http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/12/peace-in-space-why-obama-is-right/?xid=newsletter-weekly
Obama recently agreed with the European Union proclamation calling for cooperative work in space. The latest code of conduct from the European Union aims at preventing the outer space from becoming an area of conflict. Mama’s decision to follow this code means that the US must avoid militarization of space.
In the TIME article, it is shown that two prominent political figures – John Bolton and John Yoo – are heavily opposed to Obama’s decision. They basically said that this is an act of concession, which will give other countries, like China, to pose a threat to the US in space. I just had to stop reading the article for a minute and think, are these men thinking right?
We may be witnessing a rapid growth of power in China but we are no longer living in the Cold War era. While I understand that it can have a lot to do with prestige and subsequent power that may follow (or vice versa), I don’t think that fighting for territory and satellites in space is a modernized way of doing politics.
Back in the postbellum years, the USSR and the USA were battling for World political influence. It was a time of paranoia and uncertainty – what with the threats of nuclear weapons from the USSR and its explicit desire to conquer territories.
Is that the case now? Not quite so. China may have leaped into economic productivity, but it still would not dare to follow any footsteps of the USSR. There is a difference between then and now: then, realpolitik was at one of its peaks; now, in 2012, we don’t necessarily have the tension and anxiety that political actors experienced. The world has come to an agreement on many things, and this code of conduct may be another one. Bolton and Yoo, this is the 21st century, not 1957.
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.
As part of the UBC host committee team for the World Model United Nations 2012 conference, I have had the pleasure and delight of meeting bright young people and learning about ‘coming together and going beyond.’ Last night was the Opening Ceremony, which took place at the Orpheum Theatre in downtown Vancouver. I was sitting with my fellow host team members near the front, near VIP guests, like the United Nations Director of Outreach, Maher Nasser, and the Harvard Secretariat. When I turned around and looked at the massive theatre being filled with 2,000 university delegates from around the world, I just sat there in awe. It was intriguing to see different outfits and flags in the crowd, and to hear languages that I had not even heard before.
We were lucky to have two special guest speakers at the ceremony: Dr. Nasser, Jeremy Kinsman – former Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and Ambassador. Each of them had unique and inspirational things to say to the global audience, but there was one message in common that I took home. They told us that there are many political, economic, and social issues that affect human beings the same. Without global cooperation and contribution, these issues will remain unresolved. While it can seem challenging to try to tackle such big issues, like climate change and human rights abuse, there is a way to make it less daunting. Mr Kinsman used a very neat analogy to give us some words of encouragement, saying that, instead of considering ourselves as small waves that hit the shoreline and bounce back to nothingness, we should see ourselves as simply being part of the entire ocean. That way, each time we hit a cliff or the coast, we won’t feel like we digress or disappear but like we remain part of something bigger. Their words reminded me of the importance of staying informed about the world and participating in my own ways to contribute to change. Our motto for World MUN 2012 tells us to “come together, go beyond,” echoing the actions of the lively political discussions of POLI333 blogs and of the WorldMUN delegates from 200 countries around the world.
I have to admit, I clicked ‘play’ on the Kony 2012 video when it showed up for the twenty-first time on my Facebook newsfeed. I clicked it hoping to gain some insight about Uganda and child soldiers and become inspired to learn more about it. It did not, however, take me more than sixty seconds of watching it to realize that Kony 2012 was just yet another pointless, brainwashing Internet trend. Within a day, there were 42 friends on my Facebook who had shared this viral video on Invisible Children fighting against Joseph Kony. Invisible Children’s Kony 2012 campaign basically aims to make Kony famous by raising support for his arrest and bringing international justice to the children affected in Uganda.
What really disappointed me is that people were easily persuaded or moved by a simple Internet video, tagging their own comments on the video like, “if you watch one thing this year, it has to be this.” While it is great that they found something that really intrigued their mind – the video, not the situation in Uganda – it’s disturbing that these people actually do not genuinely care at all. People generally post on Facebook Internet memes from 9gag.com or put status updates about their latest shopping sprees. These same people were all of a sudden enthusiastic about “making Kony famous” and sharing Invisible Children’s campaign video. It really proves that Invisible Children set their target right – nothing spreads like wildfire more on Facebook than anywhere else. In addition, Invisible Children made this video disturbing enough for people to share the video after one view: they most likely did not Google the issue in Uganda and researched who Joseph Kony and the LRA really are.
I’m not trying to be cynical, but, based on many trends on Facebook I have witnessed over the years, these people will forget about Kony and Uganda as soon as this video stops being a trend. They have become exactly what the media wants us to be: easily swayed by the very information that they are given, pretending to care, participating in a new term called “slacktivism.” It is highly unlikely that these people will actually leave their computer desk and walk into their community to work on fighting against LRA and raising awareness. People just follow what the majority follows because it’s convenient and intriguing.
Although I am not an expert on Uganda, I have read that Invisible Children has not been declared non-profit. Most of the donations sent to Invisible Children are spent on the organization itself: the money gets lost in translation, and there is only a small faction of the money raised that will actually reach Uganda. There are a few other options, like Doctors without Borders, that actually do more credible work without strategically manipulating the information given to the general population. I’m quite disappointed and scared that we still fall so easily into the traps set by some organizations – we are the very puppets of political manipulators.
This is an article on Rabble.ca on last week’s Canadian Senate approval of Bill C-10: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mgregus/2012/03/disastrous-consequences-omnibus-crime-bill
Although the topic itself is very interesting because it discusses Bill C-10 on criminal justice, the style of writing is unattractive. The author starts the blog post with a clear statement of her opinion on how the Bill makes Canada a regressive democracy. While it allows the reader to predict what the rest of the article will be about, it is not interesting enough. The first sentence should “hook” the reader, and author Paula Mallea simply provides a generic sentence about Bill C-10 making Canada a worse democracy. Perhaps she could have made a more explicit and concise statement to accord with her strong stance.
Furthermore, most of her sentences seem to be short and choppy. Throughout the entire article, I felt no general flow. From beginning to end, the sentences were similar lengths and stopped abruptly. Some of the sentences are very straightforward, like her statement that “Bill C-10 will result in serious inconsistencies and distortions of the justice system.” Nonetheless there is an overall lack of transitions between paragraphs and conjunctions between sentences.
I especially dislike Paragraph 5, where she attempts to vary her tone of writing. She fills the paragraph with rhetorical questions, and follows them with a “Why?”. If she asks why, she should at least attempt to explain in her own terms. The “Why?” is nothing but a cliffhanger that leaves the reader very unsatisfied moving onto the next paragraph.
While she brings the reader back to her main argument by repeating her stance in the conclusion, her voice seems very detached from the content. It is detached in that it feels as though she wrote multiple sentences on her idea and just put them in order. The lack of flow in her article leaves the reader feeling uncomfortable and unconvinced about her statements – and that just affects her attempt to make a big point.
Here is a blog post from TIME’s Ideas section on the gendered division in sexual responsibility and rights in America:
http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/05/men-have-sex-too/
Erika Christakis does not start the article with her own statement, but a context of what her article will be about. The short sentence in the beginning definitely makes the reader wonder what exactly her stance will be, and captures the reader’s attention. “Male guardians of the female body” is Christakis’ own term to describe the group that she attacks in her article, and this term immediately informs the reader that she will discuss men who think they can decide women’s sexual issues.
Christakis uses a variety of sentences and words. There is a clearly smooth transition between her sentences and her paragraphs, because I do not feel as though I’m jumping from one stepping stone to another on water. Her subtle undertone of sarcasm also keeps the article fun and exciting. Like Mallea, she makes attacks on others, but she does it more effectively. Using words like “outrage” and “folks”, she builds a personal connection to the reader. Describing some American men’s ideas on birth control as “blood boiling” reveals her very own emotions on the issue. She also devotes a paragraph to asking rhetorical questions, but her questions actually makes the reader to ponder about her questions, rather than to feel disconnected and unfulfilled anticipation.
She brings the reader through a wave of attacks and argument against certain men, like Rush Limbaugh, and then finishes her criticism concisely, to-the-point. “Gentlemen, you’re up at bat.” is all she needed to conclude the article because her content was interesting and informative enough. I’m personally a fan of simple conclusions without windy repetitions of the author’s arguments. Christakis successfully conveys her opinion to the reader and engages the reader effectively to her writing.
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.
Mercer and Economist Intelligence Unit produce rankings every year on the world’s most liveable cities. The reports from both organizations show the cities around the world with the highest standards of living. These rankings are based on different variables to measure the quality of the cities, and thus show different results.
According to Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey 2011, these cities ranked the highest:
- Vienna, Austria
- Zurich, Switzerland
- Auckland, New Zealand
- Munich, Germany
- Dusseldorf, Germany and Vancouver, Canada
- Frankfurt, Germany
- Geneva, Switzerland
- Bern, Switzerland and Copenhagen, Denmark
This Survey is based on the criteria of safety, education, hygiene, health care, culture, environment, recreation, political-economic stability and public transportation. Mercer uses New York City as the central point of comparison – giving it a median score of 100. The rest of the cities are measure against this score. At the bottom of the list was Port-au-Prince, Haiti with a score of 27.8.
Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) created a list of World’s Most Liveable Cities in 2011, which ranked the following at the top:
- Melbourne, Australia
- Vienna, Austria
- Vancouver, Canada
- Toronto, Canada
- Calgary, Canada
- Sydney, Australia
- Helsinki, Finland
- Perth, Australia
- Adelaide, Australia
- Auckland, New Zealand
The EIU placed emphasis on accessibility to goods and services, level of personal risk, and efficiency of infrastructure. Other criteria it used include: stability, healthcare, culture and environment, and education. Instead of having a central point of comparison like Mercer, the EIU used a weighting scale from 1 to 100. Harare, Zimbabwe, ranked the lowest on this list with a score of 38.2%.
The rankings of EIU tend to rank Anglophone cities higher than others, compared to Mercer’s Survey. Mercer definitely has more diversity in its top 10 cities. Mercer used 39 criteria, whereas EIU used only 30. Using more specific criteria could generate more accurate and/or diverse results. Both rankings recognized certain factors that might influence the rankings of a city, such as the economic crisis in Europe and regional wars in Africa and the Middle East. The two lists only have Vienna, Austria, and Auckland, New Zealand in common – the rest are completely different. The different criteria and ways of comparing the measures/cities result in very different outcomes. Evidently, it is never sufficient to rely on one single set of data: there could be bias or there could be other possible measurements for the same things being observed. Looking at multiple data sets give us a better understanding of what we are studying.
The Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada’s National Conversation on Asia team and the UBC Political Science Students Association will host an undergraduate student conference,Campus Conversations on Asia: The Values Question, at SFU’s Segal School located in downtown Vancouver. Please feel free to distribute this invitation to interested undergraduate students.
Where: 500 Granville Street, Vancouver, BC
When: March 3, 2012
Time: From 9:30 am to 3:30pm (reception to follow)
The day will feature Professor Paul Evans as the keynote speaker, as well as a panel of young Asia scholars and practitioners, a Korean drum performance, break-out sessions and a reception to finish off the day.
We welcome students from any post-secondary institution in the lower mainland. Students do not need a background in Asia to attend. Admission is free, and breakfast and lunch will be provided, but participants must fill out a registration form to confirm their attendance.
Keynote speaker‚s bio:
Paul Evans is the Director of the Institute of Asian Research (UBC) and one of Canada‚s leading thinkers on the future of Canada-Asia relations. He has been appointed at York University, the University of Toronto, Harvard University the Liu Institute for Global Issues, and the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada. He has also been a visiting fellow at the Australian National University, National Chengchi University (Taiwan), Chulalongkorn University (Thailand), and the National Institute for Research Advancement in Tokyo (Japan). For a full bio, click here.
Panelists‚ bios:
Robert Hanlon is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow at the Institute of Asian Research (UBC) and a Lecturer at SFU, focusing on bribery, corruption and human rights in Asia. Check out his blog here.
Joanna Wong is writer, filmmaker and communications strategist on Chin’‚s emerging environmental movement. Joanna is also an Action Canada Fellow and a Principal at FlowCS, an award-winning film and creative studio dedicated to sustainability in China. Check out her videos and blog on the Human Element in China.
Aim Sinpeng is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science (UBC) and a Visiting Research Fellow at Thammasat University. Aim focuses on democratization and civil society in Southeast Asia, the party system in Thailand and south Thai politics. Check out her blog here.
