- Meghan Lenchyshyn
Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2006 blockbuster hit “Blood Diamond,” like many films of its ilk, has raised the awareness of the general population to a fading memory in the international community, in this case, that of conflict diamonds. The term “blood” or “conflict” diamond is used to describe diamonds that are mined in war zones and sold typically to finance the war effort of an insurgent army. These clashes cause much insecurity in diamond-rich African countries and though much of the international community believes the problem to be under control, current statistics prove otherwise.
The mining of conflict diamonds has occurred predominantly in the nations of Angola, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It has occurred both during times of war, and has been a chief contributor and aggravator of violence.
In Angola, diamonds were used during civil war as a means of funding the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola. Sierra Leone, is perhaps the most publicized example of atrocities committed in regards to this illicit trade, and it tells a similar story to that of Angola, with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) funded in part by the diamond trade in their attempts to overthrow the government. Children and adults alike had their hands chopped off by RUF rebels and were often taken prisoner and forced to work as slaves in the mining camps. Another disturbing trend that became publicized in this conflict is that of child soldiers that were trained to kill and forced to become RUF soldiers.
Civil war in both Angola and Sierra Leone has since ceased, and both countries are said to be legitimate members of the diamond trade, however problems continue to persist in the Ivory Coast, where civil war is still occurring. The Ivory Coast is used and seen as a valuable route for exporting rough diamonds from Liberia to Sierra Leone.
Rebel forces take advantage of the high demand for diamonds by traders and consumers in the United States, United Kingdom, and Western Europe. Insurgent forces require money in order to purchase weapons and ammunition to further their cause, and the illicit trading of diamonds provides these factions with the revenue to finance their operations. Indeed, chief arms suppliers, such as the Germans, Russian and Chinese, are complicit with this trade, most notably the latter.
This same trade has also been used to fund organizations outside of Africa, and alleged links with Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda persist. Hezbollah has reportedly used Lebanese presence in western and central Africa in order to finance its operations. As well, there is much speculation that money laundered from diamond trading helped al-Qaeda fund the 9/11 attacks after many of their assets were frozen. It is alleged that Osama Bin laden focused Al-Qaeda’s activities in Liberia, and bought diamonds and other gems from Liberia and RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Global Witness reports that Al-Qaeda laundered an estimated twenty million dollars through the purchase of African diamonds - both the Liberian government and Al-Qaeda unswervingly deny these allegations.
There have been procedures implemented to prevent the perpetuation of conflict through diamond trading, and in 2002, the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) had forty-five signatories attach themselves to the program. The KPCS states that all diamonds must have an authentic certificate of origin, in order to be able to distinguish legitimate diamonds from conflict diamonds. This certification also assures diamond purchasers that they have not contributed to the violence. There is also legislation in place outlining penalties such as criminal charges for countries violating the KPCS.
While the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is indeed a step in the right direction in eliminating conflict diamonds from entering the international market, the question of how successful and therefore effective it has been remains very much up for debate. The KPCS has reduced though in no way eliminated the trade in conflict diamonds. Global Witness states that the diamond industry is falsely claiming the problem has been solved with the KPCS however, once a diamond is on the market, it is difficult, if not impossible, to trace its origin. A report released by the United Nations in September 2006 exhibits the ways in which weak government controls have allowed twenty-three million US dollars in conflict diamonds to enter trade through Ghana annually.
While many African countries that were formerly problematic have since entered the realm of legitimate diamond trading and production, there is still a large portion of trading being done illicitly by rebel forces in both the DRC and the Ivory Coast. Many of these diamonds, like much legal trade, find their way into the market through traditional colonial trade routes and networks, and perhaps it is these avenues that need to be concentrated on to further stfle the industry.
Consumers can do their part by ensuring the place they get their diamonds from has a set, clear policy on conflict diamonds. As well, purchasing conflict-free diamonds that have been domestically produced (as in Canada) is another way of helping to ensure that unwitting buyers are not contributing to the problem. Governments, non-governmental organizations, diamond traders, and civil society must all play a role in efforts to help end the trading of conflict diamonds.
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
From Miami to Cuba: Cuban Relations After Castro
- Vanessa Johnston
The Cuban exile community in the United States often long for their beloved island and culture that they were forced to flee. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to recreate this in their new homes on the south coast of the United States. They remember the beauty, their families, and those famous dance rhythms made popular around the globe, amongst other things. Miami is now replete with families whose lives were thrown into turmoil by Castro’s 1959 revolution and who, from time to time, fantasize about returning to the small island just 228 miles away. Their memories however, belie the current reality and with recent questions arising in regards to Castro’s health, the exile community must now face seriously consider whether or not relations between the severed populations, whose politics differ but who share a love of the same country, can mend after the elder Castro’s reign.
Since Fidel Castro’s Cuba defeated the U.S. invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1960, Miami and Cuba have become settled in the post-revolution era. Exiles have defiantly condemned Castro’s vision and fervently supported the U.S. embargo on the communist state, while those remaining on the island have just as firmly supported their leader, 70% of whom today have known no other.
No event could have defined this feud more than the 1996 custody battle over Elian Gonzales, a young Cuban boy who miraculously washed-up on the shores of Miami, having survived the treacherous journey overseas when most of the others, including his mother, hadn‘t. His fate, whether or not he’d be returned to Cuba, became a symbol of political ideals- and the fact that he was eventually returned to his father back home, was regarded as a major victory for Fidel.
When Fidel overthrew General Fulgencio Batista’s government, his first victory, it was premised on the notion that Cuba would no longer be subject to American imperialism, a force that has devastated countries throughout Latin America. His fan club, including fellow foe of the United States, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, commend him for his brave efforts to defend his country and for successfully providing free education and health care to his people, something not even the U.S. has managed to do. However, a revolution that began with a noble purpose has soured over time; freedom of the press is essentially non-existent and poverty is so rampant that many are forced to turn to the black market or to risk their life crossing the dangerous waters to the U.S. border.
A seasoned 80 years old, Fidel Castro is currently recuperating from surgery he underwent in July to stop intestinal bleeding. Since the announcement of his illness and subsequent transfer of power to his brother Raul Castro, the state of the long-standing leader’s health has been kept a state secret. While U.S. leaders feverishly speculate about his health status, especially since he failed to appear for his 80th birthday festivities, Cuban exiles in Miami are unsurprisingly celebratory. Although there are no concrete answers about Cuba’s future, they at least appreciate that the man who is responsible for dividing their families and driving them from their homeland has, at best, limited days left in power.
For the long estranged Cuban exile community, the opportunity to return to Cuba, if only to visit, must seem tantalizingly close. However the reunion between Miami-based Cubans and Cubans living on the island is unlikely to be a smooth one; some Cubans have expressed fears that rich inhabitants of Miami will take-over or attempt to regain the land they lost during the revolution. And although the transition of power has gone over quietly in Cuba, the exile community seriously doubts that the Raul Castro-led administration can survive without Fidel.
Will Cuba shed its communist ideals and turn its back on a revolution that has failed to provide economic stability or will it continue to fight for Castro’s anti-capitalist, anti-American vision? While that remains to be seen, one thing is certain: half a century of fighting between the exile community and Cuba’s denizens has had dire consequences for relations among Cubans. The psychological wounds of such a long and bitter separation will be hard to heal, and the hopes of nostalgic exiles that Cuba will be exactly as they remembered are fragile- for Castro’s revolution has forever changed Cuba and the divided families who love it.
The Cuban exile community in the United States often long for their beloved island and culture that they were forced to flee. Despite their best efforts, they were unable to recreate this in their new homes on the south coast of the United States. They remember the beauty, their families, and those famous dance rhythms made popular around the globe, amongst other things. Miami is now replete with families whose lives were thrown into turmoil by Castro’s 1959 revolution and who, from time to time, fantasize about returning to the small island just 228 miles away. Their memories however, belie the current reality and with recent questions arising in regards to Castro’s health, the exile community must now face seriously consider whether or not relations between the severed populations, whose politics differ but who share a love of the same country, can mend after the elder Castro’s reign.
Since Fidel Castro’s Cuba defeated the U.S. invasion at the Bay of Pigs in 1960, Miami and Cuba have become settled in the post-revolution era. Exiles have defiantly condemned Castro’s vision and fervently supported the U.S. embargo on the communist state, while those remaining on the island have just as firmly supported their leader, 70% of whom today have known no other.
No event could have defined this feud more than the 1996 custody battle over Elian Gonzales, a young Cuban boy who miraculously washed-up on the shores of Miami, having survived the treacherous journey overseas when most of the others, including his mother, hadn‘t. His fate, whether or not he’d be returned to Cuba, became a symbol of political ideals- and the fact that he was eventually returned to his father back home, was regarded as a major victory for Fidel.
When Fidel overthrew General Fulgencio Batista’s government, his first victory, it was premised on the notion that Cuba would no longer be subject to American imperialism, a force that has devastated countries throughout Latin America. His fan club, including fellow foe of the United States, Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, commend him for his brave efforts to defend his country and for successfully providing free education and health care to his people, something not even the U.S. has managed to do. However, a revolution that began with a noble purpose has soured over time; freedom of the press is essentially non-existent and poverty is so rampant that many are forced to turn to the black market or to risk their life crossing the dangerous waters to the U.S. border.
A seasoned 80 years old, Fidel Castro is currently recuperating from surgery he underwent in July to stop intestinal bleeding. Since the announcement of his illness and subsequent transfer of power to his brother Raul Castro, the state of the long-standing leader’s health has been kept a state secret. While U.S. leaders feverishly speculate about his health status, especially since he failed to appear for his 80th birthday festivities, Cuban exiles in Miami are unsurprisingly celebratory. Although there are no concrete answers about Cuba’s future, they at least appreciate that the man who is responsible for dividing their families and driving them from their homeland has, at best, limited days left in power.
For the long estranged Cuban exile community, the opportunity to return to Cuba, if only to visit, must seem tantalizingly close. However the reunion between Miami-based Cubans and Cubans living on the island is unlikely to be a smooth one; some Cubans have expressed fears that rich inhabitants of Miami will take-over or attempt to regain the land they lost during the revolution. And although the transition of power has gone over quietly in Cuba, the exile community seriously doubts that the Raul Castro-led administration can survive without Fidel.
Will Cuba shed its communist ideals and turn its back on a revolution that has failed to provide economic stability or will it continue to fight for Castro’s anti-capitalist, anti-American vision? While that remains to be seen, one thing is certain: half a century of fighting between the exile community and Cuba’s denizens has had dire consequences for relations among Cubans. The psychological wounds of such a long and bitter separation will be hard to heal, and the hopes of nostalgic exiles that Cuba will be exactly as they remembered are fragile- for Castro’s revolution has forever changed Cuba and the divided families who love it.
Chavez and Ahmedinajad: An Unlikely Alliance?
- Meghan Lenchyshyn
With tensions continuing to grow in virtually ever corner of the Middle East, it is not surprising that leaders of countries in this part of the world might begin to look elsewhere for new alliances and trading partners. Anti-American sentiment is as strong as ever and with it comes the desire to disassociate from all things American. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has been vocally doing just that, perpetuated by his choice of alliances. As of late, Ahmedinajad has allied himself with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in an attempt to further polarize Iran and Venezuela, as well as other developing nations of the world, from what they perceive as the American imperialist agenda.
Recently, Iran’s political leader embarked upon a four day Latin American tour. During this tour, Ahmedinajad and Chavez agreed to contribute billions of dollars in order to help other countries free themselves from “US domination.” Chavez states that the fund is a “mechanism for liberation”, allowing Tehran and Caracas to “underpin investments above all in those countries whose governments are making an effort to liberate themselves from the US imperialist yoke”. In addition, both leaders have called for OPEC to cut oil production as a means of supporting falling crude oil prices.
Ahmedinajad stated that “Tehran and Caracas have the task of promoting revolutionary thought in the world” and Iran is attempting to demonstrate to the international community that it has support from other nations. Engaging other nations, especially Latin American countries as well as those in opposition to the United States, has always been part of Chavez’s agenda, and this newly formed alliance with Ahmedinajad can be viewed as a step towards no longer having to rely on the United States and the West.
So what, then, does this friendship mean for the United States? Chavez has openly and, might I add very outspokenly, stated his unabashed support for Iran’s nuclear program. By allying himself with Ahmedinajad, Chavez is essentially placing Iran in America’s backyard. Clear correlations can be drawn between the Castro-Krushchev relationship of the 1960’s, and the current Iran-Venezuela alliance, and serve to revive polarizing tensions. This is very much a case of the enemies of the United States utilizing that same weapon of absolutism as does the current US administration. While neither are really a menace to the well being of the US, they factor into an overall climate of insecurity.
At the end of the day, what we have is two revolutionaries blowing hot air. Neither country has any real belief that they can remove the US or the West from power, they seek merely to place themselves in direct opposition to the US, gain legitimacy as advocates of change in the Third World, and thus can no longer be pushed around in the international arena. And, after the Iraqi misadventure, can you blame them?
With tensions continuing to grow in virtually ever corner of the Middle East, it is not surprising that leaders of countries in this part of the world might begin to look elsewhere for new alliances and trading partners. Anti-American sentiment is as strong as ever and with it comes the desire to disassociate from all things American. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has been vocally doing just that, perpetuated by his choice of alliances. As of late, Ahmedinajad has allied himself with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in an attempt to further polarize Iran and Venezuela, as well as other developing nations of the world, from what they perceive as the American imperialist agenda.
Recently, Iran’s political leader embarked upon a four day Latin American tour. During this tour, Ahmedinajad and Chavez agreed to contribute billions of dollars in order to help other countries free themselves from “US domination.” Chavez states that the fund is a “mechanism for liberation”, allowing Tehran and Caracas to “underpin investments above all in those countries whose governments are making an effort to liberate themselves from the US imperialist yoke”. In addition, both leaders have called for OPEC to cut oil production as a means of supporting falling crude oil prices.
Ahmedinajad stated that “Tehran and Caracas have the task of promoting revolutionary thought in the world” and Iran is attempting to demonstrate to the international community that it has support from other nations. Engaging other nations, especially Latin American countries as well as those in opposition to the United States, has always been part of Chavez’s agenda, and this newly formed alliance with Ahmedinajad can be viewed as a step towards no longer having to rely on the United States and the West.
So what, then, does this friendship mean for the United States? Chavez has openly and, might I add very outspokenly, stated his unabashed support for Iran’s nuclear program. By allying himself with Ahmedinajad, Chavez is essentially placing Iran in America’s backyard. Clear correlations can be drawn between the Castro-Krushchev relationship of the 1960’s, and the current Iran-Venezuela alliance, and serve to revive polarizing tensions. This is very much a case of the enemies of the United States utilizing that same weapon of absolutism as does the current US administration. While neither are really a menace to the well being of the US, they factor into an overall climate of insecurity.
At the end of the day, what we have is two revolutionaries blowing hot air. Neither country has any real belief that they can remove the US or the West from power, they seek merely to place themselves in direct opposition to the US, gain legitimacy as advocates of change in the Third World, and thus can no longer be pushed around in the international arena. And, after the Iraqi misadventure, can you blame them?
Monday, January 1, 2007
The Internet & Net Neutrality - Time to Pay Attention
- Daniel Bernal
It’s been a year and a half since the Net Neutrality (NN) trumpets started blowing. In the summer of 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – our southern-neighbours version of the Canada Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) – decided to drop the regulations regarding NN, opting instead for “suggested principles.” The monopolists (The Bell Globe Media’s and AT&T’s) lobbying paid off. Back in 2002, cable providers fared similarly. The argument put forward is that older regulations were obsolete for new technologies, and thus the principle of Net Neutrality was dropped. This was the start of what could be called “the two-tiered internet paranoia,” and showed that the fear of ISP content regulation had become very much a reality.
Advocates of NN in the United States, mostly all under the banner of the organization Save the Internet.com, started fighting to bring the standards back, while the other side claimed regulation was pointless. And so we’ve lived the last year and a half in the midst of uncertainty while the US Congress argued about the future of the net.
In Canada, apart from our gullibility and apparent apathy about the huge issue of monopolies regulating the Internet, the situation isn’t much different.
What is interesting about the American NN scene is that their advocacy campaigns consistently cite NN violations that have occurred in Canada. ISPs north of the border have already played around with our (the consumer’s) data-packets to serve their interests.
In 2005, during a Telus Workers Union strike, the company decided to block its users from access to pro-union websites, or sites hosted o the same server. Not only did this action directly affect the organization of the Union but harmed businesses at the same location.
Many ISPs are also the biggest phone companies in the country. The emergence of Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony technologies has bothered traditional phone companies. As such, VoIP service providers such as Skype or Vonage, enterprises that could have only arises thanks to neutrality of the net and faster speeds, are facing increasing barriers.
Shaw cable has allocated a portion of its bandwith specifically to its own VoIP service under the label of a “managed network.” They have also introduced “quality of service” fees, whereby the costumer is asked to pay an additional $10 to ensure the connection is stable enough to carry out VoIP activities. Such fees are nothing but coercion from the provider, in this case Shaw, to force the consumer to pay an extra $10 or use Shaw’s VoIP service.
Interestingly enough, both advocates for and against net neutrality word their campaigns as a fight for democracy and the freedom of the marketplace. The question one should naturally ask is whose democracy and whose freedom?
Those against the cause, such as U.S. Republican Senator for South Carolina Jim DeMint, say that NN just means government regulation would stop Cable and telephone companies to operate in a fair field of competition, forcing them to abandon their investment in the infrastructure that would offer the consumer the service it’s asking for.
On the other hand, Lawrence Lessig, law professor at Stanford and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Democracy, tells us that the debate is about “the internet starting to look a lot like cable companies (…) where a few players would control access and distribution of content.”
Art Brodsky, who works for Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C. based group that works on telecommunications and intellectual property issues, explains that the cable and telephone operators have framed the NN argument in terms of big players like them fighting against big internet companies like Yahoo or Google. However, he assures us that the fight is not about that. It is about the next Google or Yahoo, and ensuring the start-ups have the opportunity to take a chunk of the market and grow with it.
Background & Research
Save The Internet
A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users
Battle over "Net Neutrality" arrives in Canada (CBC) - Nov 2, 2006
What is Net Neutrality? (YouTube)
Keeping the Net Neutral
It’s been a year and a half since the Net Neutrality (NN) trumpets started blowing. In the summer of 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – our southern-neighbours version of the Canada Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) – decided to drop the regulations regarding NN, opting instead for “suggested principles.” The monopolists (The Bell Globe Media’s and AT&T’s) lobbying paid off. Back in 2002, cable providers fared similarly. The argument put forward is that older regulations were obsolete for new technologies, and thus the principle of Net Neutrality was dropped. This was the start of what could be called “the two-tiered internet paranoia,” and showed that the fear of ISP content regulation had become very much a reality.
Advocates of NN in the United States, mostly all under the banner of the organization Save the Internet.com, started fighting to bring the standards back, while the other side claimed regulation was pointless. And so we’ve lived the last year and a half in the midst of uncertainty while the US Congress argued about the future of the net.
In Canada, apart from our gullibility and apparent apathy about the huge issue of monopolies regulating the Internet, the situation isn’t much different.
What is interesting about the American NN scene is that their advocacy campaigns consistently cite NN violations that have occurred in Canada. ISPs north of the border have already played around with our (the consumer’s) data-packets to serve their interests.
In 2005, during a Telus Workers Union strike, the company decided to block its users from access to pro-union websites, or sites hosted o the same server. Not only did this action directly affect the organization of the Union but harmed businesses at the same location.
Many ISPs are also the biggest phone companies in the country. The emergence of Voice over IP (VoIP) telephony technologies has bothered traditional phone companies. As such, VoIP service providers such as Skype or Vonage, enterprises that could have only arises thanks to neutrality of the net and faster speeds, are facing increasing barriers.
Shaw cable has allocated a portion of its bandwith specifically to its own VoIP service under the label of a “managed network.” They have also introduced “quality of service” fees, whereby the costumer is asked to pay an additional $10 to ensure the connection is stable enough to carry out VoIP activities. Such fees are nothing but coercion from the provider, in this case Shaw, to force the consumer to pay an extra $10 or use Shaw’s VoIP service.
Interestingly enough, both advocates for and against net neutrality word their campaigns as a fight for democracy and the freedom of the marketplace. The question one should naturally ask is whose democracy and whose freedom?
Those against the cause, such as U.S. Republican Senator for South Carolina Jim DeMint, say that NN just means government regulation would stop Cable and telephone companies to operate in a fair field of competition, forcing them to abandon their investment in the infrastructure that would offer the consumer the service it’s asking for.
On the other hand, Lawrence Lessig, law professor at Stanford and founder of the school’s Center for Internet and Democracy, tells us that the debate is about “the internet starting to look a lot like cable companies (…) where a few players would control access and distribution of content.”
Art Brodsky, who works for Public Knowledge, a Washington D.C. based group that works on telecommunications and intellectual property issues, explains that the cable and telephone operators have framed the NN argument in terms of big players like them fighting against big internet companies like Yahoo or Google. However, he assures us that the fight is not about that. It is about the next Google or Yahoo, and ensuring the start-ups have the opportunity to take a chunk of the market and grow with it.
Background & Research
Save The Internet
A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users
Battle over "Net Neutrality" arrives in Canada (CBC) - Nov 2, 2006
What is Net Neutrality? (YouTube)
Keeping the Net Neutral
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)