Saturday, December 26, 2009
"Evo Morales- The First Indigenous President" Part 2
Monday, December 14, 2009
Evo Morales: The First Indigenous President of Boliva
Friday, December 11, 2009
President Obama's Nobel Prize speech
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Intersections/ Hacker
Monday, November 23, 2009
Intersections
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
ADDING STABILITY TO U.S.-RUSSIAN RELATIONSHIP
The relationship between the U.S and Russia is an increasingly stable partnership. Progressively, the stakes we have in each other’s economic prosperity would add ballast, giving us the ability to advance through political struggles.
Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev had their 3rd bilateral meeting in the last four months on Sunday, November 15. The recently announced U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission will have to direct tensions surrounding Iran policy, the stop-and-go nature of World Trade Organization accession talks, and other controversial geopolitical matters.
Preceding the Obama-Medvedev meetings, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit to Moscow last month, both Russia and the U.S. seemed more agreeable to engage commercially. Last week in his state-of-the-nation address, Medvedev called for economic modernization.
Despite the differences between the two nations, the commission already has designated areas of common interest, including building a strong commercial relationship. To put the economic relationship in perspective Russia accounts for only about 1% of Americas overall trade, compared with 14% for China and 2% for the Netherlands. The next few years offer a chance to expand two-way trade and establish a meaningful commercial partnership.
Increasing the commercial relationship between the U.S and Russia will stabilize the two nations allowing us to withstand political and economical complications.
Talented Estonia
I came across this article about how unique Estonians are when compared to individuals from other nations. I would never have googled this per se but when I found it on a Baltic news site I figured it might spark a little interest amidst otherwise depressing political subjects. An article by Toomas Hobemagi (say that three times fast) says that "this nation has tens of theatres, concert halls and universities, hundreds of libraries, museums, choirs, dance groups, thousands of poets, musicians and other artists, etc, etc."
When looking at Estonia per capita people wonder how in the world they have published so many works of literature in such a short time. Estonians seem to have a particular aptitude for the arts and, as this article says, nearly everyone has an interesting hobby. From botany to inventors to yogis, Hobemagi speculates that this is due to a fear of the mundane. Everyone wants to be an individual so they try to adopt unique interests and hone their skills.
I thought this was really interesting in a social sense because what we often hear implied about Eastern Europeans is that they are harsh, hardworking people who love futbol and war and nothing else. Here is the link to the article:
http://balticbusinessnews.com/article/2009/11/17/Estonians_a_gifted_nation_with_a_twist
Monday, November 16, 2009
Communism+democracy=?
I have been trying to think of a good article to write on for the past few day and I have finaly selected a topic that definitely needs attention.
Canada
I thought this article to be very interesting , especially since we were talking about twitter last week.
Twitter, Canadian election law clash in latest contest
Twitter has caused a political stir in America's neighbor to the north.
Some in Canada are questioning whether Twitter updates journalists posted about early returns from Monday's special elections violated Canadian election law. According to Reuters Canada, a section of the Canada Elections Act bans the dispersal of elections results before the last polling stations officially close.
The law is designed to prevent the results from the east from affecting the votes of western voters who might still be voting because of time differences.
Some are beginning to question the applicability of the law in the age of Twitter.
Here are some excerpts from the news agency's story:
One journalist even sent a Twitter message saying "Oh dear. Have just realized I may have been violating law because of my poor understanding of Twitter". Elections Canada did nothing.
It is little wonder that critics use terms like absurd and archaic to describe a provision that, in large part, comes from an era before the Internet was born.
That said, television and radio stations can broadcast regional results as long as the signal is contained within that region. But this fails to take into account that a voter out West with the right kind of satellite dish can access an eastern station broadcasting results.
And of course, posting data on the Internet is easy.
It is no surprise therefore that the rule has failed to prevent a string of breaches, some deliberate and some accidental, in federal elections over the last decade.
"Elections Canada is still stuck in this dark age, they're trying to be Big Brother," said Peter Coleman, president of the National Citizens Coalition, a right-leaning lobby group advocating the end of the restriction.
"Technology has changed so much that they can't stop this stuff from going on anyway ... I think it's an archaic law and it should just disappear," he told Reuters on Tuesday.
An Elections Canada spokesman declined to say whether the law still made sense. The agency reports to Parliament through the office of Jay Hill, who directs the government's day to day business in the legislature.
~Lady Liberty
Canadian Bacon
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Overview of the Russian economy and international relations
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Reagan and the Berlin wall
With the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, the tape of Ronald Reagan's famous speech at the Brandenburg Gate is likely to be played and replayed. "Mr. Gorbachev," he declared, "tear down this wall!"
But how significant was the speech, really? How important was its seemingly defiant tone in reuniting Berlin and "winning" the Cold War?
To many American conservatives, the answer to those questions is simple: Reagan stared down the Soviet Union. And the Berlin Wall speech stands as the dramatic symbol of Reagan's challenge and triumph.
But those who say this ignore the actual history and context of the speech. In fact, Reagan's address served the purpose of shoring up public support as he moved to upgrade American relations with the Soviet Union. It was Reagan's diplomacy with Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, bitterly opposed at the time by his conservative former supporters, that did the most to create the climate in which the Cold War could end.
By the time Reagan delivered his Berlin Wall speech, in June 1987, he had already held two summits with Gorbachev and was moving toward two more. He was in negotiations for the arms-control treaty he signed later that year. In fact, during Reagan's second term, he met five times with Gorbachev, more than any other American president had met a Soviet leader during the Cold War.
When Reagan won Senate ratification of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, it was the first arms-control treaty with the Soviets to win approval in 15 years. At a 1988 summit in Moscow, Reagan backed away from his famous remark five years earlier that the Soviet Union was an "evil empire." He told reporters: "That was another time, another era."
Reagan's conciliatory policies toward the Soviets provoked anguished and increasingly bitter denunciations from the right wing.
Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus branded Reagan "a useful idiot for Soviet propaganda." Conservative columnist George Will pounded away at Reagan for having changed. "Four years ago, many people considered Reagan a keeper of the Cold War flame," he wrote in 1988. "Time flies. For conservatives, Ronald Reagan's foreign policy has produced much surprise, but little delight." Even Reagan's vice president, George H.W. Bush -- when he ran for president in 1988 -- suggested that Reagan had gone too far in his diplomacy with the Soviet leader.
The Berlin Wall speech produced an intense fight within the Reagan administration. The speech was drafted by a young White House speechwriter, Peter Robinson, and was cleared by Reagan's domestic advisors. Reagan's foreign policy advisors balked at the "Mr. Gorbachev" line. They worried that it might undermine Gorbachev's political position in Moscow, making him the target of hard-line elements within the Soviet leadership and weakening his ability to reach out to the West.
Reagan decided to leave the line in, judging rightly that Gorbachev could handle it. The speech served as a strong reaffirmation of the value of freedom and a reminder that, even as Cold War tensions eased, the United States would not accept the continuing division of Berlin, Germany or Europe.
Many Americans now assume the key part of Reagan's speech was the idea of tearing down the wall. Ironically, that was nothing new. It was almost boilerplate for American leaders to say the Berlin Wall should come down. Reagan himself had said in Washington, a year earlier, "I would like to see the wall come down today, and I call upon those responsible to dismantle it."
But it was quite a change for a U.S. president to directly appeal to "Mr. Gorbachev" to tear it down. That was new.
Reagan delivered the speech on the occasion of Berlin's 750th anniversary. He was on a stopover in West Berlin that lasted only a few hours. What he said got the attention not so much of Gorbachev but of East German Communist Party leader Erich Honecker. Officially, the Berlin Wall was, after all, East Germany's wall.
Needless to say, Honecker wasn't about to tear down the wall. (He declared at the beginning of 1989 that the wall "will still exist in 50 or even 100 years.") But still, he would have liked Reagan to ask him, not Gorbachev, to do so. By addressing the words to Gorbachev, Reagan was reminding everyone of the reality that East Germany couldn't exist without Soviet support. In fact, Honecker, who would be forced to resign just before the wall fell, was increasingly convinced throughout the mid- and late-1980s that the Americans and Soviets were conspiring against him. (They weren't.)
Some conservatives now argue that the Reagan-Gorbachev diplomacy was irrelevant to the unraveling of Soviet power. They credit his much more hard-line defense buildup and his Strategic Defense Initiative, hallmarks of his first term in office, with determining the outcome of the Cold War and forcing Gorbachev to capitulate.
Such arguments gloss over an important distinction. It was one thing for Gorbachev to decide that the Soviet Union could not compete with the United States in military terms. It was another for him to abandon the Cold War entirely, refusing to do anything to stop the changes that swept through Eastern Europe in 1989, culminating with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November.
The Soviet Union was, as the historian Stephen Kotkin put it, "lethargically stable." Even if it couldn't keep matching American military power, it still could have tried to preserve the essentials of what it had. It possessed more than enough nuclear weapons to fend off the West.
On the night of Nov. 9, 1989, as East Germans began streaming across the wall, Honecker's successor, Egon Krenz, tried to call Gorbachev to ask what he should do. Gorbachev didn't take the call, and he didn't intervene. He wanted an entirely new relationship with the United States and Western Europe. Reagan's diplomacy with Gorbachev had quite a bit to do with that.
After he left office in January 1989, Reagan pressed the new Bush administration for still better relations with Gorbachev. At a speech in Europe in June 1989, he said the new president should "take the risk that the Soviets are serious in their efforts to reach genuine arms reductions with the West."
When the Berlin Wall came down five months later, everyone remembered Reagan's impassioned, confrontational "tear down this wall" speech. Few recalled that Reagan's actual policies, bitterly contested at the time, were aimed at courting Gorbachev, building up his stature and doing business with him.
Information from: Los Angeles Times
"John of Gaunt"
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Questions:
What branch of Islam predominates in Pakistan? What is the connection between the branch or sect of Islam in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? Does this affect Pakistan’s relation with India, Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda?
Answers:
Sunni is the predominate branch of religion in Pakistan. The connection between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia is that they share the same dominant branch of religion: the Sunni. It is the largest denomination of Islam.
India and Pakistan’s relationship would probably be strained despite the fact that Islam is the second most practiced religion in India. The main branch of Islam in India is Sulfis. Pakistan’s ties would not be as strong with India when compared to Saudi Arabia, because Sunni views differ from Sulfis beliefs.
Afghanistan and Pakistan’s relationship would be strengthened if anything because they share the same Islamic religion, Sunni.
Al-Qaeda and Pakistan’s relationship would be affected in a more negative aspect because even though they have the same basic Islamic beliefs, the Al-Qaeda have branched off from the Sunni belief to Salafi, a more extreme Islamic religion.
By: Hannah McGennis
Water, Water Anywhere?
Amnesty International, a human rights advocacy group, recently released a report entitled Troubled Waters- Palestinians denied fair access to water. In this report they claim that Israel is not giving the Palestinians of the West Bank their fair share of the water supply. They report that Israelis receive 80% of the water, while Palestinians only receive 20%. Gaza’s only freshwater source is the Coastal Aquifer. Up to 95% of this water is claimed to be unfit for consumption. Also, water reservoirs and other water networks were damaged during the war in Gaza. Amnesty firmly believes that Israel should allot more water to the Palestinians.
However, Israel is having major water shortages as well. Also, the Israel Foreign Ministry has denied Amnesty’s claims. They responded that “Israel has fulfilled all its obligations…regarding the supply of additional quantities of water to the Palestinians, and has even extensively surpassed the obligatory quantity. The Palestinians have significantly violated their commitments under the water agreement… Israel has offered to supply Palestinians with desalinated water, but this offer is systematically rejected due to political motivations.” Israel claims that the Amnesty report is “biased and incorrect.” They have also stated that the water gap is not nearly as large as Amnesty claims.
Whatever the case may be, it is certainly true that the Palestinians need more and better water. It is essential that the Palestinian government address this issue and work to find a solution.
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=105&sid=1795194
Maps:http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/pdf/water_israel_palestine.pdf
http://www.mideastweb.org/misrael.htm
Monday, November 9, 2009
Top ten reasons why sharia is bad for all societies
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
What is the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda?
Al-Qaeda is an Islamic militant organization that seeks to end foreign influence in Muslim countries and to create a perfect Islamic form of government throughout the world. Al-Qaeda was Established in 1988 by Osama bin laden to combat the Soviet Union in the Afghan Soviet war. Al-Qaeda is also internationally known as a terrorist organization through their suicide attacks and coordinated bombings.
The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are similar in their striving for an Islamic middle east and their hatred towards infidels (An unbeliever with respect to a particular religion :Online Dictionary), but different in the fact that one ruled a country and is more politically active while the other gains power by being a subversive terrorist organization.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
2)HOW DOES IT RELATE TO THE PAKISTAN GOVERNMENT?
3)HOW DOES THE ISI INTERFACE WITH THE ISLAMIC MILITIA OF PAKISTAN?
1)The ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) is Pakistan's largest intelligence group. It was created to strengthen their current military in 1947 during the first Indo-Pak War.
2) I found the relationship between the ISI and the Pakistani government very interesting. There are instances when the ISI has gone against governmental policy. There are also instances when the ISI can and does influence policies and politicians. So the relationship sounds very strong, if it can go against the government but still have a very strong influence. Some of the examples I found was that: it is believed that the elections of 1990 were rigged by the ISI. (in favor of Islami Jamhoori Ittehad [IJI party]) Lt. Gul, head of the ISI at the time, denied this fact. The ISI also interfered with the politics of Karachi. (financial capital of Pakistan) The ISI was also accused of assassinating Shahnawaz Bhutto. (PPP [Pakistan People's Party]) However no proof has been found against the ISI. The ISI was also involved in a massive corruption scandal dubbed the Mehran bank scandal or Mehrangate. In which large sums of money were given to the ISI, this was against government policy as such banking which involves government institutions can only be done through state-owned financial institutions. The ISI's director at the time, Habib, was arrested and the scandal was made public.
3)I could not find how the ISI interfaced with the Islamic militia of Pakistan, only that they did interface with them.
~Emilie
What is the role of the Taliban and other Islamic extremist groups in Pakistan?
The government of Pakistan is at war with the Taliban. However, the extremists maintain control of many regions and some cities, mostly in the tribal areas. The government is trying to fight the uprising, but from what I can tell, the situation is rather similar to that in Afghanistan. Though there may not necessarily be as complex of a "shadow government" as there is in Afghanistan, the Taliban still consolidate and maintain their power and pose an enormous threat to the government and the people. Some of the places in Pakistan are used as bases to prepare for attacks in Afghanistan, as well.
Al-Qaeda also maintains sanctuaries in the country.
Democracy Now!
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Kerry-Lugar Bill
The Kerry-Lugar bill is essentially a nonmilitary aid package granted to Pakistan by the U.S. in view of its precarious economic condition due to its indulgence in the "War on Terror" as a front line allied state.
This bill grants Pakistan 7.5 billion dollars over the period of five years (1.5 billion annually) and comes along with stringent conditions on how to distribute and invest this money.
The conditions along with this bill come in the shape of military as well as economic checks which have instigated a lot of debate in this country and agitated its bloggers as well.
Note: I think the bill has now been revised to eliminate a lot of the conditions.
What is the response to the Kerry-Lugar bill in Pakistan and the U.S. ?
Well, from what I've seen so far, Pakistan is pretty divided in their response. Some view it as an insult, while others claim it is "fair payment" for all the services they have performed for the U.S.
In the U.S., on the other hand, the response I've seen is overwhelmingly negative toward the bill. Many people are opposed to our government spending still more money it doesn't have, especially for a foreign country.
~Lady Liberty~
I got most of my information from this site: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taliban.html I(ts pretty good reading...
Saturday, October 31, 2009
posting for pakistan study week
they started having skirmishes on may 13th 2007 when the Afghan national army open unprovoked fire, says military spokesman major-general waheed arshad.. They alledgedly opened their fire on 5 or 6 pakistan border posts. They have been having small battles ever since because they cannot figure out who caused it and thus, it never ends. It is definitely a high-pressure zone in which citizens do not want to get involved.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The Use of Drones in Pakistan
These machines are, on the other hand, an amazing feat of modern technology. They do save our troops from having to go from the frying pan and into the fire. It would be nearly impossible for our men to go into terrorist camps, kill the leaders, and come out alive. We are simply spread out too far in our occupations of other countries to send more men into more locations. These drones can save lives and be very practical if you squint your eyes and stand on one foot.
However, Phillip Alston, a human right investigator for the United Nations, has said that targeted assassinations that "accidentally" (big oops) get civilians is most likely a violation of international law (who would've thought?!). Two counter-insurgency experts wrote in the New York Times in May that drone attacks "killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2%." According to them, 98% of the targets were innocent civilians. On the flip-side, Bill Roggio, the editor of Long War Journal, has maintained that only 10% of those killed were civilians. (1) CNN's report indicates that 760-1,000 people have been killed, only 20 being leaders of Al Queda. They believe that perhaps 260-320, or one-third, were civilians. A possible reason for these contadictory analyses is that not all militants are wearing uniforms but appear to be ordinary citizens. However, it's obvious that certain people would rather tone down the numbers to paint a rosier picture. In either case I think it's safe to assume that the cost of taking a life (militant or not) should be paid by having to live with that memory. The process of sending out machines to do your dirty work for you seems to violate war ethics by giveing people the ability to kill haphazardly without knowledge of who they are going to hit or what they even looked like. If we are going to try to justify murder in the name of national security and justice then we should at least be forced to hear our enemies' last words and see the look on their faces as they are about to be slaughtered.
1. CNN News "Pakistan drone war takes a toll on militants- and civilians" by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann October 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Gunmen Storm UN Guest House in Kabul
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
what Pakistan's border is like
For the West, this border separates Afghanistan from Pakistan, and it is a source of great frustration that neither country seems able or even willing to enforce it. But for many Pashtuns, the most powerful ethnic tribe here, the line runs through what they call "Pashtunistan" and is no more legitimate than the border that once divided East and West Germany.
in 1893 the Durand line was drawn right through the pashtun tribal lands who have been fighting ever since.Sunday, October 25, 2009
Taliban from the inside
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Missle shield
Minju Joson Friday observes in a signed commentary in this regard:
This goes to prove that the U.S. strategic scenario to get a monopoly of space in a bid to establish military hegemony and put the world under its domination by force of arms has entered the phase of its implementation.
To this end the U.S. is making much fuss about "missile threat" from someone in an effort to use this as a pretext for deploying a missile shield in space.
It is the calculation of the U.S. that by unilaterally rounding off and expanding the missile defence system without let-up it will be able to neutralize other powers' retaliatory capabilities and other means and reinforce its military hegemony.
The U.S. is, at the same time, openly deploying a missile shield in space under its military scenario and stepping up the development of satellites equipped with interceptor missiles in real earnest.
The arms race sparked by the U.S. through its launch of the military satellites at a time when the world is making positive efforts to create a peaceful environment cannot be interpreted otherwise than a blatant challenge to humankind's desire for peace and a criminal act of seriously threatening and wrecking the global peace and security.
The U.S. is seeking not global peace and security but aggression, war and showdown of strength.
North Korea news w/diffrent bias
and thought it quite interesting.
www.kcna.co.jp
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
North Korea in context
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Cara: United States reaction to Honduran Coup
Trust of American democracy has a ways to go before being respected in Latin America. This wariness is not unfounded. The root of the doubt can be traced back to 2002 when the United States backed a failed coup against Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. The United States credibility was damaged at a time when United States forces were battling for democracy in Afghanistan. Although Chavez was an active adversary of President Bush, and a dominant figure in Latin American resistance of America, he remained to be elected by democratic process, and thus a product of democracy. This current crisis in Honduras is an excellent opportunity for the United States to reiterate its dedication to democracy and portray its want of democracy for Latin America. While Zelaya did provoke the Honduran congress by trying to amend the constitution to lengthen presidents terms, he was democratically elected. The United States should challenge the coup and the legitimacy of the congress's actions based on the fact that it should have gone through the government. The words and the actions of the United States stress that they are reacting to the flagrant violation of Honduran Democracy, and thus they are justified and acting appropriately.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Honduras links.
Monday, October 5, 2009
What is the relationship between Taliban in Pakistan and the Taliban in Afghanistan? Is the ISI involved with the Taliban in Afghanistan?
Regular reporting indicates Pakistan provides both military and financial assistance to the Taliban. Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan, primary goals are to achieve strategic depth with regard to India, and securing access to Central Asian Trade Routes. Cultural ties also exist between the Taliban leadership and Pakistan where several Taliban leaders lived for many years following the 1979 Soviet Invasion. Pakistan fears a complete Taliban victory may incite irredentist aspirations within its own Pashtun population, and will likely attempt to pressure the Taliban into moderation of some of its policies.
The Taliban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. They came to power during Afghanistan’s long civil war. Although they managed to hold 90% of the country’s territory, their policies-including their treatment of women and support of terrorists- ostracized then from the world community. The Taliban was ousted from power in December 2001 by the U.S. military and Afghani opposition forces in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S.
There is a deep history between Taliban and the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) since the Taliban was assisted in their creation solely by the ISI to thrust their influence upon neighboring Afghanistan. Pakistan agreed to suspend military offensives and impose Islamic law in part of the northwest region known as the Malakand region. Among the participants in the agreement were pro Taliban clerics who authorities said would return to ISI and tell militants there to disarm, although there was no mention in the agreement for extremists to give up their weapons. In all reality ISI is the first official region of the future Taliban government that will take over more areas of Pakistan.
Sources:
Infoplease.com: “Who Are The Taliban?” by: Laura Hayes, Borgna Brunner, and Beth Rowen
National Security Archives: Pakistan: “The Taliban’s Godfather?” posted- August 14, 2007, edited by: Barbara Elias
Terroristplanet.com
Force or Freedom?
After reading the poem, we realized that the author said nothing against freedom, but against Christianity. He seems to have the false impression that Americans will force Muslims to turn to Christ. This is absolutely not the case. Christianity and freedom go hand and hand, which is why Mosques can be built in the United States.
Life in Christ is about choice, not about force. God bless the missionaries and our soldiers.
"Crusaders"
I realize we are not on the subject of Afghanistan anymore, but I thought this poem was interesting. Although it's talking about missionaries, I think that the same message might apply to American troops trying to bring democracy and stabilization to Afghanistan. I have been under the impression that a lot of the people there are not interested in being told what to do or how to live, even if the U.S. has good intentions. I think that some of us Americans are of the mindset that we are crusaders for democracy, which can look bad to people in other countries.
Note: if you react badly to anti-Christian sentiments, don't read this. It is not bad, but I could see how it might offend someone.
“Crusaders” by Daw'ud Mannion
With fire, cross and sword,once to Muslim lands you came,now with bombs, cross and bullet,once more you are trying to do the same.
But still you see not,the destruction that you bring,children's lives and limbs destroyed,as Crusader's Christian hymns you sing.
"It's for your own good!"you say as lives and riches you openly steal,but you will never realize that for us,death's better than to the Christian cross to kneel.
So keep your missionaries back,No non-combatants in this war,Soldiers only steal lives but missionaries steal souls,the greater crime has a greater punishment in store.
You think this is now finished?Think now your done and can soon go home?Flying your stars and stripes over this land,where once Imam Hanifa as a boy did roam.
Soon just like the Soviets,you will be made to taste defeat,your wasted corrupt lives finished,in deserts and mountains your nemesis to meet.
All then left of these young men is the ragged remains,The US a once great nation nursing a generation's losses,Leaving behind so many hastily buried dead,that soon enough you'll run out of your Christian crosses.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Virgin Of Suyapa- Honduran hope
The home of the statue has become a fire point of its own. The Cardinal Oscar Rodriquez, an ex-instructor of the exiled president , Zelaya went on television asking him not to return to Honduras. This did not sit well with the supporters of Zelaya. An angry mob tried to storm the church where the La Morenita is housed. Last Sunday parishioners gathered for their first Sunday Mass since Zeleya has returned to the country. It is reported that police circled the church housing la Morenita with rifles in the air duing the mass. The Wall Street Journal report on Oct 2, 2009 that " Many stood before the altar, waving framed portraits of the Virgin as an assistant sprinkled holy water. Father Ruiz led the services.... and said," With all of the uncertainty now in the country , we beg for your help. Honduras is like the baby held by King Solomon in danger of being split in two by its current president and its ousted one. Maybe the virgin should be president. She is only 6 centimeter tall, but she has greatness."
I join with those praying for divine intervention in Honduras. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to reason a way forward and help from above to traverse this most difficult dilemna. I agree with Father Ruiz that greatness is required. The two presidents, the intervening politicians and diplomats will all need to put self and ego in a secondary position to their countries pressing needs to find a way forward. I pray they do so speedily as greatness would demand.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Honduras
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/world/americas/25honduras.html?ref=americas
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
warnewsupdates.biogspot.com
Social Imperatives
The topic that I will be writing about today is of the social imperatives of the Taliban, the lack of any women’s rights under Taliban control, and the lack of a lasting solution through military force.
The Taliban is an anti-modernism tribal-based organization that is based on an interpretation of the Koran. Their original purpose was to remove the unjust dictators that had ruled over Afghanistan for many years, but in the end they turned out to be just as bad.
Something that is very important to understand is that in Afghanistan the entire culture is built around the ideology of the Koran and because of this their world is utterly different than that of any western society that I know of. We also must understand that though most of the population is Muslim there as always are many interpretations of the social imperatives of the religion. The Taliban have a very strict understanding of what the Islamic beliefs are. Their reign over Afghanistan from 1996-2001 was a time of fear and strict control for a large portion of the Afghanis. One of the major problems that most people in the west have a problem with is the Taliban’s treatment of women.
In an explanation of the situation for women in Afghanistan Abdullah Qazi says that, “Over 1400 years ago, Islam demanded that men and women be equal before God, and gave them various rights such as the right to inheritance, the right to vote, the right to work, and even choose their own partners in marriage. For centuries now in Afghanistan, women have been denied these rights either by official government decree or by their own husbands, fathers, and brothers. During the rule of the Taliban (1996 - 2001), women were treated worse than in any other time or by any other society. They were forbidden to work, leave the house without a male escort, not allowed to seek medical help from a male doctor, and forced to cover themselves from head to toe, even covering their eyes. Women who were doctors and teachers before, suddenly were forced to be beggars and even prostitutes in order to feed their families.”
Though the Taliban share many basic fundamentals with a large number of people. There are some things that are in their belief that one must question what must be done to stop these ideals for the benefit of Afghanistan.
When the United States began their campaign to “fix” Afghanistan there were many things that they did not understand. We must look at what other solutions to the problem there are rather then just sending more troops to fight an ever-growing insurgency. It seems that we might be the cause for the Taliban’s growth as well as causing harm to the Afghani people. In 2005, walking round Zafaraniya, a poor suburb of Baghdad, an American battalion commander Colonel Brian Doser (who is also a civil engineer) showed the new sewage and clean water systems that he and his team had installed. "We should have done this much sooner," he volunteered. And then he made a really persuasive point. "You can't wait for the security problem to be solved before you work on reconstruction," he said. “For the Campaign in Afghanistan to be a success we must look to finding solutions that help stop the problem and not to perpetuate it.” The Taliban’s beliefs make diplomacy very hard, but military force is not a lasting solution either. As Colonel Brian Doser says, "If you wait to solve the security problem before you improve the infrastructure, you may never solve the security problem."
From what I understand, the problems that face the American and local military in Afghanistan involves a lack of ability to change the beliefs of part of the society that the Taliban has created. Without this kind of change there can’t be a significant improvement in the living conditions for the people, specifically the women.
Kalo
http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/8274993.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban#Origin
Monday, September 28, 2009
Corruption in Afghanistan
As reported by the New York Times in “Afghan corruption: Everything for sale”, the main issue driving the corruption here is money. Free passage through neighborhoods in Kabul, acquittal, governmental position--in fact, everything--is bought and sold for outrageous prices, whether outrageously high or outrageously low. Favoritism and backroom deals, particularly energized by loyalties and the opium trade, fuel almost every transaction in the streets, in the offices, and even in the government.
In a developing country like Afghanistan, the Times says, corruption is not unusual. But unfortunately for the welfare of the Afghan people, it has taken a complete hold all the way to the top—President Karzai openly admits the corruption within his own government, and, as is evident from the recent questions in the election fraud and bribes coming to his own family, is not immune to it himself. With a fairly weak government placed precariously on a toppled Taliban rule, lack of checks and balances leaves the doors wide open for bribery and hypocrisy. The Taliban, as well, with its ever-strengthening “shadow government”, pulls many of the strings related to the everyday life of the people.
Despite the United States’ efforts in Afghanistan, an outside force cannot eliminate corruption, even while working closely with the corrupt for change. Corruption is an internal issue at heart, and is, in fact, is an issue *of* the heart.
Afghan corruption: Everything for sale
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/02/world/asia/02iht-corrupt.1.19050534.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
US troops in Afganistan
One of the political realities President Obama faces is this is a very unpopular war. In a resent New York Times article the war in Afganistan waas compared to Vietnam. This will affect the policys made because there will be heavy resistince made on any effort that is not pulling our troops out. Many of his own supporters, according to Marie Cocco, who supported his decision in his campaign to pull troops from Iraq and concentrate efforts in Afganistan, are now weary of war and want our troops out altogether. Yet, there are many of his own supporters who believe that the precense of US troops in Afganistan is absolutely essential to win the war on terror. An ardent support of Obama, Marie Cocco states, "They forget why we are in Afganistan-that it was here in this faraway land of poverty, tribal animosities, and historical hostility toward outsiders that a sophisticated terrorist network was allowed to take root, to flourish and plot the spectacular attack. (9/11) Afganistan today is once again such a couldron" Clearly President Obama is facing a difficult decision on what to do with US troops.
Main Crop and Economic Drivers of Afghanistan and how this effects the political situation.
There are many crops in Afghanistan. Such as wheat, barley, apricots, grapes, mulberries, walnuts, almonds, melons, tomatoes, potatoes, onions
The main fruit crop of Afghanistan according to A.R. Manan, former Research Director in the Ministry of Agriculture, says that mulberry is the the primary fruit crop. It is grown by almost every farm-family. It is sold both fresh and dried.
Grown in all areas of Afghanistan, wheat is another important crop. Something interesting that I found out about growing wheat there is that 90% of wheat is fall-planted, and of course 10% is planted in the spring.
Economic Driver:
The economic driver in Afghanistan is opium. "Opium is narcotic formed from the latex released by lacerating the immature seed pods of opium poppies. It contains 12% morphine, an opiate alkaloid, which is most frequently processed chemically to produce heroin for the illegal drug trade."[3]
How this effects the political situation:
As the economic driver in Afghanistan being opium, the effects are more widespread than just the political situation; it also effects the country as a whole. My thought is that no Afghan politician is going to be against the sales of opium, because without the sales Afghanistan as a country would fail economically. For example; lobbyist pay an abundance of money to speak to senators and influence which bills are and are not passed. Opium dealers bribe Afghan politicians to "look the other way" while they produce opium. Afghanistan's politicians may tell other world leaders that they will do something about opium, but they won't because of the economic impact it has.
~Emilie A.
Sources:
1-Seed and Crop Improvement situation assessment in Afghanistan
2-The Economist
3- Wikipedia
Our New Topic
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Prerequisites of Democracy
(Information taken from wikipedia)
~Causes (prerequisites) of democracy: There is considerable debate about the factors which affect or ultimately limit democratization. A great many things, including economics, culture, and history, have been cited as impacting on the process. Some of the more frequently mentioned factors are: Wealth(GDP/capita), Education, Capitalism, Social equality, the existence of a Middle class, Culture, and Homogeneous population.
Do these prerequisites exist in Afghanistan?
Simply put, No. These prerequisites are, for the most part nonexistent in Afghanistan at the present.
If not, can they be implanted by a foreign power?
I'd say probably not.
~Quote from Hoover Digest - Democracy in Afghanistan? Don't Hold Your Breath By Robert J. Barro
"The Western ideal for representative democracy involves free, multiparty elections and maintenance of civil liberties. As Aristotle realized, and as the evidence from a large number of countries demonstrates, democracy is almost never sustained in a country that has income and education levels as low as those in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, Washington always recommends democracy, even to the poorest nations, and the results have included such failures as the new Congo and Haiti.
"Freedom House's latest ratings place Afghanistan in the lowest categories for electoral rights and civil liberties. This lack of democracy corresponds to the predictions I would make from the country's economic and social conditions. Given where Afghanistan is today, my statistical analysis implies that the chance a midrange democracy - characteristic at present of countries such as Turkey and Indonesia - will exist five years from now is less than 1 percent."
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Like a River flowing into a swamp
Can there be victory in the conventional sense in COIN? Or is it more along these lines: “Someday, if you are successful, the mission will disappear, like a river flowing into a swamp.”
Which leads me to my final random thought: If you have to win a fight you send the Army and the Marines. If you have to help someone else win a fight without taking over the fight (and if it is going to take 10 or more years to reach a satisfactory conclusion), then perhaps another type of force is needed.
Colonel David S. Maxwell, U.S. Army, is a Special Forces officer with command and staff assignments in Korea, Japan, Germany, the Philippines, and CONUS, and is a graduate of the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth and the National War College, National Defense University. The opinions he expresses in this paper are his own and represent no U.S. Government or Department of Defense positions.
Taliban
(Information from infoplease.com)
The Taliban ("Students of Islamic Knowledge Movement") ruled Afghanistan from 1996 until 2001. They came to power during Afghanistan's long civil war. Although they managed to hold 90% of the country's territory, their policies—including their treatment of women and support of terrorists—ostracized them from the world community. The Taliban was ousted from power in December 2001 by the U.S. military and Afghani opposition forces in response to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S.
Why did they want the election thrwarted?
(infomation from newsweek)
Taliban subcommander Mullah Saleh Khan—who, in the insurgent hierarchy, is the equivalent of a U.S. Army lieutenant leading a unit of 40 to 50 fighters—used to be nonchalant about Thursday's presidential election. His cohorts in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province, where the Taliban's nearly eight-year-old insurgency is perhaps the strongest, felt so empowered until this summer that they hardly noticed an election was coming. Then the Marines arrived in July, beginning an intense campaign of heliborne operations to disrupt the insurgents.
That's when the Taliban put two and two together. "We didn't take the election seriously until the Americans started arriving in larger numbers with more and better equipment than ever before," says Khan. "Once we realized how important it was for the Americans to secure the election for their puppet Karzai and his corrupt government, it became equally important for us to try and stop it." Since then, they have done their best to undermine the election's legitimacy by keeping voter turnout to a bare minimum. The Taliban high command warned people to stay away from the polls and, according to Khan, villagers are so "angry, fearful, and sad" by the surge of 4,000 Marines in Helmand that they will stay home on Thursday. "Everywhere there is the smell of blood," he confidently tells a NEWSWEEK reporter in a meeting on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, "so who will dare to go vote?"
Is the Taliban gathering strength among the pashtun people?
well,According to thenation.com the taliban is not gathering strength from the pashtuns.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Election Dilemma
The United States is in a difficult dilemma. While public support for the Afghan War seems to be falling in the U.S., questions have been raised as to the validity of the election results. Election officials are recounting about ten percent of the ballots. If incumbent President Hamid Karzai receives more than fifty percent of the vote, then he will be declared the winner. America would then know exactly where they stand with the Afghan government and could move forward with their goals. Deciding on counterinsurgency strategy and fighting government corruption would top the list. However, if Karzai is awarded less than fifty percent of the vote, then a runoff election would take place. The elections could then be delayed until spring, setting back the United States and her allies in their plans at a time when indecision is not an option.
It is important, though, that the United States does everything possible to promote the democratic elections in Afghanistan. This is indeed essential to success in the War on Terror. “A runoff would be preferable to a discredited first-round Karzai victory,” Bruce Riedel, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution told The New York Times. The U.S. envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, has encouraged Karzai to accept the election results, even if it means having a runoff election with Dr. Abdullah Abdullah. Karzai, however, fears that this will spark ethnic violence.
The fact remains that a stable, legitimate government is necessary in order for the U.S. to move forward in Afghanistan. The New York Times reports, “‘There is an exquisite dilemma here,’ said Bruce Riedel... ‘The strategy requires an Afghan government that is credible and legitimate, both to get Afghans to support it and to get Americans and their allies to help.’”
http://www.uspolicy.be/issues/afghanistan/afghanistan.asp
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/Afghanistan/article6813478.ece
http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Warns_Karzai_On_Fraud_Corruption_Military_Ties/1809368.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/world/asia/18policy.html?scp=1&sq=Afganistan%20elections&st=cse