By Dawn's Early Light

The Duty of the Strong to Protect the Weak

My dad recommended to me today President Bush's statement on the death of Terry Schiavo after 13 days without food and water as she lay in a permanent vegetative state.

"Today millions of Americans are saddened by the death of Terri Schiavo.  Laura and I extend our condolences to Terri Schiavo's families.  I appreciate the example of grace and dignity they have displayed at a difficult time.  I urge all those who honor Terri Schiavo to continue to work to build a culture of life, where all Americans are welcomed and valued and protected, especially those who live at the mercy of others.  The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak.  In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."

Noble words indeed.  May God welcome you into His care Terri, and may His Spirit be with your family and those you leave behind.    

From Bill Roggio's Assignment Desk

Bill Roggio from the Fourth Rail and Winds of Change sent Dawn's Early Light an email suggesting a follow-up post to these DEL entries "US Agrees to Sell F-16s to Pakistan", "DEL Makes A Prediction" and "Supporting Evidence on DEL Prediction?". 

How could DEL not take up the challenge?  Bill was kind enough to include two contradictory articles (one an opinion piece) in the Asia Times Online:

India turns its back on US arms
By Siddharth Srivastava

Delhi missing the point
By Aruni Mukherjee

DEL has taken the position in the above linked posts that Secretary Rice's visit was to cement a new long-term strategic US-Indian alliance to counterbalance growing Chinese hegemony in Asia.  Given India's growing economic power, coupled with its democratic government, something of vital importance to the United States as it readjusts its strategic interests post September 11, 2001, it makes sense the US would be willing to offer substantial rewards to partner with India.  The completion of the canceled sale of US F-16s to Pakistan that was interrupted in 1990 due to Pakistan's nuclear testing is a natural reward from the US to Pakistan for its stalwart support in the Greater War on Terror.  As Aruni Murkherjee argues, this should come as no surprise to India, nor should it tip the balance between New Delhi and Islamabad. 

The India Turns Its Back on US Arms article argues in the opposite direction of the above DEL assessment.  Therefore, we shall start with its arguments first:

"The reaction has been quicker than expected. Peeved at the US decision to supply F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan, India has made it more than apparent that it is not at all happy and will play hard to get in all defense negotiations with the US.  Making India's irritation clear, Delhi has announced new defense orders to Russia, Germany, Italy, Israel and even Qatar, worth a total of US $746 million.

Making no bones about New Delhi's annoyance, even as US Ambassador to India David Mulford has tried to placate matters, Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee announced on Tuesday that the government had cleared the purchase of 12 used Mirage 2000 V fighter aircraft from Qatar and 11 Dornier 228 aircraft from Germany for maritime surveillance, virtually as a gesture set against the US offer to sell PC-3 Orions to India."

The important information in the planned $746 million arms purchase is that the majority of it is going for used military equipment.  DEL argues that the following motivation is behind the recent above announcement:

1. It is for domestic consumption prior to India going ahead and making an even larger order for US F-16s and/or F-18s, plus receiving US support for nuclear energy, missile defense and economic trade benefits
2. It is to maintain existing defense acquisition relationships and expand new ones as India gears up for a large US defense order in line with a strategic realignment of US-Indian relations in Asia
3. The $746 million would likely not be paid out in one current defense budget year, and only represents 5% of 2004-2005 Indian defense spending of US $15 billion (see February 5, 2005 Asia Times article here by same author).  The same article hints at a possible purchase of 126 US F-16s:  "The Indian defense community's wish list is long, which they feel is necessary to modernize the country's armed forces. These include a proposal to purchase F-16 fighter jets, Scorpene submarines and long-range rocket systems. The proposal to buy 126 F-16s - at $25 million each over five years - will itself cost the exchequer $3 billion. "

The Siddharth Srivastava article argues mainly the economic angle for why the US was so motivated to sell the F-16s, namely President George Bush's home state of Texas would receive the financial benefit for 5,000 jobs.

"Prior to the Indian reaction to order arms from other countries, the US decision was also seen as a win-win situation for Washington. For planners in the administration of US President George W Bush, it was a clear instance of geostrategic diplomacy being cloaked to promote the highly competitive business of arms sales, the potential of an arms race in South Asia set aside, as long as it benefited the US arms industry.

There are reports to suggest that the sale to Pakistan may have saved 5,000 jobs at Lockheed Martin, the manufacturer of F-16s, located in Texas, Bush's home state."

Mr. Srivastava goes on to argue that the United States is an unreliable arms seller, which is true if your nation happens to be an irresponsible rogue nation, something the outspoken French seem far less bothered by:

"There is more bad news for the United States. While the US has placed all its cards in the open, there are murmurs of protest in the Indian defense and foreign ministries against any long-term arms arrangement with the US. The US is seen as an unreliable arms partner, unlike the history of such ties with the Russians, the French or even Israel. The main fear is of sanctions, which is built into the entire US system of arms sales, and an arena that is within the comfort zone of US diplomatic arm-twisting. The French, for example, stuck with India even post-1998, when India turned nuclear, despite sanctions by the rest of the Western world."

This is the basis of Mr. Srivastava's argument.  While it is filled with very well-sourced detail of the ins and outs of Indian defense procurement ideas, it does not deal with the larger strategic objectives of both India and the United States that, in a post 9/11 world, are quickly converging. 

Mr. Mukherjee, in his opinion piece, offers a counter view, one that DEL shares.  He takes the Indian government to task for its reactionary attitude:

"On her recent visit to India, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "What we're trying to do is break out of the notion that this is a hyphenated relationship somehow, that anything that happens that's good for Pakistan has to be bad for India, and vice versa." [DEL: more on Sec. Rice's comments on the hyphenated relationship here] India's vehement and open opposition to this deal and the dejected expression that followed it will only pour cold water on the country's aspirations not to be equated with Pakistan in most geopolitical discussions pertaining to South Asia. India looks on itself as a rising regional, and possibly global, economic and military power, yet an indifferent attitude to this deal would have gone a longer way to bolster that image than the sniffles of a child who didn't get his cookie. "

He continues why the F-16 sale does little to change the balance and how the US is taking a play from the Russian arms trade book of practices:

"There are reasons to believe that this deal would do little to alter the strategic balance in the subcontinent. First, as a US State Department official put it, India had been contemplating a 'very large' purchase of fighters long before this deal was sanctioned. Models in the race include French Mirage 2000-5s, Swedish JAS-39 Gripens and Russian MiG-29s. Thanks to the recent announcement by the US, India can also add F-16s and F-18s to this list.

Lockheed Martin has also gone a step beyond and confirmed that it will be willing to upgrade the F-16s to Block 70 levels, especially catering to the particular needs of India, very much as the Russians did with the Su-30. Moreover, even without this new purchase, India already operates fighters at par with if not superior to the F-16 Block 52 being offered to Pakistan, the MiG-29, Mirage 2000 and Su-30MKI. It does not appear that a few dozen F-16s will change the entire dimension in favor of Pakistan."

It is likely that India would be able to purchase far more advanced equipment and in greater numbers than the Pakistanis have recently concluded with the US.

The next persuasive argument he makes is a parallel to the US-Soviet cold war arms race that the Soviets couldn't win:

"Second, although India has constantly denied that it wants to get sapped into an arms race, indulging in one would not necessarily be bad for the long-term interests of the country. After all, one of the reasons the Soviet economy never reached the levels of the US was the massive amount it spent on military hardware. India can do the same - draw Pakistan into an arms race by making some big purchases. Owing to nationalist pressures, Islamabad will be forced to do what it can to match India's rapidly growing capabilities. The defense-spending ratio already stands at 5:1 in favor of India - Pakistan would not feel safe to let it slip further.

Once the Pakistani economy was under pressure owing to this race, India could push for economic concessions, such as a South Asian free-trade area, a policy long torpedoed by Pakistan owing to fears of Indian competition. With less money at its disposal to fund infrastructure projects or invest in the economy to create jobs, Pakistan may have no choice but to sign a trade accord and let Indian companies provide jobs to its economy."

Mr. Mukherjee makes a compelling cold war argument shifting the paradigm to Indian-Pakistani relations coupled with an interesting economic interest rationale as well.  He expands on the economic argument and India's own strategic interests:

"Third, India should remember that 'friends are not permanent, interests are'. Pakistan has been favored by the US for the past half a century or so for valid strategic reasons. During the Cold War, it acted as a deterrent to a pro-Soviet India. During the Afghan war, it helped the US and the mujahideen throw the Russians out of the country. After September 11, 2001, President General Pervez Musharraf went out of his way to help in the "war on terror". Even after being exposed to life-threatening attacks by extremists in his country, he has cooperated with the coalition forces in whatever way he can. It is still not clear whether India definitely wants to join the US camp - so why shouldn't the US have an "insurance" partner in Pakistan in the region? It makes sense to the strategists at the Pentagon.

What India needs to do is make itself more attractive as a partner than Pakistan. India's obvious advantage lies in its rapidly growing and very large economy. India needs to liberalize quicker and give foreign firms (especially US firms) incentives to invest in India, beyond software and information-technology services. A preferential trade agreement between the US and India would open up huge avenues for businesses on both sides."

The crux of the argument, and the portion that DEL has articulated prior from the strategic point of view of the US and India vis-a-vis China, is this:

"Once India made its presence felt in the business lobbies in the United States, its weight as an ally would decisively shift vis-a-vis Pakistan. To put things in context, US-India trade in 2003-04 hovered around the US $20 billion figure, compared with a nearly $300 billion figure for US-China trade. The US attitude toward Taiwan has been affected directly as a result. These days the Pentagon often issues restraining calls on Taiwan, and is surprisingly quiet on China's harsh labor regulations since US companies might be affected as a result. A booming bilateral trade between India and the US would not only be beneficial for a large number of Indians, but would also help the country establish itself as a firm US ally in the region, and ensure US support or neutrality in any future disputes with Pakistan."

While Mr. Srivastava has a solid argument built on the detail of different weapon systems and India's just announced $746 million spending spree on used equipment, Mr. Mukherjee grasps the larger, long-term political interests both militarily and economically that will create a diplomatic realignment for both the US and India.  Both nations will seek to keep their current nation state relationships content as exhibited in India's purchase of military equipment, from non-US suppliers, to the Bush Administration's sale of F-16s to Pakistan.  However, their long-term goals coincide, which is to promote democratic India as an political and economic model over the increasingly aggressive and rising Chinese dragon.  The US wants to see India succeed and is willing to offer impressive carrots to India to see it become a counterbalance to China.  It is in India's interests to leave behind Russia and France as suppliers and embrace the United States in a larger framework of economic and military cooperation to become a "21st Century Major World Power".

Update: The WSJ (paid subscription required) has an interesting article that seems to add credence to the DEL position: "The real story here is that the U.S. is steadily building a broad strategic relationship with New Delhi. Said Mr. Mukherjee, 'cooperation in economic and other areas between the United States and India  has increased manifold, but so far there has been no defense agreement between the two states.' One obvious strategic calculation for both countries is countering the military rise of China."

Update 2: Publius Pundit has a great post "Using India to Squeeze Totalitarianism?" that addresses the above concepts and has a great focus on Asian energy needs driving some of the decision making process. (March 31, 2005).  Also Simon's World has a link to a James Town piece "China's Global Strategy for Energy, Security and Diplomacy" that I hope to post on in the next couple of days.  Also Congratulations to Simon making the top 20 list of must read blogs for Publius Pundit! 

For more information and news along with an interesting analysis of the oil needs and strategic implications in China and the Asian subcontinent, please see Quillnews' post "Geo-green puts US in the 'Red'". (March 31, 2005)

US Soldier's Faith Leads Him to Adobt Iraqi Boy with CP

Thanks to ABC News for this uplifting story.  Wisconsin National Guard Captain Scott Southworth, formerly of the 32nd Military Police Company, while on a 14-month tour in Iraq, volunteered at an orphanage for disabled children.

That is where Capt. Southworth met Ala'a (pronounced "Allah"), an eight-year-old boy who was abandoned at age 3 or 4, who cannot walk because he has cerebral palsy (for more info on CP).  The Atlanta Constitution Journal (free registration required) has a very good account of the story that gives far more of the story than the ABC News piece:

"Southworth grew up in a military family, raised with love of God and country. He graduated from law school at the University of Wisconsin with honors and planned to run for Juneau County district attorney at the end of his deployment.

As for Ala'a (pronounced "Allah"), when he was 3 or 4, an Iraqi police officer found him alone on the streets of Baghdad. The officer brought him to the orphanage, run by the Catholic Missionaries of Charity of Mother Teresa.

By the time Southworth started visiting him there, Ala'a was about 10. The nuns who cared for him had taught him to pray and to speak English.

Face to face, Ala'a called Southworth by his first name, Scott. But the nuns told Southworth they saw a stronger bond beginning to form.

Ala'a was always concerned about what he would wear when Southworth came to visit. He was suddenly interested in learning to walk. At night when Ala'a lay down in his crib, he would pray not for himself but for Southworth, whom he felt was in danger.

And when he talked about his new friend from America, he called him "Baba," which means "Daddy" in his native Arabic.

'At first, it was just kind of cute, kind of nice,' said Southworth, 32, who felt more like Ala'a's big brother than his father.

Then he started to realize what a difference he was making in the boy's life. Sure, Ala'a had always been loved by the nuns, but they loved everyone. This little boy had likely been abandoned by his parents. He'd never had anyone to make him feel valuable as an individual. Now, he did.

'Everybody on the planet needs to feel special to somebody, and I could see that happening for him,' Southworth said."

What motivated Captain Southworth, as a single man, with a future in law as a District Attorney (he later won election to the position) to adopt little Ala'a?  Ala'a was getting too old for the orphanage and would soon be sent to a state run institution that would have meant most likely a terrible future, if one at all, without the care and love the boy needed.

Captain Southworth was also convicted by his faith:

"Southworth had heard about the home. By all reports, it was horrible. The doctor confirmed his fears.

"If he goes there, his life is over," the doctor said, speaking more than figuratively.

"Then I'll adopt him," Southworth said. The words came out in a rush. Only after he'd spoken them did he begin to think things through.

Could he really adopt this boy? Southworth started to pray, trying to figure out the Lord's plan for him.

The first sign he received was a bootleg DVD of "The Passion of the Christ," sent to a fellow soldier in a care package from home. The film's quality was poor, but its message was clear.

"I thought, 'If He can do that for me, surely I can (adopt Ala'a)."'

Every time a friend or family member pointed out one of the challenges, Southworth thought about the distant future.

He imagined meeting Ala'a in heaven. In his vision, Ala'a came to him and asked, "Scott, why didn't you come back for me?"

Southworth went through all the answers. He pictured himself saying, "Well, I didn't have a lot of money." Or: "I'm a single guy, I don't know anything about taking care of a child with cerebral palsy." Or: "I have a very demanding career."

"Every time I thought of a reason (not to adopt him), it quickly turned into an excuse, and I was absolutely ashamed and embarrassed," Southworth said. "I thought, 'Well, I can sacrifice a little bit here and make some adjustments, or I can spend the rest of my life ashamed and embarrassed."'

However, Southworth's tour ended before he could overcome the obstacles of bringing the boy home with him to the United States.  There was no legal way, it appeared, to adopt him, and being dedicated to the rule of law, he was not going to bribe a local judge to win custody in Iraq.

Read the whole AJC piece.  It is an amazing story of courage, sacrifice, the love of a boy and faith in God.  It is a story that brings hope out of chaos.  It is possible that Ala'a may yet walk again.

Supporting Evidence on DEL Prediction?

Bill Roggio (of The Fourth Rail and Winds of Change) was kind enough to email me this link to NTI titled "India Quietly Welcomes U.S. Decision to Sell Arms to Both South Asian Nuclear Rivals", a non-profit group formed by Ted Turner (of CNN fame) and former Sen. Sam Nunn to help draw attention to nuclear weapons proliferation.

"Although it has publicly criticized the U.S. decision to resume fighter aircraft sales to Pakistan, India is quietly welcoming the shift in U.S. policy to allow much greater defense cooperation, experts said yesterday (see GSN, March 28).

The Bush administration announced Friday that it would end a long-standing ban and allow Pakistan to purchase F-16 fighters. The ban had been imposed in 1990 as part of U.S. policy to discourage nuclear proliferation. (Pearson/Chakravarty, Agence France-Presse I/Sify.com, March 29).

'We see [the sale] as unnecessary,' Indian Defense Minister Pranab Mukherjee said yesterday. 'The reasons and arguments for this step are not valid as one doesn’t need F-16s and such lethal weapons to fight terrorism. These are for full-fledged war.' (Agence France-Presse II, March 28)

The new U.S. policy, however, also includes a willingness to sell India advanced combat aircraft, including the F-18 fighter, and to provide other technologies as well, including command and control systems, early warning radars and missile defenses, Agence France-Presse reported today.

Indian officials have publicly said only that they would consider the U.S. offer, but, 'Even India, with a long tradition of making foreign policy self-goals, will find it hard to say ‘no’ to the extraordinary offer the Bush administration has put on the table — a promise to assist it in becoming a world power in return for resumption of arms sales to Pakistan,' said longtime South Asian commentator C. Raja Mohan.

Mohan expressed doubt that India was genuinely concerned about seeing more F-16s in Pakistan.

'Today, no one in India can credibly argue that additional F-16s in Pakistan’s hands will alter the military balance in South Asia,' he said.

India has already acquired more-advanced Su-30 [See DEL COPE India 2004 post regarding] combat aircraft from Russia and is shopping for additional aircraft from other countries as well, AFP reported (Agence France-Presse I).

Under the deal announced Friday, Pakistan is expected to purchase at least 25 F-16C and F-16D aircraft and to upgrade about 28 older versions already in its arsenal, the Financial Times reported today.

The deal would be worth about $1 billion, according to Pakistani officials (Bokhari/Marcelo, Financial Times, March 29)."

While the article quotes an analyst and not a government official, I think it lends support to the DEL prediction that Secretary Rice cut a deal with the Indian government on her last trip that was too good to pass up, and that the F-16 deal with Pakistan is part of the overall US plan.  If India does buy US aircraft, whether it is F-16s, F-18s, or a combination of both, it will be a sign that the US has struck an alliance with India to contain China.

Solomon's Dilemma

Reader Larwynn pointed me across the Atlantic to an exceptionally well-written opinion piece in London's Times Online by Michael Grove regarding Terry Schiavo, her "husband" and her family.

Not only does Mr. Grove give a good account of the shifting court positions, but:

"After Mrs Schiavo collapsed in 1990, her husband sued for medical malpractice and claimed that he wished to secure resources so that he could care for her for the rest of her natural life. The court awarded Michael Schiavo $300,000 for loss of companionship and awarded Mrs Schiavo around $700,000.

Mr Schiavo’s conduct since then does not suggest that he has exerted himself to provide the duty of care that he was awarded money to ensure. A year after winning his case on the basis that he wished to nurse his wife, he refused to allow doctors to prescribe antibiotics for a serious infection. In contrast to the position he held when suing for compensation, Mr Schiavo argued that his wife would not wish to live in her disabled condition. Had she died, Mr Schiavo would have inherited her $700,000."

Mr. Grove is wise to link the tale to the Old Testament tale of Solomon:

"Attachment to the rule of law is certainly a foundation stone of our civilisation. But so is respect for the moral principles on which our civilisation has been built. And it has often been through religion that those moral principles most central to civilised conduct have been preserved and defended. One does not need to be a member of any church, or a subscriber to any established faith, to appreciate the ethical debt we owe in the West to our Judaeo-Christian inheritance.

To take just one example, our notion of the role that judicial intervention should play in interpreting the law owes a great deal to Jewish tradition. Take the resonant story of the judgment of Solomon. Presented with a child whom two women claimed as their own, Solomon proposed depriving both of the baby by the decision to divide the child into two. One woman acquiesced, the other protested, and by their reactions the woman with the real bond of love to the disputed child revealed herself.

Invoking Old Testament justice may seem anachronistic in an age of advanced medical technology. But the importance of respecting the bonds of love has a profound bearing on Terri Schiavo’s case."

I am not arguing that the Book of Leviticus should be our basis for laws, but laws that do not serve a moral purpose are unjust.  The German government during the Second World War was built on many laws.  Laws do not make justice.  Law rooted in a strong moral tradition and democratic principles does lead to a more just society.

Unfortunately, none of that is found in the current pain a family finds itself left with in Florida today.

Spotlight on Malawi (Where?)

Where is Malawi?

It is a former British colony that won independence on July 6, 1964 from Great Britain.  Why is Dawn's Early Light featuring it?  Good question. 

San Clemente Presbyterian Church Pastor Tod Bolsinger (and It Takes a Church blogger) is leading a team of 7 church members, one a doctor and another a nurse, on an advance team mission to Malawi for two weeks.  They are a part of a 10-church partnership in coordination with World Vision that is looking to lay the ground work for a 15-year partnership to effect change in one of the world's poorest countries.  Tod's posts on Malawi can be found here.  Because I am interested in the success of this mission as this team lays important groundwork to improve the living conditions in the Nkhoma region, Dawn's Early Light will make it a regular feature.  Posts can be found here (or by clicking IR: Malawi under "Categories" on the side menu) that will draw attention to a country that is easy to overlook in the West.

Malawi by the Numbers

Malawi is a landlocked country in Southern Africa, along Lake Nyasa, slightly smaller than the state of Pennsylvania. Here is Malawi by the numbers (source CIA Factbook 2004):

• Population under 12 million
• 47% of the population is 14 or under, less than 3% of the population is over 65
• Malawi has the world's 6th highest mortality rate (out of 226)
• More than 10% of children born die as infants. Only 11 nations have higher infant mortality rates, and 8 of those are African countries
• Due to the ravages of AIDS/HIV, the life expectancy is less than 38 years for both men and women
• 7.5% of the people or almost 1 out of 12 Malawians are dying of AIDS
• Religious beliefs - Protestant 55%, Catholic 20%, Muslim 20%, indigenous 3%, other 2%
• While Pennsylvania is roughly the same in size and population, the average citizen in Pennsylvania contributes $36,400 to Gross State Product compared to less than $600 GDP per citizen of Malawi
• Roughly 90% of the people live in rural areas
• Tobacco accounts for over 50% of exports
• 55% of the people live below the poverty line
• Public debt is 235% of GDP
• After South Africa, the United States is Malawi's largest export trading partner
• approximately 36,000 people have internet access or 0.3%

Malawi Political Situation

The country, after winning independence from the United Kingdom (it remains a part of the Commonwealth) ended up with one-party rule.  The first free and fair elections were just over 10 years ago in May 1994, which were won by the United Democratic Front (UDF).  A subsequent free and fair election was held in 1999, where Bingu wa Mutharika won the presidency.  However, due to an anti-corruption campaign, he and his party ended their relationship in February of this year.

The President made an appearance at a Good Friday cross-carrying ceremony.  Reuters reports on March 26th:

"Wa Mutharika is a Roman Catholic while his predecessor and UDF leader Bakili Muluzi hails from the southern African country's growing Muslim minority.

But the hostility between the two is political rather than religious and the staging of the protest on Good Friday was prompted more by the fact that wa Mutharika was making a rare public appearance.

Elected last May as Muluzi's hand-picked successor, wa Mutharika has fallen out with his erstwhile champion and party after pursuing an anti-corruption drive that has targeted many of Muluzi's close allies within the UDF.

The power struggle came to a head in January, when wa Mutharika accused Muluzi of backing a plot to kill him and dramatically quit the UDF to go it alone, appearing to trump Muluzi's efforts to have him expelled from the party.

The UDF and the main opposition party threatened last week to team up to impeach wa Mutharika over accusations that he has violated the constitution 10 times since his election.

The Public Affairs Committee, Malawi's most influential religious body grouping Christians and Muslims, called on parliament on Friday not to impeach wa Mutharika, but to punish him in some other way for any violations of the Constitution."

While the political situation deteriorates, starvation and hunger loom.  According to World Vision as of March 2, 2005:

"The Malawi Government is admitting that a serious food crisis has hit the country. The crisis may be similar to the nation's worst famine which killed hundreds of people three years ago.

'…Most of the crops, more especially maize, are not in a condition to give farmers bumper yields,' said Malawi's Agriculture, Food Security and Irrigation Minister Gwanda Chakuamba. 'In short, this is another year of starvation.'"

Why is Malawi important?  It goes back to the golden rule and this quote from Matthew: “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?  When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

An honest admission.  Prior to this post, I would have struggled to put Malawi on a map (not surprising for an American?). Hopefully you have found this post on Malawi as educational and depressing as I have.  Hopefully, it will inspire us all to action.

Reference Websites:

• US State Department on Malawi here and CIA Factbook here
• Wikipedia entry on Malawi here (an excellent history of the countries birth and Scottish Presbyterian involvement)
• USAID Strategy for Malawi here
• World Bank programs and support for Malawi here
• International Monetary Fund (IMF) info here

Stopping a Blog Scam

Power pundit has a good post about his avoiding a scam that has taken Captain's Quarters and Just Say Anything off of the Google Search engine.

The scam works like this:  A company (in this case Business Barn LLC) offers a well-ranked blogger $300 a month to put a link on their subdomain for advertising.  As Say Anything describes:

"I would point the subdomain to a page of advertising hosted on their servers and they’d send me the money via Pay Pal. I checked out the advertising and there was no porn or anything involved so I agreed. Seemed like a good deal to me and with hosting costs rising as this page gets more and more popular I’m not much inclined to turn down opportunities to make money from this page.

Turns out this was a mistake. This company is involved in something called link farming, a practice Google frowns upon. They frown upon it so much, in fact, that Say Anything has now been removed from that search engine’s indexes.

Coinciding almost exactly with this removal from Google was an email from Business Barn stating that they were ending our arrangement together. Which makes perfect sense. They were after my Google page rank. Now that I have no Google page rank I’m of no use to them."

This scam is angering.  Bloggers work hard to build a good site.  Google, being the 800-pound search engine, provides a good deal of referrals.  Being banned from Google because of a link farm scam is devastating.  Hopefully Google will do the right thing and restore the rankings for the affected bloggers.

Watching the Streets of Egypt

While protests are erupting in the streets of Taiwan, Lebanon, and Kyrgyzstan, Egypt continues to simmer.  The Christian Science Monitor reports some interesting developments in Cairo.  Since Secretary Rice canceled a visit to Egypt out of displeasure for President Mubarak's detention of a government critic and member of Parliament Nour Al-Ghad, and Mr. Mubarak's February 26, 2005 subsequent call for the first democratic elections, the opposition parties have been scrambling to organize.

Three of the more vocal opposition groups, "The Brotherhood" or "The Muslim Brotherhood", the Al-Ghad movement, and "Kafaya", meaning "Enough", are being targeted by Egyptian security forces.  First some background.  The New York Times describes The Muslim Brotherhood:

"Founded in 1928, the Muslim Brotherhood has grown into a vast movement with tens of thousands of supporters. While once known for violence, it now advocates the peaceful establishment of an Islamic state...

'We are now struggling for real reform in Egypt,' Essam el-Eryan, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood said in a telephone interview. 'And real reform has an agenda that is entirely different from the formal constitutional change. What we want is to change the prevailing atmosphere.'"

The Kafaya [also spelled Kifaya] has called for the end of Mr. Mubarak's 24-year rule and appears to be a more secular movement, though small in number, which has helped it stay somewhat below the government's radar.

The Christian Science Monitor gives this account:

"Mr. Mubarak has allowed unlicensed protests in recent months by Kafaya. But an emboldened Brotherhood, which has offices in every province and is the country's largest opposition organization, was too much for the government to take.

"The reason for the escalation by state security is the difference in size and influence between the Muslim Brotherhood and the other opposition groups," says Ahmed Ramy, a Brotherhood member.

It appears that the government - caught between US pressure and an increasingly vocal opposition, emboldened by the Iraq war - is trying to relieve political pressure with a small opening while not risking losing control of the situation."

Between these groups and others, they organized 3,000 protesters near parliament, of which at least 50 where detained, though some appear to have been detained prior to the protests in pre-dawn raids.

According to the Jerusalem Post,

"Sunday's events came a day after the government announced a court trial date for Ayman Nour, the leader of the Al-Ghad opposition party, who plans to run against President Hosni Mubarak."

If Ayman Nour is found guilty, he will not be "eligible" to stand for the election, clearly what the government is aiming at, especially since he represents the only officially licensed opposition party. 

What is interesting is how the small group Kafaya is motivating The Brotherhood into action, as again described by the CSM:

"The opposition has been fortified by Mubarak's promise a month ago to amend the constitution to allow a competitive presidential election. Under current rules, only one candidate is nominated by parliament, which Mubarak's National Democratic Party controls.

'We assume that the rules for the election will make it impossible to legally put forth viable opposition candidates,' says Abdel Halim Qandeel, an editor at the anti-government Al-Arabi newspaper and an organizer behind Kafaya. 'But there is an opening here. For the first time, there's open criticism of Mubarak and his family. We need street protests to break the barrier of fear around political activity.'

Mr. Qandeel concedes that his movement is 'still small,' but says Kafaya can take credit for stirring the Brotherhood.

'The Brotherhood is like an enormous body with a very small brain. It takes time to get it moving,' he says. Qandeel, a secular socialist whose vision is sharply at odds with the Brotherhood, says he's happy they're becoming more confrontational.

'They don't want to miss out - our pressure forced them to organize their own demonstration,' he says. 'This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Everyone has to fight Egypt's political stagnation.'"

Opposition parties are feeding other opposition parties.  How well Mr. Mubarak can control Egypt's fate remains to be seen.  While 3,000 protesters is a good start, it is far from the numbers that successful revolutions have produced in the Ukraine and Lebanon. 

Suggested Web Browsing

I thought I would point you to some good pieces from various blogs online.

Political

• Bill Roggio at the Fourth Rail has a good analysis of the Iraqi insurgents' search for an exit strategy (and not the normal US exit strategy from leftist rhetoric).
• Robert Mayer at Publius Pundit has an interesting piece about protests in Bahrain.

Religious

• Pastor Tod Bolsinger has some great thoughts on the Saturday before Easter of Holy Week.
• The Protestant faith's movement towards Mary in a smart series by Pastor Mark D. Roberts.

Happy Easter!

DEL Makes A Prediction

Dawn's Early Light discussed, during Secretary Rice's trip to Asia, the US's desire to sell 125 F-16s to India.  The French and Russians are competing for the same contract, and currently India does not fly US fighter aircraft.  Instead, the IAF flies the Mirage 2000 from the French and the SU-30, MiG-29 and MiG-21 from the Russians (as discussed in DEL here).  The contact would be extremely valuable to Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-16.  With sales in 2004 of $35.5 billion, Lockheed Martin is headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, with subsidiary operations in a number of states, including Texas.  The F-16 is manufactured in Fort Worth, and continuing the line would mean the preservation of 5,000 jobs. (For a breakdown of Lockheed Martin worldwide operations, click here.)

When the US announced today that it was selling F-16s to Pakistan, my initial reaction was that the US must not have been able to secure the F-16 purchase from India, and therefore was less concerned about the the diplomatic fallout in India.  However, I now believe that Secretary Rice made an offer to India that is in its strategic and economic self interest.  My guess is that Secretary Rice offered the following:

• India should purchase the US F-16s (up to 125 aircraft)
• The US will approve a smaller sale of F-16s to Pakistan, with New Delhi's knowledge
• The US will offer future, more advanced military hardware including:
  • missile defense
  • nuclear reactor technology
  • high tech programs
  • other advanced US weapon systems
• The US will engage in a long-term strategic relationship with India to contain China and proactively work to propel India into being a major 21st century world power.

While the LAT (doesn't even mention the word "China"), NYT and WaPo (which argues the move will push India closer to China) play the US sale of fighter jets to Pakistan as angering New Delhi.  I imagine the US and India have cut a deal for a closer relationship to strengthen India in line with the Bush Administration goal of supporting democratic governments.  Why does DEL go out on such a limb with a counterview to the major US newspapers?  Read this article "US Wants to Help India be a Superpower" from the AFP via Sify News, owned by an Indian tech company:

"The United States unveiled plans Friday to help India become a "major world power in the 21st century" even as it announced moves to beef up the military of Pakistan.

Under the plans, Washington offered to step up a strategic dialogue with India to boost missile defense and other security initiatives as well as high-tech cooperation and expanded economic and energy cooperation.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has presented to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh the Bush administration's outline for a "decisively broader strategic relationship" between the world's oldest and largest democracies, a senior US official said."

The long-run goal of the United States is to diplomatically and militarily contain China by supporting the democratic governments in the region, thereby applying the soft power and hard power that the United States often is criticized for not demonstrating.  If the Bush Administration has New Delhi on board, this will complement the strengthening of the US-Japanese alliance (see DEL here and here).

it will be interesting to see if the US is also in favor of a permanent seat on the UN Security Council for the world's largest democracy as well.  I could be wrong, but I believe Secretary Rice is sharp and is thinking several steps ahead of the MSM in promoting the Bush Administration's democratic and national security goals.

Update: Robert Mayer of Publius Pundit emails several excellent follow up points:

Bill,

The MSM was certainly dumb on this. With Condi as our new Secretary of State, we've been diverting much more to regional powers of late. A major case thus far has been India.  India has done an amazing job with helping in the tsunami crisis, and currently they are handling the democratic crisis in Nepal. The new U.S. foreign policy seems to build strong democratic societies that can then exert influence on budding or established problem/communist states. With China enforcing its naval power in the straits and Indonesia, a powerful and populous ally against the communist mainland right next door is certainly in our strategic interest.

Largely, however, liberals are still so stuck on the "unilateral world policeman" slogan that they haven't noticed this deferment of power to regional players. And since we all know the MSM is largely liberal, well, there is certainly some cause and effect there.

Best,
Robert Mayer 

Update 2: The discussion continues below with several great comments from Nitin (The Acorn blog) and Dan (TDAXP ~~ the experience blog).  Hopefully Simon will chime in a really get the debate going (He is gone until Wednesday celebrating Easter). 

Please feel free to join in the discussion.