The HarazQuack Times - International Affairs Edition

The Origins of the Tutsi and the Hutu

2011-07-18T22:29:00.004-04:00

Rwandan history is construed based on your political bent. If you are pro-Hutu, you have one dispensation and if you are pro-Tutsi, you have another. The divisions have largely to do with whether Hutu and Tutsi signify two distinct peoples and, relatedly, if the Tutsi are a foreign people.

The pro-Tutsi line of reasoning sees no distinction between Hutu and Tutsi. This division was created by the Belgian colonists based on social class. Rich people were designated Tutsi, while poor were deemed Hutu.

The pro-Hutu stance is that the Tutsi arrived to the region from elsewhere. This argument follows the colonial racialization of Hutu and Tutsi. As Mamdani asserts, the Belgians did not create the Hutu and the Tutsi, but they did racialize them. The colonists viewed the Tutsi as members of a superior race. The pro-Hutu stance believes that the Tutsi are a Hamitic people and thus, nonindigenous to the region.

The stereotypes of both groups involve the belief that the Tutsi have historically been pastoralists while the Hutu have been agriculturalists. This reinforces the belief that the Tutsi migrated from elsewhere. It also perpetuates the idea that the Tutsi constitute a higher social class, because cows were associated with wealth. But the stereotypes of the Tutsi pastoralist and the Hutu agriculturalist are muddied by history. The idea of the Hutu-Tutsi division on the basis of social class flatly ignores the existence of poor Tutsi.

These debates have had tragic consequences for the people of Rwanda. Hutu Power argued in the early 1990s that the Tutsi were foreigners and posed a threat to the indigenous Hutu. This fear helped to instigate the genocide perpetrated against the Tutsi in 1994. After the genocide, when the Tutsi-led RPF took power, the leadership argued that there was no division, going so far as to outlaw the terms. That has served to legitimize their ethnic minority rule. It also gives persecuted Hutu no recourse to protest their treatment because the source of their oppression is legally nonexistent.

Hiernaux argues that the Tutsi are “elongated Africans” from East Africa that have adapted to the life of desert nomads. This line of reasoning shows that while Tutsi and Hutu are different people, the Tutsi do not constitute a foreign race. Mamdani adds that Tutsi migration likely did not occur in one invasion, but happened gradually.

The pro-Hutu and pro-Tutsi beliefs as to their origins need to be considered critically and tested against history.

Ascribing Blame

2011-07-17T23:55:00.000-04:00

Rene Lemarchand's most recent book on political violence in the Great Lakes region has two fundamental problems. He's writing in the context of the West's guilt over the 1994 genocide committed by Hutu against mostly Tutsi victims. His point is that the Tutsi-led RPF has committed massacres and those need to be condemned as well. It's a fair point.

One of the problems is sloppiness. His book is really just a collection of essays written over several years. The problem is that he never mentions that fact. As a reader, you are forced to guess when the chapter was written based on the events he discusses. Sometimes, he has evidence that Paul Kagame is responsible for the shooting down of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana's plane, but other times, no one knows who is responsible and we may never know. Lemarchand should've mentioned that it was a collection of essays from over the years and labeled each chapter as such or updated all of his essays.

The worse problem is that he ascribes partial blame for the genocide to Paul Kagame. He argues that because Kagame led the RPF invasion, which enhanced the Tutsi threat in the eyes of the Hutu, Kagame also deserves responsibility for the killings committed by the Hutu militias. While the RPF invasion is important in order to contextualize the genocide, the RPF did not engage in the genocide, though they did kill Hutu civilians during the civil war, and thus cannot be blamed for it.

Kagame and the RPF must be held responsible for their own human rights violations, but not those of Hutu Power. It is irresponsible of Lermchand to insinuate Kagame has any responsibility to the interahamwe's murder of Tutsi civilians. it is the difference between context and justification. To mention the RPF invasion in the same sentence as the 1994 genocide is to provide context. To argue that without the RPF invasion in 1990, the genocide would not have happened, is plausible if irrelevant. But that is different than assigning blame for the genoocide to Kagame. When blame is given to Kagame, that gives justification tot he genocide because the Hutu militia are suddenly not fully responsible for the murders they committed.

The War in Libya is Illegal

2011-06-17T00:10:00.000-04:00

The Obama administration has tried to justify continuing the war in Libya without congressional approval by arguing that its military actions do not constitute full-blown hostilities.

The fact remains, war is war. Seems simple enough. All the legalese in the world can't change it. Either President Obama needs to seek congressional approval to maintain the war in Libya or the war needs to stop.

Concessions for Peace

2011-05-30T20:59:00.000-04:00

The condemnation of President Obama by some Jewish leaders over his stance that Israel should return to pre-1967 borders is petty and misplaced. These leaders should realize that it is Israel's role to protect the Jewish people not the other way around.

Israel was created as a homeland and a place of protection for the persecuted Jews. But, as a result of Israel's aggressive acts of retaliation, Jews continue to be despised. The best way for Israel to protect the Jewish people is not through a military show of mite. That has shown itself to be a failed strategy. Instead, Israel needs to engage in negotiations, give concessions, and reach a compromise. Agreements with Egypt and Jordan show that it's possible.

Jewish leaders have lost sight of the goal. it is not to create an all-powerful imperial Israel. The goal is to create a safe homeland for Jews. The best way to do that is by accumulating friendly neighbors. If giving up some land to achieve the larger goal is necessary, then so be it.

Playing Politics with Tragedy

2011-05-18T00:25:00.001-04:00

Writing about the tragic history of violent ethnic division in Burundi is a political enterprise for many foreign scholars. Some take a Tutsi extremist stance while others take a Hutu extremist one. It is a sad case of historical manipulation that has led to justifications for massacres.

Rene Lemarchand and Peter Uvin are two scholars that acknowledge the massacres committed by all sides. Lemarchand's analysis in his 1994 book on Burundi is especially poignant. He notes that Hutu extremists refuse to acknowledge the massacres of Tutsi, which were committed by Hutu militants, that preceded the Tutsi army's massacres of Hutu in 1972, 1988, 1991, and 1993. Tutsi extremists fail to mention that the Tutsi-controlled governments that practiced discrimination against the Hutu created the anger within the Hutu community to spark militant action.

Both Lemarchand and Uvin note the complicated role that Pierre Buyoya has had in Burundi's history. Buyoya, during his non-consecutive terms as president, nominally worked to ease the tension between Tutsi and Hutu. But his reasons are not entirely pure. The two authors also note the divisions and rivalries within the Tutsi community. By explaining the context of the massacres and laying blame at the feet of those who committed the massacres, Hutu and Tutsi alike, they are working towards building a more peaceful Burundi.

One of the worst cases of revisionist history with regards to Burundi is a book by U.S. Ambassador Robert Krueger. Krueger sides with Hutu extremists. Reading Krueger's book, you would think the Tutsi-controlled army, which slaughtered educated Hutu in what was a genocide, did so without any provocation. He doesn't explain that the Tutsi, who are the numerical minority in Burundi and tend to have a fear of extinction should the Hutu majority ever gain power, were massacred by Hutu militants first. That is not a justification for the army's actions, but it is an important fact.

Krueger describes President Melchoir Ndadaye, a Hutu, as Martin Luther King. He describes President Pierre Buyoya, a Tutsi, as Adolph Hitler. This type of hyperbole is not productive. To claim that one ethnicity is Good and the other Evil, is to provoke and justify further massacres. Krueger, who presents his book as unbiased, is disingenuous. He does not put the numerous tragedies that have taken place in Burundi into context.

No More War

2011-03-22T00:19:00.000-04:00

The strikes against Libya might seem like a noble endeavor taken up by the United States and its allies to aid freedom-seeking rebels determined to rid themselves from the shackles of Gaddafi's authoritarianism. But the consequences will be detrimental to Libya and its people.

In the short term, the strikes have effectively pushed fence sitters into Gaddafi's camp. The West truly is invading. Gaddafi's decades-long claims that he was a pillar against the West's neo-imperialist interests are coming true. He has instantly gained credibility.

Should the U.S. enable regime change to occur, the prospects of a peace in a post-Gaddafi Libya has been compromised. No longer can the Libyan rebels claim that they own the overthrow of Gaddafi. Gaddafi's ouster wouldn't be determined by the will of the people, but would be precipitated by the West's invasion. Thus, should the rebel leaders take over, their legitimacy would be seriously compromised. As a result, Libya is likely to see violence in order to control its oil reserves for many years to come.

But the ill-advised war in Libya is not the only error the U.S. government committed this week. The House rejected a vote to withdraw troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year instead of starting the withdrawal in 2014 (H. Con. Res. 28). In fact, only 93 representatives voted to end the war, which remains a pointless stalemate.

Foreign Intervention in DRC

2011-03-07T23:58:00.004-05:00

Often it is argued that people get the leaders they deserve. Not so for the Democratic Republic of Congo, which has been victimized by foreign aggression, particularly from the West, since the colonial period.

Belgium ran Congo in a brutally autocratic manner. Africans were repressed to the point where they were not ready to assume the responsibilities of independence when it came in 1960. There were fewer than 20 African college graduates in Congo at the time of independence.

Belgium hoped to continue to extract resources from Congo as was the case during the colonial period. So, Belgium supported Moise Tshombe and the secession of the mineral-rich state of Katanga. Belgium was responsible for the death of nationalist Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, who was killed in Katanga with top Katangese and Belgian officials present. The U.S. also wanted Lumumba dead, even plotting to poison his toothpaste, but ultimately responsibility lies with Belgium and Katanga.

After a botched UN attempted to settle the Congo Crisis and bring Katanga back into the fold, resulting in mass murder, the U.S. supported Mobutu's coup in 1965. For the next 32 years, Mobutu led an autocratic kleptocracy with the backing of the U.S. The international financial institutions continuously gave Mobutu, who changed the name of the country to Zaire, tons of money, which he and his minions promptly stole. Without the support of the U.S. and the IFIs, it is difficult to see how Mobutu would have stayed in power so long.

Rwanda and Uganda invaded Congo in 1997 in the hopes of removing Mobutu. The Tutsi-led Rwandan government feared attacks from Hutu extremists, responsible for the 1994 genocide, stationed on the border. Uganda also invaded because of security concerns. Both countries hoped to exploit the resource wealth in Congo. They propped up a rebel group, the ADFL, led by Laurent Kabila, which swept across the country to the capital of Kinshasa in no time. Kabila changed the name of the nation to the Democratic Republic of Congo.

When Kabila turned his back on his Tutsi allies, Rwanda and Uganda staged another invasion. Zimbabwe, Angola, and Namibia came to Kabila's defense for various reasons. These two Congo wars are considered Africa's first world wars. France's nefarious role in Africa was exposed once again when it attempted to back Mobutu at the end of his reign.

This sustained foreign intervention in Congo has led to nothing but devastation and death.

The Curious Case of Belize's Independence

2011-02-28T21:22:00.005-05:00

Belize gained independence from Britain, its colonial overseer, in 1981. The independence movement in Belize, which had its first seeds planted in the wake of a devastating hurricane in 1931 in which the British government did not provide adequate assistance, truly began in 1950 when the British devalued the Belize dollar.

So why did Belize miss the wave of independence that swept across Africa and Asia throughout the 1950s and 1960s? The reason was that Guatemala claimed the entirety of Belize as its own. If the British withdrew, Guatemala's powerful U.S.-backed military would sweep into Belize and take the land for its own.

The dispute began in the wake of an 1859 treaty between Britain and Guatemala. Britain believed the treaty was of a boundary variety while the Guatemalans believed it was one of cession. Britain wanted to grant Belize, called British Honduras before 1973, independence, but was willing to cede some land to Guatemala to quell any impetus for invasion.

Belize's leaders, such as George Price, demanded independence with the entirety of Belize in tact. They also wanted a sustained British defense guarantee. The British were reluctant to defend the Belizeans against a potential Guatemalan invasion.

Finally, through a policy of gaining support from such international organizations as CARICOM and the non-aligned movement, Price was able to convince Britain to grant full independence to Belize and guard its sovereignty in 1981. Though the Guatemalan land claim issue has been sidelined, even now, it isn't closed.

Southern Sudan Secession

2011-01-23T23:42:00.003-05:00

The vote for succession cast by the southern Sudanese is a historic occasion. After a decades-long civil war with the Arab north, southern Sudan will is one step closer to independence. It is a joyous moment.

Yet, it is also cause for concern. Often when states are born from autocratic forbearers, they themselves exhibit governmental repression. This has been the case in Eritrea, which gained independence after a long struggle with Ethiopia.

Sudanese leader Omar al-Bashir certainly fits the label of an autocrat. His regime has instituted Sharia law, despite the fact that southern Sudan is largely Christian and animist. He has imprisoned his friends and those he views as a threat to his leadership. His government also has ties to the Janjaweed militia, which massacred millions of black people in the western region of Darfur.

Thus, the situation for repression against the southern Sudanese people is ripe. The hope is that they are not simply exchanging one dictator for another. This can be avoided in part with the help of the international community. One election is not enough. Parties must be created on the basis of issues. This means that Western institutions such as the World Bank and IMF should not be allowed to dictate policy in Southern Sudan, because that takes the freedom of choice, the true root of democracy, away from the southern Sudanese people.

Instead, the Western community needs to foster local entrepreneurs with the help of subsidies provided by donors. The Western powers can also donate materials and expertise to create school and universities. However, if the Western powers keep course, they will force southern Sudan to be a free market and turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, which will leave the people of southern Sudan in the same predicament that they've been enduring.

Aid Miracle into a Narco-State?

2010-12-28T20:29:00.004-05:00

The turn around of Mozambique was considered a miracle. It was thought that foreign aid dollars were the impetus in improving the lives of Mozambicans. After a war for independence and a subsequently devastating civil war, Mozambique was apparently an economically growing multi-party democracy.

But the reality is quite different. The vast majority are still poor. They haven't seen progress. Their lives aren't getting better. The rich are getting richer and, in real terms, the poor are getting poorer. Foreign NGOs don't stay long in Mozambique enough to see their programs through; thus, they fail. The Bretton Woods institutions, who supposedly has a role in the remarkable reversal, were responsible for the destruction of one of the most profitable of Mozambican exports, cashews. It wasn't until the government threw away the suggestions of the World Bank and IMF that the cashew market returned to its previous status.

Now, most of the government is corrupt. There are strong ties between President Armando Guebuza and Mohamed Bashir Suleman, a notorious drug trafficker. Illegal drugs are the most profitable business in Mozambique. Mozambique is the second largest transit point for illegal drugs in Africa behind Guinea-Bissau.

Do these realities signify a miracle that the international community should be proud of? Or should the course be changed? Should the Bretton Woods Institutions stop dictating terms and start listening to locals? The free market has failed Mozambique. So did the socialist state of the early independence era. Shouldn't a middle ground be found?

The Distrust of Dissent

2010-12-23T00:16:00.003-05:00

The history of Malawian politics is filled with distrust of dissent. As is the case with the majority of African nations, an autocratic system of government was instituted by the European colonial powers. To call for freedom from repression was to be deemed a traitor.

Hastings Banda, who ruled Malawi from its inception as an independent nation-state until 1994, continued the totalitarian method of governance he inherited from his colonial predecessors. When his ministers challenged his attempts to legalize his autocratic methods internally and his willingness to ally with white apartheid regimes in southern Africa immediately after independence, they were sacked. Several were killed. In the 1980s, several ministers were "accidentalised," a euphemism for a person murdered and then posed to make it look like an accident, when they challenged Banda's potential choice for succession, John Tembo.

The democratic period has not been able to shake this distrust of dissent. President Bakili Muluzi, who ruled from 1994-2004, was never shy of branding his opponents as threats to the nation. the result was that the three major political parties of the era shifted alliances with one another for the sake of convince like a game of musical chairs. Issues took a backseat to personalities and political ploys.

In 2004, Muluzi chose his successor in the person of Bingu wa Mutharika. The two disagreed on policy. There was to be no negotiation. Instead, Mutharika left Muluzi's UDF and began a new party, the DPP. Muluzi has since been charge with corruption dating back to his presidency. After the change of parties, Mutharika's vice president, Cassim Chilumpha, who was a member of the UDF, was charged with treason.

The bottom line is that Malawi's political leaders will continue to be unable to lead Malawians towards the future they deserve until they are able to argue of policy disagreements without questioning each other's patriotism.

The Saudi Memo

2010-12-01T00:08:00.003-05:00

According to a memo exposed by WikiLeaks, Saudi King Abdullah urged the U>S. to attack Iran. This should not come as a surprise. Saudi Arabia and Iran have been the two biggest rivals to represent Muslims in the Middle East in general and the Palestinian cause specifically.

Saudis tend to be Sunni. But the leadership is viewed suspiciously within the wider Arab world because of links with the U.S. The U.S. was allowed to station troops in Saudi Arabia in the run up to the first Persian Gulf War. That act was considered an affront to many Muslims because Saudi Arabia is home too the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

Iran has been a staunch enemy of the U.S. since the revolution in 1979. But in an era with increasing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites, Iranians are predominantly Shi’a whereas much of the rest of the Middle East is Sunni. Iranians are also predominantly Persian whereas most of the rest of the Middle East in ethnically Arab.

Iran rush to obtain a nuclear weapon will give it credibility within the Middle East and a louder voice on the global stage. This will diminish Saudi Arabia's regional status. It’s a typical case of leaders concerning themselves with their own egos at the expense of human life.

Wildlife Conservation in Tanzania

2010-11-09T23:49:00.003-05:00

In the West, it is in vogue to advocate for wild animals in Africa. But there is more than meets the eye to this issue.

In Tanzania, national parks and game reserves have been used as a weapon of colonialism. The Meru in northern Tanzania rely on the land to subsist. In fact, their ethnicity is not based on heredity, but is based on a connection with Mount Meru. But much of Mount Meru was taken over, first by the colonial government, and then kept by the independent Tanzanian government.

The lack of land has rendered the Meru into a state of poverty. Ironically, the Meru have traditional shied away from hunting bigger game that conservation organizations hope to protect.

In addition, whites have a long history of hunting wild game in Africa. At the same time, African hunting has been targeted. When whites hunted, it was considered a sport. When Africans hunted for food, it was considered barbaric.

The point is not to condemn wildlife conservation in anyway. Instead, the point is to bring the difficult consequences of wildlife conservation into the discourse.

Guatemala-U.S. Relations

2010-10-08T00:22:00.003-04:00

A revelation has recently come out that the U.S. gave Guatemalan prisoners and mental patients were intentionally given syphilis during the mid 1940s. It is just one shameful event in the history of U.S.-Guatemalan relations.

In response to a land reform act passed in 1952, the CIA conspired to overthrow Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz. The coup began a long relationship between the U.S. government and the Guatemalan military. The Guatemalan army ran a four decade-long war against Mayan guerillas. However, the army killed Mayan civilians with no ties to the guerillas. Entire villages were razed. The worst offenses occurred during the early 1980s. U.S. President Ronald Reagan praised General Efrain Rios Montt, the head of state and perpetrator of a dramatic rise in the violence, as a true democrat.

The evidence is in. Yet, to present the evidence is to unduly criticize the United States in the eyes of mainstream political discourse. To question America's intentions as anything but noble is to be considered anti-American. The stakes, as exhibited in Guatemala, is the fate of millions of people.

The Cabinet Crisis

2010-09-15T00:23:00.002-04:00

Political intrigue is often more interesting that a reality show on televsion. For example, take the lead up to the cabinet crisis in Malawi.

You have Hastings Banda, a doctor who had become thoroughly "European" in outlook and manner during his 40 years outside of Malawi (then Nyasaland). Banda was portrayed as a savior when he arrived in Nyasaland in 1958. Chiume and Chipembere created Banda's messiah persona. Chipembere, an anti-European hothead who was very popular among the people, would spend over a year in prison with Banda. Chiume avoided prison during the 1959 emergency, but soon became very close to Banda.

There was Dunduzu Chisiza, a young star who was being groomed to take over the finance ministry, if not more. And his brother, Yatuta, who was Banda's personal bodyguard for several years. Dunduzu was in prison with Banda and Chipembere, and the three planned Malawi's future from their cell. After their release, Banda became jealous of Dunduzu and believed the young man was being set up to succeed him. Meanwhile, Dunduzu and Chipembere were jealous of Chiume, who had Banda's confidence in the early 1960s, despite not serving jail time. Yatuta was jealous of all of them because he was kept in menial roles.

In 1962, Dunduzu died in a mysterious car accident. Most respected scholars seem to think it was an unfortunate accident where Dunduzu fell asleep at the wheel and drove off the road. But the truth will never be known. Dunduzu was in a position of power and was replaced by Banda stalwarts John Tembo and Aleke Banda, who would later benefit from Hastings Banda's nepotism. By the time of the country's independence, these men had become ministers in Prime Minister Banda's cabinet.

Meanwhile, Banda managed to foster divisions within his cabinet, utilizing the divide and rule method to consolidate his power. Chiume was put in his place for overstepping his bounds. Banda began to run his cabinet's ministries behind their backs. He privileged white civil servants over his ministers. At this point, in August of 1964, his ministers began to unite against their treatment and Banda's foreign policy, which maintained close alliances with white-ruled countries in Africa.

Banda sort of threatened to resign, but this put the ministers in an awkward situation. Chiume couldn't replace Banda because he was very unpopular. Chipembere was popular, but was out of the country on official business. the others were not qualified. Instead, the ministers asked only that Banda revise his policies.

Banda took that opportunity to denounce his ministers and consolidate his power, which lasted for 30 years. Dissent would be greeted by a violent backlash and freedom of speech was supressed in all its forms.

Wyclef Jean's Prospects as President of Haiti

2010-08-06T14:58:00.003-04:00

It appears that Hip Hop star Wyclef Jean, who recently announced his candidacy for the president of Haiti in the country's forthcoming election, has a tremendous groundswell of popularity, particularly among the poor. He is saying all the right things to inspire hope in his embattled co-nationalists. But the question remains- should he win the presidency- how effective would he be?

The tenures of two popular presidents, who genuinely attempted to enact reforms for the benefit of the Haitian poor, might give an indication as to Jean's prospects. Dumarsais Estimé (1946-1950) and Jean-Bertrand Aristide (1st term, 1991) were both deposed by the military. That is one scenario Jean does not have to fret, because the military has since been disbanded. But, both Estimé and Aristide ran into an entrenched mulatto elite that felt their interests were being threatened by uplifting the poor. Jean's challenge is to convince the mulatto elite that programs for the poor are in their interest as well. Haiti has a 200-year history standing in Jean's way.

Aristide rode into power on the back of a mass movement. He had more experience than Jean has, leading the informal opposition movement that eventually swept him into power. Yet, he could not last in office beyond seven months. Estimé was a congressman before obtaining the presidency. Both Aristide and Estimé spent far more of their lives in Haiti before ascending the nation's highest office than Jean has. Jean, while evidently popular, does not have the political experience of either Aristide or Estimé. Will he be able to do a better job of fighting for the poor while placating the powerful? Does he have the diplomatic skills to pull off a feat no one has ever been able to achieve in the history of the country?

Experience is important because Wyclef Jean wouldn't merely be replacing current president René Préval. The Haitian presidency is fluid and flexible. In practice, it has not been a position with clearly defined roles. Préval was an ineffectual and relatively powerless president. Jean will have to form the role himself. Jean doesn't only need to build schools and hospitals. He needs to build education and health care systems. This is a challenge even for someone with government experience. Jean also has to contend with the prospect that the presidency is a position that has been known to change its occupants. There is debate as to whether Aristide always contained an authoritarian edge or if his first tenure corrupted him. Francois Duvalier used the throne to exact terror on his populace. Most have use it to add to their wealth.

Hope is an essential aspect of life. Wyclef Jean might be the man to infuse the feeling into Haiti's beleaguered population. But Haitians also need practical programs designed to give them an opportunity to thrive. Whether Jean has the technical expertise or the specific ideas to fulfill his dream of improving the lives of his people remains to be seen.

Kyrgyzstan Chaos

2010-06-14T00:37:00.003-04:00

In many ways there is a direct link between the failures of the Tulip Revolution and the recent coup and continuing chaos in Kyrgyzstan. Last April, President Kurmanek Bakiyev was overthrown in a coup. Since the coup, ethnic violent has persisted between Kyrgyz and Uzbeks.

In 2005, a movement arose to overthrow the longtime leader of Kyrgyzstan, Askar Akiyev. Akiyev, a former Communist party leader when Kyrgyzstan was under Soviet authority, ruled in an autocratic and corrupt manner. Bakiyev, a former prime minister under Akiyev, was the beneficiary of the desire to oust the only leader the young country had ever known.

Initially, much enthusiasm greeted Bakiyev’s rise to power. But quickly it was realized that Bakiyev wasn't able to implement the requested reforms that spearheaded the Tulip Revolution. Roza Otunbayeva was one of Bakiyev's backers who soon left his side. At that point it was generally accepted that Bakiyev was becoming an undemocratic leader. This was partly foreshadowed in Bakiyev's undemocratic grab of power during the Tulip Revolution.

Bakiyev's rule was defined by his desire to maintain his position. In April, 2010, Bakiyev was overthrown in a similar (albeit bloody) fashion as his predecessor. Otunbayeva assumed power in a near parallel occurrence to the events of the Tulip Revolution. Otunbayeva has already had to delay promised elections as ethnic violence grips the country.

Uzbek's are roughly equal with Kyrgyz in terms of population in the south of Kygyzstan, the country's borders having been carelessly created by Joseph Stalin. It is in the south, particularly in Osh, that violence between the two groups has exploded. Otunbayeva has limited control in the south. Kyrgyzstan's political and culture divisions have divided the north and the south. Bakiyev's powerbase is in the south and the government has accused him of fanning the flames of violence from exile in order to cause the government considerable trouble. Uzbeks, who have been the majority victims of the violence, tend to support the new government.

In Kyrgyzstan's case, it has been a lack of legitimacy for its leaders that is at the root of the current crisis. The Tulip Revolution produced a brief moment of optimism, but its legacy is in propping up leaders who do not have to answer to their constituency. In Kyrgyzstan's case, a functioning democracy was essential in avoiding this predicament. The problem now is that democracy would only serve to solidify the divisions in the country, whether ethnic or regional.

Present and Past in Madagascar

2010-05-25T14:12:00.004-04:00

To understand the recent political crisis in Madagascar, it is important to look back through its history. In March of 2009, President Marc Ravalomanana resigned after months of protest of his rule. Ravalomanana had been democratically elected in 2002 and reelected in 2006. The mayor of the capital, Antananarivo, was Andry Rajoelina, a 3o-something former entertainer, who instigated the protests. Rajoelina was granted power after Ravalomanana's resignation.

Madagascar gained independence in 1960. But it remained a neo-colony of France under President Philibert Tsiranana. France made the major decisions and even a number of French officials remained in positions of power. Perhaps this contributes to the questionable belief among some Malagasy that Rajoelina is a puppet of the French, who are hoping to reassert its authority.

A combination of student protests and Tsiranana's declining health uprooted his administration. General Gabriel Ramanantsoa then assumed authority. Ramanantsoa's rule signaled Madagascar's real independence. His cabinet contained three future presidents. He resigned in 1975 as he never held an true political ambition. In his place was Richard Ratsimandrava, who was quickly assassinated.

Ratsimandrava's rival, Didier Ratsiraka, soon became president. Ratsiraka was rumored to have partaken in the conspiracy to kill Ratsimandrava. Rumors of conspiracy have remained a participant in Malagasy politics. Ratsiraka ruled for the next eighteen years. He sat on a declining economy during that period.

The 1990s saw agitation and violence which eventually led to contentious multi-party democratic elections. Albert Zafy became president in 1993, but was ineffective in changing the course of the fledgling economy. As a result, Ratiraka won the next election in 1997.

It was Ravalomanana who won the next election, which was also contentious and violent. Ravalomanana, a successful businessman, managed to decrease poverty and encourage foreign investment. But his business cronies also gained much of the land. In late 2009, Rajoelina tapped into the belief that not enough had been done to improve the condition of the poor.

Rajoelina has set out a timetable for elections to restore democracy to conclude this fall. But he has backed out on proposed elections during his year in power already. He currently controls precious little of the island nation. It should be noted that no one ever controlled the entire island until the French consolidated their power during the early part of the twentieth century. As for now, smugglers reign as the state has little authority to stop them.

Namibia's Democracy

2010-03-31T23:47:00.006-04:00

Namibia has had two presidents since independence, Sam Nujoma and Hifikepunye Pohamba, from SWAPO, the party that led the liberation war against the South Africa colonizers. SWAPO has dominated every election since the one held 1989, immediately preceding independence in 1990.

Opposition parties have been weak. In parliament, they have limit chance to introduce their own policies. Initially, the DTA was the official opposition. Its prospects for gaining in popularity were hindered by its previous ties to apartheid South Africa. The CoD then became the main challenger to SWAPO. Its presidential candidate, Ben Ulenga, came in a distant second in the 1999 and 2004 elections. The CoD became the official opposition in the wake of the 2004 parliamentary elections. It's been hampered by the fact that it was largely a party of personalities.

In 2004, SWAPO needed to replace Nujoma, who is considered the father of the nation. Pohamba was challenged by Nujoma's Foreign Minister, Hidipo Hamutenya. Hamutenya, the son of one of SWAPO's founders, left the party in 2007 and began his own party, the RDP. Hamutenya finished in a distant second in the 2009 presidential elections.

Namibia has an interesting parliamentary system. The electorate does not vote for particular candidates. Instead they vote for a party. The vote is then broken down proportionately. MPs are selected from party lists based on the number of votes each party receives. MPs are accountable to the party as opposed to a constituency. Namibia has the law of largest remainder, where the last few seats are awarded to the parties with the largest remainder of votes after votes have been divided proportionately. This system favors smaller parties as there is no minimum amount of votes in order to gain a seat in parliament.

Namibia's democracy has a few defining qualities. SWAPO dominates the contests. Numerous political parties, most are personality-based, thin any potential opposition SWAPO may face. Namibian elections are free of violence beyond the rare incident. However, dissent is often chastised harshly, though it exists. Overall, Namibia elections are generally regarded as free and fair.

The Iran Bomb and the U.S.

2010-02-25T12:37:00.000-05:00

There has been talk about whether or not the advent of the Iran bomb could be beneficial to the U.S. somehow. A few courageous analysts have argued that it would be. A larger number of analysts assert that the first group is crazy.

Slate's Fred Kaplan discusses a New York Times piece by Adam Lowther, analyzing it such:

Lowther argues that an Iranian bomb might be beneficial to U.S. interests: The Saudis and Egyptians would want us to protect them by pledging to retaliate against Iran if Iran attacks Saudi Arabia or Egypt; in exchange for this guarantee, we could insist that they institute massive economic and democratic reforms and make peace with Israel. Furthermore, Lowther claims, the Palestinians would also rush to make peace, because the radioactive fallout from an Iranian attack on Jerusalem would kill them, too.

Kaplan counters:

This is one of the nuttiest op-ed pieces ever published in a major American newspaper. Brief rebuttal: No American president is going to treat an attack on Cairo or Riyadh as an attack on the United States. Even if a president said he would, no Egyptian or Saudi leader would believe him.

They both miss the point. In most talk about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, there is the assumption that the bomb will inevitably be used. It's an erroneous assumption and a potentially dangerous one if it becomes a staple of U.S. policy. The same assumption was used when Communist China became nuclear. U.S. arch-enemy the Soviet Union never dropped the bomb. The same is true of the vaunted "Islamic bomb" held by the Pakistanis. The reasoning went, what if a rogue military dictator with ties to Islamic fundamentalists took control of Pakistan? Well, it happened, and no bomb was deployed. Even North Korea, led by eccentric autocrat Kim Jong-Il, knows better than instigate a nuclear attack.

The fact remains that only the United States has actually used a nuclear bomb. The U.S. retains the most powerful military in the world. No country in the world, let alone the self-preservationists that run Iran, are willing to engage in a nuclear war with the U.S. or its allies.

If Iran obtained a bomb, it would give them more clout on the world stage. That reality could curb unilateral invasions and attacks committed by the U.S. and Israel. In that sense, it could create more (albeit tenuous) peace than the current situation allows. If one country has a nuclear weapon, there is no deterrent in using it, as exhibited in 1945. However, if competing sides hold that power, there is a deterrent. Of course, the best possible chance for peace is if no country possessed the bomb, a goal every nation on earth should aim towards achieving.

Secularism in India

2010-02-21T19:09:00.001-05:00

One definition of secularism is an absence of religion in politics or society. But another aspect of secularism deals with the belief that various religions should enjoy legal symmetry within a society.

Certainly, India's constitution is secular. It does not allow for favoritism for any particular religion. But India's societal make up is less clear cut. Hindu nationalists have gained a foothold into the mainstream. The BJP, a party that espoused a Hindu nationalist agenda, ruled India from 1998-2004, although the party never achieved anywhere near a majority of votes. But to have a ruling party promote an ideology of exceptionist nationalism on the basis of religion surely rocks the foundation of secular claims.

Traveling through cities such as Agra and Lucknow, it is impossible to miss that the poorer "old cities" are largely Muslim in character and population. Muslims do not have a unique claim on poverty in India, but urban Muslim areas are often poor. However, lower caste Hindus share the same economic frustrations with a large portion of India's Muslim community.

In 2007, a bomb went off in Hyderabad's famous Mecca Masjid. The Indian media assumed that the perpetrators were Muslim extremists aiming to cause friction between Hindus and Muslims. The prospect that the responsibility could lie with Hindu extremists wasn't merely dismissed, it wasn't even considered. This in an era where Hindu extremists destroyed the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in 1992 on religious grounds, leading to intercommunal riots, and the 2002 massacre of Muslims in Gujrat, just to name two internationally infamous instances of violence committed by Hindu extremists.

The increased political success of Hindu nationalists in recent years, the relative economic struggles of Muslims (admittedly, however, an unambiguous dichotomy involving Hindu prosperity and Muslim poverty is far from reality), and the couplet of anti-Muslim violence with the media's portrayal of those events, are all threats to India's de facto secularism. Hindu extremists and their allies, a minority of India's population, hope to eradicate all notions of India's secularism. While they have not been successful, they have created challenges to the concept of religious symmetry.

Take Over Haiti?

2010-02-04T00:22:00.001-05:00

A recent Washington Post article claimed that Haitians want the U.S. to take over the country. The story originally ran as Haitians Implore U.S. to 'take over' but was changed to As food distribution improves, Haitians want U.S to 'take over'.

The original article claims that Haitians want the U.S. to take over based on a couple of quotes from people on the street. It portrays the U.S. as reluctant helpers, in Haiti for solely humanitarian reasons.

Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia claim that the U.S. is using humanitarian aid as cover to take over the country. Those three countries have used every opportunity to paint the U.S. as an imperial power, but the history of U.S.-Haitian relations fits that narrative. Between 1868-1990, U.S. gunboats were sent to Haiti 28 times (Williams, US-Grenada Relations, pg. 8. He cites Musicant, The Banana Wars). The U.S. military has been in Haiti since then as well. From 1915-1934, the U.S. military ran Haiti.

There is no doubt that the Haitian government is incapable of providing desperately needed services to its beleaguered populace. The U.S. is the most able entity to fill that gap. After emergency aid is given, the question becomes, what will the U.S. do next? Will the U.S. use this tragedy to exploit Haiti as a cheap source of labor, or will Haiti be given a chance to succeed finally free of imperialists, interventions, and irresponsible leaders?

The U.S., Oil, and a Dictator

2010-01-25T13:32:00.001-05:00

In August, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Angola, which is run by the dictatorial Jose Eduardo dos Santos. During that visit, Clinton threw out the usual calls for democracy. But last week, a law was passed that stripped Angolans of the right to vote for their president. Instead, the president will be elected by the parliament. This was because dos Santos feared he might receive less of the vote than his party did in the 2008 parliamentary elections, thus checking the Angolan president's immense powers. Clinton actually praised those parliamentary elections, which weren't deemed free or fair by independent observers.

Clinton was in Angola last summer because of Angola's vast oil reserves. The U.S. is also hoping to combat China's influence in the resource rich African nation. So the question becomes, will the Obama administration pursue a policy of kowtowing to dictators for the sake of oil and in order to engage in a self-defeating game of offsetting China's influence? Or will the Obama administration buck the trend of U.S. presidents past and shun a dictator and his oil so as to show support for the war-ravaged and voiceless people of Angola?

Botswana and Zimbabwe

2010-01-22T00:23:00.005-05:00

There is some debate as to why Botswana has prospered relative to its neighbors. Botswana has far fewer natural resources than any of its neighbors. In fact, a large portion of the country is uninhabitable desert. Conservatives in the U.S. would like to attribute Botswana's success to its implementation of the free market, while surrounding nations, such as Zimbabwe, have had large government interference. But does this line of reasoning hold up?

For starters, how free is Botswana's market? The Botswana government actually owns 50% of Debswana, the main diamond mining company. Diamonds of course are the backbone of the nation's economy.

Some have argued that the southern African state has profited from its low tax rates, which is attracting businesses and creating more jobs. Zimbabwe has gone in the other direction regarding tax rates. But numerous other factors have individually played a larger part than tax rates in the differing conditions of both nations.

Botswana was only classified as a protectorate under British authority and saw an influx of far fewer whites than the British colony of Rhodesia. This resulted in the natural progression of Botswana being allowed to continue without the violent cultural uprooting that Zimbabwe faced. One example comes in the form of Botswana's political system. Before independence, chiefs would hold a kgotla, a meeting where tribesmen would freely debate points of tribal policy, but where chiefs would still have the ultimate authority. The current political system is similar, featuring a strong presidency, but a cultural obligation for the president to account for a wide variety of opinions.

A few more important distinguishing factors include Rhodesia's unilateral declaration of independence, the long and devastating war of liberation in Zimbabwe, the 5th brigade's genocidal campaign into Zimbabwe's Matabeleland, Britain's inaction towards settling the land rights issue with whites, and the dictatorial disposition of Robert Mugabe.

Botswana's path to independence was peaceful. It is a far more homogeneous country than Zimbabwe. Again, Botswana's rather small white population helped it to avoid the land rights crisis that has come to a head in Zimbabawe. And finally, far from being a war commander, which Mugabe was, Seretse Khama came from the world of the relatively democratic kgotla.

Those factors, and not the difference in tax rates, played a defining role in determining the future for both countries.

A History of Racism

2010-01-19T00:34:00.000-05:00

From the very beginning, the relationship between Haiti and the United States has been defined by racism. Escaping from hundreds of years of colonial theft, first by the Spanish and then by the French, by a brutal series of independence wars, Haiti was left isolated. Haiti had been the most prosperous of all French colonies. But the wars decimated the population and the land. It solidified lasting divisions between the mulatto elite and the black middle class.

Gaining independence in 1804, it was not until 1862 that the U.S. granted Haiti diplomatic recognition. That was a critical period for Haiti's future. Independence came at a steep price and international isolation forced the population to use the land for survival, destroying its productive capabilities exhibited during the colonial period. The reason the U.S. failed to recognize Haiti's independence was simple. They feared legitimizing a slave revolt, which could encourage its own slave population to fight for freedom.

Once the existence of Haiti was acknowledged, the U.S. was determined to ensure its interests were realized. The U.S. wanted stability so that U.S. corporations could flourish. If a Haitian government defaulted on a loan, they were overthrown. In all, during the latter half of the nineteenth century, the U.S. intervened in Haiti nineteen times.

By 1915, the U.S. became fed up once again with the constant change of leadership in Haiti. The marines entered the country and occupied until 1934. The U.S. military ruled autocratically. White Southern officers were recruited because of their familiarity with blacks. Of course, during that period, the U.S. South was home to legal segregation, a system which gave whites rights that blacks did not enjoy. Another feature of the occupation was the suppression of peasant revolts. The U.S. also served to keep the status quo of control by mulatto elites.

The U.S. attempted to install a democracy upon leaving, but the political system was democratic in name only. The U.S. gave aid to various dictators until it was obvious a given dictator had to leave. They would then receive a call from the U.S. embassy alerting them that the U.S. would no longer give support and their tenure was over. There is speculation that the U.S. helped manipulate the results of the 1957 election, in which Francois Duvalier became president.

Duvalier was a ruthless dictator who further impoverished his people by extorting money from them in order to build his own bank account. After the U.S. supported the mulatto elite for the previous hundred years, Duvalier was able to legitimize his rule on a disingenuous ideology of black nationalism. In reality, he ideology was completely one of self-interest. In 1971, Duvalier died and his 19-year old son took over the country with the same sense of self-interest.

The U.S. supported the Duvaliers financially until a grass roots rebellion surfaced in the mid 1980s. The younger Duvalier then received the famous phone call from the embassy. After a complex tussle between various military factions in which the U.S. continuously supported the status quo, Jean-Bertrand Aristide won a presidential election and ruled for 7 months until he was deposed by the military. The U.S. intervened to restore him to power in 1994. He was deposed once again in 2004, and the U.S. supported the new government of reconciliation.

Throughout the entire period Haitians seeking a better life in the U.S. were turned away, while their Cuban counterparts were accepted with full refugee staus. A distinction was drawn between a "political" refugee and an "economic" refugee. Critics view these as semantic terms enlisted in order to legalize a system of racism against Haitian immigrants.

The U.S. is back in Haiti once again. This time it is to provide aid after a devastating earthquake. Some have claimed that the U.S. is using the tragedy as an excuse to occupy Haiti. More realistically, it is possible that the U.S. will merely keep intact the old system dominated by the mulatto elite at the expense of the rest of the population. But perhaps the U.S. will get it right this time. Will the cycle of dependence remain? Or, will, in conjunction with locals, Haiti be given a chance to thrive? Will schools be built and children of all classes given a chance for social mobility? Will U.S. aid help to create a meritocracy? Or will, after basic aid is delivered, Haiti be forgotten until the next crisis?

The Haitian Earthquake

2010-01-13T23:56:00.010-05:00

As a result of the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697, France took control of what would become Haiti. It took a bloody revolution to overthrow the French colonials. Haiti gained independence in 1804 after several ghastly battles against the French imperialists. France then, amazingly, blackmailed Haiti into paying a vast indemnity for diplomatic recognition.

The U.S., which occupied Haiti from 1915-1934, has continuously supported dictators within Haiti for the sake of stability. These dictators have used the national treasury as their own personal bank account. They've only stepped down when the U.S. has acknowledged that the dictators had to leave.

France's legacy of colonization and the U.S. support of dictators are two important reasons towards explaining Haiti's underdevelopment. Both countries must do everything they can to help the people of Haiti after the disastrous earthquake that struck the Caribbean nation on Tuesday.

When President Jean-Bertrand Aristide proposed instituted government programs to aid the poor during his first term as president in 1991, the mulatto elite pushed back. He was quickly deposed by the army. Even Aristide could not transcend the historical autocracy that has defined the executive in Haiti. His second term in office was cut short when most of his supporters disowned him because of this.

One legacy of Aristide's rule was dismantling the military. The military had played a nefarious role throughout much of Haiti's history, deposing presidents that didn't serve its interests. One justification was that Haiti faced little threat of foreign invasion. But a military can serve to aid people in the wake of an earthquake. It’s one of the tragic conundrums of Haitian history.

It's difficult to find a silver lining in such destruction. But if there is one, it's that Haitians have never relied on the government. Past governments have always been ineffectual at providing even the most basic needs. Not to generalize, but Haitians have always shown a kind of resilience known in few places in the world. They've had to make their own way. The Haitian government and the world have ignored them. Sometimes it takes a horrific tragedy to present an opportunity to correct a historical wrong.

Supporting Dictators

2009-12-22T21:48:00.007-05:00

The U.S. has supported many of the world's most ruthless dictators over the past century. This has been epitomized by the U.S. relationship with Haiti. The U.S. has consistently chosen the idea of stability over Haitian self-determination.

François Duvalier and his son, Jean-Claude, headed a dynastic dictatorship that lasted nearly 30 years. François, known as Papa Doc and ruling from 1957-1971, outmaneuvered the U.S. into granted his administration aid by playing up its anti-Communist stance. Jean-Claude, known as Baby Doc and ruling from 1971-1985, offered cosmetic liberal reforms in extorting aid from the U.S.

Most of the aid given the Duvaliers was, simply put, stolen for their own personal use. Virtually none of the money helped the vast majority of Haitians. Papa Doc used the aid to enhance his personality cult. Baby Doc lavished his wife with the finest gifts available in the world. Meanwhile, people starved, unemployment rose, buildings crumbled, and the general condition of Haiti deteriorated.

U.S. warships watched as Jean-Claude, age 19, assumed power. The U.S. ensured the continuation of the brutal autocracy. When Jean-Claude was dethroned, the U.S. made sure he left safely. Both were in order to maintain what they considered stability. While the very top may have enjoyed so-called stability, the hungry masses suffered from this illusion.

Often when the U.S. gives aid, it goes directly into the pockets of rich autocrats. If the U.S. attempts to put conditions on aid, they are, with some justification, accused of stealing the receiving nation's sovereignty. The U.S. should refrain from policing the world until an acceptable method of helping the poor masses is conceived. When the U.S. becomes involved in political intrigues in other countries, the result is rarely positive for the nation it is supposedly helping. Staying out of other nations' business is a better policy.

Ignoring Success

2009-12-15T00:18:00.005-05:00

Instead of supporting nations with nefarious dictators, poor records on human rights, and corrupt leaders, the United States should focus the bulk of its aid and effort on countries that are similar to Botswana.

Botswana, sometimes referred to as Africa's miracle, is not without its problems. While it has maintained a multi-party democracy since independence, the BDP has retained power throughout this entire period. In recent years, the president has retired to allow the vice president, the party's choice as successor, to take the reigns early. In addition, the Sans, a group from the bush, are treated less than equal. Botswana is also home to one of the highest rates of AIDS in the world.

Botswana is remarkable because its leaders have often put the health of the nation above that of their individual bank accounts. Its GDP per capita was $14,300 in 2007. The country also boasts of a lucrative diamond market. However, critics claim that Botswana's economy is too reliant on diamonds and is in need of diversification, an area where the U.S. could be of assistance.

Instead of giving billions of dollars to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, money that can find its way into the pockets of anti-American militants, those funds should reward nations with stable and functioning governments that are able to use them to improve the lives of their citizenry. Unconditional aid could benefit a place like Botswana.

Additional U.S. Troops Headed to Afghanistan

2009-12-10T00:42:00.011-05:00

Adding 30,000 additional U.S. troops to the war in Afghanistan is a mistake. First, it must be understood that the Taliban poses no threat to overtake the country once again.

The Taliban was able to capture 90% of the country at the beginning of the decade, before the American invasion. While they were able to enforce some outrageous laws in some high-profile places, they ruled most of the country in name only. The Taliban did not and will never truly rule over the majority of Afghanistan. They have some pull in the south of the country and the U.S. occupation has done nothing to diminish the Taliban's popularity in the Pashtun heartland. But most people in Herat and Kabul will always resent their presence. In Hazarajat and in the north, the Taliban will always be mortal enemies. The concern that the Taliban will sweep through the country if and when the U.S. leaves is unfounded.

The best case scenario for Afghanistan is for each distinct region to have its own system of government and to be loosely affiliated with one another. In this case, the best one can hope for, the Taliban would likely have some power in the south. Individual warlords would probably control the other regions of the country. Tax revenue would be collected and distributed locally. Individual regions would be allowed to determine how leaders are selected. The hope is that these warlords would be satisfied to hold onto power within their own areas and would refrain from engaging in violent forays into other regions in a bid to increase power. A central government may have some oversight powers, but, realistically, would likely end up being no more than the government of Kabul.

The U.S.'s intended goals however are to attempt to create a stable nation and turn over power to the Afghan government. This government, run by Hamid Karzai, is illegitimate on the heels of the stolen election held in August. Yet the U.S. plan is totally dependent on a government that has no credibility and has been widely regarded as ineffective and even corrupt. The U.S. has not only failed to learn the lessons of recent Afghan history, but those of ancient history as well. It continues to attempt to impose a strong central government on a society that has rejected its presence for thousands of years. The U.S. is pursuing a policy in Afghanistan that has no chance of success.

One concern is that if Afghanistan crumbles, Pakistan will follow. Unfortunately, Afghanistan crumbled thirty years ago, so that fear is outdated. In addition, Pakistani distrust of the U.S. pushes even moderate Pakistanis to the side of radical fundamentalists in opposition to the U.S. Should the U.S. military leave the region, it would likely increase the Pakistanis resolve to fight certain radical groups, because those groups would no longer serve their purpose as anti-U.S. forces. Pakistanis would perceive the fate of their nation to be at stake. So, in reality, the health of Pakistan might very well depend on a U.S. withdrawal.

The Failure of the Indian State

2009-11-25T13:36:00.005-05:00

One fairly accurate method of judging the effectiveness of a state involves determining whether or not it can keep its public space free of garbage. If a government cannot even clean up its nation's garbage, it is a good indication of wider failure.

The random street in any Indian city- that doesn't possess an overly capable local administration- is lined with rubbish. The Mayor of Agra, Anjula Singh Mahaur, was criticized in the October 29 issue of Kolkata's The Telegraph for prancing on the catwalk with her celebrity friends as her promise to clean up her city's filth went unfulfilled. The article states that, "Tourist guides say the foreigners cover their noses when they see open drains and choked sewers" while visiting the city's most well-known monument, the Taj Mahal. But the aesthetic and aromatic standards of foreigners are not the point. The health of Agra's citizens, who are confronted by these unsanitary conditions year-round, should be the real concern of Mayor Mahaur.

Fareed Zakaria argued in his 2007 book, The Post American World, that India, as is the case with the United States, is a weak state, but a strong society. Bureaucratic inefficiency and political corruption have stunted India's ability to tackle the nation's many socio-economic troubles. India is, however, an ancient society, with a prolific history that has influenced our world. In addition, despite moments of tragic exception, India has been a place of tolerance for its many religions, tribes, and ethnicities.

I was asked by an NGO working with the health of pregnant women in rural Uttar Pradesh as to my opinion of India's democracy. I replied with tempered politeness, "It works, I guess." I then thought for a second knowing my audience expected more and added, "But it seems there is a scandal on television and in the papers every day." That answer was greeted with a roaring laugh of resignation. The most recent scandal involves former Jharkhand Chief Minister, Madhu Koda. Koda, who has been accused of money laundering an unconsciously vast sum, vows his innocence. But to believe him, you must accept the premise that thousands of people are in on a conspiracy to take down a former chief minister.

Setting aside politicians and garbage for the moment, the failure of the Indian state had disastrous results late last November. Mumbai, the country's largest city, fell victim to a terrorist attack as ten armed gunmen stormed its shores, frequented its populated areas, and killed indiscriminately on 26/11. The police acted ineptly, powerless to stop any of the devastation until the terrorists were too tired to continue killing. The Mumbai police could not keep its citizens safe. That is the ultimate test for any state and, when it mattered most, India's institutions failed.

A History of Foreign Intervention

2009-09-03T00:07:00.007-04:00

Haiti faced Spanish and then French colonization leading up to independence in 1804. Spanish conquerors decimated the indigenous Taino population. France extracted an untold amount of Haiti's natural wealth. Under the French regime, a minute ruling class violently ruled Haiti's enslaved population.

After Haiti declared independence, diplomatic recognition was slow in coming, isolating the young nation and leaving it victim to competing foreign powers. Ironically, France, after plundering its former colony, offered recognition in exchange for a massive indemnity. From 1857-1900, in order to protect American business interests, the U.S. intervened militarily nineteen times.

In 1915, the U.S. marines occupied Haiti. That occupation lasted until 1934. The marines ruled autocratically, killing thousands of Haitians during its tenure. In 1957, the U.S. supported François Duvalier, who initiated the most brutal period in independent Haitian history. Papa Doc, as he was known, ruled until his death in 1971, when his 19-year old son took power with U.S. ships in sight of the ceremony. The vicious Duvalier regime lasted until 1986.

In 1994, the U.S. intervened militarily once again, ostensibly to promote democracy, but some have argued that it was a cynical attempt by the Clinton administration to show strength abroad after failures in Somalia and inaction in Bosnia and Rwanda.

Haitian governments have always assumed that their legitimacy depends on the favor of the United States and not its own people. Thus, Haiti's illiteracy rate has wavered between 80-90% because the government doesn't have to answer to the people, it must answer to the U.S. A large wave of Haiti's professionals and technicians fled during the U.S.-backed Duvalier dynasty.

While the tenor and form of racism against Haitians have changed over the last 200 years, racism remains. Military interventions were justified by arguing that Haitians were unintelligent enough to rule their own affairs. Their belief in Vodou has been used to reinforce this perception of savagery. Nowadays, Haitians are searching for freedom in the U.S. by boat are turned away. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere because of this legacy of violence and racism.

The 2009 Afghan Presidential Election

2009-08-19T00:04:00.003-04:00

The context: Afghanistan enters the presidential election, scheduled for August 20, as a war-torn and divided nation. Afghans, in general, tend to put other features of their identity over that of nationalism, whether they be tribal, ethnic, or sectarian. According to scholars, waves of nationalism appear only fleetingly in the wake of a foreign invasion. This makes it difficult for any national leader to appeal to the citizenry's patriotism to unify the country around him- or herself.

After a near-ten-year long Soviet occupation of the country, Afghanistan saw civil war. Eventually, the Taliban would overrun various disorganized warlords, who only entered into a loose collaboration called the Northern Alliance when the situation became dire, and control approximately 90% of the country. The Taliban, a mostly nihilistic organization adept at the politics of military conquest, was filled with a few anti-Soviet ex-mujahideen leaders, semi-educated students from radical madrasas located in Pakistan, and incorporated local Pashtun fighters, instituted harsh social controls in certain areas within its domain.

Following the attacks against the U.S. on September 11, 2001 by al Qaeda, an international terrorist organization headquartered in Afghanistan with the support of the Taliban, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and attacked the Taliban after years of neglect in the region following the end of the Cold War. The U.S. pursued a policy of supporting the warlords, many of whom found themselves in high-ranking positions in the newly-created U.S.-backed government. The U.S. refused to negotiate or compromise with the ousted Taliban and they have remained outside the parameters of legal politics.

The election: Dozens of candidates are running for Afghanistan's highest political position. However, there are only four serious contenders for the job, incumbent Hamid Karzai, Ashraf Ghani, Ramazan Bashardost, and Abdullah Abdullah. If no one wins 50% of the vote in the first round, the top two candidates will engage in a run-off. The Taliban has threatened to disrupt the voting with violence. Some Afghans believe that, even if the vote occurs in relative peace, foreign powers will manipulate the results. Internal fraud is also a concern. Western nations have more than 100,000 troops in the country.

The polls: (While the accuracy of any political poll should always be questioned, in Afghanistan, these numbers should be taken with a grain of salt.)
International Republican Institute - May 3-16:
Karzai 31%, Abdullah 7, Ghani 3, Bashardost 3.
International Republican Institute - July 6-16:
Karzai 44%, Abdullah 26, Bashardost 10, Ghani 6.
Glevum Associates - July 8-17:
Karzai 36%, Abdullah 20, Bashardost 7, Ghani 3.

The candidates:
Hamid Karzai: Hamid Karzai, the incumbent president, is running on his achievements while in office. He notes that Afghanistan’s budget revenue and per-capita income has risen during his reign. He proposes to include the Taliban in a loya jirga to negotiate a peace deal. He claims that Taliban violence is incited by invasive searches conducted by Western troops into the homes of Afghans.

Karzai, a Pashtun, served in parliament during the rule of King Zahir Shah. After the Soviet invasion, he joined the resistance as a diplomat and advisor. After the collapse of the communist regime, he was deputy foreign minister from 1992-1994. At that point, the Taliban entered the equation and began winning military victories.

Karzai initially supported the Taliban, but broke with the movement over concerns of too much foreign influence in the form of Arab radicals. Thus, Karzai turned down the Taliban's offer to become their Ambassador to the UN and moved to Pakistan in 1995. In 1999, after the Taliban assassinated his father, Karzai became the leader of the Popolzai tribe, which boasts a half-million people. After the 2001 U.S. invasion, Karzai led the only Pastun anti-Taliban resistance operating from within Afghanistan. That gave him credence in the eyes of the U.S.

With U.S. backing, Karzai headed the new Afghan government in 2001 and officially rose to the position of president in 2002. He was elected to a five-year term in 2004. Once the darling of the U.S., Karzai has fallen out of favor with the West of late. The West criticizes him for weak leadership, making deals with warlords, tolerating drug smugglers, and ignoring corruption. His younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, is allegedly involved with the drug trade, but denies it. In April, Hamid Karzai pardoned five convicted drug smugglers. However, Karzai has never personally been accused of corruption. The West also blames him for the resurgence of the Taliban and his Taliban reconciliation program is barely functioning. However, it should be noted that the invasion of Iraq distracted the U.S. away from the problems of Afghanistan.

In the north, people complain of lack of water, power, and jobs, while, in the south, people's biggest concern is violence. Despite these concerns, Karzai is still widely popular and remains the front runner. His support base is located in the Pastun south, particularly in Kandahar. He has managed to add to his support by forming alliances with regional power brokers and buying support among other potential challengers. The possible Taliban violence in the south could hamper Karzai's election fortunes if his supporters choose not to turnout over security concerns.

During the campaign, Karzai stayed out of the public eye until late July. He refused to attend a presidential debate held on July 23. He was accused of not being able to defend his policies. Karzai questioned the neutrality of the television channel airing the debate. One of his running mates, Mohammad Qasim Fahim, who was a military leader for the Northern Alliance, survived an assassination attempt in July. Karzai's ties to General Rashid Dostum, who originally fought for the communist government before leading his own militia, has drawn criticism because Dostum is accused of war crimes. Dostum recently returned from exile, threatening to withhold the support of his followers for Karzai if he wasn't allowed to come back.

Abdullah Abdullah: Dr. Abdullah Abdullah is the candidate for the largest opposition bloc, the National Front. He is calling for the devolution away from power of the presidency and the institution of a parliamentary system. He advocates the election of local officials, who are now appointed by the president, claiming that the appointments have led to corruption, particularly among governors. He vows to curb corruption and will review foreign assistance programs so that they focus on grass roots development and address poverty and unemployment. He has emphasized the rights of the unemployed, women, disabled, and victims of the wars in his campaign.

While Abdullah promises to work towards reconciliation with the Taliban, he does not believe that Mullah Omar, its leader, would be willing to negotiate. Instead, Abdullah would take a grassroots approach to stopping the Taliban through councils to address the grievances of the people, asserting that the government's inability to meet the needs of its constituency increases the popularity of the Taliban. He has called for a decreased role for the UN, saying that it should only coordinate foreign affairs, not dictate internal Afghan affairs, but should also help implement the government's programs.

Abdullah Abdullah, who is ethnically half-Pashtun and half-Tajik, achieved his degree in Ophthalmology from Kabul University. He later fought to resist Soviet and then Taliban rule. After the U.S. invasion, Abdullah became foreign minister under Karzai, a position he held from 2001-2006, leaving because he was critical of Karzai's policies. Recently, he has accused Karzai of utilizing a strategy of divide and rule, polarizing the nation.

Abdullah, who started his campaign late, draws his support largely from Afghanistan's Tajiks. He asserts that he can make inroads into gaining the Pashtun vote, but most critics believe that is doubtful. He can count on support from large population centers, particularly in the north. He is considered the northern candidate. His strong hold is the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif. Shiite clerics in Herat, who supported Karzai in 2004, are now backing Abdullah. On August 13, one of his most prominent supporters, former president Burhanuddin Rabbani (who ruled from 1992-1996, one of only two instances a non-Pashtun ruled modern Afghanistan), escaped an ambush. Abdullah is the only candidate of the major four who did not attend the second presidential debate.

While Abdullah is trying to capture the legacy of Ahmed Shah Masoud, a popular Tajik warlord who was assassinated by al Qaeda in 2001, critics claim Abdullah is too close to the Northern Alliance, which has been accused of war crimes. Ashraf Ghani has also criticized his parliamentary prerogative, claiming that the country can't afford wasting time on redividing power. Historically, Afghanistan's leaders have shied away from a parliamentary system of government beginning with Amir Abdul Rahman Khan, and including Mullah Omar and Hamid Karzai.

Ashraf Ghani: Ashraf Ghani promises to curb corruption. He would require 3,000 civilian and military leaders to disclose their assets. He would link the salaries of civil servants to growth in state revenue and the decline in corruption. He has called for reform of the judicial system. Ghani hopes to create a million jobs and a million houses. He is focusing on improving education by building more mosques, madrasas and universities, particularly those for women, because there are currently more students than the universities can handle.

In dealing with the Taliban, he advocates a grassroots approach to stopping the Taliban through councils to address the grievances of the people, then negotiating a ceasefire prior to reconciliation. Only after a ceasefire is in place should the government engage in political negotiations with the Taliban. Ghani believes the recent increase in U.S. troops is necessary because of the neglect of former U.S. president, George W. Bush. Ghani has called for better coordination between Afghan and internal forces. He vows to close the U.S. detention center at Bagram as a part of his policy to close all international detention centers within three years.

Ashraf Ghani, who is a Pashtun, has spent 24 years of his life abroad. He studied at the American University of Beirut in the 1970s. He achieved a doctorate in Anthropology from Columbia University in 1982. He later taught at Johns Hopkins University. Beginning in 1991, Ghani worked at the World Bank as a development specialist. He was appointed finance minister by Hamid Karzai in 2002 and held that position until 2004. While finance minister, Ghani instituted a centralized revenue collection scheme that received praise. He left the cabinet because of disillusionment with official corruption and Karzai's leadership.

Ghani has accused Karzai of using state resources to promote the latter's campaign. He has railed against Karzai's backroom dealings. He also believes the Afghan police force has cost a lot of money with little to show for it. But because of Ghani's extensive time living in the West, he is criticized as the candidate of the West. Ghani repeatedly argues that he has intimate knowledge of the Afghan village. Some Afghan colleagues have called him confrontational, condescending, and aloof. To combat the criticisms and aid his campaign in general, he hired the American political consultant, James Carville.

Ramazan Bashardost: Ramazan Bashardost has been credited with championing the cause of the poor during his campaign. He calls for clean government and plays down ethnic affiliation. He claims the Taliban are not fighting the Americans, but are still engaged in the violent struggle for power stemming from the 1990s. He advises the Americans to refrain from worrying about security and instead suggests they worry about their billions of dollars going to Afghan politicians. He asserts that the Taliban are not ready to negotiate for peace.

Bashardost is ethnically Hazara and a Shiite. He lived in France for two decades and achieved a doctorate in law. He was a planning minister under Hamid Karzai from 2004-2005. He left the cabinet after calling for stricter accountability for money going to local and international aid agencies. As minister, Bashardost donated his salary to pay for the lunches of his aids. He has subsequently criticized Karzai for giving perks to other ministers, including $60,000 cars and land plots. After leaving the cabinet in 2005, he was promptly elected as a Member of Parliament. He is still an MP.

Bashardost has been running a populist campaign. He has been living in a tent across the street from parliament in protest of government corruption. The tent also serves as his campaign headquarters. Bashardost, who has never been married, has refused government bodyguards. He draws his support from the urban protest vote and the province of Hazarjat. His critics believe his actions against corruption are genuine, but assert that he's more of a moralist leader as opposed to a political one. He often rants, leaving his policy prescriptions murky.

Democracy is Not the Answer

2009-08-14T00:41:00.005-04:00

Angola held its one and only presidential election in 1992. Incumbent president, Jose Eduardo dos Santos, led after the first round of voting against UNITA's Jonas Savimbi. International observers deemed the election to be generally free and fair. However, dos Santos did not win the required 50% of the vote needed to claim the presidency outright. As a result, a runoff election between dos Santos and Savimbi should have taken place. It didn't. Savimbi rejected the results and what has been deemed the worst part of Angola's 40-year war broke out in 1992, lasting until 1994.

Dos Santos's term was suppose to be 5 years. However, the government claimed the lack of a second round of voting and the war were enough reason to scrap that limit. The Lusaka Protocol, which followed the 1992-1994 phase of the war, called for speedy elections. No elections were held as a result of the Lusaka Protocol and the war resumed in 1998. UNITA was defeated militarily in 2002, the same year their autocratic leader, Savimbi, was killed. As a result, the government held all of the cards. The government continuously promised to hold elections. In 2008, a flawed parliamentary election was held. A presidential election has yet to be held.

At this point, a presidential election will do nothing except to legitimize dos Santos, his cronies, and their exploitation of Angola's natural wealth. Angola cannot offer a valid opposition. An election would not be based on issues. While dos Santos would have a tremendous advantage over any opponent, because of his access to state resources, even a change of power would not aid the average Angolan. The system is set up to benefit a small group in charge, whether they be members of the MPLA, which is the current party in power, UNITA, or any other group. There are no checks on corruption. Much of the nation's vast oil wealth goes unaccounted for. This allows people in power to steal that money- evidence of which can be traced to foreign bank accounts held by prominent members of Luandan society. Civil society is too weak to do anything about the corruption. Independent journalists are often harassed or worse.

Barring a radical revolution within Angola, which is unlikely given the war fatigue of the nation, the country's best hope might be a profound change in the actions of the international community. With the U.S. desperate to find sources of oil outside the contentious region of the Middle East, Angolan oil has become more desirable. As a result, the flaws of Angola's leadership are ignored. The powers that be in Angola are allowed to profit from the U.S.’s predicament. Demanding accountability for oil dollars and taking the pro-active stance of creating alternative sources of fuel are two things the U.S. and the wider international community can do to help Angola.

International Disruptions

2009-08-04T20:51:00.010-04:00

The international community has played a negative role in Angola. The southwestern African nation endured war for four decades ending in 2002, experiencing only brief interludes of peace during that span. Initially, a number of countries impacted the war by physically intervening in the conflict or providing direct military assistance to either side. In recent years, the international community has simply turned a blind eye to abuses.

This is not to suggest that Angolans, particularly the top brass of the government and the leader of UNITA, the former rebel group, Jonas Savimbi, have not played an active role in determining their country's fate. The upper echelon of the government, led by Jose Eduardo dos Santos, and Savimbi profited from the ongoing war. Savimbi was a totalitarian leader of UNITA and possessed a never-ending ambition to extend his clout to the entire country. Because of the war, the government was able to argue that many of its more dubious policies were in the name of national security.

Despite the role these selfish leaders have played in destroying their own land, international factors have had a comparably negative impact. South Africa physically fought on the side of UNITA until F.W. de Klerk took power. After the repeal of the Clark Amendment, which banned the U.S. from intervening in the Angolan conflict, in 1985, the U.S., led by an enthusiastic rightwing lobby, provided UNITA with aid. Cuba lent the government soldiers. The Soviet Union played an important part in propping up the self-avowed Marxist-Leninist government. Regional nations also took sides.

By the time of the 1991-1992 Bicesse Accords, direct intervention was a tactic of the past. Instead, governments turned a blind eye to the conflict when purchasing Angola's diamonds (largely controlled by UNITA) and oil (controlled by the government). No conditions were enforced accompanying these items and the funds poured into continuing the war. Following Bicesse, the UN failed to ensure the demilitarization of both sides before the 1992 election. Once Savimbi realized he had lost the first round, the war resumed. During the Lusaka Protocol, 1994-1998, the UN actually argued that it was a better strategy to keep human rights violations committed by either side quiet, so as to further the peace process. Human Rights Watch asserts that exposing human rights violations leads to accountability, a condition of creating lasting peace.

Even after the war has ended, Angola's oil is still in demand. The profits are enjoyed by the leadership at the expense of the regular population. At every turn, the people of Angola have suffered at the hands of their leaders and the international community.

The Irony of Jews in the Dominican

2009-07-24T15:06:00.005-04:00

In 1937, Dominican dictator, Rafael Trujillo ordered the massacre of Haitians and black Dominicans as part of his Dominicanization process, which involved "whitening" the country. The next year, Trujillo was the only world leader to willingly accepted Jewish refugees, who were fleeing Nazi persecution, in hopes of continuing his process of Dominicanization. It's ironic that the Jews were wanted in the Dominican because they were considered white, while they were forced to flee their homelands precisely because they weren't considered white.

Attempting to "whiten" his country was not the only reason why Trujillo opted to open his borders to the refugees. Trujillo hoped that his act of humanitarianism would appease the United States in a bid to get back into the power's good graces following the Haitian Massacre.

Though Trujillo called for the immigration of 100,000 Jewish refugees, the island was at most home to about 1,000 Jews at any one time. As part of the Jewish immigration to the Dominican Republic, an agricultural colony was formed in Sosúa, which held no more than a few hundred at any particular moment. However, the Dominican saw much turnover in terms of the Jewish population, so the number of Jews who passed through the Dominican during World War II was considerably greater.

The Sosúa colony always enjoyed the support of the dictator until the day he died. Once Trujillo was assassinated, the Jewish settlers feared that their previous overt ties to Trujillo might cause them trouble. Ironically, the man who subsequently protected the colony was Antonio Imbert, one of only two members of the Trujillo assassination conspiracy to survive the wrath of the dictator's son in the weeks that followed the killing.

The colony itself continued to survive until tourism overrode agriculture as Sosúa's main source of income around 1980. Throughout its existence, a slow trickle of Jews continuously left the colony, also contributing to its descent.

Squandered Opportunities

2009-07-21T00:12:00.004-04:00

Angola has been ravaged by war from the colonial period through much of its independence. Three fragmented groups, the MPLA, FNLA, and UNITA all fought to free its people and enjoy the spoils of power. After independence was won from Portugal in 1975, the MPLA took over the government. UNITA, backed by South Africa and, eventually, the U.S., violently challenged the rule of the MPLA, who was aided by the Soviet Union and Cuba.

After an extensive peace process resulted in the cessation of war in 1991, a national election was held. The incumbent president, Jose Eduardo dos Santos took the first round, but didn't garner the necessary 50% to avoid a runoff with UNITA's Jonas Savimbi. However, Savimbi cried foul and the war reignited. At that point, international opinion overwhelmingly turned against UNITA. The Lusaka Peace Process commenced in 1994, but had completely fallen apart by 1998. Savimbi was killed in 2002 and UNITA was overrun militarily. The war finally ended.

By agreement, the government was supposed to have held elections already. The brass of the MPLA has used war and its aftermath as excuses to avoid holding elections. Not only have the rights of Angolans been trampled on by both sides in the name of war, but the war has been used as a cover for dos Santos and his cohorts to exploit the country's vast oil wealth, while Savimbi and UNITA leaders took advantage of the nation's diamonds. The result has created a few wealthy and powerful individuals at the expense of the rest of the population. While Angola's GDP is one of the largest in Sub-Saharan Africa, almost none of that money finds its way towards improving the condition of the majority of Angolans.

Supporting the Alternative

2009-06-22T00:13:00.005-04:00

Former Zambian President Frederick Chiluba is standing trial for stealing his country's money. In 1991, Chiluba represented hope for a democratic Zambia. As the leader of a trade union, he challenged Kenneth Kaunda, a man who had ruled Zambia for the 27 years since independence, for the presidency. When Chiluba won the election, he was championed by the West as one of the leaders of a new African wind of change.

But Chiluba's reign was marred with abuse of power from the outset. The opposition boycotted the 1996 presidential contest. Only strong opposition prevented Chiluba from defying the constitution and running for a third term. While it seems like Chiluba did steal money from his nation's treasury, at the very least, he spent tons of money on personal luxury goods. In the case of Zambia, the alternative did not provide progress. Chiluba was simply supported because he was the alternative to Kaunda's 27 year rule. Not because of his own credentials.

Now, the fear is that the West will back Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Iran against Mahmoud Ahmadienjad simply because Mousavi is the alternative to the confrontational incumbent. Ahmadinejad recently won a dubious election and Mousavi has vowed to fight the result, leading to mass protests against the election process. However, regardless of the name of the president, Ayatollah Khamenei will hold power in Iran, so a push to enter into the realm of Iran's domestic politics would be far riskier than any potential rewards for the U.S.

In Pakistan, the U.S. has entertained the idea of backing Nawaz Sharif for short-sided reasons. Sharif is an alternative to the seemingly-ineffective Asif Ali Zardari, with national appeal and ties to Islamists. Ironically, the U.S. had backed Zardari's late wife Benazir Bhutto simply because she was an alternative to Pervez Musharraf, who had duped the U.S. into giving billions of dollars of aid that went to the military and then to extremists. As you may have guessed the irony does not end there; Musharraf took power in a coup, overthrowing Sharif, and was viewed as a positive alternative to the corrupt Prime Minister.

While short-sided support of the alternative in Pakistan has resulted in a ridiculous merry-go-round of regime change, the policy has not worked much better elsewhere. There are numerous examples of the West and, specifically the U.S., supporting the lesser of two evils only to be wrong in the long run.

Why Stay in Iraq?

2009-06-06T17:41:00.004-04:00

Some have argued that if U.S. forces withdraw from Iraq, violent chaos will ensue. The reasons for this belief are valid. This leads some to then contend that the United States must keep troops in Iraq for possibly several decades.

However, it is not clear how the situation in Iraq will be different in 10, 20, or 50 years. The U.S. has maintained a short-term strategy, which desperately attempts to curtail sectarian and anti-American violence and fight al Qaeda. But sustained stability will not come with the present strategy. As a result, unless something drastically changes, violent chaos will follow America's withdrawal no matter when that happens to be.

Even the most optimistic American general does not believe a political breakthrough is imminent. The government is largely filled with Shia nationalists. The Iraqi National Police force sometimes poses as a death squad. The military is majority Shia. The insurgency is typically Sunni. As of now, Iraqis identify with their sect and tribe above their nationality. The U.S. has funded and empowered both sides. Perhaps the major group which has benefited the most from the U.S. occupation in Iraq is the Kurds.

Some are concerned that if the U.S. leaves Iraq, Iran might exert its influence in Iraq. It has already happened. Whenever the U.S. withdraws, Iranian influence in Iraq will rise, whether that's now or in 50 years. The key is to engage the Iranians diplomatically. Only a Sunni or Kurdish dictator will curtail Iran's impact in Iraq and that could result in another war between the two neighbors.

A struggle for power in Iraq will occur as soon as the Americans leave, unless a new political strategy immerges. It will result in even more devastation for the Iraqi people. The war up until now and the war to come must be blamed on the U.S. invasion. That the U.S. will be able to ever find a political or military settlement in Iraq is highly dubious, not least because the U.S. was the invading and occupying force that caused the current predicament.

The question becomes: Why stay in Iraq for another day, let alone 50 years if a withdrawal will cause the same result regardless of when it takes place? Why lose American lives and resources if nothing will fundamentally change? The answer is not: In the hopes that the U.S. might steer Iraq into the least bad political settlement, because the first six years of the war have shown the U.S. is not even capable of that.

Forgetting Iraq

2009-05-31T22:17:00.000-04:00

The United States' international focus has shifted to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and North Korea. In the meantime, Iraq has slowly faded from the nation's consciousness.

Reportedly, 134 Iraqi civilians died in the month of May directly because of the war. In the last two months, 424 Iraqi civilians were reportedly killed. That hardly constitutes a success. It can only be considered successful in relative terms.

The May 2009 total is the least since 2003. That low is still over 4 murdered Iraqis a day. Over the last two months, the number of murdered Iraqis a day is 7. In most places, that would be a catastrophe. It is more a measure of how horrific the war had become and less an indication of any real triumph.

Iraq's political system is still based on ethno-sectarian divisions, which is to say, it is far from a success. A lower, yet still intolerable, number of Iraqi civilian deaths doesn't represent a success either. Success in Iraq should not come cheap; it needs to be redefined.

The 2009 Mozambican Presidential Election

2009-05-14T00:26:00.008-04:00

The next presidential election in Mozambique is scheduled for October 28, 2009. Current president Armando Guebuza represents Frelimo, the party that has been in power since independence. The main opposition party, Renamo, is led by Afonso Dhlakama, making his fourth run at the presidency. A new political party, the MDM, has formed as an offshoot of Renamo and is led by the mayor of Beira, Daviz Simango.

Mozambicans certainly have a number of options (including several candidates from smaller parties) for the presidency. However, none of them are very good. Guebuza has been a member of Frelimo's inner circle for decades. He deserves part of the credit, as well as part of the blame, for Frelimo's past policies. In the early 1980s, Guebuza oversaw a program called Operation Production, which instituted a form of virtual forced labor as people were systematically rounded up and transported to the countryside. Guebuza was one of the four or five major figures during Frelimo's authoritarian one-party rule. In 2004, he won a presidential election that international observers did not deem to be free or fair.

Dhlakama's past is at least as troublesome as Guebuza's. He took over Renamo, a rebel group founded and funded by white racist apartheid regimes, in 1979 after the death of the original leader, Andre Matsangaissa. Under Dhlakama's leadership, Renamo was responsible for human rights violations, such as recruiting child soldiers. Dhlakama's ties to Renamo's suspicious roots and his role in the nation's civil war do not make Dhlakama the ideal presidential candidate. This is highlighted by the fact that he only received 31.7% of the vote in 2004 and has failed in his three previous attempts at the presidency.

Daviz Simango is part of a new generation of politicians. However, the mayor of Beira has his drawbacks as well. His split with Renamo is not over issues, but because of a personality clash with Dhlakama. As a result, the split may serve to marginalize the opposition in Mozambique. In this scenario, Frelimo would become a de facto one-party state, which was largely the reason for the civil war in the first place. Simango's father, Uria, was a major leader in Frelimo until he was outmaneuvered for the head of the organization after the death of Eduardo Mondlane in 1969. Frelimo labeled the elder Simango a traitor. However, the father's role should not matter towards determining the son's merits.

There is a persuasive argument asserting that it doesn't really matter who wins the presidency because the "international community" essentially makes the decisions in Mozambique. Mozambique relies heavily on aid and the president's only real power might be to attempt to direct that aid within a narrow set of possibilities. As October 28 approaches, it appears that Mozambicans will be called on to choose a candidate without a comprehensive vision for Mozambique's future or the clout to institute that vision were they to have one. The country needs a new generation of leaders devoid of the contentious connection to the civil war and free from the international community's control.

U.S. Role in Dominican Democracy

2009-05-09T16:02:00.006-04:00

Following the assassination of Rafael Trujillo and the collapse of his regime, the Dominican Republic encountered numerous obstacles towards achieving democracy. The U.S. largely played a destructive role in the process.

After the assassination, towards the end of 1961, Trujillo's brothers attempted to gain control of the country, but U.S. warships docked just off the coast of the Dominican, deterred them. In the first post-Trujillo election, Juan Bosch of the PRD became president in 1963. He was soon overthrown. Bosch, a leftist, was overthrown by a military coup inspired by rightists. Donald Reid Carbral became the leader of the military junta that assumed power.

Dissent grew between both sides. Civil war broke out in 1965 between the Constitutionalists and the Loyalists. The Constitutionalists favored reinstating the democratically-elected Bosch. The Loyalists did not want Reid in power, instead backing the reinstatement of the previous president, Joaquin Balaguer. Balaguer had been the nominal president during the Trujillo regime, beginning in 1960.

The U.S. felt the violent division within the Dominican was to the super power's detriment. So, the U.S. intervened militarily to stop the war. The result was the contentious election of Balaguer in 1966. Balaguer ruled the Dominican for 22 of the next 30 years in a borderline autocratic manner. The intervention led to widespread condemnation of the U.S. in Latin America. Both sides of the Dominican war resented U.S. presence on their shores. They considered the war to be a domestic concern and the U.S. presence infringed on Dominican sovereignty.

One of the prevalent motives for the U.S. intervention was the pervasive fear that a communist regime would surface in areas engaged in conflict. Stability, even if at the hands of a non-democratic leader, was favorable to the potential of communism.

In part because of U.S. invention, the Dominican remains a semi-democratic nation, as scholars have deemed it. Political parties often rely on personalities as opposed to policies. Balaguer is a prime example of this point. More recently, Leonel Fernandez, the current president of the Dominican Republic, is serving his third term at the helm (1996-2000, 2004-present).

The Question of Renamo's Roots

2009-05-03T23:38:00.010-04:00

There are scholars who have tried to downplay Renamo's roots. Renamo is the main opposition party in Mozambique. It began as a rebel movement, created and funded by two apartheid regimes, Rhodesian and South Africa.

Renamo gained sympathy from right wing circles in Europe and the United States during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Frelimo, the guerilla movement who led Mozambique to independence in 1975, ran a self-described Marxist-Leninist state. Renamo was viewed as an anti-communist force designed to inflict another blow on the Soviet bloc. Thus, Renamo received funds from conservative sources, such as Pat Robertson.

Another form of support came in the form of pro-Renamo literature. These academics sought to describe Renamo as fundamentally a black Mozambican nationalist movement, engaged in a legitimate struggle against a repressive regime. Certainly Rhodesia did not force Renamo on unwilling participants. There was a local clamoring for resistance to Frelimo in various parts of Mozambique. But Rhodesia's role in forming Renamo is undeniable.

After the Rhodesian regime disappeared in the wake of the Lancaster Agreement in 1979, paving the way for majority rule in the newly renamed Zimbabwe, South Africa took control of the direction of Renamo. The level of South African involvement is a source for debate. Some scholars claim that South Africa provided only scant logistic support, and only did so during the first 10 years of the civil war.

In 1984, South Africa and Mozambique signed the Nkomati Accord, calling for South Africa's support of Renamo to cease in exchange for a halt to Mozambique's support for the ANC. However, it is widely accepted that South Africa continued to back Renamo. The Vaz diaries, also known as the Gorongosa documents, give a detailed account of South African involvement in Renamo's affairs even after Nkomati. Vaz, the secretary of Renamo's leader Afonso Dhlakama, left his diary in Renamo's headquarters where it was captured by Zimbabwean troops during a raid and handed over to Frelimo. Right wing scholars tend to ignore this revelation in order to downplay Renamo's historical ties with white racist regimes.

From its founding in 1962, Frelimo was always marred by dissidents. Renamo tapped into an existing disaffection when it was formed shortly after independence. Frelimo was a one party state that did not allow room for dissent. But to deny Renamo's ties to apartheid regimes, who had their own agendas for creating havoc within Mozambique, is intellectually dishonest.

Supporting Trujillo

2009-04-28T00:33:00.005-04:00

Rafael Trujillo ruled the Dominican Republic from 1930 until 1961. Trujillo was a soldier, trained by U.S. marines, who gained power through manipulation and made a career of brutalizing his opponents.

The link between the U.S. and Trujillo is complicated, but there were extensive ties between the dictator and the northern power. The U.S. invaded the Dominican in 1916 in order to stabilize the politically chaotic nation. U.S. marines occupied the country from 1916-1924. The colonial power intended to build a force for law and order, though there was some disagreement as to whether a police force or an army was more appropriate. One of the men who signed up to join this force was Trujillo. While the marines could obviously not have dreamed that they were training a dictator, their autocratic rule contributed towards creating the conditions that led to Trujillo's ascent.

U.S. foreign policy is often more concerned with its own short term aspirations than the people who reside in a particular nation. The invasion and subsequent occupation of the Dominican was no different. Rather than contributing towards building a democracy, the U.S. helped to contribute towards forming a highly militarized society. The U.S. policy of creating an apolitical military designed to ensure internal stability was not sincere. The U.S. did not follow through on its initial goal.

Once Trujillo gained power, he was supported by the U.S. America consistently looked the other way with regards to the more sadistic aspects of the Generalissimo's rule until it was no longer politically advantageous to do so following World War II. Trujillo was seen as a stabilizing force and a pro-American head of state because of his earlier U.S.-led military training. Trujillo gained favor once again when the Cold War intensified, because the autocrat was ostensibly anti-communist.

Instead of a consistent policy of advocating human rights in the Dominican Republic, the U.S. waffled, at times supporting Trujillo and all of the viciousness that accompanied his rule, while disavowing itself when it was politically beneficial. The U.S. was not directly culpable for Trujillo's rise- he possessed an innate political shrewdness- but allowed for his rise and gave him support throughout the years. A better long term strategy for the U.S. would have been to support a push towards true democracy, winning the hearts and minds of the Dominican people.

Cuba's Blacks Before and After the Revolution

2009-04-03T01:09:00.012-04:00

The last sixty years of Cuban history have been divided into two periods. They are known simply as antes and después. The point of departure was Fidel Castro's Revolution. Since, there has been a grab to define the discourse by those who support the Revolution and by those who do not. Those involved will create arguments to prove that life in Cuba was better before the Revolution or that it has been better because of it. Taking one example, the respective leaders' actions towards Cuban blacks, will represent the way history can and has been manipulated to fit various agendas.

Fulgencio Batista, the leader of Cuba before Castro, was a mulatto- an acceptable term in Cuba. That he had black ancestry was a source of pride for the black population on the island, who had long been marginalized, despite their instrumental role in shaping the course of Cuban history. Batista, the overseer of Cuba, was not allowed in the numerous "whites only" social clubs. He was in the same boat as his black brethren. Batista participated in the rites of Santería, a religion that had its foundation in the beliefs of the Yoruba in Africa. He also supported Afro-Cuban ceremonies.

Fidel Castro, on the contrary, never made an appeal to blacks prior to taking power. He was essentially a white liberal in the same vein as John Kennedy. Castro opposed organizations that were based on color, including those that were principally concerned with improving the lot of black Cubans. Under the Castro regime, blacks were still significantly underrepresented in positions of power.

The opposite argument can be made however. While Batista was a symbol of a racial outsider rising to the level of the nation's leader, his autocratic rule did nothing to improve the condition of blacks on the island. His reign resulted in riches for a few, not least of all, Batista himself, while much of the island did not benefit from the country's overall prosperity.

Fidel Castro, on the contrary, banned the "whites only" clubs that Batista was prohibited from entering. His policies moved to eradicate discrimination on a state level. Blacks saw more power in the government than they had under Batista. Castro was greeted with a warm welcome on his multiple visits to Harlem in the United States. The literacy program of the early 1960s eradicated illiteracy that naturally affected dispossessed groups to a greater degree.

One argument claims that Fidel Castro's nickname "El Caballo" (The Horse) could have been borrowed from the leader of the 1912 black rebellion, Evaristo Estenoz, who was symbolized by the horse, as a subtle appeal to blacks. While it's a little far fetched to believe that Castro borrowed an obscure symbol from a failed rebellion that would have challenged his own rule, it's even more unlikely that the island's black population would have recognized the fifty-year old reference. But that shows the length that people will take to argue their side, and it should be noted that there plenty of examples going the other way.

History is always in dialogue with the agendas of the present. The point is that the moment of the Revolution, had very little impact on most of the nation's black population. Significant changes in people's livelihood often take place within a regime's rule, not simply during convenient moments of change chosen by historians.

The International Community in Mozambique

2009-03-26T00:17:00.005-04:00

The role of foreign actors in Mozambique has largely had a negative effect on the African country. This relationship began with colonialism. FRELIMO led the independence movement to throw out the reluctant colonial power, Portugal, in 1975.

That colonialism is a repressive and violent system has been well-documented, but its legacy lasts longer than its lifespan. FRELIMO ousted the Portuguese which gave the freedom fighting organization enough political capital to run Mozambique without the normal checks that a government faces. FRELIMO became a repressive one-party state. This phenomenon took place in other places that I have discussed, such as Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania.

Towards the end of the long civil war between FRELIMO and RENAMO, unintended international occurrences brought the two sides to the negotiating table. FRELIMO advocated scientific socialism which was sustained by Eastern European aid. That aid naturally dried up following the liberalization of Eastern Europe in the late 1980s. RENAMO could no longer retain hopes of becoming the benefactor of American Cold War support. In addition, F.W. de Klerk took over power from P.W. Botha in South Africa, and scratched the latter's policy of destabilization in Mozambique by funding RENAMO (revenge for Mozambique's support of the ANC). While the convergence of international events created the positive result of forcing the two hostile sides to negotiate peace, the international community never took an active role in attempting to halt the violence.

During negotiations in the early 1990s, ONUMOZ, a United Nations organization, essentially took over sovereignty of Mozambique. The UN's presence created a disproportionate spike in cost in certain areas; for example, the price of accommodations skyrocketed. More significantly, ONUMOZ's departure, following the peace agreement, left a huge void.

The international community expected Mozambique to democratize following the peace agreement. However, a culture of democracy had not been established in the country. It was unreasonable for anyone to expect that two warring organizations could instantaneously create a burgeoning democracy. That the two sides have acted so valiantly is a credit to Mozambique and its people. But the elections of the 1990s were not based on issues; they were informed by ethnic and regional divides. The idea of a loyal opposition was understandably a foreign concept. People were reluctant to betray those in power.

Mozambique's liberalization has forced the country to become subservient to the IMF and the World Bank. Consequently, Mozambique's debt has increased drastically. NGOs do the work of the government. Foreign donors fund emergency relief instead of projects that would allow for sustained development. Thus, the cycle of borrowing never ceases. Mozambique is essentially run by foreign money. It is neo-colonialism in the guise of humanitarian aid.

Mozambique's interactions with the international community have not been the sole reason for its impoverished state. A 17-year civil war and corruption are also important factors. However, the relationship between the international community and Mozambique must, in the future, be one of equality, not dependency. Any foreign funds must focus on long-term development, while Mozambicans must be allowed to run their own country.

The Wrong Horse in Pakistan

2009-03-25T15:19:00.005-04:00

The U.S. is considering partnering up with Nawaz Shariff as Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari apparently becomes more unpopular. Shariff has already been ousted in disgrace from his position as Prime Minister twice.

After two failed stints as Pakistan's Prime Minister, the U.S. backed Benazir Bhutto before her assassination in December of 2007. It appears that the U.S. is aimed towards making a similar mistake. Shariff supported the Taliban, tested a nuclear bomb, and never attempted to stop the ISI's support of militants within Pakistan's borders. Shariff's government was mired in corruption. There is little to justify partnering with Shariff. He might be the man of the hour, but it would be dangerously short-sided to grant him any support.

Some feel Shariff's ties to extremist parties will allow him to reason with them. However, Shariff has already proven that he has little sway over extremists within Pakistan during his first two times in charge. He speaks the language of Islamic fundamentalism to garner support, but he lacks credibility in those circles. The fundamentalists back Shariff and Shariff throws overtures to them as both sides play each other in an effort to gain power. The alternative for the extremists is Zardari, who is perceived as an American puppet. The other option is to fight, which they have continued to do, showing that the extremists don't put much faith in Shariff.

Shariff is exactly what the U.S. doesn't need. The U.S. needs to move away from these political has-beens, who have proven themselves unable to rule Pakistan effectively. It's time for fresh blood in the halls of power or else fresh blood will be spilled elsewhere.

Socialist Mismanagement

2009-03-03T13:40:00.005-05:00

Whenever a self-described socialist nation goes through an economic downturn based on its government's policies the term "socialist mismanagement" is used by Western elites. However, when the same situation occurs in a self-described capitalist country, the parallel phrase is never used.

Cuba is a self-described socialist state. There is a pervasive belief in the West that "socialist mismanagement" has been the cause of the depredation of the island. While external and internal forces have contributed to Cuba's current condition, to dismiss these complex factors as mere "socialist mismanagement" is not only lazy, but clearly pushing a particular agenda.

After the fall of the Soviet Union and its satellites, Cuba fell on hard times. This period is called the Special Period, as Fidel Castro and the Cuban leadership attempted to explain the coming hardship. Prior to the collapse of the USSR, Cuba's economy was dependent on foreign aid from socialist countries, which had improved certain aspects of the lives of Cubans from before the Revolution, while making other features more difficult. Food and other goods disappeared for a period after the loss of aid.

Castro legalized the use of dollars, which has had significant results. People working in the tourist sector and those selling goods on the black market became privileged over doctors and teachers who remained in the unconvertible peso economy. As a result, people trained as doctors and the like entered arenas where they would be paid in dollars. We must be careful not condemn a system that pays doctors less than merchants because we don't want to place our own morals on another society, but clearly the movement of people who are trained in one field and working in another will have negative effects on a country's economy.

The above negatives have virtually nothing to do with the system of socialism as an ideology. Cuba's allies collapsed, which created a dire situation on the island. The government's reaction was to privilege certain sectors above others without providing incentives for people to stay in the occupation of their training. The discussion of whether socialism, capitalism, or some combination of the two is the best economic system should be left to the economists of the world. But we must be wary of misinformed simplistic catchphrases such as "socialist mismanagement."

One Party against Many

2009-03-01T21:43:00.001-05:00

Tanzania, which is a union of two states, mainland Tanganyika and Zanzibar, has had one party running the country throughout its independent history. Until 1992, Tanzania was a one-party state. Since, CCM has continued to lead the country despite facing opposition.

Interesting enough, before 1977, Tanzania was a one-party state, but had two parties. This is because it has two governments, one for the union and the other for Zanzibar. TANU ruled the union government and ASP ran Zanzibar until they merged to form CCM in 1977. The argument for the one-party system was based largely on a need for stability. Despite having a well-respected man as president, Julius Nyerere, who ruled until 1985, the one-party state posed some obvious problems to citizens' quest for liberty. The government did not have to face accountability for its actions. These actions included restrictions on various expressions of freedom. Nyerere, though allowing for debate on certain issues, controlled the nature of it. The various constitutions were given little credence and there were no checks within government to give it legitimacy.

Since multi-party democracy was instated, CCM has faced a weak and divided opposition for control of the union government. So even with multi-party elections, CCM is a de facto one-party state. CCM candidate Jakaya Kikwete received 80% of the vote for the union presidency in 2005. Even worse for the sake of Tanzanian democracy is that CCM does not have a democratic structure itself. So the president of the union government is essentially decided by the top brass of the CCM and not the Tanzanian people. Thus, he does not have to play to the concerns of the population because, in reality, they have no say as to his job security.

Opposition parties in Tanzania are often times covers for the ambitions of politicians. Most do not have a plan for the future or issues that they stand on. There are numerous weak opposition parties vying for seats in the union government. The division weakens the opposition further. These parties are not willing to merge to form a credible opposition that would keep CCM in check. Thus, the situation ultimately negates any real choice for Tanzanian citizens and creates an absence of accountability for the country's leaders.

Kikwete's closest competitor in the 2005 election for the union presidency was Ibrahim Lipumba of the CUF, who received just 11% of the vote. The CUF is largely a Zanzibar-based party. In Zanzibar's presidential elections, CUF has been much closer. But the tightness of the contests for control has led to tragic violence. CUF boycotted parliament after declaring fraud in the 1995 elections. That hostility carried over until a bloodbath ensued following the 2000 elections. So even the existence of strong parties has resulted in violence and general animosity in Zanzibar. The parties tend to be divided by island with CUF running strong in Pemba and Unguja filled with CCM supporters.

While Tanzanians do not yet have a perfect democracy (and really, who does?), it is progressing. Both governments need a strong opposition party, preferably one for each government, that reaches out to a broad coalition of supporters. These parties cannot play to Tanzanians' religious or racial differences, nor to the pride in the location of one's current residence. Instead, they need to come up with a plan for Tanzania's future and appeal to voters on that basis.

The Basics of Tanzanian Political History

2009-02-12T20:54:00.006-05:00

Tanzania is a federation of mainland Tanzania, known as Tanganyika during colonialism, and the islands of Zanzibar. In order to coax Zanzibar into the federation and to keep the islands as part of Tanzania, the country possesses two governments. One is a Zanzibari government and the other is a Union government. It might seem as if this system favors Zanzibar, but the population on the islands is a scant fraction of that on the mainland, so Zanzibaris have little say in the Union government. Originally, during the last throes of the independence movement, there was hope for a federation that also would have also included Kenya and Uganda- the reasons for its failure will not be discussed here.

The predominant political party on the mainland aimed at liberation was TANU, led by Julius Nyerere. Nyerere eventually became the president of a federated Tanzania and TANU oversaw a one-party state until the 1990s. In 1967, Nyerere issued the Arusha Declaration, which declared that Tanzania was a socialist nation. Nyerere stepped down as president and peacefully transferred power to Ali Hassan Mwinyi in 1985.

Zanzibar's history is interestingly distinct from that of the mainland. Unlike the religious pluralism of the mainland, Zanzibar is almost completely Muslim. The islands had a powerful Arab minority represented by a coalition of the ZNP (Zanzibar Nationalist Party) and the ZPPP (Zanzibar and Pemba People's Party). Before British colonialism, Zanzibar was part of the Omani Sultanate. Black Africans divided themselves into two groups, mainlanders, which represented a minority of the black population in Zanzibar and another group known as Shirazis. Shirazis adopted a Persian ethno-history to create a distinction between themselves and Africans who arrived on the islands more recently. Together, they formed the Afro-Shirazi Party (ASP), which ruled Zanzibar following the Zanzibari Revolution in 1964. When Zanzibar gained independence, the British turned over the territory to Arabs, to the resentment of the Africans.

In 1977, TANU and ASP merged to create Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM), which has ruled both governments ever since. The brief history of Tanzanian multi-party politics consists of CCM domination. It's most significant competition for its position in the Union government occurred in the election of 1995, when NCCR-Mageuzi mustered a respectable showing, despite the proliferation of numerous opposition parties. But the party lost nearly all of its support due to personality clashes. Now, the main opposition party is the CUF (Civic United Front). Since the onset of multi-party democracy, CUF has given CCM a significant challenge in Zanzibari elections.

The president of Tanzania is Jakaya Kikwete of the CCM, who was elected to his first term in 2005. He recently finished a term as the head of the African Union.

Whether For or Against

2009-02-08T23:11:00.000-05:00

Since independence over 100 years ago, Cuba's existence has been destructively linked to the United States. During the drive to independence, the revolutionary writer José Martí warned his country against simply exchanging Spanish colonialism for American imperialism. Martí's words have proved prophetic.

From independence until the Revolution, Cuba was ruled by corrupt dictators who had the full support of the United States. Fulgencio Batista had two reigns as the de facto ruler of the island nation and stripped the country of what amounted to millions of its dollars. Bastista formed a coalition with American mobsters to turn Cuba into a sordid tourist paradise. Bastista's actions ultimately hurt his country for numerous reasons, not least because the highest position a citizen could hope to achieve included either working in Bastista's crooked regime or for American gangsters. The system of rewards was skewed to a devastating degree for Cuba.

After Fidel Castro overthrew Batista in 1959, Cuba held the opposite position with regards to the United States. Cuba stormed out from under the grip of the United States and took a firm stance against its neighbor to the north. But every policy put forth by Castro was meant as an anti-imperialist gesture against the United States. This frame of mind also had a destructive impact on the island. Castro's revolution had the misfortune of occurring during the polarizing times of the Cold War, which provided the political circumstances to oppose the U.S. to such a strong degree. It is not accurate to say that the era forced Castro to choose sides- an ever-strengthening coalition of non-aligned developing nations persisted throughout the period- it simply enabled him to take a hard stance against the United States. Policies such as the campaign to produce 10 million tons of sugar in 1969-70, which ultimately destroyed the Cuban economy, were attempts to embarrass the United States, even if they rarely had Cuba's best interests at heart.

Cuba and the United States need to find a balance between a relationship based on subjugation and one of extreme antagonism. Cuba's unique culture and potential cannot thrive given the pervasiveness of the United States in Cuba's decision making, regardless of the nature of their relationship over the last century.

Petraeus at the Super Bowl

2009-02-03T00:16:00.003-05:00

General David Petraeus made an appearance at the Super Bowl. The contradiction between the increase in specialization in the NFL and Petraeus' job is striking. Some NFL teams have a punter, a kicker for field goals, and a kicker for kickoffs while Petraeus is the head of U.S. Central Command, which puts him in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The conditions, cultures, peoples, histories, and circumstances are profoundly different in Iraq and Afghanistan. The battle to be fought is different. The way the United States needs to relate to the people in the two countries is different. Afghanistan hasn't been occupied by a foreign force for a few thousand years. The country has fallen victim to an invasion, a civil war, and now another invasion in the last thirty years. The country's infrastructure is practically nil. The U.S. overthrew a religiously Sunni fundamentalist regime. After overcoming British colonialism, Iraq eventually saw a secular strongman take over the well-developed nation. Iraq featured a burgeoning middle class and a predominately Shiite population. Afghanistan has many different ethnic groups, but the largest are the Pashtuns. Iraqis are mostly Arab. The differences are overwhelmingly endless.

If there was ever a time for specialization it should be in dealing with the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And let's let one guy do all a team's kicking in the NFL.

Close Guantanamo Prison

2008-12-29T23:34:00.001-05:00

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.

U.S. Troops in South Korea

2008-12-22T23:57:00.000-05:00

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.

Come Home from the Mountains

2008-12-16T00:54:00.000-05:00

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.

Multi-Party Democracy in Zambia

2008-12-10T17:44:00.002-05:00

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.

Obama Proposes a Residual Force in Iraq

2008-12-08T22:53:00.008-05:00

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.

Mugabe, the Generals, and Negotiations

2008-10-14T23:13:00.002-04:00

The New York Times is reporting that top generals are urging Zimbabwean leader Robert Mugabe to withdraw from a power-sharing deal with opposition president Morgan Tsvangirai to save themselves from facing prosecution for their roles in the pre-election violence perpetrated against Tsvangirai's MDC supporters earlier this spring. However, the Times does not mention that Mugabe has protected his generals from prosecution for many years, just as the generals have helped keep Mugabe in power.

Mugabe has orchestrated military forays into Congo and Mozambique among other places. The result, while complex, for our purposes has resulted in plunder, leading to wealth for some Zimbabwean generals at the expense of the nation's people. Since coming to power, Mugabe challenged and exceeded Zambian President Kenneth Kaunda's role as the major player, other than South Africa, in the region. Mugabe was able to convince much of the world that he was a force for stabilization in the region. That is until his controversial plan to seize land from Zimbabwe's white population created an uproar in the West.

Fear of prosecution is nothing new for Zimbabwe's generals. Neither is pre-election violence on behalf of Mugabe. But this year saw pre-election violence reach an extreme. Even this level of violence has precedent in Zimbabwe as government brigades massacred its own civilians in the Matabelelands in the 1980s. That forced ZAPU leader, Joshua Nkomo, to enter into an agreement with Mugabe, where Nkomo lost all discernable power.

Tsvangirai has been cautious in entering negotiations with Mugabe and firm in his demands. But Tsvangirai has been unclear as to his stance on prosecuting the generals. In the past, he has called for a Truth and Justice commission, going one step further than South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation commission, by requiring justice to be served. At another juncture, Tsvangirai wanted to leave previous indiscretions in the past. This year, he has offered differing views on whether or not the generals should be prosecuted, which have been based on the ebbs and flows of violence against his supporters. Regardless of the generals' fate, the citizens of Zimbabwe have suffered.

Mugabe's rule can now only be legitimized by Tsvangirai. Tsvangirai can only earn some of the responsibility that he rightfully deserves with the help of Mugabe. But there is a major player lurking behind the scenes. Emmerson Mnangagwa ran Mugabe's campaign of terror and was considered as a possible successor to Mugabe when it was thought Mugabe could not hold onto power over the summer. Mnangagwa not only represents the violent autocracy of the history of rule in Zimbabwe, but could pose a threat to Mugabe. Mugabe would be wise to rest his political legacy on the shoulders of his arch-enemy, Tsvangirai, and not his ally, Mnangagwa, if he wants to keep any semblance of power and be thought of as anything more than a demagogue.

Above Politics

2008-10-10T00:15:00.000-04:00

Kenneth Kauda, the first president of independent Zambia, has endorsed the acting president and MMD candidate Rupiah Banda. Banda is running to fill out the remaining term of former president Levy Mwanawasa, who died this past summer. It is unfortunate that Kaunda has involved himself in the campaign in a partisan fashion.

Kaunda reigned over Zambia from 1964 until 1991, usually as the one man show of a one-party state. His personal philosophy of Humanism became the state's creed. He made every foreign policy decision, whether it was bucking frontline policy towards South Africa by engaging in negotiations or backing UNITA in Angola and ZAPU in Zimbabwe. In a sense, Kaunda was the state. At the very least, he is the father of the nation. Kaunda should stay of above current political squabbles and be the statesman and mediator that has marked his career. Great leaders don't come cheap and Kaunda needed to refrain from endorsing a candidate for president in order to maintain a role as an impartial father figure.

Kaunda's endorsement of Banda was implicit. His former party, UNIP, endorsed Banda for this election. UNIP is led by Kenneth Kaunda's son, Tilyenji Kaunda. There are conflicting reports as to the exact relation, but Banda is related to Kaunda's wife Betty. Also, Banda should win as there is much sympathy for the MMD in wake of Mwanawasa's death.

There was no need for Kaunda to lower himself to partisanship, but he took things one step further when he denounced the leading opposition candidate Michael Sata of the PF. He deemed Sata a capable governor and minister, but ill-suited for the presidency. Besides being an unnecessary attack, it is disingenuous. Doesn't Sata's experience as a capable government offical in high offices qualify him to be president? It is conceivable that it does not, but an illuminating explanation is required to prove that point. Kaunda has not acted like a statesman by endorsing a candidate, but has lowered himself further with his shots at Sata.

The election itself is dubious. I understand that it is probably intended to prevent a corrupt vice president from seizing office and to promote democracy. But if the candidate from the president's party is anything short of a demagogue, he will surely win thanks to sheer human sympathy. It also forces opposition parties to lie down in front of the ruling party or face near-certain defeat. It is particularly bad for Sata who is making another doomed attempt for the presidency. It begs the question of whether Sata is the head of a political party or a one-man coalition. This is where Kaunda could have argued for a smoother transition for the rise of a vice president after the death of a president, thereby implicitly supporting Banda while maintaining an aura of dignity.

A Failure to Negotiate

2008-10-06T23:30:00.000-04:00

The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan was never anything more than a precursor to the invasion of Iraq. The U.S. was never interested in putting a halt to the cycle of violence that has doomed Afghanistan for the last three decades. The U.S. was never concerned with nation-building in Afghanistan. The U.S. never had any intention of going after Osama bin Laden. There are two pieces of evidence for these points.

U.S. policy towards Afghanistan has been utterly haphazard; the U.S. has managed to consistently do the wrong thing in Afghanistan. In addition, prominent members of the administration were so eager to deem Afghanistan a success despite evidence to the contrary and were so anxious to go to war with Iraq. Even now, Republican presidential nominee John McCain explicitly contends that Iraq is the central front of the war on terror.

In the wake of recent news that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has attempted to negotiate with Taliban leaders, it is important to discuss the failures of U.S. policy in this regard. The leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, was still mulling over whether or not to hand over bin Laden when the U.S. attacked during the Fall of 2001. The Taliban were a nihilistic group, not hell-bent on bin Laden's plans for a global jihad. Omar needed time to decide what was best for his own future, even if it was at the expense of bin Laden, who was an important financial backer of the Taliban.

When Karzai came into power in 2002, he believed bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table was essential to bringing about peace in Afghanistan. He needed to legitimize the Taliban in order to marginalize them. If the Taliban had a stake in the Afghan government, they would not fight against it. But U.S. officials have always exerted a lack of courage and this instance was no different. Instead of worrying about the future of Afghanistan, they worried about their own political fortunes, and rejected Karzai's plan for the Taliban. Instead, the U.S. followed the destructive strategy of backing the warlords. The warlords' livelihoods were dependent on the continuation of the fighting. A chance was missed. Peace would not come to Afghanistan.

Today, the Taliban insurgency is holding its own. They have thus far rejected Karzai's attempts to negotiate. There's no impetus to compromise with Karzai, the insurgency is succeeding and continues to receive funds from Pakistan. The Taliban now profits from the continued fighting. Osama bin Laden has not been captured. The Taliban movement has spread into Pakistan. The Karzai government is weak. These circumstances are as a direct result of the failed policies of the United States towards Afghanistan following the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The Morality of Democracy

2008-10-02T00:13:00.004-04:00

Kenneth Kaunda led Zambia for 27 years, from independence in 1964 until 1991. For much of that time, Kaunda and his UNIP ruled over a one-party state. Yet, he was able to convincingly frame himself as a moralist leader, which was the basis for his legitimacy. The seeming contradiction of an undemocratic leader accepted as a moralist challenges the view of democracy in the West. The West sees the issue of democracy as a moral question, but in Zambia it was simply understood as a form of government, one of a litany to choose from, and ultimately rejected by Kaunda for much of his tenure.

Kaunda's claim as a moralist began as the leading voice in Southern Africa for majority rule. As he held a white handkerchief in his left hand, he frequently quoted Biblical verses and espoused the importance of love when explaining the cause. He promoted dialogue and negotiation as a foundation for his foreign policy; this in a region plagued by oppressive and violent white rule, which sometimes subsequently resulted in civil war. Many Zambians viewed Kaunda as the beloved father of their country and foreign dignities saw him as a respected statesman. That is not to ignore his numerous detractors, but to emphasize that his claim as a moralist is legitimate.

Towards the end of the 1980s, Kaunda's act began to wear thin, especially in the face of an economic decline. In 1990 he succumbed to a movement towards democracy. The next year he lost the presidential election to the MMD's candidate Frederick Chiluba. At the time, the West heralded the election as a wonderful achievement for Zambia. But the flowers of democracy never truly blossomed. Chiluba stood accused of stealing an inordinate amount of money while in power and was forced to pay it back. He attempted to defy the Constitution by running for a third term, an effort that his own party finally put down. Chiluba's election shows that there are not intrinsic benefits in the system of democracy.

Chiluba left office in 2001, but the MMD has held presidential power since it was originally ushered in by the first multi-party elections in Zambia in 1991. Levy Mwanawasa took over in 2001 without anywhere near a majority of the votes, because of a fractured opposition. Mwanawasa died last month and Zambia will see another presidential election on October 30 as a result. The MMD is running the acting president, Rupiah Banda. Michael Sata, the leader of PF, was a former member of MMD, but left when Chiluba did not tap Sata as his successor. Godfrey Miyanda, the leader of HP, formed his party after he was expelled from MMD. The other presidential candidate is Hakainde Hichilema, the UPND leader, who heads a party that has been criticized for fanning the flames of ethnic division. Two of the three opposition candidates are former MMD members, whose opposition is based on personal grudges.

Democracy can often be an effective form of government, but it is not a moral issue. The 1991 election, which brought democracy to Zambia, also increased the level of graft among the leadership. The 2001 election brought in a weak leader, a man who received about 30% of the vote, because of a fractured opposition. The 2008 election is only nominally democratic, because the opposition leaders are former members of the ruling party and only left because of personal grudges.

Pakistan in the First U.S. Presidential Debate

2008-09-27T00:14:00.003-04:00

The policies of both major party candidates for the presidency of the United States with regards to Pakistan are wrong. Barack Obama advocates going after bin Laden and other high al Qaeda operatives even if they are in Pakistan. While most Americans agree with that position, it has the potential to militarize more of the Pakistani population. John McCain is in favor of continuing the same failed policy towards Pakistan that George Bush has implemented- sending enormous aid without condition, which invariably goes into the pockets of the ISI and then to militant Islamists.

Obama's plan is less dangerous than McCain's. While bin Laden has a high favorability rating in Pakistan, particularly among people who live in the NWFP, he is still a foreigner. So is the rest of al Qaeda's leadership. There could be a potential violent backlash if bin Laden is killed in Pakistan by the U.S. and bin Laden would become a martyr. But bin Laden is not the type of mythic hero to where his death would enrage Pakistanis to take up arms en masse. Pakistanis would be upset at the violation of their sovereignty, but the Pakistani government under Musharraf took advantage of U.S. aid. There is no indication that the new president, Asif Ali Zardari, can put a stop to the ISI's funding of anti-American extremist groups. So, standing up to the Pakistani government is a nice change of policy, even though it would be done in a reckless manner.

McCain wants to continue to indirectly fund al Qaeda and the Taliban by granting billions in aid to Pakistan. That money is not spent on building schools or other infrastructure projects, but instead goes straight to the military. The ISI, which is linked to the military, is then asked to find extremist groups to give a significant proportion of the aid. Pakistan funds these extremists to fight India in Kashmir and funds the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan. Pakistan does not want an Afghan government that is on friendly terms with India. The Karzai government has good relations with the Indians, which has left Pakistan surrounded. McCain's policy of keeping the status quo would result in the continued destabilization of the region.

The United States should ask the Pakistani government to go after al Qaeda, but leave other groups in the NWFP alone. Pakistan should incorporate these people into the legitimate political discourse in the country, which would pacify them and ultimately marginalize these groups because their world view is not popular within Pakistan. The U.S. should give Pakistan conditional aid, tied to projects that directly help the people of Pakistan, projects such as building schools.

The Trap of Unity

2008-09-15T00:28:00.001-04:00

Later today, Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai will sign an agreement to create a government of unity in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has ruled the country since independence 28 years ago. Tsvangirai defeated him in the presidential election in March. While Tsvangirai won a majority, Mugabe's government rigged the vote so that Tsvangirai received less than the required 50%, although he still out gained Mugabe. After a wave of violence perpetrated by Mugabe's followers, ZANU-PF, against Tsvangirai's MDC, the latter was forced to drop out of the runoff campaign. Mugabe stole the sham vote to retain control of the country.

Robert Mugabe has been down this road before. The war of liberation was fought primarily by two different factions. Mugabe's ZANU (whose military wing was ZANLA) and ZAPU (ZIPRA was the name of its military wing), led by Joshua Nkomo, fluctuated between being allies and rivals, despite always having the same broader goal of independence.

After independence was won, Mugabe and his party dominated the elections of 1980, a bitter defeat for Nkomo and ZAPU. Shortly after the birth of Zimbabwe, the government-led Fifth Brigade stormed into the Matabelelands, the home area of Nkomo, to allegedly put down a rebellion. In reality, the government massacred thousands of people, mostly civilians. This massacre forced Nkomo and ZAPU to enter into an agreement with Mugabe to form a government of unity in 1987. The agreement effectively ended any political clout Nkomo could have hoped for and marginalized ZAPU.

While the particulars of this latest agreement are unknown at this time, Tsvangirai has to be careful not to fall into the same trap. He has some advantages. Nkomo led a party largely confined to the Matabelelands and one whose followers were predominantly members of the Ndebele tribe. Tsvangirai's MDC is home to people of different races, tribes, classes, occupations, and political outlooks. It is a true coalition.

Regardless of the intricacies of the agreement, there are powerful military leaders who do not want to see Mugabe stripped of power because of their illegal actions during the war in Congo in the late 1990s. Mugabe could sign away power and then grab it right back.

The other fear this agreement presents is its impact on the role of democracy in Zimbabwe. Even though Tsvangirai won enough votes to legitimately claim the presidency, what message does it send to the Zimbabwean people if he gains power through an agreement with Mugabe, rather than by the ballot? To actually maneuver his way to power, Tsvangirai may have to border on the autocratic in order to forcibly remove Mugabe, a man who will not relinquish his position easily. In this scenario, it is almost irrelevant who is the leader because democracy will be denied its rightful place in Zimbabwean politics.

The situation has put Tsvangirai in a terrible position. He must be concerned with the welfare of his people and the safety of his party members. But he must also not sign away the most powerful opposition Mugabe has ever faced. He needs to promote democracy above all else, but he knows that Mugabe will not willingly walk away from presidential power. It is a tenuous place to be for Tsvangirai, but his actions will influence the direction of his people for years to come.

Is India Secular?

2008-09-10T00:27:00.001-04:00

The Western stereotype of India is that it is a spiritual place. Officially, India is a secular country. The Western perception of India is ridiculous and not worth delving deeper, but the question of India's view of itself is pertinent. It is largely a provincial question, but at this point it is more manageable to simply view the issue in general terms.

Much of the tension between India and Pakistan stems from a disagreement over which country rightfully owns the province of Kashmir. During partition, in 1947, the British government did an inadequate job of dividing the two nations, specifically with regards to the disputed territory. While the real reasons for the tussle involve money, land, and power, both sides offer justifications for their position. Pakistan itself is actually an acronym that would be incomplete without Kashmir. Pakistan was created to protect the sub-continent's Muslims and Kashmir is a predominantly Muslim province. India takes a different view. Almost every Indian province is majority Hindu. With control of Muslim Kashmir, India's assertion that it is a secular country carries more weight. It is ironic that, to claim its status as a secular country, India places added importance to the concept of religious identity.

India has two major political parties. The Congress Party was the main political independence movement under the British Raj until the collective took over control of the country in 1947. It is nominally dedicated to a secular government. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) advocates Hindu Nationalism. In recent years, the BJP has gained more power and challenged India's secular identity. One such way is through the symbolic act of changing the names of many cities back to one of their designations before the Raj.

Before I went to India, I practiced saying Mumbai in place of Bombay. The name officially changed in 1995 under the Hindu Nationalist Shiv Sena government, which was aligned with the BJP. As I traveled around India, people asked me which cities I had visited. Every time I mentioned Mumbai, I would receive a subtle correction, something to the effect of, "Yes, Bombay is a lovely city." Some have framed the issue in terms of the name Mumbai representing Hindu nationalism and the name Bombay representing pluralism. That is an oversimplification, but it certainly rings true.

The political debate in some ways represents the tensions within Indian society. It is difficult to walk a major street in an Indian city without confronting religious symbols. One encounters pictures of deities in trees and small shrines on street corners. In Goan cities, the practice is duplicated, but often with Christian symbols in place of Hindu ones. Muslims do not practice idolatry. When taking into account the attendance of religious services, statistically India is one of the most religious societies in the world. In many situations, socio-religious mores last even if they have been outlawed by the secular government. However, popular culture- especially Hindi movies- continues to challenge the religious status quo.

Whether or not India is a secular country is a complicated question. In the case of Kashmir, religion is used to justify political aims. The BJP uses political means to push through a nationalist agenda based on religious fundamentalism. India's initial declaration as a secular nation very well may have been a political tactic in hopes to isolate newly formed Pakistan, a Muslim country, from the secular West. It is clear, however, that it does not define Indian society. The BJP has intended to exploit the rift between the declaration of a secular government and a highly religious society. However, the BJP's philosophy of Hindu nationalism offends not only secular Hindus, but also religious persons of other faiths. But the political phenomenon of Hindu nationalism still exists on a national stage in India.

The political and popular cultures and the secular and religious realms are engaged in a constant dialogue with one another, a dialogue that has turned deadly on occasion. Right now, the people of India are attempting to find a balance between these competing forces and develop an updated identity.

China After the Olympics

2008-08-28T00:44:00.001-04:00

The Chinese view their history in terms of dynasties. Periods with a strong central government are referred to as "Golden Ages," while those eras where China was decentralized are considered dark ages. With the fall of the Qing Dynasty, generally given the date of 1911, until the Communist Party's victory over the Nationalists, two warring factions prevented a strong central government from functioning.

Accepting a strong central government does not come naturally to China. It is a large landmass with many diverse groups of people. There are several different languages spoken in the country. I like to make the joke that China has about a billion different dialects. From city to city, you feel like you're in a different country with each stop. None of this is a new phenomenon. If anything, China is slowly becoming more homogenous.

The Qing Dynasty, ruled by a minority ethnic group- the Manchus- had to preserve its culture while at the same time appeasing the dominant ethnic group within China, the Han. The Qing did so by rooting their legitimacy in orthodox Confucianism and rarely imposing Manchu cultural aspects on the wider population of the empire. They kept their culture alive by maintaining the Manchu language and using it to supplement governmental declarations. However, the only cultural aspect that the Manchus imposed was the queue hairstyle. Otherwise, they kept in place some fundamental aspects of Han culture. In addition to the Confucian value of filial piety, the Manchus also kept such ancient institutions as the civil service exam system.

Thus maintaining their distinctness and yet not imposing their culture was a shrewd political tactic and a means of gaining legitimacy in the eyes of the Han. Today, the CCP has a similar task in seeking legitimacy in order to keep all of China within their realm. The CCP's legitimacy rests on the ideology of socialism. They have worked to convince the population to serve the state. Everything one does should be for the betterment of the state. If the Party allowed democracy to flourish, their principle for legitimacy would likely be undermined, which may result in a massive breakup of China.

That is not to place judgment in either direction on the actions of the CCP, but merely to put them into perspective. The Olympics brought people from all over the world to Beijing. It is plausible that the result was an exchange of ideas. Perhaps this exchange will plant a seed of dissent and create an active movement to challenge the government's limitations on free speech in China. But it is important to realize that an unrestricted freedom of speech might very well divide China into lands based on ethnic groups. Whether or not the realization of self-determination among these various groups will have a positive effect for their people is a question for another time.

Worry Follows Musharraf's Resignation

2008-08-19T01:12:00.000-04:00

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf resigned yesterday. Whether or not this event is truly cause for celebration depends on the direction the government takes next.

Musharraf was essentially a military dictator from the moment he took control of the country in 1999 until he relinquished his role as military chief last year. He understood the language of democracy, as he has always considered himself to be within a secular liberal tradition; however, he consistently defied the Constitution in order to maintain power.

He managed to become increasingly unpopular at home, not only because of his disregard for the Constitution, but also because of his ostensible support for the U.S. war on terror. However, the U.S. realized rather late that the ISI and the military continued to support to Taliban and Pakistani extremists even after pledging their allegiance to the U.S. Thus, while attempting to play a double game, Musharraf alienated most Pakistanis and the U.S. government at the same time.

While the resignation of a dictator is cause for celebration, any sense of optimism should be cautious. The world will focus on the next president, but the most important man regarding Pakistan's future might be military chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani. He managed to keep his word by restraining the military from saving its former boss after impeachment charges were filed against the President. It would benefit Pakistan if General Kayani brought the military under civilian control. However, there is no chance of that happening. The best circumstance to hope for is that General Kayani allows the civilian government to govern unimpeded and if they fail, he allows the Pakistani people to vote them out.

The U.S. and India will want the new president, regardless of who it becomes, to go after al Qaeda, Pakistani extremists, and the Taliban. The government will probably follow in Musharraf's footsteps and continue to fight al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is viewed as a foreign source and enjoys limited popularity in Pakistan. However, it is far less politically viable for the government to target its own citizens, even those who are extremists.

The government should bring Pakistani extremists into legitimate politics. It would be political suicide for an American politician to advocate this, but it would serve to marginalize the extremists. They maintain the scant popularity they receive because of their opposition to the pro-American government and these extremists do not have another avenue to express their frustrations. So they turn to violence. While most Pakistanis are currently anti-American, few are extremists. If the extremists are legitimized yet continue to use violence, it would turn the tide of Pakistani public opinion firmly against the extremists.

Pakistan must marginalize the extremists by bringing them into legitimate arenas and the U.S. needs to help build up Pakistan's economy, instead of granting billions in aid to the military. Those are the best hopes to secure peace and stability in Pakistan and those actions will only serve to make the U.S. and India safer.

Zimbabwe's Animal Farm

2008-06-28T14:37:00.000-04:00

Colonialism's most gaudy aspect is its violent racism. But its most lasting features are the system of control it leaves and the intellectual and emotional degradation it casts on its victims.

Robert Mugabe defeated the imperial rule of the white man only to turn around and adopt his method of governance. Mugabe didn't set the mold; he only practiced against what George Orwell's Animal Farm preached. Robert Mugabe and Ian Smith might look different, but they act the same.

Regarding the violence in Zimbabwe prior to the runoff election and the African condemnation of it, the New York Times reports Mugabe saying, “Some African countries have done worse things. I would like some African leaders who are making these statements to point at me and we would see if those fingers would be cleaner than mine.” His statement brings up two important points.

Firstly, Mugabe doesn't deny that his regime has engaged in state-sponsored violence to crush the opposition. He argues that other African countries have done worse, which leads to the second meaning. In this remark, Mugabe is arguing against the moral clout of African leaders. Mugabe implies that state-sponsored violence is acceptable in Africa, because its leaders to do not have the moral authority to criticize the murders and beatings in other countries. Mugabe's sentiment is that Africa is heretofore incapable of righting its own wrongs. To Mugabe, Africa is weak.

During the war of liberation, Robert Mugabe was the victim of the Rhodesian Front's criticism of the morality of Mugabe's guerilla tactics. Nowadays, he is spouting the same tired rhetoric as the colonists did back when the current dictator was a liberation hero. Much as was the case with Ian Smith in the dying days of Rhodesia, Mugabe’s remarks demonizing African leaders are in an attempt to cling to power. His comments contradict his status as a hero against colonialism.

Ian Smith has recently left this earth and Mugabe is not far to follow. In the words of David Harold-Barry, "The curtain is about to come down on the era of old men and their worn out dreams."

Tsvangirai Pulls Out

2008-06-22T18:20:00.001-04:00

Shock and disappointment gave way to understanding and admiration after pondering MDC candidate Morgan Tsvangirai's decision to pull out of the Zimbabwean presidential runoff. Tsvangirai won the first round of elections, but the government continues to claim that he didn't gain enough votes to win an outright majority.

Tsvangirai concluded that remaining in the race through the Friday runoff would have created a disastrously violent situation in the already beleaguered country. The military threatened to kill anyone who voted for the MDC. Tsvangirai felt that he couldn't ask his supporters to risk their lives to vote. In addition, because of the violence, he didn't think he could win and didn't want to give credibility to a fraudulent election that would have kept an authoritarian leader in power.

Tsvangirai states that the point of his run in the rerun was to expose President Robert Mugabe as a violent dictator. He has done that. Even Mugabe's closest regional allies have condemned his campaign tactics. The dozens of fallen MDC supporters have not died in vain. In the face of strong emotions, Tsvangirai chose to halt his own presidential dreams for the time being in order to save his numerous remaining followers. It is a measured and courageous decision.

There must be extreme frustration boiling within MDC supporters who have withstood beatings to campaign for their cause. But their lives would have been lost had they proceeded. Nevertheless, the decision to abandon the election leaves me with sadness. Often, an opposition boycott leads to a lot of shame and regret. However, I'm also optimistic. The legitimacy that Mugabe lost has fallen into Tsvangirai's back pocket.

So what's next? It is likely that Mugabe's rule will end soon regardless. Many of his allies within his party detest his presence. The fear is that Mugabe will be overthrown and replaced with a younger version of the old mustached man. Tsvangirai asserts that the military already rules Zimbabwe and Mugabe has been marginalized. We can only hope for a people's revolution after the fixed vote on Friday. The MDC has support within the rank and file of the military, but those supporters didn't rebel against their commanding officers for fear of treason. Perhaps there will be a mass uprising within the military to aid a non-violent people's revolution finally installing Zimbabwe's legitimate leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

What You Do Comes Back To You

2008-06-21T15:32:00.001-04:00

As the presidential runoff in Zimbabwe nears, one is surprised by how little the race resembles an election. ZANU-PF's campaign looks more like a low-intensity war than a bid to secure the larger coalition of voters.

ZANU-PF's tactics are war-like because, many experts argue, they have never finished fighting the war of liberation that granted Zimbabwe its independence in 1980. Two organizations, ZANU and ZAPU were responsible for delivering the country from white rule. Robert Mugabe and his party won the 1980 election, handily defeating ZAPU, led by Joshua Nkomo. Over the next 7 years, Mugabe treated ZAPU and its allies as enemies of the state. The result was genocide. The state-sponsored Fifth Brigade swept through the Matabelelands. Shona massacred Ndebele. Nkomo was threatened and humiliated.

ZAPU was finally forced to merge with Mugabe's party in 1987. No serious opposition surfaced until the MDC in 2000, although some small parties prevented ZANU-PF from turning Zimbabwe into a one-party state. Regardless of the lack of threat these small opposition parties presented, Mugabe always ordered pre-election violence to destroy his challengers.

This puts into context some of Mugabe's seemingly absurd charges: 1) The MDC wants to re-colonize Zimbabwe, 2) The MDC are enemies of Zimbabwe, 3) The MDC are the ones committing the violence. All are lies. Mugabe vows the MDC will never rule Zimbabwe. The war still goes on in his mind.

It is essential for the MDC to quest for power through legitimate means. Easier said than done. The way a group comes to power will dictate how they rule the country. In Kyrgyzstan, people revolted against a corrupt parliamentary election in 2005. An unintended consequence of their Tulip Revolution was the overthrow of President Askar Akayev. The two most popular politicians formed a coalition and became the President (Kurmanbek Bakiyev) and Prime Minister (Felix Kulov) but their rise to power was technically illegal. They held a presidential election 4 months later, but the results of the parliamentary election, the true impetus for the revolution, weren't thrown out. Only a few contested seats were rerun. As a result, Kyrgyzstan has had a difficult time throwing off the corrupt legacy of Akayev. One illegal action, no matter how noble, begets another and another.

Colonialism in Zimbabwe?

2008-06-14T14:07:00.000-04:00

Robert Mugabe consistently calls the MDC and Morgan Tsvangirai "colonial stooges." He says that the MDC will restore colonialism in Zimbabwe. The Western media feeds Mugabe's spurious accusations by painting him as a madman instead of thoughtfully discussing his mistakes. Of course, Mugabe's charge is ridiculous, as it conveniently ignores the MDC's origins in the ZCTU and the NCA.

In fact Mugabe's ZANU-PF party has essentially just taken over the role of Ian Smith's Rhodesian Front. It would be crude to say that Mugabe is his generation's Ian Smith, but the way his party has attempted to become synonymous with the state harbors back to colonial days. There was no drastic change in how the government related to the people following independence. The only difference was the racial composition of the members. But the colonial system is still in place. There is still no majority rule. Similar to Smith, Mugabe takes repressive actions against all dissent, particularly when he feels that his party is threatened. That is so because, like Smith, Mugabe feels that his party is the state, so ZANU-PF must be saved for the sake of Zimbabwe.

Israel Turning 60

2008-05-09T00:32:00.000-04:00

As Israel reaches its 60th anniversary, we really have nothing to celebrate. Anti-Semitism is as present as it ever was. Instead of providing protection for Jews, Israel has lulled us into a false sense of security. People still hate Jews and now they have a new justification: the actions of the state of Israel.

Anyone who criticizes Israel's actions is called anti-Semitic. There are certainly anti-Semites who criticize Israel, but this blanket accusation gives them cover. We must listen to the criticism and then decide who is bigoted and who is simply a critic.

After 60 years, we care more about the state of Israel than for our people. The most important sentiment should be the well-being of the Jewish people, separate from that of Israel. If anything, Israel's military actions and racism has exacerbated anti-Semitism across the world instead of softening it. We need to change our attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims. We need to strengthen relations with those groups and we need to hold a bit more skepticism towards Zionist Christian fundamentalists.

We need to learn from our tortured history. We have known repression. We should have learned better instead of using this turn of history to repress others. Hopefully at some point we will learn the hard lessons of the last 60 years.

Iraq Interview

2008-04-30T18:24:00.001-04:00

An interview with me about the Iraq war.

Q: Do you believe there should be an immediate withdrawal of all American forces from Iraq?
A: Yes.

Q: Will that result in chaos in Iraq?
A: Iraq is in chaos now. Iraq was a stable society before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Now it is a society in disarray. I don't understand the assumption that U.S. troops are somehow preventing the violent destruction of Iraqi society when the U.S. invasion is responsible for creating that very condition.

Q: Was Iraq better off under Saddam Hussein?
A: Well, that is a very general question. Certainly not for Shiite dissidents or the Kurds who fell victim to Hussein's attacks. However, for the majority of Iraqis, they are worse off now. Iraqis are now under the constant threat of violence. Food, water, and electricity are hard to come by. They are not free to move about in their own neighborhoods. Their blocks are littered with constant checkpoints and curfews are imposed on them. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq featured a burgeoning middle class. The U.S. invasion has destroyed it.

Q: You mentioned dissidents. Iraqis did not enjoy freedom of speech under Saddam Hussein.
A: That is true. Many people all over the world do not enjoy freedom of speech. That doesn't make it right, but that is the reality. People usually will sacrifice that freedom in exchange for necessities, such as food, water, and electricity. Under Hussein, Iraq was a stable country with an expanding middle class. The war has destroyed Iraqi society. Now every Iraqi lives under the fear of death.

Q: How much time should the withdrawal of U.S. troops take?
A: As quickly as possible. It should start immediately. However, I don't know much about military tactics. This is an area where the next president can confer with the generals in Iraq. With General Petraeus's Congressional hearings, there is an assumption that his word should somehow dictate policy. It shouldn't. The role of a general is to create a military strategy with the given policy. It is the job of the appropriate government officials to determine the country's foreign policy. General Petraeus' job should be to advise the president on how to withdraw the troops, not on whether to leave them in Iraq or not.

Q: Doesn't the United States need to ensure Iraqi democracy before fully withdrawing troops?
A: That is a noble thought. However, any government in Iraq will not be seen as legitimate by the Iraqis as long as there is an American presence in their country. It will be seen as a puppet government to American interests. Any true democratic government in Iraq will fundamentally be anti-American.

Q: So there can't be a democratically-elected pro-American government in Iraq?
A: Right. A large majority of Iraqis have a negative view of America and understandably so, given the destruction of the war. Thus, if the government is determined by the will of the people, it must be anti-American. The U.S. is going to have to accept this fact and do everything possible to help the Iraqis from afar. That is the only way to change public opinion.

Q: Why does American help have to be from afar?
A: Because the Iraqis are distrustful of America's intentions and understandably so. Remember, it was the U.S. invasion that destroyed their way of life. Now we wonder why the Iraqis are distrustful of America's intentions. It doesn't make sense.

Q: Hasn't America done some good things in Iraq?
A: Sure, but it has been on a very small level and certainly does not justify the invasion or maintaining U.S. troops in Iraq. On the big questions, even America's noblest intentions have managed to exacerbate the divisiveness in Iraq. In each election, most Iraqis have ended up voting based along ethno-sectarian lines. This has resulted in further separation between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. There are also divisions within each group.

America's attempts to train the new Iraqi military have had catastrophic results. At first, the Sunnis boycotted the military, so in essence, the U.S. was training and arming Shi'a death squads. Since then, the U.S. has also provided Sunnis with weapons, in order to fight against Al Qaeda. So both sects are well-armed and increasingly hostile towards one another.

Q: You mentioned Al Qaeda. Won't a full withdrawal of U.S. troops be a propaganda victory for Al Qaeda?
A: Invading Iraq was a far greater propaganda victory for Al Qaeda. But we are talking about the lives of our soldiers and those of Iraqis. Talk of propaganda victories should take a back seat.

Q: What if, after we leave, Al Qaeda takes control of Iraq?
A: That is not a likely scenario by any stretch of the imagination. There was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Al Qaeda is seen as a foreign entity in Iraq. The presence of U.S. troops is the only thing keeping Al Qaeda relevant in Iraq. For some Iraqis, they must figure that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so they tolerate Al Qaeda because they are willing to fight against the American occupiers.

Q: So Al Qaeda is not a significant force in Iraq?
A: Well, I wouldn't go that far. Any time you have a murderous group killing others, it's significant. What I'm saying is that Al Qaeda is not the all-powerful monster that the West perceives it to be. It should be particularly weak in Iraq. Iraq is 60% Shi'a and Al Qaeda is one of the most virulent anti-Shiite groups in the world. They see Shiites as unIslamic. The only reason for Al Qaeda to have any support in Iraq is the presence of U.S. troops. Once the Americans leave, most Iraqis will not support Al Qaeda and will do everything to eradicate this terrorist group from their country.

Q: Many Americans will be shocked and angry to here you say that Al Qaeda is not very powerful.
A: That stems from a lack of understanding about the wider world, particularly the Muslim world. Before the war began, many Americans believed that there was a link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, but that is absurd. Hussein was a secular ruler who did not believe in Al Qaeda's fundamentalist version of Islam.

Even American leaders are ignorant about the Muslim world. John McCain has repeatedly made mistakes, saying that Al Qaeda is Shi'a. As I mentioned, Al Qaeda is violently anti-Shiite. It's as if McCain is saying that the Nazis were Jewish. It really should bring his capacity to be president into question. He has also claimed that Iran has trained Al Qaeda operatives. But that is also false and McCain was corrected by his advisers. Iran is predominantly Shi'a. It's worrisome, because it's further evidence that McCain will misrepresent the facts to build up support for a war with Iran.

Q: Is there a political solution to the violence in Iraq?
A: There is nothing that the United States can do politically. In the eyes of many Iraqis, America is the enemy. Many Iraqis view American motives with skepticism. Thus, any political plan that the United States devises won't have much credibility in the view of most Iraqis. That is a difficult realization for American politicians, who are expected to have a plan or at least "do something." The best thing the U.S. politicians can do is work to bring the troops home and refrain from interfering with Iraqi politics.

Q: So there is nothing the U.S. can do politically to help Iraq?
A: The U.S. invaded Iraq, destabilizing the country. Iraqis are distrustful of Americans and America's intentions. Senator Joe Biden has a plan to divide Iraq into three autonomous regions. He claims that at least he has a plan. But having a plan isn't helpful if it's a bad plan. Iraq's population is not divided into the three neat regions that Senator Biden suggests. The relocation effort of numerous Iraqis would most likely result in a grave tragedy, much like the partition of India. A million people died as Muslims traveled to live in Pakistan and Hindus crossed the new border into India. India and Pakistan have been bitter enemies ever since. But in Biden's plan, the three enemy regions would be part of the same country.

Q: Do you believe that the soldiers are doing a good job?
A: For the most part, I believe so. Scandals such as Abu Ghraib contradict that sentiment, but all cannot be judged on the actions of a few. I am far from a military expert, though. The debate over whether to withdraw troops or not relates to the mission, not the performance of the soldiers themselves.

Q: Is the surge working?
A: That is not a yes or no question. In the short term and in a narrow way, the answer is yes. There have been fewer American deaths since the implementation of the surge. However, the surge was a response to an unbelievable spike in violence in 2006. The level of violence has returned back to levels before the spike, which were considered to be intolerably high by most Americans, and of course by Iraqis as well. We must also realize that these levels of violence are determined on the number of American casualties, not on those of the Iraqis.

The violence in certain cities has been reduced by the method of America's control. The U.S. has instituted vehicle bans, which obviously lowers the number of car bombs and the like. Iraqis are stopped every couple of blocks and checked by military personnel. If an Iraqi is acting suspiciously, American soldiers have orders to shoot to kill. So, while these methods have lessened the violence in those cities, it comes at the expense of Iraqi freedom. We were told that this war was fought in part to grant Iraqis the freedom that Saddam Hussein had deprived them of.

Q: Do you support the troops?
A: In what capacity? Financially, I certainly do, through the taxes that I pay.

Q: Do you support the troops in any other capacity?
A: I certainly do not have a "Support Our Troops" bumper sticker on the back of my car, if that's what you are referring to. Those bumper stickers are extremely patronizing to the soldiers fighting the war. If someone truly supported the troops, they would sacrifice for them. If they were able to fight, they would join the troops, who they claim to support, on the front lines.

The discourse over the war has been dominated by clichés such as the one you asked me about. The belief that we must "support our troops" is a code for saying that we must support their mission. But their mission is not a moral one. It's certainly not the fault of the soldiers; they didn't decide to invade Iraq. When discussing the war in Iraq and America's future decisions, we need to move beyond clichés and look at the issue with some depth.

Q: Assuming withdrawing the troops from Iraq is the right thing to do, it will come at a price. What about all of the innocent Iraqis who have helped America during the war?
A: That is a noble sentiment. I think it represents part of the good side of America. I sincerely hope that the administration is not playing on the good side of Americans to keep the troops in Iraq in order to further their own interests there.

As far as those innocent Iraqis are concerned, the United States can provide them with asylum or perhaps pressure its Arab allies to provide them with asylum, if uplifting to a completely different culture is too daunting. But the U.S. can't trade the lives of American soldiers and perpetuate the violence in Iraq for the sake of saving a few lives. It's a sad reality that it comes to down to that type of choice. But the question itself is very telling. It implies that pro-American Iraqis would be in danger without America protecting them, which illustrates the level of hatred that many Iraqis feel towards the United States.

Q: If the United States leaves Iraq completely, who will control Iraq's oil wealth?
A: Good question. I have no idea. Obviously, we hope that the Iraqis can come up with a wealth-sharing solution on their own. There will be international pressure for them to figure out a solution. But the U.S. cannot control Iraq's oil reserves or profit from them. It will only serve to cement anti-American feeling around the world and strengthen the reserve and the appeal of the terrorists. Any U.S. plan would be considered illegitimate for the reasons I've discussed before.

Q: Could Al Qaeda or bandits take control of Iraq's oil wealth?
A: Al Qaeda could disrupt the business of oil distribution, but I don't believe they could take control of it because of Iraqi antipathy towards them. There is a potential that war lords could control particular regions in Iraq, as has been the case in Afghanistan for decades. Those war lords would most likely also disrupt the flow of oil, rather than profit from it. However, I don't believe Iraq's neighbors would let that happen. There is too much wealth at stake.

Q: Speaking of Iraq's neighbors, is Iran's involvement in Iraq cause for concern?
A: Iran is not a serious threat to the United States. But Iran has the potential to continue to be a pest to America's interests in the region. One of the significant consequences of toppling Saddam Hussein's regime is that it was a gift to Iran. Under Saddam Hussein, Iraq and Iran were enemies. They fought a war throughout the 1980s. The United States actively backed Saddam Hussein, providing him with lethal weaponry.

The U.S. invasion of Iraq provided the country's Shiites a chance to grab power. Incidentally, Iran, which is also majority Shiite, was the first country in the region to recognize the new U.S.-propagated government in Iraq. Iran supports militants in Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories, and there is a real chance that Iraq could be influenced by Iran. But it's important to remember than Iraq is largely an Arab country and Iran is largely a Persian one. There is a disconnect between the two ethnicities. So Iran's influence in Iraq is a minor concern, but probably nothing more.

Q: What should be the role of the United Nations?
A: The U.N. and Iraq's neighbors need to take a leading role in stabilizing Iraq. However, they are reluctant to do so because it would legitimize America's invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. If the U.S. withdraws from Iraq, the U.N. and the surrounding countries in the region would rush to Iraq's aid. The neighboring countries don't want a failed state touching their border.

Q: Will granting Iraq's neighbors a role in stabilizing the country give them added clout in Iraq? Wouldn't that allow Iran and Syria more influence within Iraq?
A: Well, we've talked about Iran, but I understand your point. No matter which countries you name, there are the same negatives and positives in allowing Iraq's neighbors a greater role in Iraq. Fundamentally, we need to get away from the "Great Game" style of thinking. These are not spaces on a chessboard; these are nations with human beings residing within their borders. America's actions directly impact the lives of these people.

Q: What will be the positives and negatives of an increased role for Iraq's neighbors in stabilizing the situation?
A: The negatives include heightened influence for countries that the U.S. deems as enemies. Whether or not Iraq is allied with Iran or Syria does not constitute a significant threat to the U.S. unless America perceives it as one. For example, Iran is a poor country that does not possess a nuclear weapon. Even if Iran did, the military mite of the U.S. far exceeds that of Iran. The Iranian threat has, to a large degree, been manufactured by politicians and policy-makers. The very same ones who told us that Iraq was a grave and urgent threat to U.S. security.

But let's look at another country in the region that is an American ally. Turkey, with reluctant support from the U.S., has invaded northern Iraq to go after the PKK, a Kurdish group. Turkey has a history of brutal repression against their own Kurdish minority. We must realize that American allies are not always right and America's so-called enemies are not always wrong. Much of the anti-American feelings among average Muslims are due in part to America's support of corrupt and repressive regimes in the Muslim world.

Q: Can you conceive of a situation where U.S. troops would have to come back to Iraq after withdrawing?
A: No. Iraq is already in chaos. The sad fact is that there have been civil wars all over the world in recent years. For example, in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Angola, Liberia, Tajikistan, Sudan and others. America has either exacerbated these conflicts or ignored them. As long as the U.S. is in Iraq, Iraq will not be peaceful. So, as much as we would like to think that keeping U.S. troops in Iraq will prevent deaths, the opposite has proved to be, and will continue to be, true. As I've mentioned, there is no impetus to negotiate for peace from outside forces because of antipathy towards the U.S. If peace only helps the Iraqis and does not legitimize America's invasion, the wider world will step in.

The U.S. must realize that its interests are not the most important entity at stake. The lives of the American soldiers and those of Iraqis are the most precious resource. Every action must be taken to limit the killing. The only logical thing to do is to cut off the source of the killings, which is America's presence in Iraq.

Boycott the Beijing Olympics?

2008-04-14T18:47:00.000-04:00

The talk to boycott the 2008 Summer Olympics in China has heated up lately. The logic that calls for the boycott is embarrassingly elementary. It boils down to: China commits human rights violations so we should boycott the Olympics in their country to show our outrage at their abuses.

The protesters don't seem to understand the implications of their call to boycott. There have been protests of the Olympic torch running in France, Germany, and the United States. While France and Germany are guilty of human rights violations, I am from the United States, so I will speak to the protesters from my country.

The Chinese government is surely guilty of violating the human rights of not only its citizens, but those from other nations. However, so has the United States. We've ruined Iraq's society; we've killed numerous Afghan citizens. We dethrone the leaders of other countries as if it's our right. We've detained countless individuals without providing them with their due rights. The United States of America has violated the human rights of people all over the world. Yet, there were no protests before the 1996 Atlanta Olympics or the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics. We must take care of our own house first, before we protest the actions of others.

Freeing Tibet has been the fad cause of the West for a while now. I oppose the culture destruction of the Han Chinese against the Tibetans. But understand what you are saying when you call for Tibet's independence. Other regions will declare their independence based on ethnic lines. You are saying that a non-Western country cannot be multi-ethnic. There is an implicit racism in this belief. "They" are not capable of getting along with other ethnicities.

The other implication of the break up of China is to cut the power from this large and most populous nation. The West wants to hold on to it's power and China is threatening. If China is cut into pieces, they are no longer a threat. That's why the Dalai Lama has always approved covert CIA action to resist the Chinese government on behalf of Tibet. I admire the Dalai Lama, but this is not a discussion of Good versus Evil. The Dalai Lama has blood on his hands too.

The Western powers don't want China to have Western privileges like hosting the Olympics. Hosting the Olympics is a symbol that China is the new power-broker on the block and that scares the West. I am surprised that liberal activists are working to maintain the status quo of Western power. Instead, they should fight to right the wrongs in their own countries and celebrate the fact that a non-white-dominated country will host the summer Olympics for the first time since 1988 and only the second since 1968.

A Quick Look at the Dniester Conflict

2007-02-23T14:19:00.003-05:00

Dniester is a small area located across the river from Moldova. It is technically part of Moldova. Moldova is an eastern European country that gained independence after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Dniester declared its independence from Moldova soon after, which led to an armed conflict between the two sides, ending in 1992. Dniester still claims it's independent, though is not internationally recognized as such.

The leader of Dniester is Igor Smirnov. Smirnov wants Dniester to be part of the Russian union. Most people of Dniester are ethnically Ukrainian or Russian, not Moldovan.

Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin wants Dniester to remain part of Moldova because the region is richer than the rest of the country. Moldova is so poor that a small portion of the population wants to give up the country's sovereignty and join Romania.

Russia has had 1,500 troops located in Dniester since the end of the conflict. While they officially claim that Dniester is with Moldova, they secretly wish to rule over the region.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko wants Dniester to be autonomous within Moldova and not part of Russia, because he doesn't want Ukraine to be surrounded by Russia.

Recently, Dniester's leaders have avowed that being part of Moldova is no longer an option. They want at least legal status comparable to that of Kosovo.

Civil War or Anti-Occupation?

2006-12-06T00:24:00.000-05:00

With the Baker-Hamilton report coming out today, many people have deemed the situation in Iraq a civil war. I question that conclusion.

The violence in Iraq needs to be investigated. Who is dying? Why are they being targeted? Is it because they have known ties to the American forces? Or is it because they are associated with the new Iraqi army or police force that have both been propped up by America? Perhaps the violence in Iraq is anti-occupation and not the manifestation of severe sectarian strife. This needs to be seriously considered, because if true, it means that American presence in Iraq cannot help the situation, but can only exacerbate it.

One-sided Condemnations

2006-11-15T03:15:00.003-05:00

Organizations such as AIPAC and AJC are quick to condemn suicide bombings within Israel, but they fall strangely silent when it comes to condemning the Israeli military's use of deadly force. All violence should be condemned as tragic and fundamentally counterproductive to the objective of peace.

The justification of self-defense can only hold for so long. When the cycle of violence persists, self-defense can no longer be claimed. It becomes hollow. We must move beyond this rationalization if we ever want the cycle to cease.

Two Girls Run Over By A Tank

2006-04-25T02:05:00.001-04:00

It is 2002. Two thirteen year old Korean girls die. They were run over by an American tank in South Korea. This sparks Korean Americans to protest the presence of U.S. soldiers in South Korea, soldiers which have been there for five decades. For the rest of America, terrorism dominates everyone's thoughts. No one cares about these two kids. I don't.

It is 2006. I tutor three children who came here from South Korea last January. I teach them English and have a continuous philosophical debate with myself over whether I am partaking in a form of colonialism or I am simply helping these people.

It is last Thursday. I give the students homework, "Write at least two pages of fiction and two pages of non-fiction." The oldest student, a boy of sixteen, finishes his non-fiction before class ends. It is only a half a page. I collect it and tell him to write another two pages of non-fiction for homework. I go to the bathroom to the sound of Korean spouted back and forth between a grandmother, her two daughters, and their three children, one of which is this boy.

I exit the bathroom and they are still yelling in Korean, but it could be anything as far as I know. As I put my shoes on outside of the house, the boy requests, with a nervous smile, "Non-fiction, you read, no angry."

"When I read your non-fiction, you don't want me to get angry?" I attempted to clarify. He shook his head yes.

Obviously, I was curious. On the drive home, I peeked at his writing. Just as I suspected, it was about America. It seems two girls were run over by an American tank. It would be five days until I could reassure him, "Yes, I'm angry! Not at you, but that it happened."

The transition to a new country is difficult. I could not imagine. I might be making that transition just a bit easier for him. He seems to re-enforce that sentiment with his smile and his willingness to struggle to learn this new language. He showed courage in writing about this tragedy, not knowing how I might react.

I got home and searched for the event and found it. Besides the boy's grammatical errors, his facts were incorrect. The task before me is to find a way to compliment his bravery, encourage his instincts, and yet correct his errors without damaging his spirit

Garang Dies

2005-08-01T01:59:00.002-04:00

The Vice President of Sudan, Dr. John Garang is believed to be dead at this time. The flight that carried Dr. Garang from Uganda back to Sudan has crashed and all aboard are presumed dead.

Dr. Garang's impact on Sudan extends far greater than his role as Vice President. He led the rebels against the murderous government of Sudan. His position as Vice President was a compromise of sorts to the southern Christian Sudanese. It was the latest attempt to stop the murdering of the Sundanese people.

Now that he has died, according to a Reuters report based on information from Ugandan officials, peace seems impossible. Numerous cease-fires and proposed peace agreements in Sudan have been ignored and have not stopped the killing. It is to the point where there is not much hope in the near future for the Sudanese people.

Remember the Rwandan genocide took place after President Juvenal Habyarimana died in a plane crash. The Hutus blamed the death on the Tutsis, inciting the killing of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis and moderate Hutus. Though Mr. Habyarimana's death was used by those with power, while Dr. Garang represented those who are weaker, Dr. Garang's death has the potential to trigger more violence from either side. His death may be blamed on the Sundanese government, or may have actually been committed by them, but the impact of his death would appear to be undeniably negative.

The hope for Sudan, however, lies in its people and their spirit. As singer Emmanuel Jal vocalizes in his song Gwaa, "I can't wait for that day when I'll see no more fears, no more tears, no cry.

"No tribalism, no racism in my motherland when my people go back home to their motherland Sudan."