Senate: Helping the U.S. Uphold Its Trust Responsibility

Good news: the weekend before Christmas, the Indian Health Care Improvement and Reauthorization and Extension Act (S. 1790) was included in Sen. Reid's manager's amendment for the Senate health care reform bill! The senate passed this legislation on Christmas Eve.

What does this mean? It means that the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) has been included in both the House and Senate health care reform acts. In both cases, this includes permanent reauthorization. This is really good news; after over a decade of struggle, the IHCIA will be reauthorized -- permanently, this time. What we don't know at this juncture is exactly what that bill will look like, as the House and Senate versions differ slightly. For a comprehensive analysis of the two bills, you can click here. In the mean time, what is (almost -- let's not count our chickens before they hatch) certain is that there will be legislation for improvement and reauthorization of Indian health care passed within the next few months. Hooray!

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

One Year On

Last year on December 28th, I was sitting in the Lutheran Church in Old City Jerusalem with my friends and colleagues who had just spent Christmas together. That Sunday, it turned out, was the feast day commemorating the "Massacre of the Innocents" (a once in 7 year occurrence). The mood was incredibly grim and sorrowful, not just because we retold the story of how King Herod killed all the babies in Bethlehem to prevent the rumored Jewish Messiah from growing up. Rather, it was that we were all thinking about massacre of innocents which was underway that very moment in Gaza as the bombs rained down on a population of mainly children (more than half are under 18).

On this, the first anniversary of the war in Gaza, it is still difficult to recall those days as we all sat stunned and helpless in front of our TVs, knowing that we could not make it end, but sensing that the ramifications, if not the bombs, would last for years to come. Overnight, "war mode" had come upon the 'Holy' land and civil people with whom I had previously discussed Arab-Israeli issues became outright hostile. An overwhelming percentage of Israelis supported the strikes and then the invasion that came on the eve of Israeli national elections. Life went on in Bethlehem as if in a coma, though folks tensed up every Friday as sermons at the mosques had more heated rhetoric.

But what really struck me was the aftermath and the politicization of development and humanitarian assistance. In the days, weeks, and months following, my organization tried to find ways to give aid and support to the people in Gaza, fellow Palestinians who had been cut off entirely. Yet people, medical supplies, and building materials were essentially forbidden and/or delayed from getting into the strip and people faced huge obstacles getting out for any reason. I have never before or again experienced such obstacles to providing basic relief. Why shouldn't people in Gaza get to rebuild their apartment buildings, homes, schools, and workplaces? Or why shouldn't experienced foreign workers be able to come in and offer their services to a population in great need?

Collective punishment continues to this day with a blockade on most all goods short of basic UN food aid. Palestinians in Gaza cannot come and go without rare permits. There has been no rebuilding with concrete and glass for those people whose homes were destroyed and winter is back. Before the war, Gaza was considered to be in a very poor situation with the restrictions cutting off economic and educational opportunities, but now they are in dire straits. Members of Congress can take a stand to urge President Obama to do all he can to end the blockade--tell your representative to sign on the Congressional letter here.

If you are interested in taking part in solidarity activities around the U.S. and internationally, check this website for events this week.

One year on and things are not improved for the people in Gaza. I hope you will join me in speaking out on their behalf.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Snowed In

Normally there aren't any blog posts here on the weekends, because we're all out enjoying DC on Saturdays and Sundays. But, as I sit here at my house, almost completely snowed in, trying, in any way I can, to get information about my flight and find a way to airport, I am reminded why I am fighting so hard to go home.

It's not just because I would rather be in snow-free, sunny Los Angeles (although I can't deny how nice that sounds), but because I want so badly to be at home with my friends and family. This whole experience is reminding me why I love home so much, and why I relish every trip to L.A.

Home to me isn't just the house I grew up in, where my parents still live, it's my neighborhood, my old schools, the libraries where I spend hours browsing the collections, the tennis courts where my father taught me to play tennis, the restaurants where we're regulars, my friends who live 5 minutes away and 40 minutes away, and my family who are scattered throughout the Southern California region. Home is where I feel safe and comfortable. The city itself is also part of my definition of home. I love exploring Los Angeles and discovering new sites.

All of this adds up to me not really being a snow-loving person. I'm no stranger to snow: for almost 15 years I've spent part of my winters in New Jersey, and I lived in Pennsylvania for two years. Still, I never had snowball fights growing up, never went sledding, and never built a snowman. And I'm ok with that; I'm a Southern California girl at heart. I love the sun and wearing flip-flops year round.

Regardless of how much I wish I were sitting on a plane right now heading for home, I'm still snowed in, waiting as patiently as I can for news of when the airport will open, when my flight will take off, if I can even get to the airport.

Have a wonderful holidays and a Happy New Year!

-Lacey

Email the Author Del.icio.us Digg
Facebook

Law of the Sea Treaty: The Next Stage in a Historic Effort by Friends

Joe Volk and I attended a meeting at the State Department with the Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs yesterday to discuss U.S ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty. We were invited as part of a coalition of groups that includes some unlikely bedfellows. I have never before sat around a table on the same side as gas and oil industry executives, AT&T, environmental groups, and the Navy, yet the diversity of the coalition reflects how uncontroversial ratification should be.

The Law of the Sea Treaty has particular historical relevance to FCNL because it was Samuel and Miriam Levering, two “Friend in Residence” with us in 1972-73, that wrote much of the treaty. FCNL worked hard on the Law of the Sea throughout the 70s, but less so in recent years. The Leverings’ work focused on protecting the oceans as a global resource that should not be exploited by any country or corporation; and on providing a legal framework to deal with issues that affect our “common heritage,” the vast segments of ocean that do not fall within an individual country’s Excusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

Yesterday’s meeting reiterated the same refrain this coalition has heard for the last thirty years--now is not the time. The Assistant Secretary and her staff were very positive about the Law of the Sea and repeatedly expressed their commitment to its ratification and the positive inter-agency energy behind this priority. However, she also continually referenced a full legislative calendar that includes health care, climate change, the START treaty, and a looming congressional election cycle which will make it difficult to get anything done. Members of the coalition continued to push the Assistant Secretary for a week somewhere in February or March to push a ratification process that would hopefully garner bi-partisan support and pass fairly easily. Indeed, Presidents George Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barak Obama all agree that we should join the treaty. I don’t think I can name another issue in recent memory that has such unanimous support!

From my perspective, acceding to the Law of the Sea Treaty will become increasingly important as global warming continues unabated and the ice in arctic regions melts. Already the U.S, Canada, Russia and Norway jostle for rights to natural resources in the arctic that used to be inaccessible. Without a legal framework to govern issues like this one, the country with the most clout will dominate, possibly even instigating violent conflict for control of dwindling resources. Even though there are a variety of reasons that groups want to see the U.S join the Law of the Sea Treaty, some of which do not align with my own beliefs about stewardship of natural resources or use of military might, we cannot begin to work on those differences without a legal structure to guide us.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Rep. Gutierrez Introduces Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity (CIR ASAP) Act of 2009

Today, Representative Luis Gutierrez (IL) and 87 original cosponsors introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity (CIR ASAP) Act of 2009. This progressive comprehensive immigration reform bill identifies a number of workable solutions to humanely reform the broken immigration system. It is the first comprehensive immigration reform bill to be introduced this Congress.

I attended the press conference for the introduction of the bill and, let me tell you, the room was packed. Members of Congress, Congressional staff, members of the press, immigration advocates, faith leaders, and immigrants of all backgrounds crowded into the room, cheering "Yes we can!" The energy was fantastic. While a lot of work remains for us to achieve humane and fair comprehensive immigration reform, Rep. Gutierrez's bill offers important elements of reform.

Rep. Gutierrez described his bill as pro-family, pro-jobs, and pro-security. He said, "We've waited long enough. We've turned the other cheek... Now with this bill let's end the blame game and turn our immigrants into Americans." All the members of Congress who spoke echoed the sentiment that now is the time for comprehensive immigration reform.

Rep. Velazquez, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said, "I am standing here so proudly. I have never been so proud in my eighteen years in Congress. Never." She, like Rep. Gutierrez, believes that comprehensive immigration reform is urgently needed, saying, "There's no wrong or right time. There is a moral obligation."

Rep. Crowley, who along with 110 representatives sent a letter to President Obama earlier this year calling for immigration reform, spoke strongly about the need to restore the rights and dignity of all immigrants. He said, "End illegal immigration. Secure our borders. But don't dismiss for a moment the issue of dignity, the dignity of humankind."

FCNL congratulates Representative Gutierrez and the 87 original cosponsors of CIR ASAP for advancing the conversation on comprehensive immigration reform. We look forward to working with Representative Gutierrez and other members of Congress to achieve humane and fair comprehensive immigration reform in 2010.

CIR ASAP is endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Its original cosponsors include members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Asian and Pacific American Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. For more information on the content of CIR ASAP, check out this section-by-section summary by the Immigration Policy Center.

This post is cross-posted on FCNL's immigration blog, "Immigration: It's Our Community."

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Cobell case settlement

The Cobell Case, which has been litigated and debated for the last 13 years, was settled a few days ago. In the 1996 class action suit the plaintiff, Elouise Cobell, charged that the government mismanaged more than $100 billion in oil, timber, grazing and other royalties on land owned by some 500,000 individual Indian beneficiaries. These properties were held in trust by the U.S. government, with all royalties to go to Native American individuals and tribes. The royalties were never transferred to the Native American trustors, though many if not all of the rightful recipients continued to live in poverty for generations.

In pressing the suit, the plaintiffs discovered that the government had failed to keep adequate records of the properties and the royalties they generated, making it nearly impossible to repay the missing royalties. Over the years, a wide range of figures have been named as possible settlements, but in June 2008 a federal court ruled that the government owed only $455 million to the plaintiffs. In the context of that ruling, the current settlement, in which the class accepts a payment of $1.4 billion to be shared among the plaintiffs, and the federal government commits another $2 billion to buy up small shares of scattered properties from their current owners, may be a reasonable outcome. The settlement will yield only $1000 for each plaintiff in the class. It includes the creation of a "$60 million federal Indian Education Scholarship fund to improve access to higher education for Indian youth, and it includes a commitment by the federal government to appoint a commission that will oversee and monitor specific improvements in the Department’s accounting for and management of individual Indian trust accounts and trust assets, going forward."

Ms. Cobell had mixed sentiments in her statement about the settlement:

"There is little doubt this is significantly less than the full amount to which individual Indians are entitled. Yes, we could prolong our struggle and fight longer, and perhaps one day we would know – down to the penny – how much individual Indians are owed. Perhaps we could even litigate long enough to increase the settlement amount.

Nevertheless we are compelled to settle now by the sobering realization that our class grows smaller each year, each month, and every day, as our elders die, and are forever prevented from receiving their just compensation. We also face the uncomfortable, but unavoidable fact that a large number of individual money account holders currently subsist in the direst poverty, and this settlement can begin to address that extreme situation and provide some hope and a better quality of life for their remaining years.

I am particularly happy to see recognition of the need for funds to be set aside to promote higher education opportunities for Indian youth. My greatest optimism about this settlement, however, is the hope it holds for significant and permanent reform in the way the Departments of Interior and Treasury account for and manage Individual Indian Money accounts. There is much room for improvement, and I expect the Commission that Secretary Salazar has announced to take on the challenge of making these substantive changes immediately."

Click here for the full release from the Cobell settlement's website. The Department of Interior has also posted its take on the settlement online. See the Department of Interior website for further information.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Tribal Nations Conference: Correction

I'm realizing I should have done more research before touting the recent Tribal Nations Conference as the first of its kind. The first such summit occurred in 1994, under the Clinton Administration:

"Loretta Avent, Deputy Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and the first-ever official tribal liaison to the White House, organized the Clinton tribal meeting at the White House in 1994. All federally recognized tribes were invited, and over 200 leaders attended. It was the first such meeting, and the last, until Obama's Tribal Nations Conference. "

Whoops. Does anyone have a recollection of this event in 1994?

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Reaction to President Obama's Nobel Speech

I had so much hope for President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech this morning. After defending this award to many critics, I hoped his speech would show them what many in the international community already knew about his vision for peace and hope in the world. Instead of focusing on the various initiatives that his administration has sought for a more peaceful world, it seemed like the President was trying to justify sending more troops to Afghanistan in the very week he received this prize. The President appeared more focused on those in the U.S. who believed that he didn’t deserve the award than on those in the international community who nominated him for this award in the first place. I’m sure many of his critics were happy to hear him cite examples of America defending itself as a justification for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. But, if this is truly an international prize, wouldn’t it have been more thoughtful to respond to a different question than the one that has been floating around the U.S. since it was announced that the President would receive the award? While I’ve heard, “Does he [President Obama] really deserve this award yet?” many times, I still think we’ve been asking the wrong question. The question that came to my mind when he was given the peace prize was not whether he deserved it or not, but rather why the world community needed Mr. Obama to receive the award right now. If the promise of hope in new American leadership was strong enough to urge the Nobel committee to nominate President Obama, I wonder how they are feeling today as they were presented with an argument for war. It is true that this administration inherited these two wars, but they have certainly made them their own when they committed over 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan this week.

We all knew the timing of the Nobel ceremony and our continued military campaign in Afghanistan was unfortunate. That’s why many of us were expecting a speech focused on what this administration is doing well in regards to making this world a safer place. We expected a speech that focused on Obama’s desire to rid the world of nuclear weapons. With the START follow-on agreement still unsigned by Russia and the United States, and speculation that it will be signed in the next few weeks, we expected the majority of the President’s speech to focus on how this treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are realistic steps to achieving a more peaceful and secure world. Unfortunately, the President used only a few sentences to touch on the issue of international nuclear disarmament. Actually, he spoke briefly about the United States and Russia’s desire to reduce nuclear weapons, but offered more of a warning to the international community about Iran and North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

It seems like this administration, like many before it, is stuck in a style of thinking that will lead only to further conflict and war instead of dialogue and peace. In his speech, President Obama said, “A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince Al Qaida’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism – it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.” Not everyone accepts that World War 2 is the prime example of where war was absolutely necessary. To use the example of Hitler to assume that non-violent methods would be ineffective with Al Qaida is also not widely accepted. This administration seems to have fallen into thinking that America merely plays the role of defender of its people and allies. If we cannot see that World War 2, and even September 11th, were preventable, then we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes that have brought us to war in the past. If we continue down this reactionary path, the prospect of preventing future conflict seems poor.

This speech provided an opportunity to show how the START follow-on agreement and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty are ways that America is trying to prevent war before it starts. It could have shown the international community and America that this administration is committed to a new type of foreign policy; one where we cooperate with others in pursuit of peace and security for everyone, not just waiting to fight back when attacked. I hope this message becomes clearer in the weeks ahead and as the President starts his second year in office. I hope President Obama remembers this award as he faces the tough decisions ahead of him.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Blogs I Love

Recently, I have discovered a wonderful blog that combines my love of history, my interest in politics, and my obsession with dry humor and sarcasm into one great ball of awesomeness.

The blog, The Edge of the American West, was started by two History professors from my alma mater, UC Davis. Professors Eric Rauchway and Ari Kelman are two highly regarded professors of U.S. History at Davis. I was a tad sad to have graduated this past June without having taken a class taught by either one. At one point I was signed up for a class with Prof. Rauchway, but was convinced to drop it because it was so similar to other History classes I had taken. Tant pis.
Read more »

"Democracy is Not a Spectator Sport"

This Sunday, if you're able to take some time out from the hustle of the holiday season, watch The People Speak a new documentary airing on the History Channel at 8/7c. (And if you don't get the History Channel, but are interested I'm sure you can access clips & possibly the whole event online at: http://www.history.com/content/people-speak)

This program will be narrated by Howard Zinn and is based on his books A People's History of the United States and Voices of a People's History.



For me - this is likely to be an exciting program to watch because Zinn was one of the first historians to make history about people and their stories, rather than dates, battles, and dry facts. And this 'people's history' is just the type of history we need to focus on if we are going to truly learn from and celebrate the past.

This is also a reminder of what can be great about the United States, something which - in the daily grind of working for long-term goals of better health care coverage for all in the United States, or working to get language about peaceful prevention into bills, or building support for green-legislation - we often forget. I know some of us interns will be watching and I hope you get the chance to tune in as well.

Remember, as they say in the film, "democracy is not a spectator sport" so take time to watch and then find those one or two things you can do to make an impact on issues you care about!

In peace,
~Rachael

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Indian health as a human right

December 10th is International Human Rights Day, and I would like to take this opportunity to think about Indian health care in relation to that day. Many people, states, and organizations believe that the right to good health is a basic human right. There are many treaties that state this as fact – indeed, the United States has signed a number of these treaties. To begin with, the US helped draft the International Declaration of Human Rights and voted in favor of its adoption by the UN General Assembly. Article 25 (1) of this document states:

“Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.” (emphasis added)

The United States is also a member of the World Health Organization (WHO) and has accepted its constitution, which in its opening statement declares:

“The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. The health of all peoples is fundamental to the attainment of peace and security and is dependent upon the fullest co-operation of individuals and States. Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples which can be fulfilled only by the provision of adequate health and social measures.”

Is the US living up to these ideals when it comes to Indian health?

At this point, it is safe to say that the United States is coming up lacking when it comes to Indian health. It is true that Obama's proposed budget would increase funding to the Indian Health Service by 13%, which is a really great step in the right direction. However, that only partially makes up for the roughly 25% cuts the IHS experienced under the Bush administration -- cuts from an already underfunded system with inadequate and outdated facilities.

Not only is there inadequate support of Indian health at an institutional level (including funding), Indians experience inflated rates of health problems. From the National Indian Health Board's fact sheet:

• 13% of Indian deaths occur in those younger than 25, a rate 3 times higher than the U.S. population.

• The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reported in 2003 that “American Indian youths are twice as likely to commit suicide…” Also, suicide ranked as the second leading cause of death for AI/ANs aged 10 to 34 as reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

• Indians are 550% more likely to die from alcoholism, 200% more likely to die from diabetes, and 150% more likely to suffer accidental death compared with other groups.

When you combine this inadequate system with increased rates of diabetes, substance abuse, and suicide, you have a real problem. American Indians and Alaska Natives need -- and deserve -- more. This is not just an issue about the US government's trust responsibility to Native Americans; this is a matter of basic human rights. As I have discussed before, there is some legislative hope in this area right now. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act has recently passed the House, and is moving in the Senate. This is monumental! However, we need more. In order for there to be real and lasting positive change in the arena of Indian health and Indian health care, I think there needs to be a shift in the way the issue is framed. The US government -- the administration and Congress -- need to move beyond looking at Indian health as a trust responsibility; something that needs to be taken care of because the government made a promise. Congress and the administration need to look at this issue as a human rights issue, one where we have not only a legal and historic obligation, but a more obligation. The US government needs to live up to the standards it set for itself when it agreed to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the World Health Organization constitution, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Charter of Organization of the American States.

Read more on our staff blog about the Bridget Moix's thoughts on the connections between health and war, and on fellow intern Rebecca Sheff's blog about immigrant health.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

S. 1790 - passed [out of committee]

This afternoon I went to a business meeting of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. I didn't realize that my senator, Senator Franken, was on the committee -- very cool. The main item of business they discussed was the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which we've been working for. A number of amendments were approved, including one introduced by by Sen. Franken proposing to create the position of Director of HIV/AIDS Prevention of Treatment.

As a someone whose main reference for how business is done is the Quaker model, watching the Senate Indian Affairs Committee conduct business felt like watching a fast-moving tennis match. I did my best to follow concerns and responses raised by the various members, but inevitably I was taken by surprise several times when Sen. Dorgan (Chair of the committee) said "If there are no objections, the Committee passes this bill" -- and then, without waiting to see if anyone had an objection that hadn't quite made it to the surface yet, proclaimed it done.

Considering this, I almost missed when the committee passed the ICHIA. Let me say this again: the committee passed the IHCIA! Senator Dorgan called for a voice vote, several ayes rang out, no nays were heard, and the committee passed the IHCIA. It happened so quickly I had to look over at my neighbors notes, where she had kindly written "S. 1790 - passed."

So what does this mean? I'm not quite sure. Dorgan has stated that he would introduce the IHCIA as an amendment in whatever health care bill the Senate produced, so we're waiting to see if that happens. In the mean time, I'm walking around with a grin on my face, because the Senate Indian Affairs passed the IHCIA.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Reflections and Interpretations Regarding the Troop Increase in Afghanistan

After listening to President Obama's address at West Point on Tuesday December 1st where he called for an increase of 30,000 troops for the war in Afghanistan, many FCNL interns have blogged their reactions to the speech, thoughts on what's ahead, and even reports of what it's like to sit in on the Congressional Hearing on the troop increase. Find out what we think about all of this by reading the following blogs.

• "New Wars, New Strategies of Engagement" by Becca Sheff 12/2/09
• "Finding Hope" by Rachael Jeffers 12/2/09
• "Show Strength by Preventing Deadly Conflict" by Katrina Schwartz 12/2/09
• "The Inside Scoop on the Congressional Afghanistan Hearing" by Kim MacVaugh 12/3/09

Enjoy and let us know what you think.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

The Inside Scoop on the Congressional Afghanistan Hearing

After waiting in line for hours to be the first in the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the Afghanistan war strategy, I can assure you that being close to the action does not make it any more comprehensible. Exciting, yes, but logical, not so much. I'll admit I was hoping that being mere feet from the distinguished Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen would somehow increase my chances of making sense of Obama's Afghanistan surge. (That's me on the left, by the way.)

In the end, though, I was only convinced that the administration was trying too hard to win over the hearts and minds of Americans without offering a strategy that will work. And if Obama can't win my heart and mind on this plan to escalate the war to 100,000+ U.S. and NATO troops, how is he going to "win the hearts and minds" of Afghans, as the line goes?

Several things stood out to me as I listened to the witnesses' testimony before the Committee. I was struck by the way that Mullen and Gates spoke as if this was a brand new war that they were starting "fresh," as if their enthusiastic focus back on fighting the Taliban was going to "turn things around." The Republicans in the committee suggested that announcing an 18 month goal to begin withdrawal was giving the Taliban and insurgents notice that they just need to wait the war out. But I can see that everyone is just waiting the U.S. out, whether it's one year or ten. After all, it is the Afghans' country, and they will be vested in it long after the U.S. is gone.

Also, I was dismayed at the lip-service paid to civilian components of Obama's plan, because I know that local development and civil society initiatives would be the most helpful parts of the strategy, as all three of Obama's top aides emphasized. Yet, Clinton proudly proclaimed that they would be tripling the number of coalition civilian personnel on the ground in Afghanistan to...wait for it...974!! Wow, 100,000 soldiers and less than 1,000 civilians--if they can find that many who speak local languages and can do the critical work that's needed in agriculture and governance. That sounds like making a "civilian surge" a priority.

Being interested in regional initiatives and diplomacy in the middle east, I was quite distressed that there was little concern with promoting engagement of Afghanistan's neighbors. Of course, there was patronizing banter about making sure Pakistan behaves, but the question of whether the U.S. would promote peaceful dialogue between Pakistan and India was shirked. Additionally, Iran was briefly mentioned as "not a player" at the moment in Afghanistan, with the suggestion that Iran could become problematic for the U.S.'s interests. This indicated to me that the administration is not looking hard enough at the opportunity to build regional peace through engagement with Iran.

Lastly, I felt that Gates and Clinton were backpedaling significantly on Obama's promise to withdraw soon--qualifying the 18 month mark as merely a beginning of a transition--and they more or less indicated that if there is still no U.S. confidence in the Afghan security forces at that time that the U.S. would not leave. Given their aim to construct an army and police of 400,000 Afghans from thin air, I'm afraid it could be long after Obama's term before the U.S. gets out of Afghanistan.

Not a lot to be optimistic about in the hearing, but it was still a thrill to see the key policymakers in action at this historic time. Sitting just behind Hillary Clinton for those two hours reminded me that FCNL is in a position to make the Quaker voice for peace heard on Capitol Hill. (Check out Matt eying Rep. Ackerman, before he makes his move and shakes hands with Secretary Clinton.)

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

New Administration Gives Hope to Improved Indian Health Care

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) was recently included in the House health care bill, which passed. This was a momentous step in a decade-long struggle to narrow the gap between the health care American Indians experience, and that experienced by the rest of the U.S. population.

However, the longer, more controversial Senate health care bill does not include the IHCIA -- which provides the legislative backbone to Indian health care, a trust responsibility promised to tribes by the U.S. government when it took their land. This New York Times article provides a narrative of some of the overwhelming health problems experienced on and off reservations, as well an analysis of the some of the current junctures to work towards reducing those problems.

"The health care overhaul now being debated in Congress appears poised to bring the most significant improvements to the Indian health system in decades. After months of negotiations, provisions under consideration could, over time, direct streams of money to the Indian health care system and give Indians more treatment options."

As we at FCNL have been saying for months, now is a time of opportunity in Congress. And thank goodness; Indian health has been waiting long enough.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

Show Strength by Preventing Deadly Conflict

Like many of you, I was saddened by President Obama's announcement last night that he has decided to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. It was the first time that I watched a speech by this President and rolled my eyes at empty patriotic rhetoric that obfuscates the nuances of history and current events. When watching Barack Obama's campaign speeches, his inauguration speech, and many of his speeches since taking office I have been continually moved by his thoughtfulness, intelligence, and oratory style. And yet last night, at West Point, I heard President Obama's tone and message to be uncomfortably similar to war speeches from the previous Administration.

Yet even as my disappointment caught in my throat, Obama uttered a sentence that caused Bridget Moix to jump up and do a little dance: "America will have to show our strength in the way that we end wars and prevent conflict." That is the first time in a long time, if ever, that a President has made such a direct statement about our responsibility to prevent deadly conflict instead of waging war. There were other inspiring nuggets buried within this speech, but they were few and hard to cling to when the overall message was so saddening.

I was lucky to listen to this speech after three hours of donor thank you calls. While this may not seem like the most fun activity, in many ways it was inspiring. I spoke with many people who hope the nation can be patient with Obama as he tackles difficult issues on all fronts, as well as people who reaffirmed their commitment to the "War is Not the Answer" campaign in the face of this new troop announcement. I also found myself discussing all the great opportunities for change that still exist in Washington and even around the war in Afghanistan. There are many voices in Congress raised against this troop increase in both parties, and a disgruntled American public unwilling to remain at war indefinitely. I find strength from these conversations with ordinary Americans who know that war is not the answer and that peace is possible. Ironically, President Obama's speech was meant to reassure the country about his decision to send more troops, but it was conversations with those in the FCNL community that reassured me about the good in this world.

Check out this NY Times photo of protesters outside West Point last night.

Email the Author Del.icio.us Digg
Facebook

Finding Hope

Overall, it was pretty surreal to watch President Obama's speech last night and have flashes in my memory of being out to brunch with family for my birthday eight years ago and watching a different president declare war on Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a country which, back then, in all honesty (although I'm pretty savvy with a map) I probably could not have correctly placed and I definitely would have had to think twice about how to spell correctly. Now, eight years later, I'm working in Washington, DC - mere blocks from the White House and across the street from the Capitol. I write about Afghanistan on a near daily basis, and while I know there is always more to learn - I know far more now about this mountainous country that has been the host of conflicts for multiple decades.

While watching the address, I was struck by the lack of experience my generation has with the daily impact of "total war." Mine is a generation that will no doubt be defined by 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet there are people, like myself, who often have the luxury of being disconnected from these conflicts if they so choose. What I mean by this is that without in anyway discounting the personal sacrifices of our military and their family and friends, there is the option (for many in the United States) to remain disconnected with this war on a daily basis as compared to past conflicts.

In his first year (nearly) in office, President Obama has had to tackle a greater host of issues, all seeming to reach a climax at the same moment, than anyone may have expected. I for one do not envy his position. At the same time, I do see value in the question many pose of 'where's the change we believed in?' But as many at FCNL have pointed out before, change can not come only from one person. If you are anything like me and feel that in some ways, the people of the United States are disconnected from its wars, maybe now is the time to connect. Maybe now is the time to speak out about what the other options are if "War is Not the Answer."

Like it or not, I am part of a generation that will be defined by 9/11 and our current wars just as past generations were defined by Vietnam and WWII. As hard as it is to be hopeful on days like today, I'd like to think that my generation might also be defined by how we deal with these issues, how we seek for ways forward, and how we try to find alternatives to answering violence with more violence.

In peace and with hope,

~Rachael

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

New Wars, New Strategies of Engagement

As I listened to President Obama's speech on Afghanistan last night, I held mixed feelings about the strategy he presented for a troop surge followed by withdrawals beginning in 2011. He spoke strongly to the concerns of people all across the political spectrum but I fear that he will satisfy few. There will be those who say Obama isn't aggressive enough, that the United States should send even more troops and should not set a withdrawal date. There will be those who say Obama isn't showing enough resolve to get out of Afghanistan permanently and in a timely manner. The blogosphere is already buzzing with predictions of how Congress will react.

I find myself, however, taking a step back and asking what trajectory the United States will follow in a more historical perspective. Since the end of the Cold War, the nature of war has changed significantly. Rather than one country's army facing another country's army, the new wars of the past two decades have been characterized increasingly by non-state actors. Conflicts are increasingly unequal and warfighting tactics have changed.

These changes in the nature of war call for new strategies of engagement on the part of the United States. The days in which the United States sought to serve as the global police may be over, but what will the Obama administration pursue in its place?

Last night, President Obama called for nation-building at home rather than abroad, which is a clear departure from the policies of the previous administration. He spoke of the need to empower the Afghan people to "be responsible for their own country." However, he also spoke of the ongoing role he envisions for the United States in "the struggle against violent extremism," which will "involve disorderly regions, failed states, diffuse enemies."

If the Obama administration truly supports creating a partnership with the Afghan people and discouraging the spread of violent extremism globally, then the focus should be on sustainable development. By supporting peoples' efforts to improve their livelihoods - through improving access to clean water, food, shelter, health care, and education - the U.S. government can promote stability and productivity. Investments in sustainable and participatory development projects will pay off tenfold down the line by cutting off the channels of despair and desperation that feed extremism.

Let's invest in literacy, not long drawn-out wars. Let's create a surge of TB treatments, not troops. Let's work toward a world in which war is not the answer.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook

LIVE tomorrow: Congressional Hearing about Afghanistan

Matt and I will be tweeting and blogging live from the Capitol tomorrow starting around noon about the Congressional hearing on Obama’s Afghanistan War strategy and the escalation he will call for in his speech tonight. Check back here on our blog and http://twitter.com/FCNL to hear our take on the testimony of Secretary of State Clinton, Admiral Mullen (Chair, Joint Chiefs of Staff), and Secretary of Defense Gates.

Email the Author | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook