What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• Rep. Giffords is breathing on her own.


• Sen. John Kerry gave a speech at The Center for American Progress, and while many of the elements clearly come from a Democratic tradition (though several started with Republicans not so long ago), the best part is the line, "America is exceptional not because we say we are, but because we do exceptional things."


• Reacting to Rep. Giffords' shooting, Pres. Clinton called for a change in the tone of political discourse. Roger Ailes, President of Fox News, told his reporters and anchors to calm down, as well. Limbaugh doesn't get the memo.


• Secretary of State Clinton made an unannounced trip to Yemen. The trip's coverage has focused on growing U.S. concerns over Yemen and the complicated relationship between the two states.


• Clashes in Cote d'Ivoire indicate the political crisis there is no closer to resolution even after former Nigerian President Obasanjo visits in an effort to ease Gbagbo out.

Legal Contours of Sudanese Secession

On Sunday, southern Sudanese men and women went to the polls on the first day of a weeklong secession referendum. The referendum, part of 2005 peace agreement between the government of Sudan and South Sudanese armed groups, will almost certainly endorse secession. Sudan’s President, Omar Bashir, has vowed to respect the referendum’s outcomes. South Sudan is expected to declare its independence—becoming the first new state since Kosovo or, arguably, Abkhazia—and the United States has already assured the nascent state that it will extend recognition—that all important totem of statehood.

South Sudan’s impending statehood is interesting for, among other things, its non-conformity with principles of international law. First, the secession referendum likely violates the modern conception of self-determination. Second, South Sudan’s independence violates the principle of uti possidetis juris.

Self-determination has evolved from its post-World War I status as a principle guaranteeing statehood to constituent peoples of the Austro-Hungarian empire to its post-World War II status as a principle guaranteeing statehood to peoples under colonial subjugation (subject to uti possidetis juris) to its modern status as a principle that guarantees territorial integrity subject to the wishes of the whole population of a state. That is, self-determination today does not vest a people with a right to statehood unless the whole population of whatever state in which the people in question reside consent to the carving up of the state.

Uti possidetis juris is a principle of territorial integrity that emerged through decolonization in South America and Africa. It has since become a principle of general applicability in international law. Essentially, uti possidetis juris declares that the administrative or colonial frontiers of a colony become its international frontiers upon decolonization and that those frontiers are inviolable. Thus, the map of Africa is little changed since decolonization. Additionally, the AU is—and its predecessor was—particularly wedded to this notion for seemingly obvious policy reasons.

South Sudanese independence violates both of these principles. Only individuals born in South Sudan before decolonization or their progeny are eligible to vote in the referendum. This necessarily bars the rest of Sudan’s populace from passing on whether its country ought to be carved up. It therefore violates self-determination as it is presently understood.

Likewise, South Sudan’s independence will violate the principle of uti possidetis juris. Sudan was administered as a single colony—much to Egyptian chagrin—by the British.* Though the British affected separate administrations for the Muslim north and Christian south, the territory was a single cohesive unit. More importantly, at independence, Sudan emerged from colonial subjugation as a single territorial entity, with its colonial border transformed into international frontiers. The separation of South Sudan from the rest of Sudan thus disrupts the territorial integrity of Sudan, violating the principle of uti possidetis juris.

None of the above is to suggest that South Sudan’s independence is illegal or unlawful. On the contrary, South Sudan’s emergence as a state is both lawful and consensual. The government of Sudan, through a peace agreement following a bloody civil war, has consented to the separation of the south of its country subject to the 60% approval of the Southerners. The emergence of South Sudan as an independent state is thus remarkably similar to the process by which Eritrea achieved independence. As such, it seems to confirm that Africa will in fact tolerate secession, even secessions following the use or threat of force, so long as the metropolitan state agrees—or is forced to agree—to the severance of territory.

Such a process is rather uncontroversial under international law. However, the fact that two such secession processes have proved successful in the nearly twenty years since Somaliland declared its independence, suggests a potentially emergent regional norm of international law whereby Africa recognizes violent, contentious secession, subject to the above constraints, but not non-violent dissolution in conformity with broader principles of international law.

* Note: the type of administration was actually a British-Egyptian condominium. However, Britain effectively administered Sudan as imperial possession with only pretextual Egyptian influence. The distinction, however, is of no moment to a discussion of territorial boundaries.

The Short List

• Julian Assange was in court in Great Britain on Tuesday for a brief hearing on extradition proceedings stemming from a sexual assault charge pending in Sweden.  He says Wikileaks is speeding up the release of the cables they have.


• The U.S. watchdog over Afghan reconstruction was removed from his post on Monday, as the Obama administration responded to congressional demands that he be sacked.


• The Economist has a brief book review of Evgeny Morozov's The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom, where Mr. Morozov address the widely held belief that great communication leads to greater transparency.


• Judy Clarke was assigned as the defense council for Jared Loughner, the man accused of shooting Rep. Giffords and 18 others.  Ms. Clarke has previously defended the Unibomber.

Rhetoric & Violence

I’ll admit it. The moment I heard that an Arizona Democratic congresswoman was shot, I thought, “Oh great! One of the Tea Party-ers took all that rhetoric seriously and shot someone.” Judging from the initial blog posts of some in the blogosphere, notably Klein, Krugman, and Yglesias, I was not alone in that initial thought.

We seem to be wrong, or at the very least not completely right. Despite the facts not supporting, completely, the notion that the perpetrator was politically motivated the pundit-ocracy has tee-ed off on this tangent and I don’t think that’s an entirely bad thing.

Will Wilkinson disagrees and I think his post is important to keep us all tethered to the real reasons this particular gunman perpetrated this particular heinous act, but I also think his post fails to address something connected to the incident.

Why did so many commentators believe, just like I had believed, that the shooting was politically motivated and specifically why did we think it was entirely probable such an incident was perpetrated by a member of the Tea Party?

There’s a lot of baggage to that question. Clearly I’m citing “liberal” bloggers and there is the perceived “liberal bias” of the mainstream media. Maybe we are fearful of people who identify with the Tea Party and/or the people further right than people in the Tea Party. Maybe we’re concerned the ramparts of our urban utopia, bastions of liberalism that they are, will be stormed by gun-toting “patriots” from the “real America” and those first shots fired in Arizona are the opening salvo in a broader struggle yet to come that will be decided by “Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson” as Glenn Beck once said.

I would follow up those potential reasons for our response and ask, why do we feel that way? The answer, to my mind, is the hateful, violent rhetoric that has become part and parcel of the message of the right.

Also, let’s be honest with ourselves and admit that the violent rhetoric in recent years has been coming more from the far right then the far left. It’s not being partisan if it’s true. I didn’t hear anybody threaten to shoot John Boehner if he became speaker (though plenty of people threatened to move to Canada if McCain was elected president, which would seek to confirm leftist pacifism). It hasn’t always been that way in America, but that’s the way it is right now.

We’ve heard this litany before. Sarah Palin’s crosshairs map, basically anything that Glenn Beck says about Obama, Senate candidate Sharron Angle’s “second amendment remedies” for Congress, and who can forget the original innovator, Rush Limbaugh. Michelle Goldberg has a web-only piece in The American Prospect that recounts some of the history and urges some restraint in the rhetoric we use. This isn’t an assault on free speech, this is a call for some personal responsibility. Does Sharron Angle believe we should actually shoot members of Congress? I would imagine not. Does Glenn Beck truly think we have exhausted all options and armed opposition to the government is the only way to bring change? I doubt it (advertisers don’t have products to sell during a full-scale civil war and that’d be an issue for a radio program).

If they don’t believe it, then they have a responsibility not to say it. I’m not talking about being at a point were we can disagree without being disagreeable, I’m just asking that you not advocate for a violent solution to what is a political problem. And I’ll go on record and say this, we don’t need legislation about speech to handle this, we don’t even need forced civility, we just need not encourage the violent elimination of political opponents. That strikes me as a low bar.

What happened in Arizona on Saturday was a tragedy of the first order. Two public servants were shot and one has already died. Five other people died for doing nothing more offensive than being in that parking lot at that Safeway at that moment. As we learn more about the perpetrator, hopefully we will begin to understand why this particular incident happened. It does not appear to be what so many of us thought it was when we first heard the news, but maybe this is an opportunity. Perhaps this violence, though not springing exclusively from violent rhetoric, will give us all a moment to consider our words, what we want them to mean, what they may mean to others, and what actions that perception could lead to.

This time it wasn’t politically motivated, but if I heard the same story again, right now, I’d have the same first thought I had on Saturday. I’m hoping we get to a point where that’s not the case.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• Rep. Giffords is responsive but her doctors warn that she is not out of the woods. Her would-be assassin is to appear before a federal magistrate in Arizona.
• Disgraced former Congressman Tom Delay was sentenced to 3 years in prison for money laundering related to his involvement in a scheme to funnel corporate money to political candidates in Texas.
• The second day of voting in South Sudan's referendum has been relatively peaceful, with clashes in the disputed region seemingly relegated there.
• Thailand's Red Shirts have reappeared.
  

The Short List

• Rep. Gabrielle Gifford, Congresswoman from Arizona, and eighteen others were shot outside a Safeway in Tuscon, AZ during an in district event Rep. Gifford was hosting.  Six people were killed and Rep. Gifford remains in critical condition.


• ETA separatists in the Basque region of Spain have called for a permanent ceasefire, but the government of Spain is waiting for more concrete movements by the group.


• With calls for government austerity on the rise, The Economist has a cover story and a podcast assessing the looming showdown between governments and their public sector unions.


• Sudan prepares for a referendum by the south to secede, and many observers are waiting for the other shoe to drop considering the referendum, if a vote occurs, is expected to pass convincingly.

What Kind Of Day Has It Been

• Chile becomes the most recent South American country to officially recognize Palestinian statehood
• AQAP continues to press its fight against the state of Yemen (background on this growing armed conflict here)
• After sort-of reading the Constitution to begin the 112th Congress, House Republicans are forced to airbrush history because two House GOPers cast unConstitutional votes
• Job numbers improved slightly with unemployment dropping to 9.4%
  

Facebook & Goldman - John Stewart Weighs In

So, I made note of this whole Facebook/Goldman Sachs deal here, but John Stewart has also weighed in here:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Anti-Social Network
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Unsurprisingly, he is funnier then I am when making one of my key points.

The Short List

• SecDef Robert Gates has proposed $100 billion in savings from the Pentagon budget.


• The Congressional Budget Office preliminarily projects that a repeal of the Health Care Bill would add $145 billion to the federal deficit between 2012 and 2019.  Speaker Boehner disagrees with their math.


• Cote d'Ivoire's post-election troubles look to spillover into Liberia.  Meanwhile president-elect Alassane Ouattara remains holed up at Hotel du Golf.


• Recently retired Mossad Chief Meir Dagan says Iran won't become a nuclear power until 2015.

Pakistan Disintegrating?

Stephen P. Cohen seems to think so, from this interview with the Council on Foreign Relations.  I'm working on a longer article about Pakistan in the wake of Salman Taseer's assassination.

The Short List

• Moktada al-Sadr reappeared in Iraq, but for how long and for what reason people aren't sure.


• Nobel prize winner Muhammad Younis is under fire from the Bangladeshi government and there are concerns he could be removed from his leadership role with Grameen Bank.


• Robert Gibbs is stepping down as Press Secretary in early February, which is part of a broader staff shuffle at the White House.


• The United Nations reports a sharp rise in food prices, but the situation isn't as dire as the number would suggest for now.


• An investment unit inside Goldman Sachs declined to get in on the Facebook deal, in part due to the implied valuation of the company.

What Goldman Sachs Gets

William D. Cohan, writing in The New York Times, has an op-ed talking about what Goldman will gain from the Facebook deal. While some of it is speculation at this point, it does hold water logically.

He talks about Facebook, it's valuation in this pre-IPO period, and the likely unsustainable valuation of the company. He also talks a little about the potential conflict of interests for the myriad of roles Goldman Sachs could play as the exclusive I-bank for Facebook (and likely Mr. Zuckerberg). If Goldman Sachs wins from this deal, who loses? "The average investor, of course, who will get stuck holding the bag when, someday, Wall Street realizes the firm's financial performance doesn't lived up to its hyped valuation."

Perhaps unethical was the wrong word, but this seems like the worst of the markets at work in a lot of different ways.

Income Inequality - Additional Perspective

I'm ripping off Ezra Klein, who's quoting Brooking's Gary Burtless, but this post on Ezra's blog really goes into some depth about the income inequality we observe today when looking at hourly wage. I submit it without comment.

Lessons Unlearned - Facebook & Goldman Sachs

Back in the spring of 2010 there was a brief uproar about the obtuse nature of privacy settings on Facebook. In the face of the uproar, Facebook made some changes and Mark Zuckerberg had an op-ed in The Washington Post. Mr. Zuckerberg said this:

"If we give people control over what they share, they will want to share more. If people share more, the world will become more open and connected. And a world that's more open and connected is a better world. These are still our core principles today."

Apparently when Mr. Zuckerberg advocated for openness and sharing, he didn't count Facebook in that number. Recent reports from The New York Times outline how Facebook has partnered with Goldman Sachs to market a financial product intending to raise capital for Facebook. Here's the rub, since Goldman is marketing the product it is made to look like Goldman is a single investor, instead of counting all those individuals that got this exclusive offer. Why do that? Because if you have more then 499 investors you have to disclose your financial results. I guess sharing isn't so grand but control is.

So let's consider some obvious parts to this story. First, Mr. Zuckerberg is a hypocrite. He wants to catalog your information and make money off of it, but he really likes to have control and isn't big into sharing how is company is really doing. Second, while this may not be strictly illegal, it would certainly appear to violate the spirit, if not the letter of the law. Did Goldman Sachs really learn so little during the financial crisis?

The SEC is investigating this activity, so we will see what happens with that. I find it incredulous that a finance firm would think this is good business so soon after the crisis. Maybe the problem was so many people got bailed out that lessons went unlearned. Maybe, as Paul Krugman often say, when it comes to high finance, heads they win, tails we lose.

I take some solace in the idea that Facebook probably won't be here in 2036, though I fear populist narcissism and corporate obliqueness will.

Income Inequality and Political Economy

Robert Lieberman has an interesting book review on disparate wealth distribution in the United States and associated political economy in the January/February 2011 issue of Foreign Affairs:

It is generally presumed that economic forces alone are responsible for this astonishing concentration of wealth. Technological changes, particularly the information revolution, have transformed the economy, making workers more productive and placing a premium on intellectual, rather than manual, labor. Simultaneously, the rise of global markets -- itself accelerated by information technology -- has hollowed out the once dominant U.S. manufacturing sector and reoriented the U.S. economy toward the service sector. The service economy also rewards the educated, with high-paying professional jobs in finance, health care, and information technology. At the low end, however, jobs in the service economy are concentrated in retail sales and entertainment, where salaries are low, unions are weak, and workers are expendable.

Champions of globalization portray these developments as the natural consequences of market forces, which they believe are not only benevolent (because they increase aggregate wealth through trade and make all kinds of goods cheaper to consume) but also unstoppable. Skeptics of globalization, on the other hand, emphasize the distributional consequences of these trends, which tend to confer tremendous benefits on a highly educated and highly skilled elite while leaving other workers behind. But neither side in this debate has bothered to question Washington's primary role in creating the growing inequality in the United States.

Boehner's Tears and His Actions

Timothy Egan, over at The New York Times has a great post up talking about John Boehner's teary-eyed profile on 60 minutes. Beyond the double-standard that would have disallowed Nancy Pelosi to withstand a sob-fest when she became Speaker of the House, there is also the question of why John Boehner cries so much:

"'Making sure these kids have a shot at the American dream like I did is very important,' [Boehner] said, choking up."

Egan then does a great job of listing all the things that are designed to help people have a shot at the American dream, but that John Boehner has voted against. Time and again Boehner's actions, his votes, have been obstacles to people achieving something greater.

To me, this is the great challenge to America in the 21st century. The slow erosion of social safety nets and the lock-step aversion of the Republican party to consider new social safety nets will allow the rate of disparity to continue apace.

I doubt John Boehner will cry when presented with the statistics that show a consolidation of wealth at the highest tiers of earners. It's easier to get teary-eyed at the abstraction of the American dream, then to dry your eyes and help make it a reality for people.

UPDATED: h/t to Matt Yglesias for pointing out this peice in The New York Times by David Leonhardt. Mr. Leonhardt makes a point I couldn't quite put to words and does so eloquently:

It's easy to look at the current debate and see an unavoidable trade-off between this country's two economic traditions - risk-taking and security. but I don't think that's quite right. I think it is ultimately as misplaced as those worries about Social Security and Medicare equaling Bolshevism.

Guaranteeing people a decent retirement and decent health care does more then smooth out the rough edges of capitalism. Those guarantees give people the freedom to take risks. If you know that professional failure won't leave you penniless and won't prevent your child form receiving needed medical care, you can leave the comfort of a large corporation and take a chance on your own idea. You can take a shot at becoming the next great American entrepreneur.

To me, this is precisely why we need social safety nets. In most policy debates we are given this false choice between individual ingenuity and government coddling. Leonhardt hits on the point quite nicely that some sort of economic backstop can free people to take the big swings and aim for the fences.

AfPak after Holbrooke

Richard Holbrooke's passing on Monday was truly a loss for the foreign policy establishment. If there are rock stars of foreign policy, surely he would be Mick Jagger. He was the elder statesmen of Democratic foreign policy. He was brash, forceful, and relentless. When he was tapped to be Special Envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan in January 2009, there was a real sense that he could pull the situation together and bring it to some sort of resolution. Sadly, he was unable to finish his work, but work remains to be done, and the fates of nations rarely rest on the fate of a man.

What happens now in AfPak? Our current political approach hasn't produced much. It was widely reported that Holbrooke and Karzai didn't get along. Since recently Karzai hasn't gotten along with anyone within the U.S. government, that is unsurprising. Perhaps there is an opportunity to bring in a new special envoy, a new voice, with a new plan for the political strategy necessary to reach a conclusion to large scale U.S. involvement in AfPak.

I am just beginning to consider what that strategy could be, and I have no idea who would serve in the role of Special Envoy. I hope to have a post up on that a little later this week. One thing is clear, if there is a new Special Envoy for AfPak they won't have the star power, the presence, indeed the sheer force that Richard Holbrooke brought to the position.