Peace and Change
We have been waiting for President Obama to lay out his vision of the promises and challenges of the upheaval in the Arab world. His speech on Thursday did not go far enough — there was no game-changing proposal on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — but he did promise strong support to those yearning for freedom and goaded American allies, including Israel, to take the political risks that are essential for peaceful change and the only way to build a lasting peace.
His strong words about democracy — including references to the “inalienable rights” of all people — were inspiring but balanced with realpolitik. While acknowledging that Bahrain, home of the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet, is an important ally, he criticized the monarchy for using “mass arrests and brute force” against political opponents.
The two big questions now are: How quickly will Washington deliver promised economic support to the new governments in Egypt and Tunisia? And how much harder is Mr. Obama willing to push Israel and the Palestinians to start serious peace negotiations?
There was much hand-wringing in Israel over the president’s call for a two-state solution based on “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” The language was new, but it was not a major change in American policy. It must not become another excuse for inaction.
When Mr. Obama meets with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Friday, he needs to be even blunter about how a continued stalemate is not in Israel’s interest and will only feed extremism.
Mr. Obama raised high expectations in 2009 when he promised a “new beginning” with the Arab world. That ardor cooled as Middle East peace talks stalled, and Mr. Obama stuck too long with Hosni Mubarak of Egypt. On Thursday, he correctly identified the source of the region’s unrest — “power has been concentrated in the hands of the few” — and he went on to say that “societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time,” but will eventually tear asunder.
The success of the Arab Spring depends in large part on what happens in Egypt, the largest Arab state, and Tunisia, where the uprisings started. Political reforms are essential, but so are jobs. Mr. Obama promised both countries desperately needed economic help — $2 billion to Egypt alone. He and other leaders have to work hard to fulfill promises of expanded trade and investment.
The administration is finally getting tougher with Syria. On Wednesday, it imposed sanctions on President Bashar al-Assad and six others. In his speech, Mr. Obama still offered the Syrian leader a choice when it comes to reform: “He can lead that transition, or get out of the way.” Nobody thinks Mr. Assad can produce reform even if he wants to. But insisting that he leave power isn’t realistic, although continued pressure could change that.
We share Mr. Obama’s frustration over the stalled peace process — and his administration’s failed efforts to get a deal. Those frustrations are only going to get worse. When Mr. Netanyahu addresses Congress next week, he will likely repeat all of the reasons why Israel cannot make the necessary concessions. In September, President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority — who appears to have given up on negotiations — is expected to ask the United Nations General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state.
Mr. Obama was right to warn the Palestinians that such symbolic actions “won’t create an independent state.” But the vote would also isolate Israel and the United States. Washington and its allies need to put a map on the table and challenge both sides to resume negotiations. That is the best chance for breaking the stalemate and the best chance for peace.
The Truth About Upper Big Branch
An inquiry by the state of West Virginia into the Upper Big Branch Mine explosion that killed 29 workers has found the mine’s owner, Massey Energy, “profoundly reckless” in elevating its drive to produce profits above worker safety. Pervasive safety violations — from shoddy ventilation to slapdash control of explosive coal dust — made the mine “an accident waiting to happen,” according to a panel of experts reporting to the governor’s office.
“I’m set up to fail here,” one miner wrote in his work notes two weeks before the tragedy. He despaired at being one of only two part-time “rock dusters” tasked with controlling the mine’s volatile coal dust — a lethal problem for which company records showed a backlog of hundreds of safety work orders.
Massey has denied culpability and attributed the explosion to an unpreventable surge of underground methane gas. Investigators rejected that claim and the state report convincingly traces the disaster through a chain of neglect, while accusing the company of building “a culture in which wrongdoing became acceptable.”
A federal investigation has already led to the criminal indictment of the mine’s security chief, who was charged with lying to federal investigators and attempting to dispose of evidence. The Obama administration has toughened regulatory oversight, demanding rigorous inspections and heavy penalties for offending mining companies. But the state report underlines the urgent need for far stronger safety laws. House Republicans and coal-state Democrats dedicated to Big Coal have refused to move on any sensible legislation.
Miners need whistle-blower protection to raise the alarm about dangerous conditions without fear of losing their livelihoods. Congress should make it a felony to alert managers that mine inspectors are on the way. Serial violators like Massey must face the strongest penalties, and the cynical gaming of safety violations with endless appeals must finally end. Hesitant lawmakers claim they need a fuller sense of what happened in the tragedy. They should face up to the 126-page report’s finding that the Upper Big Branch tragedy is a “tale of hubris.”
Here’s a Great Place to Cut
It seems hard to believe, but the federal farm subsidy program — wasteful, inefficient and virtually indestructible — may at last be headed for serious downsizing.
Our hopes have been dashed before, most recently when the farm lobby and its Congressional patrons shredded admirable reforms proposed by President George W. Bush. Now an alliance of conservative Republicans eager to cut the deficit and liberal Democrats opposed to corporate welfare is seeking ways to trim the subsidies.
The farm program has evolved from a New Deal safety net for Depression-era farmers into a $15 billion-a-year goody-bag of direct payments, disaster insurance programs, low-cost loans and other subsidies — with a smaller investment in conservation programs.
The most indefensible are $5 billion a year in direct payments, which flow to farmers in good times and bad and are awarded disproportionately to the growers of big row crops like corn, soybeans and wheat. “If we can’t figure out a way at this point to trim these payments, then it is just embarrassing,” said Representative Ron Kind, a Democratic from Wisconsin who has long fought farm subsidies. The bigger news is that another Wisconsin legislator, Representative Paul Ryan — the Republicans’ leading champion of budget-cutting — agrees with him.
Mr. Ryan’s budget blueprint for the coming fiscal year would take $30 billion from the farm program over the next decade, mainly from direct payments. He would apply the savings to deficit reduction. A better idea would be to use some for that purpose and some for conservation programs, to encourage farmers to protect sensitive open space or remove it from production.
In the Senate, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Richard Durbin of Illinois have both told their local farm bureaus to expect cuts. Even more surprising, and equally welcome, is the news that the cherished 45-cent-per-gallon subsidy for corn ethanol may also be endangered. The subsidy costs the Treasury more than $5 billion in foregone revenues; the Government Accountability Office has said that ethanol can flourish without it. It is as superfluous as the direct payments program. Both need to go.
They Need to Be Counted
It was a relief to see one politician showing political courage and sense in Albany this week. Of course, that politician was Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and not a state lawmaker. But every bit helps.
Mr. Bloomberg went to Albany to press Senate Republicans to vote to legalize same-sex marriage. He warned that “the longer the Senate obstructs marriage equality, the heavier the price they will pay not only in the history books, but at the polls.” And he promised to put his cash and clout behind any senator who backed the legislation “no matter where they stand on any other issue.”
We hope the senators were listening. We hope Gov. Andrew Cuomo was also paying close attention. Mr. Cuomo says the state’s same-sex couples should be given the right to marry, but he wants to hold back the vote until he is sure the bill will pass — a position supported by some advocates for gay rights. That’s the wrong decision.
The issue is so important that it deserves a full debate and vote in the Legislature. New Yorkers should know who will stand up for this basic civil right and who won’t.
The Assembly is expected to pass the bill again this year with bipartisan support. It was defeated in the Senate in 2009. And right now it is probably six votes short of the 32 needed: 26 Democrats are in favor, four have indicated that they will vote no and nary a Republican senator has promised a yes vote. Until a bill is brought to the floor, they will be able to bob and weave and waffle.
Same-sex marriage is legal in five states and the District of Columbia. There is no reason, except prejudice, that New York is not on that list. Mr. Cuomo and leaders of both houses need to press for a vote before the Legislature adjourns on June 20. Mr. Cuomo needs to use all of his own political clout to ensure it passes.
No matter what the final count, the vote needs to happen. As Mayor Bloomberg declared, “The public has a right to know where their legislators stand.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment