Conflict in Pakistan – The war is Spreading

The past few weeks have not been good for U.S. – Pakistan relations. Already strained because of drone strikes in Northern Pakistan meant to destroy Taliban strongholds and by U.S.’s increasing closeness to Pakistan’s longtime rival, India, U.S.-Pakistan relations have deteriorated since a CIA contractor was held for questioning by the Pakistani authorities regarding the death of two Pakistani citizens. Though he was released from prison after a “blood money” deal was made with the families of the murdered civilians, complications in relations between the two nations remain. The United States has long seen Pakistan as an ally in relations regarding the Middle East but has also grown increasingly dependent on trade and communication with India, whose economy has grown substantially in the past few years.

Furthermore, the Pakistani government itself has grown increasingly radical since the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf a few months after. In the conflict surrounding those months of protest against the Pakistani government, Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto’s widower took power but lacked the authority of both his wife and his predecessor to truly bring stability to Pakistan. Indeed, in the past few years, Pakistan has become a hotbed for terrorist activity as the central government in Islamabad has lost control of the northern border with Afghanistan and the Taliban and other radical tribal groups have emerged as the dominant power in many regions in Pakistan.

Unfortunately, this radicalism is not confined to the northern border with Afghanistan. In the past few months, reform-minded members of the Pakistani parliament have been assassinated as government officials find it safer to side with the more radical elements of society than promote moderate reform. Indeed, in the past two weeks alone, the sole Christian member of Parliament in Pakistan was killed for his views on religious tolerance and reform within the country. What’s worse – Pakistan has a large nuclear arsenal, larger than its neighbor, India. And more importantly, the government seems to have little control of the nuclear materials in this arsenal.

In the coming months, the greatest threat to security from the Middle East will come, not from the nations already opposed to the United States but from one of the United States’ strongest allies – Pakistan.

Finally, some good news

This week has be bad. No one will deny that. Between the fighting in Libya, the major humanitarian crisis in Japan, and the conflict of the budget in the United States, there has been very little good news over the past few days.

But finally, there has been some good news coming out of Libya. The United Nations has resolved to impose sanctions on the Libyan government and has agreed to take any and all necessary measures to protect civilians from the forces of civil war that have torn apart the nation in recent weeks (finally) while the Libyan government itself has agreed to a cease fire against the rebels (presumable to hold off military intervention by the Western powers but still, a start).

While looking at the situation as improving may be presumptuously optimistic, we need the hope that somehow, somewhere, things will get better. Libya is just a start.

 

For more information on the cease fire and the actions threatened by the U.N, check out

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europeans-say-intervention-in-libya-possible-within-hours-of-un-vote/2011/03/17/ABSb9pl_story.html

House Hearings on American Muslims

Since 9/11/2001, the United States seems to have grown increasingly concerned with terrorism, but not all terrorism. We went to war specifically with Afghanistan and Iraq over the problem of Al Qaeda, an Islāmic militant group that organized that attacks on the Twin Towers and in the years since, have focused almost entirely on the radicalization of Muslims while ignoring the simple fact that terror is, and never was limited to jihadists around the world.

Even today, almost 10 years after 9/11, the United States government seems to focus their efforts entirely on Muslims, regardless of the fact that in the years since, substantial proof has been offered that terrorism is not the hallmark of a single faith or ethnic group but that the problem is broader and more deeply ingrained in the political turmoil around the world (whether in Israel, Pakistan, or Somalia) and the fight for autonomy in a modern era (Look at Israel again but also at the IRA in Northern Ireland and the rebels in Chechnya), not just religious war and conflict. Yet, despite this proof, the House of Representative held hearings last week in regards to the radicalization of Muslims in America. Peter King, head of the House Homeland Security Committee called these hearings simply to discuss how Mosques in America were becoming increasingly radical and, more importantly, hotbeds for recruitment into jihadist movements, especially Al Qaeda, playing on fears of attacks from within. Ironically enough, Peter King himself has had ties to the Irish Republican Army in the past, a group of militants recognized as a terrorist organization by several nations, the United States included.

These hearings have been labeled as ‘un-American’ and a ‘witch hunt’ against all Muslims as many see it as condemning an entire population for the actions of a few radical members. Indeed, King finds it easier to label an entire faith as violent and bloodthirsty rather than consider the individual cases of homegrown terrorism and consider the reasons for each. What he fails to realize is simply that these attacks against all American Muslims are what drive them to radicalism in the first place. Many who were born and raised in the United States now find themselves labeled as the enemy or worse, as a terrorist and so, in their frustration and anger, turn to violence and radicalism to help cope with the alienation. These hearings simply prove Al Qaeda correct – that America hates Islam – and are giving them the ammunition they need to win the ideological war launched at the start of the War on Terror.

What’s worse, this ideological war seems to have the same danger as these hearings – of labeling an entire population based on the views of the very few. Al Qaeda is unlikely to consider Melvin  Bledsoe’s testimony that radicalization is rare in American mosques and that what happened to his son is the exception, not the rule. Nor are they likely to pay attention to the words of Representatives Keith Ellison or  Jackie Speier, both of whom have defended Muslims in America and have attacked these hearings as being extremely biased.

The problem with ideological wars is that in a country as diverse as the United States, they are hard to win, simply because the radical opinions of the few tend to get the media attention and more importantly, tend to be the only ideas heard by many groups already prejudiced against the United States around the world.

 

For more information:

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE7280VB20110310

In Defense of Collective Bargaining in Wisconsin

So while this is slightly dated compared to the earthquake in Japan and the civil war in Libya, it is still important to remember that teachers and other federal employees have lost their collective bargaining rights in Wisconsin. As lawmakers around the country are looking to cut the deficit and balance the budged as debt continues to rise, many are cutting spending in any way they know how and unions are bearing the brunt of it. This is not to say the unions are always right; indeed, since their legalization in the late 1800s, unions have become more and more powerful and often have rivaled corporations in abuse of power and in ignoring workers’ rights. However, they are still an part of a modern industrialized society. They offer workers of any profession the ability to come together and fight for changes they want to see in the workplace and collective bargaining is the first step. It is a fundamental right of workers to come together to fight for their rights and privileges.

Let’s put it this way, if two workers went in to bargain for higher pay, greater benefits, or any such thing independently, any self-respecting corporation would pit them against each other to get both to settle for less. However, if they went in together, both have a better chance of getting a better deal. While this scenario is in regards to a private corporation, the idea carries over to those employed by the government.

Now this is not saying that unions are always right, but in Wisconsin, when the assembly had been in deadlock for so long, this move is a blow not only to unions but to workers everywhere, especially since they had agreed to the government’s demands for pay cuts and slashes in benefits already. What happened in Wisconsin is certainly a step back for the entire country in regards to workers rights.

Japanese Earthquake

The news coming from Japan today are horrific with 1000 presumed dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12709791

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698

http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0311/tsunami.html

http://www.france24.com/en/20110311-live-coverage-earthquake-japan

 

Since the Japanese Earthquake struck almost a week ago, there has been little good news coming from Japan. Thanks to a damaged nuclear power plant and explosions in four reactors, the situation has gone from bad to worse. There isn’t much to say regarding this catastrophe. All we can do is wait, watch, and hope. We encourage everyone to get involved in some way, find some way to help. There are several great organizations out there that are doing great work to help the people of Japan and every little bit counts.

Problems spread – Nigeria bombed

The problems of international terrorism certainly has been the focal point of American foreign policy since 9/11. But other nations too find that intense partisanship and the emergence of extremist groups have threatened not only their security but the very foundations of their government.

In Nigeria, a bomb exploded near a rally in support of the ruling party, an unfortunate incident that highlights the level of political discord and discontent in the nation. Polarized by religious and tribal disputes, Nigeria has faced problems in the past. But now, especially in light of recent protests in the Middle East and Northern Africa, bombers and political activists who have no qualms of harming innocent people are becoming more active. And now, just a few months shy of the general election, killings for political reasons have become the norm, rather than the exception in this Central African state.

But as always, the international community as a whole seems blind the problems Nigeria is facing. The oil rich nation is exploited for its resources and left alone to deal with political turmoil and the dangers of building a democracy in a failing state. Once again, nations choose to act in their best interests and not get involved in an issue so complex as raising Nigeria from the ashes of corruption and extremism.

Here’s what Al Jazeera had to say on the matter:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/2011331611343895.html

Chaos in Libya Continues

Perhaps no one is surprised that the chaos in Libya has escalated to the point where the nation looks to be on the brink of a civil war. The stage has been set from the beginning. The characters – an autocratic dictator obsessed with maintaining power, an army loyal to him, rival factions each vying to fill the power vacuum, and of course, the idealistic student protesters martyred for their dreams of a better future. Perhaps the situation in the Middle East and in Libya in particular is proof of the old saying, “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

But what has been happening also shows a powerful trend in world politics today. Some of the world’s most corrupt in autocratic governments are facing, for the first time, true challenges from within. They are facing the very kind of revolution that Marx initially wrote about – one of the people rising up against an autocratic regime that has suppressed them for too long.

Yet revolt in Libya faces a kind of violence not seen anywhere else in recent weeks. Indeed, Gaddafi has ordered the army to bomb his own people and the army is accommodating. They remain firmly under his control, unlike in Egypt where the army turned on the government itself. Perhaps then, democracy has a better chance of surviving in Egypt, a better chance of taking root through peaceful protest. In Libya, what began as a movement of solidarity against Gaddafi is escalating very quickly to what seems to be a civil war. Libyan leaders are choosing sides and the west, unsure of who will emerge victorious, sit back and do nothing to protect the hundreds who are killed daily by a leader who has shown time and time again that he will do anything to stay in power.

For now, all the people of Libya can do is wait and hope and all families can do is mourn for those who dared to dream of a better future.

While Al Jazeera had this to say about the situation in Libya:

http://english.aljazeera.net/video/africa/2011/03/2011336535465973.html

The New York Times took a different approach, highlighting what little the international community has done in recent days to show their support for the protesters

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/world/africa/04hague.html?_r=1&ref=world

Landmark Decision by the United States Supreme Court

Over the past few months, the United States Supreme Court has been deliberating a case that has polarized the American populace because it calls into question one of the fundamental rights of the individual – the right to freedom of expression. But yesterday, the Supreme Court almost unanimously found in favor of the Phelps family and the Westboro Baptist Church in what was a 8 to 1 decision protecting free speech in all public forums, including at military funerals.

The background of the case is simple enough. The Westboro Baptist Church, a radical Church of about 50 people mostly from the Phelps family, have been protesting military funerals not only as a way to spread their hateful message against America, the military, and homosexuals. At one such funeral, the father of the deceased soldier, Matthew Snyder, sued the Phelps family for tort liability in other words, for the intentional infliction of emotional distress on a family deep in mourning for the loss of their son. Over the next few years, the case made its way up through several levels and the problems of free speech, especially the question of whether or not funerals of soldiers killed in the line of duty should be protected and whether the rights of the family should be held above the rights of the individual to peacefully protest as long as that individual follows the city code.

The oral arguments for the case were heard in October by the United States Supreme Court and on March 2, the court released its decision in favor of the Phelps family. Now, while this case has sparked strong sentiment across the United States – most people are quite vocal about their hatred and condemnation of the WBC’s message and in their support for and solidarity with the families of the deceased – the Supreme Court has used this case as a strong statement about the power of the First Amendment.

This case has provided protection for all people looking to protest in a public forum, regardless of events taking place around them as long as they follow the time, place and manner restrictions placed by the city governments. The court has upheld the rights of the people not only to peaceably assemble but also to speak their mind in a political forum. And today, the United States Supreme Court has once again defended the right we hold most dear in a representative government – that of free expression. Indeed, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said “free speech only matters when it protects the speech we hate to hear.”

Authoritarianism at its best

The conflict in the Middle East makes everyone nervous. The United States has failed to take a distinctive stance on what’s going on while other nations don’t seem to want to support either side. But one nation has gone further than others. In a recent report by the Washington Post, it is reveled that China, in an attempt to control its population and ensure that similar unrest doesn’t explode on its territory, has extended government control of the media. Fearful of its authority, the Chinese government has ensured that certain terms and ideas cannot be searched for on the internet. The Chinese government has taken several steps to ensure that websites that might, in some way, be inflammatory or incite rebellion have now been blocked.

Unfortunately for China, this is how all the rebellions in the Middle East began – with the banning of social media and internet communications. Only time will tell if the rebellion will spread to China and how the Chinese government will use this, whether as defense of its autocratic ways or to make China more open to outside influences.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/25/AR2011022502151.html

Historic Month for Freedom

February of 2011 truly has been a historic month for freedom. From the revolution that removed a dictator from power in Egypt to the riots that swept the Middle East and Northern Africa, across the globe, the youth are rising to fight for peace, democracy, and equal justice under law. And the United States is no different.

Equal justice under law. It’s an interesting idea. It is the phrase that adorns the Supreme Court Building in Washington D.C. and is one which most regard as the standard for judging rule of law in any nation. Today, in the United States, rule of law – especially in the idea of equal justice for all and more importantly, the separation of Church and State – has been upheld.

Certainly it is no Jasmine Revolution. The Justice Department’s declaration that it will not defend bans of same-sex marriage in federal courts does not mark the fall of a dictator or the rise of students against an autocratic regime. Most likely, in nations other than the United States, it’ll be lost amidst the chaos that has swept Libya and Bahrain in recent days. Most likely, not much will change.

But this decision is symbolic for equal rights across the country. In a nation where gay marriage has long been one of the most contested issues in a political forum, one so polarized that it has almost become taboo, the Obama Administration has taken a bold step forward in the right direction towards upholding the immortal words above the Supreme Court Building. The Obama administration and the Justice Department have reversed the tradition of marriage allowed by the state to solely be a union between a man and a woman, understanding the importance of upholding an individual’s right to marry and live a life he or she sees fit. After all, love is love and it is the duty of the United States government to protect the rights of the individual. It is the duty of the United States government to live up to its standard not only of equal rights for everyone but for true equal justice under law.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/23/AR2011022303428.html?hpid=topnews