OBAMA, ET AL: WHAT IS YOUR OBJECTIVE IN LIBYA?

The US government has been an embarrassing excuse for a  "superpower" in regards to the crisis in Libya. Some members of our brilliant government have said that the no-fly zone is not an attempt at regime change but instead a quick response to the danger posed against the civilians. Then others say that we (the Western powers) are liberating the Libyans of their forty-year-old dictatorship, kind of like the United States "liberated" Iraqis not too long ago. Indeed, Obama declared, "Gaddafi must go," although members of his military have stated otherwise. And of course, Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul are on television arguing that the President has no right to impose a no-fly zone without congressional consent. The conversation is a mess. Who is right in this debate over the future of Libya?

Nobody. American politicians are doing what they do best: nothing. Instead of making a clear decision, members of the US government insist on babbling back and forth and contradicting one another. Does this mean that a no-fly zone is the best decision that the West should have made a long time ago? Absolutely not. The United States could have made an acceptable and respectable decision weeks ago, to either: 1) intervene in support of the revolutionary rebel groups [in other words, protect the oil market], or 2) let Libya fight its own battle. Both of these decisions come with their costs and benefits, but it makes sense to choose either one, provided the decision is made by a group of strong leaders who have carefully assessed the pros and cons.

Read my lips: the United States' intervention in Libya is a politicized decision-- one that will boost Obama's image (despite his ridiculously slow decision-making skills) and provide future presidential candidates with the soap box to critique the military strategies that are materializing at the moment. And because it's politics as usual here in the US, our government has not set a clear and rational objective in imposing a no-fly zone in Libya. The country's future is hence increasingly cloudy. Think about it, because our government isn't.

[Sourced image: Boston.com's Big Picture story on the UN air strikes in Libya.]

FIRST TUNIS, NOW CAIRO.

The Associated Press just released a video of a man being shot in an impassioned Egyptian protest that spread to the outer-suburbs of Cairo. There's not much more to say; the video has a jaw-dropping effect.

THE ARAB WORLD ATTRIBUTES TUNISIA'S UPRISING TO THE FUNDAMENTALS OF DEMOCRACY.

There are those who say democracy is impossible where Islam is the predominant ruling force. "Those" are usually naive or politically-inclined Westerners, plus the Islamic fundamentalists that the West secretly hopes remain in power. The Arab press disagrees wholeheartedly with this assumption, and they aren't being quiet about Tunisia's revolution linking to democracy. It's a good point; Tunisia is a strong model for other Arab countries that are striving for democracy. But no one explains this as accurately and powerfully as Arab journalists, who understand that democracy does not necessarily need to replace local pride with cliched and culturally-exclusive American values. Writes al-Arabiyya:

“Are the Western values of justice, freedom, and democracy suitable for Arabs? There can be no denying that they are. As the second caliph Umar bin al-Khattab is said to have asked: ‘How can you enslave people when their mothers bore them as freemen?’...If an iconic figure like Umar promoted such values as freedom, justice, and accountability, do the Arabs really need to imitate the West? ... But whereas the West translated these values into tangible laws and civil institutions, the Arabs and Muslims merely touted them without following their spirit. And this is the fundamental difference between Western and Arab civilization. But now, with the Tunisian uprising, no one knows what direction their compass will point them. In any case, those Arabs who sincerely care for their country should study what is happening in Tunisia and do what needs to be done immediately to recreate the same set of facts in
their own land.”

[More Arab newspaper quotes found in the Economist.] 

Image Source: CHRISTOPHE ENA / AP (TIME Photos.)

SUDAN'S NEW SOUTH, AS TOLD BY A SUDANESE.

Until recently, Sudan boasted its strongly diverse landscape and cultural makeup. Ancient pyramids dating from the Nubian dynasty decorate the country's North. The Blue-White Nile split marks the capital region and its three sub-cities of Omdurman, Khartoum proper, and Bahri. And from there, the Nile valley gives you a tour of the country's vast beauties, from traditional sword dances to fresh fish in the Port, to lush mango trees that grow in the South. This is the Sudan that today's Sudanese will always remember in pride, despite poor leadership within and without the country-- leaders that only serve to strip the people of their resources and strength. Leaders that hail from the States, Juba, Europe, Tel-Aviv, and Khartoum alike.

Sudan has never been new to political strife and controversy, but today we stand as two vulnerable nations. After every referendum ballot is submitted and New Sudan is announced, the two African countries will materialize and contradict the definition of Sudan. 

If the Southern people were actually given the rights that they deserve, this would be a different story. If there was a chance that both Sudan and New Sudan could be lead by fair and just politicians, then the referendum wouldn't lead to inevitable violence and divisions within South Sudan. If geo-politics surrounding all of Sudan weren't so baffling, if Sudan was truly free to self-determine itself, and if the country wasn't a victim of gross propaganda and slander perpetrated by corrupt Save Darfur and Lost Boy activists, then yes, the naive tale that the Western media tells of this "historic triumph" might actually become a reality.

But let's not be naive. A Sudanese secession is only a triumph for the countries that will reap the benefits of the Southern oil fields and leave the people to fight and fend for themselves as per usual. Divide and rule is alive and well, and accordingly, Sudan is not.

BRAZIL TO HOLD PALESTINE'S FIRST EMBASSY IN THE WEST.

After Brazil's historic recognition of the conflict-laden region, a Palestinian embassy is in the works.

Recap: Brazil and a number of other South American countries have publicly recognized Palestine within "pre-1967 borders." Israel has deemed this decision as "seriously harmful." America is mad, too (shocking). Meanwhile, the rest of the world is happy to see some sort of progress materialize. More information can be found in Al Jazeera's article.

[Sourced image contains an excerpt from Joe Sacco's Footnotes in Gaza.]

JERRY BROWN SWORN IN AS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA.

It's about damn time. In response to this, Schwarzenegger declined to say anything but, "I'll be back."

[A slightly more honest news report can be found on BBC.]

BRAZIL'S PRESIDENT-ELECT DILMA ROUSSEFF IS THE FIRST OF HER KIND.

Writes the New York Times:

Voters who supported her in São Paulo, where [Rousseff's opponent] Mr. Serra won, said Sunday that they were willing to look past her lack of experience. “If it were only about experience I would never vote for her,” said Denilson Quintino, 43, an electrician. “But she has a good team behind her. Today the country is much better off because of the Lula government. [Lula da Silva] did more for me than any other president.”

 [Source image: CBC News.]

IS OBAMA SCREWED?

On the moderate-liberal end of the political spectrum, a lot has been said about Obama's next two years after the lame duck legislation. Some say he has proven that bipartisanship can lead to productive efforts, that he has done more than his progressive critics claim, and that they need to stop expecting perfection. Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, who has made it his mission to destroy Obama's "hope and change" efforts, recently told TIME that the tax-cut compromise was proof that Republicans and Democrats "can do business." Hope is alive, and the two enemies that were the Left and Right are becoming friends. Or, at least, frenemies.

Obama's liberal critics are annoyed that the President insists on appeasing men like McConnell. As Democrats and Republicans are doing business, critics see any hope for progress wiped out or watered down. They are waiting to see more action that mirrors the "Yes We Can" campaign. In short, progressives have practically thrown in the towel and today view Obama as a self-contradicting jellyfish. This growing negative discourse adds to the harsher conservative critiques of the President; as Obama said in a[n unrelated] press conference, "I can't win." Is this guy screwed?

Say what you want about Barack Obama's political record thus far. But the man has not been playing politics well. While a lot of the President's less politically active constituents have stood by him, he has managed to confuse the hell out of a large portion of his liberal base. Those who voted for hope and change are likely to get swayed by more experienced and impassioned presidential candidates come 2012. And let's not forget the new Republican House, who are getting ready to crush any and all hopes of progressive legislation.

Then again, this last point isn't very new. If you ask us, Barack Obama has been screwed ever since his inauguration. Actually, we're all screwed.