2 Harvard International Review Blog » 2006 » September

September 28, 2006

Racism & The Wrong Number Response

Filed under: South AsiaKhary Francis @ 5:29 pm

Until recently, Indian call centers have been hailed as a good thing by many on the sub-continent. However recent trends of verbal abuse of call center workers by American custumers have cast doubt on the viability of this form of outsourcing.

Many Indian call center workers have experienced increased hostility from their American friends on the other side of the telephone line. There have been reports of racist statements, sexual harassment and otherwise verbal abuse. Many of the reports reveal discontent among Americans about the outsourcing of jobs to India – a valid concern. What is disconcerting, however, is how this displeasure has manifest itself.

Abusive callers have resorted to racism, accusing Indian workers of being inefficient and unworthy to fill American jobs. While the validity of claims of inefficiency may or may not be true, racist comments are completely unjustified. In addition to anger at losing jobs to foreign workers, there seems to be some discontent that these workers are Indian. If the person on the other end of the line had a British accent, I wonder if customer response would be the same.

September 25, 2006

Shattering the Allure of Authoritarianism

Filed under: Democratization, East Asia/PacificMichael Jaskiw @ 4:54 pm

Many questions still remain after General Sondhi Boonyaratkalin’s non-violent coup in Thailand last week. When will new elections take place? What will become of the assets of politicians suspected of corruption? Will curfews, censorship, and restrictions of civil rights be lifted as promised?

The next few weeks will provide at least partial answers to these questions. But one often overlooked advantage that the (for the time being) authoritarian and militaristic regime seems to have over its predecessor is the ability to stem the violent conflict with Muslims in Thailand’s southern provinces.

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra adopted hard line tactics towards insurgents in Southern Thailand which only led to an intensification of violence. A Muslim representative from the region noted, “The ouster of Thaksin should make the situation in the South better…We should now see a change in policy.” Ending this violence is certainly a high priority–the conflict has claimed 1700 lives in the last two years.

But Thailand is not the only example of an authoritarian regime that seems to be better at controlling violence than its democratic counterpart. In Somalia, the Union of Islamic courts has brought order to the once volatile capital city of Mogadishu, and is expanding its power across the country. This expansion leaves the official government virtually powerless.

This is not meant to be a defense of dictatorial regimes. Somalia’s Islamic courts have gained popularity because of their ability to establish relative domestic security, but have the country careening towards another war with Ethiopia. Likewise, it is yet to be seen whether the regime change in Thailand will in fact quell violence and whether devolution of power back to the public will in fact occur. But in many developing countries, especially those with long-standing violent conflicts, establishing peace seems preferable to universal suffrage.

The trade-offs between authoritarianism and democracy (decisive action versus policies that reflect at least some element of public opinion) are part of the age-old debate about the elusive ideal form of government. But perhaps more energy should be devoted to crafting new democratic regimes that anticipate the advantages of their dictatorial alternatives. This way, fewer countries will be susceptible to authoritarianism in the first place, likely making their domestic and international politics better for all in the long term.

September 23, 2006

The “devil” is just a detour.

Filed under: Latin AmericaDoug Lieb @ 1:05 am

Hugo Chavez came to New York with harsh words for President Bush. So harsh, in fact, that among the reactions they provoked – in addition to a book-sale bonanza for Noam Chomsky – was a spirited defense of the president by one of his sharpest domestic critics, Congressman Charles Rangel. Pundits, elected Democrats, and most dignitaries this side of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad were repulsed by the Venezuelan President’s branding of Mr. Bush as “the devil,” a sick man, and an alcoholic (the last, for what it’s worth, is factual). The remarks were in fact inane. But the real response should have been: Who cares?

Mr. Chavez’s signature quip – that he could still smell the sulfur burning at the lectern of the UN General Assembly after the “devil” Bush’s appearance – merely reinforced his own insignificance. That Mr. Chavez so vehemently despises Mr. Bush and his policies, yet can take no more potent action than recite some darkly humorous jabs from behind an (evidently malodorous) podium, tells us all we need to know about how seriously to take him.

What’s noteworthy about Mr. Chavez’s remarks is what they say about the UN General Assembly, especially its annual general debate attended by most heads of government. A couple of the institution’s effects become clear. First, it offers an institutionalized forum for the grievances of the world’s less powerful against its most powerful. This can be a good thing, when those grievances are formulated in a more constructive way than Mr. Chavez chose. Second, it institutionalizes a massive diplomatic get-together where much negotiation can and does occur.

The problem: this time around, the first effect dominated the second. No progress seems to have been made in the defusing the impending standoff over Iranian nuclear weapons. But Mr. Chavez did, at least, get all that off his chest. Equally important, media-consuming Americans learned very little about diplomatic dealings on Iran or other pressing concerns from Darfur to Beirut. But we did learn that Mr. Chavez is quite ticked off; that Mr. Chomsky is alive, well, and writing; and that someone needs to wipe off the podium with Windex, please.

September 21, 2006

A Job Poorly Done

Filed under: Middle EastLake Wang @ 1:57 pm

One of the main excuses given by the United States and its coalition of the willing to invade Iraq was that the human rights abuses such as torture and executions committed by Saddam Hussein were so horrendous that he deserved to be overthrown and sentenced. While Saddam Hussein clearly deserves to be tried and sentenced, the United States and its allies are also in need of some serious restructuring in how they approach the occupation of Iraq. Today, Manfred Nowak, the UN’s chief anti-torture expert revealed to reporters that torture is worse in Iraq now than before the fall of Saddam. He described the situation in Iraq as “out of control” and added that abuses were clearly being committed by both insurgents and occupiers. While the United States has tried to downplay its abuses in Iraq, it is clear that it is failing terribly in its original goals of establishing a democratic and free Iraq, and has actually exacerbated the problems such as torture and poor quality of life.

Order is something that has not been observed in Iraq since the fall of Saddam. With atrocities committed by insurgents seeking a voice and coalition soldiers fearing for their lives, Iraq has gone from organized, institutionalized terror in the days of Saddam to arbitrary abuses aimed at random civilians. While the former is certainly terrible, it at the very least managed to fit itself into the lives of common Iraqis. People continued their lives, even though they were obviously aware of the atrocities that were being committed. However, the latter has turned Iraq into total chaos. Civilians are afraid to do anything beyond staying in the relative safety of their own homes, and many random acts of terror are being committed. In essence, civilians are unable to really continue on with their lives.

Now, with this new report by the UN, Iraqis cannot even have the comfort of knowing that at the very least torture has been reduced to pre-Saddam levels. Basically, not only do they fear for their lives everytime they need to do something as mundane as shopping or school, but they also have to be completely aware of the atrocities of torture and war. Reducing torture is and should have been one of the first goals of the coalition forces if the minds and hearts of the Iraqi people are to be won. Instead, coalition forces have joined in with the insurgents in taking part of horrendous acts of torture and hate.

In order to gain the respect of the international community and more importantly, the Iraqi people, the United States must be able to show that it is capable of restoring order in Iraq. Whether it is through increasing troop presence, asking for international assistance, or using diplomatic methods, the United States, as the leader of the coalition, should be open to any method of containing the violence and abuses, regardless of costs. Otherwise, the situation in Iraq will continue to worsen, and the United States will find itself trapped in a corner, incapable of restoring order in Iraq and deprived of support from the international community. Although the costs may be high (both in US lives and dollars), the US must finish what it began, for the lives of millions of Iraqis are at stake.

Wrong, Strong and Unremorseful

Filed under: EuropeKhary Francis @ 11:01 am

Hungarian Prime-minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany’s admission to years of misleading the public has spurred a set of mixed reactions among observers. Many hail the PM’s admission as an admirable display of honesty as his speech urged members of his party to stop lying to the public and face the facts about Hungary’s financial situation. Others, mainly throngs of angry Hungarian nationals, have reacted by staging sometimes violent protests outside the Hungarian parliament, calling for Mr. Gyurcsany’s resignation.

Gyurcsany’s response to these calls has been rather surprising. The prime minister has shown no remorse for his remarks. Rather, he justifies them by stating, “I was referring to the whole of the Hungarian Elite, not just ourselves.” While it may be true that taken in context of the speech to party officials in which the remarks were made, Mr. Gyurcsany’s admission to lying serves more as a rallying call for honesty, he must realize that no citizen abiding to the principles of democracy could settle with less than his resignation.

There is more to the issue than the fact Mr. Gyurcsany “lied”. As many media persons have noted since the rise of this issue, politicians mislead the public all the time. What is of issue in this case is the significance of Gyurcsany’s lies and what it means for the mandate of his prime-ministership. Gyurcsany has admitted to misleading the public in order to win the April election. Though voters may have suspected that he was lying all a long, it is his admission that makes his prime-ministerial position without mandate. Hungarian citizens cannot be expected to keep in power a leader who has admitted to stealing their vote with lies. Perhaps the former communist doesn’t realize that.

September 20, 2006

A New Kind of Victim

Filed under: TerrorismMichael Jaskiw @ 5:32 pm

Supporters of the War on Terror have never advocated that their mission would not come without cost–the logic, rather, is that the costs of the ongoing conflict are acceptable sacrifices for the gains made in terms of personal safety for American (and other) citizens.

While questioning both aspects of this trade off–the acceptability of the means and the reality of the promised benefits–is certainly popular, it has been easier to paint the picture that the results have been less than stellar. After all, we are subject to a constant barrage of violent images and stories about the victims of continued terrorism, whether in Iraq, Turkey, or elsewhere. Though certainly real, the stories of those detained, questioned, or even tortured in the name of making progress against terrorists groups are less palpable. Generally, their names, identities, and plights remain confidential. The (perhaps circular) explanation for this is that the release of such sensitive information jeopardizes the success of the fight against terrorism.

Hopefully, the story of Maher Arar will do something to change that. On September 26th, 2002, Arar–a Canadian software engineer–was detained by US officials in New York who (allegedly) acted on information from the Canadian government. Soon after, he was whisked away to Syria where he was imprisoned and tortured for nearly 10 months. Finally, this week, a report from the Canadian government has exonerated Arar of any terrorist activity and condemned the actions taken by Canadian and US authorities.

This case raises countless concerns about the methods used in the ongoing War on Terror. First, and most obviously, the US has the bad habit of getting around torture bans by outsourcing the task to other nations (in this case, Syria). Second, the practice of cooperating with other nations to apprehend terror suspects tends to obscure accountability for mistakes. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper has declined to apologize to Arar or take action against the Canadian officials involved on the grounds that his government was not in power at the time of the rendition. The Bush administration has not responded to the case yet, but it is doubtful that their answer will amount to the apology Arar is seeking.

The sentiment that animates the continued struggle against terrorism is largely fueled by images and memories of those who suffered and died from terrorist attacks. It remains to be seen how many cases similar to Arar’s it will take to temper this emotion with the realization that real people have been sacrificed in the name of the War on Terror as well. The goal is not giving up against Al Qaeda or any other enemy, but rather to reform the protocols for persecuting terrorism so that such blunders do not occur again.

September 14, 2006

Mixed Signals

Filed under: Europe, International InstitutionsMichael Jaskiw @ 8:54 pm

This week, Ukrainian Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich was in Brussels, promoting his country’s entrance into the EU. However, on this same trip, he announced that Ukraine would be indefinitely delaying its application for membership in NATO. This sort of dichotomy makes some sense on paper. The EU is a primarily economic organization, while NATO is one for defense. Perhaps Ukrainian markets are ready to be integrated into Europe, while the country’s military is not fully prepared to cooperate with NATO members.

This explanation is convenient, but also likely inaccurate. Despite Yanukovich’s posturing, the EU has made public the fact that it will not admit Ukraine anytime soon. Increased economic interaction is certainly a possibility, but full-fledged membership is at most an aspiration. NATO membership has grown unpopular in Ukraine, especially in the eastern and southern regions of the country where Yanukovich has his political base. This attitude of mistrust of NATO, a Soviet-era holdover, is sustained if not encouraged by Yanukovich’s Party of Regions.

The more likely explanation is that Yanukovich is paying lip service to the idea of integration with Europe and the West. Where the prospects for success are slim (EU membership), he advocates changes that are unlikely to occur. This phenomenon is not something unique to Ukraine’s EU push or even Ukraine itself. Many post-Soviet countries have made cosmetic changes to their image (Belarus, for instance, is technically a democracy though in practice a dictatorship) while making little actual progress since 1991 . Ukraine, after 15 years of independence, is still having problems with corruption, the establishment of an independent judiciary, and commitment to fair constitutional reform.

The EU seems reluctant–and perhaps understandably so–to take a chance on Ukraine, hoping to see the country make more progress first. Paradoxically, EU membership may be the very thing necessary to make this sort of initial progress possible. It is certainly in the interest of the EU to have stable and transparent governments in Eastern Europe. However, it will take more than hollow promises and wishful thinking to make this a reality.

September 8, 2006

Bye Bye Blair

Filed under: Europe, National PoliticsMichael Jaskiw @ 3:12 pm

This week, Tony Blair announced that he would be leaving office and relinquishing his post as Britain’s Prime Minister sometime within the next year. The climate in which Blair made his announcement was less than calm; Blair was for all practical purposes forced to make it by his own Labour Party members.

The newsworthy fact is not that Blair will eventually resign, per se–the more interesting element of this story is that Blair is under intense pressure to do so as soon as possible and to set a date for his departure. Though Blair refused to set such a date, he did (quite tactfully) acknowledge his disappointment with the Labour Party, remarking “I would have preferred to do this my own way.”

The first, and most obvious impact of the Labour Party’s turn against one of its own will be on the legacy of Tony Blair. Arguably the greatest leader in the party’s history, he will undoubtedly find his last months in office rather sour if not humiliating. Though interesting, it is a difficult and imprecise task to divine how history will remember Tony Blair.

The major policy impact will come when Blair hands over power to the Labour Party’s finance minister, Gordon Brown. Blair finds himself in his current predicament because of his close ties with President Bush and his decision to involve British forces in the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In part, he is being used as a political martyr; he is being cast off to restore the image of the Labour Party. In part, he is also being held up as a lesson to the rest of British politicians. The lesson seems to be that following the US’s lead too closely is (politically) dangerous.

This is not to say that British-US relations will take a significant turn for the worse. But, a drift away from the United States, especially on foreign policy issues, is likely to begin. This distancing may be symbolic–part of Blair’s problem was the perception (perhaps unfair, but nonetheless popular) that he was Bush’s lapdog. Much like Blair’s legacy, the exact direction and nature of this drift will be hard to divine before it happens.

September 5, 2006

The Pillar of a Country

Filed under: Africa, National PoliticsKrister Anderson @ 3:50 pm

It is not difficult to figure out the pillars of the government of Morocco. They are displayed on buildings and plastered on city walls. Allah, King, Nation—used in this sense to refer to the territory of Morocco, including the disputed Western Sahara. Often they are displayed as a pyramid, with Allah at the apex. Islam pervades all aspects of life and helps to unite the country. The call to prayer echoes across the country and the faithful pray in mosques, homes, and even train yards. King Mohammed VI holds the title of Amir al Mu’min, deeming him the religious leader of the country in addition to his political power. However, this powerful force may be the greatest challenge to one of the last remaining monarchies.
Islamic movements are not a new phenomenon in Morocco. Islamic groups have existed for over thirty years. However, they have grown recently to become powerful forces in society and strong critics of the current government. Though far from a united group, they pervade all aspects of political and social life. In the parliament, the Islamist Party of Justice and Development (PJD) is the leading opposition party and holds key parliamentary positions. Outside of the government, groups like the Justice and Spirituality Movement (JSM), a banned, but tolerated group, are taking a more prominent role in critiquing the government and promoting another vision of Moroccan society. As these groups grow, critiques of the current government are taking a more Islamic tone. The PJD works to promote Islam in the parliament, injecting a particular tone to legislative debates, but does not challenge the legitimacy of the monarchy. The JSM, however, rejects monarchy as a form of government—the daughter of its leader, Nadia Yassine, has been put on trial for publicly stating her preference for a “republican” government. It also spreads its vision of a more Islamic society through small groups across the country. Little is known about other, smaller groups, but they likely promote a more radical, even violent, form of Islam.
The cause of the growth in Islamic groups cannot be determined definitively. But social indicators, like high unemployment and literacy rates, suggest that there is cause for frustration.
With parliamentary elections in early 2007 that may increase the hold of the PJD and the constant activity of Islamic groups like the JSM, one of the key pillars of the Moroccan government may work against it as dissent is expressed increasingly in Islamic terms.

September 4, 2006

Abe and Japanese Foreign Relations

Filed under: East Asia/Pacific, National PoliticsJames Kwok @ 7:58 pm

Legend has it that when Thomas Jefferson was selected as American minister to France, he pointed out that he could only succeed his predecessor Benjamin Franklin, and not replace him. Shinzo Abe, the favored candidate in the impending leadership race in Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party, will face a similar problem as he starts his campaign to be Japanese PM. Will he live in the shadow of Koizumi’s legacy, or will he replace it with his own? Some of his policy planks make it clear that he will follow in Koizumi’s political footsteps. However, a continuation of the unabashed nationalism prevalent in Koizumi’s administration may alienate and anger Japan’s East Asian neighbors, to the detriment of Japan.

Shinzo Abe, like outgoing PM Junichiro Koizumi, has expressed his desire to maintain close and friendly relations with the United States. He has however, also remained staunchly supportive of Koizumi’s visits to the Yasukuni War Shrine, a memorial to Japanese war dead, some of whom are Class A war criminals. Koizumi’s visit on August 15 incited rioting in South Korea and widespread anger in China. A great deal of resistance has also come from businessmen based in Japan, who have become concerned that anti-Japanese sentiments may jeopardize vital economic links to their neighbours.

Additionally, Abe has also expressed his desire to revise the Japanese constitution, which only allows Japan to have a “self-defense” force, and not a full-fledged conventional military force like those of other countries. This desire for re-militarization, in addition to Abe’s support for a permanent Japanese presence in the UN Security Council, has continued to put a damper on Sino-Japanese and Korean-Japanese relations. South Korea and China both feel that Japan has not properly atoned for its military aggression against both China and Korea during World War II.

Despite Japan’s frigid relations with China and South Korea, Abe has not clearly outlined a road map for repairing relations with the two nations. In an interview with NTV, he felt that repairing relations will require initiative from Japan’s neighbors: “I would like to see China take a step forward,” Abe said. Instead, he told Liberal Democratic Party members, “Japan will follow a foreign policy…based on national interests,” also saying that “the security treaty with the US forms the center of Japan’s foreign and security policy. We must work to strengthen that stance.”

Such an alignment of interests is bound to hurt Japan. Allowing Sino-Japanese and Korean-Japanese relations to languish will sow anti-Japanese sentiment among the Koreans, as well as the Chinese, who have since 2001 refused to meet with Koizumi due to his war shrine visits. This may lead to a future dearth of collaboration between Japan and its neighbors, which is certain to be harmful to all parties involved in an economic and political sense. If elected as PM, Abe will have to enact his policies carefully, or he may end up rallying his domestic political base at the cost of alienating his neighbors.

Next Page »