Drishtipat has an excellent photo essay about a field trip they took to a Grameen Bank location in a Bangladeshi village. It is a chance to see microcredit in action in a very personal way. For me, it brought back memories of the gentleness of Bangladesh and its people.
Below is just the first picture of the post. Click on the picture or the link above to get to the post.
Having failed to find any WMD in Iraq, George W Bush has resorted to his "freedom" agenda. Mr. Bush repeatedly claims that "democracies don’t go to war with each other." His prescription for lasting peace in the Middle East and the end of terrorism is spreading democracy (by force) to the world. In pursuing his "freedom" agenda, George W Bush, and his poodle Tony Blair, have undermined democracy in the West. Their single-minded pursuit of what they believe is just and right has now become an existential threat to western liberal democracy and our way of life.
As much of a violent and dangerous threat al Qaeda is to the United States and its allies, it has never been an existential threat. It seems inconceivable that a small group of thugs can violently destroy a political and economic power as massive as the United States. However, what al Qaeda can do is cause the United States to cannibalize itself as it undermines the pillars of democracy in its own perceived self-defense. To do so, al Qaeda needs an unwitting and fiercely ideological patsy – it has found one in George W Bush.
Bush’s notion that democracies do not war with each other is debatable at best. However, the argument, even if it is accepted, is based on the belief that the inherent restraints within democratic society prevent those societies from engaging in warfare, except as an absolute last resort. Rudolph J Rummel, one of the early proponents of the "democratic peace theory", based his theory on Immanuel Kant’s notion of "Perpetual Peace":
Rummel’s response when asked why he believed democracies didn’t fight was to recall Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace, published in 1795.
Kant’s theory is that democratic leaders are restrained by the resistance of their people to bearing the costs and deaths of war. And a democratic culture of negotiation and conciliation, plus the hurdles to taking swift action, favours peace.
George W Bush, however, is actively undermining the fundamental pillar of the very theory he touts by his "stay the course" policy in Iraq. Mr. Bush says that he is not constrained by public opinion because he knows he is right. By proceeding with his policy against overwhelming public opinion, he has undermined the ideological basis of his crusade.
As George W Bush, and his poodle Blair, strain to "stay the course" against the restraints of democracy, they are beginning to damage the foundations of democratic society. One such restraint, as explicitly declared in Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, is the absolute authority of the civilian leadership of the military:
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
The continued pointlessness of the Iraq War is causing the military to publicly speak out against the civilian leadership that is asking them to sacrifice for a war with little or no public support.
Up until this week, most public opposition to the war has come from retired U.S. military generals. However, all that changed last week in Britain when Chief of the General Staff of the Army, Sir Richard Dannatt, spoke out against the Iraq War. Sir Richard called the coalition’s dream of bringing democracy to Iraq "naive" and he called for British troops to pull out as soon as possible. He also stated, rather unsurprisingly, that the presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil is fueling terrorism.
Sir Richard’s candid comments sent shockwaves in London and Washington. By week’s end Tony Blair, to salvage his authority, had to declare that he agrees with his army chief and that what Sir Richard was saying was "the same as we all are." Tony Blair had in effect lost control over his military. The military leadership was openly questioning the policy of their civilian masters – a recipe for disaster in any democratic society. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair’s blatant disregard for the normal constraints of democratic societies in their quixotic pursuit of "peace" has led to this turn of events.
Another feature of a democratic society that leads to stability and not war, according to Rummel, is its guarantee of civil liberties. Recently Mr. Bush and his war machine have taken a giant bite out of our notion of civil liberties:
When President Bush rammed the bill on military commissions through Congress, the Republicans crowed about creating a process that would be tough on terrorists but preserve essential principles of justice. “America can be proud,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the bill’s architects.
Unfortunately, Mr. Graham was wrong. One of the many problems with the new law is that it will only make it harder than it already is to separate the real terrorists from the far larger group of inmates at Guantánamo Bay who were bit players in the Taliban or innocent bystanders. Mr. Graham and other supporters of this dreadful legislation seem to have forgotten that American justice does not merely deliver swift punishment to the guilty. It also protects the innocent.
…
The Military Commissions Act of 2006 makes it virtually impossible to contest a status tribunal’s decision. It prohibits claims of habeas corpus — the ancient right of prisoners in just societies to have their detentions reviewed — or any case based directly or indirectly on the Geneva Conventions. Even if an appeal got to the single appeals court now authorized to hear it, the administration would very likely argue that it cannot be heard without jeopardizing secrets, as it has done repeatedly.
The new law championed by Mr. Bush and the congressional Republicans allows the government to detain individuals without the right of those individuals to challenge their detentions. That is a license for abuse. This law prohibits habeas corpus, an idea the framers deemed so important, that they included it in the text of the Constitution itself, not in an amendment to the Constitution. Article I, section 9 of the United States Constitution states:
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
We are neither facing a rebellion nor an invasion. Yet, we have suspended habeas corpus.
Bit by bit, the fabric of democracy is being undermined by Mr. Bush’s "War on Terror" and his Iraq War. We are fighting them "there" while losing freedoms here. We are undermining our democratic institutions in trying to spread "democracy" abroad. At some point, our leaders must be held accountable if democracy is to be preserved.
We can start to hold our leaders to account starting November 7th. Have no doubt that we are now facing an existential threat to our democracy from within. As we face the real enemies from outside that seek to harm us, we must guard against the forces from within that strike at our very foundations. George W Bush and his rubber stamp Republican congress have brought this challenge to our democracy. On November 7th, we are called upon to defend our democracy.
Today Muhammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank were awarded the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to create economic and social development from below." Today is a day of celebration for all of Bangladesh and Bengalis everywhere. In a country racked by political infighting, corruption and poverty, Dr. Yunus and his faith in the poorest souls on Earth has always been a slight ray of hope. Today that ray shines a little brighter.
Dr. Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his pioneering work in the use of microcredit. Dr. Yunus is an economist who founded Grameen Bank in 1976 (formally in 1983) to give small loans to mostly poor women in rural Bangladesh to start small businesses. These women, who were otherwise deemed "unbankable" by conventional banks, proved to be a lower credit risk than most "creditworthy" borrowers. Grameen Bank’s loan repayment rate is over 98% – significantly higher than most commercial banks in the Third World. Dr. Yunus discovered that microcredit can be both commercially viable and an engine for socio-economic change. Grameen Bank has helped millions of Bangladeshis rise above poverty, not through charity, but through hard work and a little faith in their abilities.
Dr. Yunus’s success in helping the poor help themselves has been duplicated in almost all other developing countries. He has proven the value of direct investment from the bottom up in bringing about economic development. Microcredit and its success stands in direct contrast to the billions of dollars in foreign aid that is wasted when the West gives "aid" to Third World tyrants and dictators.
In awarding Dr. Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize, the Committee said:
Muhammad Yunus has shown himself to be a leader who has managed to translate visions into practical action for the benefit of millions of people, not only in Bangladesh, but also in many other countries.
Loans to poor people without any financial security had appeared to be an impossible idea. From modest beginnings three decades ago, Yunus has, first and foremost through Grameen Bank, developed micro-credit into an ever more important instrument in the struggle against poverty.
…
Every single individual on earth has both the potential and the right to live a decent life. Across cultures and civilizations, Yunus and Grameen Bank have shown that even the poorest of the poor can work to bring about their own development.
Micro-credit has proved to be an important liberating force in societies where women in particular have to struggle against repressive social and economic conditions. Economic growth and political democracy cannot achieve their full potential unless the female half of humanity participates on an equal footing with the male.
Dr. Yunus had a simple idea that he turned into action. In doing so, he has changed millions of lives.
Everyday hundreds of millions of people on our planet struggle to just survive. They struggle not with questions of war and peace, not with decisions to launch bombs or practice diplomacy; but with how to find enough food to feed themselves and their families. Their needs are basic and consume most of their existence. These people, our fellow human beings, our fellow brothers and sisters, live on the neglected edge of society. Dr. Yunus, three decades ago, resolved to do his part to help his fellow brothers and sisters step away from the edge. In doing so, Dr. Yunus understood what the current occupant of the White House to this day does not: that peace and stability in this world cannot be achieved until and unless the roots of poverty are addressed.
For his efforts to alleviate poverty to bring about a more peaceful world, the Nobel Committee today awarded Dr. Muhammad Yunus the Nobel Peace Prize.
This is huge. The Chief of the General Staff of the British army, Sir Richard Dannatt, has publicly broken with Tony Blair by calling for a withdrawal from Iraq. Sir Richard gave an interview to the Daily Mail in which he called for a withdrawal of British troops from Iraq and asserted what most sane people already know: that foreign troops in Iraq are making matters worse.
Here is an article from the BBC and one from The Guardian on the interview.
This is a stunning development and I need to digest this overnight to write a more thorough post -but I did not want to wait to get this post up. In the meantime, feel free to offer comments on the significance of this interview. There are many issues here, not the least of which is the military openly challenging the policy of the civilian leadership. I suspect Sir Richard will be forced to resign after his comments. I am not sure where it leaves the morale of the British soldiers in Iraq – it almost now seems inevitable that Britain will have to withdraw from Iraq. I can’t see how Tony Blair puts Humpty Dumpty back together again. And what will Mr. Bush do without his trusty poodle at his side?
Your thoughts?
As expected, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea tested its first nuclear weapon on Sunday after giving warning earlier in the week. By detonating a nuclear device, North Korea dramatically hammered the last nail into the coffin of the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine, or the Doctrine of Preemption, was arrogantly unveiled on June 1, 2002 by a President with little knowledge or curiosity about the world outside the United States. October 9, 2006 will be marked in history as the date on which George W Bush’s doctrine died a violent death.
Today the world became a very dangerous place.
In the days before Bush’s Iraq fiasco, he confused ideology with policy and wielded the might of the United States against all challengers and expected all to prostrate themselves. Bush declared in front of the graduating class at West Point in 2002:
The gravest danger to freedom lies at the perilous crossroads of radicalism and technology. When the spread of chemical and biological and nuclear weapons, along with ballistic missile technology — when that occurs, even weak states and small groups could attain a catastrophic power to strike great nations. Our enemies have declared this very intention, and have been caught seeking these terrible weapons. They want the capability to blackmail us, or to harm us, or to harm our friends — and we will oppose them with all our power. (Applause.)
For much of the last century, America’s defense relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply. But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence — the promise of massive retaliation against nations — means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend. Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.
We cannot defend America and our friends by hoping for the best. We cannot put our faith in the word of tyrants, who solemnly sign non-proliferation treaties, and then systemically break them. If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. (Applause.)
Homeland defense and missile defense are part of stronger security, and they’re essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. (Applause.) In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act. (Applause.)
Our security will require the best intelligence, to reveal threats hidden in caves and growing in laboratories. Our security will require modernizing domestic agencies such as the FBI, so they’re prepared to act, and act quickly, against danger. Our security will require transforming the military you will lead — a military that must be ready to strike at a moment’s notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives. (Applause.) [Emphasis added by me.]
To Mr. Bush, however, preemption was an on-off switch. Either he went to war, or he sat around and ignored threats.
Earlier in 2002, Mr. Bush had already threatened a few countries with preemptive attack. One of those countries was North Korea. In his State of the Union address, Mr. Bush swaggered:
Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes have been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens.
Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom.
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens — leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections — then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.
States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.
We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation’s security.
We’ll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons. (Applause.)
It all seemed so easy in 2002 with Saddam Hussein well within Mr. Bush’s sights.
After Saddam Hussein was unceremoniously deposed, Tehran and Pyongyang undoubtebly took notice. It must have been obvious to anyone that the only way to defend against a preemptive strike from the United States would be to acquire a nuclear deterrent. Unsurprisingly both Iran and North Korea accelerated their quest for a nuclear weapon after the fall of Baghdad. And so we find ourselves here today, with one of the surviving members of the "axis of evil" having just detonated a nuclear weapon and the other working hard to develop a weapon.
However, Mr. Bush’s dangerous rhetoric and North Korea’s perceived need for a nuclear deterrent are only half the story. Mr. Bush and his neo-conservative coterie decided early on to break off all negotiations with North Korea and undermine any effort at calming the hostility between the two nations. Soon after taking office Mr. Bush undermined his own Secretary of State and South Korea’s Sunshine Policy by discontinuing Clinton Administration negotiations with North Korea:
Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday the United States has "a lot to offer" North Korea if it curbs its missile development and missile export programs.
Powell said future U.S. contacts with Pyongyang would become clearer after South Korean President Kim Dae-jung’s visit.
"We do plan to engage with North Korea to pick up where President Clinton and his administration left off," Powell told a State Department news conference.
"Some promising elements were left on the table and we will be examining those elements," he added.
However, another senior administration official, briefing reporters on condition of anonymity, struck a much more negative and cautionary note. The official said President George W. Bush had not yet decided whether to restart the missile discussions.
The administration also doubts whether a landmark 1994 nuclear deal with North Korea can be implemented, the official said.
Toward the end of his term, Clinton made what officials said was significant progress toward an agreement under which North Korea would have abandoned its long-range missile programs in return for foreign help with launching North Korean satellites. But he ran out of time to clinch a deal.
Mr. Bush was the new sheriff in town. He was going to get tough. And toughness to Bush apparently meant that he would not talk to anyone he did not like:
The Bush administration’s tough talk on North Korea’s communist regime has raised concerns in Asia about regional security.
One Japanese editorial warned that "treating Pyongyang like an enemy will ensure that it becomes one."
…
However, Li Xiguang, director of international communications at Beijing’s elite Qinghua University, urged Bush to continue the policies of his predecessor.
"It would be counterproductive to change the policy of engaging North Korea," Li said. "If that changes, the North could react with hostility and become more confrontational and defensive."
The general sentiment seems to be that Bush should try to capitalize on the Clinton administration’s progress toward curbing the North’s long-range missile threat.
…
Bush told Kim that the United States will not immediately resume Clinton-era talks with North Korea, which achieved a moratorium on its missile testing in September 1999 in exchange for the partial lifting of sanctions.
Instead of negotiations, Mr. Bush ratcheted up the rhetoric. The situation deteriorated significantly when, citing provocation from the United States, North Korea withdrew from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty (NPT) in January 2003. The Bush Administration promptly criticized North Korea for having "thumbed its nose" at the world by unilaterally withdrawing from the NPT. There apparently was no sense in Washington that its criticisms were somewhat hypocritical since the Bush Administration unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty a couple of years ago.
The farce of the six-party talks followed with the United States working actively to sabotage any hint of progress. The failure of diplomacy has brought us to today.
It is not certain that the United States could have prevented a nuclear North Korea if Mr. Bush had chosen a more nuanced approach to foreign policy. However, the course Mr. Bush did follow was almost certain to have created a nuclear armed North Korea. Unfortunately, Mr. Bush in his arrogance has ensured that we are no longer dealing with a possibility of nuclear weapons in the Korean peninsula, we are dealing with a reality.
Now that we are here, make no mistake that we are on the brink of war. We are dealing with the reality of the world’s most isolated regime with nuclear weapons on the one hand and the world’s most powerful nation operating under a foreign policy doctrine that makes war almost inevitable on the other. A paranoid regime in North Korea has now acquired a nuclear deterrent. Washington will be tempted to try to destroy that deterrent. Any miscalculation by either party will likely lead to an overwhelming North Korean conventional attack on South Korean cities as well as American forces stationed on the DMZ. Of course the possibility also exists that a nuclear strike may also occur on the Korean peninsula either by the United States or by North Korea if it is able to find a means of delivery and if it feels that the survival of the regime is under threat.
There is also now no good diplomatic option. Where diplomacy would have been useful before today’s event, the Bush Administration ensured that only belligerence prevailed. The Bush Administration, if it stays true to its nature, will further squeeze the North Korean regime. Kim Jong Il is likely to react predictably by escalating further. In the game of escalation, the Dear Leader will find that he has a like minded foe in Washington.
I am afraid that the best case scenario might be a nuclear arms race in the Korean peninsula and Japan. With Washington on a hair trigger and television reports of the Japanese military already on the move, war however seems the most likely outcome.
Today Kim Jong Il preempted George W Bush. No doubt that the cowboy in Washington will want to swagger in response. We are living in a very dangerous world.
