A+ R A-

More Commentary

Rodman-Styled Diplomacy Game being Played with North Korea

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) There is this saying that “just because you are paranoid does not mean that people are not out to get you.” This saying is very important in understanding the dynamics of the North Korean’s relationship with the United States.

Nothing in this commentary is to serve as an apology for North Korea. Rather, it is critical that we have a better understanding of dynamics in the North Korean regime in order to avoid a major military clash.

The Korean peninsula was divided in the aftermath of World War II when Soviet troops, coming from the north, moved against the Japanese occupiers and U.S. troops moved up from the South. At the 38th Parallel, the peninsula was divided. Between 1945 and 1950, rather than the peninsula being unified, two separate regimes were established in the occupation zones (in the North it came to be known as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea;” in the South, the “Republic of Korea”. A guerrilla war started in the South against a U.S.-supported dictatorship aimed at reunifying the peninsula. The U.S.A. remained committed to not only a divided Korea but also one that was led by their friendly dictator in the South.

In June 1950, the formal war in Korea began when North Korean troops moved south in what can accurately be described as a continuation of the civil war that had started shortly after the end of World War II. The U.S.A. was able to convince the United Nations to get involved in the war, which was followed by a massive U.S. intervention. U.S. troops came close to winning the war until they ignored the Chinese warnings to stay away from the border with China. U.S. General Douglas MacArthur seemed intent on provoking a war with China and reinstating the Guomindang government that had just been overthrown. At that point, 1 million Chinese troops came across the border pushing the US/UN troops back to the armistice line that currently divides Korea.

From 1953 through today tensions have flared up at various points. The USA has regularly threatened the North Koreans and for many years placed nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. In North Korea, a fiercely independent Communist regime was established under Kim Il Sung. Although there is a political party–the Korean Workers Party–that theoretically leads the country, there has been something approaching a “red monarchy” dominating the North that began with Kim Il Sung and has been followed by his son and, now, grandson.

North Korea deeply fears attacks from South Korea and from the U.S. This fear is rooted in the reality of what took place from the end of World War II through today. The U.S.A. and the South Koreans have engaged in a mini-cold war with North Korea that has included both propaganda and military actions carried out by both sides against one another.

Much of what we have been witnessing in the current moment is a continuation of an almost bizarre effort by the North Koreans to get the USA to speak directly with them towards an ending of tensions on the Korean peninsula. That may sound odd since the North Koreans are threatening war, but at base the North Koreans want to have direct, one-on-one talks with the USA where they–the North Koreans–can be assured that there will be security for them on the peninsula.

When the U.S. refuses to have one-on-one talks with the North Koreans and refuses to acknowledge the legitimate interests that North Korea has in national security—irrespective of one’s view of the nature of the North Korean regime—tensions inevitably increase. When the North Koreans start throwing around suggestions of war and missile strikes they are playing directly into the hands of those in the U.S. who would like to turn North Korea into a cinder. As such, the rhetoric is useless, if not outright destructive.

Perhaps President Obama should do a version of what Dennis Rodman conveyed as the request from North Korea’s current leader: pick up the phone and give him a call. Yes, diplomacy is more complicated than that, but you get the point…

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” – And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. Follow him at www.billfletcherjr.com.

Advocates Push to Preserve Foreclosure Program

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) A broad coalition of state and national organizations is pushing to preserve a key federal program that has helped more than 1.1 million troubled homeowners and reduced mortgage payments by a median savings of $546 each month. The Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), created in response to the nation’s housing crisis, is set to close shop on December 31. Housing and consumer advocates are urging the U.S. Treasury Department to reconsider ending the program.

A March 26 letter to Jacob J. Lew, U.S. Treasury Secretary, was signed by 14 national organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, National Fair Housing Alliance, National Urban League and the Center for Responsible Lending (CRL). Another 22 state and local groups, including the California Reinvestment Coalition, Mississippi Center for Justice and New York’s Empire Justice Center, joined with their national colleagues to fight for more foreclosure assistance.

The letter states, “Research has shown that foreclosure and delinquency rates have disproportionately impacted African-American and Latino families, and median household wealth has dramatically declined. . . High foreclosure rates in communities of color have also impacted those homeowners neighboring foreclosed properties, and estimates show that these properties stand to lose $1 trillion in home equity as a result.”

Launched in 2009, HAMP initially sought to lower monthly mortgage payments to an affordable and sustainable level through a uniform loan modification process. HAMP funding was a part of the $29.9 billion authorized for the Making Home Affordable Program. Later in 2012, program options were expanded to focus on principal reduction modifications, expand relief for unemployed homeowners and ease other alternatives to foreclosures such as short sales.

To date, $12 billion has been obligated to pay incentives for HAMP homeowners already in the program. With the approaching expiration date, any unspent funds will ultimately be returned to Treasury’s general fund. Yet, many communities have yet to economically recovery.

For example, HAMP’s unemployment program offers a minimum of 12 months of temporary forbearance to allow these homeowners time to focus on securing new employment while still owning their homes. Depending upon homeowner circumstances, forbearance plans can be approved with some required payment or none at all. Thus far, more than 30,500 homeowners have accessed this program.

It is also relevant to note that African-American unemployment is higher than most. According to recent U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics, Black unemployment at 14 percent is double that for White Americans.

The nation’s metro areas with the largest HAMP participation rates are Los Angeles-Long Beach, New-York-New Jersey, Miami-Fort Lauderdale, Chicago-Northwest Indiana, and California’s Riverside-San Bernardino. California and Florida homeowners represented more than a third of all HAMP activity.

Additionally, the most recent HAMP program performance report shows that the program is working as it increasingly helps eligible borrowers by forgiving a portion of their mortgage debt. HAMP homeowners who received permanent mortgage modifications were granted a total of $9.2 billion in principal reductions. Additionally, 114,000 homeowners avoided foreclosures through short sales or deed-in-lieu.

Nationwide, the average non-HAMP mortgage modification reduced monthly payments by $389; while the average HAMP modification reduced the same monthly payments by $558. Similarly, non-HAMP servicers reduced interest rates in 73 percent of modifications made in the fourth quarter of 2012. Participating HAMP servicers reduced interest rates for 81 percent of borrows during this same period.

Of all HAMP trial modifications, 80 percent of the homeowners were at least 60 days delinquent at the trial start. The chief reason – for 68 percent of the troubled homeowners – was financial hardship because of reduced income or unemployment.

In 2012, CRL research found that among the 10.9 million homes that went into foreclosure between 2007 and 2011, more than half of the “spillover” cost to nearby homes have led to a $1 trillion loss in home equity for African-American and Latino families. High concentration of foreclosures in neighborhoods of color perpetuated disproportionate burdens in America’s continuing foreclosure crisis.

Coalition leaders agree: “Effective housing policies must recognize that neighborhoods with higher foreclosure rates and deeper foreclosure-related impacts will take more time to recover.”

Charlene Crowell is a communications manager with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at: charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org

The 1963 March on Washington, Black Labor and Today

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) August 2013 represents the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington. Publicly associated with Dr. King’s famous “I have a Dream” speech, this march brought more than 250,000 people to Washington, D.C. to demand freedom and jobs. Initiated by Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters President A. Philip Randolph, this became a joint project with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), and went down in history as a powerful show of force against Jim Crow segregation.

It is barely remembered that the March was for freedom and jobs. The demand for jobs was not a throwaway line in order to get trade union support but instead reflected the growing economic crisis affecting the Black worker.

Over time this great march has risen to levels of near mythology. The powerful speech by Dr. King, replayed—in part—for us every King Day has eclipsed all else, so much so that too many people believe—incorrectly—that the March was King’s march rather than that he was a major player in a project that was much larger than himself.

As August 2013 approaches, it has been noticeable that there has been very limited public discussion regarding an anniversary march to commemorate the 1963 event. What has, apparently, been taking place are a series of closed door discussions regarding some sort of celebratory action. What has been particularly disturbing are the suggestions that any one person, organization, or family can claim the legacy of the March. But, should any one constituency claim that legacy it is a group that does not appear to be at the table: Black labor.

Randolph and other Black labor leaders, particularly those grouped around the Negro American Labor Council, responded to the fact that the Black worker was largely being ignored in the discussions about civil rights. Additionally, the economic situation was becoming complicated terrain for Black workers. As writer Nancy Maclean has pointed out, the elements of what came to be known as “de-industrialization” (which was really part of a reorganization of global capitalism) were beginning to have its effect in the U.S.A., even by 1963. As with most other disasters, it started with a particular and stark impact on Black America.

In 2013 the Black worker has been largely abandoned in most discussions about race, civil rights, etc. As National Black Worker Center Project founder Steven Pitts has repeatedly pointed out, with the economic restructuring that has destroyed key centers of the Black working class strength, much of the economic development that has emerged has either avoided the Black worker altogether or limited the role of the Black worker to the most menial of positions. Thus, unemployment for Black workers remains more than double that of Whites and hovers around Depression levels in many communities.

In 1983, I participated in the 20th anniversary March on Washington. Although it attempted to raise the issues of the day, e.g., the threat of Reaganomics, what could also be seen was the canonization of Dr. King as a central feature for too many of the marchers. One of the worst ways to remember Dr. King, and for that matter the 1963 March, is by canonizing any individual. One of the best ways to remember Dr. King and the March is to use the inspiration from that great day in August 1963 as the energizing force for another round of struggle.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum, and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” – And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. Follow him at www.billfletcherjr.com.

Voting is a Fundamental Right, not an 'Entitlement'

E-mail Print PDF

“No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” – Voting Rights Act of 1965

(NNPA) During recent Supreme Court oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, Justice Antonin Scalia called a key part of the Voting Rights Act – Section 5 – a “racial entitlement.” Section 5 requires that the Justice Department or a federal court “pre-clear” any changes made to voting procedures by covered jurisdictions to ensure they do not “deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color.”

This act was established to fix a broken system, and it remains relevant today. As long as blatant voter suppression measures such as voter ID laws and district gerrymandering are being used to keep certain groups from the polls, the Voting Rights Act – in its entirety – remains necessary. And to clear up any confusion that Justice Scalia has or anyone who found merit in his argument: Voting “rights” are indeed that – a right guaranteed to every citizen of the United States. They are not a special privilege. They are not a gift. And they certainly don’t constitute a “racial entitlement.”

Justice Scalia’s comments are a shameful reiteration of a right-wing political interpretation of the Constitution. The Voting Rights Act was a response to an inarguably unjust and unfair system for voting in this country.

Prior to the Voting Rights Act, millions of African Americans, primarily in the South, were forced to run a gauntlet of “voting qualifications or prerequisites,” including ludicrous literacy tests, discriminatory poll taxes, and other bureaucratic restrictions. And when those measures failed, Blacks were routinely subjected to intimidation, economic sanctions, beatings and even murder. The 1964 murders of three voting rights activists at the hands of Mississippi Klansmen and the March 7, 1965 Bloody Sunday beating of peaceful voting rights marchers in Selma by Alabama State troopers are horrific examples.

While there has been undeniable progress since 1965, voting rights abuses are still sadly a part of the American electoral landscape. In fact, every presidential election of this new century has been plagued by voting problems – from “hanging chads,” to Tea Party-backed campaigns of Election Day intimidation to new voter ID restrictions. Cut backs in early voting even led to a Florida woman, 102-year-old Desiline Victor, having to stand in line for three hours to vote in November’s presidential election.

The Voting Rights Act, and specifically its Section 5 preclearance provisions, is still needed to protect against such abuses. While Justice Scalia is either confused or misguided in his characterization of the right to vote as a racial entitlement, Congress upheld this basic right in 2006 by overwhelmingly reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years. House Speaker, John Boehner said at the time, “The Voting Rights Act has been an effective tool in protecting a right that is fundamental to our democracy and renewing this landmark law will ensure that each and every citizen can continue to exercise their right to vote without the threat of intimidation or harassment.” We intend to hold Speaker Boehner to those words. If the Supreme Court declares any part of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, Congress will have a final chance to keep Section 5 alive.

Marc H. Morial, former mayor of New Orleans, is president and CEO of the National Urban League.

Race, Venezuela and the Legacy of Chavez

E-mail Print PDF

(NNPA) In January 2004, as the president of TransAfrica Forum, I had the honor of leading the first African American delegation to meet with the leaders of Venezuela’s Bolivarian Revolution. It was important for us to conduct this visit in order to better understand what was transpiring but also to get a better sense of race, the Afro-descendant movement, and the revolutionary process in Venezuela.

Our delegation had the opportunity to meet with President Hugo Chavez on more than one occasion but the first real dialogue was more than memorable. Chavez gave us an overview of Venezuela’s history and what led to his winning power. I thanked him for the meeting and proceeded to describe my feelings at the time of the 2002 coup. I mentioned to him and his colleagues that I was very sad upon hearing of the coup, and, of course, delighted when he was restored to power.

What really struck me at the time of the coup, however, was looking at the faces of the crowds on television. I looked at the crowds that supported Chavez and those who opposed him and at that moment so much of what was unfolding in Venezuela clicked for me. For, it was clear that Chavez had phenomenal support among the poorer and the darker parts of the Venezuelan population while the opposition looked like it could have walked in from Madrid.

One of the most important contributions of President Chavez and the Bolivarian process has been to help to put race on the table for discussions and action. Under President Chavez, renewed attention has gone to the indigenous and the Afro-descendant populations. This attention, we should note, was not the result of Chavez alone, but a combination of factors with the most important being the actual social movements of the indigenous and Afro-descendant populations of Venezuela. It is critically important to grasp that in Venezuela, including in many progressive and Left circles, there is adamant denial of race as a factor in Venezuela’s reality. The opposition to President Chavez, we should be clear, denies race altogether. In the Bolivarian movement the recognition of race and racism within Venezuelan society has been uneven. But with the combination of the social movements plus Chavez’s support, race came to be openly discussed in Venezuela and actual steps were taken to address a very different form of White supremacy than the version with which we are familiar here in North America.

I had hoped to return to Venezuela and once again meet President Chavez. That will, obviously, be impossible. Chavez will be deeply missed by so many fighters for justice. His recognition of the importance of race and the struggle for racial justice placed him in a unique role in Latin America as a conscious ally of the movements of the Indigenous peoples and the Afro-descendant populations. His audacity alone was enough for one to love him, not to mention his humor and brilliance. We cannot afford to lose fighters like Hugo Chavez which is why it remains so critical that genuine movements for social justice and transformation are producing new leaders of his quality each day.

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and the author of “They’re Bankrupting Us” – And Twenty Other Myths about Unions. Follow him at www.billfletcherjr.com.

Page 27 of 89

Quantcast