The Flyer-November 20, 2007
Last Tuesday, Yahoo agreed to settle a lawsuit filed by the families of Shi Tao and Wang Xiaoning, two Chinese dissidents. The lawsuit involved actions the company had taken which violated the rights of Tao and Xiaoning. Yahoo gave information, such as e-mail and IP addresses, to the Chinese government, resulting in their ongoing incarceration of the two. The details of the settlement are unknown, other than the fact that Yahoo has agreed to pay legal fees and create a relief fund to aid dissidents. What is especially disappointing about the affair is that Yahoo is not the only Internet company to be criticized for disrespecting human rights when profits are concerned.
Since the Internet’s emergence, issues of the proliferation of information and the broadening of discussion have concerned many countries. One of the most egregious violators of human rights on the Internet is Google. Despite Google’s motto of “Don’t Be Evil,” the company has routinely censored information for many of its search results in China. For example, when Google launched a Chinese version of Google News, the Web site omitted links to stories blocked by Chinese servers. Google passively cooperated by refusing to show even the headlines of blocked articles.
In 2005, Google’s collaboration in censorship intensified. Google launched a censored version of its Chinese search engine. This search engine edits the results of thousands of keywords when in use. These keywords include “Tibetan independence,” “freedom” and “democracy.” The most outrageous aspect of this censorship is the fact that the list of keywords was not given to Google by the PRC; the list was created by Google personnel.
YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, has also participated in censorship. Last spring, YouTube was blocked in two countries after videos deemed “insulting” were posted on the Web site. Thailand took offense at a video mocking its King and Turkey condemned a video that alleged that Atatürk, the founder of Turkey, was a homosexual. YouTube, in order to be permitted in both countries, agreed to remove any videos deemed offensive.
MySpace, desperate to be available to millions of potential new users, launched MySpace China earlier this year. Like Google, MySpace China employs filtering technology that prohibits discussion of politically sensitive subjects. Unfortunately, the site goes beyond censorship with the inclusion of a disturbing feature not present in any MySpace site in other countries: a button, with which users can report misconduct by other users. “Misconduct,” as defined by the terms and conditions of the site, includes “endangering national security, leaking state secrets, subverting the government, undermining national unity, spreading rumors or disturbing the social order.” In other words, MySpace China is encouraging Chinese citizens to act as informants against freedom of speech on the Internet.
Regrettably, Internet censorship occurs not only in authoritarian countries, but is also present in the United States. For example, in September 2006, Google Maps replaced images showing damage in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina with images from pre-Katrina. Google also has blocked Internet content critical of Scientology from its search engine after the Church of Scientology threatened to sue for alleged copyright violations.
Despite the unfortunate tendency of Internet corporations to compromise rights and morality in exchange for profits, there has been partial progress in convincing some companies to behave in a more just manner. Unfortunately, it usually takes pressure from Congress to achieve any improvement. A week before Yahoo settled with the dissidents’ families, its CEO was called before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where the company was blasted for its behavior. In addition, Microsoft changed its online blog policies when summoned by Congress in 2006. Despite recent advancements in Internet rights, there are still many instances where this new frontier of speech is fenced in by those who would suppress freedoms. Internet corporations should not assist them by betraying expression.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
"Global Warming Issues Deserve Recognition, Decisive Action" (Not my choice of headline)
The Flyer- October 30, 2007
On October 12, it was announced that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to former Vice-President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in recognition of “their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
There has been some criticism of the award. Most of the criticism has been political or scientific in nature, coming from people who disagree with Gore and the Panel on the subject of climate change. Some of the opposition comes from those who feel that Gore is too notable for the award; it has been a recent custom for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to less known activists so that the award could help promote their causes. Another criticism comes from the belief that awarding the prize to those fighting climate change does not keep in line with the original intention of the prize going “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations.”
There has been a controversy over whether or not the global climate has been getting warmer and, if so, to what extent human impact has been responsible. Those who dispute climate change tend to believe that the Earth is not getting warmer, that it is getting warmer but not at an alarming rate or without devastating consequences, or that humans are not the underlying cause of climate change. Regardless of whether or not these claims are true, it is in the best interest of the entire world to act in a conscious manner when it comes to climate change. Since the issue of climate change is strongly linked to issues of pollution and energy consumption, raising awareness of the possibility of a long-term climate change should result in environmental policies that would have an effect on those two secondary issues, which cannot be tenably denied as unfounded concerns.
Those who criticize the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Al Gore because of his notability could have a point. Due to the high profile of Gore’s campaign against climate change, it becomes very public when a mistake or controversy arises which could hurt the movement for different climate-related polices. For example, the English High Court decided, just days before the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, that Gore’s award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, had nine points that departed from mainstream views on climate change. These errors, in the eyes of the court, strayed toward being alarmist and exaggerated in support of Gore’s viewpoint. This, coupled with the fact that the court viewed the film as being a biased political statement, resulted in an order that when English schools show the film, there should be an explanation of the political nature of the film and where it departs from the typical climate change views.
As for the claim that the issue of climate change does not fall within the arena of the Nobel Peace Prize, this is not the case when the possible effects on island nations are taken into account. For example, a little over 400 miles south of India lies the atolls and islets of the Republic of Maldives. This nation has the distinction of being the flattest country in the world. The highest natural point in the country is a miniscule 7.5 feet about sea level, leaving the entire nation threatened by rising sea levels. If the sea level were to rise by any significant amount, the atolls would be obliterated by water and an entire nation would become homeless refugees. The threat of climate change is a concern to the peaceful wellbeing of the world.
Regardless of whether or not Al Gore should have received the Nobel Peace Prize, the question of climate change will remain important. Climate change may or may not be real, but the need for ideas, discussions and debates about the issue is real, as is the potential for climate change to change the world.
On October 12, it was announced that the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to former Vice-President Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in recognition of “their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”
There has been some criticism of the award. Most of the criticism has been political or scientific in nature, coming from people who disagree with Gore and the Panel on the subject of climate change. Some of the opposition comes from those who feel that Gore is too notable for the award; it has been a recent custom for the Nobel Peace Prize to be awarded to less known activists so that the award could help promote their causes. Another criticism comes from the belief that awarding the prize to those fighting climate change does not keep in line with the original intention of the prize going “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations.”
There has been a controversy over whether or not the global climate has been getting warmer and, if so, to what extent human impact has been responsible. Those who dispute climate change tend to believe that the Earth is not getting warmer, that it is getting warmer but not at an alarming rate or without devastating consequences, or that humans are not the underlying cause of climate change. Regardless of whether or not these claims are true, it is in the best interest of the entire world to act in a conscious manner when it comes to climate change. Since the issue of climate change is strongly linked to issues of pollution and energy consumption, raising awareness of the possibility of a long-term climate change should result in environmental policies that would have an effect on those two secondary issues, which cannot be tenably denied as unfounded concerns.
Those who criticize the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Al Gore because of his notability could have a point. Due to the high profile of Gore’s campaign against climate change, it becomes very public when a mistake or controversy arises which could hurt the movement for different climate-related polices. For example, the English High Court decided, just days before the Nobel Peace Prize announcement, that Gore’s award-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, had nine points that departed from mainstream views on climate change. These errors, in the eyes of the court, strayed toward being alarmist and exaggerated in support of Gore’s viewpoint. This, coupled with the fact that the court viewed the film as being a biased political statement, resulted in an order that when English schools show the film, there should be an explanation of the political nature of the film and where it departs from the typical climate change views.
As for the claim that the issue of climate change does not fall within the arena of the Nobel Peace Prize, this is not the case when the possible effects on island nations are taken into account. For example, a little over 400 miles south of India lies the atolls and islets of the Republic of Maldives. This nation has the distinction of being the flattest country in the world. The highest natural point in the country is a miniscule 7.5 feet about sea level, leaving the entire nation threatened by rising sea levels. If the sea level were to rise by any significant amount, the atolls would be obliterated by water and an entire nation would become homeless refugees. The threat of climate change is a concern to the peaceful wellbeing of the world.
Regardless of whether or not Al Gore should have received the Nobel Peace Prize, the question of climate change will remain important. Climate change may or may not be real, but the need for ideas, discussions and debates about the issue is real, as is the potential for climate change to change the world.
"U.S. Condemnation of Armenian Genocide Cuts Ties With Turkey"
The Flyer-October 23, 2007
On October 10, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs approved House Resolution 106, an official condemnation of the Armenian Genocide that occurred from 1915 to 1917. During the course of the genocide, some 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by their own country, the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide is considered by many historians to be the first modern genocide and has been used by genocidal dictators as an inspiration for their mass killings. Adolf Hitler once asked of his subordinates, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
Unfortunately, what Hitler asked in 1939 had a ring of truth to it. Despite the large number of its victims, the Armenian Genocide had been largely forgotten by the time the Third Reich came into existence. Even today, the Armenian Genocide is something of a lost genocide, with only 22 countries acknowledging the crimes as being genocidal in nature. The United States is not one of them, even though 40 of the 50 states have passed legislation recognizing the genocide. The Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, considers the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians to be an unfortunate tragedy and nothing more.
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
The Armenian Genocide began a few months after the Ottoman Empire joined World War I and sided with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires. Frustrated by a failed military initiative against Russia, the Turkish leadership of the Ottoman Empire blamed the large presence of Armenians in the empire and portrayed the ethnic group as subversive and in league with the enemy. The persecution of Armenians gradually escalated until April 24, 1915, a date now observed as the beginning of the genocide. That evening, several hundred Armenian intellectuals were arrested and executed by Ottoman authorities. Over the next few months, the Ottoman government passed legislation that, among other things, would allow for the deportation of anyone deemed a threat to the country and permit the seizing of all property belonging to Armenians in the empire. In addition, Armenians in the Ottoman Army were disarmed and compelled to work in labor battalions. Armenians were also forced into concentration camps, and their villages were frequently razed. The central process of the genocide, however, was the implementation of the mass deportations.
The majority of Armenian victims of the genocide were killed en route to deportation camps in Syria. They were herded in groups of thousands. Despite being escorted by military forces, the Armenians were not given any provisions or protection by the Ottoman government. Robbery, murder and rape were widespread occurrences, perpetrated by locals living near the deportation route and by the soldiers driving the Armenians towards the frontier. Even the Armenians who survived the violence during the passage had to survive starvation, illness and exhaustion, both during the deportation and after arriving in Syrian camps.
What the House committee did was to take a critical look back at the past in an effort to bring at least some sense of justice and closure to the victims and survivors of the genocide. In a time where genocides occur with increasing frequency and escalating violence, the remembrance of the past is important.
The reactions to the House committee’s actions have been strong. While there has been support for the bill, criticism has been piercing and has received more attention. President Bush has stated that he believes that the bill jeopardizes the relationship between the United States and Turkey and endangers Turkey’s participation in the Iraq War. The unfortunate thing is that he appears to be correct.
The Turkish reaction has been the stuff of surrealism. Turkey withdrew their ambassador to the United States, and issued several harsh announcements castigating the condemnation of a genocide that took place 90 years ago. Of course, the reaction was perfectly acceptable in the eyes of a country that has laws that prohibit the act of “insulting Turkishness.” It does not matter to the Turkish government that the Armenian Genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire, an extinct state. The only thing that matters to the Turkish government is the perception of guilt, that they could be guilty by association. The Turkish government could be looking at the institutionalized remorse that Germany has regarding the Holocaust, or that Japan has towards the atrocities that it committed during World War II.
On October 10, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs approved House Resolution 106, an official condemnation of the Armenian Genocide that occurred from 1915 to 1917. During the course of the genocide, some 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by their own country, the Ottoman Empire. The Armenian Genocide is considered by many historians to be the first modern genocide and has been used by genocidal dictators as an inspiration for their mass killings. Adolf Hitler once asked of his subordinates, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”
Unfortunately, what Hitler asked in 1939 had a ring of truth to it. Despite the large number of its victims, the Armenian Genocide had been largely forgotten by the time the Third Reich came into existence. Even today, the Armenian Genocide is something of a lost genocide, with only 22 countries acknowledging the crimes as being genocidal in nature. The United States is not one of them, even though 40 of the 50 states have passed legislation recognizing the genocide. The Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, considers the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians to be an unfortunate tragedy and nothing more.
Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the United Nations in 1948, as “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”
The Armenian Genocide began a few months after the Ottoman Empire joined World War I and sided with the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires. Frustrated by a failed military initiative against Russia, the Turkish leadership of the Ottoman Empire blamed the large presence of Armenians in the empire and portrayed the ethnic group as subversive and in league with the enemy. The persecution of Armenians gradually escalated until April 24, 1915, a date now observed as the beginning of the genocide. That evening, several hundred Armenian intellectuals were arrested and executed by Ottoman authorities. Over the next few months, the Ottoman government passed legislation that, among other things, would allow for the deportation of anyone deemed a threat to the country and permit the seizing of all property belonging to Armenians in the empire. In addition, Armenians in the Ottoman Army were disarmed and compelled to work in labor battalions. Armenians were also forced into concentration camps, and their villages were frequently razed. The central process of the genocide, however, was the implementation of the mass deportations.
The majority of Armenian victims of the genocide were killed en route to deportation camps in Syria. They were herded in groups of thousands. Despite being escorted by military forces, the Armenians were not given any provisions or protection by the Ottoman government. Robbery, murder and rape were widespread occurrences, perpetrated by locals living near the deportation route and by the soldiers driving the Armenians towards the frontier. Even the Armenians who survived the violence during the passage had to survive starvation, illness and exhaustion, both during the deportation and after arriving in Syrian camps.
What the House committee did was to take a critical look back at the past in an effort to bring at least some sense of justice and closure to the victims and survivors of the genocide. In a time where genocides occur with increasing frequency and escalating violence, the remembrance of the past is important.
The reactions to the House committee’s actions have been strong. While there has been support for the bill, criticism has been piercing and has received more attention. President Bush has stated that he believes that the bill jeopardizes the relationship between the United States and Turkey and endangers Turkey’s participation in the Iraq War. The unfortunate thing is that he appears to be correct.
The Turkish reaction has been the stuff of surrealism. Turkey withdrew their ambassador to the United States, and issued several harsh announcements castigating the condemnation of a genocide that took place 90 years ago. Of course, the reaction was perfectly acceptable in the eyes of a country that has laws that prohibit the act of “insulting Turkishness.” It does not matter to the Turkish government that the Armenian Genocide was committed by the Ottoman Empire, an extinct state. The only thing that matters to the Turkish government is the perception of guilt, that they could be guilty by association. The Turkish government could be looking at the institutionalized remorse that Germany has regarding the Holocaust, or that Japan has towards the atrocities that it committed during World War II.
"Beijing Olympics is Increasingly Politicized" (I know, it should be are instead of is. I didn't pick the headline.)
The Flyer-October 16, 2007
Next August, the Games of the XXIX Olympiad with take place in Beijing. Despite the Beijing Games having the slogan “One World, One Dream,” and the claims of Chinese officials that their Olympics are not to be political, the 2008 Olympics are the focus of a lot of discussion by concerned individuals and groups. Unlike the majority of the most recent Olympic Games, these upcoming games have become increasingly embroiled in controversy and criticism due to the policies and practices of the Chinese government.
At the core of the criticism against China being the host of the Olympics is the country’s atrocious human rights record. As a result, several groups have decided to use the Olympics as a platform for protesting China’s policies on multiple human rights issues, including press and speech freedoms, persecution of dissenters and the treatment of Tibet.
One such group that is using the 2008 Olympics as a political arena is Students for a Free Tibet, which is protesting the occupation of Tibet, a region controlled by China and considered by the Chinese government to be a part of China. The group hopes that by politicizing the Olympics the world’s attention will be drawn to Tibet and China will be shamed into granting Tibet greater autonomy and rights. Among the actions that members of the organization have taken was the unfurling of a banner that said, “One World, One Dream, Free Tibet,” on a side of the Great Wall in August. The six foreign activists responsible were promptly detained by Chinese authorities and speedily deported to Hong Kong.
Another organization, Reporters Without Borders, has criticized China for failing to uphold promises made to the International Olympic Committee that the political and human rights situations in China would improve before the Beijing Games would take place. The issue that they are particularly concerned about is the restriction of the press in China. For example, according to Reporters Without Borders’ 2007 Annual Report on China, there are 52 individuals incarcerated for expressing themselves on the Internet. In addition, as of January 1, there were 31 journalists in Chinese prisons. Additionally, foreign journalists have found themselves to be enduring increasing amounts of harassment from Chinese authorities. These situations have led Reporters Without Borders to call on the IOC to hold China responsible and compel the Chinese government to conform to international standards of rights before the opening ceremony on August 8.
The genocide in Darfur is another issue that has had a politicizing effect on the Beijing Olympics. Several groups and individuals have called on the international community to boycott the Olympics if China does not end its diplomatic and military support of Sudan or use its influence to end the genocide. In one rather shocking condemnation of support for the Beijing Olympics, actress Mia Farrow criticized Steven Spielberg, who accepted a position as a consultant for the Olympic ceremonies, and asked if he wanted to be remembered as the “Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games.” (Leni Riefenstahl was a propagandist for Nazi Germany and had directed a film about the Berlin Olympics of 1936.) Spielberg, in response, wrote a letter to Hu Jintao, the President of the People’s Republic of China, saying that if China did not do more to resolve the situation in Darfur, that he would withdraw from his position as an Olympic consultant.
Boycotts of the Olympics have happened multiple times in the past. The two most notable cases are the 1980 Olympics in Moscow and the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. In 1980, the United States and over 60 other countries, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, refused to participate in the Moscow Olympics. In an act of reprisal, the Soviet Union and 14 of its allies snubbed the games held in America four years later. In addition, twice in the 1970s, several African nations threatened to boycott the Olympics in a successful effort to have South Africa and Rhodesia expelled from the IOC because of their governments’ racist policies towards blacks.
The typical motivation behind a boycott of the Olympics is to embarrass the host country. China, because of its desire to be viewed as a major world power and gain the respect of other countries, wants to have a successful Olympiad. As the date of the opening ceremony approaches and the spotlight on China brightens, it will be harder for China to brush off increasing disapproval of its policies. If the consideration of boycotts gains enough traction, China will need be proactive to fend off any possible boycotts. Whether or not China will be willing to act is a whole other question.
Next August, the Games of the XXIX Olympiad with take place in Beijing. Despite the Beijing Games having the slogan “One World, One Dream,” and the claims of Chinese officials that their Olympics are not to be political, the 2008 Olympics are the focus of a lot of discussion by concerned individuals and groups. Unlike the majority of the most recent Olympic Games, these upcoming games have become increasingly embroiled in controversy and criticism due to the policies and practices of the Chinese government.
At the core of the criticism against China being the host of the Olympics is the country’s atrocious human rights record. As a result, several groups have decided to use the Olympics as a platform for protesting China’s policies on multiple human rights issues, including press and speech freedoms, persecution of dissenters and the treatment of Tibet.
One such group that is using the 2008 Olympics as a political arena is Students for a Free Tibet, which is protesting the occupation of Tibet, a region controlled by China and considered by the Chinese government to be a part of China. The group hopes that by politicizing the Olympics the world’s attention will be drawn to Tibet and China will be shamed into granting Tibet greater autonomy and rights. Among the actions that members of the organization have taken was the unfurling of a banner that said, “One World, One Dream, Free Tibet,” on a side of the Great Wall in August. The six foreign activists responsible were promptly detained by Chinese authorities and speedily deported to Hong Kong.
Another organization, Reporters Without Borders, has criticized China for failing to uphold promises made to the International Olympic Committee that the political and human rights situations in China would improve before the Beijing Games would take place. The issue that they are particularly concerned about is the restriction of the press in China. For example, according to Reporters Without Borders’ 2007 Annual Report on China, there are 52 individuals incarcerated for expressing themselves on the Internet. In addition, as of January 1, there were 31 journalists in Chinese prisons. Additionally, foreign journalists have found themselves to be enduring increasing amounts of harassment from Chinese authorities. These situations have led Reporters Without Borders to call on the IOC to hold China responsible and compel the Chinese government to conform to international standards of rights before the opening ceremony on August 8.
The genocide in Darfur is another issue that has had a politicizing effect on the Beijing Olympics. Several groups and individuals have called on the international community to boycott the Olympics if China does not end its diplomatic and military support of Sudan or use its influence to end the genocide. In one rather shocking condemnation of support for the Beijing Olympics, actress Mia Farrow criticized Steven Spielberg, who accepted a position as a consultant for the Olympic ceremonies, and asked if he wanted to be remembered as the “Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games.” (Leni Riefenstahl was a propagandist for Nazi Germany and had directed a film about the Berlin Olympics of 1936.) Spielberg, in response, wrote a letter to Hu Jintao, the President of the People’s Republic of China, saying that if China did not do more to resolve the situation in Darfur, that he would withdraw from his position as an Olympic consultant.
Boycotts of the Olympics have happened multiple times in the past. The two most notable cases are the 1980 Olympics in Moscow and the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. In 1980, the United States and over 60 other countries, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, refused to participate in the Moscow Olympics. In an act of reprisal, the Soviet Union and 14 of its allies snubbed the games held in America four years later. In addition, twice in the 1970s, several African nations threatened to boycott the Olympics in a successful effort to have South Africa and Rhodesia expelled from the IOC because of their governments’ racist policies towards blacks.
The typical motivation behind a boycott of the Olympics is to embarrass the host country. China, because of its desire to be viewed as a major world power and gain the respect of other countries, wants to have a successful Olympiad. As the date of the opening ceremony approaches and the spotlight on China brightens, it will be harder for China to brush off increasing disapproval of its policies. If the consideration of boycotts gains enough traction, China will need be proactive to fend off any possible boycotts. Whether or not China will be willing to act is a whole other question.
"Plight of Refugees Overlooked"
The Flyer-October 09, 2007
During next week, Salisbury University's chapter of Amnesty International will hold a three-day-long event to raise awareness of the plight of displaced people throughout the world. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are almost 33 million displaced people around the globe. That number is nearly identical to the entire population of Canada. These unfortunate people have fled from their homes in order to escape from dire situations such as persecution, discrimination, conflict, famine and insufficient living conditions.
Despite their large numbers and the obvious hardships they face, refugees and internally displaced persons (people who are displaced within their own country, also known as IDPs) are typically ignored and neglected by the general population. For example, Amnesty International is currently petitioning the United States government to recognize those who evacuated from the Gulf Coast due to Hurricane Katrina as IDPs and grant them the humanitarian aid and protection that such an official designation would bring.
Other problems that displaced persons face are prejudice, economic deprivation, exploitation and conflict. The best example of refugees who face these adversities are Palestinian refugees located in Lebanon. Lebanese law bars these refugees from holding over 70 categories of occupations including law, medicine and engineering. As a result, Palestinians in Lebanon typically resort to taking low-paying jobs as construction or agricultural workers. In addition, there is a massive high school dropout rate because Palestinian teenagers are needed to work to help support their families. Palestinian refugees are also prohibited from owning land in Lebanon, which has resulted in the vast majority of Palestinians living in the deteriorating slums that serve as refugee camps.
Inside these camps, law and order is virtually non-existent. The Lebanese military and police forces are banned from entering because of a 1969 agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Weapons are everywhere. Militias, factions and criminal organizations provide the only "security" in the camps where peace is frequently shattered by these groups fighting each other for control. Fugitives from Lebanese police hide in the camps, adding to the lawlessness and further endangering the refugees. The Lebanese military launched a counterattack, responding to attacks from a terrorist group stationed within one such refugee camp. After three months of combat and the heavy shelling of militant positions in the refugee camp, the army emerged victorious and seized control of the camp. The refugees, in the meantime, had to flee the shacks they called home in order to survive the ordeal.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no end to the displacement of peoples in the world. As violence and conflict spread, innocent civilians continue to flee from their homes in an attempt to find peace. For example, there are over a million IDPs within the war torn nation of Iraq. Until there are no longer any wars or famines, there will be refugees. It is up to the rest of the world to show these uprooted people the compassion that they need. That compassion is all that they have while they wait, yearning to return home.
During next week, Salisbury University's chapter of Amnesty International will hold a three-day-long event to raise awareness of the plight of displaced people throughout the world. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there are almost 33 million displaced people around the globe. That number is nearly identical to the entire population of Canada. These unfortunate people have fled from their homes in order to escape from dire situations such as persecution, discrimination, conflict, famine and insufficient living conditions.
Despite their large numbers and the obvious hardships they face, refugees and internally displaced persons (people who are displaced within their own country, also known as IDPs) are typically ignored and neglected by the general population. For example, Amnesty International is currently petitioning the United States government to recognize those who evacuated from the Gulf Coast due to Hurricane Katrina as IDPs and grant them the humanitarian aid and protection that such an official designation would bring.
Other problems that displaced persons face are prejudice, economic deprivation, exploitation and conflict. The best example of refugees who face these adversities are Palestinian refugees located in Lebanon. Lebanese law bars these refugees from holding over 70 categories of occupations including law, medicine and engineering. As a result, Palestinians in Lebanon typically resort to taking low-paying jobs as construction or agricultural workers. In addition, there is a massive high school dropout rate because Palestinian teenagers are needed to work to help support their families. Palestinian refugees are also prohibited from owning land in Lebanon, which has resulted in the vast majority of Palestinians living in the deteriorating slums that serve as refugee camps.
Inside these camps, law and order is virtually non-existent. The Lebanese military and police forces are banned from entering because of a 1969 agreement with the Palestinian Authority. Weapons are everywhere. Militias, factions and criminal organizations provide the only "security" in the camps where peace is frequently shattered by these groups fighting each other for control. Fugitives from Lebanese police hide in the camps, adding to the lawlessness and further endangering the refugees. The Lebanese military launched a counterattack, responding to attacks from a terrorist group stationed within one such refugee camp. After three months of combat and the heavy shelling of militant positions in the refugee camp, the army emerged victorious and seized control of the camp. The refugees, in the meantime, had to flee the shacks they called home in order to survive the ordeal.
Unfortunately, there appears to be no end to the displacement of peoples in the world. As violence and conflict spread, innocent civilians continue to flee from their homes in an attempt to find peace. For example, there are over a million IDPs within the war torn nation of Iraq. Until there are no longer any wars or famines, there will be refugees. It is up to the rest of the world to show these uprooted people the compassion that they need. That compassion is all that they have while they wait, yearning to return home.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Two Editorials
I have a new job working as a staff writer for The Flyer, Salisbury University's student newspaper. I write for the editorial department, which means that I can write about almost anything I want. Here are my first two editorials.
America's Forced Democracy: Right or Wrong? (Not my choice of headline. I would have prefered something like: America's Support for Dictators: Is It Really Necessary?) 9/12/2007
In a matter of weeks, two former prime ministers of Pakistan will have emerged from planes that will have brought them back to their homeland after years of exile. The impending return of these two expatriate politicians, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, coincides with a resurgence of democratic sympathies within their nation. Pakistanis, frustrated by years of the military wielding excessive influence in their government, are beginning to demand the end of General Pervez Musharraf’s rule. Until recently, Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the “War on Terror,” had received dogged support from America despite his attempts to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
During his second inaugural address, President Bush declared, “[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements… in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” His administration would also “encourage reform [in other nations] by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.” Today, after two and a half years have passed, the U.S. government has apparently decided to fulfill its promise to democracy.
Last month, it was reported that, because of widespread opposition to his government, Musharraf considered proclaiming a state of emergency, which would have been tantamount to declaring martial law. According to reports from Pakistani officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called General Musharraf and convinced him not to take such a drastic step. It appears that the United States has decided that Musharraf needs to refrain from heavy-handed tactics and permit some level of dissent in his country or support for his regime would be jeopardized. This is a direct contrast to U.S. policies towards other states. For example, the United States touts its reasonably good relations with non-democratic Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the People’s Republic of China, and until recently, Russia.
There have been doubts expressed about the ability of democracy to flourish in certain regions of the world, especially in the Middle East. Many critics believe that aspects of the region’s culture, particularly the prevalence of Islam, hinder the growth of the democratic process and view human rights as less important than other issues. Others believe that democracy in the area risks stability and peace more than the autocratic governments already in place. The victories of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iranian elections in 2005 and Hamas in Palestine in 2006 would suggest that the underlying trend is towards fundamental Islamic government. However, there are other factors involved.
In 1979, when the Islamic revolution overcame Iran, the movement had the support of the population because of the simple fact that it had actually succeeded where other movements had failed. For decades, the royal family of Iran had enjoyed strong American support in exchange for access to resources, such as oil, and cooperation during the Cold War. Among the acts of support the U.S. provided was the overthrow of a democratically elected government and any reform movements that threatened the status quo. As a result, when the shah was overthrown, the populace backed the revolutionaries. This revolutionary movement became the backbone of the Iranian political authority, and still has considerable influence in Iranian politics today.
Fears that the Palestinians have become supportive of violent extremists are unfounded and simplistic. The little-known truth behind Hamas’ surprising victory in 2006 was the result of a poorly organized campaign by the ruling party, Fatah. Hamas’ campaign centered on the need for reform in the Palestinian Authority and strategically chose their candidates. Fatah, on the other hand, was unable to decide on sole nominees, which split Fatah votes and allowed Hamas to emerge victorious. It is an accepted truth that poorly organized parties will have a smaller probability of winning than organized parties. It has little to do with fundamentalism.
Perhaps the best argument that there can be Islamic democracies is the fact that there are some in existence today. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, has a thriving and stable democracy, as does Turkey, a state that values secularism highly. Both of these nations have issues, and are not perfect, but then again, is there such a thing as a perfect government?
Democracy and Islam are not incompatible. Secretary Rice’s phone call to General Musharraf needs to be the first step in a change of U.S. policy. The world does not need strongmen presiding over shallow democracies in order to be safe. Let Pakistanis choose their own government. Let freedom ring.
Something Rotten in the State of Louisiana 9/18/2007
Racism is supposed to be dead. When Crash, a film about racial tensions in Los Angeles, won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2006, Annie Proulx, author of “Brokeback Mountain” complained that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had given the award to a film about an outdated issue. She facetiously predicted that the nominees for the award next year would be about “the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver."
If you have not heard about these issues on your cable news channel, it is because Proulx is right; these topics are not controversial or relevant in America today. However, as we have seen with the town of Jena, Louisiana, Proulx is very wrong about racial conflict.
During an assembly on August 31st, 2006, a black freshman asked the principal of Jena High School if he was allowed to sit under a tree traditionally used by white students for shade. The response was that the student could sit anywhere he wanted. The next morning three nooses were discovered dangling from the boughs of the “white tree.” The principal recommended that the three boys who had hung the nooses be expelled. His recommendation was overturned by the local board of education who instead gave the trio a three-day in-school suspension for committing what was considered a childish prank. What followed was an alarmingly rapid deterioration of race relations in the town, which culminated in an assault on a white teenager and the arrest of six black students, known now as the “Jena Six.”
Two of the confrontations that took place after the discovery of the nooses involved Robert Bailey, one of the “Jena Six.” During the first altercation on December 1st, a white man shattered a beer bottle on Bailey’s head while attacking him at a party. It was only after months had passed that his attacker, Justin Sloan, was arrested, charged with simple battery, and given probation. The second incident occurred at a gas station the next day after a group of students, including Bailey, confronted one of the white teenagers that they had fought with at the party. When the teenager drew a gun, Bailey pried it away from him and refused to give it back. Bailey was later charged with theft and disturbing the peace while the owner of the gun went uncharged.
The Jena Six assault, the most visible incident of the racial unrest in the town, occurred on December 4. Justin Barker, a white student, made comments about how Bailey was beaten up by a white man at the party that Friday. Later that day, Barker was ambushed by Bailey and five other black students. For a few hours after the assault, Barker was treated for a concussion and an eye that had swollen shut, but was released from the hospital in time to attend a ceremony that night. The six black students who attacked Barker were arrested. Five were charged as adults with aggravated assault while the sixth was charged as a juvenile. However, in a shocking turn of events, LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters decided to elevate the charges against the five to conspiracy and attempted second-degree murder.
This move sparked outrage not only in the local black community but also throughout the entire United States. In response to the controversy, Walters reduced the charges for one of the defendants to aggravated assault and later did the same for the other four. However, aggravated assault in Louisiana requires the use of a deadly weapon in order for juveniles to be tried as adults. Regardless of these facts, Walters convinced an all-white jury that 16-year-old Mychal Bell, the first of the six to be tried, was guilty. The deadly weapon used in the second-degree assault: a pair of tennis shoes.
What is happening in Jena reeks of the unconstitutional odor of two types of justice; one for whites, and one for blacks. That the three boys who hung nooses from the “white tree” were barely punished for an extremely hateful act is alarming. According to the FBI, this act, committed under the circumstances present at Jena, constitutes a hate crime. It is unfortunate that the federal government has not launched an investigation into the “prank.”
That Reed Walters has so zealously pursued this case against the Jena Six while being lenient on white offenders in other race-related incidents is disturbing. That, in his eyes, tennis shoes constitute deadly weapons used in an assault while a beer bottle is only a tool in a simple battery is unjust. A few weeks after the nooses were found, Waters addressed an assembly of students in response to fights that had erupted. He told students to get over an “innocent prank” and proclaimed that with his pen, he could “make [their lives] disappear.” It appears that he is trying to keep his word.
Unfortunately, the town of Jena is not the only place where racial injustice occurs. In Paris, Texas, a black 16-year-old girl was sentenced to seven years in prison for shoving a white teacher’s aide. A few months before, a 14-year-old white girl was put on probation for burning down her home. The sentences were given by the same judge, who happened to be white. According to the Campaign for Youth Justice, 58 percent of all juveniles sent to prison as adults are black even though blacks only make up 28 percent of all juvenile arrests.
Back in Louisiana, Bell’s convictions were overturned because he should not have been tried as an adult. However, the other four students charged as adults are adults under Louisiana law. Meanwhile, Jena High School, an attempt to erase the biggest reminder of the new racial unrest, cut down the “white tree,” but like the trunk and roots of all trees that are felled, the conflict and the racism remains.
America's Forced Democracy: Right or Wrong? (Not my choice of headline. I would have prefered something like: America's Support for Dictators: Is It Really Necessary?) 9/12/2007
In a matter of weeks, two former prime ministers of Pakistan will have emerged from planes that will have brought them back to their homeland after years of exile. The impending return of these two expatriate politicians, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, coincides with a resurgence of democratic sympathies within their nation. Pakistanis, frustrated by years of the military wielding excessive influence in their government, are beginning to demand the end of General Pervez Musharraf’s rule. Until recently, Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the “War on Terror,” had received dogged support from America despite his attempts to consolidate power and suppress dissent.
During his second inaugural address, President Bush declared, “[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements… in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” His administration would also “encourage reform [in other nations] by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.” Today, after two and a half years have passed, the U.S. government has apparently decided to fulfill its promise to democracy.
Last month, it was reported that, because of widespread opposition to his government, Musharraf considered proclaiming a state of emergency, which would have been tantamount to declaring martial law. According to reports from Pakistani officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called General Musharraf and convinced him not to take such a drastic step. It appears that the United States has decided that Musharraf needs to refrain from heavy-handed tactics and permit some level of dissent in his country or support for his regime would be jeopardized. This is a direct contrast to U.S. policies towards other states. For example, the United States touts its reasonably good relations with non-democratic Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the People’s Republic of China, and until recently, Russia.
There have been doubts expressed about the ability of democracy to flourish in certain regions of the world, especially in the Middle East. Many critics believe that aspects of the region’s culture, particularly the prevalence of Islam, hinder the growth of the democratic process and view human rights as less important than other issues. Others believe that democracy in the area risks stability and peace more than the autocratic governments already in place. The victories of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iranian elections in 2005 and Hamas in Palestine in 2006 would suggest that the underlying trend is towards fundamental Islamic government. However, there are other factors involved.
In 1979, when the Islamic revolution overcame Iran, the movement had the support of the population because of the simple fact that it had actually succeeded where other movements had failed. For decades, the royal family of Iran had enjoyed strong American support in exchange for access to resources, such as oil, and cooperation during the Cold War. Among the acts of support the U.S. provided was the overthrow of a democratically elected government and any reform movements that threatened the status quo. As a result, when the shah was overthrown, the populace backed the revolutionaries. This revolutionary movement became the backbone of the Iranian political authority, and still has considerable influence in Iranian politics today.
Fears that the Palestinians have become supportive of violent extremists are unfounded and simplistic. The little-known truth behind Hamas’ surprising victory in 2006 was the result of a poorly organized campaign by the ruling party, Fatah. Hamas’ campaign centered on the need for reform in the Palestinian Authority and strategically chose their candidates. Fatah, on the other hand, was unable to decide on sole nominees, which split Fatah votes and allowed Hamas to emerge victorious. It is an accepted truth that poorly organized parties will have a smaller probability of winning than organized parties. It has little to do with fundamentalism.
Perhaps the best argument that there can be Islamic democracies is the fact that there are some in existence today. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, has a thriving and stable democracy, as does Turkey, a state that values secularism highly. Both of these nations have issues, and are not perfect, but then again, is there such a thing as a perfect government?
Democracy and Islam are not incompatible. Secretary Rice’s phone call to General Musharraf needs to be the first step in a change of U.S. policy. The world does not need strongmen presiding over shallow democracies in order to be safe. Let Pakistanis choose their own government. Let freedom ring.
Something Rotten in the State of Louisiana 9/18/2007
Racism is supposed to be dead. When Crash, a film about racial tensions in Los Angeles, won the Oscar for Best Picture in 2006, Annie Proulx, author of “Brokeback Mountain” complained that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences had given the award to a film about an outdated issue. She facetiously predicted that the nominees for the award next year would be about “the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver."
If you have not heard about these issues on your cable news channel, it is because Proulx is right; these topics are not controversial or relevant in America today. However, as we have seen with the town of Jena, Louisiana, Proulx is very wrong about racial conflict.
During an assembly on August 31st, 2006, a black freshman asked the principal of Jena High School if he was allowed to sit under a tree traditionally used by white students for shade. The response was that the student could sit anywhere he wanted. The next morning three nooses were discovered dangling from the boughs of the “white tree.” The principal recommended that the three boys who had hung the nooses be expelled. His recommendation was overturned by the local board of education who instead gave the trio a three-day in-school suspension for committing what was considered a childish prank. What followed was an alarmingly rapid deterioration of race relations in the town, which culminated in an assault on a white teenager and the arrest of six black students, known now as the “Jena Six.”
Two of the confrontations that took place after the discovery of the nooses involved Robert Bailey, one of the “Jena Six.” During the first altercation on December 1st, a white man shattered a beer bottle on Bailey’s head while attacking him at a party. It was only after months had passed that his attacker, Justin Sloan, was arrested, charged with simple battery, and given probation. The second incident occurred at a gas station the next day after a group of students, including Bailey, confronted one of the white teenagers that they had fought with at the party. When the teenager drew a gun, Bailey pried it away from him and refused to give it back. Bailey was later charged with theft and disturbing the peace while the owner of the gun went uncharged.
The Jena Six assault, the most visible incident of the racial unrest in the town, occurred on December 4. Justin Barker, a white student, made comments about how Bailey was beaten up by a white man at the party that Friday. Later that day, Barker was ambushed by Bailey and five other black students. For a few hours after the assault, Barker was treated for a concussion and an eye that had swollen shut, but was released from the hospital in time to attend a ceremony that night. The six black students who attacked Barker were arrested. Five were charged as adults with aggravated assault while the sixth was charged as a juvenile. However, in a shocking turn of events, LaSalle Parish District Attorney Reed Walters decided to elevate the charges against the five to conspiracy and attempted second-degree murder.
This move sparked outrage not only in the local black community but also throughout the entire United States. In response to the controversy, Walters reduced the charges for one of the defendants to aggravated assault and later did the same for the other four. However, aggravated assault in Louisiana requires the use of a deadly weapon in order for juveniles to be tried as adults. Regardless of these facts, Walters convinced an all-white jury that 16-year-old Mychal Bell, the first of the six to be tried, was guilty. The deadly weapon used in the second-degree assault: a pair of tennis shoes.
What is happening in Jena reeks of the unconstitutional odor of two types of justice; one for whites, and one for blacks. That the three boys who hung nooses from the “white tree” were barely punished for an extremely hateful act is alarming. According to the FBI, this act, committed under the circumstances present at Jena, constitutes a hate crime. It is unfortunate that the federal government has not launched an investigation into the “prank.”
That Reed Walters has so zealously pursued this case against the Jena Six while being lenient on white offenders in other race-related incidents is disturbing. That, in his eyes, tennis shoes constitute deadly weapons used in an assault while a beer bottle is only a tool in a simple battery is unjust. A few weeks after the nooses were found, Waters addressed an assembly of students in response to fights that had erupted. He told students to get over an “innocent prank” and proclaimed that with his pen, he could “make [their lives] disappear.” It appears that he is trying to keep his word.
Unfortunately, the town of Jena is not the only place where racial injustice occurs. In Paris, Texas, a black 16-year-old girl was sentenced to seven years in prison for shoving a white teacher’s aide. A few months before, a 14-year-old white girl was put on probation for burning down her home. The sentences were given by the same judge, who happened to be white. According to the Campaign for Youth Justice, 58 percent of all juveniles sent to prison as adults are black even though blacks only make up 28 percent of all juvenile arrests.
Back in Louisiana, Bell’s convictions were overturned because he should not have been tried as an adult. However, the other four students charged as adults are adults under Louisiana law. Meanwhile, Jena High School, an attempt to erase the biggest reminder of the new racial unrest, cut down the “white tree,” but like the trunk and roots of all trees that are felled, the conflict and the racism remains.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Russia's Problem with Interference
A few weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his annual State of the Federation speech. In it, he criticized and condemned the Western World for interfering with Russian politics. "There are some who are using the democratic ideology to interfere in our internal affairs." This rebuke of his opponents is quite ironic considering President Putin's obsession with maintaining a Russian neo-Empire.Russia, under Putin's leadership, has demonstrated itself to be unable to keep itself from manipulating the political situations in other states of the former Soviet Union for its own benefit. For example, an election-monitoring group in the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), an wannabe successor organization to the U.S.S.R. that is led by Russia, conveniently finds Eastern European elections that are won by pro-Russian candidates to be fair and transparent, and elections that are won by anti-Russian candidates to be fraudulent. This has happened in the 2006 presidential election in Belarus, the 2005 parliamentary elections in Uzbekistan, the 2005 parliamentary elections in Tajikistan, and the 2005 parliamentary elections in Kyrgyzstan. Moldova, also in 2005, refused to allow the CIS to monitor their parliamentary elections. Russia objected to this action, not surprisingly, and the observer mission, despite being refused access to Moldova, claimed that the election had been rigged by the allegedly pro-Western government.
The CIS' most blatant insult to the democratic process in Eastern Europe occurred during the 2004 presidential election in Ukraine. The CIS monitoring mission, in contradiction with the majority of monitoring agencies, deemed the victory of pro-Russian candidate, Viktor Yanukovych, to be "legitimate and of a nature that reflected democratic standards." After massive opposition to the results forced a rerun of the runoff election round, the CIS pronounced the victory of Viktor Yushchenko to be illegitimate, unlike the vast majority of monitoring groups.
In addition to fraudulently judging the fairness of elections in other nations, Russia often is actively involved in the elections themselves. Russian President Vladimir Putin regularly endorses candidates up for election in neighboring states. During the 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, President Putin publicly supported Viktor Yankovych, who planned, as president to make Russian an official language of Ukraine and to increase economic and political ties to Russia. Also in 2004, Russia supported a seperatist candidate in the de facto nation of Abkhazia, a region of Georgia. Russian officials even came to Abkhazia in order to campaign on behalf of their choice, Raul Khadjimba. Coincidentally, Khadjimba just happened to have once served in the KGB, just like Putin.
Russia's conduct in Eastern Europe, especially in the Caucasus, has been considerably aggressive. For example, Georgia, one of the few former Soviet nations to openly oppose Russia today, is one of the most frequent targets of Russian attacks. Russia actively supports separatist movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, presumably so that Russia can annex those regions. Russia has already begun granting Russian citizenship to residents of the two regions.
Also of concern to the Georgian government is that Russia, under the banner of the CIS, has sent peacekeepers to Abkhazia. The peacekeeping mission has been criticized as ineffective, if not altogether inactive. In addition, last September, Georgian authorities arrested four Russians that were allegedly intelligence officers. Russia responded by suspending transportation between Russia and Georgia; refusing to grant visas to Georgian citizens; and raiding Georgian businesses in Russia, allegedly to combat organized crime. In addition, schools run by the Russian Army allegedly began to refuse Georgian students, at least 130 Georgians were deported for "immigration offences," and schools were reportedly told to create lists of children with Georgian-sounding names to aid in background checks on their parents.
One of the most effective methods that Russia uses to assert its will on its neighbors is through economic means. States that are opposed to Russian influence typically find themselves at the wrong end of a trade ban or contract dispute. In 2006, before the Georgian-Russian spy crisis, Russia instituted a ban on Georgian and Moldovan wines. At the time, Russian relations with both nations were beginning to sour, especially over the rise of Georgia's strongly anti-Russian government and pro-NATO attitude, and Moldova's anger over the illegal presence of Russian troops and weapons in the breakaway region of Transnistria. A year before these sanctions came into effect, the Russian Duma, or Parliament, had demanded a ban on Moldovan wine in retaliation for Moldova's "anti-Russian" policies. This ban is potentially devastating to the wine industries in both countries, because wine exports to Russia from both countries make up to 90% of their wine exports altogether.
In addition, Russia has exploited its position as an energy superpower to force its reliant neighbors to bend to its will. According to a report from the Swedish Defence Research Agency, since 1991, there have been more than fifty-five energy disputes and incidents, over thirty of which have had political connections, and only eleven have had no political connotations at all. In the last two years alone, there have been at least five countries that were attacked by Russian energy economics warfare. Even Russia's closest ally in Eastern Europe, Belarus, fell victim to this style of aggression last year. One of the conditions of this dispute's resolution included the sale of fifty percent of Belarus' national gas supplier to Gazprom, Russia's state owned gas company. This is a disturbing trend in what appears to be a bid for an energy takeover of Eastern Europe by the Russian Federation.
Many people have said that President Putin is appearing to become increasingly communistic and has delusions of recreating the U.S.S.R. I disagree with this assumption. Putin is a fascist, who has dreams of a KGB/FSB controlled Russian Empire that will one day control, either directly or indirectly, the entirety of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and possibly some distance in the future, the Middle East as well. His nationalism of various profitable industries is not in the interest of socialism, but a means of giving the Russian neo-Empire funding and power over all of its neighbors, pawns and opponents both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
