Society and Culture

the fusion and fission of cultures i.e. local perceptions of a foreign film, lessons from overcoming language barriers, cultural implication of immigration in the EU

Middle East Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Perspectives of a Troubled Youth

written by thegeneration

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 Society and Culture Technology Uncategorized

A Snowden Summer

written by Amber Murakami-Fester

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

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

Asia Featured Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Taiwan’s East Asia Peaceful Initiative

written by thegeneration

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

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

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 Environmental Change Security and Conflict Society and Culture

Whaling: A High Seas Culture Clash

written by Amber Murakami-Fester

by Amber Murakami-Fester
Editor

Whaling in Japan, which has charged the international community with high tensions for many a decade, is set to face legal contention on June 26^th, when the UN International Court of Justice is slated to begin public hearings on Australia’s challenge of Japanese whaling practices. Japan, Australia alleges, is breaking a temporary international ban, or moratorium, on whaling by hunting whales for commercial purposes under the guise of scientific research. Japan contends that it still operates within the legal boundaries of the moratorium, which allows for whaling with scientific permits.

The hearing will be a crucial event for the whaling issue, which has proven to be controversial since the implementation of the moratorium by the International Whaling Commission (IWC) in 1986. The ban has since been wrapped in emotionally charged conflict and gotten sidetracked from its initial intent to conserve whale species that were in need of protection.

The moratorium was implemented by the IWC due to rising concerns in the 60s and 70s on shrinking whale populations, which had been vastly reduced by industrialized nations in the 18^th and 19^th centuries in a mad scramble for whale oil. Whales were in fact being killed at incredible numbers into the 1980s; the Soviet Union killed close to 340,000 whales from 1946 to 1986 according to a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The total number of whales killed since 1986 was less than 32,000 in 2008, indicating the success of the ban in protecting the marine mammal.

The moratorium, however, came with its own baggage of controversy that continues to roil the international community to this day. The whaling ban, some nations claimed, ignored long-standing traditions and cultures of whale hunting that dated back to prehistoric times.

Japan is perhaps the most controversial of these nations for its alleged defiance of the ban. Evidence of whale hunting activity in Japan dates back to at least 10,000 B.C., and whale meat played an important role for the country in the 1940s, when it accounted for half the source of animal protein during World War II, according to DiscoveryUK.com. Although most people in Japan do not regularly eat whale today, several small communities like Ayukawahama, a whaling town in northern Japan, still do, and it is not rare to find whale meat in large supermarkets and specialty restaurants sold as a delicacy. Japan maintains that whaling is an essential part of its culture and tradition; this tension between culture and animal rights is an essential element at the heart of the whaling controversy today.

Japan is not alone in its defense of whaling traditions. The yearly summer whale hunt in the Faroe Islands of Denmark, where hundreds of pilot whales are driven into the shore and killed, has also received intense international criticism for what many consider unnecessarily cruel deaths and an unsustainable practice. The Faroe Islands, like Japan, have a long-standing history of hunting whales dating back to the first Norse settlements on the islands. The hunt is not regulated by international whaling laws because pilot whales are considered “small cetaceans” by the IWC and are therefore not included in the moratorium.

These whaling practices have come under intense international pressure because many consider culture a flimsy excuse for illegality, irresponsible hunting and unnecessary cruelty. This tension has at times manifested in violent confrontations on the open ocean. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (a marine activist organization based in the U.S. and Australia) controversially carries out aggressive tactics on Japanese whaling ships at sea, ramming ships and hurling containers of acid and smoke bombs to prevent the whalers from catching their quarry. Sea Shepherd claims that they “operate outside the petty cultural chauvinism of the human species” in an Equality Statement on their website, and points to the alleged illegality of Japanese whaling as a basis for their attacks.

In February of this year, Sea Shepherd faced Japanese whalers in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled in favor of the Japanese, saying that Sea Shepherd has “engaged in…clear instances of violent acts for private ends,” and is “the very embodiment of piracy.” If Sea Shepherd is breaking international rules as well, their claim to be acting solely for the purpose of protecting international whaling laws becomes less credible. So if the upkeep of the law is not at the heart of Sea Shepherd’s actions, what really is the issue here?

Whaling has evidently become a highly emotional issue. Take, for example, the pilot whale hunt in the Faroe Islands. Any Google search on the subject yields a series of photographs that display large amounts of blood spilled into the ocean and onto the shores during the hunt. The images aim to point out the unnecessary violence of the practice, regardless of whether it is a part of a long-standing cultural tradition or a population-sustainable practice. Violence and cruelty against animals understandably draw strong emotional responses, and these elements contribute to the violent attacks carried out by Sea Shepherd.

This emotion, however, can dilute and distract from what originally lay at the core of international whaling laws—protection of endangered whales and their repopulation into sustainable numbers. Japan has in fact hunted a number of endangered species in the 2006-2007 season, including 101 sei whales and 3 fin whales. However, 82% of whales caught by Japan in that season were minke whales, which is a species listed with “least concern” of endangerment by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature. The Japanese additionally collected 508 Southern Hermisphere minke whales out of an estimated population of 720,000, which they uphold is sustainable. Figures for pilot whales are undetermined, but they are also not considered an endangered species according to the American Cetacean Society, although the ACS notes that there has been an “obvious decrease in whale numbers.” While sustainability is still an issue for some whales collected in Japan, it does not seem a pressing concern for most whales hunted in Japan and indeterminate at best for pilot whales.

The whaling issue has essentially grown into a violent and emotional international debate, and lost sight of the original purpose to protect endangered whale species. If pilot whale hunts are considered too cruel, new methods to make the hunt less painful should be investigated. Research should be conducted to determine the exact status of pilot whales, and in the case that results demonstrate the centuries-old practice to be unsustainable, quotas should be placed accordingly. If Japan’s whaling is in fact sustainable, international law should be revised to consider this, with appropriate quotas and restrictions on species that are still endangered. Pushing for a complete ban that does not reflect the realities of whale populations not only ignores and disrespects the old cultures of these communities, but creates unnecessary political tension, and buries the most pressing issue of conservation under a mire of political distractions.

International law should reflect fact and not charged emotion. Whaling will most likely continue to be a controversial issue, but if it is approached openly and logically, the international realm will be able to move forward towards a resolution.

All facts and figures taken from the International Whaling Commission, the American Cetacean Society, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Word Wildlife Fund, SeaShepherd.org, DiscoveryUK.com, BBC, and the New York Times.

Amber is a third-year Comparative Literature student with minors in Global Studies and Japanese. In addition to being an Editor for TheGeneration, she is an education director for Project Literacy and sits on the leadership board for iVolunteer China. In her spare time, she listens to Amy Winehouse and roots for the San Francisco Giants.

June 13, 2013 3 comments

Asia Featured Security and Conflict Society and Culture Technology Uncategorized

60 Years On – The New “Red Scare” in Hollywood

written by James Walker

by James Walker
Editor

During the collective insanity that gripped the United States in the late 1940s and 50s, political agitators and right wing demagogues alike created the specter of a sinister, lurking boogeyman poised to overthrow civilization as we knew it. The “Red Scare” of insidious communism – literally posited as “reds under the bed” – swept throughout the political narrative of the post war landscape, as well as Cold War international relations. The poster child, and some would say architect, of this paranoia was Senator Joseph McCarthy (R-Wisconsin) who managed through sheer strength of personality and calculated populism to bring this specter to the forefront of the national dialog. The term “McCarthyism” has since come to encapsulate the notion of ideological determination, combined with a blinkered perspective, ad hominem attacks, and a willingness to ignore reality when it does not fit into your chosen narrative. At the time, however, the hysteria whipped up was all too real, and had numerous real world effects – particularly here in Los Angeles, in regards to the film industry.

By the time that McCarthyism was in full swing in the early 50s, Hollywood had become a center of attention in an effort to root out what Walt Disney described as “subtle communist touches” in the film industry. Many people know about the famous “Hollywood Ten” blacklist of suspected communists, but by 1950, the “Red Channels” list included 151 major industry players, including Orson Wells, Arthur Miller, and even Gypsy Rose Lee (presumably because her duel roles as a “communist sympathizer” and a burlesque dancer posed a double threat to the morals of the nation). In essence, the fear being exploited by McCarthy was the notion that popular media (as represented by Hollywood) had a strong influence on the development of public opinion, and that the “commies” were poised to exploit this to their advantage – a kind of subliminal fifth column for the “Fourth International.”

Flash forward 60 years, and the situation in Hollywood is very different. The movie industry is a powerhouse of the globalized world, and often posited as a prime example of American “Cultural Imperialism.” Combined, the six major US studios captured 64% of global ticket sales in 2012, bringing in a total of $ 22 billion in income. Literally hundreds of millions of people went to the cinema and consumed their own little slice of Americana, all over the world. By that measure, McCarthy was on to something – he just had the flow of influence backwards.

The difference between Hollywood then and Hollywood now is that McCarthy suspected outside influence where there was none, while today the industry openly acknowledges that foreign entities influence the production and content of the movies produced. The number one film in both the US and China currently is Iron Man 3, starring Robert Downy Jr. as Tony Stark— metal clad super-hero and quintessential Neo-Liberal American entrepreneur. However, the version you see in Los Angeles is different from the one you see in Beijing. In an effort to appease Chinese authorities, Foreign Policy’s Suzanne Nossel points out that the Beijing version has additional modified footage (including a special Chinese scene for domestic consumers), product placements for Chinese goods, and the villain of the piece has been renamed from “the Mandarin” (offensive to Chinese sensibilities) to “Man Daren” or “Big Man” in Chinese. These changes could be viewed as attempts to selectively market to a distinct target audience (China overtook Japan as the single largest foreign market for US films in 2012), if it were not for the fact that they demonstrate what Nossel describes as the “meddling hand of the Chinese censor.” As such, you could view the censor’s heavy hand as a sort of homegrown Chinese McCarthyism.

There are more direct influences on US productions though. Originally scheduled for release last December, the upcoming Brad Pitt blockbuster World War Z has been delayed for 6 months in order to re-shoot a number of scenes. This arose because of objections from the Chinese government over significant plot elements in the storyline, including the idea that the zombie outbreak (on which the film is based) originated in China. This is not the first major film to treat the Chinese hinterland as a source of worldwide pandemic – 2011’s Contagion starring Jude Law and Kate Winslet also used rural China as the birthplace of a plague. It is not hard to see why China is unimpressed with that sort of publicity, especially after the negative worldwide attention that revolved around the Asian Bird Flu and H1N1 outbreaks of recent memory. However, the difference between Iron Man 3 and World War Z is that in the latter case there will only be one version of the finished product available for your viewing pleasure– the Chinese censor-approved version.

To be clear, this kind of influence is not the insidious creeping boogeyman of McCarthy’s paranoid delusions. Los Angeles’s homegrown industry is quite open about the effects of market forces, the need to sell and succeed in major markets such as China, and the desire to collaborate with national entities. In another Iron Man-related movie, this year’s Avengers superhero spectacular also had some interesting international relations related issues, but of a distinctly domestic nature. Specifically, the US military withdrew their technical assistance from the production due to the unspecified nature of SHIELD — the shadowy international power hierarchy that controls the actions of a quasi UN-like military force. Apparently, the implication that US troops might somehow fall under the command of a non-US military command structure —even in a comic book adaptation —was simply not acceptable. This was a pity really, as the other major movie that came out at the same time, Battleship, had full US military cooperation but still turned out to be a terrible film. Political considerations do not appear to be very good at backing a winner, alas.

As we look forward over the next few years it is clear that China as a consumer market will exert ever-greater influence over film production. Hollywood will continue to do what it does best—namely, make expensive blockbusters that reel in billions of dollars from across the globe. How much the impositions of foreign censorship will affect the freedom of expression we take for granted is unknown, but it is worth taking note of. The Chinese Communist Party structure and its efficient, dedicated, and ever-present censors have established that they have a role to play in what we consider to be a distinctly US industry. But instead of imaginary “reds under the bed,” in this case, the pressure being excerpted is quite openly done while sitting at the writer’s table.

All facts/figures taken from Foreign Policy, The Guardian, BBC, and ScreenRant.com.

James Walker has just finished his BA in Global Studies, and is currently a first year MA student in Political Geography at UCLA. He is also an avid movie-goer, Sci-Fi geek, zombie apocalypse aficionado, and an editor for the Generation.

May 18, 2013 4 comments

Africa Featured Society and Culture

Battle on a New Front: Chinese Media in Africa

written by thegeneration

by Rujuta Gandhi
Editor

First, China constructed multibillion-dollar cities, or ghost cities, dubbed as such because of the empty high-rises, parking lots, and playgrounds. Then, it “gifted” the $200 billion African Union headquarters. Now, China Daily, a global Chinese newspaper, blesses the continent with its Africa edition. Why is China burdening itself with a responsibility to develop Africa, and why expand its media presence? Perhaps the communist nation hopes to find amity by extending a hand of friendship—a gesture riddled with soft power ambitions.

Slowly developing Chinese media in Africa is a geostrategic move against western media, which already hold the upper hand by bashing Chinese involvement throughout the continent. Since 2008, these sources have increasingly been exposing China’s harmful role—its contribution to the genocide in Darfur is only one example. Non-media sources, such as the book China and Africa: A Century of Engagement, also contribute to this condemnation. Therefore, by establishing a media presence, China hopes to combat what it perceives as “misrepresentations” of its purpose in Africa. Such misconceptions could harm future economic ties and political support in Sino-African relations. Consequently, China is using the media as a tool of soft power.

This power play will help protect China’s future in both the long and short term. In the long term, it is likely that they aim to secure their economic presence and ability to extract natural resources or to resettle their burgeoning population, among other motives. However, in the short term, the government is taking swift action to survive on the new battlefield of state-financed satellite television news, a notion voiced publicly by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Already, foreign news services, such as France24 and Russia Today, have moved their metaphorical pawns, bishops, and knights to gain ground and mitigate negative images of their respective countries. China is merely following suit.

Xinhua News Agency, China’s state-owned press, established its presence in Africa beginning in the 1970s and now operates more than 20 bureaus continent-wide. In 2011, it began broadcasting a subsidiary television station, CNC World. A year later, the state-run but market-funded Chinese Central Television (CCTV) rooted its headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Most recently (and another year later), China Daily launched its Africa edition. However, both broadcasting companies incorporate heavy biases in favor of China; they highlight social and cultural topics and positive narratives while avoiding controversial ones, including political issues. In the April 12–18, 2013 weekly edition, the article “Strong China-Africa Cooperation Pays,” endeavored to convince Africans that, with China’s aid, Africa can be an “Asian tiger,” while “Good Hair Days” discussed the relationship between women’s hairstyles and social change in China. Furthermore, in an attempt to gain an upper hand on the U.S., the cover story “Advent of a Banking Superpower” was followed with this sub-heading: “Country has massive lead over the United States in terms of availability of savings, says expert.”

The appearance of Chinese media parallels government motives and initiatives. Soon after the decolonization of Africa, the Chinese government began to establish diplomatic relations with African states. With these ties came Xinhua, the Xinhua News Agency’s online newspaper. These actions can arguably be perceived as part of the rewards package for African nations that supported Chinese Security Council membership. From post-colonization until 2000, media coverage contained little substantive analysis.

Since then, the need to increase their soft power drives the Chinese government’s new $7–9 billion policy. During the Chinese-dubbed Year of Africa in 2006, Chinese journalism and media relations were among many of the topics discussed during high-level exchanges and forums. The roadmap effectively institutionalizes soft power by assisting in the development of media infrastructure, revealing a long-term soft power mission to strengthen diplomatic and economic ties.

However, the survival and effectiveness of Chinese media are still questionable. In terms of journalism itself, the government is reportedly exporting its domestic censorship laws, which will likely result in declined legitimacy. On the other hand, China is making strides on the front of public diplomacy and institution-building assistance. Since 2006, Xinhua has trained a growing number of African journalists. Additionally, CNC World and CCTV’s bureaus both employ African journalists (though the executives and editors are Chinese). Meanwhile, the Chinese government provides media equipment as to support institutional development throughout Africa.

If Chinese media advances, Sino-African relations will strengthen. And if western media cannot wage its own soft power to fight back, a continuing shift in global power will be progressively more inevitable as the U.S. may lose ground on the resources and benefits that Africa can offer.

Facts and figures from BBC, China Daily Africa Weekly, and South African Institute for International Affairs.

April 21, 2013 0 comment

Asia Europe Security Security and Conflict Society and Culture

This Land is Our Land: Territoriality, jingoism, and the farthest reaches of the Earth

written by James Walker

by James Walker
Editor

Earlier this month, two of the largest and most significant economic powers on Earth came close to exchanging blows over a few scraps of rock in the middle of the East China Sea. Both the Japanese and the Chinese militaries locked radar guidance onto their opposite numbers, making this incident the closest that the two states have been to open hostilities since the end of World War II. Tension has been mounting since last September when Japan purchased the Senkaku Islands from a private Japanese owner (ostensibly in order to avoid an even more controversial plan by nationalist political activists within Japan). China has declared Japan’s acquisition an illegal nationalization of a disputed territory, and has ramped up patrols in the area as well as ramping up the aggressive rhetoric and sabre-rattling.

With diplomatic and military tensions rising, various tit for tat exchanges have taken place over the past few weeks. The Chinese Ambassador refused to accept an official protest from the Japanese government concerning military incursions over the island by the Chinese air-force. When summoned to the Japanese Foreign Ministry, the Ambassador refused to attend and simply stated that the islands were Chinese territory. Various Ministers in Tokyo have expressed their outrage, calling such incidents “extremely deplorable,” while anti-Japanese riots have broken out across mainland China and Hong Kong. Several people have been injured, and the timing of the escalation of this dispute to coincide with the 75^th anniversary of the Nanjing massacre only serves to play into the jingoist rhetoric of nationalist sentiment in China.

This recent event comes at a time when China is actively disputing the sovereignty of a variety of small islands in both the South and East China Seas. As such, Japan is not the only country in the region wary of the Chinese navy’s territorial stake claiming. The Spratly Islands – a collection of over 700 reefs, islets and rocks in the South China Sea – are currently another source of regional tension, as they are claimed by China, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam. The Parcel Islands (also in the South China Sea) have been a disputed territory since the 1970s, and while occupied by China, are claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam.

To be clear, the Chinese are not the only nation laying claim to hunks of barren rock in the vastness of the world’s oceans. In addition to its dispute with China, Japan claims sovereignty over the Liancourt Rocks – 46 acres of desolate topography in the Sea of Japan that falls nominally under the supervision of South Korea. For most of modern history, one family lived there. Now no one but a lighthouse keeper stays on the island. At least in the case of Japan’s claims to the Kuril Islands sufficient space exists to house a population. 19,000 currently people live there under Russian jurisdiction, since the islands were claimed by the Soviet Union at the end of the war.

Modern day territorial disputes, however, are not solely an East Asian affair; a quick tour around the world demonstrates the pervasive nature of the phenomenon. For example, possibly one of the most windswept, lifeless chunks of rock in the entire world lies in the North Atlantic Ocean, about half-way between the United Kingdom and Iceland. Rockall measure 83 ft. by 102 ft., and is claimed by the U.K., Denmark (on behalf of the Faroe Islands), Iceland, and the Republic of Ireland. It is quite literally just a large rock – no land, no vegetation, not even a place to moor a boat.

For the United Kingdom, Rockall is just one of many disputed territories across the globe. There are the Falkland Islands, which Britain went to war over in the early 1980s with Argentina. Then there is the Chagos Archipelago in the Indian Ocean – a series of idyllic looking atolls and lagoons that are claimed by Mauritius, but occupied by the United States military. Fortunately, there is no native population to worry about as the British forcibly deported them all starting in the 1970s, in order to make way for the military base.

Not to be outdone, France also continues to lay claim to tiny spots of land thousands of miles away. Tromelin Island is 200 acres of sand-bar sitting off the coast of Madagascar in the Indian Ocean. It reaches a whopping 23 ft. above sea-level at its highest point, and its only inhabitants are the meteorologists that man the weather station, and a rare species of Red Footed Boobie. Nonetheless, Mauritius and the Seychelles both claim sovereignty over it as well.

North America also enjoys engaging in such disputes. Canada and Denmark argue over the ownership of Hans Island – an utterly inhospitable knoll of rock that sits between Greenland and Canada in the Kennedy channel of the Nares Strait. As you might expect from the Canadians, the level of rhetoric boils down to the occasional visit to the island in order to leave a bottle of Canadian whiskey and a note saying “Welcome to Canada.” The Danes tend to respond by leaving their own notes, and a bottle of schnapps.

The United States takes a less friendly tone in regards to its own territorial claims. For example, the U.S. has been contesting the ownership of Bajo Nuevo, a small reef in the Caribbean Sea, since 1869. Bajo Nuevo is also uninhabited and rather inhospitable, but its ownership is contested by Jamaica, Nicaragua and Columbia (there is an automatic lighthouse that is maintained by the Colombian military).

Regardless of the relative size and power of the countries involved nationalist rhetoric and an ongoing culture of “name it and claim it” continues to influence the IR realm on a global scale. In many instances, there are significant realist reasons to claim dominion over an otherwise insignificant rock. In the South China Sea it is strategic positioning and mineral resource management, in the Nares Straight it is navigational rights and control over the last great frontier on Earth. Rockall has substantial fishing rights associated with ownership, but regardless of the underlying quantitative reasoning behind such claims, when governments appeal to their populations they do so on the basis of emotive, subjective ideals rather than strategic necessity. For example, political observers have noted that both the Chinese and Japanese governments are currently transitioning into new leadership structures. Some of the fiery jingoism on display could be attributed to a desire to shore up domestic support, as there is often a strong correlation between nationalist rhetoric and political change. One way or another, claims to minuscule territories somehow tend to involve rhetoric on a grand scale.

The 20^th century philosopher Bertand Russell once stated that “Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons.” Students of IR should be aware of the power of jingoism, and be wary of its influence on both domestic and “enemy” populations. Small, insignificant, inhospitable, barren, lifeless crags of rock in the vastness of the world’s oceans are odd things to be willing to die for. After all, as Russell also noted, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.”

James Walker is a Fourth Year Global Studies major, and an Editor for The Generation. His studies focus on the changing nature of national sovereignty in the 21^st century, and he really, really enjoys writing about islands.

March 9, 2013 1 comment

Europe Society and Culture

Gay Marriage in Britain, France, and Russia: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

written by thegeneration

by Shadee Ashtari
Editor-in-Chief

Twelve years ago in the Netherlands, the first same-sex couples walked down the aisle to consummate their marriages. Since 2001, almost twelve other countries have followed suit by passing national laws allowing same-sex marriage and domestic partnerships, including Spain, Canada, South Africa, Portugal, Iceland (where no members of the legislature voted against it), and Argentina.

Meanwhile, a 2011 report by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association found that same-sex relationships are still criminalized in 76 countries—five of those countries reserve the death penalty as punishment for homosexuality (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Mauritania and Sudan). While some parts of the world progress marriage equality, others fall deeper into traditionalism, theocratic justifications, and violence as a backlash to Western progress for the rights of women and gays.

Last month, the Russian parliament approved a draft law banning the dissemination of “homosexual propaganda” to minors. The legislation, strongly backed by the Russian Orthodox Church, would forbid public events endorsing homosexual rights, block websites deemed inappropriate for youth, and charge fines up to $16,000 for any public demonstrations of “homosexual propaganda.” The draft will go to Russian President Vladimir Putin (who is in support of the ban) after two more readings, but hope for anything but the implementation of this ban seems futile in light of the 388-1 vote in favor of the law. “We live in Russia, not Sodom and Gomorrah,” United Russia Deputy Dmitry Sablin commented before the Russian parliament passed the bill. Despite the overwhelming intolerance, gay activists still staged a “kiss-in” protest outside the chamber, which ended with the detention of 20 activists.

Since his return to the presidency, Putin has made a series of strategic political moves to stifle dissent and consolidate power through oppressive authoritarian tactics. His rhetoric constantly reflects on a return to conservative Russian traditionalism: “God, Tsar, and Country.”, Putin has tactically strengthened his ties to the Russian Orthodox Church, hoping the support of one of Russia’s most influential institutions will fortify his political power. Hence, the backwards legislation first and foremost serves to establish an anti-Western liberalism while unsubtly signaling a shift towards an Orthodox Russia. More importantly, at the core of Putin’s call for a more traditional Russia lies a far more dangerous vision for homogenization. “We either become a tolerant Western state where everything is allowed—and lose our Christianity and moral foundations—or we will be a Christian people who live in our God-protected land in purity and godliness,” said Reverend Sergiy Rybko, a priest in the Orthodox Church. In partnering with the Russian Orthodox Church, Putin allies with the Church’s religious positions on Russia’s domestic policies. Putin’s plans echo the Reverend’s visions, which begin by politically ostracizing gays as a tabooed immoral minority. But homosexuals are not the only minorities in Russia—next come the Jews, the Central Asian Muslims, the atheists etc., until the Orthodox Russian leadership use “traditional values” as a warrant to politically and socially exclude every non-“Russian” minority.

In protest of the ban, a Russian television host disclosed his homosexuality on the air and was subsequently fired from the channel he had co-founded. Reported beatings of gay men have boomed. Same-sex European couples will be banned from adopting Russian orphans. The real-word impact of Russia’s ban on “homosexual propaganda” transcends an innocent plea for traditional values: homophobic legislation under the false guise of morality sends a dangerous message to the Russian public, who as it is are not the most emphatic towards gay citizens. According to Levada Center’s opinion polls last year, almost two-thirds of Russians find homosexuality “morally unacceptable and worth condemning. About half opposed gay rallies and same-sex marriage, while almost a third thought homosexuality was the result of ‘a sickness or a psychological trauma.’”

In light of the strong prejudices against homosexuals, Putin’s recent escalation of security forces on opposition—jailing and harassing gay activists—sets a critically dangerous example for the nation. Russian leadership’s treatment of a socially vulnerable population tells society that crimes against gays are not considered crimes; that violence against and oppression of some citizens are warranted; and that hate crimes are to be equated with patriotism. Gays in Russia already face tremendous intolerance and the state-sanctioning of homophobia will only serve to escalate violence against innocent Russian citizens, as witnessed by the recent escalation of gay beatings.

The European Union’s foreign policy chief Catherin Ashton expressed concern with the ban, stating, “The implementation of this law could reinforce discrimination against lesbians, gays, bisexuals […] as well as all those who support them and their choices, in particular by limiting their freedom of expression and their freedom of association and assembly.” European cities, including Venice and Milan, have also taken action against the bill by canceling their sister-city status with St. Petersburg.

While Russia’s president dismembers any real opposition in an effort to re-direct his country towards medieval times, other countries are facing a more legitimate debate on the issue of same-sex marriage.

On Tuesday, February 8, the British House of Commons voted overwhelmingly in favor of a bill legalizing same-sex marriage in Britain (the bill is essentially assured passage through its next legislative stages). Unlike Russia, the bill resulted in a six-hour debate, which ultimately ended with a 400-175 vote in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. Despite this victory, however, more than half of the Conservative Party’s legislators voted against the bill (or abstained). Right-wing Parliament member Edward Leigh stated, “We should be in the business of protecting cherished institutions and our cultural heritage.”

Sadly, lawmakers like Leigh do not realize the fundamental duty bestowed upon them: to protect people, not institutions, to protect human rights, not a subjective sense of cultural heritage. Lawmakers should be in the business of providing a secure political and social environment for each and every citizen without the fear of exclusion or victimization—despite whom they choose to love.

Even further divided than Britain, France also recently introduced a similar measure on same-sex marriage, backed by President Francois Hollande. On February 12, the French National Assembly passed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage (the bill still needs to pass through the French Senate and be signed by President Hollande, but it is predicted to become law as soon as May 2013). Despite the measure’s overwhelming projected victory in the Senate (or perhaps in spite of), the legislation has triggered recent demonstrations in Paris with tens of thousands protestors taking to the streets to protect traditional definitions of marriage. The French Parliament has been equally heated, with an extended debate on same-sex marriage now in its second week. The bill has drawn angry insults across the National Assembly floor and has undergone more than 5,300 amendments. Similar to Russia, the Insee poll in 2012 indicates that French citizens “do not overwhelmingly embrace legalizing same-sex marriage (70%), with many French citizens joining with the church, as well as some secular conservative groups, in expressing their strong opposition.” As recently as January, a crowd of roughly 500,000 French protestors demonstrated outside the Eiffel Tower in Paris in opposition to same-sex marriage. As both a secular republic defending individual rights and a largely religious Catholic nation with deeply-rooted (and outdated) notions of family structure, France’s debate on same-sex marriage reflects a far deeper paradox in French civil society.

While French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault explained that “contrary to what those who vociferate against [the bill] say — fortunately they’re in the minority — this law is going to strengthen the institution of marriage,” mass protests continued. As a democratic country, the passage of the same-sex marriage law will extenuate the divide between conservative and progressive members of French Parliament (as it has done in Britain) rather than resulting in a major political crisis. Ultimately, further polarization will more likely be neutralized with younger more progressive political leadership, as opposed to political consolidation through a democratic process.

As the world slowly turns towards the acceptance of same-sex marriage, some countries struggle more than others to adopt progressive policies. While Russian leadership and the Orthodox Church strategically condemn Western influences of marriage equality, France slowly finds its way towards legalizing same-sex marriage, despite strong political opposition and polarization. On a more unanimous path, Britain forges forward in the battle for equality, symbolizing the growing influence of a global social revolution that began over a decade ago. The actions of two of the world’s most influential countries set a brave example for the rest of the indecisive world: despite staunch and sometimes offensive opposition, the essential obligation of national legislators is the protection of their people, not their institutions.

Facts and figures from Reuters, The New York Times, CNN, and The Pew Forum.

Shadee Ashtari is a senior at UCLA majoring in Communications with a minor in Political Science. At the Burkle Center, Shadee is the Editor-in-Chief of The Generation. Her current research focuses on student homelessness in the U.S. and the rise and decline of religiosity in industrialized nations.

February 20, 2013 3 comments

Newer Posts

Older Posts