Author

thegeneration

Photographed by Bagassi Koura. Wikimedia Commons.

Africa Featured Security Security and Conflict

The Unnoticed Conflict in the Central African Republic

Photographed by Bagassi Koura, via Wikimedia Commons

While news networks have assiduously covered the tumultuous events taking place in countries like Syria and Ukraine, the media has largely seemed indifferent to a similar conflict in the Central African Republic (CAR). As a result, much of the international public is unaware of a rapidly deteriorating situation. While camera lenses focus on places like the Middle East and Eastern Europe, this struggling African nation is being pushed further toward widespread slaughter. Increased media coverage of CAR is absolutely essential to spur the international community into action, inspiring them to do something rather than remain in a state of blissful ignorance.

Although the current episode of violence in CAR began in 2012, the country has had an unstable history since it declared independence from France in 1960. Corruption in government and a lack of political stability has led to numerous regime changes, coups, and counter-coups. The current conflict, though ostensibly between Muslims and Christians, is not truly a religious war. Rather, it is one stemming from mistrust and hopelessness. Feelings of political disenfranchisement and frustration born out of lack of economic and educational opportunity has led many Central Africans to join militias, often organized along religious cleavages. As a result, normal citizens have taken up arms, killing, pillaging and driving their fellow countrymen from their homes. The fact that no more recent survey has taken place than an Associated Press tally from September of last year speaks volumes about the lack of coverage. That outdated poll shows that more than 5,000 Central Africans have fallen victim to sectarian violence, a figure up more than 150% from the UN‘s April 2014 estimate issued along with their approval of the MINUSCA peacekeeping mission. According to a European Commission report released late last year, another 500,000 plus Central Africans have been internally displaced, while hundreds of thousands have fled to neighboring countries. CAR’s entire population is only about 4.5 million. The sobering reality is that more than one out of every five Central Africans has been uprooted and forced from the security of home and routine into sometimes uncertain, often horrific living conditions. Clearly, the conflict has not been contained, let alone resolved.

The UN’s charter gives as one of its primary objectives the maintenance of “international peace and security.” Thus, the UN bears some of the blame for the lack of progress in solving thecurrent situation. However, the UN derives its power from member states. Without cooperation and active involvement from individual nations, the UN’s ability to respond to world crises is severely undermined. In 2013, several nations expressed hesitance during the planning stages for intervention in CAR; the UK placed higher priority on funding an African Union (AU) peacekeeping mission in Somalia, while the US balked at the potential cost of putting the plan into effect.

As far as individual nations taking on a leading peacekeeping role, France has displayed some willingness, and currently has about 2,000 troops in CAR. However, the country’s colonial history in CAR has produced resentment and accusations of favoring Christian victims over their Muslim counterparts. Resolving the conflict clearly requires wider cooperation and participation by more neutral participants –ideally both Christian and Muslim nations– whether it comes in the form of funding or manpower. And yet, the response from other leading nations continues to be subdued at best.

Although funding for funding for humanitarian aid has trickled in little by little, there is still a significant deficit. According to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, the 2014 response plan for CAR is 40% short of promised funds; in other words, humanitarian efforts are operating with $220 million less than needed. With the number of displaced Central Africans growing steadily, increased spending, involvement, and coordinated efforts from members of the UN is vital to moving towards a solution.

Could it be possible that the events in CAR attract such little attention from world leaders, because they see nothing material to be gained in intervening there? CAR is not oil rich. Wood, not a particularly coveted resource, makes up 60% of the country’s exports. Further, CAR’s location offers no real strategic advantage; it is landlocked and military bases there would offer little benefit. Without any incentives to motivate them, any nation that intervened in CAR would have to act out of altruism. Needless to say, this hurts the African nation’s chances of receiving help.

However, the UN and its member states are not the only ones able to effect change in CAR. Just as the nations that make up the UN give it power, and influence its decisions, the citizens of those nations can influence their own government’s actions. The international public’s awareness of a conflict certainly plays a considerable role in conflict resolution. A sympathetic and active public can exert pressure on their governments to enact top-down solutions to the conflict, while supporting efforts in CAR by donating to humanitarian organizations on the ground. The international public has thus far failed CAR. On some level, this is understandable. Economic conditions hamper the average person’s ability to make the donations that non-profits rely on to provide relief. Further, citizens confronted with rapid-fire elections often confront the same kind of fatigue that may be at work here. Higher-profile world crises may drain the public willingness to respond to less visible conflicts like the one in CAR. While it is understandable that the citizens of many privileged nations are exhausted from intervening in foreign countries, one must look no further than Rwanda for a history lesson on just how quickly and severely a forgotten conflict like the one in CAR can escalate.

Whether it is the sight of entire cities reduced to rubble in Syria, the return to the international stage of an expansionist Russia, or the paranoia and fear brought on by the spread of Ebola, other stories have monopolized the world’s attention. Considering the gravity of the situation in CAR, why don’t our morning papers jolt us awake with grim pictures of militia members wielding machetes?The answer is they and their readers or viewers have already moved on to newer, fresher disasters and atrocities. Instead of shedding light on the conflict in CAR, the media has largely forgotten it, allowing the situation there to quietly unravel.

If the public is to be roused to insist on action in CAR, the media must play a critical role by providing more coverage. Instead of paragraph-long updates published on the 12^th page of a newspaper or relegated to an unvisited corner of a news website, resolving the conflict in CAR requires feature pieces and exposés. If media coverage turned in the direction of exposing the misery of everyday life and the scarcity of essential, life-sustaining resources, the press could awaken human sympathy, stirring high-profile celebrities, powerful officials, and normal citizens alike to act. This surge of human energy and involvement could be a vital force in ending not just the conflict in CAR, but also many others in the often forgotten continent of Africa.

By Penn Scoble

March 15, 2015 0 comment

São Paulo’s 8th “Não Vai Ter Copa” World Cup Protest, May 24, 2014.
Photo by Ben Tavener

Mexico and Latin America Society and Culture South America The International Economy

Brazil’s World Cup, a Reflection of Flawed Priorities?

written by thegeneration

By Emily Milstein

International sporting events provide platforms for host countries to broadcast their national glory. With the world watching, a host nation can showcase its achievements and further dazzle audiences with its ability to successfully organize a massive undertaking. The world watched this story play out with the Olympics in Athens, Beijing, London, and Sochi, as well as the World Cup in South Africa recently.

As host of the 2014 World Cup which began in June, Brazil hoped to use the event to fulfill similar aspirations. Hosting the Cup can publicize Brazil’s progress and growth as a developing nation, worthy of hosting not only the 2014 World Cup, but also the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro. Furthermore, Brazil is considered by many to be the “spiritual home of soccer.” This gives the country’s role as host even greater significance to the nation’s population, many of whom are avid soccer fans.

However, global sporting events such as the World Cup require huge investments and a massive amount of capital from host countries. China spent approximately $40 billion to host the 2008 Summer Olympics, Russia spent an estimated $50 billion on the 2014 Winter Olympics, and South Africa spent $3.5 billion to host the World Cup in 2010. While FIFA, the international governing association of soccer, provides some of the capital needed for each tournament, host countries are responsible for providing money needed for projects like infrastructure improvements. These improvements often cost billions of dollars. Such expenditures can generate considerable popular resentment but host governments often justify these costs with claims that the event will bring economic benefits to the country. Brazil is no exception. The country’s leaders have claimed that hosting the tournament will bring economic prosperity to Brazil through increased tourism, job creation, and infrastructure development. In fact, at a cost of $11 billion the 2014 World Cup is set to be the most expensive World Cup ever held, even before expected overrun costs.

Brazilians from a variety of backgrounds have heaped criticism on the Brazilian government for spending so much money on a month-long sporting event in a country where many live in poverty. Brazil is a rapidly developing nation where, according to the World Bank, 15.9% of the population still lives in poverty. Social services such as education, healthcare, and housing remain woefully inadequate. Recent demonstrations in Brazil reflect these grievances, as teachers, bus drivers, police, and even bank workers have mounted protests and strikes against poor working conditions and inadequate wages.

The discontent throughout Brazil in the lead up to the World Cup reflects questions that need to be asked, questions that have come up time and time again as countries continue to spend outrageous amounts on such events. Can a country justify spending huge amounts of money on a sports tournament while many of its people live in poverty? Shouldn’t the $11 billion spent by Brazil to host the Cup be used instead to improve necessary services such as healthcare? Lastly, are the potential benefits worth the immense financial costs that come from hosting large sports events, such as the World Cup or the Olympics?

Ultimately, the benefits promised by organizers of global sports tournaments often fail to materialize. Sydney for instance, did not experience the transformation and increase in tourism promised by its leaders after the city hosted the 2000 Olympics. The 2002 World Cup in Japan brought minimal benefit to the downtrodden Japanese economy. After the 2010 World Cup in South Africa, the country struggled to recoup the $3 billion it invested in hosting the tournament.

For Brazil, the costs of the World Cup will most likely exceed any benefits the country may gain from hosting the tournament, especially given the fact that the corruptionthat has long haunted the country has infiltrated even its preparation for the Cup. For instance, building contracts for World Cup projects have been awarded to friends and cronies of politicians. Given such corruption, any of the economic benefits generated by thegames will benefit already wealthy Brazilians. An auditor’s report assessed the cost of the ready-made grandstands in Brasilia’s stadium at $4,700. The construction firm that installed the stands however charged the government $1.5 million. That price increase amounted to a 31,000% mark-up of the grandstand fees. Such instances of corruption siphon public funds into the hands of construction magnates and away from other possible uses, such as education.

Furthermore, while Brazil will earn revenue from the Cup, FIFA will also pocket a significant portion of Cup revenues by pursuing tax exemptions and through licensing and advertising. Unfortunately, this means that most Brazilians will accrue few benefits and have limited access to World Cup profits, as such earnings remain concentrated in the hands of Brazil’s elite and FIFA. FIFA has attracted significant condemnation in the international news media about its pocketing much of the revenues generated by the Cup. Hopefully, such criticism will push the organization to rethink its business model. FIFA and Brazil’s leaders ought to take steps to ensure that at least some portion of the Cup’s profits are spent on necessary projects such as improving poor Brazilians’ access to high quality education or healthcare.

Questions about excessive spending for sports tournaments apply not just in the context of Brazil, but to the world at large. The practice of spending huge amounts of money on sporting events is wasteful because that money could be invested in essential programs or services. All countries have people who live in poverty and who would benefit from improved social services and increased investment in areas like healthcare and education. Nonetheless, the drive to host events like the World Cup is strong in many countries because playing host on a world stage allows them to showcase their ability to plan and organize an event on such a large scale. This is particularly important for recently industrializing nations like China or Brazil who want to showcase their nations’ advancing development programs in order to raise their national profile and attract business investors. Nations that host large sporting events do experience these tangible benefits, however the costs of these endeavorsoutweigh their benefits. This is especially true given the short term nature of some of the primary gains, including job creation and tourism, which end with the closing of any tournament.

Given the lack of long-term financial benefits that comes from hosting large sporting events, the international community needs to reconsider the grand expenditures that go into such tournaments. Citizens and their governments need to re-assess their priorities and come to the realization that rather than investing money in sports, nations should increase spending on issues like fighting the effects of climate change and social services. Brazil’s World Cup and the protests experienced in the weeks leading up to the tournament highlight these problems, revealing the flawed priorities at play, as the country spends billions on sports while many Brazilians live in poverty. Far too often, people question sports spending during tournaments and then promptly forget the issue at the close of the event. Let this summer be a moment for the world as a whole to reevaluate and redirect its priorities regarding the exorbitant spending on global sports tournaments. Rather than forgetting these issues after the World Cup, we need to continue to raise questions about spending in order to ensure excessive spending practices do not continue in the future.

July 3, 2014 4 comments

SOUTH SUDANESE SOLDIERS (Photo Credit: Steve Evans via Creative Commons)

Africa Featured Security The International Economy

The Fragile Peace in South Sudan

written by thegeneration

by Izabela Chmielewska

Since its tumultuous independence in 2011, South Sudan has been a fragile state. The region is marred by ethnic clashes, which have driven recurring violence for decades. The most recent conflict started in December 2013 when President Salva Kiir dismissed his Vice President, Riek Machar, after a political fallout. Their personal tensions quickly escalated into ethnically charged violence when Machar mobilized rebel forces and Kiir deployed the army in response, ravaging the country for the last five months.

Recent weeks have shown some hope for peace on the horizon. On May 9^th, the two rivals met for the first time since the conflict started, and signed a peace agreement that includes a ceasefire.However, the deal is fragile. Much more than a ceasefire is needed to bring lasting peace to the embattled country that faces multiple challenges.

The Ethnic Problem

Separating from Sudan three years ago did not solve the deeper internal factions among the South Sudanese. They do not share a common national identity because the boundaries are largely artificial and encompass multiple ethnic groups. Ethnic conflict is difficult to manage because of the geographic distribution of the two major groups – Dinka and Nuer. The Nuer people (15%) live in the center of South Sudan, while the Dinka people (35%) surround them, with about 200 other ethnic minorities spread throughout the country. There is no common cultural or national identity that supersedes the ethnic factions or a state-run mechanism to promote it, like education.

President Kiir is Dinka, and Riek Machar is Nuer. Their constituencies are aligned along ethnic lines, so political and ethnic tensions re-emphasize each other, which complicates democratic governance. Political leaders manipulatively use existing social cleavages for their political gain instead of building a strong national identity, which weakens the country. Unless ethnic divisions can be surpassed by a unifying sense of South Sudanese nationalism, peace will remain strained. In order to do this, the country needs to develop a healthy political system that does not prey on ethnic divisions.

The Oil Economy Problem

The geopolitics of oil in an unstable region also stands in the way of peace and prosperity. Most wells are located in South Sudan, but the pipelines run north, to Sudan. Unsurprisingly, the two nations have disagreed on how to divide the generated profits. As a result, the production and trade of oil have been interrupted for over a year in 2012. This incident had serious repercussions for both economies, especially South Sudan. According to the World Bank, the government’s budget is heavily reliant on oil revenue (80% of GDP) and, as a result, the per capita GDP dropped from $1,505 in 2010 to only $790 in 2012 (and remains about half of Sudan’s). During the crisis, the rebels overtook some key oil-producing towns, again disrupting the country’s sustenance.

The interruption of the oil production has immense economic and political costs. Economic shocks open the door to internal political instability and public resentment because the people ultimately bear the financial burden. This will remain a hot-button issue. Both economies need to become less reliant on oil and develop other means of production beyond agriculture, which has its own challenges due to dire levels of human development.

The Human Development Problem

In order to mitigate internal volatility and ensure lasting peace, the South Sudanese people need their country to invest some of that oil money in education, health, good jobs, and social safety nets. The human development indicators are extremely low. About 70% of the population is under the age of 30, 50% isbelow the poverty line, over 80% work in agriculture, and only 27% of the population is literate. This is a terrible record. However, there is a chance for improvement since the population is so young. A better education system would likely increase literacy and decrease the share of unpaid agrarian work, and thus poverty – one of the root causes of violence. Improving overall human development would naturally encourage economic development and political stability.

The Humanitarian Problem

The impoverished people of South Sudan pay the greatest cost of the ethnic conflict, economic hardship, and political quarrels. As a result of the violence, more than 800,000 people are internally displaced with little access to basic needs like water. Thousands more have been targeted as victims of ethnic mass killings and rape, despite UN peacekeeping efforts.Even traditional sanctuaries – churches and hospitals – have been ruthlessly attacked. The atrocities were committed by both sides, which compromises the chances of ameliorating the humanitarian damage through fair human rights trials or restorative programs. The institutional capacity to address these crimes is also a challenge.

The Weak Institutions Problem

The African Union (AU) has called for the establishment of an international commission to investigate the humanitarian crimes, but even with the UN’s help, the capacity to accomplish this is very limited. The two sides will not hold each other accountable since they are both guilty of violating human rights, and it is unlikely that they would cooperate with an international institution, like the UN or the AU, to seek humanitarian justice, especially when the truce is so delicate. Killing and raping civilians during war violate international law, but the international system does not have adequate tools to hold the perpetrators accountable for these atrocities. There also may not be enough political will to seek formal international legal remedies because South Sudan is an extremely fragile state with nascent institutions. Putting its leaders on trial would further diminish the legitimacy of government, which is paradoxically already tarnished because of the violent crisis. The political stability of the country depends on strong institutions – South Sudan’s young democracy needs to be restructured and consolidated in order to ensure sustainable peace.

Above all, the people of South Sudan need basic things first – water, food, shelter, and security. That is the primary and most important step towards justice and stability, and should be the focus of the South Sudanese government and the international community right now. The current peace pact between Kiir and Machar is only a first step towards a better tomorrow for South Sudan. Its impact is futile without immediate provision of basic needs to the affected people, and investment in human development in the long run.

June 13, 2014 0 comment

Middle East Security Security and Conflict

Chemical Weapons Victory: A Loss for the Syrian People

written by thegeneration

Photo Credit: Freedom House on Flickr, used under Creative Commons License

By: Erika Jahan

Tuesday, Oct. 15 was celebrated by Muslims worldwide as Eid al-Adha. The festival is one of the two biggest holidays in the Islamic tradition, embraced by all sects of the religion. Eid al-Adha follows immediately after the annual holy pilgrimage to Mecca and commemorates Abraham’s obedience to God as demonstrated by his willingness to kill even his own son. Today, Muslims honor Abraham’s devotion by sacrificing an animal such as a lamb or a cow. The meat is then divided into thirds: one third is enjoyed by the person making the sacrifice; another third is shared with family, friends and neighbors; and the last third is given to the poor. This way, Eid celebrations reach every corner of the Muslim community, and even the poorest person can partake in the feast— except this year. This Eid, Muslim leaders issued a fatwa (a religious ruling) allowing starving Syrians reported to eat cats, dogs and donkeys. The Al Arabiya News Channel aired footage on Monday, Oct. 14 in which leading Syrian clerics expressed their shock that the rest of the world could go about its business and Muslim families could sit down to feast while Syrians are not only being slaughtered as a product of war, but are dying as a byproduct of it.

When the Syrian uprising began two and a half years ago, the American media initially covered the events with the high hopes surrounding the “Arab Spring.” Optimism soon turned to alarm, as reports came in regarding the Assad regime’s violently oppressive measures against protesters. Over time, protestors have been reclassified as rebels, and the uprising has transformed into a full-fledged civil war with over 100,000 casualties. While the media have touched on the massive civilian death toll (estimated at around 40,000 people) over the course of the conflict, attention to the human face of the Syrian problem has shifted most notably with President Obama’s recent call for a military strike.

Images and videos suddenly flooded social media and the news, portraying the atrocities of chemical warfare executed by the regime. The fact is, however, that while Sarin gas may leave children convulsing in their parents’ arms, children have been losing their limbs and lives from the beginning of the war through more traditional (and apparently more acceptable) means of bombs and bullets.

The fatwa issued on Tuesday by clerics highlights the culmination of two and a half years of human suffering. Within Syria, there are an estimated 4.25 million people displaced, many of whom have migrated to the western side of the country. Meanwhile, another 2 million have fled to neighboring states. In some countries, including Jordan and Turkey, the government has attempted to create temporary refugee camps and facilitate access to both resources and much needed medical attention. In other places, such as Lebanon, no official camps have been built by the government and refugees seek shelter wherever they can.

The refugee problem has not gone unnoticed by the broader international community. In addition to the efforts of neighboring states, international players such as France and the United States have worked to provide relief for the victims from the start of the crisis. Organizations involved in the efforts include government agencies such as USAID, various UN committees, Red Cross, Red Crescent, Doctors without Borders, and many others. The United States has been the largest donor towards humanitarian efforts. President Obama announced another $339 million to be allocated for aid on Sept. 24, bringing the total to $1.3 billion. So far, however, very little has been formally or informally demanded of Assad’s regime or rebel forces regarding the refugee crisis and the hardships faced by ordinary citizens caught in the middle.

In light of the recent exposure of chemical warfare in Syria, Assad has been threatened with military action by the United States. For a while, “war” seemed imminent: media coverage was inescapable, and conversation over the issue common. Now, with the insertion and successes of the chemical watchdog group, both the American government and the public seem to be somewhat appeased. It appears that dissimilation of chemical sites will be enough to deter any military strikes. The threat at least does not seem to be hovering so palpably in the air for now, and media coverage has mostly shifted to other issues.

Tuesday’s fatwa, however, screams out to the world exactly why taking chemical weapons out of the picture is not enough. When examining global issues, there has long been a tendency, among both analysts and the general public, of failing to view people as human beings and more so as problems to be solved. The media and the government have played conscious and explicit roles in presenting them as such. Often, the faces of people and the disruption of their lives are brought forward as a marketing tool exactly and only when public support is needed to proceed with political, economic and military actions to fix the problem. And once a dent has been made in the problem, or at least the illusion of a dent can be seen, the faces of people fade once again into the background. Their plight, however, continues: in Syria, people are still being shot, bombed, deprived of medical attention, and starved even with chemical weapons steadily being removed from the equation.

Thus, policymakers should not be appeased by Assad’s acquiescence to relinquishing chemical weapons. While public support seems low for military action, awareness has been achieved. Moreover, the fatwa issued on Tuesday has further extended media coverage of the topic to really focus on refugee issues and provide insight into the particular difficulties aid workers face in the region and within Syria. Now is the time to utilize public awareness and take advantage of the momentum gained— to demand that both Assad and rebel forces make concessions that will actually affect the daily lives of Syrians. If we are to show outrage over war crimes, let us really demand that human decency be extended, even in the middle of war. Let the dead be buried; more importantly, let both sides make room for aid workers to do their jobs and for the living to have access to the necessities of daily life. It is not too far-fetched to assume that if the threat of military action is enough to extract concessions regarding chemical weapons, it should certainly put weight behind a demand for concessions on humanitarian grounds from both sides. This is not the time to be modest in demands, or to be pacified by a few tokens of cooperation.

If the world fails to drive a hard bargain now, the fate of the Syrian people will be no better off despite the absence of chemical weapons.

November 12, 2013 6 comments

Middle East Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Perspectives of a Troubled Youth

written by thegeneration

Photo Credit: Clare Bell, June 27, 2009, under Creative Commons License

By Akbar Khan, Staff Writer.

In February of this year, The Generation published a piece on Iranian hip-hop. Feeling discontent with the Iranian regime, some Iranian youth have utilized hip-hop as a means to express disproval over administrative policy and action. With more than a third of the population between the ages of 15 and 29, Iran sustains a large youth population. When considering both this staggering proportion and instances of dissatisfied youth expression, exemplified here by Iranian-hip-hop, one realizes an endemic phenomenon within Iranian society — the persistent marginalization of the youth.

Within the international community, Iran has garnered a reputation for human rights violations and restricted civil liberties. Islamic law — at least in light of Western legal conceptions — is considered to be inherently more restrictive but even beyond the legal formalities, Iran has been repeatedly accused of unwarranted imprisonment, torture and gender discrimination. For many of Iran’s youth, this has meant considerable distrust of the state-run media and the system’s restricted freedom of expression.

Of course, not all in Iran are subject to oppressive treatment. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu certainly learned this fact when he elicited a fierce response from many Iranians following his interview with BBC Persian Language television.

Netanyahu was quoted “If the Iranian people had freedom, they would wear jeans, listen to Western music, and have free elections.” In response, many Iranians ridiculed the Prime Minster by posting pictures of themselves in jeans across the web.

While it was certainly reassuring to see that Iranians do in fact wear jeans, the responders, while effectively displaying their nationalist sentiment, may have lost sight of the overall situation.

The fact remains that for the Iranian youth, opportunities have been diminishing as international sanctions, enforced after Iran’s refusal to negotiate on nuclear policy, have suffocated the Iranian economy. According to BBC, Iran’s oil revenue has been slashed from 2.2 million barrels per day in 2011 to 700,000 in 2013. This combined with 40% inflation has caused the Iranian currency to lose two-thirds of its value against the dollar. Mehrdad Emadi, an Iranian-born economic advisor to the European Union, has estimated that unemployment figures have risen above 20%. Given these circumstances, a third of all youth have expressed interest in leaving Iran if given the opportunity; this sentiment was strongest among the most educated, according to a study by the Young Public Research Initiative.

For the youth, these economic prospects are discouraging but discontent surfaces on other issues as well. In an article by Reuters, Maryam Ansari, a 22-year-old English literature student in Tehran, expressed displeasure with the social opportunities available to her. She remarks, “My feeling is shared by a lot of other people my age.”

Still, youth discontent in Iran is not fully realized until one confronts the historical record. In 1979, when U.S.-backed Shah Pahlavi was overthrown, the Iranian youth, who were seeking more political participation, played a significant role in the Revolution. Yet, this irony is further complicated when one considers the Green Revolution in 2009, when there was considerable civil unrest regarding election results. Once more, youth played a major role in the political activism of the times. It seems that in Iran, there has been a reliance on the youth to voice change but no opportunity to reap the rewards associated with such change.

Of course, the entirety of the Iranian youth does not constitute one homogenous group. The Young Public Research Initiative revealed that the Iranian youth are divided into four distinct segments: Ultra-Conservatives, Conservatives, Mainstream and Non-Traditionalists. The latter two tend to be more educated and urbanized and represent the largest share of youth discontent.

Some may argue that this summer’s presidential election of Hassan Rouhani is a sign of hope. Indeed, the Iranian diasporic community in the United States exhibits this optimism.

Ava Ghiassi, an Iranian-American student at the University of California, Los Angeles is optimistic that Rouhani’s “moderate platform is a step in the right direction for the Iranian government.” She explains how her cousins in Iran “want more freedom of expression” and want “their efforts to be rewarded (i.e. getting a college degree and being able to get a job).” She also stresses the importance of discernable action behind Rouhani’s rhetoric.

Under Rouhani, the potential for change was further magnified during his visit to the United Nations (UN), when he and President Obama spoke over the phone, marking the first direct contact between the respective administrations in over three decades. Certainly, the phone call can be perceived as an act of good will between the two countries and one that should spark hope for unhappy youth in Iran, but there are other factors to consider.

Although President Rouhani, being the most progressive candidate in the election, achieved a landslide victory, his eligibility for office required approval from Iran’s Guardian Council in the first place. Additionally, upon finishing his speech at the UN, President Obama sought to shake hands with the new president, a gesture that he was not able to pursue because of reluctance on the part of Rouhani. Rouhani’s administration would later state that he did not want to risk upsetting hardliners at home. This shows that he is still bound by conservative elements in Iran, a circumstance that was further confirmed when he faced protestors upon his return to Iran. Given these occurrences, it is important to realize that there are segments within the Iranian populace that are still deeply entrenched in anti-western sentiments. Thus, even if Rouhani is genuine in his efforts, something only time can confirm, he may be limited in his efforts to pursue more progressive policies.

Nonetheless, for the Iranian youth, one thing is clear: politically and socially suppressed by their government and economically restricted by the international community, they remain alienated.

Facts and figures from The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The Economist, Reuters, CNN, BBC, The Rand Corporation, and The Young Public Research Initiative.

November 5, 2013 31 comments

Asia Featured Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Taiwan’s East Asia Peaceful Initiative

written by thegeneration

Vessels of the Taiwan Coast Guard Administration and Japan Coast Guard during a confrontation between the two on July 4, 2012.

by Chiaming Shen
Contributing Writer

Recently, the territorial dispute between Taipei, Beijing and Tokyo over the Diaoyutai (Senkaku) Islands in the East China Sea has been escalating. Noda Akihito, the former premier of the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), initiated the Diaoyutai Islands “nationalization plan,” prompting the Taiwanese government to launch an official protest. Taiwanese fishing boats sailed to the Diaoyutai Islands along with the vessels of Coast Guard Administration (CGA) to protect fishing rights and territorial claims. At the same time, a series of anti-Japanese demonstrations erupted in Mainland China as military tension between Japan and China continues to rise. The political deadlock has raised widespread concern and harmed both regional stability and the progress of free trade in East Asia.

On August 5, 2012, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou proposed an “East China Sea Peace Initiative” to resolve the deadlock in the region . According to the initiative, while the sovereignty of Diaoyutai (Senkaku) Islands belongs to Taiwan, the Taiwanese government is willing to cooperate with Japan and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in order to exploit the area’s resources. The initiative proposes that through talks and negotiations, confidence-building measures (CBMs) could be established in order to avoid potential military conflicts. President Ma has suggested that such negotiations should be institutionalized in a similar manner to the six-party talks over the Korean Peninsula.

Initially, President Ma suggests the East China Sea Peace Initiative talks should be bilateral, between Taiwan and Japan in order to create consensus on controversial issues (including sovereignty and fishing rights). In fact, Taiwan signed an agreement over fishing rights with Japan in April of 2013. Through mutual trust and negotiation, the talks could then be extended trilaterally to include Taiwan, Mainland China and Japan. In an attempt to avoid the deadlock in traditional “first track” diplomacy, scholars and experts in international law and economics could exchange ideas via “second track” academic and diplomatic exchange. This practice could help to resolve the issues of mutual acknowledgement and sovereignty disputes in cross-strait relationships while officials in the first track would continue to play an important role in signing official accords in fishing rights and resource exploitation. Second track diplomatic efforts would create a platform to exchange ideas, while the first track would remain a meaningful symbol of regional peace and mutual trust.

In 2002, the PRC signed the “Declaration on the Code of Conduct on the South China Sea” with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The declaration was based on the United Nations “Convention on the Law of the Sea.” However, Taiwan is not party to ASEAN due to opposition from the PRC—as such, Taiwan’s claims to the islands currently receive no recognition. Even the sovereignty of Taiping Island (the largest island in the South China Sea) is disputed, which is why second track diplomatic efforts are so important to Taiwan and the region as a whole. As such, the East China Sea Peace Initiative should be promoted in the same framework as the Taiwan Relation Act (TRA) and the US-Japan alliance. Above all, promoting this initiative to international society should be considered a first priority, and should be carried out through rigorous public diplomacy.

In fact, the PRC has previously reached a consensus on mutual exploitation in the East China Sea with Japan during the Hu-Fukuda era (2007/9-2008/9). Both states also signed an agreement to promote Sino-Japanese strategic and mutually beneficial relationships. Taiwan was also excluded from these mutual, multilateral talks because Taiwan did not have official diplomatic relations with Japan. This may be one reason why President Ma has chosen to emphasize the current peace initiative. Some negotiations are already under way between Taiwan and Japan, but are limited to discussions over fishing rights (the Diaoyutai Islands have been the most important fishing fields for Taiwanese fishermen since the Japanese occupation during the Second World War).

However, just as Randy Schriver, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs has stated, “The US could not fulfill its defense obligations under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) without the US-Japan alliance.” Taiwan, as a small power in the international realm needs to take the structure of great powers, such as the PRC, the US and Japan into consideration. In this kind of issue, it is better to be rational and practical, rather than to appeal to populist domestic considerations. Populism and nationalism might win support domestically, but would not be beneficial for regional peace and the national interest, hence President Ma’s diplomatic and sensitive proposal.

Any discussion over sovereignty in the region is contentious. The notion of national sovereignty is a vital concept in the Westphalian system and has been reinforced by the charter of the United Nations. From the Taiwanese perspective, the Diaoyutai islands constitute a part of continental shelf of Taiwan and as such, following the UN Law of the Sea, the sovereignty of these islands should belong to Taiwan. However, it could be beneficial to re-define the modern notion of sovereignty. For example, the European Union (EU) has removed internal borders and formed an economic and monetary union. Member states within the EU lose some aspects of their national sovereignty, but they also gain a number of benefits from enhanced regional stability.

This regional integration has gone hand in hand with increased economic interdependence, and may point the way forward for other regions. For example, the territorial disputes over the North Sea Oil Fields are a potential template for resolutions in East Asia. In 1969, Germany had their territorial claim validated under a judgment from the International Court of Justice (ICJ); however, Germany still cooperated with Denmark and Netherlands to exploit the oil field jointly in the North Sea. Brent crude has become a symbol of regional peace and cooperation. The issue of sovereignty in the era of international economic interdependence is no longer a zero-sum game, as such cooperation to exploit oil resources demonstrates. Economic integration can have a positive spillover effect, potentially helping to reduce the possibilities of military conflict. It is never too late to discuss building up the East Asian community in a similar manner to the EU.

The complex and often painful history of the region, while important, should not be the starting point for future discussions amongst potential regional partners. In Europe, the past rivals in WWII, French and Germany were the core founding members of EU. In a similar fashion, through peaceful talks and negotiations, President Ma’s proposed East China Sea Peace Initiative could become a milestone of regional stability in East Asia. The initiative could be used as a template for other disputed regions as well, such as the South China Sea territorial dispute between Taiwan and the Philippines. Taiwan has much to offer in regards to promoting regional progress, and should continue to share positive ideas with other countries in order to play a more active role in the regional peace.

Chiaming Shen attended the UCLA Summer Session in 2013, and is a Masters candidate in East Asian studies from the National Chengchi University in Taipei, Taiwan.

September 5, 2013 1 comment

Photo Credit: Beraldo Leal, June 17, 2013, under Creative Commons License

Featured Mexico and Latin America Security and Conflict Society and Culture South America The International Economy Uncategorized

Sorry for the Inconvenience – Brazil is Under Construction

written by thegeneration

Photo Credit: Beraldo Leal, June 17, 2013, under Creative Commons License

by Michelle Sinness

Contributing Writer

When Brazil won the Confederations Cup final soccer game on Sunday night, June 30th, 2013, the streets of Brazil’s first capital city, Salvador, erupted into a celebration. Fireworks illuminated the sky, and cheers, laughter, and applause resounded through the small bar where over one hundred people were gathered to watch the match on two small televisions.

However, it was not only the win that was cause for celebration. Periodically, during pauses in the game and during halftime, the television coverage cut to the protesters that were marching outside of the stadium. Just as they would if Brazil had scored a goal, the people that were gathered in the bar jumped out of their seats to whoop and cheer in support of the protests. The movement that recently exploded onto the streets of Brazil had become a source of pride.

Soccer has been a part of Brazilian national identity since the 1930 to 1954 military dictatorship used the game to unify the population and construct a strong sense of nationalism. The arrival of the FIFA Confederations Cup in 2013 and World Cup in 2014 seems long overdue for a country that lives and breathes soccer. Most Brazilians are proud to finally have the opportunity to host the games and consider it a testament to Brazil’s place as an emerging world power. Hosting the World Cup and the 2016 Olympic games is an integral part of Brazil’s soft power approach to foreign policy as the state continues to lobby for Security Council reform and equitable IMF representation.

The shining new stadiums that have been constructed in many capital cities are not enough, however, to mask the crumbling infrastructure that surrounds them. Taxpayers have footed the bill for the FIFA preparations, but few expect to see any return on their investment. In fact, the vast majority of Brazilians will not be able to afford to attend a single match in the new structures. And while the construction projects have offered short-term employment to some, the benefits will hardly be long-term. The stadiums are expected to remain vacant for decades to come, and the people that sold tickets and popcorn will return to their previous jobs or go back to being unemployed. Nevertheless, in a matter of several months and several billion dollars, the colossal structures were erected. This was no easy feat for a country where bureaucracy burdens reform and corruption hinders progress, and Brazilians took notice.

One June 13, 2013, frustration over lack of infrastructural improvements turned into fury when several states enacted a bus fare increase. Residents of Sao Paulo that make minimum wage spend an average of 26 percent of their income on public transportation to get to and from work. A group of disgruntled students in Sao Paulo took to the streets, igniting a movement that took the Brazilian government and the world by surprise.

Over the course of the summer, the demonstrations grew to be the largest in Brazilian history, surpassing the 1992 protests that brought about the impeachment of President Collor de Mello. Although the movement lacked central leadership, demonstrations were effectively organized in cities across the country via social media. The majority of the protesters were educated, middle class Brazilians, yet they were fighting for causes that more directly affect the poorest sectors of Brazilian society. Perhaps this is because the height of the protests occurred while university students were on winter break, and wealthier Brazilians could afford to take time off from work to participate in the movement while poorer Brazilians could not. Regardless, Brazilians strategically capitalized on the worldwide media coverage of the FIFA Conferations Cup and the World Cup preparations to amplify their voices and make their demands heard.

The demonstrators that swarmed the streets in June and July had three main demands: the elimination of bus fares for students, more money for healthcare and education, and political reform to reduce governmental corruption. Brazilians bear a tax burden comparable to that of Germany, yet do not see the investment of their money to improving hospitals, schools, or infrastructure. Valéria Figueira, a Brazilian supporter of the movement who lives in Salvador, said, “I am angry every day that I pay first world taxes to live in a third world country. That’s why I admire and support the movement completely. It’s interesting to note that there are so many middle class and upper-middle class youths demanding lower prices for a public transportation system that they don’t even use. This is because they were educated, which is, unfortunately, an opportunity limited to only a select class of our society.” Brazil has the lowest rates of college enrollment in Latin America, and its public education system was ranked 39 out of 40 in an evaluation by the Economist Intelligence Unit last year. Clearly, Brazilians have reason to be upset.

The initial effects of the movement were impressive. President Dilma Rousseff was slow to react at first, and her approval rating plummeted. When she finally held a press conference to address the protesters’ concerns, President Rousseff commended them for exercising their right to demonstrate and promised that her government would work to control inflation and reform healthcare, education, and public transportation. Several states retracted the bus fare increase, and Rousseff’s cabinet met to discuss and implement further reforms, such as increasing the amount of government funds allocated on public transportation and infrastructure. As she prepares to campaign for reelection next year, Rousseff will need to implement much-needed economic reforms and streamline public spending in order to regain the public’s trust.

Although the movement made progress on some of its demands, it has struggled to keep its momentum going since the Conferations Cup has ended. The protests have largely died down and are no longer making national and international headlines. Whether the protesters are satisfied with their gains or they are just waiting until the spotlight returns to Brazil during the 2014 World Cup is yet to be seen. Whatever the outcome, the protesters’ strategic capitalization on a moment in history when the whole world was watching Brazil was powerful. Brazilians effectively held the games hostage in exchange for social reform, setting a precedent for future World Cup host countries and sending a powerful message about the balance between international soft power interests and national development.

The Brazilian flag was raised after Brazil won the Confederations Cup final game, and the people gathered in the small bar stood to sing the national anthem together. With tears glistening in many of their eyes, they sang the chorus with a glimmer of hope for the future of their country:

O country vast by nature,

Fair and strong, brave and colossal,

Thy future mirrors this thy greatness.

Michelle Sinness is a first year MA student in Latin American Studies at UCLA, specializing in Brazil. She spent the summer in Salvador, Brazil under a Foreign Language and Area Studies Fellowship.

October 22, 2013 1 comment

Asia Security and Conflict

Persecution of Rohingya is Key to a Profitable U.S.-Burma Relationship

written by thegeneration

Photo by Associated Press

by Jacob Goldberg
Staff Writer

The success and international attention achieved by Burma’s current pro-democracy, pro-Western government has been a towering triumph for the former pariah state, but one that casts a vast shadow. Behind the veil of President Thein Sein’s liberal reforms and niceties exchanged with Western leaders (his recent visit to the White House last week was the first by a Burmese leader in five decades), Burma has been host to a series of human rights violations for which the supposedly reformist government has offered no viable solution. Rather than posing an obstacle to Burma’s development, however, the persecution of Burma’s Muslim population, the Rohingya, is the secret formula that binds the Burmese government to its Western patrons, most notably the United States.

The Historical Roots of Persecution of Muslims in Burma

While the mainstream media have attributed each outbreak of anti-Muslim violence in Burma since October 2012 to a single incident, such as the collision of a Muslim girl’s bicycle into a Buddhist monk or an argument between a Muslim gold dealer and his Buddhist clients that turned violent, the persecution of Burma’s Muslims actually has roots in the country’s birth.

The exclusion of Rohingya from the rights and protections of Burmese citizenship began at the Panglong Conference in 1947. At this meeting, convened by Burmese revolutionary Aung San (father of democracy icon-turned-parliamentarian Aung San Suu Kyi), minority groups in Burma were offered the opportunity to register as “national races.” A delegation representing the Rohingya community, however, was absent from this meeting, leaving the Rohingya bereft of “national race” status ever since.

This technicality was not used to systematically persecute Rohingya until decades later. In fact, during the short period of Burma’s democracy between 1948 and 1962, Rohingya were issued National Registration Cards and voted in national elections. Indeed, in 1959, Prime Minister U Ba Sue proclaimed that the Rohingya are a race like other races in Burma, and as such, they are entitled to equal rights.

However, these rights and services were discontinued shortly after General Ne Win ousted the democratically elected U Nu government and established a socialist military dictatorship in 1962. Beginning with Operation Naga Min (Operation Dragon King) 1978, the radically nationalist Burmese government has conducted a series of operations with the aim of purging illegal foreigners. Because of their lack of “national race” status, the Rohingya in Arakan state fell under this designation. These operations kicked off a vicious cycle in which hundreds of thousands of Rohingya are continually displaced between Burma and neighboring Bangladesh (from where the government claims they originate), rejected by both countries and rendered effectively stateless.

Today, Rohingya babies are not issued birth certificates, and Rohingya marriages are not recognized unless heavy bribes are paid. Rohingya are not even allowed to travel outside their villages, leading to claims of apartheid from the West.

The Strategic Value of Burma’s Muslims

Because the current regime profits from protraction of anti-Muslim violence committed by its citizens, the turmoil shows no sign of slowing. Allowing the violence to proceed and even contributing to the persecution themselves, the Burmese military gains the opportunity to cast itself as the only thing standing between peace and all-out chaos in Burma. Indeed, following the violent outbreaks in Rakhine and Meikhtila, in which state police are known to have participated, the regime declared a state of emergency in those areas, which gives it the legal authority to implement martial law. At a time when the entire world is cheering on Burma’s democratic transformation, the current regime walks a fine line between relinquishing power to the people and holding onto the benefits of authoritarianism. It is along this line that a small, internationally homeless minority group gets trampled.

The progression of Burmese history from its independence until today has led to the creation of the perfect victim. Because of the already tense relationship between Burmese Muslims and the country’s Buddhist majority, it has been easy for the government to tacitly stoke the flames whenever the opportunity arose and explain away the violence as the result of communal unrest.

The creation of this perfect victim also came at the perfect time. Although organizations dedicated to human rights advocate as best they can to end the persecution of the Rohingya, the people who can really make a difference have been conspicuously silent. Aung San Suu Kyi, the Nobel Prize-winning Burmese democracy icon who spent the last three decades fighting the military dictatorship, explained her silence as the refusal to “take sides” on an issue in which violence is committed by both parties. Suu Kyi, who now holds a seat in Burma’s parliament, is speculated to be maintaining her silence in an effort to appeal to her constituents, most of whom are Buddhist.

Also silent are President Obama and his administration. Along with Burma’s government, President Obama has the most to gain from Burma’s development. Burma serves as one of the main battlegrounds on which the U.S. and China vie for influence in resource-rich Southeast Asia. When the military junta was dismantled in 2010, China lost much of its access to Burma’s leadership. China’s estrangement deepened in 2011, when President Thein Sein suspended the China-backed Myitsone dam project, citing “the will of the people.” The suspension of the project was seen as a rejection of Chinese attempts to grab resources from Burma. Closely following the suspension of the dam project, the U.S. and the EU dropped their sanctions against Burma and sought the same investment opportunities as those which China now seems to be losing. By pitting the U.S. and China against each other in an ongoing bidding war for Burma’s resources, Thein Sein wields immense power over both his own country and those that wish to invest therein. And after almost a term and a half of foreign policy blunders, Burma portends to become the jewel in Obama’s foreign policy crown. Therefore, aside from a single mention in his Yangon University speech last November, President Obama has made no indication that Burma’s human rights abuses will in any way affect his decision to support the country’s development.

The case of Burma’s development is one in which national leaders profit at the expense of their people and the majority profits at the expense of a minority. And there are no signs of this changing. The current Burmese government has found a way to straddle both Western-style development and authoritarian control over its own population, and the Rohingya are the focal point of this strategy. By facilitating communal violence, the Burmese government demonstrates the necessity of the military to the Burmese people. And by targeting a defenseless, stateless minority with no influential leaders speaking on its behalf, the Burmese government ensures that the violence it creates poses no risk to its investors. Furthermore, were the U.S. to find the persecution of Rohingya problematic enough to alter its participation in Burma’s development, the U.S. would run the unacceptable risk of Burma sliding effortlessly back into China’s patronage. From the perspectives of President Obama and President Thein Sein, the Rohingya are a politically inconsequential, and therefore wholly inconsequential, sacrifice.

Jacob is a third-year International Development Studies major at UCLA, where he is serves as the president of the Olive Tree Initiative. He tweets on conflict and development in the Middle East and Southeast Asia under @Jrifter.

June 3, 2013 2 comments

Mexico and Latin America Security Security and Conflict

The War on Drugs: Mexican Cartels

written by thegeneration

Mexican Navy seizes drugs and weapons from the Las Zetas drug trafficking organization (Jorge Lopez/Reuters).

by Akbar Khan
Contributing Writer

In 1971, President Nixon officially declared a “war on drugs.” Four decades later and after $1 trillion in government expenditures, the drug war still rages on with no signs of slowing down. During Nixon’s time, the big players in the drug scene were the Colombian cartels. It was not until the 1980s, when the United States successfully used Plan Colombia to disrupt Colombia’s drug cartels, that Mexico’s cartels rose to prominence. Today, Mexico’s “narcotraficantes” have established a $25 billion industry and account for a majority of America’s methamphetamine and marijuana supply.

Although former Mexican President Felipe Calderón invested billions of dollars in the deployment of tens of thousands of troops and the reformation of police and judiciary systems, the fight against drug cartels has not made any substantive gains. If anything, Calderón’s militarization of the drug war has only escalated drug-related violence. The Mexican government estimates that since 2006 over 40,000 people have died due to drug-related violence. And even worse, some of Mexico’s cartels are now highly influential in certain territories like Guerrero and along the coast on the Gulf of Mexico, making it harder for the Mexican state to fight them. In some regions where the cartels have eliminated political representation, the Mexican government has effectively lost the monopoly on the use of force – a monopoly which scholars like Max Weber have deemed to be an essential requirement of statehood.

Why has it been so difficult to fight Mexican cartels?

For one thing, Mexican cartels are quite sophisticated. They are structured and militarized organizations that employ at least half a million people, according to Vanda Felbab-Brown, a Brookings Institute narcotics expert. The cartels have also demonstrated a high propensity for brutality and terror – a tactic that has enabled them to increase control within Mexico’s institutional framework. In many cases, corpses are dumped in city streets and in extreme cases, the bodies are cut into pieces or decapitated. Reporters, many of whom are consistently the victims of cartel murders, fear fatal repercussions for detailing cartel activities. A survey by Reporters Without Borders lists Mexico as the fourth most deadly country for reporters. This has had a gripping effect on Mexico’s media, as demonstrated by a Juarez newspaper that dedicated its entire front page as a plea for peace to the cartels, according to an Al Jazeera presentation.

Furthermore, the Mexican military has struggled to combat the cartels effectively. “Each year, the violence takes on distinct new dimensions,” states Victor Clark Alfaro, a security expert for the Binational Human Rights Center in Tijuana. “It’s like fighting guerrillas — it often defies understanding.”

This transformation of violence is demonstrated by the fact that some cartels, particularly the Caballeros Templarios, consider themselves to be more than simple drug traffickers; they view themselves as resistance fighters (La Resistencia). The very title “Knights Templar” (Caballeros Templarios) refers to early crusaders who protected pilgrims on their passage to Jerusalem. Other cartels substantiate their political motives to displace the government by organizing community events like picnics and barbecues. This demonstrates the cartels’ ability to not only compel violence but to support their efforts with ideological constructs of organized resistance and community welfare.

To top it all off, corruption within the Mexico’s government has severely hampered the war on drugs. Reports of government officials, police officers, and military personnel receiving payments from the cartels have repeatedly surfaced. “A system-wide network of corruption has ensured distribution rights, market access, and even official government protection for drug traffickers in exchange for lucrative bribes” according to a March 2011 CFR report. As one example of the corruption, in 2008, members of SIEDO (Subprocuraduría de Investigación Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada), the attorney general’s office in charge of investigating and prosecuting organized crime, and directors of the federal police were arrested for their ties to the Beltrán Leyva cartel. Noé Ramírez, the former director of SIEDO, reportedly received $450,000 every month for his services to the cartel’s leaders.

Of course, the supply side is only one part of the equation. The undeniable fact is that the demand for drugs in the United States provides an essential market for the cartels. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, in 2010 there was an estimated 22 million Americans ages 12 and older using illegal drugs – nearly 9% of the U.S. population. That is an increase from the 6.7% of the population estimated in the 1999 Survey. With millions of buyers in the United States, Mexican cartels continue to generate a revenue stream that in turn serves to finance their violence and increased capabilities.

With their ability to intimidate, combat, conceptualize, and infiltrate, Mexico’s cartels prove to be a powerful force. But combined with this insatiable demand in America, the cartels become a cemented aspect of U.S. Mexico relations.

A more recent development on the drug war: Mexican cartels have exhibited increasing control in the rural areas of Mexico, namely in southern Mexico.

According to a study by Salvador Aranda in Revista Mexicana de Sociología, places like Michoacan that have not traditionally been in the spotlight of the media for the drug war, have witnessed more militarization and influence from cartels such as the Caballeros Templarios. This has led to changes in the agrarian culture of Michoacan due to the incorporation of the drug trade.

Jerry Langton, author of Gangland, talks about the many poverty-stricken, indigenous people in Southern Mexico who, feeling alienated by the central government, turn to cartels like “La Familia” for their provision of healthcare and education. This is in contrast with the terror tactics that the cartels use in Northern cities since it demonstrates an ability to garner support by immersing themselves in the livelihoods of the residents.

Despite their increased integration in rural territories, the extent to which the cartels exercise control over their territories is most greatly hindered by divisions amongst the cartels themselves. Mexico’s drug landscape is dominated by several competing cartels but there is no single dominant cartel. As a result, the major cartels must compete for drug routes throughout Mexico and into the United States, which result in deadly territorial battles.

This division demonstrates that while the cartels collectively have a significant voice in Mexico, they do not have complete control over their territories. While much of their influence is leveraged by fear and hostility, their growing aptitude to become integrated into the lifestyle and culture in rural areas like Michoacan should seriously heighten the concern of Mexican and American officials.

Fact and figures from CNN, BBC, PBS, CNS News, Al Jazeera, El Economista, Washington Post and Time.

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations.

May 29, 2013 2 comments

Global Health Middle East Security Security and Conflict Terrorism

Pakistani Elections 2013: Vote for Change, Vote for Integrity

written by thegeneration

By Akbar Khan
Contributing Writer

December 2011, Abbottabad, Pakistan – Well over a year before Election Day, in one of the world’s most dangerous countries, I could already sense the beginnings of what was becoming the most important election in the history of the country. Political banners, slogans, and portraits lined street corners and highway billboards. Buses, filled with enthusiastic supporters, were shuttling constituents to party rallies. The political climate was heating up in anticipation of the upcoming May 11 election and even I, a foreign-born Pakistani, understood the magnitude of what was riding on the outcome

Since achieving Independence in 1947 under the leadership of Quaid-e-Azam Jinnah, Pakistan has not exactly been an exemplar of democratic statehood. In its relatively short 65-year history, the country has been the victim of four military coups, three territorial wars with India, and numerous rigged elections. Today, political corruption, rural poverty, and Islamic extremism plague the country. And yet, despite all this negativity, the people of Pakistan face an opportunity for change in the upcoming election.

In the Pakistan’s party dominated political landscape, there are about 90 parties, but the 2013 election has been dominated by three in particular: Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), and Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI). The latest polls show that the PML-N will win the most seats, followed by PTI and PPP. Some speculate that if PTI and PPP form a coalition, it could control a majority of the 272 electable seats and consequently, Imran Khan (PTI) would be designated as Prime Minister.

Pakistan People’s Party — Bilawal Bhutto Zardari

Founded as a progressive party in the 1960s, the PPP won parliamentary majorities in 1973, when Zulfikar Bhutto became Prime Minister, and in 1988 and 1993, under Benazir Bhutto, the first female elected Prime Minister of Pakistan. Following her assassination in 2007, the PPP won a majority of seats in the 2008 elections but have lost support in recent months with the rise of the PML-N and PTI. The current chairman, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, is the son of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari, the current President of Pakistan. Educated in England and following in the footsteps of his mother and grandfather, Bilawal Bhutto possesses enormous potential as a future leader. However, since he is only 24 years old, he is unable to run as Prime Minister in the upcoming election (in order to run for a seat, a candidate must be at least 25 years of age).

The PPP has been the most targeted party of the Pakistani Taliban’s campaign violence, which has resulted in the death of several party members and the recent kidnapping of former Prime Minister Gilani’s son Yusuf Raza Gilani by gunmen in Multan. Since April 11^th, pre-election bombings have left more than 100 people dead. As a result, the party has not been able to campaign as openly as it would like. Despite efforts by PPP members to protest to the Election Commission that the attacks have put an unfair strain on their campaigning abilities, with Election Day less than 24 hours away, there is little the party can do to make up lost ground. Because of the heightened threat of suicide bombers, the Pakistani Army has announced that 70,000 troops will be deployed across the country on Election Day.

Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz — Nawaz Sharif

The PML-N, a conservative party, is centered in the Punjab province. It won parliamentary majorities in 1990 and 1997 enabling its leader, Nawaz Sharif, to become Prime Minster in both years. Sharif has little to boast from his two terms as Prime Minister. Acquiring considerable wealth from his milling industry ownerships throughout the country, Sharif was accused by former President Ghulam Khan of corruption for his personal financial gains during his tenure as Prime Minster. Despite this allegation, the PML-N remains the leading party at this point in the election campaign.

Pakistan Tehree-e-Insaf — Imran Khan

The PTI is a relatively young party founded in the 1990s. It is the only party out of the major three in this election that has not had a substantial political voice until recently. Its chairman, Imran Khan (the former cricket star who brought a World Cup victory to Pakistan in 1992), first achieved national political prominence through his construction of a major cancer hospital in Lahore, dedicated to his mother who died of cancer. His work on the hospital earned him a reputation as an honest leader because he consistently provided statements of the hospital’s funding records, demonstrating that he had not pocketed any of the donations he received for the project. He was also heavily involved in aid relief efforts for flood victims in 2010. His party’s campaign focus has been to bring justice to Pakistan and to eradicate corruption within the state.

The Path of Change

If there is one thing that has been consistently lacking in the Pakistani government, it has been integrity. Pakistan’s political institutions have been riddled with corruption. Parliamentarians have laundered taxes for their own personal benefit and high-ranking leaders have coerced banks to lend, only to default on the loans. Even I have witnessed police officers blatantly accepting bribes in their execution of the “law.” Unfortunately, there exists a gap in trust between the Pakistani people and their government.

However, on May 11^th, the people of Pakistan face a landmark opportunity because this election marks the first time in the country’s history that one democratically elected government will succeed another. After years of “load shedding,” infrastructure deterioration, stagnant social and economic opportunities, and overall political neglect, they finally have an opportunity to steer the country in a direction that can cater to their needs. With this opportunity, though, comes a weighty responsibility: the Pakistani people must be the catalysts for the positive change they seek within the country. This change starts by filling the gap in trust between the government and its constituents. In order to do this, the people must distinguish between leaders who have had a record of corruption from those who have not and put the latter in power. A foundation of trust will only be laid down for future democratic transitions if people have confidence in the government; this is true of any country aspiring towards democracy and Pakistan is no exception.

Both the PLM-N and PPP would preserve the status quo. Nawaz Sharif has little to speak for his leadership besides allegations of corruption and the PPP, the currently ruling party, has accomplished little in its latest attempt to govern. Of the three major candidates, only one candidate has had a track record of sincerity and honesty. From the beginning of PPP’s campaign, Imran Khan has made it a point to fight corruption in Pakistan. To some, he lacks political savvy and experience, but his greatest asset is what is most needed in the country – integrity.

Unfortunately, several days ago, Imran Khan fell off of a tall structure while making a rally appearance. The incident was completely accidental but now Imran will be bed-ridden for several weeks, which renders him unable to campaign. He has insisted, however, on making speeches from his hospital bed. Despite the circumstances, Imran is still devoted to his cause for a better Pakistan and the country should take this as a sign of his determination.

Tomorrow, despite the violence, the Pakistani will take to the ballots. For their sake, and for the sake of the country, I hope they vote for the path of change and integrity.

Facts and figures from Trading Economics, BBC, UNICEF, Guardian, and Pakistan Today

Akbar Khan is a third-year Political Science student with a minor in Global Studies. He is an intern at the Burkle Center for International Relations.

May 10, 2013 1 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts