Uncategorized

The 2016 presidential election will no doubt remain a controversial subject in the coming years. Many feminists, excited at the prospect of America’s first female president, must now come to terms with the reality that the “highest and hardest” glass ceiling will remain unbroken for at least four more years. However, the United States is not alone in its continued failure to elect a woman to its highest government office. Despite the progress made around the world to expand the rights of women, a lack of gender parity remains painfully clear in the realm of leadership. Women occupy around 10% of the highest offices in national governments around the world, with 19 women currently serving as head of state/government. One of the most formidable female leaders today is Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel’s unconventional rise to power serves as an inspiration to aspiring female leaders and further dismantles society’s male-centric conception of power and leadership. However, her legacy also highlights the many double-edged swords facing women in power that make the glass ceiling so difficult to break through.

As a politician in Germany, Merkel is an outlier. She grew up in East Germany during the Cold War and was originally trained in the sciences. Her origins made her an outsider in German politics, which were dominated by men from the West. Nevertheless, she turned her perceived weaknesses into strengths. She used the patience, intellect and inconspicuousness that she cultivated in the East to propel her political career. Furthermore, her background in science allowed her to grow more comfortable working in a male dominated field, and has influenced many aspects of her political style. She is an unanimated public speaker; her speeches are devoid of the pompousness and inflated rhetoric that are characteristic of many other world leaders. She is notorious for delaying her decisions for as long as possible in order to analyze all the available data, and has developed a political style that is based on pragmatism and facts rather than any ideological convictions. In fact, it has been said her only deep seated conviction is her value for freedom, everything else “is negotiable”.

Merkel’s unique style of leadership has allowed her to cultivate a level of respect among the German people that secured her three consecutive terms as chancellor. However, despite her success, she has faced more than her fair share of obstacles in the form of both overt and subtle sexism. While she has risen above the insults and criticism admirably, her experiences reveal the contradictory attitudes surrounding female leadership, and the fine line women in power must walk. While every country and culture has a unique set of standards for their leadership, many of the challenges faced by Merkel are universal to women seeking power.

Merkel developed an ability to restrain herself and lead from behind through her experience studying alongside primarily male colleagues at Leipzig University. She once joked, “The men in the laboratory always had their hands on all the buttons at the same time. I couldn’t keep up with this, because I was thinking. And then things suddenly went ‘poof,’ and the equipment was destroyed.” Throughout her political career she has stood her ground and dealt with the particularly “macho” male leaders, such as Vladimir Putin, in a similar fashion. Merkel’s tactics can serve as a model for other aspiring female leaders, but her experiences also reveal a troubling truth. Female leaders must remain composed in order to avoid being labeled emotional or abrasive, but if they are too diffident they risk having their voices drowned out. Merkel’s lead from behind style of leadership has allowed her to work around this double-edged sword, but it is not necessarily the most efficient way to lead. Ultimately, placing rigid expectations on women hinders their ability to be effectual leaders.

Contradictions between expectations of Merkel’s femininity and masculinity also came into play during her rise to power. The now popular and affectionate nickname “Mutti” (German word for mother), was originally thrown at her as an insult. She has since gracefully reclaimed the name, arguing that it implies her responsibility to the German people. Her appearance has come under scrutiny as well, particularly at the beginning of her career. She has updated her style over time but has largely ignored the critics and maintained a plain and unassuming wardrobe. In this way she has sent the message that she prioritizes her work over her appearance and wants to keep the focus on her policy. These experiences reveal another double-edged sword: as a woman Merkel is expected to be feminine, matronly and stylish, although these traits are often seen as incompatible with strong leadership. After centuries of primarily male leaders, our notions of masculinity and leadership are intimately intertwined. In order to be taken seriously, a woman must adopt more traditionally masculine traits such as resoluteness and aggression. However, acting too masculine often makes a woman less likeable to a broad audience.

Merkel has also received criticism at the other end of the spectrum from feminists who are dismayed by her failure to adequately address women’s issues in Germany. Merkel herself has said she doesn’t consider herself a feminist. Although she has made efforts throughout her career to advance women’s rights, such as adding gender equality in the workplace to the G7 summit agenda in 2015, women’s issues have remained largely on the periphery of her policy goals. The harsh criticism Merkel has received from feminists is fueled in part by the idea that women understand the challenges posed by gender barriers, and thus have an obligation to help each other whenever possible; as Secretary of State Madeleine Albright once said, “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other”. Merkel’s actions reveal another troubling double-edged sword: those with the most power to advance women’s rights—women in the highest offices of government—often adopt passive stances, perhaps because acting otherwise could amount to political suicide. When a woman seeking a high leadership role champions women’s rights and runs on a feminist platform, it is seen with suspicion by many and cast as self-serving. Thus, it is very difficult for an outspoken feminist to get elected to a high office. There is no doubt that having more female leaders is a positive step towards gender equality. However, their power would be much more consequential if it were wielded to directly advance women’s issues.

While more active advocacy for women’s issues from Merkel is necessary, her contributions to the women’s movement must still be recognized and appreciated. She garnered respect in boardrooms dominated by men as she led Europe through the Eurozone Crisis and continues to tackle the Refugee Crisis; thus she has expanded respect for female voices in important international policy discussions. Ultimately, Merkel can serve as both an inspiration and a sobering lesson to other aspiring female leaders. She is an example to women everywhere of strong female leadership that has risen above sexist criticism and “macho men”. However, her legacy is riddled with the double-edged swords that have prevented many other women from achieving the same success. Hopefully, America’s aspiring first-female-presidents will learn a lesson from Merkel and shatter the highest glass ceiling once and for all.

February 9, 2017 0 comment

The Eiffel Tower lit in blue white red-Fluctuat nec Mergitur, Flickr (CC), Source

Europe Featured Geopolitics Middle East Security Security and Conflict Terrorism Uncategorized

In the Shadow of Terror—The Global Response to Terrorism in Light of the Paris Attacks

written by Arturo Siguenza

November 13, a day that will surely be ingrained in the nightmares of thousands, began as any other day in Paris, with the promise of an exciting evening of friends, food, and music. No one predicted the horror that would ensue as the sun set, namely that a group of strategically organized terrorists would infiltrate various locations throughout the city. At 9:20pm explosions erupted in the locality around the Stade de France, triggering the beginning of multiple attacks. Over the next four hours, cafes and restaurants were targeted in a slew of bombings and shootings, culminating at the Bataclan Concert Hall. Those hoping to enjoy an evening of rock music headlined by the American band, Eagles of Death Metal, instead faced a group of armed militants that entered the venue and opened fire at unsuspecting crowds. Within a few hours, the city of Paris was consumed by panic and terror as thousands fled these targeted centers in search of safe havens from the attacks.

The city of Paris lost 130 lives throughout the course of the night and 351 people were left injured. An attack meant to indiscriminately stir fear not only in France, but globally, has successfully shaken spirits worldwide. Empathy for France was instantaneous as social media reacted in support. Facebook instituted a safety check system, a tool previously reserved for natural disasters, allowing users in Paris to notify their loved ones of their status. Feeds flooded with profile pictures donning a blue, white and red filter in solidarity. Across all social media platforms, people showed their support using the hashtag #prayforparis, and governments worldwide showed their solidarity, projecting the French flag over their monuments and gathering to discuss collective action. Just two days after the attacks, world leaders met at the G20 World Summit in Turkey, vowing to increase military response against IS. Since the World Summit, an international coalition including the USA, France, the UAE, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and recently Britain, has formed using air strikes to bomb IS targets in Syria aiming to weaken the organization’s strongholds. With the ever-increasing support for France and the reactionary discussions among government heads, the Paris attacks marked a pivotal point in the war against IS and its affiliates. Claiming responsibility for the horrific attacks, IS has demonstrated its ability to not only effectively inflict its militant terror tactics within its territorial strongholds but also to extend this destructive reach internationally.

But what does this social response and acceleration in government action tell us? The terrorist attacks in Paris and the response that followed showed a collective empathy that cut across national boundaries, but also conversely emphasized the stark contrast in the attention garnered by terrorist attacks in other regions. With everyone from celebrities to prominent government officials making statements and sending their condolences and prayers to Parisians, one begins to wonder why other countries do not receive the same treatment. For instance, earlier last year a suicide bomber killed 12 people during a funeral in eastern Afghanistan. In April, al-Shabab militants attacked and killed 147 at Garissa University in Kenya, most of whom were students. Just a day before the attacks in Paris, a suicide bombing orchestrated by ISIS hit the city of Beirut killing 43 people. These are but a few of the acts of terrorism this past year and the majority of these brutal incidents share one common factor: none garnered the outpouring of global attention and empathy that the Paris attacks had.

My intention is not to shame the solidarity shown for Paris, but to highlight the stark contrast between how these events are treated. This contrast makes it impossible to continue ignoring the chronic perception that terrorism occurring in countries situated in regions more prone to violence, such as in the Middle East and Africa, can be waved aside as normal or habitual occurrences. At the G20 Summit in November, President Obama referred to the events in Paris as not just an attack on France but as “an attack on the civilized world.” This raises the question as to how and what we can identify as “the civilized world?” This loaded statement calls forth the idea that world governments, popular media, and ordinary individuals dismiss some regions as backwards and their confrontations with violence as the unfortunate but dismissible status quo—until bombs go off in their own backyards. What is most distressing is that attacks subsequently launched against terrorist organizations often result in the upheaval and loss of many innocent civilian lives; consider the civilian death toll in the War on Terrorism following 9/11 and the warzone that Syria has become. Civilians in countries that seem to be too “uncivilized” to foster global attention or completely lost in micro-aggression, are often neglected and their already chaotic surroundings decimated.

So what does this mean for the future in the aftermath of the Paris attacks? It is clear that IS and its affiliates will not stop anytime soon in their ongoing terror rampage. They have already claimed sequence of more attacks, since the Paris events. In Nigeria two bomb attacks carried out by Boko Haram killed 31 and injured 72. This past week a suicide bomber—and suspected member of IS—killed 10 in Istanbul’s Sultanahmet Square and the organization also orchestrated a series of attacks in Jakarta leaving 2 dead and 20 injured. A new IS propaganda video, titled “Paris Has Collapsed,” was released on November 20th glorifying the Paris attacks and vowing continuation of threats to not only France, but also the U.S. The hacker-activist group known as Anonymous also released a list of future IS targets it claims to have uncovered suggesting plans for strikes in the U.S., Indonesia, Italy, and Lebanon. Additionally we also see the domino effect IS attacks have on its ongoing rivalry with Al Qaeda for Islamic supremacy. Shortly after the Paris attacks, Al Qaeda launched an attack that killed 19 in a Mali hotel on November 20th. A dangerous future of competition between the two organizations is becoming progressively more apparent.

The West, or the “civilized world” as described by President Obama, is entering a state of emergency as the war against terrorism escalates indefinitely. The next steps will undoubtedly bring massive change to the international sphere. In this, we must remember that government and social response can empower terrorism as much as it can end it; justice is our duty but retaliation is not. We cannot permit ourselves to repeat the mistakes following 9/11 with an emergency response that does not consider further consequences in war-torn countries. For every innocent life lost in distant battlefields and each person at home that allows their fear to turn them away from the idea of human rights, plays into the hands of terrorist organizations moving us towards an increasingly militant global climate fueled by terror.

My prayers go out to all those affected by the recent terrorist attacks and those who continue to experience the aftermath of past episodes. Your stories will not go forgotten.

January 15, 2016 1 comment

Crisis Relied Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Immigration Internet Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Territorial disputes Terrorism Uncategorized

An Interview with Mubin Shaikh: Former Jihadist Turned Counter-Terrorism Operative

written by Madison Weil

In light of recent radical Islamic terrorist attacks worldwide, individuals everywhere are feeling uneasy and unsafe. The topic of national security has moved to the forefront of political agendas and has become an integral part of international discussions. In the United States, 49% of citizens are worried that they, or someone in their family, will become a victim of terrorism. This percentage is the highest it has been since the year following 9/11. According to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, “Over three-quarters of Americans doubt the nation’s ability to stop ‘lone wolf’ terrorist attacks by individuals acting on their own.” Additionally, 59% of Republicans, 38% of Independents, and 15% of Democrats support a ban on all Muslims wishing to enter the United States. For a nation that prides itself on freedom and equal opportunity for all, these are surprising numbers, which reveal the success of radical extremists in their ability to create widespread fear and anti-Muslim sentiment.

In an effort to learn more about the goals and recruitment strategies of ISIS, a colleague and I recently interviewed Mubin Shaikh—an ex-extremist turned counter-terrorism operative, and author of the book Undercover Jihadi. Born in Canada, Shaikh was raised Muslim and became influenced by the radical ideas of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. He began actively recruiting other young Muslims for the cause of jihad. After the events of 9/11, however, he questioned Islamic extremism and travelled to Syria, where he underwent deradicalization—a process he defines in his interview as “a full cognitive shift away from extremist thinking.” Upon his return home, he began working undercover with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in the “Toronto 18” case, in an effort to prevent extremist attacks. Today, he works to stop radicalization using social media to directly engage Islamic State sympathizers, while also speaking out against Islamophobia, which he believes only fuels and encourages radicalization.

What many people do not understand is that the fulfillment of ISIS’ agenda is actually dependent upon worldwide discrimination against Muslims—all Muslims, even moderate, peaceful, law-abiding Muslims. According to Shaikh, “It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious how easily people are falling into that trap. ISIS has actually written a document in which they wrote and said ‘we will commit these attacks so as to create retaliation on Muslims to make them feel so isolated and marginalized that they will be pushed into our waiting arms.’”

Shaikh is referring to both a manifesto called “The Black Flags from Rome,” as well as the February edition of ISIS’ online magazine, Dabiq, in which the Islamic State warned, “Muslims in the West will soon find themselves between one of two choices.” This statement was published in the weeks following the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris—an abhorrent act that only heightened the pre-existing tension between French Muslims and their fellow citizens. The group boasted that the attack had “further [brought] division to the world,” and “eliminated the grayzone,” representing the coexistence between Muslims and their non-Muslim neighbors. The text further explains that Muslims living in the West will soon feel so isolated and marginalized, they will be forced to “either apostatize … or [migrate] to the Islamic State, and thereby escape persecution from the crusader governments and citizens.” The term “crusader” is the title given by ISIS to every Western soldier, civilian, and politician, regardless of party or nation.

In the weeks following the most recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, ISIS has seen their goal come to fruition—innocent Muslims everywhere have been experiencing acts of violence, hatred, and discrimination at the hands of angry, fearful Western citizens. Many in the West believe that Islam is a religion that promotes violence, without understanding that the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Shaikh explained that ISIS manipulates the Quran, “cherry-picks” verses, and uses phrases out of context in order to piece together an outline for their violent mission.

In a more recent interview with VICE, Shaikh reemphasizes that widespread Islamophobia provides a major advantage to ISIS recruiters: “The sad reality is, you have people on the right who might as well directly take the marching orders from ISIS because they’re doing the work for them.” ISIS targets individuals who feel isolated and rejected. Youths are an easy target given their desire to formulate their own identity and find a community to which they belong. Shaikh comments, “Your brains are still developing until your mid-twenties. That’s a time when you’re susceptible to influences from adults, community members, and religious members.” ISIS preys on the vulnerability of ostracized youths, reaching out to them via social media platforms such as Facebook, Skype, Twitter, Instagram, etc. “They’ll take screenshots and continue to engage you until they feel like they can successfully recruit you,” says Shaikh. He also solemnly discusses the impossibility of quitting ISIS once an individual has been recruited: “Their lives are destroyed. And it will be very, very difficult for them to leave that place. Some of them have been executed because they were creating ‘too many problems’ because they wanted to go home.”

While widespread fear and anger might seem inevitable in light of current events, Shaikh encourages individuals to educate themselves on the goals and strategies of extremists, and to resist the temptation to perpetuate the anti-Muslim sentiment which only further fuels radicalization and polarization.

December 28, 2015 1 comment

Africa Asia Featured Global Health Uncategorized Women's Rights

Trust Women, Improve Water Supply

written by Chrissy Cheung

The world water crisis stands out as one of the most prominent international issues of the world today, affecting developed and developing countries alike. In developed countries, one of the larger impacts of lacking water is on agriculture, leading to a combination of increasing prices and decreasing employment. In developing nations, however, there is a significant lack of clean drinking water that not only leads to disease, but also to the death of a child every 21 seconds, which is over 4,000 children every day. According to the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation, around 1.8 billion people worldwide drink water that is contaminated, and based on a UN study, “even more drink water delivered through a system without adequate protection against sanitary hazards.” However, the world water crisis is not limited to health matters. Throughout Africa and parts of Southern Asia, lack of clean drinking water causes the continued disjuncture between male and female well-being.

To begin with, water—even when unsanitary—is not readily available to every community. In urban and suburban areas, like suburban Uganda, people depend on broken water pipes to access free, clean water. Their other option is, if geographically possible, to collect unsanitary water from a nearby stream because they cannot afford to pay for clean water (Water.org). In most rural throughout Africa, women and children must walk, on average, 6 kilometers every day to fetch water. They then carry around 20 liters back to their village, which wears on their necks and backs. In Malawi, women spend nine times as many hours as men do fetching water; girls spend three times as many (UN Women Watch). This time-consuming process often prevents those women and girls from working a paying job or attending school, whereas men and boys have more time to accomplish both tasks. As a result, the women in African rural communities end up, between gathering water and performing household tasks, working unpaid for twice the amount of time that the men work for a salary.

Furthermore, the need to fetch water for their family confines women in Central Africa to daily, unpaid labor and prevents them from receiving an education, making it so that there is little that women can do to escape their circumstances and lead a better life. It becomes extremely difficult for women to advance in the work force or in government, creating a cyclic effect that reinforces women’s role in society and furthering the divide between male and female well-being.

The most apparent solution to this situation is the implementation of water services like building a well for the community. Wells of Life, The Water Project, Water Wells for Africa, and The African Well Fund are a few of the international organizations that work to provide these services. Having access to a well in a rural community not only gives the people access to clean drinking water, but also significantly shortens the distance that women need to walk in order to fetch it. This would give them more time in their day to get an education and advance in the work force.

At the same time, the world water situation contributes to the political inequality, if not the near subjugation, of women in Central Africa and Southern Asia. According to the United Nations publication “Women and Water: 2000 and beyond,” women are the most involved in making decisions for their families regarding water sanitation. However, the organizations responsible for the planning and management of water and sanitation systems (whether they be governmental or privately owned) rarely allow women to be involved. This continues despite the fact that a United Nations-sponsored survey proved that water projects planned and managed by women are more likely to succeed than those conducted solely by men. This is exemplified in another UN study, which conducted research about the impact of water services on communities in east Nepal. In the study, women whose communities received improved water services experienced increased collection time when the services were placed near the roadsides. Women chose to walk to the wells, collect the water, return home, and repeat this process several times a day during menstruation, due to the shame of being seen cleaning their soiled clothes by males. This type of situation did not occur in areas where women were involved in planning: water services were instead placed in more private locations so women felt comfortable cleaning their laundry and gathering water at the same time. Thus, women should be involved when planning the implementation of water services for their communities.

Ultimately, the world water crisis significantly impacts the women throughout Africa and Southern Asia politically by causing a continued disjuncture between men and women’s well-being. The first step to alleviating the symptoms of the water crisis, allowing women to overcome the political issues that result from a lack of drinking water, is continuing to develop water services for countries in need. There are many organizations dedicated to building wells that give people access to clean groundwater below the surface, and supporting these organizations can hopefully have a real difference in the water crisis in the future. Until women and girls in impacted nations no longer spend most of their day fetching water, the cycle of women’s inferiority in the work force will continue.

November 27, 2015 1 comment

Europe Featured Geopolitics Globalization Humanitarian Aid Immigration Middle East Religion Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Terrorism Uncategorized

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case

written by Madison Weil

“It is nationalism which endangers nations, and not the other way round.” –Ernest André Gellner (British-Czech philosopher and social anthropologist)

French President Francois Hollande recently issued a statement that his country is prepared to open its borders and welcome 24,000 migrants seeking asylum over the next two years. This statement, issued on September 7, 2015, is part of a new plan designed by the European Union to accept and appropriately distribute the massive exodus of refugees fleeing from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other surrounding nations. When asked to comment on French polls that indicated 55% of the national population was opposed to accepting more refugees, Hollande responded that asylum is a constitutional right and a moral duty, and that “France’s image and standing in the world were at stake.”

In light of the recent terrorists attacks on Paris, and amid reports that one of the attackers held a Syrian passport, Hollande has emphasized the necessity of making proper background checks prior to accepting these refugees. Hollande has declared war on ISIS, but made it clear that France will maintain its “humanitarian duty” and promise to welcome refugees over the next two years.

While many refugees initially identified Germany as the most ideal place to relocate with supposed security and job opportunities abound, other European countries are now offering comparable conditions and welcoming the migrants. In fact, because Germany has been accommodating such a massive influx of individuals in recent months, France has offered to help by offering an expedited asylum application to migrant families arriving in Munich: temporary housing in France along with a two-week approval process as opposed to the usual six-month process.

These recent political and cultural strides made by France are particularly notable given the nation’s sticky history with immigration and ethnic tension. Having just spent a month living and learning in France, I can attest that it is challenging to go more than a day without hearing an allegation that the presence of ethnic minorities, foreigners, and immigrants creates a grave problem for the nation. A commonly held belief among French traditionalists is that these groups directly threaten and compromise the very essence of true “Frenchness.” Many harbor a sense of nationalism that transcends the concept of national pride and actually results in extreme and egregious discrimination—for example, some believe that to be truly “French” is to be white, Catholic, and multi-generationally French. This statement parades as protectionism when in reality it is rooted in racism. This has created an ongoing and very heated dialogue surrounding immigration policy in the last century.

This French perception of nationalism (hopefully) seems foreign to us in the United States. Our nationality law is based on the principles of jus soli (Latin for “right of soil”), meaning that individuals gain immediate citizenship upon being born in the U.S. This has subsequently created the notion that America is a mixing pot of racial identities—our sense of national pride comes from being united as American, not from being one united race. In contrast, most states in Europe, Asia, and Oceania grant citizenship based on principles of jus sanguinis (Latin for “right of blood”) or a restricted version of jus solis—as is the case in France. Under this philosophy, individuals become citizens depending on their parents’ citizenship and not by birthplace. This has fostered and accentuated the cultural division in France between natives and immigrants which has resulted in the emergence of a perceived social hierarchy. Because of this heated history and conflicting cultural dynamic, President Hollande’s decision to welcome refugees in spite of opposition (and in spite of recent events) deserves recognition.

France’s situation forcibly evokes a particularly challenging set of questions: at what point should international leaders place a greater emphasis on obligations to humanity than on obligations to their own national interests? How do leaders of the Western community in particular negotiate or reconcile national interests with moral duty? Is there such a thing as a moral duty to the international community? According to the UNHCR: “Since, by definition, refugees are not protected by their own governments, the international community steps in to ensure they are safe and protected.” In fact, in the past few decades 142 nations have signed on to both the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 protocol. By signing this international treaty and its 1967 amendment, the UNHCR states nations are essentially agreeing that “refugees deserve, as a minimum, the same standards of treatment enjoyed by other foreign nationals in a given country and, in many cases, the same treatment as nationals.”

While we have historically seen that most national actions, even humanitarian ones, are often out of self-interest, it is my sincere hope that international authorities will continue to improve and open their borders to those in need. Afterall, those of us born in Western nations with relatively safe conditions could have just as easily been born into a nation experiencing a crisis. Wouldn’t we then hope and pray for assistance and asylum in the E.U.? In the U.S.?

This debate reminded me of an excerpt from Shakespeare’s play “Sir Thomas More.” Sir Thomas More is a lawyer, sent to address an angry crowd of individuals rioting to get rid of “those immigrants” or “strangers.” Shakespeare delivers a powerful message that transcends time and place when More challenges the natives to consider what they would do if they had to flee their home country:

“Whether would you go?

What country, by the nature of your error,

Should give you harbor? go you to France or Flanders,

To any German province, to Spain or Portugal,

Nay, any where that not adheres to England,–

Why, you must needs be strangers: would you be pleased

To find a nation of such barbarous temper,

That, breaking out in hideous violence,

Would not afford you an abode on earth,

Whet their detested knives against your throats,

Spurn you like dogs, and like as if that God

Owed not nor made not you, nor that the elements

Were not all appropriate to your comforts,

But chartered unto them, what would you think

To be thus used? this is the strangers case;

And this your mountanish inhumanity.”

(Sir Thomas More, Act II, Scene IV)

This is the stranger’s case—the immigrant’s case. For many, it’s near impossible to fully comprehend the plight and experiences of today’s refugees, but so important to try. While it’s challenging to reconcile national interests with humanitarian needs, our nationality shouldn’t supersede our humanity.

November 20, 2015 0 comment

Source: http://stmedia.startribune.com/images/APTOPIX_NEPAL_EARTHQUAKE_34504069.JPG

Crisis Relied Featured Global Health Humanitarian Aid Internet Technology Uncategorized

Expediting Aid in Rural Nepal

written by Lillianne Thomas

On April 25th, 2015, an earthquake the size of Everest struck just outside Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal. As the number of days grew since the catastrophe occurred, so did the count of victims killed or injured. The 7.8 magnitude earthquake devastated almost a quarter of Nepal and the surrounding areas in China and India, and triggered an avalanche on Mount Everest that would have made international headlines in itself.

As with any natural disaster of this caliber, international aid poured in. The handful of U.N. agencies dealing with these types of crises responded immediately, as did governmental organizations and NGOs from several countries. Yet somehow, victims in the rural parts of Nepal ⎯ an already small country relative to surrounding giants China and India ⎯ suffered from a lack of aid. Is it because the various responding agencies knew where these people are, but had trouble accessing them due to the difficulty of destroyed roads, collapsed infrastructure, and ruptured ground? Were they able to access these rural areas only to find that they came with too few provisions to meet the needs of the droves of victims? Or, is it simply because these agencies were experiencing trouble locating these people?

I contend that the responding agencies were challenged by a combination of all three possibilities. Although scientists had predicted this earthquake would occur for the past ten years and despite the Nepali Government’s earthquake preparation efforts, the poor state of the country’s infrastructure challenged response teams in reaching rural areas outlying Kathmandu. The capital served as an air base for helicopters transporting aid throughout the affected area. However, unlike the Haiti Earthquake in 2010 where a U.S. Naval ship carrying an immense supply of aid arrived directly offshore, Nepal is landlocked and requires land and air-based shipments of aid⎯both of which take much more time to match the supply of sea-based shipments.

As anyone might expect when a natural disaster strikes, the situation presents complications concerning gas and electricity, and few homes in the rural areas outside Kathmandu have access to clean water. What’s more, lack of clean water in rural areas could force victims to rely on polluted water⎯a situation that almost guarantees a cholera epidemic. In this case, trucks and helicopters were the only alternative lifeline the victims had. In order to speed up the distribution of aid in the rural areas, two things needed to change. First, responding teams needed to better plan their deployments with more accurate and timely information. Second, they needed to consider alternative means of transportation that can augment existing means.

In the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, the best way to visualize the physical impact is oftentimes not the most commonly consulted. High resolution, timely satellite imagery is our greatest asset for identifying exactly what was damaged, destroyed, where victims are located, and where responding teams can effectively deploy personnel and set up relief sites. Some of the biggest satellite earth observation commercial companies in the world (DigitalGlobe from the U.S., CNES from France, and Airbus Defense and Space from several European countries) harness the capabilities of their spaceborne satellites to capture imagery of affected areas immediately following a crisis. Subsequently, they share this imagery with that captured before the crisis (for purposes of comparison) to crowdsourced web-based mapping platforms, such as OpenStreetMap. The motivation behind this publicization of high-quality satellite data is to enlist as many people as possible in the effort to build a detailed picture of what was damaged and where the victims are. These efforts resulted in digitally demarcated satellite images that indicate damage as detailed as remote mountain roads. Below is a picture of the user interface for Tomnod, a service from DigitalGlobe that has engaged a global community of volunteer mappers to digitize damaged structures near Kathmandu.

Image Source: www.military-technologies.net

In turn, crowdsourced mapping agencies distribute the imagery they receive from the commercial satellite providers to their networks of volunteer cartographers who may download and digitize the data on their wireless communication devices while on the ground in the affected area. Their input is immediately fed into the digital imagery which can be re-shared with countless humanitarian agencies, thus activating a rapid information sharing environment in the aftermath of the crisis. Although this had been done for Nepal, the service was not nearly as well-known as it should have been. These tools are revolutionary and need greater marketing on behalf of the humanitarian agencies that respond to crises such as the Nepal earthquake. If agencies are to use these tools, then they logically benefit from greater public awareness and participation in the associated services.

Although the Google Person Finder and Facebook Safety Check services received much publicity for their use in locating victims of the earthquake in Nepal, it is important to remember that these services require the victims to have access to smartphones in a devastated environment in which even clean water and food are out of reach. Although obviously well-intentioned, these services face a disjuncture in their actual utility in a situation such as post-earthquake Nepal, especially when it comes to the rural areas. Instead of relying on the victims in the affected region to respond to SMS text messages (as in the case of Facebook Safety Check) or reference images of lost loved ones on Google.com (Google Person Finder), efforts should be directed at encouraging responding agencies and the broader global community to use their access to technology to help assess the damage and identify where the victims are located.

Finally, responding agencies should consider alternative means of transporting aid to and from the remote areas. One method for bypassing the limited manpower needed to operate helicopters and drive trucks is adding unmanned aerial systems as a third means to transport aid to and from the remote areas, such as the outlying territories around Kathmandu. These UASs, more popularly referred to as “carrier drones” , would need to be flown in formation with helicopters whose pilots should follow flight paths informed by the crowdsourced satellite imagery. The pilot operating a helicopter would control the drones flown in formation. This is necessary to overcome the complications associated with air traffic control that come with autonomously flying unmanned aerial systems. Therefore, the drones would serve a complementary role to the helicopters, and when taken together, they could create a synthetic aircraft carrier. The drones and helicopters could be loaded with food, medicine, and clean water that would either be airdropped or unloaded upon landing. Effectively, the fleet of drones with the helicopters would rapidly speed up the transport of aid to remote areas.

Where will these drones come from? The Indian military launched Operation Maitri immediately following the earthquake, supplying soldiers, helicopters, and trucks to distribute aid throughout Kathmandu and the outlying areas. Yet with the shortage of helicopters, the Indian military realized that its existing means of transporting aid were not adequate to handle the demand. In addition to helicopters and ground vehicles, the Indian military operates a fleet of long-endurance medium size Searcher II and Heron drones that could have potentially assisted with humanitarian aid in Nepal. The Indian military should have used this resource if soldiers and other military infrastructure were being used.

Theoretically, the Nepal Earthquake could serve as a testing ground for a revolution in the way aid is delivered following natural disasters or humanitarian crises. New technologies should always be considered for improving response to these situations, especially when they encourage participation from the global community (e.g. Tomnod) and when they can be used to augment existing methods (e.g. carrier drones). There is no doubt that future events such as the Nepal earthquake would benefit from greater awareness of crowdsourced web-based services such as Tomnod and OpenStreetMap, and from the application of unmanned aerial systems for maximizing rapid delivery of aid. These proposed solutions may be more complicated to operationalize than they appear at face value, but at minimum, they can serve as a fundamental concept for improving the ways in which agencies respond to natural disasters and/or humanitarian crises.

October 24, 2015 5 comments

Uncategorized

Facing A Long Battle: Immigration Reform in the United States

written by Emily Milstein

Human migration has, throughout history, been a force that has impacted the development of countless societies and cultures. From the waves of earlier generations who migrated out of East Africa and went on populate the rest the planet, to the more recent Europeans who journeyed to places like the United States and Canada, migration has inarguably been a force that has shaped the development of world history and human civilizations. Today, immigration remains a salient, and controversial issue, and in the United States, one that needs to be addressed in the form of comprehensive immigration reform.

To highlight just how important the issue of immigration is, on November 20th 2014, President Obama announced that he would use his powers of executive action to allow up to five million undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. The president’s plan will grant temporary protection from deportation to select people who qualify for the program. While many Americans, including immigrants’ rights groups, lauded Obama’s action, many others Americans vehemently oppose policies that will make it easier for immigrants to live and work in the United States. According to the New York Times, critical reactions to Obama’s plan included accusations of treason and domestic terrorism against the president, and some members of Congress predicted outright violence and rebellion. Immigration has long been a divisive political issue in the United States, and the prodigious backlash against the president after his announcement only serves to illustrate the severity of the division.

Despite the views of those Americans opposed to what they call “amnesty” for people they regard as “dirty” criminals, immigration reform is necessary for the United States. While it’s true that immigrants can threaten the jobs of Americans lacking a high school diploma who compete with them for low-skilled jobs, many economists agree that the immigrants living in the United States contribute to our economy in vital ways. This is especially true in California, which is home to one of the largest immigrant populations in the United States. California relies on immigrants to do essential jobs. For instance, many agricultural workers in places like California’s Central Valley or the Salinas Valley are undocumented immigrants and approximately half of those workers immigrated to the United States without proper documentation. Furthermore, Los Angeles is home to about one million undocumented immigrants. Those immigrants contribute to an estimated seven percent of the economy of the greater Los Angeles region. These figures clearly indicate that immigrants play a vital role in our economy and are woven into the fabric of our nation. Despite the crucial contributions they make, in 2013, 368,644 immigrants were deported, most of them to Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador.

Obama’s announcement is apropos, as immigration has been an especially salient issue of late. This is due in part to the influx of thousands of children from Central America in 2013/14. Since 1990, the United States has received steadily increasing numbers of immigrants from Central America. In 2014, United States border agents arrested approximately 68,631 unaccompanied children attempting to immigrate to the United States, a number that represents a 76% increase compared to 2013. Many of those children came from Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras, which have been the source of increasing numbers of migrants for at least the past four years. Approximately fifty-eight percent of the children came to the United States fleeing extreme violence and even death at the hands of vicious gangs. Their arrival prompted protests and angry reactions from many Americans who wanted the children to be deported immediately, despite the evident risk deportation would pose to many of them.

Given their awareness of the significant safety and economic hazards that deportations pose to undocumented immigrants, such as risks posed by extreme poverty and that of violence at the hands of powerful Central American gangs, we should question why so many Americans oppose immigration reform of any kind, including Obama’s executive action. Critics of Obama’s immigration reforms raise legitimate points, such as worries about an abuse of presidential authority, fears that immigrants will unfairly take American jobs, and worries that sinister criminal elements will enter the country. Many Americans are either ambivalent or seem to have forgotten that most American citizens (or their descendants) came to the United States as immigrants at one time. What the backlash against Obama’s announcement shows is that when Americans perceive their own interests to be jeopardized, they can be lacking in empathy, unable to care about the fact that deporting immigrants breaks up families, separating parents from their children. This also holds true in the case of the Central American children, where deportation could lead to violence and/or death.

According to Amnesty International, “While states have the right to regulate entry and stay of non-nationals in their territory, they can only do so within the limits of their human rights obligations.” All nations therefore have an obligation to not place immigrants at an increased risk of human rights abuses, which includes placing them at risk through deportation. Too often however, these obligations are ignored by those who call for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants. This includes the Central American children, who would rather face the risks of migrating to the United States alone than remain in their homes. Given the international human rights norms and law the United States has sworn to uphold, its has a duty to reform its immigration policies to mitigate the risks deportation poses to immigrants.

Beyond the moral implications of the debate over immigration and deportation, there are significant practical reasons for the United States to initiate immigration reforms. Various groups stretching across the American political spectrum have provided broad-based support for sensible immigration reform. Such groups include technology companies who want to hire skilled skilled foreigners, various religious leaders, and a bipartisan group of senators who passed an immigration reform bill in 2013 that would deal with issues like border enforcement, pathways to legal residency, and plans on how to deal with future flows of immigrants. Notably, if the proposed policies are implemented, immigration reform can be done in a way that addresses the fears of both average citizens and politicians opposed to the much needed systemic overhaul.

Between the human rights issues and the practical considerations at stake, immigration reform in the United States is absolutely necessary. While President Obama’s executive action will make important headway in improving the United States’ policies towards immigration, more needs to be done to assist the millions of undocumented immigrants who remain at risk of deportation and are ineligible to participate in Obama’s program. Groups that support immigration reform must do more to counter the narrative laid forth by the virulent, anti-immigrant forces who continue to oppose any type of immigration reform. In addition to legal action, Americans must actively combat the hostility, prejudice, and anger directed at many immigrants. Given the slow progress toward these goals over the last several years however, we have a long battle ahead of us.

February 7, 2015 2 comments

Featured Technology The International Economy Uncategorized

Big Data and Privacy in the Global Age: An Open Letter about a Closed Industry!

written by James Walker

Picture Credit: “Casablanca” (1942) Warner Bros. Pictures. Used under the “Fair Use” doctrine.

By James Walker – Editor

There has been a flurry of activity over the past few months concerning the issue of Internet data gathering, and the over-reach of government spying. From the revelations concerning the domestic NSA-PRISM program, to the seemingly endless chain of embarrassing international debacles stemming from Edward Snowden, the clandestine world of shadowy government data hoarding has received some intense scrutiny. Forget being the head of state for an allied nation, in this brave new world of government scrutiny, even the kid in the next dorm room is under surveillance, via their World of Warcraft account!

Understandably, there have been a number of anguished cries raised by these revelations. Civil society groups, government watchdogs, and “New World Order” conspiracy nuts alike have all raised the alarm. Even the national media in the US has shaken off some of the lethargy that afflicts it, and has fitfully resumed its role as the fourth estate, seeking to hold those in power accountable for their actions – or at least, hoping to make them vaguely uncomfortable when they appear on “Meet the Press.”

However, one of the most brazen calls for the government to restrain its hoarder-like sensibilities came from a coalition of tech industry giants – Google, Apple, Facebook, AOL, Microsoft, Twitter, Yahoo, and LinkedIn. On Dec. 9 2013, these civic minded corporate citizens – who stride like colossi across the globe and represent the very essence of the modern, Mutli-National Corporate (MNC) ideal – sent an open letter to the governments of the world, laying out a series of “demands” to ensure the protection of public privacy, and curtail the nefarious specter of government control over “big data.” Apparently the Obama administration was paying attention, as on January 27th it came to an agreement with some of the industry leaders over public acknowledgement of government data requests.

This is all to the good you would think, however, the sheer irony of this particular group of companies looking to cry foul on unprecedented, unmitigated, and unapologetic data collection and analysis is quite breathtaking. A review of the ways in which each of these individual organizations captures and manipulates personal data would be far too long to read, and far too repetitive to be entertaining. Instead, let us focus on the 5 “demands” made, and their application in the private sector today, using Google as a group representative. After all, Google CEO Larry Page went on the record to state that transparency and privacy are vital elements of the modern world that are “[U]ndermined by the apparent wholesale collection of data, in secret and without independent oversight, by many governments around the world. It’s time for reform.”

Global Governance Surveillance Reform: 5 Principal Demands

1) Limiting Governments’ Authority to Collect Users’ Information: It is understandable that Google wants to “codify sensible limitations on [Government] ability to compel service providers to disclose user data,” given that it consistently found itself the subject of a Human Rights backlash for assisting the Chinese government with data collection and censorship, in an effort to have open access to the Chinese market. Being pilloried for your cooperation with authoritarian regimes in order to make a buck will have that effect on you.

2) Oversight  and Accountability: An area in which Google has a lot to teach the world about responsible data management. In calling for a system whereby “Intelligence agencies seeking to collect or compel the production of information should do so under a clear legal framework in which executive powers are subject to strong checks and balances,” Google is doubtless calling upon its years of experience with litigation over the illegal collection and storage of user data. From Germany to the United States, Google has fought an ongoing battle with the “legal frameworks” of host states, presumably because they do not feel that they should be subject to any checks on their own executive’s power. Unfortunately for them, the US Federal Appeals Court recently did not agree, and the three-year case against the company in the US continues to rumble on…

3) Transparency About Government Demands: In a stirring expression of open social values, the notion is that “Transparency is essential to a debate over government’s’ surveillance powers and the scope of programs that are administered under those powers.” Google stands as a fine example of transparency in action in a globalized world, given that the company makes its enormous revenues ($50 Billion in 2012) from selling collected personal data to any company that wants to buy it, no matter how dubious the purposes may turn out to be. That is probably why Google was instrumental in killing off the California “Right to Know Act” in May of 2013. The bill would have forced tech companies to disclose exactly what information they were gathering on users – transparency in action, if you will – but that did not sit well with the industry as a whole, and so it was sunk beneath a bombardment of Silicon Valley lobbying.

4) Respecting the Free Flow of Information: “The ability of data to flow or be accessed across borders is essential to a robust 21st century global economy.” It certainly is when your profit margin is dictated by such flows – but as previously mentioned, restricting flows can also be profitable when you comply with the authoritarian dictates of a repressive regime. “Governments should not require service providers to locate infrastructure within a country’s borders or operate locally.” Given the revelation that the NSA has been tapping the Google data center in the UK (via the British intelligence services) this is an understandable issue… however, could this also have anything to do with the complete deterritorialization of MNCs from local authority oversight, control, or taxation? Only a cynic would suggest that Google stands to gain considerably from being able to provide its internet services in the European Union without having to comply with stringent EU privacy regulations.

5) Avoiding Conflicts Among Governments: “In order to avoid conflicting laws, there should be a robust, principled, and transparent framework to govern lawful requests for data across jurisdictions.” It is always to be applauded when there is a movement to avoid the jurisdictional positioning, unnecessary delays and frustrations inherent in jockeying for an advantageous position based solely on perceived benefits in divergent legal frameworks. Google knows all about this, given that it has fought tooth and nail to avoid answering cases across the globe. For example, in the United Kingdom where Google makes huge revenues from UK traffic, channels its business income through Ireland in order to avoid paying UK taxes, and at the same time insists that the only jurisdiction it will answer to is in California. Why is Google so keen to avoid these kinds of legal shenanigans in the case of government overreach, when it is par for the course in MNCs?

The fact that there are real concerns for industry over the use and abuse of big data is significant. There is no doubt that the exponential rise of computing power and data analytics is fundamentally changing our relationship towards both government and industry, and that internet and tech giants are in a key position to effect how this evolution takes place. It is to be applauded that the industry is taking a proactive approach to the issue of individual privacy, and that they recognize the value inherent in consumer confidence. After all, their business relies upon it.

However, at the end of the day it comes across as disingenuous for the tech giants to claim that it is government and big data that are a dangerous mix. This notion is consistent with a trend in 21st century thinking, whereby government is seen as a necessary evil while neo-liberal free market enterprises are considered part of the solution, not the problem. The modern era provides both startling opportunities and dark possibilities for the use and abuse of personal data – but the idea of MNCs as guardians of individual privacy is simply laughable. To misquote Ronald Regan, the least reassuring sentence in the English language is “I’m from the Corporate Sector, and I’m here to help.”

James Walker is a first year MA student in Political Geography at UCLA, and an Editor for The Generation.

January 31, 2014 3 comments

Protesters in Hong Kong show their support for Edward Snowden

Asia Featured Society and Culture Technology Uncategorized

A Snowden Summer

written by Amber Murakami-Fester

Protesters in Hong Kong show their support for Edward Snowden

by Amber Murakami-Fester
Editor

Edward Snowden’s exposure of the National Security Agency’s PRISM surveillance program in early June made sure that the media had an eventful summer. Shortly after Snowden revealed his identity as the source behind the leaks, every major newspaper published a legion of online opinion pieces that analyzed anything from the dualistic “Hero or Traitor?” question, to deeper commentaries about the appropriate balance between state security, right to privacy, and the freedom of speech. The Internet became a platform for debate for both journalists and readers around the globe alike; over 90,000 comments have been written on the over 40 articles Snowden interviewer Glenn Greenwald has published on the NSA and Snowden since June.

In some cases however, the ripples Snowden sent across the globe sparked up much more than just online debate. In Hong Kong, where Snowden was initially interviewed, hundreds of enraged protesters took to the streets to voice their disapproval of the U.S. surveillance program and oppose the charges against Snowden for espionage and theft of government property in mid-June. “Obama is reading your email,” placards read, along with “Free Speech” and “Respect Human Rights Support Snowden.” The protesters marched to the offices of C.Y. Leung, Hong Kong’s chief executive, where they asked that he extend all legal protections to Snowden due under the territory’s law. Although Leung failed to do so and Snowden eventually left the territory when it became evident that he would be detained if he remained, the Hong Kong residents’ fierce advocacy for the freedom of speech is undeniable.

The liberties allowed in Hong Kong, surprisingly or not, juxtapose greatly with the policies of the nation to which it belongs. Hong Kong’s status as one of the two Special Administrative Regions of China allows its citizens freedoms to protest, publish, and speak what they want. This would be unthinkable in Mainland China, where Internet usage is notoriously censored. The Communist government has set up a system called the Great Firewall that blocks foreign social media websites such as Facebook, Wikipedia and YouTube, and created its own versions of Facebook and microblogging networks, Renren and Weibo, respectively. Government-funded censors can maneuver these websites and delete posts that are deemed inappropriate; the most popular Weibo sites are said to have censorship teams made up of up to 1,000 people. Google searches for key phrases such as “Tibetan independence,” “Tiananmen Square protests of 1989” and “democracy”—all of which are controversial topics to the Communist government—yield few or no results. A Snowden-inspired debate on acceptable government limits to the freedom of speech would certainly not be allowed.

Consequences for criticizing the government online are severe, and seem to be getting worse. Arrests are frequent; widely followed blogger Charles Xue was most recently imprisoned in late August under prostitution solicitation charges. Xue had 12 million followers on Sina Weibo and blogged about topics such as child beggars and his own experiences with cancer. The arrest was widely covered by state newspapers, which led some to speculate that officials were cracking down and trying to send a message. This did not seem to be too far off the mark—on September 9^th, China’s Supreme People’s Court and Procuratorate issued a judicial interpretation stating that spreading rumors on the Internet could result in three years in prison, with increasingly heavy consequences if the “rumors” are reposted over 500 times or viewed by more than 5,000 people. This is the first time existing laws against defamation in China have been officially extended to the Internet.

While online restrictions tighten, protests in China continue to increase. The number of reported “mass incidents” in China grew from 8,700 in 1993 to more than 90,000 in 2006, and up to 180,000 in 2010, according to the Chinese Police Academy. People protested anything from official corruption and government land grabs to Tibetan autonomy and environmental problems. Arrests were common at these protests, as might be expected. Jiangmen city in Guangdong province, however, made news in July when officials scrapped plans to build a nuclear facility in response to hundreds of protestors that took to the streets against its construction. The success of the public rally was unprecedented, and doubly significant in light of the tightening controls placed over the summer. The people of China seem to know that the government can’t possibly manage to keep them all quiet forever.

The freedom of speech ensures that governments respond to the needs and wants of its people, not the other way around. The continued defiance of the people of China, the protectiveness of Hong Kong residents of the freedom of speech, and impassioned comments left on the online articles of the Guardian each serve as a reminder that the freedom of speech is sometimes a struggle to hold on to.

Whatever our opinion is of Snowden, it is clear that the debate that ignited the media this summer is unfortunately still sorely relevant to the world today. The strong reactions that Snowden inspired in the U.S. and Hong Kong can only stand as testimony to the fact that the freedom of speech is a human right people in every corner of the world are willing to risk going to jail for. Governments should be careful not to overstep their limits. If people persist, perhaps the day we can see online debates about the government in China will come soon enough.

All facts and figures taken from The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, The Economist, and the MIT Technology Review.

Amber is a fourth-year Comparative Literature major at UCLA with minors in Global Studies and East Asian Languages, and an editor for the Generation.

October 15, 2013 0 comment

Featured Middle East Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture Terrorism Uncategorized

Adventures in Bizzaro World: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb…

written by James Walker

Major T. J. “King” Kong (Slim Pickins) riding the bomb in Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove.

by James Walker
Editor

Last week, the President of the United States of America made a televised appeal to the nation, asking them to get on board with his plan to use limited military strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad. President Obama laid out two main points for consideration:

1) The use of chemical weapons is a clear crime against humanity and in contravention of an accepted international norm. To let such actions go unpunished would be a green light to the dictators and terrorists of the world, and as such posed a threat to regional, global, and US security.

2) It is unacceptable for the world to stand idly by as helpless civilians are slaughtered by the thousand, akin to the stain on the consciousness of the international community over Bosnia…or Rwanda…or Darfur…

Having reached the second decade of the 21^st century, what is most shocking is the notion that the focus of this debate continues to revolve around the lynchpin of chemical weapons as an unacceptable form of mass murder—in contrast to the apparently acceptable nature of conventional weapons. The President’s call to arms is, in essence, based upon the form of murder, rather than the act of murder itself.

By the time of the President’s speech on September 10^th, the civil war in Syria had been ongoing for over 900 days—or almost two and a half years. In that time, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates a civilian death toll of over 40,000 people, including 5,800 children. This means that on average, 44 civilians (including 6 children) die every single day in the Syrian conflict. In other words, almost 1,000 people who were not combatants or directly involved in the war have been killed by conventional arms since the Sarin attack on August 21^st. To make that point clearer in a local context, by the time UCLA holds its annual Activities Fair for incoming students on September 23^rd, the death toll from good-old-fashioned flying lead ordinance will surpass the number of civilians killed in the gas attack, estimated at 1,429 people.

It is at this point that the “Bizzaro World” factor kicks into high gear. According to the latest rash of polls by CNN, the Pew Research Center, and the Washington Post, the American public opposes armed intervention in the Syrian crisis by a majority of about 63% of the population. This is an astounding figure, given the fact that since the invasion of Grenada in 1983, public opposition to bombing other countries has never risen above 45% (in the case of Bosnia). Even the extensive military intervention against Libya’s Gaddafi in 2011 only reached a high water mark of 37%! As a nation, we have never been shy about raining death from above before.

A number of commentators have suggested that the prospect of US casualties is simply too much for a post-Iraq/Afghanistan war-weary nation to accept. Given the fact that during the Libyan engagement (which consisted of considerably more involvement than the President is asking for over Syria) the US did not sustain a single military casualty, this notion is a little hard to defend. Others claim that it is a lack of tangible evidence, or possibly a lack of trust in the evidence provided, that is swelling public opposition. If that is the case, then we chose a fine time to start demanding absolute proof from our government. Where was this sense of caution in 2003? An informed electorate is, of course, a laudable thing and should be encouraged. However, most IR specialists would be happy if the majority of Americans could find the Middle East on a map. Add the fact that a recent Gallup poll found 65% of Americans were in favor of using unmanned drones to kill “terrorists” in Yemen and other countries, and you really have to wonder where the opposition to bombing Assad is coming from. Perhaps if Obama simply labeled Assad a terrorist, his PR issues would be solved.

Questions are also being posed as to the intent of the Obama plan – whether the intention is for a punitive strike, or for regime change. At a recent cultural event in Los Angeles, Middle East specialist and UC Riverside professor Reza Aslan suggested that, humanitarian ideals aside, it is not within US interests to remove Assad from power – if it were, then taking out the seven airfields that constitute the regime’s lifeline of military supplies would effectively turn the tide of the war in the rebel’s favor – and that is why we won’t do it. In fact, Obama has explicitly stated that any airstrikes would NOT target such infrastructure, even though it would be a relatively simply task to accomplish from our floating missile platforms in the Mediterranean.

If we take that position for granted and work on the basis that it is not our intention to change the course of the war, then what is the purpose of the proposed “limited military strikes”? There are any number of potential answers here, from the geo-political to the neo-realist, but is it also possible that Obama’s avowed aim to enforce an international norm is in fact the truth? Has the shame of inaction from previous debacles actually begun to sink through, at least in regards to the most heinous of atrocities? If history is any guide, then the odds are not high, but in Bizzaro World anything is apparently possible.

The Bizzaro factor ratchets up even further when you consider the fact that the reason Obama had to make a case to the nation was that the response from the International Community has been minimal, to say the least. The Syrian crisis has done more to highlight the ineffective nature of the UN Security Council (UNSC) than a thousand missives from the Teapublicans, the John Birch Society, or the “New World Order” conspiracy nuts of the world combined. It is a political truism that “politics makes strange bedfellows,” but in this instance you would expect that the “American exceptionalism” wing of the country would be in lock-step with a hawkish President, intent on flexing US military might in order to promote truth, justice, and the American way. Instead we find ourselves in a situation where President Bush’s former Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, takes the same position as the Russian delegation to the UNSC! Has the world gone mad?

If ever there was a textbook case in the international arena to invoke the notion of the “Right to Protect” (R2P), then it is hard to see how it could be any more clear-cut than the Syrian crisis. Does the state have a “responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing”? Check! Does the international community have a “responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility”? Check! Has the state “manifestly failed to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities, have peaceful measures failed, and does the international community have the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures”? Check, check, and check!

For any ardent internationalist, it is painful to acknowledge that the system as it currently stands is so deeply flawed. Russian intransigence, combined with a lack of prior political will on our part, has allowed the situation in Syria to devolve into a neo-Hobbesian nightmare. The need for consensus in military intervention is a central tenant of the post-WWII collective security ideal, but it is one that has lead to the current deadlock at the UN, and threatens to sideline the effectiveness of this vital institution. R2P was supposed to be a way of answering this issue – instead it has simply become an example of it.

If the Obama administration’s plan to initiate limited, punitive strikes against the chemical weapons capacity of the Syrian state goes ahead, we might actually find ourselves in a world where US military actions serve to reinforce “universal” collective norms, but are undertaken in opposition to the collective will, and without the legal imperator of UN legitimacy. In that case, the move to implement the essence of R2P in the face of stagnation and deadlock would become, in and of itself, a criminal act in international law!

Welcome to Bizzaro World….

James Walker is a first year MA student in Political Geography, and an Editor for The Generation. He is also an ardent internationalist, and astonished by his own position on the situation in Syria – hence the Bizzaro World analogy.

September 16, 2013 0 comment

Newer Posts

Older Posts

UCLA's Foreign Affairs Magazine

Uncategorized

The Double-Edged Sword of Female Leadership

In the Shadow of Terror—The Global Response to Terrorism in Light of the Paris Attacks

An Interview with Mubin Shaikh: Former Jihadist Turned Counter-Terrorism Operative

Trust Women, Improve Water Supply

Nationality vs. Humanity: The Stranger’s Case

Expediting Aid in Rural Nepal

Facing A Long Battle: Immigration Reform in the United States

Big Data and Privacy in the Global Age: An Open Letter about a Closed Industry!

A Snowden Summer

Adventures in Bizzaro World: or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb…