What can be said about the escalating disaster that has become the Gaza Strip? Their fellow Palestinians in the West Bank will not speak with them, the international community has shunned them, and now they have literally been left in the dark.
One could argue that forty years of military occupation has been collective punishment enough for resistance against Israel, but the current situation can be classified as simply barbaric. The Qassam rocks, a blatant violation of international law, both atrocious and extremely detrimental to the peace process have actually done very little to affect the lives of most Israelis. Since Israeli retaliation has begun there have been hundreds of deaths of Gazans, including that of several children, as well as a full-blown humanitarian crisis. Bread lines, hospital failures, and absolutely no means of economic discourse have only made the situation worse for Palestinians, Israelis, and the global community at large. Now Egypt is being unwillingly dragged into the conflict with thousands of Gazans fleeing across the border in desperate need of humanitarian supplies.
This unrelenting cycle of despair is enough to break down even the greatest optimists. Threats to security cause occupation and occupation causes terrorism. Greater isolation of Gaza results in greater resistance from militants. At this point Israel has no incentive to ever withdraw from the West Bank considering that their “withdrawal” from Gaza has resulted in such chaos. The collective punishment of the people of Gaza is only collectively punishing the international community and the entire peace process.
As an American of South Asian descent, dynastic politics at the highest levels of government is something I’ve grown quite accustomed to. As far as I can remember, a Bush or a Clinton has sat at the top of American politics. In India, the Nehru/Gandhi family has dominated, interrupted only a few times since independence. And even with its history of military leaders and democratic turmoil, the trend towards dynasty has emerged in Pakistan as well.
Under the pretense of stability, the late Benazir Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) quickly named the slain leader’s 19-year-old son Bilawal its new chairman. Bhutto had named her husband Asif Ali Zardari heir to the chairmanship in her will, a strange choice considering the time Zardari spent in jail on charges of corruption and blackmail (which, in fairness, he claimed were politically motivated). However, Zardari insisted on giving the official title to his son. This was an even stranger choice in that Zardari will continue to run the PPP’s day-to-day affairs and that Bilawal currently has no experience, no qualifications, and no intention of running the party before he graduates from Oxford.
All of this left the outside observer only one logical conclusion: Bilawal was appointed only to ensure the longevity of the Bhutto family’s hold on the PPP. Since the PPP is the only party to consistently mount opposition to Pervez Musharraf and realistically have a chance at beating him in a fair election, the Bhutto family’s hold on the PPP is by extension a hold on Pakistan’s democratic politics. Needless to say, Bilawal’s appointment smacked of severe nepotism.
That’s why it’s refreshing to see pieces such as this one, which features an interview with a politically-oriented Bhutto who, ironically enough, recognizes the harm that cronyism can do to the democratic character of a nation. Fatima Bhutto, Benazir’s 24-year-old niece, is currently an opinion columnist and critic of the Musharraf regime and is cutting her teeth in print and in efforts to enfranchise Paksitan’s masses before turning to politics. This Bhutto sounds like she wants to earn her way to a leadership role – and if that’s true, then who cares that she is part of a powerful political family? Fatima demonstrates that there is nothing wrong with dynastic politics per se if it means that earnest and competent individuals come to power. Pakistan can only hope that Zardari and Bilawal won’t demonstrate everything that is wrong with keeping things in the family.
The Lisbon ‘Treaty’, the replacement for the EU Constitution shot down by France and the Netherlands in 2005, has ‘made news’ again today when UK MPs reported that parts of it were nearly identical to the EU Constitution. Well, yes. Didn’t we know that already? One of the ‘best’ changes—from its architects’ perspective—made to the Constitution to make it into the Treaty that’s being signed is that it’s become non-constitutional. So there’s no need for referendums, which were the Constitution’s downfall. Instead, the individual member state’s governments can sign the Treaty.
Having been promised a vote on the Constitution, at least in the UK, and then being refused a vote on the ‘Treaty’ sticks in one’s throat a little because there is an overwhelming feeling of being cheated. Even the UK’s Parliament is feeling a little put out that it wasn’t consulted more on the drafting of the Treaty. Hence, ratification of the Treaty began in the UK Parliament today with Gordon Brown expecting a rough ride amidst concerns about the UK’s ‘get-out clauses’ for things such as asylum laws. There is a legally binding protocol saying that no court can rule that the “laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action” of the UK are inconsistent with the principles in the charter, but many people question whether this will really stand firm and prevent EU interference in UK affairs, even though Britain has negotiated the right to pick and choose which legislations to sign up to.
But surely, then, even this state of compromise is a problem. One or Europe’s biggest troubles is that each member state wants to remain different and specially-treated somehow. There’s no option for unity while there are still disparities in the community. And that’s why we can’t have a ‘constitution’: because voters would have to choose, and many ‘European’ voters are more patriotic than… well, continent-otic? So politicians are having to get together to negotiate a compromise that isn’t quite constitutional, but also sort of is.
At least Ireland has promised a referendum to its voters.
The escalating violence in Kenya is a serious cause for concern especially considering that Kenya used to be a pillar of stability in this rather unstable region. The recent elections, which were allegedly corrupt, as speculated by international commentators as well as the opposition party, left the incumbent regime in power but developed a new surge in ethnic violence in Kenya. Fighting between the groups in the last several weeks have alarmed the international community and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan was among the first volunteers to sign up for mediating this delicate conflict.
The nature of the situation lends reason to believe that the ethnic tensions in Kenya could escalate to the levels of the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, in which the UN devastatingly failed to make any contributions in preventing the horrific events that ensued. Is the UN trying to redeem itself by rapidly getting on board to help in Kenya? Well, if so, they better have a plan this time, because history repeating itself is NOT an option.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez scored a huge public relations victory over the past few days by securing the freedom of two high-profile hostages held by the Farc rebels. He and Colombian President Uribe have been butting heads throughout the whole process, causing frequent stalls and setbacks.
When the first hand-off scheduled for December 31 failed miserable due to accusations on the part of the rebels against President Uribe, the world seemed to believe Chavez had once again over-stepped his bounds, continuing his seemingly ill-planned attempt to win influence in South America. Chavez has been vilified by the United States government and news agencies have painted him as an over aggressive, unwieldy leader, most memorably by having been told by the King of Spain to “Shut up”. But his latest success might force leaders to recognize that while often overzealous, Chavez still does retain a huge amount of sway in his region.
Chavez’s socialist approach to government in Venezuela and his highly publicized alliance with Cuban leaders may not resonate well in the overly capitalistic West, but his promise of spreading wealth and well-being to the devastated regions around him are appealing to many in the South. The respect he has garnered is evident by the Farc’s willingness to negotiate with him and their delayed release that was motivated because they wanted to keep him as a part of the process. We are forced to remember that just because a leader may not conduct himself with the stately air we typically ascribe to diplomacy, does not mean he is ineffective. Chavez cannot be ignored. Perhaps more interesting to the debate and his success with the rebels was his call for government’s to take them off their lists of terrorist groups. As major powers, and Colombia, have continually refused to negotiate with these groups, they have made little success in making the groups more malleable to their demands. In fact, the policy of absolute exclusion and derision has done more to alienate the groups and radicalize them than it has to change their tactics. An open and inclusionary approach with the attempt to understand the group’s political aims as led by Chavez, however, was strikingly successful. While it may seem the evidence points in this direction for foreign relations, I think it would be vain to hope major powers will change their approaches.
A startling new report by the New York Times about Iraq war veterans and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is taking the nation by storm and forcing us to critically re-examine a forgotten aspect of this war.
The soldiers, national heroes, have been bravely fighting the war we were never sure we wanted for the last five years. While the botched attempts of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” have left us all disappointed and ashamed with our nation, the soldiers whose lives have been shattered far more by this war than we have cared to notice are silently screaming for help.
The Times report revealed over 121 discovered cases of Iraq War veterans who were involved in some form of homicide or suicide since returning from their military service. The vast majority of these men and women had no criminal record or history of violence prior to their offenses after returning from the war. Psychologists determined their rage and depression stems from post-traumatic stress disorder, and that many soldiers are having an extremely difficult time dealing with their experiences in Iraq. Perhaps the most interesting component of the analysis is that this seems to be the case with Iraqi War veterans far more than the veterans of any other recent American war studied. Death and killing are part of the horrific sights of almost any war so why is PTSD plaguing the Iraq veterans so significantly? Evidence suggests that when the killing seems unjustified to a soldier in combat the psychological distress is far more traumatic. In addition chaotic command along with reckless mistakes has led to the death of many innocent civilians in Iraq and that reality is too much for some soldiers to bear. Consumed by guilt and ravished with depression some veterans are unable to continue their regular lives back in the States.
The United States Military is not unique to this kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. A new company in Israel sprang up last year offering insurance to parents of IDF soldiers who “fell off the deep end” after their mandatory military service was completed. The company offers treatment and rehabilitation to these soldiers and hopes to expand their services to other nations. While its not surprising that this kind of experience can lead to a mental disorder its horrifying to see that in the US the soldiers are going untreated and are more likely to manifest their emotions in the form of rage. Perhaps its time to put aside our politics and focus on the destroyed lives of those involved in this war.
As noted in ‘Really Re-elected?’ Mikhail Saakashvili officially, technically won the elections in Georgia with 53% of the vote, besting his opponent, Levan Gachechiladze, who received less than half of that. But rallies in Georgia from opposition supporters show that it’s difficult to ever really win an election in the situation Saakashvili is in. Whether they’re true or not, allegations of fraud and poll-rigging are bound to fly. Which means that Saakashvili isn’t just the target of angry opposition in Georgia – Western countries that support the vote and want to let it stand (if only to maintain Georgia’s stability), are also on that list. It really is just getting hard to win around here. And not just for Saakashvili. The US has to support democratic elections: that’s is default stance. It is not their responsibility to conduct an investigation into whether or not the elections were ‘really’ democratic. That’s what the election commission and the courts are for. And then the US (and everyone else, t00) is supposed to support their decision. If we didn’t and sent in people to ‘ensure’ democracy, there’d be accusations of meddling with the questions over whether or not the elections were really democratic. Like there were questions during the Iraq election about whether or not the US’s presence was good or bad. Either way, there would have been criticism, just as either way, this Georgian election was going to come under fire.
I’m sure many people recall the great push for young people to be more involved in the electoral process of the 2004 presidential campaign. Slogans such as “Vote or Die” splashed across MTV and promoted by artists such as ‘P. Diddy’ among other celebrities aimed at getting the new generation of voters to the polls. While the campaigns generated much buzz a lot of their efforts fell upon deaf ears and the voter turnout was less than expected. Thus a Republican was re-elected into office and many of the former issues, which plagued our nation continued to do so.
This time around things seem to be taking a significantly different turn. The caucuses in Iowa produced record-highs in voter turnout and New Hampshire is projected to do the same. While perhaps not nearly as trendy as it was in 2004, citizens particularly young people are becoming more involved and I think its because we are as ready as ever for change and are realizing that we can actually make a difference. The media-hype couldn’t force us to care and it was somewhat condescending that they attempted to do so; rather the candidates are really starting to appeal to the younger generation with the promise of change and talk of hope for the future.
Al Gore and other celebrities were successful in making caring about the environment the “cool” and trendy thing to do because individuals really felt like their actions could make a difference. While it’s terribly disheartening to think that celebrities and trends are so influential in persuading young minds to care it’s about time that they become involved in the push for change. The young generation today has been a huge embarrassment for society when compared to the college students of the 1960s and 1970s who were so active on the political scene. The time is now, and if the polls are any indication we are starting to rise to the challenge.
Georgia’s president has been re-elected, preliminary reports are suggesting, after a snap poll in which he has won around 52% of the votes, just narrowly avoiding a second-round vote:
This vote was supposed to legitimise his continuing as president by proving his democratic credentials in the face of accusations about his leadership lapsing into the authoritarianism he once opposed, but opinion still seems divided about the legitimacy of his leadership, both inside Georgia, and without.
As we might expect, opposition leaders are calling for a second-round vote, claiming this round to have been fixed, but it does seem that this was a legitimate election win for Mikhail Saakashvili. However, enough people clamouring about fraud will always cause concern. The head of the monitoring group from the Council of Europe has urged other political leaders (both in and out of Georgia) to respect the verdict “for the stability of Georgia.” The US has already waded in to urge opposition leaders in Georgia to accept Saakashvili’s win, but Russia has taken the opposite stance. And this is really the point. Even with 52% of the votes won legitimately, Saakashvili’s position is hardly rock-solid. Even if this first round ends the election, the stability of Georgia may be sadly short-lived.
