The U.S. has stationed military personnel in Guantanamo, Cuba for about a century. In recent years, the U.S. has used part of the land it leased from Cuba to hold detainees suspected of links to terrorism. The prison should be closed and U.S. military personnel should leave the island of Cuba.
The United States Supreme Court decided that inmates in Guantanamo Bay prison should be awarded a trial. This decision came after some detainees had been held in the prison for years without so much as being charged with any crime. While detaining prisoners for an indeterminate amount of time is certainly unconstitutional, the more pressing issue is its inhumanity. Detainees face harsh conditions and are forced to endure humiliating acts, despite the lack of a conviction on their records.
The presence of the prison is one of the most egregious acts committed by the United States in the eyes of the Muslim world during its war on terror. It should be considered the same in the annals of the nation's history. It goes against every ideal the U.S. holds as a nation. If these people are guilty, they should be punished, but they should first be tried. If they are innocent, we must feel an immeasurable amount of shame in our horrific hypocrisy.
While the existence of the prison fans the flames of anti-Americanism in the world, the presence of U.S. military on the shores of Cuba serves to keep tensions high between the two neighboring nations. U.S. - Cuba relations have been strained since Castro's rise to power in 1959. With the end of the Cold War, there is no justification to keep tensions at this level. This month, Russia has moved military equipment to Cuba in an effort to intimidate the U.S. Russia was able to do so because the United States never worked to reconcile the divisions that defined the Cold War era with regards to Cuba. Whether in terms of geo-political strategy or a humanitarian concern for the people of Cuba, it makes sense to engage with the regime in a constructive manner, as opposed to push the leadership towards America's enemies and the Cuban people further into isolation.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Monday, December 22, 2008
U.S. Troops in South Korea
Since the Korean War, fought from 1950-1953, the U.S. has had troops stationed in South Korea. Those troops should be brought home immediately.
As of now, the U.S. has 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea. That is down from 37,000 in 2000, but it is still entirely too many. The justifications to leave the troops there include the fact that the war between North and South Korea is technically not over. In addition, North Korea had been deemed a state sponsor of terror before it was removed from the list earlier this year. The main concern was North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons.
The U.S. troops serve no real purpose in South Korea except to increase the tension between the two hostile nations. There has been an armistice in place since the end of the war in 1953. While the war is technically not over, in reality, though it is a tense situation, the fighting ceased over 50 years ago. There is no real threat of North Korea invading its southern rival, largely because South Korea's military prowess is greater than that of the extremely poor North. Despite the North having nuclear weapons, there is no real threat of their use. They are simply utilized as a tool by North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-Il, in order to extract aid from wealthy nations.
The continued presence of U.S. troops in South Korea is a humiliating reality to the sovereign nation. South Korea is a so-called developed nation, only furthering the shame. In 2002, two thirteen year old South Korean girls were run over by an American tank. This year, South Koreans flocked the streets in protest of a trade deal regarding U.S. beef made by President Lee Myung-Bak. The citizens felt the deal was unfair in favor of the United States. These are examples of incidents that reinforce South Korea's submissive status in its relationship with the U.S., which is epitomized by the presence of U.S. troops on South Korean soil.
The troops must come home in order to restore the United States' relationship with South Korea and to take an essential step towards lessening the tension in the region.
As of now, the U.S. has 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea. That is down from 37,000 in 2000, but it is still entirely too many. The justifications to leave the troops there include the fact that the war between North and South Korea is technically not over. In addition, North Korea had been deemed a state sponsor of terror before it was removed from the list earlier this year. The main concern was North Korea's possession of nuclear weapons.
The U.S. troops serve no real purpose in South Korea except to increase the tension between the two hostile nations. There has been an armistice in place since the end of the war in 1953. While the war is technically not over, in reality, though it is a tense situation, the fighting ceased over 50 years ago. There is no real threat of North Korea invading its southern rival, largely because South Korea's military prowess is greater than that of the extremely poor North. Despite the North having nuclear weapons, there is no real threat of their use. They are simply utilized as a tool by North Korea's leader, Kim Jong-Il, in order to extract aid from wealthy nations.
The continued presence of U.S. troops in South Korea is a humiliating reality to the sovereign nation. South Korea is a so-called developed nation, only furthering the shame. In 2002, two thirteen year old South Korean girls were run over by an American tank. This year, South Koreans flocked the streets in protest of a trade deal regarding U.S. beef made by President Lee Myung-Bak. The citizens felt the deal was unfair in favor of the United States. These are examples of incidents that reinforce South Korea's submissive status in its relationship with the U.S., which is epitomized by the presence of U.S. troops on South Korean soil.
The troops must come home in order to restore the United States' relationship with South Korea and to take an essential step towards lessening the tension in the region.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Come Home from the Mountains
The U.S. should pull all of its soldiers out of Afghanistan immediately. There is no achievable goal and thus, no logical reason to keep U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The region has not been conquered by any outside forces for thousands of years. More importantly, it will not be conquered in the near future.
As the U.S. stays in Afghanistan, the Taliban continues to be relevant. This is a group that feeds on warfare. They grew during the civil war of the 1990s, but once they controlled most of the country by the turn of the millennium, they kept fighting. The Taliban proved ineffective at governing the country and needed to continue the war in order to maintain its power. When they first came onto the scene in the mid-1990s, Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, backed the Taliban because they were seen as the best hope to bring about peace. The country soon learned that the Taliban desired anything but peace and many turned their backs on the collective. Warfare sustains the Taliban.
Afghanistan has been overwrought with warlords over the last couple of decades. During the initial invasion the U.S. allied itself with the warlords, particularly those belonging to the loose alliance known as the Northern Alliance. This strategy proved disastrous for the people of Afghanistan because it empowered the warlords, who had made their livings off of plundering and purging the populace. Much as is the case with the Taliban, war behooves the warlords because it keeps them important and powerful.
While the removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan will not create an immediate peace within the country, it is the first step. The U.S. forces have no realistic broad aims that can be accomplished. The country will not fall in line behind President Hamid Karzai simply because the American military attempts to make it happen. Enemies of the U.S. are now often seen as protagonists. If U.S. troops are taken out of Afghanistan, the Taliban loses credibility and U.S. soldiers would no longer needlessly be in harm’s way. Many Afghans would not support the Taliban or al Qaeda but for the two organizations’ anti-Americanism. If there is no American military within Afghanistan to despise, the tide may very well turn against the Taliban and any al Qaeda members left within the Afghan borders.
As the U.S. stays in Afghanistan, the Taliban continues to be relevant. This is a group that feeds on warfare. They grew during the civil war of the 1990s, but once they controlled most of the country by the turn of the millennium, they kept fighting. The Taliban proved ineffective at governing the country and needed to continue the war in order to maintain its power. When they first came onto the scene in the mid-1990s, Afghans, particularly Pashtuns, backed the Taliban because they were seen as the best hope to bring about peace. The country soon learned that the Taliban desired anything but peace and many turned their backs on the collective. Warfare sustains the Taliban.
Afghanistan has been overwrought with warlords over the last couple of decades. During the initial invasion the U.S. allied itself with the warlords, particularly those belonging to the loose alliance known as the Northern Alliance. This strategy proved disastrous for the people of Afghanistan because it empowered the warlords, who had made their livings off of plundering and purging the populace. Much as is the case with the Taliban, war behooves the warlords because it keeps them important and powerful.
While the removal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan will not create an immediate peace within the country, it is the first step. The U.S. forces have no realistic broad aims that can be accomplished. The country will not fall in line behind President Hamid Karzai simply because the American military attempts to make it happen. Enemies of the U.S. are now often seen as protagonists. If U.S. troops are taken out of Afghanistan, the Taliban loses credibility and U.S. soldiers would no longer needlessly be in harm’s way. Many Afghans would not support the Taliban or al Qaeda but for the two organizations’ anti-Americanism. If there is no American military within Afghanistan to despise, the tide may very well turn against the Taliban and any al Qaeda members left within the Afghan borders.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Multi-Party Democracy in Zambia
Frederick Chiluba, the President of Zambia from 1991-2001, espoused the benefits of multi-party democracy. As the leader of a prominent trade union, ZCTU, Chiluba advocated for an end to President Kenneth Kaunda's one-party state.
In writing about Zambia's quest for multi-party democracy, Chiluba associates the newly-formed Third Republic, of which Chiluba oversaw, to the First Republic, which denotes the era directly following independence until 1972. He sees many similarities between the Second Republic, the period from 1972-1991 when Zambia had a one-party government, and the colonial period. This is in a bid to legitimize his rule, by tying it back to the perceived glory days of the nation, following the abolition of colonial rule. At the same time, by drawing the link between the colonial period and Kaunda's autocratic rule, Chiluba is de-legitimizing Kaunda and his party, UNIP. By glorifying the memory of the First Republic, Chiluba is also artfully acknowledging the importance of Kaunda, who was president at that time as well, while simultaneously denouncing the father of the nation's lingering hold onto power.
To Chiluba, multi-party democracy is the most important entity that a country can possess, although he mentions that the concept tends to have different forms in different cultural contexts. Chiluba believes that multi-party democracy enables the best out of government because it holds office holders accountable for their actions to the people of their constituency. However, Chiluba's actions show that the blanket concept of multi-party democracy is not enough to thwart corruption.
Chiluba went to trial for embezzling millions of dollars. He also attempted to run for a third term as president despite the fact that it was the movement he led which instituted a constitutionally-decreed two-term limit. It is quite possible that his narrow view of multi-party democracy actually aided these actions. He could have seen himself only accountable to the people of Zambia and not to the constitution or even to his basic sense of morality. Chiluba shows that multi-party democracy might very well produce an effective system of government, but it certainly does not ensure one by itself.
In writing about Zambia's quest for multi-party democracy, Chiluba associates the newly-formed Third Republic, of which Chiluba oversaw, to the First Republic, which denotes the era directly following independence until 1972. He sees many similarities between the Second Republic, the period from 1972-1991 when Zambia had a one-party government, and the colonial period. This is in a bid to legitimize his rule, by tying it back to the perceived glory days of the nation, following the abolition of colonial rule. At the same time, by drawing the link between the colonial period and Kaunda's autocratic rule, Chiluba is de-legitimizing Kaunda and his party, UNIP. By glorifying the memory of the First Republic, Chiluba is also artfully acknowledging the importance of Kaunda, who was president at that time as well, while simultaneously denouncing the father of the nation's lingering hold onto power.
To Chiluba, multi-party democracy is the most important entity that a country can possess, although he mentions that the concept tends to have different forms in different cultural contexts. Chiluba believes that multi-party democracy enables the best out of government because it holds office holders accountable for their actions to the people of their constituency. However, Chiluba's actions show that the blanket concept of multi-party democracy is not enough to thwart corruption.
Chiluba went to trial for embezzling millions of dollars. He also attempted to run for a third term as president despite the fact that it was the movement he led which instituted a constitutionally-decreed two-term limit. It is quite possible that his narrow view of multi-party democracy actually aided these actions. He could have seen himself only accountable to the people of Zambia and not to the constitution or even to his basic sense of morality. Chiluba shows that multi-party democracy might very well produce an effective system of government, but it certainly does not ensure one by itself.
Monday, December 8, 2008
Obama Proposes a Residual Force in Iraq
President-elect Barack Obama ran for the highest office in the U.S. on a platform of ending the war in Iraq by withdrawing the troops. On Meet the Press yesterday, Obama claimed that he now advocates a draw down of U.S. soldiers from Iraq, leaving a residual force of 35,000-50,000 troops to protect American civilians still stationed in the country.
While Obama has already changed his plan for Iraq, his new plan is much less practical. Leaving a residual force in Iraq is a more dangerous plan than adding troops or withdrawing them all. This will serve to keep an American military occupation of Iraq while failing to stabilize the country. The residual force is one third the number of troops used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Leaving that many troops in the country is nothing short of an occupation.
There should not be any U.S. troops or civilians in Iraq. The U.S. invaded the country. America's continued presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency. The insurgency is not upset because the U.S. has too many troops in Iraq, they are distraught because the U.S. has any troops there in the first place. The war did not fail because the U.S. had too many troops during the invasion; it failed because the U.S. invaded in the first place. The subsequent reconstruction of Iraq did not fail because the U.S. has had too many troops in the country; it has failed because the presence of American troops is responsible for the insurgency's existence. These civilians that this residual force is supposed to protect will include the same corrupt corporations that have stolen tax payer money since the outset of the war.
For the sake of Iraq's stabilization and future ethno-sectarian reconciliation, the U.S. must withdraw all U.S. troops and civilians from Iraq. Obama needs to keep his campaign promises.
While Obama has already changed his plan for Iraq, his new plan is much less practical. Leaving a residual force in Iraq is a more dangerous plan than adding troops or withdrawing them all. This will serve to keep an American military occupation of Iraq while failing to stabilize the country. The residual force is one third the number of troops used in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Leaving that many troops in the country is nothing short of an occupation.
There should not be any U.S. troops or civilians in Iraq. The U.S. invaded the country. America's continued presence in Iraq fuels the insurgency. The insurgency is not upset because the U.S. has too many troops in Iraq, they are distraught because the U.S. has any troops there in the first place. The war did not fail because the U.S. had too many troops during the invasion; it failed because the U.S. invaded in the first place. The subsequent reconstruction of Iraq did not fail because the U.S. has had too many troops in the country; it has failed because the presence of American troops is responsible for the insurgency's existence. These civilians that this residual force is supposed to protect will include the same corrupt corporations that have stolen tax payer money since the outset of the war.
For the sake of Iraq's stabilization and future ethno-sectarian reconciliation, the U.S. must withdraw all U.S. troops and civilians from Iraq. Obama needs to keep his campaign promises.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
