including the NAACP portion and the discussion afterwards. The NAACP responses and performance were pathetically inadequate and demonstrated an organization manifestly out of touch. They apologized for the press conference, saying that it was not their intent to suggest that they cared more about the suspects than the victims. They were not well versed in the facts of the Boca Raton cases and ill informed about how their national policy directives informed the actions of the WPB branch. They were unwilling and unable to explain their internal protocol for how local branches intervene in cases (though the local branch in my area seems very clear that permission from their state body is required when I asked about it.)

So what have we learned from this little episode? Surprisingly, not much that was new. All it really did for me was to confirm the fact, which I've blogged on before, that black organizations are nearly incapable of engaging in principled, strategic leadership. The responses of the NAACP betray an organization that is poorly organized, with poor unit discipline and extremely inconsistent quality of leadership at the local level. It seems fairly clear that the WPB branch did not obtain any authorization to intervene in this case before undertaking this ill advised press conference. Furthermore, they got involved in this press conference apparently without having done any significant amount of research into the Boca Raton case, which has a very different fact pattern, as evidenced by their inability to talk about it when questioned by reporters from the Palm Beach Post at the scene.

The quality of local leadership for the NAACP is clearly in question. Maude Ford Lee, the local president, pursued this course of action apparently without authorization, without a clear understanding of the facts of the Boca case and apparently without having given any real thought to the nature of the Dunbar Village rape itself, something I find even more appalling because she is a woman herself.

The poor legal, moral and political judgment demonstrated by the local chapter is simply compounded by the equally inept response of the national organization, which does nothing to rein in the action of the local branch, nor does anything substantive in regards to support for the victim. Clearly unwilling to rebuke the local chapter leadership, the Florida state president apologizes for the press conference, but is unwilling to go any further, and the NAACP's national spokesperson offers up a mish mash of contradictory statements. Its clear that they are only concerned with the agenda of pursuing actual and perceived cases of racial injustice and are willing to ride any set facts to do so. If that were not the case, then the national and state bodies would have indeed rebuked the local chapter for their involvement in this case.

It highlights the sad fact of bad leadership in black organizations both nationally and locally. Because there is little in the way of accountability, these organizations continue to waste humanpower and financial resources on ill advised strategies to obtain dubious gains in racial equality. The NAACP has demonstrated itself to be just such an organization, as has the National Action Network of Al Sharpton.

There was a lot of discussion afterwards about what is the response of people like ourselves, bloggers, activists, a new generation who are embracing the new tools and technologies of the information age to connect with each other and the world on the issues we care about. Some suggested a new organization, some said reform these groups from within, some said run for office. None of these options seems either a great solution or particularly satisfying or complete as answers by themselves. There was talk of coalition building and I think that comment points in the right direction, of a third way. We've seen this accountability campaign force a response from these civil rights establishment dinosaurs. We did it by harnessing the power of communication and the web to connect the concerns of hundreds, perhaps thousands of people who are not otherwise connected. I myself collaborated with people I've never met or seen in places I have never been. Thats very powerful .

We need to continue to harness that power. To build the ability of people who share similar concerns to be able to join with one another on issues we care about and to be involved in action that impacts those concerns. Its not an organization per se, but a coalition of the willing built around shared values and principles, that works to mobilize people power and raise money in specific targeted ways to effect change where its needed. WAOD's prior campaigns and this one demonstrate a power that in my view we have only barely begun to tap. We should be thinking about the next level.

Russia and Rotating the U.S. Focus

By George Friedman (Honorary Political Season Contributor)

As the U.S.-jihadist war has developed, it has absorbed American military resources dramatically. It is overstated to say that the United States lacks the capacity to intervene anywhere else in the world, but it is not overstated to say that the United States cannot make a major, sustained intervention without abandoning Iraq. Thus, the only global power has placed almost all of its military chips in the Islamic world.

Exploiting U.S. Distractions

Russia has taken advantage of the imbalance in the U.S. politico-military posture to attempt to re-establish its sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union. To this end, Russia has taken advantage of its enhanced financial position — due to soaring commodity prices, particularly in the energy sector — as well as a lack of American options in the region.

The Russians do not have any interest in re-establishing the Soviet Union, nor even in controlling the internal affairs of most of the former Soviet republics. Moscow does want to do two things, however. First, it wants to coordinate commodity policies across the board to enhance Russian leverage. Second, and far more important, it wants to limit U.S. and European influence in these countries. Above all, Russia does not want to see NATO expand any further — and Moscow undoubtedly would like to see a NATO rollback, particularly in the Baltic states.

From a strategic point of view, the United States emerged from the Cold War with a major opportunity. Since it is not in the United States’ interests to have any great power emerge in Eurasia, making certain that Russia did not re-emerge as a Eurasian hegemon clearly was a strategic goal of the United States. The Soviet disintegration did not in any way guarantee that it would not re-emerge in another form.

The United States pursued this goal in two ways. The first was by seeking to influence the nature of the Russian regime, trying to make it democratic and capitalist under the theory that democratic and capitalist nations did not engage in conflict with democratic and capitalist countries. Whatever the value of the theory, what emerged was not democracy and capitalism but systemic chaos and decomposition. The Russians ultimately achieved this state on their own, though the United States and Europe certainly contributed.

The second way Washington pursued this goal was by trying to repeat the containment of the Soviet Union with a new containment of Russia. Under this strategy, the United States in particular executed a series of moves with the end of expanding U.S. influence in the countries surrounding Russia. This strategy’s capstone was incorporating new countries into NATO, or putting them on the path to NATO membership.

NATO Expansion and Color Revolutions

The Baltic states were included, along with the former Soviet empire in Central Europe. But the critical piece in all of this was Ukraine. If Ukraine were included in NATO or fell under Western influence, Russia’s southern flank would become indefensible. NATO would be a hundred miles from Volgograd, formerly known as Stalingrad. NATO would also be less than a hundred miles from St. Petersburg. In short, Russia would become a strategic cripple.

The U.S. strategy was to encourage pro-American, democratic movements in the former Soviet Republics — the so-called “color revolutions.” The Orange Revolution in Ukraine was the breaking point in U.S.-Russian relations. The United States openly supported the pro-Western democrats in Ukraine. The Russians (correctly) saw this as a direct and deliberate challenge by the United States to Russian national security. In their view, the United States was using the generation of democratic movements in Ukraine to draw Ukraine into the Western orbit and ultimately into NATO.

Having their own means of influence in Ukraine, the Russians intervened politically to put a brake on the evolution. The result was a stalemate that Russia appeared destined to win by dint of U.S. preoccupation with the Islamic world, Russian proximity, and the fact that Russia had an overwhelming interest in Ukraine while the Americans had only a distant interest.

U.S. interest might have been greater than the Russians thought. The Americans have watched the re-emergence of Russia as a major regional power. It is no global superpower, but it certainly has regained its position as a regional power, reaching outside of its own region in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Iranians and Germans must both take Russia into account as they make their calculations. The Russian trajectory is thus clear. They may never be a global power again, but they are going to be a power that matters.

The Closing Window

It is far easier for the United States to prevent the emergence of a regional hegemon than to control one that has already emerged. Logically, the United States wants to block the Russian re-emergence, but Washington is running out of time. Indeed, one might say that the Americans are already out of time. Certainly, the United States must act now or else accept Russia as a great power and treat it as such.

This is why U.S. President George W. Bush has gone to Ukraine. It is important to recall that Bush’s trip comes in the context of an upcoming NATO summit, where the United States has called for beginning the process that will include Ukraine — as well as Georgia and other Balkan powers — in NATO. Having gone relatively quiet on the issue of NATO expansion since the Orange Revolution, the United States now has become extremely aggressive. In traveling to Ukraine to tout NATO membership, Bush is directly challenging the Russians on what they regard as their home turf.

Clearly, the U.S. window of opportunity is closing: Russian economic, political and military influence in Ukraine is substantial and growing, while the U.S. ability to manipulate events in Ukraine is weak. But Bush is taking a risky step. First, Bush doesn’t have full NATO support, which he needs since NATO requires unanimity in these issues. Several important NATO countries —particularly Germany — have opposed this expansion on technical merits that are hard to argue with. Germany’s stance is that not only is Ukraine not militarily ready to start meaningful membership talks, but that the majority of its population opposes membership in the first place.

Assuming Bush isn’t simply making an empty gesture for the mere pleasure of irritating the Russians, the United States clearly feels it can deal with German objections if it creates the proper political atmosphere in Ukraine. Put another way, Bush feels that if he can demonstrate that the Russians are impotent, that their power is illusory, he can create consensus in NATO. Russia’s relatively weak response over Kosovo has been taken by Washington and many in Europe (particularly Central Europe) as a sign of Russian weakness. Bush wants to push the advantage now, since he won’t have a chance later. So the visit has been shaped as a direct challenge to Russia. Should Moscow fail to take up the challenge, the dynamics of the former Soviet Union will be changed.

The Russians have three possible countermoves. The first is to use the Federal Security Service (FSB), its intelligence service, to destabilize Ukraine. Russia has many assets in Ukraine, and Russia is good at this game. Second, Russia can use its regional military power to demonstrate that the United States is the one bluffing. And third, Russia can return the favor to the Americans in a place that will hurt very badly; namely, in the Middle East — and particularly in Iran and Syria. A decision to engage in massive transfers of weapons, particularly advanced anti-aircraft systems, would directly hurt the United States.

Of these options, the first is certainly the most feasible. Not only is it where the Russians excel — and will such a strategy leave few fingerprints and produce results quickly — but the other two options risk consolidating the West into a broad anti-Russian coalition that may well return the favor across the entire Russian periphery. The latter two options would also commit much of Russia’s resources to a confrontation with the West, leaving precious little to hedge against other powers, most notably a China which is becoming more deeply enmeshed in Central Asia by the day.

The Middle East Connection

Still, the United States must focus on where most of its troops are fighting. It would thus appear that provoking the Russians is a dangerous game. This is why events in Iraq this week have been particularly interesting. A massive battle broke out between two Shiite factions in Iraq. One, led by Abdel Aziz al-Hakim — who effectively controls Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki due to the small size and fractured nature of al-Maliki’s party — confronted the faction led by Muqtada al-Sadr. Clearly, this was an attempt by the dominant Shiite faction to finally deal with the wild card of Iraqi Shiite politics. By the weekend, al-Sadr had capitulated. Backed into a corner by overwhelming forces, apparently backed by U.S. military force, al-Sadr effectively sued for peace.

Al-Sadr’s decision to lay down arms was heavily influenced by the Iranians. We would go further and say the decision to have al-Sadr submit to a government dominated by his Shiite rivals was a decision made with Iranian agreement. The Iranians had been restraining al-Sadr for a while, taking him to Tehran and urging him to return to the seminary to establish his clerical credentials. The Iranians did not want to see a civil war among the Iraqi Shia. A split among the Shia at a time of increasing Sunni unity and cooperation with the United States would open the door to a strategically unacceptable outcome for Iran: a pro-American government heavily dominated by Sunnis with increasing military power as the Shia are fighting among themselves.

The Americans also didn’t want this outcome. While the Iranians had restrained al-Sadr at the beginning of the U.S. surge — and thereby massively contributed to the end of the strategy of playing the Sunnis against the Shia — Tehran had not yet dealt with al-Sadr decisively. Just like Iran, the United States prefers not to see a new Sunni government emerge in Iraq. Instead, Washington wants a balance of power in Baghdad between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, and it wants intra-communal disputes to be contained within this framework. If a stable government is to emerge, each of the communities must be relatively (with an emphasis on “relatively”) stable. Thus, not for the first time, American and Iranian interests in Iraq were aligned. Both wanted an end to Shiite conflict, and that meant that both wanted al-Sadr to capitulate.

This is the point where U.S. and Iranian interests can diverge. The Iranians have a fundamental decision to make, and what happens now in Iraq is almost completely contingent upon what the Iranians decide. They can do three things. First, they can hold al-Sadr in reserve as a threat to stability if things don’t go their way. Second, they can use the relative unity of the Shia to try to impose an anti-Sunni government in Baghdad. And third, they can participate in the creation of that government.

We have long argued that the Iranians would take the third option. They certainly appeared to be cooperating in the last week. But it has not been clear what the U.S. government thought, partly because they have been deliberately opaque in their thinking on Iran, and partly because the situation was too dynamic.

Bush’s Long Shot

It is the decision to visit Ukraine and challenge the Russians on their front porch that gives us some sense of Washington’s thinking. To challenge Moscow at a time when the Russians might be able to support Iran in causing a collapse in the Iraqi process would not make sense. The U.S. challenge is a long shot anyway, and risking a solution in Iraq by giving the Iranians a great power ally like Russia would seem too much of a risk to take.

But Bush is going to Ukraine and is challenging the Russians on NATO. This could mean he does not think Russia has any options in the Middle East. It also could mean that he has become sufficiently confident that the process (let’s not call it a relationship) that has emerged with the Iranians is robust enough that Tehran will not sink it now in exchange for increased Russian support, and that while a crisis with Syria is simmering, the Russians will not destabilize the situation there — Syria lacks the importance that Iran holds for U.S. strategy in Iraq, anyway.

Bush’s decision to go to Ukraine indicates that he feels safe in opening a new front — at least diplomatically — while an existing military front remains active. That move makes no sense, particularly in the face of some European opposition, unless he believes the Russians are weaker than they appear and that the American position in Iraq is resolving itself. Bush undoubtedly would have liked to have waited for greater clarity in Iraq, but time is almost up. The Russians are moving now, and the United States can either confront them now or concede the game until the United States is in a military position to resume Russian containment. Plus, Bush doesn’t have any years left in office to wait.

The global system is making a major shift now, as we have been discussing. Having gotten off balance and bogged down in the Islamic world, the only global power is trying to extricate itself while rebalancing its foreign policy and confronting a longer-term Russian threat to its interests. That is a delicate maneuver, and one that requires deftness and luck. As mentioned, it is also a long shot. The Russians have a lot of cards to play, but perhaps they are not yet ready to play them. Bush is risking Russia disrupting the Middle East as well as increasing pressure in its own region. He either thinks it is worth the risk or he thinks the risk is smaller than it appears. Either way, this is an important moment.