Mandy @ POLI 333D

“South Korean conservative activists chant slogans in Seoul on Saturday denouncing North Korea’s announcement of a planned satellite launch.” from CNN.

Last week, North Korea announced its plan to launch a rocket-powered satellite (similar to that used in its ballistic missile program) in April. This announcement has undoubtedly destroyed the hope arose from the bilateral agreement between North Korea and the U.S. on February 29. Along with other requirements, the agreement requires the country to freeze its uranium enrichment program in return for food aid.

Besides destroying the hope, the North Korean announcement has overshadowed the upcoming international nuclear security summit, which is hosted by South Korea.

While I am skeptical about the effectiveness of this summit in containing nuclear proliferation (but not in polarizing North Korea-South Korean relations), what disturbs me the most is that:

“South Korea has said it considers the satellite launch an attempt to develop a nuclear-armed missile, while the United States has warned the move would jeopardize a food-aid agreement reached with Pyongyang in early March.”

I understand the U.S. may have exhausted its solutions to contain North Korea’s potential nuclear programs, but it still upsets me that the people may need to bear the costs of their government’s actions….which they never have a say in.

Tags: No Comments.

So we just talked about different kinds of repression in class today. In the context of China, one of the most prevalent kinds is of course the political repression of freedom of expression…

This Wall Street Journal’s article talks about how China’s social-media services have started cracking down on searches for anything in regard to Bo Xilai (who was removed from the CCP last Wednesday), as well as how Chinese Internet users have tried to outsmart the censorship system.

 “Chinese Internet users are searching alternative terms to get around censors for mroe on Bo Xilai’s ouster, coup rumors and a Ferrari crash.”

Seeing how innovative the Chinese can be in outsmarting the censorship system, my (/our) belief that in the long-run authoritarianism would not win is bolstered. As long as people have the will to participate politically, they will strive to organize collective actions despite all the restraints. While the success of outsmarting the censorship system is unknown at this point, we can see that many Chinese are not apolitical and are actively pursuing their freedom of expression. In sum, I believe that if grass-roots movements are persistent and adroit enough, they will have the potential to overthrow a repressive regime.

Meanwhile, stepping up the censorship system at this early stage appears to me that, the CCP is demonstrating its resolution to remain authoritarian.  The CCP’s overreaction to the issue seems to me as an irony. Given on the same day of Bo Xilai’s ouster, Premier Wen Jaibo gave a speech at the National People’s Congress annual session to (once again) express his endorsement for democratization of China (which he claimed needs to be implemented gradually because of China’s immature social and economic conditions). While I do not mean Mr. Wen was paying lip-service, I feel like we really need not take the claims of political leaders too seriously (and sadly I believe this acknowledgement may apply to democracies too….)

Tags: 4 Comments

As I was eating my breakfast, I was really worried that this video is about using panda POO to make tea (given the video’s name is “Panda poo tea goes for big bucks”)…..but thanks God…this is about using panda POO as fertilizer to plant tea leaves…..

So what is the selling-point of panda poo tea?

Scientifically, it is argued that  tea leaves fertilized by panda poo is good for your health because pandas digest less than 30% of the bamboo they eat,  and therefore their poo is a rich fertilizer.

To warm up myself for the next mini assign, I find two fallacies in this case of panda poo tea.   First, there is an untested assumption that nutrition from the panda poo fertilizer would be completely absorbed by the tea leaves. Second, the fact that food eaten cannot be totally digested applies to all animals including humans. Why is panda poo more valuable than other animals’ is just mysterious.

I think it is obvious that using panda poo as fertilizer is a “hype” (and please notice the company owner’s panda hoodie……) I believe there is only one difference between panda poo tea and normal tea: their prices.

*Talking about poo is so not lady-like, I am sorry.

Tags: No Comments.

Definition of digital democracy: a “bottom-up” approach which concerns with the creation of new citizens’ discussion and deliberation, and sites for mobilization and action.

Question: Can new technologies help or hurt democracy around the world?

Answer: In my opinion, they would help democracy.

*****************************This is because************************

On the citizens’ side, digital democracy promotes

1)      Lower cost of deliberative participation and wider range of possible engagement

First, technologies make public participation more direct but expansive. For example, the convenience of electronic voting may encourage a wider scope of citizens to vote. Also, with its easily available and universally accessible nature (most of the time), technologies provide citizens with opportunities to place questions on the agenda of political issues. By the same token, such interactive systems of telecommunication make it possible for citizens to participate in discussion with experts, policymakers, and fellow citizens. The result is that democracy can be furthered by a greater scope of public political participation.

2)       Transparency of information

Second, technologies allow for more transparency in terms of information dissemination, thus providing a foundation for formal and productive political debates. The non-exclusionary nature of internet (again, most of the time) also promotes plurality of media. Consequently, transparent and wide-spread information dissemination enfeebles centralized monopoly by providing the public information for effective political participation.

3)       Sources of political mobilization

Finally, as citizens can now utilize the internet to form associational bonds (among themselves and with their governments) and to create open public spaces, they are enabled to mobilize their movements, and to communicate with better representatives.  In terms of the latter, incidents such as the Arab Spring prove to us the power of internet for political mobilization.

On the governments’ side, digital democracy promotes

1)       Responsiveness and accountability of democratic governments

While we often see technologies as beneficial to grass-roots political mobilization, technologies can also enhance responsiveness and accountability of democratic governments. For example, there have been many democratic government initiatives to put key documents online, as a means to improve understanding of social policy entitlements through the use of web-based information, and to seek voter opinion on a wide range of public questions.

Downsides of digital democracy 

Despite my endorsement for digital democracy, I recognize the concerns about the harm technologies (and in particular the internet) can do to democracy. As far as I know, these concerns include 1) the truth of the information on the internet is hard to be judged, 2) the media may be manipulated to perpetuate particular political messages, and 3) people with no access to these technologies will be marginalized. While these concerns are all valid, I believe that the democratic potential of technologies can counter-balance, and even outweigh, these problems. While in democracies, the universal nature of the internet has allowed people to evaluate various information they encounter on the internet, in non-democracies, people with technological know-how can often find their ways to use technologies for political mobilization. Again, the Arab Spring is an example.

Meanwhile, although the divide between people who have/ have no access to technologies still exists, it has become less extreme (especially when NGOs have been actively creating internet centers in developing countries). On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that digital democracy should be used to complement, rather than to substitute the conventional ways of political participation (such as reading newspapers, going to conferences and voting). By considering digital democracy as a complement rather substitute for conventional political participation, one would reach the conclusion that it would help democracy.

Tags: 5 Comments

In his last National People’s Congress, Mr Wen mentioned “the need for political reform in one-party, authoritarian China.” Once again, I wonder if these speeches, that China also aspires to be a democracy but it takes time, are just for reinforcing diplomatic ties with the Western powers (i.e. lip-service), especially when the authoritarian rule in China shows no sign to diminish. Besides, given Mr. Wen is retiring, it is questionable whether his speech represents the view of the CCP and bears any political influence.

Tags: 2 Comments

Photo from CNN

Since the famine in the mid-1990s, North Koreans have been compelled to grow and sometimes illegally sell their own food. Accommodated by the lenient attitude of the government to restrict private enterprise’s activities, a free market has been made possible. As a result, a “new, relatively wealthy middle class” has been created.

Just as one think that the current improvement of socio-economic status of North Koreans would help create an environment more conducive to democratic transition, the term “the Pyongyang Illusion” suggests a less optimistic view.  The term claims that although Pyongyang is more prosperous than foreigners expect it to be, its “well-being may be inversely correlated with the fate of the rest of the country, as resources are poured into the city at the expense of everyone else.” Because of this uneven distribution of resources (which are often spent inefficiently as patronage), the country’s overall economy and living standards suffer.

Indeed, the idea of the Pyongyang illusion is consistent with the fact that provincial cities still show grim living standards in contrast to that in Pyongyang and that the overall North Korean economy shrank by 0.5% in 2010.

Despite the Pyongyang illusion’s pessimistic view on North Korean economic development, the prosperity in Pyongyang may allow the population, particularly the new middle-class, to gain a glimpse what prosperity means and be inspired by the freedom of choice in democratic countries. With their increased purchasing power and interactions with incoming cultures, it is expected that they will have a greater aspiration to take control of their own-life and hence the larger society. For the poor, who makes up the largest proportion of the population, representing themselves in politics is still a far future because of their lack of the financial capability and skills to mobilize movements. Nonetheless, it is hoped that by witnessing the unequal distribution of resources, the poor will be less submissive to the government than they were in the past, and be more aspired to organize themselves as a collective entity, whose interests need to be represented and respected.

Tags: 2 Comments

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.

Tags: 2 Comments

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.

Tags: 3 Comments

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.

Tags: 3 Comments

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.

Tags: 1 Comment