While much of the attention on Mexico focuses on illegal immigration and the continuing drug wars, the reality is that these are only a pair of the problems contributing to the instability faced by that country. This instability stems from a culture of corruption as well as the geographic and economic spilt between Mexico’s North and South, the European and indigenous (Mexican Indians) populations, the resulting educational deficiencies and finally, the undercurrent of social rebellion.

Leaving the drug wars aside for another time, an examination of the economic and social issues that divide Mexico’s people can offer insight to some of the contributing reasons why concern about our neighbors to the south is warranted.

The southern most states of Chiapas, Oaxaca and Guerrero (along with parts of Puebla and Veracruz), 95% of the people are predominantly in the lowest 10% of economic development. This compares to the Northern states, where 12% of the people live in rural areas and are extremely poor. Despite the plans of previous President Fox and current President Calderón to add highway infrastructure (a total of $28.7 billion over six years) to improve the ability of Southern states to move their goods and crops to the larger cities and to the ports, the results are questionable.

The economic stagnation in the southern areas of Mexico is complicated by its rugged geography, continuing ethnic discrimination and poor education. Further, the politics of these areas is complicated by powerful strongmen, incompetance and corruption. Only two years ago, the city of Oaxaca, a past tourist destination was wracked by strikes and violence seeking the removal of the state governor.

Even further, a 1994 Zapatista-style revolt by bands of ethnic Mayan Indian peasants from the highlands in the state of Chiapas brought attention to the issues of poverty, inability to preserve the indigenous culture, the lack of political or judicial rights (especially against the confiscation of their property, lack of education and medical services in this area. Today, Chiapas remains a poverty stricken area with the unresolved revolution in the balance.

● The Zapatista rebellion raised Mexicans’ awareness of race discrimination. But this remains a problem. The majority of the population in every one of Mexico’s 100 poorest municipalities is of indigenous descent

● One policy designed to help the poor Indians is bilingual education. But the flaws of the public education system are magnified in the south. In practice, the teachers’ union rather than the government controls teaching appointments; the union sometimes appoints a teacher who speaks a different indigenous language to his pupils

● A typical adult in the south has only six years of schooling; the corresponding figure in northern Mexico is 8.1 and 9.7 in Mexico City. And those years of schooling are not full years: local education officials report that in urban areas in the south an average teacher spends only 110 of the notional 200 days of the academic year actually in the classroom.

The record is even worse in rural areas. Mexicans of indigenous descent face cultural barriers too, some of them self-imposed. Land remains the most important possession of the indigenous population. Yes, some of the incentives to switch from the traditional maize and coffee crops to more lucrative bamboo and fruit have not taken hold in this area. There is a concern over human rights abuses in Chiapas, including incarceration of some of the people for nothing more than being indigenous and poor . The clear warning from the Economist article is this:

With each passing year, the socio-economic gap widens. Monterrey, Mexico’s northern industrial capital, is starting to resemble south Texas. Many parts of the south still look like a northern extension of Guatemala. But unless the government shows a greater ability and willingness to tackle its problems, the south will not just remain stuck in its poverty trap but risks handicapping the country as a whole.

The more visible problems in Mexico are, indeed, illegal immigration and the drug wars. However, as often as I and others voice strong opinions about the need to stop the flow and to enforce the border, without fixing the internal socio-economic issues, Mexico, in my judgment, cannot become an equal partner with the U.S.

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Almost seven years post the attacks of September 11th, one of the serious preparedness issues still facing the country is the state of its health care, especially hospital trauma centers that would not be able to deal with the surge of patients resulting from a mass casualty terrorist attack.

A recent controversial inquiry into the disaster preparedness of hospitals concluded that they are — and will be — incapable to handle even a modest terrorist attack in those cities (none of the 34 hospitals in the survey by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform found that none of them were found ready to act at the moment of an attack); one reason for the lack of hospitals’ capacity was cited as the Administration’s cuts in Medicaid reimbursements that in turn create overcrowding in emergency rooms, compromising the hospital’s ability to absorb and treat disaster victims.

“The situation in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles was particularly dire. There was no available space in the emergency rooms at the main trauma centers serving Washington, D.C. One emergency room was operating at over 200 percent of capacity - If a terrorist attack had occurred in Washington, D.C. or Los Angeles on March 25 when we did our survey, the consequences could have been catastrophic. The emergency care systems were stretched to the breaking point and had no capacity to respond to a surge of victims.”

The study has been denounced by Congressional Republicans as a “political stunt”. In response to the survey, Representative Christopher Shays (R-Connecticut) said “We cannot afford to build and maintain idle trauma facilities, waiting for the tragic day we pray never comes.”

Dr. Richard Bradley, an emergency physician and chief of the division for EMS and disaster medicine at the the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, said it’s incorrect to assume the city can’t handle a surge simply because emergency rooms here often operate at capacity.

Related, we also learn that in the May edition of Chest, the Journal of the American College of Chest Physicians, disaster triage recommendations are made.

Those out of luck are the people at high risk of death and a slim chance of long-term survival. But the recommendations get much more specific, and include:

- Those with severe trauma, which could include critical injuries from car crashes and shootings
- People older than 85
- Severely burned patients older than 60
- Those with severe mental impairment, which could include advanced Alzheimer’s disease
- Those with a severe chronic disease, such as advanced heart failure, lung disease or poorly controlled diabetes

The ability of our health system to deal with a man-made or natural disaster should not become a political football. Even though these “recommendations” are problematic and likely violate federal laws against age discrimination and disability discrimination, along with other ethical and moral issues, the likelihood is that health care rationing will be needed in the event of a mass casualty disaster.

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Trackbacks (0)

It is not clear to me that stories like this can continue to be published without some action being taken on the part of Justice, Congress, the Executive or some combination thereof. The perception that CT work, much less tangential law enforcement work, is being hindered by such useless bickering is beyond comprehension.

First, it is important to note that there is not exactly a dearth of good CT work going on at the Bureau (I have no insight into ATF ops), but – at the risk of sounding cliché – it isn’t very glamorous and doesn’t get a lot of pub (which is good). Having said that …

Make no mistake: there is no functional reason why the responsibilities and equities of everyone involved could not be addressed when it comes to data, training, etc; this is about the powerful but ultimately useless issue of sentiment. It is a key reason why so many governmental mergers or attempts to team become fiascos: the irrational fear that somehow involving someone else will negatively impact the glory that falls on your shoulders. Newcomers to the business need only think back to the last time their Boomer supervisor told them to stop sharing or collaborating because “they might steal our ideas” to understand what I am talking about. The fact that not working together ultimately produces an inferior result, or that while we bicker the adversary gets better, never enters the calculus.

The fact that two important agencies (and truth be told you could insert any two random agencies in the IC and the story would still hold up) are at bureaucratic war with each other more than they are against the common adversary will be particularly hard to swallow if another significant terrorist attack occurs on US soil. That such conditions exist at all much less persist years after alleged reforms suggests either willful ignorance or a staggering level of conceit that – thanks to a “no fault” culture – no one in a leadership position will have to answer for.

Progress, like so many endeavors that involve more than one human being, requires getting over one’s self (on an individual and enterprise-level) and the idea that if you get hit by a bus tomorrow a given case or mission would come to an end. Most people in the national security establishment have careers filled with very small victories; the people with actual medals and high accolades is pretty small and the criteria for selection sometimes questionable. The best of the best (as far as I am concerned) are never going to become household names: that’s essence of the deal when you sign up for “selfless service.”

That serious, severe action on this front (as well as broader sharing and collaborative efforts IC-wide) has not been taken is really the only metric one needs to measure when assessing how much of a priority these issues truly are at the highest levels.

By Michael Tanji | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Trackbacks (0)

Recapping an appearance from Senator Barack Obama on the estimable Tim Russert’s Sunday morning talk show, The Campaign Spot on National Review Online began this past Monday with an attention-snaring opening snippet:

Russert says that NBC News has learned the U.S. has assembled military plans to strike targets in Iran because that country is assisting its agents/insurgents in Iran. He asks Obama, would you support “limited attacks in Iran”? Obama says he doesn’t want to speculate yet. He says that as commander in chief, he doesn’t take military options off the table, but that he wants to see the intelligence. After some pro-forma Bush-bashing, he points out that Iran has to change its behavior, but that he will offer “carrots.”

Later on, we learn:

Obama says Hillary’s use of the term, “obliterate them” in response to a question about the U.S. response to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, is the language of George Bush, of saber-rattling and tough talk. He says that as president, he would respond “forcefully and appropriately.”

Eschewing commentary of a political nature—ThreatsWatch strives to remain apolitical—the juxtaposition of Hillary Clinton’s “obliterate them” remark and Obama’s more measured reply to Russert’s question about Iran was nonetheless sobering for it reflects the current schizophrenia of our foreign policy toward that country. Proposing, however inelegantly, a counterstrike against Iran in retaliation for a hypothetical nuclear strike against Israel is an eminently defensible position. Apart from the cold, hard (and some would rightfully argue callous) geostrategic calculations involved, the incontrovertible moral obligation to meet attempted genocide with overwhelming force would demand as much. Political unanimity on the matter would likely be quick and lasting. After all, who among our elected leaders would withhold their support for a military response under those circumstances?

Alternatively, Obama’s deliberate approach to a military response against Iran for assisting insurgent elements in Iraq that are responsible for the deaths of American soldiers embodies the “real politik” attitude of so many in our political establishment. As long as the Iranians don’t partake in the overt murder of American soldiers, everyone seems content to chastise the Iranians for being “unhelpful”, issue ambiguous warnings, or express the desire for more diplomacy. Any talk of military action to countermand Iran’s malevolent influence immediately invites charges of expanding the war and further destabilizing the region

Obviously, no one is advocating “obliterating” Iran. Yet, with the very best of our nation—the men and women of our armed forces—risking life and limb every day in Iraq, some on their third tours, is it too much to ask of or political leadership to form a consensus on the issue of protecting American troops, irrespective of the threat? Is the prospect of even a modest (as in, something well short of obliteration) military strike against Iranian assets/facilities engrossed in the indirect murder of American serviceman that unpalatable?

If so, then perhaps an orderly withdrawal from Iraq is indeed in order for no nation has the right to expect its sons and daughters to fight and die without a reciprocal commitment from the state to their welfare.

By Warren Wilkins | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Trackbacks (0)

Periodically, we have mentioned Second Life, and the prospects of the virtual world having real world impact. There is some indication that “extremist groups” are now operating on Second Life. One recent incident involved the vandalizing of the virtual headquarters of the Second Life parallel universe political headquarters of the two candidates for the Democratic nomination for President.

The term used is “griefing.” Griefers exist to disrupt and harass (among other tactics) Second Life by using such tactics as using scripts to damage/cause issues with objects in-world, attaching things to your avatar that follow you and chat spam. One such “griefing group” has written a sort of. handbook of online terror. They even have a “declaration of war” posted on their site. This particular effort appears focused on circumventing the banning of “griefers” by blocking IP addresses.

The real implication of this lies in the use of an anonymizer such as ShoopedLife to send false IP and other hardware information to Linden Laboratories, enabling “griefers” and other disruptive types to log on. An explanation of ShooperLife can be found at Opensource viewers

This is basically a viewer that people use who are concerned about their anonymity. Well, the original client sends some kind of information about your hardware (seems to be the MAC-address of your network interface and the primary partition ID of your first hard disk drive) to the LL server to identify your computer regardless of your login, so that they can permban you if necessary. ShoopedLife circumvents this by sending just some random address instead, so that you can still login even if banned. Griefers love this client very much because it allows them to still login in such a case. Of course, you cannot login with the old account but are then able to make just a new account with trash mail address since Linden Lab will be unable to identify your computer.

The issue is important enough that Congress recently requested a report on the subject that is titled, Avatars, Virtual Reality Technology, and the U.S. Military: Emerging Policy Issues. The summary of that report reads:

This report describes virtual reality technology, which uses three-dimensional user-generated content, and its use by the U.S. military and intelligence community for training and other purposes. Both the military and private sector use this new technology, but terrorist groups may also be using it to train more realistically for future attacks, while still avoiding detection on the Internet.

An article in Scientific American offers additional analysis and discussion.

Now, you can either dismiss activities like this as nothing more than a virtual world extension of pranking and mischief, or see it as a potential threat. What can be done by a group like “PN” can be co-opted by real life terrorists. It appears that the process of measures and countermeasures is now an on-going one. Our enemy (regardless of the label you choose to use to describe them) is smart and educated, and as much involved in the tools of the information world as most of us. Second Life - Real or not real?

By Jay Fraser | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Trackbacks (0)

Perhaps a sign that the batteries are nearly charged, rather than sleep like a normal human being as planned, Hillary Clinton’s pledge to bust up OPEC got my goat last night. Within the context of her (and others’) derisive statements lamenting ‘Cowboy Diplomacy,” I felt compelled to offer a bit of that context.

It is published at The Tank on National Review Online.

Logic Bomb: Rather than address what we can do and what is ours (such as our own undeveloped reserves), Hillary would rather pick a fight with OPEC and try to control what is not ours. Such a fight would net zero desired results and most likely result in even tighter export controls by ticked-off OPEC countries, yielding even higher oil prices.

Meanwhile, Obama wants to go “unilateral” on Pakistan. At the same time, without rattling a single saber, Hillary vows to “obliterate” Iran. (President Bush and Vice President Cheney must have all the sabers hoarded and secured in the War Room.) And now Clinton is swearing that she will apply an American wrecking ball to OPEC.

And you thought “The era of cowboy diplomacy is over.”

Silly rabbit, it’s a Diplomatic Offensive®.

I steer quite clear of political commentary. However, when candidates for President of the United States and Commander in Chief lecture us on unilateralism, “Cowboy Diplomacy” and all manner of foreign policy topics while simultaneously establishing the above rhetorical track record, it needs to be pointed out. In context.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Trackbacks (0)

There are few more pointed examples of the long-term problem with Saudi Arabia than a recent fatwa calling for the execution of two reporters for suggesting other religions deserve respect. One would expect a Wahhabi cleric to issue such, perhaps. But that the Saudi legislature voted down legislation (77-33) calling for the same respect is a fair and clear barometer that the problem does not simply lie with a few dozen clerics. It’s systemic.

If a respected religious authority calls for the execution of someone who simply suggests that people holding other faiths deserve respect, doesn’t that tell Saudis that the lives of Christians, Jews, Hindu and Buddhists are of lesser value?

Abdul-Rahman al-Barrak, a 75-year-old sheikh, issued the fatwa calling for the journalists’ death. In Saudi Arabia, he is a leading authority on Wahhabism, the country’s fundamentalist form of Sunni Islam.

“It’s disgraceful that articles containing this kind of apostasy should be published in some papers in Saudi Arabia,” he wrote last month. If the reporters do not repent, they “should be killed,” he wrote.

Barrak is not just some cranky old miscreant. He is a member of the Saudi legislature, appointed by the king. Barrak spent a long career in senior positions at a respected government-funded university.

Soon after, 20 other senior Saudi clerics stood up to enthusiastically endorse Barrak’s fatwa. Later, about 100 human-rights advocates from across the region condemned the edict, calling it intellectual terrorism. That had little visible impact in Riyadh.

But a striking feature of this episode is that the Saudi government has not said or done anything about it - probably because King Abdullah realizes that many and perhaps most members of Saudi Arabia’s religious establishment agree with Barrak. After all, two weeks after he issued that fatwa, the legislature soundly defeated a proposal, favored by the Arab League, to adopt a law promoting respect for other religions. The vote was 77-33.

By Steve Schippert | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Trackbacks (0)