Salinger and Zinn Dead

Each will be missed.

Sana'a to London: No Foreign Boots

As world leaders gather in London to discuss security concerns originating from the failed bombing on Christmas of a jet bound for Detroit, al-Jazeera investigates what some Yemenis are saying. The message is fairly clear.
Two of the most prominent Yemeni tribal leaders, Sheiks al-Ahmar and a-Zidani, have expressed the fear of and opposition to foreign intervention in Yemen, claiming that the presence of outside troops on their soil will lead to another Iraq or Afghanistan "or even Somalia." They stressed that Yemen is capable of dealing with the threat from al-Qaeda on its own, as well as with the ever worsening situations in the North and South of the country.
"We don't want a conference that could lead to a reoccupation or division of Yemen," stated al-Ahmar. Part of Yemen was under British control for most of the 2oth century, and reunification of North and South Yemen took place less only twenty years ago. Foreign troops, particularly western troops, would be dangerously reminiscent of Yemen's time as a colony and client state.
The statements support the Yemeni government's natural inclination to reject direct foreign intervention and seek instead economic support. The government's widespread and well known corruption, however, means that increased financial aide won't necessarily lead to an improved situation.
Intervention is not an option, though. Yemen is one of the most rugged countries on earth. Most of the land is desert, and where there is rain there are also impressive mountains. Almost the entire population is heavily armed - there is a joke in Yemen that for every person there are three guns, and this is not far off the mark. In addition, while many Yemenis are not particularly loyal to the government or the state, they are fiercely protective of their land, culture, and history. Yemen is, according the anthropologist and Yemen specialist Paul Dresch, one of the only Arab countries that the Europeans did not fabricate after WWI. That is, people living in Yemen had a sense of identity as Yemenis clearly connected to a particular land area, unlike, for example, Jordanians, who are mostly Palestinian. These factors mean that intervention would most likely be doomed to costly failure.
Thus, the governments meeting in London have something of a dilemma on their hands. They cannot intervene, and what support they do give the Yemeni government is not guaranteed to wind up in the right place. Given that many Yemenis, particularly in the South, where there is a strong secessionist movement, are demonstrably opposed to President Saleh and his cronies, courting the government could backfire. Yemenis who feel themselves ostracized from the political process will see any aide to the government as a de facto attack on their interests.
I believe that the safest route for interested nations is to reach out to Yemen's numerous and powerful tribes. This means an academic mobilization more than anything else, as there are few in government who can rightly lay claim to the title "expert" when it comes to Yemen. The tribes have, mostly, been opposed to al-Qaeda, and both al-Ahmar and a-Zidani have called for the maintenance of national unity. Tribal leaders tend to be seen as more legitimate in many circles than governmental officials, and so could be excellent bargaining and strategic partners in the quest for peace and security not only in Yemen but in the international community.

GPS

These days, when I get lost, I use the GPS on my cell phone. It gives me turn by turn instructions and directions. I no longer have to talk to other human beings around me. I don't have to look up and around me. I don't have to remember where the sun rises or sets, because I no longer have to consider North, South, East and West. There's no risk of my meeting anyone, seeing anything, or learning any lesson. Yep. GPS has certainly made my life a lot better.

From Osama to Obama

Al-Jazeera today released an audio tape that allegedly records Osama Bin Laden's message to the United States. The terrorist leader and "world's most wanted man" warns the USA of continuing attacks should the Obama administration fail to address and resolve the situation in, of all places, Palestine. "From Osama to Obama...It is not fair," states Bin Laden, "that you enjoy peace and security while our brothers in Palestine are suffering."
Though the occupation of Palestinian land has always been a rallying cry for both violent and non-violent movements throughout the Arab and Muslim world, it is somewhat odd that Bin Laden chose to focus on the issue now. Al-Qaeda has no real presence in Palestine; in fact, Hamas, which holds the most legitimacy in the Palestinian political realm, dislikes al-Qaeda and has almost diametrically opposing goals. Al-Qaeda wishes to wage war on the West in general, seeing Western influence as a corrupting and weakening factor in the Middle East. Bin Laden's organization targets American, Israeli, Spanish, British, and other Western powers and their interests, and therefore has no geographic focus. Hamas, on the other hand, has a much more specific, localized goal - the liberation of Palestinian territory from Israeli control. As a Hamas spokesman told al-Jazeera, "At this moment, we know who our enemy is - the Israeli occupation." (Hamas often refers to Israelis as Jews. This is unfortunate, as there are many Jews who are not Israeli or Zionist. However, as the Israeli government often claims to act on behalf of world Jewry, Hamas' rhetoric, while factually incorrect, is understandable.) Hamas sees itself as the only true defender of Palestinian interests, and thus sees al-Qaeda as both a threat to legitimacy and also as waving the Palestinian flag in rhetoric only.
Many, including myself, believe that Bin Laden's statement is meant not so much as a warning as a tool to garner fresh recruits. The Palestinian situation is one of the most polarizing and volatile questions out there, one that compels both Israelis and Arabs to shameful acts of violence.
There could be other goals in Bin Laden's statements, however. One may be to distract attention from Yemen, where al-Qaeda is indeed seeking refuge in tribal areas. American bombings in Yemen do little to deter al-Qaeda there, and probably help mobilize and radicalize locals, but are costly in lives and morale. Bin Laden's reference to Abdulmuttab, the would be Christmas bomber, indicates an awareness and interest in Yemen's current disarray. The questions now are, why does Bin Laden want attention directed elsewhere, and how best to counter al-Qaeda's influence in Yemen.
Thus far, the Obama administration has supported the Yemeni government against al-Qaeda, sending it weapons, logistical advice, funding, and possibly even man-power. In doing so, the administration attempts to make clear that we are not at war with the Yemeni people or government, but with terrorists and those who threaten the nation's stability. This attitude, however, presumes that the Yemeni people are, in fact, represented by their government. Given the Saleh, the current President of the Yemen Arab Republic, has been in power for 31 years, the legitimacy of his government seems questionable. Most people who have been to Yemen and stayed there for an appreciable amount of time can attest to the government's ineffectiveness and corruption, as well as its lack of credibility.
In addition, it is vaguely absurd to expect people in a country such as Yemen, where literacy, schooling, and the general infrastructure are highly lacking, to be altruistic enough to excuse civilian deaths as by-products of an allied country's strikes against domestic enemies, especially, when the Yemeni government commands so little trust and respect.
The US government, and the American people, might be better served by an attempt to court Yemen's tribes, the same tribes that now harbor al-Qaeda. Many of these tribes are not particularly political in an international sense, and use their relationship with al-Qaeda as a bargaining chip. They believe that their interests are best served because they can threaten the authorities' security. Instead of throwing aide at the Yemeni government, aide that officials will quickly pocket, the US should attempt to ameliorate life in the tribal hinterlands directly, working alongside Yemenis. The paradox is that this will further weaken the Yemeni government. However, in this case, the Yemeni government serves as an obstacle to national cohesion and therefore domestic security.
Bin Laden does not want a stable Yemen. He does not want prosperous tribes. Abdulmuttab aside, safe, financially secure people are not likely to become suicide bombers. Stability robs al-Qaeda of recruits. Palestine is indeed an important, perhaps the most important, issue, but the US should not allow these threats to divert attention from Yemen.

Poor Decisions

This week witnessed two regrettable decisions in the United States. The first was the election of Republican Scott Brown to the senate seat once occupied by Ted Kennedy, a Democrat. With Brown's election, hopes for even limited health care reform go out the window. It is tragically ironic that Brown now sits in Kennedy's seat, as Kennedy considered health care reform of the utmost importance. Brown's victory is hailed as a massive upset and defeat for the Obama administration's agenda, and so it is. However, it is a bigger tragedy for the 47 million uninsured Americans, and will prove, in my opinion, a horrible decision economically. Many addressed the cost of Obama's health care bill, and many bemoaned that it would lead to "big government." (I wonder where these complaints were when the PATRIOT Act became law, or when the NSA wire-tapped citizens.) Few, however, have examined the effects of a large portion of the American work force unable to seek medical treatment. I believe that a healthy work force leads to a healthy economy, and my question to those who oppose universal health care is the following: Why do you want Americans sick? Why are you against every American's right to seek treatment?
The voters of Mass. already have health insurance provided by the state. Perhaps it was too much to expect them to be a little altruistic.
The second decision occurred today, when the US Supreme Court decimated years of bipartisan campaign finance reform, ruling that corporations and trade unions may spend freely on candidates during campaign season. The court also struck down the McCain-Feingold finance bill, which prevented groups with deep war chests inundating private citizens with campaign ads during the final phases of campaign season.
I foresee two results of this decision. First and foremost, candidates will continue to court corporations, unions, and other large groups, not all of which serve the public interest, instead of voters themselves. We regular citizens cannot offer the same ad money, but we can provide an audience for those ads, and have proven ourselves highly prone to manipulation and suggestion. Secondly, this decision continues the disturbing trend of corporations, unions, and other groups claiming individual, citizen rights, even though they are by definition not private citizens. Paradoxically, by defending their right to act as free individuals, these groups erode our rights and abilities as actual private citizens.
Republicans may rejoice at the Supreme Court's ruling, claiming that it protects the right to free enterprise, private property, etc. However, the ruling threatens campaign finance laws enacted by more than twenty states, and so insults another pillar of Republican though, state's rights.
Obama should have pushed health care reform through the senate in the euphoric days after his inauguration, along with myriad other good ideas that will never see the light of day now that Republicans smell blood in the water.

Sana'a's Dehydration Issues

Water, according to almost anyone involved in Yemen’s future, is the single biggest problem facing the country today. One need only look at statistics in order to glean an appreciation for the severity of the water shortage – according to the UNDP, Yemenis, with a per capita yearly water allotment of 198 cubic meters, fall far below the water poverty line of 1000 cubic meters. The reasons politicians, journalists, and interested citizens give include the high birth rate, rampant qat cultivation, the drilling of illegal wells that pollute what groundwater there is, a lack of appropriate damming and rain water retention systems, and myriad other sociological, industrial, and political factors.
All the above issues are real threats to Yemen’s water stability and therefore to Yemen’s future. All played and continue to play a role in the water crisis. However, no investigation would be complete without an exploration of the geological factors involved. While it is true that qat cultivation and illegal wells exacerbate the water problem, these and similar issues are interwoven with the sheer geological truth that Yemen, and Sana’a in particular, is a dry country, with limited means of recharging the aquifers that have kept it alive.
Aquifers are underground repositories of water, and the reason why places without access to rivers or lakes – such as Sana’a – are viable and, indeed, have flourished in the past. There are various types of aquifers. According to Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, “There are two [basic] types of aquifers: replenishable and non-replenishable (fossil) aquifers.” Replenishable aquifers have methods of recharge, often thanks to the flow of groundwater, such as in the Midwestern United States, and sometimes thanks to significant rainfall. Fossil aquifers, on the other hand, are “aquifers with no appreciable modern recharge and which cannot discharge naturally…they cannot be utilized sustainably as any withdrawal eventually will exhaust the resource,” writes Gabriel Eckstein, director of the International Water Project. In short, fossil aquifers are “dead” aquifers. Neither rainwater nor groundwater flow can recharge these aquifers to any significant degree; the water is old and, though sometimes potable, stagnant. Most importantly, fossil aquifers have an expiration date.
Sana’a rests on a plateau in the mountains, the same mountains that block the majority of the clouds that might supply the city with rainwater. Sana’a’s main supply of water is, unfortunately, a fossil aquifer, albeit a large one. Moreover, Sana’a’s own geological history works against its water supply. This area was formed long ago in part by volcanic activity and “the older the volcanic rocks, the less permeable they usually are,” writes J.C. Nonner in his text Introduction to Hydrology. Though southern Arabia has seen quite a lot of geological activity through the ages, Sana’a itself has seen comparatively little, and thus the igneous (volcanic) rock that constitutes the aquifer is fairly old. Therefore, not only is the aquifer cut off from recharge, it is difficult to utilize, wells must be deep, and recharge by artificial means is close to impossible, especially for a country as poor as Yemen.
One might ask how, if the Sana’a aquifer is a fossil aquifer, the city has managed to survive and even grow throughout its long history. Sana’a is, after all, one of the oldest continually inhabited cities in the world. The answer lies in demography and the speed with which Sana’a developed from a small though famous city – Ibn Batutah gave the place rave reviews, saying “Sana’a is not to be missed” – into the busy, dense metropolis that it is today.
Water use is very clearly connected to the number of people who need water. Until the 1960’s Sana’a was a city of under 100,000 people. Water use was correspondingly low, whether for agricultural, industrial, or simply drinking purposes. Even though rain is not common in Sana’a, the inhabitants made use of the precipitation there was, cultivating cisterns of the types one finds in Thula and other assorted cities and villages throughout Yemen. Farmers in the area were particularly adept at using rainwater, and as there was not such a high demand for water thanks to the small population, did not have to drill deep wells to find water. There was a balance between the number of inhabitants and the amount of available water and, perhaps most importantly, a limited number of wells.
Since 1959, Sana’a’s population has expanded by a factor of twenty to approximately 2.3 million residents. The country itself has also developed at a similarly rapid rate, resulting in poor urban planning, the drilling of myriad illegal wells to meet the city’s water needs. In addition, the city’s area has expanded and with it, paved streets. This means that what little water does fall on the area cannot be absorbed into the earth. Anyone looking at Al-Zubaydi Street outside the Old City on a rainy day can see that the water has nowhere to go. The UNDP, the World Bank, and several other organizations involved in Yemen’s water crisis point out that the damming techniques currently in use, both above and under ground, are inadequate as well. As a result, says Lester Brown, “the estimated annual water extraction of 224 million tons exceeds the annual recharge of 42 million tons (even fossil aquifers experience some recharge) by a factor of five, dropping the water table 6 meters per year.”
Naturally, qat cultivation (agriculture, and specifically qat, account for the overwhelming majority of water use), Sana’a’s high birth rate, rapid modernization, and illegal wells have severely deleterious effects on the water crisis facing the capital. The lack of discussion surrounding the actual geological aspects of that crisis, however, is frightening, and does nothing to ameliorate the situation.
In spite of concerted efforts by several countries, including Germany and The Netherlands, and considerable international investment, Yemen still faces a disaster. Many agree that the Sana'a Basin Aquifer will run dry by 2025, making life in the capital close to impossible and adding yet another crisis to the myriad problems already facing the country's leaders and inhabitants. According to one graduate student at Sana’a University who requested anonymity, the only thing that can save the city in its current form is "awareness, education, and an immediate, enforced reduction in water usage for anything not absolutely necessary to life. But that," he continued, "was needed yesterday."