EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

 

 

President Obama and the Arab Spring

 

It should be no surprise that the ferment in the Arab world has touched the Palestinians, whose promised two-state solution is no closer than ever. On Sunday, the anniversary of Israel’s creation, thousands marching from Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank breached Israel’s borders and confronted Israeli troops. More than a dozen people were killed; scores were injured.

According to The Times’s Ethan Bronner, the protests were coordinated via social media, but they also appeared to have support from Lebanon and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who is eager to divert attention from his crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators.

Israel must defend its territory. But the protests and the casualties might have been avoided if credible peace negotiations were under way. Since President Obama took office, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have had just three weeks of direct talks. Last week, George Mitchell, Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, quit.

There is blame all around: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who is scheduled to meet with Mr. Obama at the White House on Friday, has shown little interest in negotiations and has used the regional turmoil as one more excuse to hunker down. Arab leaders haven’t given him much incentive to compromise. President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority wants a deal but seemed to give up after Mr. Obama couldn’t deliver a promised settlement freeze.

President Obama has done far too little to break the stalemate. As he prepares to give a speech on Thursday on the Arab Spring, the White House signaled that he is unlikely to offer any new initiative to revive peace talks.

Frankly, we do not see how Mr. Obama can talk persuasively about transformation in the Arab world without showing Palestinians a peaceful way forward. It is time for Mr. Obama, alone or with crucial allies, to put a map and a deal on the table. The two sides will not break the impasse by themselves.

This is a singular moment of great opportunity and challenge in the Arab world. The United States and other democracies cannot dictate the outcome but must invest maximum effort and creativity to help shape it. There is no one-size-fits-all doctrine for dealing with disparate countries. The United States and its allies are right to balance values and strategic interests.

Still Mr. Obama can use the speech to articulate principles that Arab countries should follow as a condition of Western economic and political support: democratic elections, free markets, peaceful relations with neighboring states — including Israel — rights for women and minorities, the rule of law.

He should press American allies to lay out similar principles when the Group of 8 industrialized nations meets this month in France and back them up with clear offers of support. The United States and its allies must help Tunisia and Egypt — their struggles have inspired the region — weather severe economic problems, providing debt relief, trade and access to international financial institutions. Civil society groups need support.

President Obama raised great hopes in 2009 when he spoke in Cairo about “a new beginning” with the Muslim world. The glow has faded. He has another chance this week to bolster this country’s image and to help support democratic change in the region. Reviving the peace process must be part of that effort. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict wasn’t central to protests in Egypt, Libya or Syria. But as Mr. Assad proved, it is still a far too potent weapon for autocrats and extremists.

 

Will the Banks Finally Have to Answer?

 

At long last, there may be a serious investigation into the mortgage mess — the kind that results in clarity as well as big fines and maybe even accountability.

Gretchen Morgenson reported in The Times on Tuesday that Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, wants to discuss mortgage operations during the housing bubble with executives of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. He has also requested documents and information from the banks, examined material given to his predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, and studied issues raised in lawsuits against the banks.

Mr. Schneiderman would not comment on the investigation. What is needed is a broad inquiry into how banks inflated the housing bubble, profiting as it expanded and getting bailed out when it burst — leaving investors and homeowners devastated.

Any serious investigation must take a close look at “securitization” — the pooling of thousands of home loans into securities that were sold to investors the world over. Three years after it all imploded — and even after Congress vowed to get answers and names — Americans still don’t have answers to vitally important questions.

Topping the list: Did the big banks know (if not, why not?) that billions in loans and related securities were destined to fail? Did they intentionally mislead investors and insurers or were they just incompetent?

An investigation must also figure out the extent of wrongdoing in Wall Street practices that fed the securitization pipeline. By extending credit to mortgage lenders, Wall Street allowed them to make loans far longer than they otherwise could have. Did Wall Street purposely inflate the bubble when it enabled loans to uncreditworthy borrowers for unreasonably priced homes?

All indications are that last year’s robo-signing scandal, in which banks were found to have filed false court documents in foreclosure cases, was just the tip of an iceberg. A growing body of Congressional testimony, academic research, court cases and other evidence suggests pervasive defects, and potentially vast lawbreaking, in the securitization and foreclosure process.

It has also been suggested that federal and state officials have ignored or played down allegations of widespread illegality, a charge that is all too easy to believe. A recent federal investigation into banks’ foreclosure abuses ended with a wrist slap. Talks between state attorneys general and banks over those abuses appear hamstrung, in part, by the apparent failure of state officials to do a thorough investigation on which to base demands for meaningful reforms and stiff penalties.

It is critical that someone stand up and say “no” to allegations that go unexamined, to wrongdoing without redress. Mr. Schneiderman, it’s up to you.

 

What’s Good for Workers ...

 

The refusal by Congressional Republicans to renew assistance for workers who lose their jobs to overseas competition is another instance of their callous determination to slash the budget at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. It is also bad for American business and other constituents dearer to their hearts.

We support passage of the three long-delayed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. But the White House is right not to submit the deals to Congress until Republicans agree to the benefits renewal.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, retrains displaced workers and provides extended unemployment insurance. The 2009 stimulus bill added health insurance benefits and expanded the list of those eligible to include the large number of service-sector workers displaced by outsourcing. Those expanded benefits expired in February.

Adjustment assistance should be seen as a core component of the nation’s strategy to embrace globalization. The United States Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have made clear their support for renewal. Earlier this month, a business coalition, including the chamber and other business groups, sent a letter to the president and Congressional leaders reaffirming their “long standing support for T.A.A. as a central part of America’s overall trade agenda.”

Public declarations and letters are clearly not enough. Business leaders need to press hard on Republican leaders, telling them it is time to stand up to the antigovernment fringe. The assistance package is not only good for American workers and businesses, it is in the best interest of the whole country.

 

Wagons North!

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn’t make many friends when he offered his own idea for saving Detroit, which has lost one-fourth of its population over the last decade.
Speaking on “Meet the Press” on NBC earlier this month, he suggested that Congress “pass a law letting immigrants come in as long as they agree to go to Detroit and live there for five or 10 years, start businesses, take jobs, whatever.  You would populate Detroit overnight because half the world wants to come here.”
Detroiters like Mayor Dave Bing were displeased (the fact that Mr. Bloomberg had called him a “great mayor” didn’t quell his pique). “I don’t know what he was on,” Mr. Bing said, pointing out that his city had scarcely enough jobs to sustain the people already there. Yet Mr. Bloomberg had the big picture exactly right: immigrants and economic vitality go together. That was certainly the experience of New York City, which was on life support in the 1970s until a transfusion of immigrant energy and entrepreneurship brought it roaring back.
Renewal by immigrants is the fundamental American narrative, the story of people in ships, then covered wagons, coming to settle and make fruitful a land that rewarded their courage and grit. Except now that story is scorned and discarded, along with many of those immigrants.
Bills to streamline and increase legal immigration die in Congress. There are no visas of the type Mr. Bloomberg imagines, though we could use immigrant entrepreneurs in Detroit, Buffalo, New York City — all over. Nearly 150 years after President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act, the new frontier is in the inner city, not way out West. There is no federal or state Department of Urban Homesteading, but — DUH — maybe there should be.