Month: March 2012

Initial Version – I wrote this post in the week when I had four papers due. I planned to rework it but my energy level just didn’t allow me to do so (believe me it is true!)

Taliban revealed that they had talked with the U.S. but refused to negotiate with the Afghan government. It is apparent that the U.S. is a bargaining chip for the Taliban to maintain its bases in Afghanistan.

I wonder if successful negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban will facilitate democratic transition in Afghanistan……when the role of the Afghan government is totally degraded and ignored by the Taliban……..it is worth seeing how this tug-of-war between the U.S. and the Taliban will evolve.

Re-written version:

First, I did not discuss the potential impact of the US- Taliban talks on Afghan (democratic) future. It is obviously that the US’s priority is now not to facilitate a democratic transition in Afghanistan, but to establish stability and maintain its strategic bases in the region. However, while talks with the Taliban may help achieve these objectives in the short-run, in the long-run the democratic future of Afghanistan may suffer. This is because the Afghan government may encounter greater difficulty to implement democratization as it is now de-legitimatized by the US-Taliban talks. Also, the problem of mutual trust between the US and the Taliban questions the potential benefits of their talks. The possibility of creating a zero-sum game may induce military competition between the two sides, and therefore worsen not only the situation in Afghanistan, but also the relations between the US and the Afghan government, which will now have legitimate reasons to challenge the US in the international realm and to maintain its authoritarian regime.

Second, the role of Pakistan in the US-Afghanistan relations is also an important issue which I did not explore in the previous version. Pakistan used to be the US’s ally in countering terrorism, but as trust between the two sides fades because of the Pakistani government uncooperative actions(for example, Pakistan spent the counter-terrorism fund given by the US on military aggrandizement), the mediatory role for Pakistan in Afghanistan also fades.  The landmark of the decline of the US-Pakistani alliance is characterized by the discovery and death of Osama bin Laden in May 2011, when he was discovered and killed by the US forces in Pakistan.  As the US sidelines Pakistan (state-actor) but elevates the political significance of the Taliban (non-state actor and insurgent), one may wonder if insurgent groups in Pakistan or other regions would see Taliban as a role-model, and hence believe that if they are powerful enough, they will have the bargaining- power to directly negotiate with other states, particularly with the major powers. This reasoning of course suggests that more intense military competition among insurgent groups would be resulted and the stability in these regions would deteriorate.

photo from the CNN

Just as the Republicans are busily attacking each other, Obama is busily building his campaign apparatus “behind the scenes”. As this CNN article suggests, “As the GOP primary race goes into its third official month, the biggest winner appears to be the president.” This sentiment is further bolstered by the recent poll showing that Obama’s job approval rating is nearly 50%, the first time in months.  

It seems to me that as the Super PACs have made Americans be bombarded with all those attack advertisements, the public have now come to generalize Republican candidates less as individual candidates, but more as a group that is characterized by infighting and “dirty-work”. This situation is of course favorable to Obama, for it allows him to focus on building his campaign rather than on engaging in (unnecessary) bickering. Meanwhile, the negative public perception of the GOP is expected to help differentiate Obama as a public-oriented candidate.

Just as various polls suggest that Obama’s support has surpassed that of his Republican opponents, one may forget the fact that Obama has also openly endorsed the Super PACs. However, Obama’s’s position is different from that of the Republicans. Instead of courting donations from billionaires, Obama targets the grassroots for small donations. As such, Obama has framed his support for the Super PACs as not only a pragmatic tactic, but also as a kind of grassroots mobilization, which seeks to maintain the very people-powered politics.

Although Obama’s support from independent voters has now rebounded, it is too early to conclude that he will be the winner in the election. This is because the Republicans will be more able to consolidate their power and compete with Obama once they have their nominee elected. Nonetheless, the backfire of Super PACs against the Republicans at this stage is an interesting reflection that too much competition, especially within a party, would ironically divert public support away.

Because of my fascination with the International Criminal Court (ICC), I have long heard the name of Joseph Kony, who was prosecuted by the ICC in 2005 (and if I recall correctly, this is the ICC’s first prosecution).

However, I didn’t know there is a Kony 2012 movement until yesterday, when my friend posts it on his blog. In his post, he talks about how amazed he is by the power of the social media and the benign intention of the movement, which is to make Kony “famous, not to celebrate him, but to raise support for his arrest and set a precedent for international justice. In this case, notoriety translates to public support.”

I decided to check out the video he posted, and I found it uncomfortable. What made me uncomfortable is not the “white man narrative “(or neo-colonialism as we call it). In fact, even when I am not a white person, I find it annoying when people always criticize the intentions of white people. I agree that although some of these movements may be underlay by egoism (that the whites are saviors), it does have the intention to solve the problems in the regions, and these problems are not ill-founded.

What discourages me from supporting the movement, however, is the ultimate goal of the movement: to keep (/to have more) American troops in Uganda to help arrest Joseph Kony. To me, this is frustrating because once again the US only knows how to help through its military forces. Although geopolitics has taught me that sovereignty has never been entirely owned by the host state but shared by a variety of actors (e.g. NGO, foreign trade partners and etc.), I still find placing American troops in Uganda as problematic, because it openly legitimizes the infringement of Ugandan sovereignty. As well, why does the movement believe that American troops, which are not familiar with the geographical conditions in Uganda, would help arrest Joseph Kony?

Finally, although I understand that the movement is an “experiment,” which aims to reshape the contemporary discourse by portraying notorious Joseph Kony as a pop cultural figure, their tactics make me uncomfortable……I have a hard time rejecting the chance that people would see this Kony 2012 movement as a “trend”, rather than a problem they should strive to solve.

In my opinion, the American public should pressure the US to support (or more preferable, join) the ICC, which is now headed by an African women and whose membership is dominated by African states. I believe it is the best for African states to cooperate on arresting Joseph Kony, and not to be intervened on the issue.

Blog (and therefore its posts) that I like: No hesitation in answering – Justice in Conflict (JiC)!

JiC talks about international criminal justice through reporting and analyzing the work of international human rights organizations (mostly in Africa). My favorite blogs are those on the International Criminal Court (ICC) – an international organization which intrigues me the most.

My lately favorite post is the one in which Mark Kersten defends the ICC as not a “racist” institution (an accusation raised by African states), whose cases always are aimed at Africa but whose membership is composed of a high number of African signatories. Kersten gathers defenses of the ICC by its proponents. Among them the most convincing one is the quote from William Schabas:

“The root of the problem is not an obsession with Africa but rather a slow but perceptive shift of the Court away from the apparent independence shown in its early years towards a rather compliant relationship with the Security Council and the great powers.”

However, although Kersten has the same stance as all these defenses, he considers them as not convincing enough, because they ignore the fundamental contradictory behaviors of African signatories:

“If the Court is racist, then it holds that African states have supported and engaged in a racist process. The racist critique would suggest that these African states have been somehow fooled into joining the Court by duplicitous, white, Western states. But who truly believes that states like South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, etc. are, to put it bluntly, that stupid? What African state would willingly join a Court that was racist against it?”

As such, he concludes by arguing,

“But to call (the ICC) racist is not only wrong, it deflects from the real problems facing international criminal justice.”

I really like how Kersten not only defends the ICC but also seeks to find out the problems of existing discourses. A lot of times our perception on an issue gets influenced subconsciously by the language used by people/media. This problem is often addressed by JiC (and Kersten), which aims to unfold underlying messages in these discourses by analyzing various arguments for/against a stance.

***************************************************************************

Blog (and sometimes its posts) that I dislike: David Bosco on Foreign Policy

I believe that David Bosco is an intelligent man, but for unknown reason he tends to cite others’ comments without elaborating on them and providing his stances. I wonder if that is because he submits posts on a daily basis and therefore his blog is more about gathering arguments rather than providing its own. However, if that’s the case, I find his blog quite unsatisfactory (here I share Aim’s sentiment: I want to read MORE!).

For example, Bosco posted about Hilary Clinton’s comments on referring Syria to the ICC (yes the ICC again 🙂 ), in which Clinton suggests that declaring  President Bashar al-Assad as a war criminal might “complicate a resolution of a difficult complex situation because it limits options to persuade leaders perhaps to step down from power.”

Bosco suggests Clinton’s comment reflects that “the United States doesn’t see international justice as helpful in the Syrian context”

This is a hasty statement, given Clinton has already mentioned that she is not opposed to declaring Al-Assad as a war criminal, but is aware of the repercussions of such attempt. Besides, Bosco does not seem to be impartial to argue that the U.S. as a whole sees international justice as unhelpful in the Syrian case just because of Clinton’s comment.  It would be more convincing to argue such by providing statements of other U.S. officials and actions of the U.S.

 Hong Kong moms protesting

I have been hearing on the news that the Citizenship and Immigration Canada is trying to halt “birth tourism”, a term which refers to “the practice of travelling to Canada to give birth so that child can have Canadian citizenship.” Read more…..

ERGH!!!!! I have enough of these kinds of news!!!! The same thing is happening in Hong Kong. Moms from China go to Hong Kong just weeks before their labour (and sometimes they overstay illegally), so when they give birth their children can have Hong Kong citizenship, and they will be more eligible to legally immigrate to Hong Kong.

We, who are Chinese but often define ourselves as “Hong Kong people”,  are of course irritated by these Chinese moms………………..They get our welfare without ever having contributed to our city (and lots of them are mistresses of Hong Kong men). Hong Kong moms are angrier, because now they face intense competition with these Chinese moms for medical services. I recall the news that there were not enough beds for moms to labour in public hospitals because of the high number of incoming Chinese moms.

Compared to Canada, I find the situation in Hong Kong more heartbreaking. Although we are both Chinese, Hong Kong people always condemn people from China for taking advantage of our welfare without having contributed (me being one of them?)……..Chinese people are even named “worms” by Hong Kong people (not include me)……………………….

I am so sick of this topic because I feel like just this group of “rotten” ones has ruined the integrity and dignity of the Chinese majority. However, I ask myself, would I do the same if I were not born in Hong Kong, but in less-developed China? Would I do the same if I knew it is so easy to give a better future to my children?

This is a question I think we should all ask ourselves when judging immigrants…although there should be no leeway for anyone to immigrate illegally/take advantage of immigration law’s loopholes just because of his/her situations, I believe we should have a bit of empathy when looking at the issue.

I don’t want to say anything bad against my own people. All I hope is that China will become more developed, so its people will be satisfied with what they have and see no need to emigrate. And if they emigrate, I hope they will be the ones contributing to the host country.

The EU plans to incrementally lift sanctions on Myanmar in order to reward its democratic reforms, in which a civilian administration took office in the former Burma after decades of army rule last March.  In fact, EU has already lifted travel bans against Myanmar’s president and other officials, and has proposed to ease a series of sanctions against its firms and institutions. However, the implementation of such proposal is largely dependent on the result of the April by-election, and mostly likely only promising if the opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi will be elected.

To me, democracy is about self-determination at not only national but also international level. I mean, a country should enjoy its sovereignty when deciding what the best is for its citizens. Therefore, I like the idea that Myanmar’s future is still dependent on the country itself, rather than on foreign interventions, although I understand that Myanmar has the right to sovereignty only because its democratic transition is now more hopeful than before and than other countries like Libya and Syria.

It has been hard for me to look at authoritarian countries and countries undergoing democratic transitions. Probably because I don’t have the personal experience of being repressed by a regime, I tend to look at these countries at the national level, and therefore find the very need to safeguard sovereignty.  Therefore, in cases of Libya and Syria, I find myself wanting to oppose foreign interventions, which are supported by the majority. Now, the EU’s position in the Myanmar’s case has comforted me because no one is framing interventions as “necessary” for the country’s democratic transition. However, I cannot help but to think about what would happen if the by-election in April will have intolerable faults…..although I think no matter how bad the situation will be, it won’t raise support for foreign interventions as intense as in the cases of Libya and Syria. Still, no one wants failed elections, and I think one of the ways to prevent such from happening is to have more intergovernmental organizations and/or major powers provide incentives for Myanmar’s democratic transition before the election.

Read more…