Adieu: Humanitarian Intervention

There's talk that the era of humanitarian intervention is well and truly over before it ever gained full lift-off. The concept was championed in the late 90s and the early parts of this decade by the likes of Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. But Madeleine Albright (who was Clinton's Secretary of State) has written an obituary of sorts in an OpEd in today's New York Times.

Simon Jenkins writing in the Sunday Times echoed the demise of this concept with a caption that said it all: "You’re safe, Mr Mugabe; we will not act".

So why is the case that in 3 of the 'low hanging fruit' scenarios for humanitarian intervention, Zimbabwe, Burma & Sudan, the champions of yesterday have been merely content with issuing statements and making all the usual noises today?

FP Passport sees the reason for this as being the China Factor. Hear them:
"Guess who is not too enthusiastic about humanitarian intervention in places like Burma, Sudan, and Zimbabwe, and guess who's vastly more powerful than in the 90s?"

It's the Economy, but don't be Stupid

Robert Samuelson makes the case:

"Sensible voters should look beyond the cheery or dreary economy of the moment. They should recognize that if presidents could control the business cycle, recessions would never occur, there would always be "full employment" and inflation would remain forever tame. Instead of judging prospective presidents on what they can't do, voters ought to concentrate on what they can do. There are plenty of real differences among the remaining candidates. But (James) Carville is probably right. For many, it will be the economy, and it will be stupid."

A Chorus that can't be Ignored

"We know that what began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus that cannot be ignored."It is a chorus that will not be deterred; that will ring out across this land as a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, make this time different than all the rest. Yes. We. Can."

Listen to the Hymn here

photocredit - Chicago Tribune

One Super Duper Tuesday morning

As America wakes up to this day that Political Pundits have christened Super Duper Tuesday, one gets the feeling that this day could be significant or maybe not.
Having spent the better part of the last year campaigning from the beaches of Florida to the vineyards of California, the Republicans and Democrats candidates are likely to have a clearer sense of who will win the party nomination for the general elections later in the year.
The buzz around these elections is the most frenzied I can remember since I began paying attention to these matters at the time of the Dukakis nominantion in 1988.
Two comments from Arianna Huffington form the book ends in the shelf of opinion and commentaries that have flooded the media since the primary season began in Iowa till date.
On the night of Barack Obama's suprising victory on that January night, she opened her article by saying
Even if your candidate didn't win tonight, you have reason to celebrate. We all do...
Because tonight voters decided that they didn't want to look back. They wanted to look into the future --- as if a country exhausted by the last seven years wanted to recapture its youth.
Yesterday, she alluded to what may yet be an underlying motive for voting one way or another for those who go out to the caucuses and ballots later today.

"The 2008 Race for President", she said, was "the Search for our Better Selves."

You may agree or disagree with Ms Huffington's opinion, but what you can't discount is the extent to which the world beyond America is watching these events closely in the hope that maybe those same feelings can be engendered in our politics. As those of us non-Americans can't vote to decide who wins this race, the best we can hope for is that the same buzz can be generated in our nations and communities. But again, its a case of maybe or maybe not. Whatever happens, we can always look back to this Tuesday morning in historic terms.

Image - Courtesy of HuffPo