Kaleidoscope December 1st, 2006 - China's New Relations
Rob Bolton, Meghan Lenchyshyn, King David, Remy Kalter
Increasingly in our media, we hear more and more about the role of China in the world. Fear-mongering tactics are often employed in the West, as this emerging economy is seen as a threat to western domination. We look into China's relations, most specifically those of Africa, and whether their interests intersect or if Chinese actions amount to exploitation.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Immigration & Integration - November 3rd, 2006
Kaleidoscope November 3rd, 2006 - Immigration & Integration
Rob Bolton, Vanessa Johnston, Olivier Cappon, Daniel Bernal, Remy Kalter
Following on from former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's comments regarding his opinions on the Islamic Niqab, or full veil, and how it contributes to a notion of separateness between cultures, we look into how immigrants are expected to and do integrate into their new location, and the tensions that arise.
Rob Bolton, Vanessa Johnston, Olivier Cappon, Daniel Bernal, Remy Kalter
Following on from former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's comments regarding his opinions on the Islamic Niqab, or full veil, and how it contributes to a notion of separateness between cultures, we look into how immigrants are expected to and do integrate into their new location, and the tensions that arise.
North Korea and what the Nuclear tests mean for the world - October 20th, 2006
Kaleidoscope October 20th, 2006 - North Korea
Rob Bolton, Vanessa Johnston, Meghan Lenchyshyn, Daniel Bernal & Remy Kalter
We provide historical background on why North Korea has the reputation it has, and how the testing of a nuclear weapon may not, in fact, be that big of a deal.
Rob Bolton, Vanessa Johnston, Meghan Lenchyshyn, Daniel Bernal & Remy Kalter
We provide historical background on why North Korea has the reputation it has, and how the testing of a nuclear weapon may not, in fact, be that big of a deal.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
The Wealth of Nations Finally comes to Africa
- Remy Kalter
Let us be under no illusions, the main aim of Chinese investment in Africa is not, in any way, to help Africa get out of the cycle of decline that the continent, as a whole, tends to perpetually be sliding into. But the fact of the matter is that the situation is desperate, and a new approach needs to be implemented to enable Africa to actually grow in a sustainable manner that does not leave it completely at the mercy of nations that see in it merely a quick buck.
International development organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank that tie aid and investment to good governance have clearly not been reading their history books. The United States, though one of the oldest nations with a democratic constitution, did in no way have social justice for huge sections of its population, even to this day. Legislation does not necessarily equate to reality, as those involved in the Civil Rights movement will quickly remind you.
Germany, pre-World War II, saw its economy resurrected by measures employed despite the ruling totalitarian dictatorship. I seek not to legitimize these actions, but to highlight that the Western qualifier of good governance in Africa hamstrings governments. In yet another show of the West carrying the “White Man’s Burden,” they seek to set Africa on the correct path of development through the lure of money with conditions. Well, South Asian investment is now offering another way forward, without the conditions, and though it may appear callous, I believe Africa to be better off for it.
The fact of the matter is that Africa’s relationship with China is by no means perfect, but it is an enabler to prosperity, and ultimately to democracy. Certainly, African raw materials are being extracted to feed the Chinese hunger for energy resources. This places the former at the mercy of the market. Without proper management by the African Union (AU), this could eventually lead to the forgotten continent having no goods to offer and being beyond help. But this is many years down the line, and the free market will step in before then.
Despite what we hear on a regular basis, democracy and free market economics are not inextricably bound. One can indeed exist without the other. Currently, China is the second largest investor in Africa after France, but seeks to double its trade to $100 Billion by 2010. The investments, both monetary and structurally, that the Chinese government has made seek to make basic amenities available to Africans. In addition to an influx of Chinese companies, and the further cancelling of debts, China is following the principals of free trade to a tee.
What does that mean for Africa as a whole? Firstly, China is playing a game of lowest-common denominator politics and economics. It isn’t pretty, but when you have the muscle that they do, then everyone else has to play along in order to compete. Western democracies will soon have to climb down from the moral high ground in order to not miss out on the raw materials the untapped continent can offer, following India’s lead. Competition, as any free marketeer will tell you, is a good thing, and this will give greater clout to the African governments and the AU. Though good governance restrictions will indeed lower, as the nations move further toward democracy, qualifiers will begin to rise in order to garner votes. Though there are currently only 11 free democracies on the continent of 53 nations, more than half the others are in the transitional process. These are encouraging statistics, but it is a good point to ask that if the qualifiers to investment are lowered, then wouldn’t this send the democratization process the other way?
It is a danger, of that there is no doubt, but let us also look at another factor of Chinese investment in Africa; the creation of telecommunication networks, such as that being built in Ethiopia. As Joseph Okpaku, The CEO of Telecom Africa Corporation acknowledged in 2005, that the building of Information & Communication Technologies (ICT’s) was the way to build the capacities and create the infrastructure and jobs to enable Africa to elevate its people to actual consumers. Through the introduction of these ICT’s, it will also become increasingly difficult to prevent democracy and respect for human rights from flourishing.
China’s investment is also not predicated on simply using up Africa’s resources and running away. It needs Africa to be sustainable, hence the capacity building measures it has put in place, which has helped Africans embrace Chinese investment much more readily, though conflicts regarding, for example, Nigerian oil contracts remain very much an issue. In fact, surprising though it may seem, China appears not to be trying to turn Africa into a cheap labour market as south-east Asia has become for the West. This may have something to do with the fact that though there are 900 million Africans, the economy of scale is very small, thus making such an aim far too time consuming. Instead, China looks to be seeking to make Africa a new market for its own cheaply produced products. For this to succeed, they would hope for Africans to have a degree of expendable income, something which for the vast, vast majority is not the case.
So while opening up into such a massive market would indeed lower the price of Chinese goods, at the same time it would help bring the earnings of Africans up, affording them the possibility of becoming consumers in a market and greatly lowering the amount of people surviving on less than one dollar a day. China also has the intelligence to realize that it should not simply push around nations with disregard, as the West learned the hard way, thus it is encouraging that they have stated, and shown, that they will be working with the African Union.
The great danger in all of this is that if China does have things entirely its own way, it’s very possible that Africans will be employed by Chinese and buying only Chinese goods, which would put them into a mercantilist trade system that would ultimately stagnate the economy and truly make Africa a slave to the fluctuations of the global market place. Couple this with the rising instability in China, and we do indeed have a recipe for disaster. Luckily enough, the Western corporations will never allow all those resources to be plundered by China alone, thus Africa should be okay in this regard.
There are many issues I have not touched on here, and it’s certainly not a bed of roses for Africa’s 53 members. Though economic hardship will continue for some time, and political repression may indeed be the order of the day for a while, what the continent is getting, which it has never had before, is the means to grow, with structures and ICT’s being put in place. Perhaps most importantly, it is gaining the bargaining power that imperialism has always sought to remove.
Many of the worlds great powers go on searches for allies and to spread democracy through bombs and threats. Perhaps they could learn something from the Chinese way of making friends, which is to build a school or a hospital instead of to bomb a munitions factory. As always, keep in mind that China is not doing this for Africa’s own good. Countries do not have friends, merely interests, and it is in China’s interests that Africa succeeds…at least for now.
Background & Research
China, Africa & Oil - Council on Foreign Relations
India and China to "boost Africa" (BBC) - May 22nd, 2006
Africa's Silk Road: China and India's New Economic Frontier (World Bank) - Harry G. Broadman The Rise of China and India; What's in it for Africa? (OECD) - Andrea Goldstein, Nicolas Pinaud, Helmut Reisen and Xiaobao Chen
The New Sinosphere: China in Africa (IPPR) - David Mepham, Leni Wild
Does the Future Really Belong to China? (Prospect Magazine) - Will Hutton
Let us be under no illusions, the main aim of Chinese investment in Africa is not, in any way, to help Africa get out of the cycle of decline that the continent, as a whole, tends to perpetually be sliding into. But the fact of the matter is that the situation is desperate, and a new approach needs to be implemented to enable Africa to actually grow in a sustainable manner that does not leave it completely at the mercy of nations that see in it merely a quick buck.
International development organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank that tie aid and investment to good governance have clearly not been reading their history books. The United States, though one of the oldest nations with a democratic constitution, did in no way have social justice for huge sections of its population, even to this day. Legislation does not necessarily equate to reality, as those involved in the Civil Rights movement will quickly remind you.
Germany, pre-World War II, saw its economy resurrected by measures employed despite the ruling totalitarian dictatorship. I seek not to legitimize these actions, but to highlight that the Western qualifier of good governance in Africa hamstrings governments. In yet another show of the West carrying the “White Man’s Burden,” they seek to set Africa on the correct path of development through the lure of money with conditions. Well, South Asian investment is now offering another way forward, without the conditions, and though it may appear callous, I believe Africa to be better off for it.
The fact of the matter is that Africa’s relationship with China is by no means perfect, but it is an enabler to prosperity, and ultimately to democracy. Certainly, African raw materials are being extracted to feed the Chinese hunger for energy resources. This places the former at the mercy of the market. Without proper management by the African Union (AU), this could eventually lead to the forgotten continent having no goods to offer and being beyond help. But this is many years down the line, and the free market will step in before then.
Despite what we hear on a regular basis, democracy and free market economics are not inextricably bound. One can indeed exist without the other. Currently, China is the second largest investor in Africa after France, but seeks to double its trade to $100 Billion by 2010. The investments, both monetary and structurally, that the Chinese government has made seek to make basic amenities available to Africans. In addition to an influx of Chinese companies, and the further cancelling of debts, China is following the principals of free trade to a tee.
What does that mean for Africa as a whole? Firstly, China is playing a game of lowest-common denominator politics and economics. It isn’t pretty, but when you have the muscle that they do, then everyone else has to play along in order to compete. Western democracies will soon have to climb down from the moral high ground in order to not miss out on the raw materials the untapped continent can offer, following India’s lead. Competition, as any free marketeer will tell you, is a good thing, and this will give greater clout to the African governments and the AU. Though good governance restrictions will indeed lower, as the nations move further toward democracy, qualifiers will begin to rise in order to garner votes. Though there are currently only 11 free democracies on the continent of 53 nations, more than half the others are in the transitional process. These are encouraging statistics, but it is a good point to ask that if the qualifiers to investment are lowered, then wouldn’t this send the democratization process the other way?
It is a danger, of that there is no doubt, but let us also look at another factor of Chinese investment in Africa; the creation of telecommunication networks, such as that being built in Ethiopia. As Joseph Okpaku, The CEO of Telecom Africa Corporation acknowledged in 2005, that the building of Information & Communication Technologies (ICT’s) was the way to build the capacities and create the infrastructure and jobs to enable Africa to elevate its people to actual consumers. Through the introduction of these ICT’s, it will also become increasingly difficult to prevent democracy and respect for human rights from flourishing.
China’s investment is also not predicated on simply using up Africa’s resources and running away. It needs Africa to be sustainable, hence the capacity building measures it has put in place, which has helped Africans embrace Chinese investment much more readily, though conflicts regarding, for example, Nigerian oil contracts remain very much an issue. In fact, surprising though it may seem, China appears not to be trying to turn Africa into a cheap labour market as south-east Asia has become for the West. This may have something to do with the fact that though there are 900 million Africans, the economy of scale is very small, thus making such an aim far too time consuming. Instead, China looks to be seeking to make Africa a new market for its own cheaply produced products. For this to succeed, they would hope for Africans to have a degree of expendable income, something which for the vast, vast majority is not the case.
So while opening up into such a massive market would indeed lower the price of Chinese goods, at the same time it would help bring the earnings of Africans up, affording them the possibility of becoming consumers in a market and greatly lowering the amount of people surviving on less than one dollar a day. China also has the intelligence to realize that it should not simply push around nations with disregard, as the West learned the hard way, thus it is encouraging that they have stated, and shown, that they will be working with the African Union.
The great danger in all of this is that if China does have things entirely its own way, it’s very possible that Africans will be employed by Chinese and buying only Chinese goods, which would put them into a mercantilist trade system that would ultimately stagnate the economy and truly make Africa a slave to the fluctuations of the global market place. Couple this with the rising instability in China, and we do indeed have a recipe for disaster. Luckily enough, the Western corporations will never allow all those resources to be plundered by China alone, thus Africa should be okay in this regard.
There are many issues I have not touched on here, and it’s certainly not a bed of roses for Africa’s 53 members. Though economic hardship will continue for some time, and political repression may indeed be the order of the day for a while, what the continent is getting, which it has never had before, is the means to grow, with structures and ICT’s being put in place. Perhaps most importantly, it is gaining the bargaining power that imperialism has always sought to remove.
Many of the worlds great powers go on searches for allies and to spread democracy through bombs and threats. Perhaps they could learn something from the Chinese way of making friends, which is to build a school or a hospital instead of to bomb a munitions factory. As always, keep in mind that China is not doing this for Africa’s own good. Countries do not have friends, merely interests, and it is in China’s interests that Africa succeeds…at least for now.
Background & Research
China, Africa & Oil - Council on Foreign Relations
India and China to "boost Africa" (BBC) - May 22nd, 2006
Africa's Silk Road: China and India's New Economic Frontier (World Bank) - Harry G. Broadman The Rise of China and India; What's in it for Africa? (OECD) - Andrea Goldstein, Nicolas Pinaud, Helmut Reisen and Xiaobao Chen
The New Sinosphere: China in Africa (IPPR) - David Mepham, Leni Wild
Does the Future Really Belong to China? (Prospect Magazine) - Will Hutton
Crime & Punishment; Not an Open and Shut Case
- Remy Kalter
Britain currently has many social ills. A nation racked by yobbish, anti-social behaviour where “happy slapping” (assaulting people, filming it and sending it to others on mobile networks) is becoming increasingly prevalent. The government measures to tackle crime seem fairly misguided and desperate. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, almost a victim of such an attack, supported the 2005 move to ban hoodies, which were seen as a main cause of crime, as they prevented the 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain (the highest per capita anywhere in the world) from identifying offenders. A logical idea perhaps, but a misidentification as to the cause of crime, it most definitely is.
There are many takes on how to combat crime effectively, with prevention and rehabilitation clearly the main focus of efforts to do so. However, the means to achieve these ends vary enormously. From a sociological standpoint, criminals tend to come from underprivileged backgrounds and to prevent re-offending, need to be made aware of the effect of their crimes on victims. The solutions, therefore, are to reduce poverty and to use the much-vaunted notion of restorative justice (RJ), a concept that, in the modern, western notion of law and rehabilitation, Canada has pioneered. However, RJ is based on the idea that the individual appreciates the detrimental effect their actions have had on others, but David Rose’s essay on Lives of Crime uses statistics from New Zealand which have shown that 20% of criminals fit the description of “psychopath,” who do not fear punishment, thus threatening them with sanctions, penal or otherwise, has little effect.
By this thinking, it would appear that rehabilitation would have little chance of preventing them from re-offending, with up to 80% of psychopaths having re-offended within four years. Thus, those who argue against RJ would say that such an idea is essentially mollycoddling the offender. At the same time, if an individual is very possibly going to re-offend, then should they be incarcerated for life? Keep in mind that although most psychopaths do re-offend within four years, one-fifth do not, thus if we have any belief in our criminal justice system, this is clearly not the answer.
Anti-social behaviour is obviously a huge social and financial cost and “prison gates are all too often a revolving door through which offenders return within months.” Perhaps prisoners should pay for their crimes by literally working for next to nothing, thus lessening the burden on the government. This, however, raises a whole host of security issues, not to mention ethical implications and the effect on employment in low wage, unskilled sections of the economy.
Thus the key idea now is perhaps to see how one can best prevent people, early in life, from becoming delinquents. The most immediately obvious means to do so would be to reduce economic hardship and prevent maltreatment of children. However, Rose identifies that although maltreatment does increase “the risk of later criminality by about 50 per cent, most maltreated children do not become delinquents or adult criminals.” Poor parenting has been seen to have a devastating impact on a child’s development of social skills, so intervention in the home would appear to be a suitable measure to employ, to a degree. There is also a feeling among many researchers that to modify anti-social behaviour in the adult mind is akin to closing the barn door once the horse has already fled. Perhaps true, perhaps overly pessimistic, but certainly a thought to keep in mind.
Overall, what all this information suggests is that the criminal mind is not one entirely created out of the environment, but also of the mind. Thus can a criminal in fact be blamed for their actions? In the Western legal model, the criminal law is based on the idea that a criminal exercised a choice. If their mind worked in such a way that a choice was not presented to them, then no crime had been committed, and thus they would be sent to an asylum.
There are certainly biological factors present in those with a tendency to commit criminal acts, and I cannot possibly cover them all here. What has been noted is that those with a propensity to delinquency exhibit, in their youth, “low intellectual ability, reading abilities, hyperactivity and slow heart rate.” Also, a single genotype of a gene could be found to have a profound effect on an individual’s propensity to commit a crime. Of all the individuals in the survey who had been maltreated as children and went on to become offenders, 85% of them exhibited this genotype. Stirring statistics, to say the least.
According to a recent Economist report, the British government is looking to change the law so that they can “lock up people with personality disorders that are thought to make them likely to commit crimes, before any crime is committed.” This idea, coupled with the invasion of surveillance technologies in Britain certainly brings to mind Orwellian notions of an authoritarian society. Anyone who saw 2002’s Minority Report is clearly thinking this sounds all too familiar. Criminologists in the 1960’s saw the idea of a criminal personality as abhorrent and sociological criminologists of today are similarly dismayed by findings which they deem to be deterministic and an attack on civil liberties. In the current environment of wire-tapping and surveillance, such a claim infuses the sociologists argument with added impetus. However, to ignore the findings of the reports that link biology to a propensity for anti-social behaviour would be, in and of itself, socially irresponsible. Perhaps it is time that the judicial system looked into “pre-crime” and the idea of monitoring potential law breakers. But let us also keep in mind that our system is not broken, thus calls for extremism would be misguided, and would indeed impinge upon civil liberties.
Background & Research
Life of Crime; A 7 part series focusing ondifferent aspects of crime (BBC)
Lives of Crime - David Rose - Prospect Magazine, Issue 125, August 2006.
Free to choose? (The Economist) - December 19th, 2006
The Centre for Restorative Justice - Simon Fraser Suniversity
Britain is "Surveillance Society (BBC) - November 2nd, 2006
Britain currently has many social ills. A nation racked by yobbish, anti-social behaviour where “happy slapping” (assaulting people, filming it and sending it to others on mobile networks) is becoming increasingly prevalent. The government measures to tackle crime seem fairly misguided and desperate. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, almost a victim of such an attack, supported the 2005 move to ban hoodies, which were seen as a main cause of crime, as they prevented the 4.2 million CCTV cameras in Britain (the highest per capita anywhere in the world) from identifying offenders. A logical idea perhaps, but a misidentification as to the cause of crime, it most definitely is.
There are many takes on how to combat crime effectively, with prevention and rehabilitation clearly the main focus of efforts to do so. However, the means to achieve these ends vary enormously. From a sociological standpoint, criminals tend to come from underprivileged backgrounds and to prevent re-offending, need to be made aware of the effect of their crimes on victims. The solutions, therefore, are to reduce poverty and to use the much-vaunted notion of restorative justice (RJ), a concept that, in the modern, western notion of law and rehabilitation, Canada has pioneered. However, RJ is based on the idea that the individual appreciates the detrimental effect their actions have had on others, but David Rose’s essay on Lives of Crime uses statistics from New Zealand which have shown that 20% of criminals fit the description of “psychopath,” who do not fear punishment, thus threatening them with sanctions, penal or otherwise, has little effect.
By this thinking, it would appear that rehabilitation would have little chance of preventing them from re-offending, with up to 80% of psychopaths having re-offended within four years. Thus, those who argue against RJ would say that such an idea is essentially mollycoddling the offender. At the same time, if an individual is very possibly going to re-offend, then should they be incarcerated for life? Keep in mind that although most psychopaths do re-offend within four years, one-fifth do not, thus if we have any belief in our criminal justice system, this is clearly not the answer.
Anti-social behaviour is obviously a huge social and financial cost and “prison gates are all too often a revolving door through which offenders return within months.” Perhaps prisoners should pay for their crimes by literally working for next to nothing, thus lessening the burden on the government. This, however, raises a whole host of security issues, not to mention ethical implications and the effect on employment in low wage, unskilled sections of the economy.
Thus the key idea now is perhaps to see how one can best prevent people, early in life, from becoming delinquents. The most immediately obvious means to do so would be to reduce economic hardship and prevent maltreatment of children. However, Rose identifies that although maltreatment does increase “the risk of later criminality by about 50 per cent, most maltreated children do not become delinquents or adult criminals.” Poor parenting has been seen to have a devastating impact on a child’s development of social skills, so intervention in the home would appear to be a suitable measure to employ, to a degree. There is also a feeling among many researchers that to modify anti-social behaviour in the adult mind is akin to closing the barn door once the horse has already fled. Perhaps true, perhaps overly pessimistic, but certainly a thought to keep in mind.
Overall, what all this information suggests is that the criminal mind is not one entirely created out of the environment, but also of the mind. Thus can a criminal in fact be blamed for their actions? In the Western legal model, the criminal law is based on the idea that a criminal exercised a choice. If their mind worked in such a way that a choice was not presented to them, then no crime had been committed, and thus they would be sent to an asylum.
There are certainly biological factors present in those with a tendency to commit criminal acts, and I cannot possibly cover them all here. What has been noted is that those with a propensity to delinquency exhibit, in their youth, “low intellectual ability, reading abilities, hyperactivity and slow heart rate.” Also, a single genotype of a gene could be found to have a profound effect on an individual’s propensity to commit a crime. Of all the individuals in the survey who had been maltreated as children and went on to become offenders, 85% of them exhibited this genotype. Stirring statistics, to say the least.
According to a recent Economist report, the British government is looking to change the law so that they can “lock up people with personality disorders that are thought to make them likely to commit crimes, before any crime is committed.” This idea, coupled with the invasion of surveillance technologies in Britain certainly brings to mind Orwellian notions of an authoritarian society. Anyone who saw 2002’s Minority Report is clearly thinking this sounds all too familiar. Criminologists in the 1960’s saw the idea of a criminal personality as abhorrent and sociological criminologists of today are similarly dismayed by findings which they deem to be deterministic and an attack on civil liberties. In the current environment of wire-tapping and surveillance, such a claim infuses the sociologists argument with added impetus. However, to ignore the findings of the reports that link biology to a propensity for anti-social behaviour would be, in and of itself, socially irresponsible. Perhaps it is time that the judicial system looked into “pre-crime” and the idea of monitoring potential law breakers. But let us also keep in mind that our system is not broken, thus calls for extremism would be misguided, and would indeed impinge upon civil liberties.
Background & Research
Life of Crime; A 7 part series focusing ondifferent aspects of crime (BBC)
Lives of Crime - David Rose - Prospect Magazine, Issue 125, August 2006.
Free to choose? (The Economist) - December 19th, 2006
The Centre for Restorative Justice - Simon Fraser Suniversity
Britain is "Surveillance Society (BBC) - November 2nd, 2006
Turkey & the EU; I'll take a Falafel with that Croissant
- Vanessa Johnston
Amid the bright lights of Turkey’s two great cities, Ankara and Istanbul, the country seems to boast an air of modernization, sophistication, and a rich culture unrivaled by its European neighbors. Tourists flood the city streets, beaches, and cafes, marveling at the architectural genius of the mosques and castles. From their perspective, one could safely assume that Turkey is a country on the up and up. Declared a secular republic by its founder Kemal Attaturk in 1923, this predominantly Muslim state (about 99.8% of the population) has made a concerted effort to suppress extremism and to follow a path of modernization. As of late, the economy has been sustained steady growth and has seen the unprecedented election of a female Prime Minister. But outside the cities, beyond the lights that project an image of prosperity, the rest of the nation exists in grave poverty and is steeped in old traditions that imply anything but modernity - these are but a few of the conundrums that the European Union is grappling with in regards to Turkey’s bid for EU membership.
It has taken both a great deal of effort and considerable patience on Turkey’s part before they could convince Europe to accept its bid. Having attempted to open formal negotiations on EU membership for the first time in 1987, it wasn’t until October of 2005 that Europe began to seriously consider the strategic benefits of having Turkey become “one of them”, and so negotiations began. For Tony Blair, Turkey’s advantageous geographic location, nestled between two continents, Europe and Asia, means that the EU could have considerable influence in stabilizing the volatile region of the Middle East and in mending relations between them. It could also mean security for Europe in the future, as Turkey’s military is sizeable and they border problematic countries such as Iraq and Iran. With their vast population, second in Europe to only that of Germany, Turkey also could provide a huge pool of labor to a rapidly ageing EU, and goods that could strengthen the Union’s economy. So, with security and economic advantages within their grasp, why have Europe’s leaders been so hesitant?
One reason is the attitudes of European electorates. The latest polls show that only 20% of Europeans are in favor of Turkey joining the EU. Turkey is just not “European” enough, many argue. And in many aspects, this is true. Turkey is a developing democracy that cannot compete with the wealth of the European Union’s powerhouses. Also, the country’s human rights record is weak despite recent reforms they’ve instituted to appease the European Council, such as recognizing the Kurdish minority’s language and culture, abolishing the death penalty, strengthening women’s rights, and reforming the penal code.
European leaders are also weary of the fact that 40% of Turkish people are projected to find jobs elsewhere in Europe should Turkey become a full-member. That’s a lot of cheap labor and a serious threat to wages and social security benefits that wealthy members currently enjoy. Furthermore, Turkey’s size, while good for economic and military strength, stands to dilute the power of countries such as France and Germany. Alternatively, what German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has proposed is a “privileged partnership” rather than full membership. This way there could be benefits for both parties without Europe having to fully take-on the challenges posed by Turkey.
One such challenge and reason for suspension of 8 of 35 chapters of negotiation with Turkey, is the fact that Turkey refuses to open its ports and airports to Greek Cyprus. Since 1974, Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus after invading to counter a military coup instigated by the Greek military junta. However, Turkey is alone in its quest to have formal recognition of its occupation of northern Cyprus. This stance was particularly troublesome for EU negotiators, as one of the requirements for the EU to resume negotiations was that Turkey needed to end its embargo on Cyprus, a current EU member. They haven’t budged on the issue.
So should Turkey join the EU? Turkey has long been faithful to Europe and has resumed their bid even while being told that compliance would not necessarily mean acceptance, even while certain European countries were dismissive from the very beginning. The Turks have surely grown tired of Europe’s games; perhaps they never really stood a chance anyway. But Europe could be missing out. A rejection of Turkey could be interpreted as a rejection of Islam, and this won’t sit well with the many Muslims in and outside Europe. Also, the EU could be letting a huge opportunity slip-away to enhance its security and improve relations with the Middle East, not to mention the chance of forging a relationship that could have lasting human rights benefits for Turkey’s people. Although any immediate EU acceptance of Turkey would be premature, perhaps when it is adjudged ready in a decade or so they will have already made other plans.
Background & Research
Amid the bright lights of Turkey’s two great cities, Ankara and Istanbul, the country seems to boast an air of modernization, sophistication, and a rich culture unrivaled by its European neighbors. Tourists flood the city streets, beaches, and cafes, marveling at the architectural genius of the mosques and castles. From their perspective, one could safely assume that Turkey is a country on the up and up. Declared a secular republic by its founder Kemal Attaturk in 1923, this predominantly Muslim state (about 99.8% of the population) has made a concerted effort to suppress extremism and to follow a path of modernization. As of late, the economy has been sustained steady growth and has seen the unprecedented election of a female Prime Minister. But outside the cities, beyond the lights that project an image of prosperity, the rest of the nation exists in grave poverty and is steeped in old traditions that imply anything but modernity - these are but a few of the conundrums that the European Union is grappling with in regards to Turkey’s bid for EU membership.
It has taken both a great deal of effort and considerable patience on Turkey’s part before they could convince Europe to accept its bid. Having attempted to open formal negotiations on EU membership for the first time in 1987, it wasn’t until October of 2005 that Europe began to seriously consider the strategic benefits of having Turkey become “one of them”, and so negotiations began. For Tony Blair, Turkey’s advantageous geographic location, nestled between two continents, Europe and Asia, means that the EU could have considerable influence in stabilizing the volatile region of the Middle East and in mending relations between them. It could also mean security for Europe in the future, as Turkey’s military is sizeable and they border problematic countries such as Iraq and Iran. With their vast population, second in Europe to only that of Germany, Turkey also could provide a huge pool of labor to a rapidly ageing EU, and goods that could strengthen the Union’s economy. So, with security and economic advantages within their grasp, why have Europe’s leaders been so hesitant?
One reason is the attitudes of European electorates. The latest polls show that only 20% of Europeans are in favor of Turkey joining the EU. Turkey is just not “European” enough, many argue. And in many aspects, this is true. Turkey is a developing democracy that cannot compete with the wealth of the European Union’s powerhouses. Also, the country’s human rights record is weak despite recent reforms they’ve instituted to appease the European Council, such as recognizing the Kurdish minority’s language and culture, abolishing the death penalty, strengthening women’s rights, and reforming the penal code.
European leaders are also weary of the fact that 40% of Turkish people are projected to find jobs elsewhere in Europe should Turkey become a full-member. That’s a lot of cheap labor and a serious threat to wages and social security benefits that wealthy members currently enjoy. Furthermore, Turkey’s size, while good for economic and military strength, stands to dilute the power of countries such as France and Germany. Alternatively, what German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has proposed is a “privileged partnership” rather than full membership. This way there could be benefits for both parties without Europe having to fully take-on the challenges posed by Turkey.
One such challenge and reason for suspension of 8 of 35 chapters of negotiation with Turkey, is the fact that Turkey refuses to open its ports and airports to Greek Cyprus. Since 1974, Turkey has occupied northern Cyprus after invading to counter a military coup instigated by the Greek military junta. However, Turkey is alone in its quest to have formal recognition of its occupation of northern Cyprus. This stance was particularly troublesome for EU negotiators, as one of the requirements for the EU to resume negotiations was that Turkey needed to end its embargo on Cyprus, a current EU member. They haven’t budged on the issue.
So should Turkey join the EU? Turkey has long been faithful to Europe and has resumed their bid even while being told that compliance would not necessarily mean acceptance, even while certain European countries were dismissive from the very beginning. The Turks have surely grown tired of Europe’s games; perhaps they never really stood a chance anyway. But Europe could be missing out. A rejection of Turkey could be interpreted as a rejection of Islam, and this won’t sit well with the many Muslims in and outside Europe. Also, the EU could be letting a huge opportunity slip-away to enhance its security and improve relations with the Middle East, not to mention the chance of forging a relationship that could have lasting human rights benefits for Turkey’s people. Although any immediate EU acceptance of Turkey would be premature, perhaps when it is adjudged ready in a decade or so they will have already made other plans.
Background & Research
Sino-African Relations; Fair Trade Indeed
- Meghan Lenchyshyn
We live in a society based on the rule of law. Since its inception, the United Nations has been committed to promoting and ensuring human rights all across the globe. What happens, then, when a permanent member of the UN blatantly flaunts its responsibilities by choosing to ignore human rights standards? UN member countries should be expected to foster equality and freedom, and not to enable those who hinder it. China’s actions in many African nations serves as a prime example of this problem, and its policy of “non-interference” towards Africa’s internal affairs is acting to strengthen the repressive dictatorial regimes present.
China’s entrance onto the world stage has been gaining more and more attention from the Western nations. Over the past several decades, we have witnessed the expansion of China both economically and politically, and have seen China explode onto the international arena.
However, one must concede that much of the apprehension on the part of Western nations is due to China’s choice of allies. China is increasingly forming new, controversial trading partners. Alliances with countries such as Russia and Iran have been mutually prosperous, with many weapons deals occurring under the radar. China is, to date, the largest purchaser of Russian arms, and non-military trade between these two countries is increasing at a rate of 20% per year.
However, of China’s newly-warming alliances, perhaps that which causes the greatest consternation is its relationship with Africa, which is being met with both optimism and overt cynicism from the international community.
Bilateral trade between China and Africa has quadrupled within the last five years. Access to crude oil is, for China, what this budding relationship is founded upon. However China is also investing billions of dollars into the construction of much needed infrastructure. Capacity building is an important element of Africa’s goal to modernize. The question arises though, as to whether this is a fair trade or if the investments being made are helping China gain access to Africa’s resources more than they are helping Africa itself.
To date, China has invested predominantly in the construction of railways and pipelines. In 1999, the Chinese government invested three billion dollars towards the construction of a pipeline in Sudan. 2004 saw China sign a two billion dollar deal with Angola in exchange for ten thousand barrels of crude oil per day. As well, in 2005 Petro-China signed an eight hundred million dollar deal with Nigeria to purchase thirty thousand barrels of crude oil per day for one year. These figures are only a drop in the bucket and are merely a few instances of Chinese investment in the resource-rich continent.
Africa is of interest to China solely because of its abundance of raw materials, its export market, and its potential source of cheap labour. It seems abundantly clear that China is engaging in neocolonialism. Africa is still largely recovering from its colonial past, and China is doing nothing but taking advantage in this very much one-sided relationship. Granted Africa is gaining more from this relationship than it has with its previous colonizers, but the fact remains that exploitation is exploitation - there is no in-between.
Currently, the relationship between Chinese and African leaders is one of mutual, deliberate ignorance and lack of accountability. The abhorrent Chinese human rights record is nothing new and comes as no surprise to its many international critics. China is blissfully turning a blind eye to the plethora of unethical practices of various African governments and stands accused of supporting corrupt African regimes in order to facilitate its stronghold over African oil and raw materials.
In addition to overlooking its own human rights violations in terms of producing consumer goods, China is also turning a blind eye to the atrocities and genocide currently underway in Darfur. At the same time, African governments also choose to ignore Chinese labour abuses.
African dictatorships such as that of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, whom purchase Chinese-made weapons and military equipment do so in direct defiance of international law. Aside from China’s relationship with Zimbabwe, weapons have also been illegally smuggled into Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast. Chinese influence in Africa is further enabling corrupt regimes to continue practicing and usurp UN sanctions in the process.
In response to criticism regarding China’s decision to ignore political corruption in Africa, Chinese President Hu Jintao stated “China is adhering to its policy of non-interference in Africa’s internal affairs”. He also accuses his critics of adopting what he refers to as a “Cold War mentality”, stating that China wishes nothing more than to be an equal trading “partner” to Africa - all of which is mere rhetoric.
China also defends its presence in Africa by stating that Chinese investment is modernizing Africa and bringing in much needed trade and revenue, and it simply wishes to engage Africa in a mutually respectful relationship. Additionally, China claims the resulting commodity prices have been beneficial for the majority of Africa and have improved local economies.
China’s attempt at modernizing Africa, for the good of Africa, and paving the way for Africa to make its anticipated entrance onto the world stage is, as was previously stated, obvious rhetoric. China’s policy of “non-interference” in African affairs is nothing more than a transparent cop-out and a way to avoid accountability.
This unbridled colonial expansionism is overlooking human rights and further escalating the degree of corruption already apparent, thus providing dictators such as Mugabe with the tools to continue their repressive rule.
All in all, Chinese influence and investment in Africa may very well be bringing in trade and establishing the potential for an export market, however the fact remains that the development occurring is not being done in a mutually beneficial way. China gains and Africa remains stuck in a mire, always below China and a slave to its market.
Background & Research
We live in a society based on the rule of law. Since its inception, the United Nations has been committed to promoting and ensuring human rights all across the globe. What happens, then, when a permanent member of the UN blatantly flaunts its responsibilities by choosing to ignore human rights standards? UN member countries should be expected to foster equality and freedom, and not to enable those who hinder it. China’s actions in many African nations serves as a prime example of this problem, and its policy of “non-interference” towards Africa’s internal affairs is acting to strengthen the repressive dictatorial regimes present.
China’s entrance onto the world stage has been gaining more and more attention from the Western nations. Over the past several decades, we have witnessed the expansion of China both economically and politically, and have seen China explode onto the international arena.
However, one must concede that much of the apprehension on the part of Western nations is due to China’s choice of allies. China is increasingly forming new, controversial trading partners. Alliances with countries such as Russia and Iran have been mutually prosperous, with many weapons deals occurring under the radar. China is, to date, the largest purchaser of Russian arms, and non-military trade between these two countries is increasing at a rate of 20% per year.
However, of China’s newly-warming alliances, perhaps that which causes the greatest consternation is its relationship with Africa, which is being met with both optimism and overt cynicism from the international community.
Bilateral trade between China and Africa has quadrupled within the last five years. Access to crude oil is, for China, what this budding relationship is founded upon. However China is also investing billions of dollars into the construction of much needed infrastructure. Capacity building is an important element of Africa’s goal to modernize. The question arises though, as to whether this is a fair trade or if the investments being made are helping China gain access to Africa’s resources more than they are helping Africa itself.
To date, China has invested predominantly in the construction of railways and pipelines. In 1999, the Chinese government invested three billion dollars towards the construction of a pipeline in Sudan. 2004 saw China sign a two billion dollar deal with Angola in exchange for ten thousand barrels of crude oil per day. As well, in 2005 Petro-China signed an eight hundred million dollar deal with Nigeria to purchase thirty thousand barrels of crude oil per day for one year. These figures are only a drop in the bucket and are merely a few instances of Chinese investment in the resource-rich continent.
Africa is of interest to China solely because of its abundance of raw materials, its export market, and its potential source of cheap labour. It seems abundantly clear that China is engaging in neocolonialism. Africa is still largely recovering from its colonial past, and China is doing nothing but taking advantage in this very much one-sided relationship. Granted Africa is gaining more from this relationship than it has with its previous colonizers, but the fact remains that exploitation is exploitation - there is no in-between.
Currently, the relationship between Chinese and African leaders is one of mutual, deliberate ignorance and lack of accountability. The abhorrent Chinese human rights record is nothing new and comes as no surprise to its many international critics. China is blissfully turning a blind eye to the plethora of unethical practices of various African governments and stands accused of supporting corrupt African regimes in order to facilitate its stronghold over African oil and raw materials.
In addition to overlooking its own human rights violations in terms of producing consumer goods, China is also turning a blind eye to the atrocities and genocide currently underway in Darfur. At the same time, African governments also choose to ignore Chinese labour abuses.
African dictatorships such as that of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, whom purchase Chinese-made weapons and military equipment do so in direct defiance of international law. Aside from China’s relationship with Zimbabwe, weapons have also been illegally smuggled into Sierra Leone and the Ivory Coast. Chinese influence in Africa is further enabling corrupt regimes to continue practicing and usurp UN sanctions in the process.
In response to criticism regarding China’s decision to ignore political corruption in Africa, Chinese President Hu Jintao stated “China is adhering to its policy of non-interference in Africa’s internal affairs”. He also accuses his critics of adopting what he refers to as a “Cold War mentality”, stating that China wishes nothing more than to be an equal trading “partner” to Africa - all of which is mere rhetoric.
China also defends its presence in Africa by stating that Chinese investment is modernizing Africa and bringing in much needed trade and revenue, and it simply wishes to engage Africa in a mutually respectful relationship. Additionally, China claims the resulting commodity prices have been beneficial for the majority of Africa and have improved local economies.
China’s attempt at modernizing Africa, for the good of Africa, and paving the way for Africa to make its anticipated entrance onto the world stage is, as was previously stated, obvious rhetoric. China’s policy of “non-interference” in African affairs is nothing more than a transparent cop-out and a way to avoid accountability.
This unbridled colonial expansionism is overlooking human rights and further escalating the degree of corruption already apparent, thus providing dictators such as Mugabe with the tools to continue their repressive rule.
All in all, Chinese influence and investment in Africa may very well be bringing in trade and establishing the potential for an export market, however the fact remains that the development occurring is not being done in a mutually beneficial way. China gains and Africa remains stuck in a mire, always below China and a slave to its market.
Background & Research
George cries Wolf Again
- Meghan Lenchyshyn
The international system of our time is becoming increasingly anarchic and chaotic and at the forefront of this chaos lies nuclear proliferation and the arms race. North Korea is the most recent inductee into the global nuclear family, however there are many more powers vying for membership. Nuclear technology as an offensive weapon is a thing of the past, however the deterrence factor possessed by these weapons is still very much in the present.
In George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, he outlined what he referred to as the “axis of evil”. Within this, he declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea members of this axis, stating these nations sponsor and support terrorism, and that they seek weapons of mass destruction. Currently, the United States has targeted Iran as its latest recipient of criticism and unfounded accusations. The United States is preparing the world for a future American invasion of Iran, and attempting to legitimize its actions under false pretenses.
Iran is hugely inconvenient to the United States and the West not only because of their potential acquisition of nuclear arms, but also because of the threat they pose to winning the “War on Terror.” Iran clearly plays an enormous role in the outcome of the war in Iraq. This makes them a convenient next target for the US in their plans to pacify the Middle East.
What this boils down to is that while it is indeed undeniable that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, finances anti-establishmentarian organizations in order to promote their agenda, however the accusation that Iran poses a threat to international peace is an exaggeration set to serve the purpose the anti-terror agenda put forth by the United States.
Hypothetically, were Iran to develop the means to endanger worldwide human security (which it is still years away from) it seems unlikely that it would use it. Iran, like many other nations that possess or wish to possess nuclear arms, would do so as a means of deterring Israeli or American intervention. To think Iran would use a nuclear weapon on Israel is shortsighted at best. Retaliation would be inevitable, and it may even risk one of its allies getting caught in the fallout. It is more likely that the idea of a nuclear Iran merely makes imposing one’s agenda in the Middle East that much more difficult. While not defending the actions of Iran, nowhere does it say that a nation must seek to act in a way deemed convenient for those with which it must relate.
If Iran were to get its hands on a nuclear weapon, it would merely be acting within its sphere of influence. If its neighbours are armed (i.e. Pakistan, Russia, as well as Israel), one could hypothesize that Iran would be more comfortable dealing with those armed nations if it was armed itself. Threats made by Ahmedinejad are not to be taken seriously. Granted he would probably love to acquire nuclear weapons, and is more than likely thinking of ways to get them, it is doubtful however that this is his primary agenda, due to the difficulty of achieving these plans. Ahmedinejad is merely seeking to play the US at its own game; that is, to polarize the citizens of the world, and force them into placing themselves into one camp. By using the famed Bush administration tactic of absolutist politics and rhetoric, Iran are at once garnering support for all those that do not see themselves in line with the US vision of the world. Nuclear arms simply serve as an insurance policy and deliver greater clout to their voice.
The fact of the matter remains that non-proliferation attempts on the part of the United States has actually provoked nuclear proliferation. The United States and other Security Council members have nuclear weapons, and Israel, Pakistan, and India (non-security council members) has them as well. Why should Iran not be allowed to have them? They, as citizens of the world, can apparently not be trusted with them.
One could very easily make the claim that the US is the worlds greatest threat to peace (a claim which has been supported in recent times by media polls). The inconsistency and double standards it has shown in regards to its close ally Israel and strategic partner Saudi Arabia, have served to show that they pick and choose who will be a “threat to peace” at any particular time. Unipolarity is the order of the day, and it is oft said that once you’re at the top, it’s hard to stay there. Finding someone to blame for instability is an excellent way of diverting attention from your aims. I believe that it is very clear that this is what is happening in regards to Iran.
In reality, despite all the accusations, Iran has done nothing illegal. Their actions remain within the allowances of the confines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Certainly, their intent may be different, but when it comes to international relations, intent is not a crime. Is it simply that the US is looking for a scapegoat following the outright failure in Iraq? Currently, the US is trying to garner support for actions against Iran from the international community however, after the Iraqi misadventure, the American government should perhaps concern itself more with its own legitimacy.
Background & Research
The international system of our time is becoming increasingly anarchic and chaotic and at the forefront of this chaos lies nuclear proliferation and the arms race. North Korea is the most recent inductee into the global nuclear family, however there are many more powers vying for membership. Nuclear technology as an offensive weapon is a thing of the past, however the deterrence factor possessed by these weapons is still very much in the present.
In George Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address, he outlined what he referred to as the “axis of evil”. Within this, he declared Iran, Iraq, and North Korea members of this axis, stating these nations sponsor and support terrorism, and that they seek weapons of mass destruction. Currently, the United States has targeted Iran as its latest recipient of criticism and unfounded accusations. The United States is preparing the world for a future American invasion of Iran, and attempting to legitimize its actions under false pretenses.
Iran is hugely inconvenient to the United States and the West not only because of their potential acquisition of nuclear arms, but also because of the threat they pose to winning the “War on Terror.” Iran clearly plays an enormous role in the outcome of the war in Iraq. This makes them a convenient next target for the US in their plans to pacify the Middle East.
What this boils down to is that while it is indeed undeniable that Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, finances anti-establishmentarian organizations in order to promote their agenda, however the accusation that Iran poses a threat to international peace is an exaggeration set to serve the purpose the anti-terror agenda put forth by the United States.
Hypothetically, were Iran to develop the means to endanger worldwide human security (which it is still years away from) it seems unlikely that it would use it. Iran, like many other nations that possess or wish to possess nuclear arms, would do so as a means of deterring Israeli or American intervention. To think Iran would use a nuclear weapon on Israel is shortsighted at best. Retaliation would be inevitable, and it may even risk one of its allies getting caught in the fallout. It is more likely that the idea of a nuclear Iran merely makes imposing one’s agenda in the Middle East that much more difficult. While not defending the actions of Iran, nowhere does it say that a nation must seek to act in a way deemed convenient for those with which it must relate.
If Iran were to get its hands on a nuclear weapon, it would merely be acting within its sphere of influence. If its neighbours are armed (i.e. Pakistan, Russia, as well as Israel), one could hypothesize that Iran would be more comfortable dealing with those armed nations if it was armed itself. Threats made by Ahmedinejad are not to be taken seriously. Granted he would probably love to acquire nuclear weapons, and is more than likely thinking of ways to get them, it is doubtful however that this is his primary agenda, due to the difficulty of achieving these plans. Ahmedinejad is merely seeking to play the US at its own game; that is, to polarize the citizens of the world, and force them into placing themselves into one camp. By using the famed Bush administration tactic of absolutist politics and rhetoric, Iran are at once garnering support for all those that do not see themselves in line with the US vision of the world. Nuclear arms simply serve as an insurance policy and deliver greater clout to their voice.
The fact of the matter remains that non-proliferation attempts on the part of the United States has actually provoked nuclear proliferation. The United States and other Security Council members have nuclear weapons, and Israel, Pakistan, and India (non-security council members) has them as well. Why should Iran not be allowed to have them? They, as citizens of the world, can apparently not be trusted with them.
One could very easily make the claim that the US is the worlds greatest threat to peace (a claim which has been supported in recent times by media polls). The inconsistency and double standards it has shown in regards to its close ally Israel and strategic partner Saudi Arabia, have served to show that they pick and choose who will be a “threat to peace” at any particular time. Unipolarity is the order of the day, and it is oft said that once you’re at the top, it’s hard to stay there. Finding someone to blame for instability is an excellent way of diverting attention from your aims. I believe that it is very clear that this is what is happening in regards to Iran.
In reality, despite all the accusations, Iran has done nothing illegal. Their actions remain within the allowances of the confines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Certainly, their intent may be different, but when it comes to international relations, intent is not a crime. Is it simply that the US is looking for a scapegoat following the outright failure in Iraq? Currently, the US is trying to garner support for actions against Iran from the international community however, after the Iraqi misadventure, the American government should perhaps concern itself more with its own legitimacy.
Background & Research
Death or Prison – Iraq Delivers its Verdict
- Vanessa Johnston
When Saddam Hussein was discovered lurking in a little hole, looking uncharacteristically unkempt and powerless, republicans celebrated an event that they felt legitimized their controversial war. After all, there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam was a brutal dictator who had killed thousands of his own people; surely the Americans and the British were right to rid the world of him. Earlier this month, Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death by hanging by the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court. Since Saddam’s capture, a lot has changed. The Republicans haven’t managed to rally support for the war, as demonstrated by the results of both the mid-term elections and their failure to get other countries on-board, and now the world is even divided on how Saddam Hussein should be punished.
Like the Iraq war, the United States is isolated from most other western countries on the issue of capital punishment and accepts the practice in a number of states. It is no surprise then that President Bush praised the result, declaring, “Saddam Hussein’s trial is a milestone in the Iraq people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law. It’s a major achievement for Iraq’s young democracy, and its constitutional government.”
On the other hand, the EU, and Tony Blair, stated their adamant opposition to capital punishment in any cases and under any circumstances. Under any circumstances? The traditional arguments for and against capital punishment don’t seem to fit a criminal of Saddam Hussein’s stature who has been accused of premeditated murder, torture, forced expulsion and disappearance of the residents of one Shia Muslim town, and even genocide. The debate over Saddam’s sentence taps into so much more than a mere debate over modes of punishment; it also taps into how people felt about the fairness of the trial in general and the way in which Saddam was removed from power.
Questions have arisen as to why Saddam’s trial was held in a national court as opposed to the International Criminal Court where other dictators have faced prosecution when his trial dealt with international law. Furthermore, the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court was set-up under U.S.-UK occupation and is in the hands of what some fear are inexperienced judges and the Iraqi national assembly who may not be capable of giving Saddam a fair trial. The idea was to demonstrate Iraq’s sovereignty to the world, but the trial has been anything but smooth-sailing, and the constant upsets have led many Iraqis to be skeptical of the trial’s legitimacy.
Despite the ins and outs of the trial, many people around the world are relieved to see Saddam Hussein finally brought to justice. For some, his death will mean assurance that he will never regain his power, while for others it will mean a lost opportunity to eventually know the truth. The EU presidency of Finland wrote on their website: “Establishing the truth and ensuring accountability for the crimes committed during the past regime will assist in furthering national reconciliation and dialogue in Iraq in the future.” With Saddam dead, he will no longer be able to testify for the other offences he’s accused of. Other opponents of the death penalty fear that Iraq has already seen enough violence and the hanging of Saddam could lead to increased instability in the country.
The trial of Saddam Hussein could never have been nor never will be fair since the circumstances under which he was ousted from power were completely illegal and immoral. While liberals condemn both the war and the practice of capital punishment, the Iraqi people should, at the very least, be able to determine the fate of their dictator, under whose rule they so brutally suffered. While there can be much debate as to whether or not this entire situation should have happened or not, the reality is that it has happened and the only way to move is forward. Iraq has had enough of the U.S. and Britain’s patriarchal interference in their affairs and should now be able to exercise its sovereign right, no matter how flawed and disordered the system may be today. Though Bush is resented for forcing Americans into a war that has caused colossal damage, the world is glad to see one less dictator disabled from continuing his brutal regime. Perhaps someday Bush will be brought to justice for his offenses too.
Background & Research
World Opinion Divided on Saddam Sentence (ABC)
Saddam sentence: Reaction in quotes (BBC)
Iraq: Dujail Trial Fundamentally Flawed (Human Rights Watch)
Q&A: the trial of Saddam Hussein (Guardian)
Alleged crimes of Saddam Hussein (Guardian)
Judging Saddam Hussein (The Economist)
How much worse can it get? Three years of bloodshed may have made Saddam's fate irrelevant (The Economist)
When Saddam Hussein was discovered lurking in a little hole, looking uncharacteristically unkempt and powerless, republicans celebrated an event that they felt legitimized their controversial war. After all, there weren’t any weapons of mass destruction, but Saddam was a brutal dictator who had killed thousands of his own people; surely the Americans and the British were right to rid the world of him. Earlier this month, Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity and was sentenced to death by hanging by the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court. Since Saddam’s capture, a lot has changed. The Republicans haven’t managed to rally support for the war, as demonstrated by the results of both the mid-term elections and their failure to get other countries on-board, and now the world is even divided on how Saddam Hussein should be punished.
Like the Iraq war, the United States is isolated from most other western countries on the issue of capital punishment and accepts the practice in a number of states. It is no surprise then that President Bush praised the result, declaring, “Saddam Hussein’s trial is a milestone in the Iraq people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law. It’s a major achievement for Iraq’s young democracy, and its constitutional government.”
On the other hand, the EU, and Tony Blair, stated their adamant opposition to capital punishment in any cases and under any circumstances. Under any circumstances? The traditional arguments for and against capital punishment don’t seem to fit a criminal of Saddam Hussein’s stature who has been accused of premeditated murder, torture, forced expulsion and disappearance of the residents of one Shia Muslim town, and even genocide. The debate over Saddam’s sentence taps into so much more than a mere debate over modes of punishment; it also taps into how people felt about the fairness of the trial in general and the way in which Saddam was removed from power.
Questions have arisen as to why Saddam’s trial was held in a national court as opposed to the International Criminal Court where other dictators have faced prosecution when his trial dealt with international law. Furthermore, the Iraqi Higher Criminal Court was set-up under U.S.-UK occupation and is in the hands of what some fear are inexperienced judges and the Iraqi national assembly who may not be capable of giving Saddam a fair trial. The idea was to demonstrate Iraq’s sovereignty to the world, but the trial has been anything but smooth-sailing, and the constant upsets have led many Iraqis to be skeptical of the trial’s legitimacy.
Despite the ins and outs of the trial, many people around the world are relieved to see Saddam Hussein finally brought to justice. For some, his death will mean assurance that he will never regain his power, while for others it will mean a lost opportunity to eventually know the truth. The EU presidency of Finland wrote on their website: “Establishing the truth and ensuring accountability for the crimes committed during the past regime will assist in furthering national reconciliation and dialogue in Iraq in the future.” With Saddam dead, he will no longer be able to testify for the other offences he’s accused of. Other opponents of the death penalty fear that Iraq has already seen enough violence and the hanging of Saddam could lead to increased instability in the country.
The trial of Saddam Hussein could never have been nor never will be fair since the circumstances under which he was ousted from power were completely illegal and immoral. While liberals condemn both the war and the practice of capital punishment, the Iraqi people should, at the very least, be able to determine the fate of their dictator, under whose rule they so brutally suffered. While there can be much debate as to whether or not this entire situation should have happened or not, the reality is that it has happened and the only way to move is forward. Iraq has had enough of the U.S. and Britain’s patriarchal interference in their affairs and should now be able to exercise its sovereign right, no matter how flawed and disordered the system may be today. Though Bush is resented for forcing Americans into a war that has caused colossal damage, the world is glad to see one less dictator disabled from continuing his brutal regime. Perhaps someday Bush will be brought to justice for his offenses too.
Background & Research
World Opinion Divided on Saddam Sentence (ABC)
Saddam sentence: Reaction in quotes (BBC)
Iraq: Dujail Trial Fundamentally Flawed (Human Rights Watch)
Q&A: the trial of Saddam Hussein (Guardian)
Alleged crimes of Saddam Hussein (Guardian)
Judging Saddam Hussein (The Economist)
How much worse can it get? Three years of bloodshed may have made Saddam's fate irrelevant (The Economist)
On fences and nonsense: Bush signs an Act
- Daniel Bernal
During the fall of 1989 a wall went down. For some that was the first global socio-political event they had witnessed. The Berlin Wall fell, and those of us growing up - and losing sleep due to nuclear-paranoia - saw it as a hopeful sign.
A decade and a half later, hopes are down, and walls are coming up.
This fall, on October 26 th , President Bush signed the “Secure Fence Act”. This bill allows for the construction of more than a thousand additional kilometres of fence along the US-Mexico border.
“We have a responsibility to secure our borders,” said a confident Bush before spilling his signature. More than affecting the security of the United States , what this fence will do is affect the flow of illegal immigrants, one would presume.
The PEW Hispanic Centre, a non-partisan “fact-tank” based in Washington D.C, estimates that 11.1 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the U.S. Of this figure, approximately forty percent enter the U.S. legally and overrun the allotted length of their stay.
According to professor Nestor Rodriguez, co-director at the Centre for Immigration Research at the University of Houston , building a fence does not reduce the rates of illegal immigration. Instead, immigrants choose to cross the border further away from populated areas, deep into the desert, where deaths due mainly to dehydration are more likely.
The Act allows building over 1100 km of additional fence along the 3200 km border. Looking at these figures, it seems hardly effective to control this border by fencing one third of it.
For the reasons above the signing of this bill appears nonsensical. Never mind that the Act doesn't allocate funding for this project. So, residents of the U.S, start wondering who will sign the $6 billion cheque.
Thus, we must keep asking: What's the purpose of this fence? The New York Times editorial reminds us that the U.S. is on campaign for mid-term elections. Hence, the Republican Party has made illegal immigrants a hot issue – or “illegal aliens” as policy makers call them – to forget what is happening in Iraq . While they do this, the accuse Democrats of being soft on immigration for supposedly wanting to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Democrats are not for simply giving amnesty, they just propose to grant legal status to those immigrants that have been in the country for an extended period of time, have no criminal records and have paid taxes.
What is more – and nobody seems to realize –, it would be an aggressive slap to the U.S. economy if those illegal immigrants stopped doing menial tasks and were deported back to Mexico.
The U.S seems to not have learnt anything from years of bad immigration policies. In fact, we can agree with the Republicans that immigration is an issue. But, for serious issues you don't come up with patch-up solutions. What needs to happen is a comprehensive review of immigration policy. How about attracting investors to create more jobs on the Mexican side of the border? Or expand the guest-worker program? Or, how some Democrats have suggested, allow people that have been living illegally for a long period of time to stay?
No answers.
As for walls, it seems that this one is not going up anytime soon. If it does, then think of Berlin : it was down not long after it was erected; or from China : that one never kept anybody out.
Background & Research
A Great Wall? (NewsWeek)
United States - Mexico Barrier (Wikipedia)
Operation Gatekeeper (US Dept. of Justice)
Bush Signs U.S.-Mexico Border Fence (ABC) - Oct 26, 2006
Great Wall of Mexico (Global Security)
During the fall of 1989 a wall went down. For some that was the first global socio-political event they had witnessed. The Berlin Wall fell, and those of us growing up - and losing sleep due to nuclear-paranoia - saw it as a hopeful sign.
A decade and a half later, hopes are down, and walls are coming up.
This fall, on October 26 th , President Bush signed the “Secure Fence Act”. This bill allows for the construction of more than a thousand additional kilometres of fence along the US-Mexico border.
“We have a responsibility to secure our borders,” said a confident Bush before spilling his signature. More than affecting the security of the United States , what this fence will do is affect the flow of illegal immigrants, one would presume.
The PEW Hispanic Centre, a non-partisan “fact-tank” based in Washington D.C, estimates that 11.1 million illegal immigrants currently reside in the U.S. Of this figure, approximately forty percent enter the U.S. legally and overrun the allotted length of their stay.
According to professor Nestor Rodriguez, co-director at the Centre for Immigration Research at the University of Houston , building a fence does not reduce the rates of illegal immigration. Instead, immigrants choose to cross the border further away from populated areas, deep into the desert, where deaths due mainly to dehydration are more likely.
The Act allows building over 1100 km of additional fence along the 3200 km border. Looking at these figures, it seems hardly effective to control this border by fencing one third of it.
For the reasons above the signing of this bill appears nonsensical. Never mind that the Act doesn't allocate funding for this project. So, residents of the U.S, start wondering who will sign the $6 billion cheque.
Thus, we must keep asking: What's the purpose of this fence? The New York Times editorial reminds us that the U.S. is on campaign for mid-term elections. Hence, the Republican Party has made illegal immigrants a hot issue – or “illegal aliens” as policy makers call them – to forget what is happening in Iraq . While they do this, the accuse Democrats of being soft on immigration for supposedly wanting to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Democrats are not for simply giving amnesty, they just propose to grant legal status to those immigrants that have been in the country for an extended period of time, have no criminal records and have paid taxes.
What is more – and nobody seems to realize –, it would be an aggressive slap to the U.S. economy if those illegal immigrants stopped doing menial tasks and were deported back to Mexico.
The U.S seems to not have learnt anything from years of bad immigration policies. In fact, we can agree with the Republicans that immigration is an issue. But, for serious issues you don't come up with patch-up solutions. What needs to happen is a comprehensive review of immigration policy. How about attracting investors to create more jobs on the Mexican side of the border? Or expand the guest-worker program? Or, how some Democrats have suggested, allow people that have been living illegally for a long period of time to stay?
No answers.
As for walls, it seems that this one is not going up anytime soon. If it does, then think of Berlin : it was down not long after it was erected; or from China : that one never kept anybody out.
Background & Research
A Great Wall? (NewsWeek)
United States - Mexico Barrier (Wikipedia)
Operation Gatekeeper (US Dept. of Justice)
Bush Signs U.S.-Mexico Border Fence (ABC) - Oct 26, 2006
Great Wall of Mexico (Global Security)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)