Perspectives on Global Issues » U.S. Politics

Never Turn Your Head

Ivana Kvesic — Sun, 07 Nov 2010 00:17:50 +0000

I recently found out that my nine-year-old niece has to do current event presentations once a week in front of her classroom. This past week she dressed up as a Polish boy, wore the Star of David on her coat, and recited the famous poem by Peter Fischl, “To the Little Polish Boy Standing with His Arms Up.” She did this because her mother ran into an article in the local paper that discussed the use of the poem in local California schools to help structure anti-bullying programs, as well as to teach children that indifference and inaction are not acceptable alternatives. Needless to say, I am proud of my niece for her courage to stand in front of her classmates at nine years old and talk about tolerance, but it also got me thinking about the wider implications of such programs. How can new programs aimed to stop bullying in U.S. schools actually benefit humanity beyond our own borders?
According to constructivist theory in international relations the way the international realm operates is based on processes of social practice and interaction. If we were to introduce new attitudes and norms into the field of international relations, we would ultimately be introducing a different operational system. We have constructed an international system that operates on norms that depend on political persuasion. I believe our system does mostly operate off the tenants of realism such as hard power, national interests, and sovereignty. However, this is the system we have created; it does not have to be this way. It operates not by human nature, but by human practice. Thus, teaching our children new norms, new standards, and new ways of thinking about each other and the world means that in time we really can change the international system. We can construct new attitudes, and those attitudes will develop into new practices that can make our world a better place here, and everywhere else for that matter.
For young children the use of this poem in schools is a gift for learning tolerance. However, we all know tolerance is not enough to stop global or local injustices. The most critical aspect of anti-bullying programs is the dismantling of inaction and indifference. My niece and her generation will be the future leaders of this world. If they are taught from a young age that it is their duty to take action when someone is being harmed emotionally, physically, or mentally they will operate off of different customs and standards. Thus, they will grow up with a different sense of obligation to their fellow man, and will not see indifference as an option. If we teach our kids that it is their responsibility to make sure others are treated with dignity, perhaps we really will have a world where human rights are respected and inaction is simply not tolerated. Although the Genocide Convention was adopted in 1948, and Mr. Fischl wrote his inspirational poem over 24 years ago, it is distressing to say we have more than once seen a world that saw nothing, heard nothing, and said nothing about genocide. However, if we invest in raising the children of today to not only think, but also to act like Mr. Fischl, I believe we have hope that tomorrow this world will evolve into a better place where injustices are simply not tolerated, and inaction is not an option.

US retaking the reins from global civil society?

Jessica Fowler — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 03:50:51 +0000

Is the US flexing its metaphorical muscle in the realm of international affairs and the ‘Global War on Terror’ once again? In a move that could be viewed as the reassertion of the state’s authority over an increasingly globalized arena and international commons that has more recently allowed in the last decades for the emergence of a more active and contributing civil society to take the reins (or fill the vacuum), the Supreme Court’s ruling in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project has seemingly put the choke hold on civil society’s foreign aid activities. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 21, 2010, that “a law prohibiting “material support” of foreign terrorist organizations can be used against people who claim to be providing only peaceful, humanitarian assistance,” (Bob Egelko, San Fransisco Chronicle, June 22, 2010). Chief Justice John Roberts representing the majority opinion, including Justices Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, stated that any tangible support, “helps lend legitimacy to foreign terrorist groups…which facilitate more terrorist attacks,” (Egelko, The Chronicle). On the other hand, you have the dissenting opinion as presented by Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ginsbury and Sotomayor, which counters that this ruling would, “deny First Amendment protection to the peaceful teaching of international human rights law,” and would when applied broadly (beyond the intentional aiders of terrorism who he claimed should be prosecuted), can and would violate free speech, (Egelko, The Chronicle).

According to David Cole, a lawyer for the organizations and individuals who challenged the law, the Court’s decision allowed for, “human rights advocates, providing training and assistance in the nonviolent resolution of disputes, can be prosecuted as terrorists,” (Egelko, The Chronicle).

Background:

The Supreme Court’s June ruling was an extension of already existing bans on “material support” for foreign terrorists that began under Clinton in 1996 and was expanded by Bush in 2001 with the USA Patriot Act. The parties in this specific case were HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT ET AL., with the plaintiffs case reading as follows:

As the litigation now stands, plaintiffs challenge §2339B’s prohibition on providing four types of material support—“training,” “expert advice or assistance,” “service,” and “personnel”—asserting violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause on the ground that the statutory terms are impermissibly vague, and violations of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. They claim that §2339B is invalid to the extent it prohibits them from engaging in certain specified activities, including training PKK members to use international law to resolve disputes peacefully; teaching PKK members to petition the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief; and engaging in political advocacy on behalf of Kurds living in Turkey and Tamils living in Sri Lanka.

Two sides to every story:

On one side we have those who rebuke the Court’s ruling and fear its negative repercussions, such as former US President Jimmy Carter, whose own organization that has had to interact with US designated terrorist group Hamas in its Mideast diplomatic efforts, could come into question. Carter has commented that the ruling, “threatens our work and the work of many other peacemaking organizations that must interact directly with groups that have engaged in violence,” (Egelko, The Chronicle).

On the other side we have those who take the more pragmatic perspective and see the Court’s ruling as positive in the way of shutting off channels of support, whether explicit or implicit and intentional or not, to terrorists. Putting a burden of proof on NGOs and civil society actors to prove or ensure where and how their aid is being utilized in an attempt to proactively negate negative consequences of any kind of aid to these groups. Annemarie McAvoy, a Fordham law professor and former federal prosecuter, articulated this point of view when she stated that, “by helping the terrorists, even tangentially, they’re freeing up the terrorists to focus on other things, such as violent attacks,” (Egelko, The Chronicle) This sentiment was mirrored in the stance and comments of Solicitor General Elena Kagan (Obama’s current nominee to the court) that, “what congress decided is that when you help Hezbollah build homes, you are also helping Hezbollah build bombs,” (Egelko, The Chronicle).

Discussion:

Is the world so black and white? Does civil society participation and assistance towards advocacy and training in the use of international law to resolve disputes peacefully and non-violently, the peaceful teaching of international human rights law, and advising on petitioning to the United Nations and other representative bodies for relief, really amount to “material support” of terrorists?

When our class, Peacemaking and Peacebuilding, discussed this issue one of the comments made by a student during the discussion was that, when has ignoring a group or non-engagement with a group, terrorist or not, solved anything, besides cutting off dialogue?

Some of my own questions and those raised by other students in dialogue with our professor regarded:

The creation and expansion of “the other”—are we in the US making all other, the other?

Ghosts of McCarthyism—is the US defining a narrow black and white in global politics and affairs, in humanitarian assistance, and in peacemaking and peacebuilding?

Who can and does define “terrorism” and “terrorists”—is systemic and structurally entrenched monoculturalism at play in the Global War on Terror and its subsequent policies?

When all else fails—is this further security measure necessary to put the burden on organizations and individuals to prove the authenticity, legality, and constructiveness of their work, in order to take the world one step closer to safety from terrorists?

The question lurking in my mind regarding the Court’s ruling is, will these restrictions on “material support” via organizations and private individuals be applied equitably? Or, will only the grassroots organizations and projects attempting to give legitimate aid suffer, while those with a recognizable name and friend on Capitol Hill find the convenient loopholes to slip through?

Furthermore, when this discussion came up in our class, October 26^th, our professor couldn’t help asking us why when he first introduced this Supreme Court case and ruling to us the week prior, none of us had even heard of it? Why had we, as global affairs students studying and keeping on the verge of international news, failed to notice this issue that occurred over the summer, which is significant to activities and participation in our field? It is apparent that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project has struck a chord of fear with NGOs and civil society who engage in peacemaking, peacebuilding, and conflict resolution, management and transformation, but what could the broader implications of such restrictions be?

Will Big Brother bully out those truly interested in helping make the world a more peaceful place, or will civil society rally and enlighten the powers that be regarding the futility of estranging constructive peace efforts?

For further information regarding this Supreme Court case and the debate it has sparked please take a look at:

Price, Michael. “National Security Watch: Mens Rea and Material Support of Terrorism.” The Champion Magazine; The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). August 2010. http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/ae3a72c354740766852577c100550278?OpenDocument.

The Humanitarian Law Project, http://hlp.home.igc.org/ . (Related headlines and articles).

Reconstructing the Security Paradigm

Ivana Kvesic — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 23:05:12 +0000

What does the security of another state have to do with the security of United States? Increasingly think tanks, policymakers, and academics alike are recognizing the power of “soft power” in developing societies. Or rather, they are recognizing that there is a link between the economic development and empowerment of a society and its overall level of security, and in consequence ours. Even more so, they are recognizing it is in the self-interest and long-term political objectives of the United States to foster development in societies that may be fragile, because the fragility of a state can become a breeding grounds for civil conflict, terrorist groups, and the black market sale and transfer of human beings, drugs, and weapons among other things. As part of the Center for American Progress’s Sustainable Security program, the center published a report entitled “Humanity as a Weapon of War,” that highlights the importance of security beyond weapons and terrorist networks, and addresses security in a holistic manner drawing from the perspectives of national security, human security, and collective security.

In today’s utterly globalized world it is impossible to shield ourselves from the struggles of other societies, or to pretend that we or our interests are not connected to them in some capacity. In a few short centuries we have evolved into a world of “seven degrees of separation” in which the responsibility of developing societies lies not only with them, but it lies with us. There is a global responsibility to protect one another, and not only does that responsibility do developing societies well, it also helps to shield us from terrorism, narcotics trafficking, and human trafficking, while protecting our global interests. Nicolas Kristof recently posted an article in the New York Times in which he stated, “There’s abundant evidence that while bombs harden hearts, schooling, over time, can transform them.” I think addressing security from a development perspective is imperative if we are to achieve U.S. objectives while creating a safer more secure world. Investing in the development of developing societies that are politically and economically fragile should not be taken as a form of re-branded neocolonialism, but rather an intelligent way for the United States to pursue its own security interests while making positive contributions to the global community.

To look at the Center for American Progress Report “Humanity as a Weapon of War” please click here:

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2008/06/pdf/sustainable_security2.pdf

HIV-Positive Soon Free to Enter U.S.

Brianna Lee — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:24:29 +0000

President Obama announced today that he would lift the 22-year-old ban restricting HIV-positive people from entering the United States. This is great news for an old, fear-motivated piece of legislation that’s been in effect for far too long.

This Summer in Global Affairs…

Brianna Lee — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:36:16 +0000

Summer is nearly officially over (and the weather here in New York shows it). This means the Perspectives on Global Issues blog is back from its sun-drenched hibernation. Our editors have already been churning out their thoughts and analyses on the latest breaking news in the world of international affairs — but just in case you’ve been under a rock or just need to get up to speed with the state of the globe today, here’s a handy little recap of this summer in global affairs, including everything from the big headlines that got the world talking to a couple of smaller, stranger blips on the radar:

June started off with a plane crash of an Airbus flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris. President Obama went to Cairo to make a speech about Muslims and the U.S — some people thought it was pretty good while others had more measured reactions. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, widely reported to be sickly with cancer, tapped his youngest son Jong Un as successor, and his sushi chef said he’s just like his dad. Palau decided to accept a few of the Uighur Guantanamo detainees, and a few of them were also taken in by Bermuda. The Bermudans, however, weren’t so happy about how that happened. A little later, Iran had a Presidential election. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won under most likely fraudulent circumstances because more people voted in some towns than existed there. People protested, and Twittered, and protested some more, with violent repercussions. New York Times reporter David Rohde escaped after 7 months of being held captive by the Taliban in Afghanistan. In a seemingly pro-feminist move (but actually to the chagrin of many feminists), Nicolas Sarkozy supported a ban of the burqa in France. In Honduras, President Manuel Zelaya was ousted in a coup, and the U.S. military finally withdrew troops from Iraq to focus more instead on efforts to curb Taliban influence in Afghanistan.

In Urumqi, China, riots broke out between the majority Han Chinese and the minority Uighurs, and ethnic tension has remained heightened since, including recent claims that Uighurs are attacking Han Chinese with HIV infected needles. Two hotels were bombed in Jakarta, Indonesia. Hillary Clinton went to the Congo and brought attention to the use of rape and sexual violence as a tool of war (against men, too). Bill Clinton flew to North Korea and saved journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, who had been captured in March and sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. It was a good week to be a Clinton.

Former President of the Philippines Corazon Aquino died. RIP, Cory. In Taiwan, there was a really big typhoon. Burmese democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi’s trial was held over the question of whether or not she violated the terms of her house arrest when a crazy American guy swam through a lake to visit her on a supposedly divine mission. She was found guilty. The American was freed (but remained crazy). Everybody found out that private contractor organization Blackwater (now Xe) was hired by the CIA to assassinate targets. Scotland allowed the one convicted Lockerbie bomber to return to Libya because he is dying of cancer. Everybody was really, really mad, especially because it was probably because of oil. Colombian President Alvaro Uribe came down with the H1N1 virus. The Darfur conflict was reported as coming to an end. Afghanistan held Presidential elections which showed incumbent Hamid Karzai leading, but like Iran, this was probably also fraud. Unlike Iran, they’re actually recounting votes and throwing out bad ones.

Hopefully, that’s refreshed your mind with a whirlwind of memories from the past three months. But here are a couple of things that perhaps you might have missed:

China reversed its one child policy, but only in Shanghai.

Cambodia set out to host a “Miss Landmine” pageant to challenge traditional beauty standards by promoting a pageant for landmine victims. The pageant was quickly banned.

A Ukranian polka band came up with this cover of Katy Perry’s “Hot n Cold.”

Some of the lawsuits over harmful pesticide effects made by Nicaraguan farmers for Dole Food Co. turned out to be fraudulent (involving faked sterility tests, among other indicators), effectively casting doubt on all the other farmers who might have actually been harmed by the pesticides.

China tried to use electroshock therapy to cure teens of Internet addiction. The practice was quickly banned.

Canada granted refugee status to a white man from South Africa who claimed he was being persecuted in his native country on the basis of his race.

An IT company in South Africa ran a test to see what could send data faster: South African Internet service or a carrier pigeon. The pigeon won.

Anything missing? Of course. Drop a comment to add in any other summer global affairs news that slipped through the cracks!

Kansan With Candor

Tamar Kherlopian — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 02:02:14 +0000

Note: This entry is about PGI Editor Tamar Kherlopian’s experience interviewing John Wilson for the Fall issue of Perspectives in Global Issues. Click here to read the interview.

In a country that is experiencing a resurgence of political interest amongst its youth likened to the pre-Kennedy era, twenty-five year old John Wilson’s campaign for State Representative in Topeka, Kansas represented this generation’s challenge: sustained awareness and activism. I spoke with Wilson just a few weeks before his narrow defeat to Tom Sloane, a fourteen-year incumbent of the position. Probing his motivations to enter public office at such a young age as well as his views concerning sustainable energy, the United States’ tarnished foreign policy, governmental regulation in the private sector, and American youth involvement in social affairs, the political hopeful’s candor and innate zeal for public service became refreshingly apparent. …Perhaps the energy that President-elect Barack Obama mustered, coupled with the awareness that the September 11th attacks and Hurricane Katrina awakened will prove their resilience in the coming years after all, motivating more young American professionals to get involved in service-oriented efforts and careers.

Global Reactions to President-Elect Obama

Brianna Lee — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 06:36:28 +0000

(photo courtesy of the Huffington Post)

Last Tuesday was undeniably a historic night for the United States in the election of Barack Obama as the 44th President of the USA. Heralding Obama’s entrance to the White House as an end to the policies of the deeply unpopular Bush administration, millions of American citizens as well as global onlookers reacted with ecstatic joy, optimism, and nervous hope for the new President. Kenya, the home country of Obama’s father, declared Thursday, November 6 a national holiday. The city of Obama, Japan cheered on their namesake (and in another part of Japan, this video sprang up). The new President-Elect received congratulations from nine world leaders, including Nicolas Sarkozy (prime minister of France), Angela Merkel (German chancellor), Stephen Harper (Canadian prime minsister), Lee Myung-Bak (President of South Korea) and Gordon Brown (UK Prime Minister).

Obama’s new foothold in American foreign policy was also tested in his receipt of a congraulatory letter from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which marked the first time an Iranian leader has congratulated the winner of an American election in decades and sparking the possibility of diplomatic talks between the two countries. In the letter (translated here by the Washington Post), Ahmedinejad advised Obama to “choose to honor the real interests of people and justice and equity over the insatiable appetites of the selfish minority.” Obama has not officially accepted the congratulations, saying that he would instead review the letter closely first.

As the new president assembles his new administration, international hopes remain high. Obama’s reaction to Ahmedinejad’s letter has sparked some doubts that the new administration would significantly improve US relations with the Islamic world. Some have noted that Obama’s appointment of pro-Israel Rahm Emanuel as his new Chief of Staff indicates that his policies towards Palestine will remain no different from that of past administrations.

The new President’s first priority, of course, is aiding the recovery of the troubled American economy, and he is rapidly putting together a transition team to smoothe the process as much as possible. Soon, however, Obama will have to turn outwards and face a world that has extraordinarily high and hopeful expectations for him. In the past, Obama has shown the calm-headedness and efficiency to face off against (and defeat) the insurmountable challenges of the Clinton campaign and the Republican party. Whether or not he can channel those skills into an effective foreign policy to regain the United States’ favor in the world remains yet to be seen in the coming months.

The Electoral College

Dan Logue — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 05:53:40 +0000

Like it or not, the Electoral College doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. While I know that many in the public enjoy taking this time around the next presidential election to rail about the uselessness of the Electoral College, let’s get one thing straight: the odds of it being abolished are slim to none.

Like many of those complaining I have my issues with it – watching politicians pretend to care about states with less people than medium-sized cities, it does in some ways make sense. Forcing candidates to actually tour the entire country is somewhat more entertaining than focusing on the big media markets. Besides, abolishing it would require a constitutional amendment and for one to pass would require 38 of 50 states voting for it. I can’t believe that New Hampshire or Iowa would be willing to sign away their historical importance to presidential elections anytime soon; it would be a completely and totally irrational decision for them or any of the other small states in this country.

When you think about it, there’s really no guarantee that it would make things easier come Election Day. The current system has been around for how long and we’re still screwing it up, so let’s create a new one? We’re a sue-happy country and giving people anymore reason to create a lawsuit isn’t necessarily the best use of time. Potentially entangling candidates in costly and time-consuming lawsuits when they could be leading (and I use “leading” very broadly) would potentially cause more harm than good. There is also the fact that the popular vote-Electoral College split has happened four times in over 230 years is that really a major issue? I actually have one other reason to find it entertaining: I love to watch non-citizens and foreign friends’ puzzled faces when trying to explain the system to them. Call me whatever you want, but there is something gratifying in having something pretty unique within the realm of the democratic world.

Is it necessary, no; complicated, yes; archaic, most definitely; but at the end of the day it’s here to stay. Maybe it’s just time we finally accept the Electoral College as that crazy uncle who babbles incoherently at holiday parties, maybe drinks too much, but at the end of the day is entertaining and usually harmless. Plus, how often do we really deal with him anyway?