Category: Democracy in the News

Despite the international effort to discourage North Korea, the isolated nation launched a long-range missile a few hours ago. It seems as though North Korea is completely unconcerned by the threats of further censure and sanctions to be imposed by the world. Washington DC thinks that this is a sign of the North Korean development of intercontinental ballistic missiles, that may eventually lead to nuclear warhead.

This is a huge problem with many potential threats to the international community. North Korea historically has shown through its foreign policy that it does not regard much of the international opinion. It does not have any well-established diplomatic relations that it would destroy by going ahead with further nuclear programs. Its position in the international community is isolated and unwanted enough that conducting any nuclear actions won’t harm its image.

What will this mean for the international community? It’ll take a joint effort to even approach North Korea about this issue, but I think that trying to stop North Korea completely is out of the question. The world will just have to watch carefully where this event goes, and take prudent and cautionary steps to deal with it as it unfolds.

After months of struggle for the international community to call an end to violence in Syria, the Assad regime finally conceded. The Syrian government accepted the United Nations-Arab League plan for establishing peace, which has the goals of:

• “an inclusive Syrian-led political process” to address grass-roots grievances.

• a commitment to halt fighting and forge a U.N.-supervised halt of violence by the government and opposition groups.

• timely humanitarian aid.

• speeding up the release of “arbitrarily detained” people, including those engaged in “peaceful political activities.”

• ensuring “freedom of movement” for journalists.

• respecting peaceful demonstrations and “freedom of association.”

(source: TIME)

With China recently supporting the UN-Arab League plan, it became more feasible for the coalition to take action in Syria. This is great news for the global community, because many nations have condemned the Assad regime. I’m glad to see that both Russia and China agree with the rest of the countries that violence in Syria needs to be stopped. Although their interests remain differently than the majority of the world, they recognize that Syria is a huge problem that needs to be solved. Is the Syrian government serious about changing? We should hope so. However, with the pressure from many other countries, Syria will eventually have to show some sign of change. If not, this growing support of multiple countries for the coalition’s plan will bring serious consequences to Syria – maybe even without a necessary military intervention.

If there is anything better than a classy, handsome Hollywood actor, it’s one who cares about political issues. George Clooney was arrested today in Washington after protesting at the Sudanese Embassy. He was arrested with two Democratic congressmen earlier today by Secret Service. The Secret Service protects the embassies in D.C., and charged the three men with disorderly crossing of a police line.

While it is necessary to keep order at the embassies, I commend George Clooney and these men for what they did. They were taking action by walking to the front steps of the Sudanese Embassy to call an end to to civilian murders, starvation and human rights violation. The government of Khartoum is oppressing its people limitlessly. Since South Sudan gained independence from Sudan, there has been a serious humanitarian crisis and I think that, if necessary, people who can bring lots of publicity need to stand up against the government. This is exactly what George Clooney is doing. Because of his celebrity, people will naturally pay attention to his news stories. Just like the media has been focusing on Clooney more than the two congressmen, people will undoubtedly be eager to learn more about what exactly this Hollywood star is passionate about. I’m supportive of Clooney’s actions, because it is important to make people aware and give them the incentive to join in a cause.

On the other side of the country, our fellow Canadian university students are actively protesting against tuition increases. Quebec currently has the lowest in-state tuition rate in Canada, and the province wants to add an extra $325 to the annual fees for the next five years.

Naturally, most university students opposed this proposition and began their protests across McGill campus. It has escalated to a sort of violent riot, as a number of people – both students and the police – are being injured. I was quite appalled to hear that the cops showed up with tear gas, and used force against the protestors. Since the protest began last fall, it has been reported that the riot police is using brutality against some students: batting them with batons and pepper-spraying them in their faces. I’ve even heard through friends that one student lost sight in one of his eyes.

At this instant, I remembered the Vancouver riots of summer 2011: the unforgettable catastrophe that stormed the downtown streets of Vancouver after the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup to Boston. Violence was everywhere, and the riot police had to use some force, like tear gas, to control the crowds. Having witnessed the crazy behaviors of some people, I saw the need for the cops to stop them harshly.

However, the story at McGill is somewhat different. The students aren’t breaking windows and setting cars on flames. They are fighting for their education – to keep the same level of accessibility that they currently have. Tuition increase will certainly discourage some students from attending university or continuing their education – as exemplified by some current students who have walked out of their classrooms, boycotting. Education is an important aspect of building a hopeful future for society, and it’s rather unfortunate that students constantly have to struggle to keep it a feasible option for themselves.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1142458–police-fire-tear-gas-at-student-protesters-in-montreal?bn=1

I followed last week’s debate on The Economist about whether or not military intervention was good in Syria.

On the one hand, some people argued that a forceful intervention was necessary to show Syria that the world is serious about stopping violence and oppression. On the other hand, others argued that military intervention would only encourage the Syrian regime to respond with more violence.

I was quite surprised to find more than 60% of those who participated thought that military intervention was not the best solution. America is known for using its military might to fight repressive governments, so naturally, I thought that most Americans would support the idea of intervening in a country that constantly murders and oppressed its civilians.

I clearly made the mistake of assuming that democratic governments, like the U.S., are generally a good representation of what the population thinks. The US government has power that it enjoys to display to the world, but not all Americans support that. Especially after seeing the results unfold in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans, for the most part, seem to have changed their way of thinking. Military intervention does not always prove to be effective. In Syria in particular, where civilians are responding to the regime with further violence, using realpolitik and force simply will not change the mindset of both the Syrian regime and Syrian people.

Americans are showing that they understand this, too. They realize the complications that hasty military intervention can bring. Lastly, I now realize that not every American believes in using realist powers in world politics

Violence escalated in Afghanistan after American soldiers collectively burned the Koran. Two American officers in Afghanistan were shot to death, and, as a result, hundreds of American advisors in the Afghan government have withdrawn from their positions.

This mass withdrawal will be a serious blow to establishing stability in Afghanistan. People are depending on these advisors’ presence to receive trust and aid. Without the support, building a self-sufficient and competent government in Afghanistan will be tough.

Did the US soldiers foresee the dire consequences when they burned the Koran? Perhaps. It’s hard to think that they did not wonder what their actions could lead to. Given their experience with the violent capabilities of the Afghan people, they must have expected a brutal kind of retaliation.

It is sad to think that a country representing democracy and peace employs soldiers who would explicitly offend a religion and people. Surely, the American government would not openly instruct its soldiers to burn the Koran, but it makes us question what kind of mindset it is teaching them.

Freedom of expression is one thing. But to publicly burn a religious book that has significant meaning to a culture is abusing that freedom. Nobody should abuse that freedom – especially those who are said to be protecting freedom and peace.

If you have friends from Hong Kong or mainland China, you should have realized that there is some cultural tension between the two regions. Although people from both regions are Chinese, there seems to be a degree of racism between the two populations. Some of my friends from Hong Kong would smirk at someone squatting on a sidewalk and say, “He must be a mainlander.” Through my personal observations, I noticed that they degrade each other and take pride in the fact that they are not the other.

Hong Kong was a former British colony that was returned to China only 15 years ago. It’s evident that the Western culture still thrives in Hong Kong – more than in mainland China – like how it allows freedom of speech and practices rule of law. Half the members of the Hong Kong legislature are elected, while the leader is chosen by a pro-Beijing committee. Because of these cultural and political differences, Hong Kongers undoubtedly feel that they have a separate identity apart from the Chinese.

The latest dispute arose when a mainland tourist ate and spilled noodles on a Hong Kong subway, which bans food on the trains. It’s easy to think that the Hong Kong residents again saw this as a typical act by someone from a less Westernized society. This was most likely a resurge in the Hong Kong’s attitude towards a separate identity.

It should be accepted that Hong Kongers want to maintain their own identity. What good will it do to force Hong Kong to assimilate to the rest of China? It will only create more hatred and conflict, and urge Hong Kong to try to break away even harder. Beijing does have economic control over the global financial city of Hong Kong, and I’m sure it never wants to lose that.

China needs to realize that a cultural and political identity cannot suddenly be overturned, and that if it wants to keep Hong Kong a satisfied region within its borders, it should accept the differences that naturally exist.

The uprising against the Syrian government that started in March 2011 does not seem like it will improve anytime soon. Twenty people were killed yesterday, adding to some 5,000 people that have died since March.

Last week, the Arab League stepped forward in trying to deal with this devastating situation in Syria, and asked the United Nations to cooperate. However, the U.N. Security Council struggled to reach an agreement on the draft resolution that attempts to convince the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down. Most nations supported the draft resolution, except China and Russia. China and Russia believe that initiating talks with Syria would be more effective than the resolution that calls al-Assad to transfer his power. Russia even made its own resolution that places blame not just on the regime but also on the opposing protestors. This is no surprise, considering that Russia has about $20 billion worth of investments in Syria. In addition, Syria has bought about $4 billion worth of weapons from Russia.

It seems like the international community will have a tough time reaching an agreement on Syria. The Arab League is pressuring Syria to stop violent killings of civilians, but Syria firmly believes that the Arab League is not the “Arab League” without Syria. The Security Council will never pass a resolution as long as China and Russia have veto powers – unless it finds a way to work around the differences and find solutions to please the two Syrian allies. Violence in Syria is only getting worse by day, because civilians are using more aggression in retaliation to government force.

Okay, I know I’ve blogged a couple times already about the GOP presidential race, but I just keep finding interesting and/or relevant issues from it that I can’t help but blog about them.

The latest topic revolves around the American policy in Cuba. Since 1960, the U.S. had an embargo against Cuba titled “Cuban Democracy Act.” This Act reflects the postbellum American view of global democratization. The U.S. intends to maintain this embargo until Cuba decides to move in the direction of establishing a democracy and respecting human rights.

In the Florida GOP primary debates, the U.S. foreign policy on Cuba was a hot subject — mostly because the state of Florida has a lot of Cuban voters who can sway the Republican voting polls. Most candidates seemed to just reiterate the American objective in Cuba: to leave Cuba in isolation and avoid diplomatic talks until the Castro regime falls and Cubans are finally free.

Newt Gingrich wants harsher treatment of Cuba, aggressively persuading Cuba to change its domestic policies on human rights. He said that America should actively reach out to all the Cubans to help them fight against the current regime, and to ensure that a dictatorship is no longer a possibility.

Rick Santorum interestingly stated that he would treat Cuba just the same – even if Cuba were as far as China. He insisted that the embargo be kept to show that the “American” hemisphere should all be on the U.S. side. He said that there should be absolutely no aid or interaction with Cuba unless Cuba gets rid of the Castro tyranny.

Do these men realize what they are saying? The past half-century of embargo against Cuba has not changed Cuba the way American wanted it to, nor did it give Cuba any incentive to change. America opened up to Russia and China – the other Communist countries that the U.S. was so against. Why can’t the U.S. open up to Cuba? Perhaps because Cuba does not propose any economic benefits to the U.S. like Russia and China does. Nonetheless, keeping Cuba far and giving it cold treatment has not benefited America much – if at all.

I liked that Ron Paul thinks differently than the rest of the candidates. He said that the Cuban isolation must end, and America needs to open up trade relations with Cuba. He said that it is no longer 1962 – countries need to talk to each other instead of using force or intimidation. Placing sanctions against nations and using aggression aren’t the democratic principles that America wants to exemplify. It’s time that the U.S. reflected upon its foreign policy in Cuba and made some progress forward.

The Arab League nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman gave Syria a deadline of this Thursday to change up its illiberal, undemocratic government. The Arab League nations have a mission in Syria to stop violence against civilians, release political prisoners, seize weapons from the cities, and establish more open travelling for foreigners. They also hope to convince the current Syrian president Bashar al-Assad to transfer his political power to his vice president and form a national unity government. They have made it clear in their report their plan of forming a new constitutional council and holding parliamentary and presidential elections.

A letter has been sent to the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon proposing a national unity government. It seems like the Arab League is serious and diplomatic about transitioning Syria into a more liberal democratic country. The Arab nations made it clear that they do not want military intervention, but want to gather international support through the United Nations Security Council.

Nonetheless, as it always is with spreading democratic principles, the issue of national sovereignty arises. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said that the Arab League is violating the national sovereignty of Syria by intruding on its domestic matters. We have to ask ourselves, how much is too much then? When there are serious harms inflicted upon the people and foreign relations, I think it is necessary for the international community to step in. Arab League is definitely not trying to decrease Syrian sovereignty, but sees that solving the unhealthy political conditions in Syria is more important than completely letting Syria to be.

Hopefully, the United Nations and the rest of the world will join the Arab League in efforts to deal with the situation in Syria – sooner than later.