A Miracle in Haiti

As we stop to acknowledge the first anniversary of the earthquake that ravaged Haiti, I find it interesting that nobody is noticing a major miracle that has occurred. With over 300,000 dead and more than a million people homeless still after so many months, most of the commentary is on how little has been done for the survivors. The presidential palace, symbol of power in Haiti and once the bastion of the Duvalier family, remains a total wreckage and the formerly empty park facing it, the Champs du Mars, is now a tent camp. But there is one thing that has not happened: no boat people. I was the Haiti desk officer in the mid-1970s when the Haitian boat exodus began. We used strict criteria in determining which of these boat people were legitimate refugees. Unfortunately, most were really economic and not political refugees and not in danger of being returned to persecution (known legally as refoulement)at the hands of the state, but yes to hardship and even hunger. However, it was largely a crisis that resulted from the retrograde political system that had existed under the Duvaliers and indeed for much of Haitian history.

I was struck by one commentator who opined that the international community had intervened after the earthquake to shape Haiti in a way that would benefit itself. I had trouble holding back a laugh because the only reason that international community intervenes in Haiti, aside from long standing humanitarian concern for a noble but battered people, is to prevent the outflow of people that would flood the beaches of neighboring countries, especially the United States. In 1994, when the United States intervened to restore President Aristide to power it was to end a politically deteriorating situation that was generating large numbers of so-called refugees. So why now is Haiti not generating thousands of people trying to escape the hardships of life after the biblically monumental disaster? Frankly, I don't have the answer. It could be that they are simply still in shock, too disorganized or not capable of leaving behind other family members. Or perhaps the people still believe that international help is still on the way and are awaiting a major opportunity to rebuild their homes and lives. I would love to know the answer to this question, but do know that the fact that they have not abandoned their homeland for a better life abroad, remains a major miracle.

Just Plain Folks

About a decade ago, I started to hear "folks" used a lot. What ever happened to people? Just ordinary people. Nobody seems to acknowledge that the world is inhabited any more by people. Now the world is made up of "folks." I hear folks all over the place: at the office, among my kids' generation, on TV and the radio. I hear the President of the United States refer to people as folks. A young Hispanic woman used the term twice in the same sentence on the radio. The other day when three experts on violence were discussing the Tuscon tragedy, they all referred to folks, not people. Sarah Palin also talks about folks.

What is it about using folks? Folks comes from a German word, Volks, yes, the same as in Volkswagen. It means people, or the people. It is not a new word. We have studied folklore for over a century, referring to the popular behaviour and ways of the common people in far off parts of the world,in our own hinterland or in the past, like the Middle Ages. These are often quaint and lusty, as in a Bruegel painting.

Politicians are quick to use "folks." It brings them immediate familiarity with the people whom they are addressing. It is, well, folksy. It is not distant or clinical. Folks are just like us. We are folks too, and we want everyone to feel like they are just plain folks. But do we always want this kind of familiarity when hearing from experts or our leaders, or do we want some degree of distance and respect, our respect for them. But we live in an age when such respect, dignity or any pretensions of superiority are simply not tolerable. Why do we call our most exalted leaders Jimmy, Bill or Mitch. Why not use a nickname when the opportunity arises? Well, George or Barack do not seem to fit the pattern, but how could they? There must be some political mileage in trying to demonstrate that you, though an elected member of Congress, are just like ordinary folks. We like our leaders to be like us. We do not like "elites." So even though our leaders enjoy a huge advantage over the rest of us in terms of wealth, power and influence, it is comforting to think that they are just "folks," so no real threat to our own self-esteem.

"Democrat" Party

I am certainly not the first person to analyze and discuss the use of the term "Democrat Party" vs. Democratic Party, but I continue to hear this usage so frequently, most frequently but not exclusively by the leadership of the Republican Party and must say that this usage really grates on my nerves. I am apparently not the only one: a totally non-scientific online pole showed that a plurality of those taking it consider this usage to be like "scraping one's fingernails on a blackboard." One blogger said that the use of the term "Democrat" as an adjective was used by the republicans because it is "not as euphonious" as "Democratic," which is true.

But I think that the annoyance of this usage stems more from the fact that a perfectly proper and historically rooted name of a major political party dating back to Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson has been hijacked by those who wish to denigrate the name by clipping it down to something that is simply not authentic and thereby offensive. One can say, as former President George W. Bush did, that it came simply from his poor grasp of English. Perhaps it is just ignorance and thereby its usage reflects mostly on those who misuse it and not on the original institution. But that does not really scratch the itch of this question. One blog indicated that the Republican Party actually focus grouped the use of this misnomer and found it to be effective in undermining the legitimacy of the Democratic Party. Such word manipulation is certainly an important component of any propaganda campaign that tends to negatively brand one's adversary.

I am also thinking of the way that President Reagan drove liberals underground with the use of the term "the L word" as if it were a dirty or taboo word, like "the F word" or "the N word." Now we are hearing also the use of the term "Obamacare," as if to brand the recently passed health care law, which is now the law of the land approved by the democratically elected US Congress, as the personal product of our President. And what if anything is wrong if the legislation, promised by Mr. Obama in his electoral campaign and considerably watered down to accommodate broader support to be associated with him? Are some people, again namely Republicans, seeking to stir up animosity to anything linked to the President, drawing on widely held prejudices about the Presidents race, alleged Muslim religious allegiance and his, yes, liberal political history and profile. This is not unlike former Mayor Rudy Giulliani's effort to brand Mr. Obama as a "community organizer" as if this in itself was somehow a bad thing the be.

Another word manipulation that is totally unethical is the labeling of the Obama administration as "elitist." How can Republicans and other conservatives who regularly defend the interests of economic elites, the really moneyed and priviledged segments of our society, honestly refer to Mr. Obama and members of his cabinet as "elites" just because they succeeded in attending the best colleges and universities and because they are don't speak like "ordinary folks." Smart people usually don't. This does not make them "elitist," which, by the way is never, ever defined by those who so use it.

What has characterized the response of Democrats, liberals and social democrats promoting public health care has been a certain cowardice in taking on these verbal assaults and a tendency to just try to ignore them. What Democrats should do, in the case of the use of the term "Democrat Party" is to always respond publicly and negatively to this misuse and to point out that it is an attempt to undermine the party's legitimacy. And if they have to start referring to the Republican Party as the "Republic Party," so be it.

Why So?

I like to think of myself as a person who is very sensitive to the nuances of language. Indeed, I love language and have demonstrated that throughout my life. Even in high school, I was the star of my senior English class, so much so that my teacher, Mr. Stephenson, sent an essay I had written for the class in 1963 to a major educational publication which published it. I was pleased to find an abstract of that article on line (http://bul.sagepub.com/content/47/281/99.abstract
). In college, I went on to take English composition and English literature courses. Moreover, I also loved foreign languages, and had studied Spanish, Portuguese and French by the time I graduated from college and later mastered Vietnamese.

All of that aside, I am very sensitive to changes in language as well as the meaning of words. A great deal of my work today involves trying to get American military officers think more clearly about the meaning of the words they use in describing the conflicts in which the US is engaged. In addition, one aspect of my alertness to language comes from the fact that I spent a good part of my life leaving and returning to the US and discovering that American English usage was constantly changing, but it was more of a shock not having been immersed in the society and only gradually becoming used to these changes. It was a bit of an awakening to return to the US and discover that the word "awesome" had come to be the most popular way of describing something good. I love youth culture and its freshness,once considered myself part of the youth culture of the 1960s and have written admirably about the current youth of the Millennial generation (see my blog post on this). However, I do not always find the way youth uses language very "comfortable." I still do not like it when I hear a lot of people under 30 consistently raising the tone of their voices at the end of sentences when they are making a statement and not asking a question and believe that this usage actually means something about the degree of confidence they have in their own statements. This habit it appears began with young women in the 90s and later was adopted by their male cohorts.

The new language usage that I have discovered just in the past month or two has been the tendency of people to answer a question with the word "so." What do you think is the justification for the war in Afghanistan? So,.... I do not think this has always been the case. I just can't recall it being consistently used. But I find it used everywhere all of a sudden, including when I hear Europeans being asked questions in English by the media. So it seems to have flown quickly among the culture of English speakers. Now why are people answering a question with the word "so?" It seems to me that these are people who are normally being asked a question due to their expertise on a subject. Because of that, they want to set the stage for making expert statements. The word "so" sets the stage for this, as in "So.... (now listen to what I am going to say because it is hard to understand but definitely authoritative)."

Now, I find this rather annoying. Maybe I just don't like people messing with the language. I guess I am a language conservative. Although I have studied linguistics at the graduate level, I am still not comfortable with the idea that anything goes in language. Of course, saying "so" does not violate any rules, but I just do not like the superior attitude that if reflects in the speaker. However, to be honest, most people are using "so" just because they have heard it over and over and are simply using a new form because everyone else is. So "so" is probably here to stay, especially as it may fill a need in our society for people to express their expert knowledge in a world increasingly marked by specialization. Oh, yes, I also do not like the phrase "good to go," which seems to have crept its way into our language from military culture as has the term "skill sets." I only heard these phrases when I came to work with the military in 2003, but quickly found it being used everywhere by everyone. I got hired, I discoverd, because I had the right "skill sets." Lucky me!

Saving Dan Rostenkowski

Former Congressman and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski has just died. A lot of attention was suddenly paid to a Washinton powerbroker who wound up humiliated, disgraced and imprisoned due to the hubris of politics and the DNA of Chigago politics.

My own thoughts drew to the time back in 1987 when Rostenkowski and his committee visited Rio de Janeiro when I was a US consul there. One thing you get to do in the US Foreign Service is receive CODELs, Congressional delegations, and to meet some of the great names in American politics. Of course to most diplomats CODELs are mostly a big pain, as every little detail of a visit of anything from a single Congressman to a group of 20 plus spouses can become tedious and challenging. I always welcomed them, because since Latin America is often ignored by American policy makers, a CODEL could be used to raise the US government's profile and to introduce certain issues on the official agenda. Or course, for most Congressman, the CODEL is the offical version of the boondogle. Some take them as serious work; most see them as a chance to travel abroad at the expense of the American taxpayer.

I have no idea if Rosty's visit focused on any major issues of US-Brazilian relations; I just don't remember. What I do remember was the boad ride. Any VIP visit to Rio had to include a ride on a boat around Guanabara Bay and past the famed Sugerloaf and a view of the vast beaches that ringed the Bay and that made it a major port and tourist attraction with the contrast of a big city and nature running up against the sea.

For Rostenkowski's delegation, a small boat was not in the cards. Rather, we at the consulate went after the biggest private yacht in town, the 105 foot yacht owned by the late Globo media magnate Roberto Marinho. We took a late afternoon cruise. Very nice oeres deurvs and plenty of alcohol was served by host Marinho, already about 90 but spry and his glamorous somewhat younger wife Lily. We were up on the upper deck of the yacht without any railings, standing in a tight circle, Rosty, me and a few other Congressmen and guests. Rosty had had more than a couple of drinks and was a little wobbly, when the yacht rolled a bit and I saw him tilting over towards the edge of the deck and suddenly reached out, grabbed his lapel and pulled him back towards me. It was only an instant and one that was soon forgotten, but I will never forget the time that I saved Dan Rostenkowski.

Petraeus for Afghanistan

On January 14, 2009, shortly after beginning this blog, I made the following Out of the Box proposal to solve the war in Afganistan:

"So here is the simple solution for Afghanistan: General David Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command in Tampa, responsible for the area of the Middle East and Central Asia, should move his headquarters to Kabul and assume full responsibility for working with the Karzai government to take full control of Afghanistan and to defeat the Taliban. Petraeus is already in charge of the region for the U.S., but the movement of his headquarters "to the front" would send a clear message that the United States considers this issue of utmost priority and move Petreuas himself in closer control of his forces in country. He should also be named as the Commander of all NATO forces in Aghanistan, although being dual hatted as both CENTCOM Commander and NATO forces commander would be unconventional, with all US and NATO forces unified. This would be totally consistent with the views expressed by President-elect and former candidate Obama.

"The importance of leadership cannot be stressed enough. General Petraeus is our most distinguished and accomplished military commander. His success in Iraq has made him clearly the most popular military leader the U.S. has to offer, a leader of heroic dimensions. And he is really smart. As a model, Gen. Petraeus should use Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, who moved his headquarters first to the United Kingdom and then to France with the advance of Allied Forces in Europe. A major war requires hands on leadership and I for one would like it to be in the hands of Gen. Petraeus.

"Nothing in this proposal would pit Petreaus against Holbrooke. Rather there would be clear division of labor between the diplomatic efforts of coordination between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the military and related Counter-Insurgency efforts within Afghanistan itself. Gen. Petraeus has already demonstrated how well he can work with State Department senior representatives in Iraq. He and Holbrooke would make up the key team, with US Ambassadors in both countries and senior military commanders in Afghanistan the second tier of leadership under their lead. Holbrooke should operate out of Washington, but have offices in our Embassies in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I am quite sure that this arrangement would lead to a very quick turnNow around in the situation in Afghanistan and help resolve related problems in Pakistan and in the Pak-India relationship"

Now General Petraeus has been named as the Senior Commander for the US and for the NATO led coalition called International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Although, he is giving up the commmand of Central Command (CENTCOM), there can be no question that Petraeus is the man for the job and our premier military leader today. OK, it took a year and a half and a major media scandal that led to the "resignation" of Gen. Stanley McCrystal for someone to come up with my idea, but I believe I deserve some credit for having a prescient idea.

Interestingly, I tried this idea out at about the same time in early 2009 with a senior flag officer at a public forum of the World Affairs Council in Hampton Roads and was told that we should not think that because of Gen Petraeus's "celebrity" he was the only one for this job. He suggested there were many general officers who could replace the then outgoing General David D. McKiernan. He even challenged my assertion that Afghanistan is our most important war. Well.....?

Maturing Brazilian Defense Attitudes Revealed in new film "National Secuirity"

I am down in Brazi and wanted to alert you to a fantastic new film released here earlier this week called "Seguranca Nacional". In my time at the State Deaprtment's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL), I was instrumental in getting the US financing of $1.4 billion for the Brazilian Amazon Surveillance System (SIVAM) project approved by the Secretary of State in 1994, The contract went to Raytheon and not a French firm that was competing. SIVAM was actually originally an environmental project, the big new Brazilian government idea to come out of the Rio Earth Summit of 1992 which Brazil hosted to relieve international pressure on its lack of protection of the Amazon rain forest. However, it had much broader law enforcement capabilities, especially in the area of counter-narcotics.

Well, ``National Security`` is all about how the success of the SIVAM and Brazil's shoot down policy in stopping Colombian drug flights results in a reaction from a big drug kingpin who threatens Brazil with terrorism. The story is about how the Brazilian government responds, the workings of the SIVAM system, involvement of the Brazilian CIA (ABIN) in fighting terrorism. The story has its own James Bond type Brazilian agent, who is very good looking and skilled at getting information and tracking down bad guys and getting the girl. In the story also, the President of Brazil is Milton Goncalves, a well known black actor--an obvious reference to the Obama effect. The head of the ABIN is a woman. The story is drawn from many US and British spy thrillers with shades of "Clear and Present Danger." It makes a very good representation of Brazilian intelligence, special forces and air force and is quite inspiring and patriotic. Lots of big Brazilian flags flying over Brasilia and some good shots of Florianopolis, one of my favorite cities here. Most important, however, is that it clearly defines narco-trafficking as a major issue of national defense and a treat to the nation's security and sovereignty. The US is never mentioned. Colombian traffickers and their Brazilian allies are made out to be the scum of the earth. If Brazilians pick up this message, that would be a great leap forward.

My only disappointment is that even in Rio, the film seems to be showing mostly in the poorer Zona Norte and suburbs. I had to go out to a shopping mall in the fast-growing Barra da Tijuca section of Rio to catch a 1 pm showing at which I was one of maybe four viewers, given the hour. So I am not sure the film will catch on, but hope so. If it represents a new maturity on the part of Brazilian opinion about Brazil's role in fighting global threats, that would be an important advance, getting away from the idea that the wars on drugs and terrorism are just American issues or even inventions of no concern to a maturing rising power like Brazil.