The Mid-Range Consequences of Bush's Foreign Policy Taking Shape in South Asia

Even before his departure, there was plenty of talk from both Bush's supporters and his opponents about what his "legacy" would be. Since Obama's inaugural, we've already seen some of the immediate short-term consequences of Bush's administration - most notably, the economic collapse and the emergence of the issue of torture, but also other matters like Obama having to try to repair the U.S.'s reputation in Latin America after 8 years of arrogance and ignorance.

It seems we can add to that Bush's foreign policy's effects on the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with the possibility of the Taliban gaining access to nuclear materials in the case of the latter. By rushing the U.S. to war in Iraq in late 2002 and 2003 under the banner of 9/11 without actually focusing on the country that actually was home to bin Laden is undoubtedly one of Bush's most egregious foreign policy blunders. The issue of whether the war in Afghanistan was "just" or not is not necessarily relative here; the fact is, by prosecuting a half-hearted effort from the White House while putting all the efforts on Iraq and then having to spend the past 6 years trying to clean up the mess, the Bush administration undoubtedly left the door open for the events that we're seeing now in Afghanistan and Pakistan. What is more, the bullying and indefnsible aggression of Bush not just in Iraq, but in talks about Iran, Hamas, and other groups has most likely made us even more enemies in Southern Asia, perhaps aiding the Taliban's efforts and giving it even more support than it would have gained had we actually had an intelligent leader employing actual diplomatic intelligence and reason.

Things are certainly too unclear to attempt to accurately predict what will happen in Afghanistan, and especially Pakistan. But while people's freak out because over 1000 people out of over six billion are sick worldwide, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan is becoming more precarious. With over 6 years passed now since the war in Iraq began, it's undeniable that the Iraq War deterred the employment of resources to Afghanistan, while our constant support of Pervez Musharraf even in the face of eroding support endeared us to very few in Pakistan. Thus, while things are still in movement right now, we're already beginning to see the potential long-term damage of the Bush administration's foreign policy.

Bush's War on Endangered Species

I never expected anything but the worst, stupidest decisions from the Bush administration. Nonetheless, this leaves me really depressed:

The Bush administration on Monday said it plans to let federal agencies decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

There may be good reasons to reduce endangered animals and plants lists, but "to make development easier and less costly" is certainly not one of those possible reasons. It just reinforces how this is one of, if not the, worst administrations environmentally the U.S. has ever seen, at a time when environmental policies are taking on even greater importance. It's simply abominable.

The Border Fence and the Constitution

Today, the Times ran this story by Adam Liptak about how the government has ridden roughshod across the Constitution to build the border fence. To their credit, the Times has run a pretty long series of stories now on the awfulness of this idea.

Liptak shows how the government, and especially Michael Chertoff, has basically used the Constitution as toilet paper. By waiving whatever laws get in the way of the fence, Chertoff and Bush are setting the dangerous precedent that the rule of law is irrelevant whenever the government chooses.

In their lawsuit challenging Chertoff waiving environmental law, the Sierra Club and Defenders of Wildlife said

“It is only happenchance that the secretary’s waiver in this case involved laws protecting the environment and historic resources,” the groups told Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of Federal District Court in Washington. “He could equally have waived the requirements of the Fair Labor Relations Act to halt a strike, or the provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in order to force workers to endure unsafe working conditions.”

Precisely. This is a slippery slope. Guantanamo was the first step, but many Americans ignored it because it was far away and the victims were terrorists or something. But this administration, as seen in the work of John Yoo and others, believes that they can ignore the Constitution whenever they want and they intend on doing so to build this pointless wall.

Of course, this is hardly the first time that Bush has ignored the Constitution. Moreover, it's a reminder of the Constitution's fragility. Any study of U.S. history, particularly racial or labor history, shows that we have a long history of upholding the Constitution only when we find it convenient. Think of Andrew Jackson ignoring the Supreme Court over Cherokee removal. Think of Rutherford Hayes and Grover Cleveland calling out federal troops to suppress strikes. Think of Woodrow Wilson and the first Red Scare. And of course, there's Richard Nixon.

Even presidents who I respect have often not respected the Constitution. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus during the Civil War was unfortunate, though perhaps necessary given the situation. And Franklin Roosevelt's issue of Executive Order 8803, creating the Japanese concentration camps, is a sad mark on U.S. history.

This doesn't even get into how local governments, law enforcement, and even the Supreme Court has ignored the Constitution when they don't agree with it. The long-term violation of civil rights of African-Americans is the most notorious example, but the suppression of labor struggles or just people who local communities didn't like has happened throughout U.S. history. Maybe the worst example is the Gilded Age Supreme Court. In 1896, not only did the Court rule in Plessy v. Ferguson, which for all intent and purpose flushed the 14th Amendment down the toilet, it also ruled in Ward v. Race Horse that legal precedents concerning Native American rights to the land were "wholly immaterial" because national glory now demanding white domination of the land. This is nothing more than Supreme Court members codifying their own prejudice.

What is different today is a wider spread belief in civil rights and the sanctity of the Constitution. So there are powerful groups suing the federal government over their disturbing unconstitutionality. But still, most Americans may not care, particularly when the move is so obviously to maintain the nation's whiteness in the guise of anti-terrorism. While the Constitution should be the law in this nation, it has usually operated as an ideal that must be constantly fought for. Too often those on the side of law and civil rights have lost. I'm hardly more optimistic about the outcome of this situation.

What if we've all been played the fools?

I, like many people, have found the current administration to have generally run the country with appalling agendas that were generally fueled by a generic stupidity (as in, reflecting any intelligent discourse or analysis, and instead relying on knee-jerk "I know I'm right - God tells me so" grounds). Only Cheney ever seemed more sinister.

However, given this terrifying analysis of the consequences and motivations behind the Valerie Plame case, I'm beginning to have second thoughts. As terrifying as this administration has already been, if it is really this manipulative and power-hungry, so willing to wield its authority for the basest of causes, well.....dark days indeed.

For Thee but Not for Me: Ethanol, Brazil, and the U.S.

There's a fascinating article in the NY Times this week about Bush's upcoming visit to Brazil next week (stay tuned for more next week). The reason for his visit is "to promote the production and use of ethanol throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, according to administration officials." Despite what some may see as the good efforts of the administration, however, there are some extremely frustrating aspects to this visit and the agreement.

Certainly, the U.S. isn't lacking in its production of ethanol (as the article points out, 70% of global ethanol production comes from Brazil and the U.S.). However, the U.S. has yet to take the measures that Brazil has to make the auto and other industries more efficient and responsible in their use of ethanol and more available for public consumption (how many people have ethanol-fueled cars in the U.S.?). The language of the Bush officials and of the article itself is very specific: they want to promote broader use of ethanol in the hemisphere, but without any specific mention of the U.S. The overall tone is that the U.S. wants to increase other countries' use of ethanol without ever really addressing its own, and it's hard to tell other countries how they should use their fuel when we have done such a poor job in our employment of alternate fuels in the U.S. As for the protectionism issues that some politicians are raising in the cheaper cost of ethanol from sugar (the Brazilian model) than corn (the American model), I suspect their worries are a bit hollow, as people within the ethanol industry in the U.S. are not yet worried. As for their goal to spread this technology to other poor countries, I'm....leery. Maybe the U.S. has good intentions that will actually help countries in the Americas, but given the results of the U.S. government's past "good intentions" (see: Guatemala in 1954, Nicaragua from 1930-1990, Brazil in 1964, Chile in 1973, Argentina in 1976, the Dominican Republic throughout the 20th century, Haiti, El Salvador, etc.), I'm skeptical, to put it lightly.

If anybody is going to win from this, it is going to be Brazil. Brazil is already a global leader in alternative fuels in the world, having ethanol and alcohol options at nearly all gas stations, with alternate-energy cars readily available on the market. The article is correct in portraying Brazil as one of the leaders of this alternate fuel market, and their position right now has them poised to be an even more important world player as oil reserves decrease and people the world over look for alternative solutions.

I suppose that at this point any attention to alternative fuels from this administration at this point is an improvement (after all, Bush is the guy who, a few years ago at a gas station in Virginia, said to reporters that he wanted to reeduce our dependence on "fossil fuels" and move more towards energy like....coal - does anybody know where I could find the video clip of that?). However, it's so frustrating that we can have a president who can basically come down here, sign an agreement that proposes other countries gain the technology to create alternate fuels, tehreby decreasing their dependency on gas, while the administration sits idly by and does virtually nothing to try to legitimately increase our own use of alternative fuels.