Conflict Solutions International

Cuba: Past, Present and Future

2009-07-29T08:45:00.000-07:00

On the night of June 12, 2009, CSI hosted an event titled, “Cuba: Past, Present and Future” at the Letelier Theater in Georgetown. In this event, the audience was able to hear from four professionals who have done work in Cuban affairs. Each gave the audience a different perspective on how to view the United States’ relationship with Cuba—these experts included Wayne Smith, Eugene Puryear, Jose’ Pertierra and Cecila Domeyko.

Wayne Smith was a former diplomat of the US Department of State that worked on Cuban affairs for well over 30 years. He presented many interesting facts about Cuba, and US-Cuban relations during his tenure working for the State Department. At that time Cuban-American relations were tense with the Bay of Pigs incident and the alignment of Fidel Castro with the Soviet Union. Smith discussed a long history of presidential administrations doing far too little to improve U.S.-Cuban relations, including the most recent Bush administration. It was interesting to note that post-9/11 Cuba kept their airspace open and also signed all 12 anti-terror conventions, which provoked no response from the United States. It seemed to Smith that former President Bush’s main objective was to topple the Castro’s government.

Mr. Smith then came to discuss the current administration under Barack Obama. Smith hopes that the United States will open a greater dialogue with Cuba by allowing for remittances and also by opening channels of migration to the States. This would enable Cuba to be an open society, he stressed. He wants the relationship to move forward and still presses for policy to change towards Cuba. U.S.-Cuban relations are better off now with the Obama administration in power, he said.

Eugene Puryear, a Cuban 5 advocate, talked about the current battle to free five Cubans illegally arrested for preventing anti-Castro terrorist organizations from carrying out terrorist attacks in Cuba. Puryear also discussed the pattern of past presidents dealing with Cuba in a negative light, and all the aspirations attached to the new Obama administration to strengthen relations between the two countries.

The 4th speaker, Jose Pertierra, represented the council for Alien Gonzales, the Cuban illegal immigrant who sailed on a raft to the United States to seek asylum and be with his father. Mr. Pertierra said that there was a abnormal relationship between the United States and Cuba, stressing scornful paternalism with which United States treats Cuba. He wanted the United States to put into focus the geopolitical issues which are at stake with regards to this fragile relationship between the two countries. Pertierra stated that more effort and cooperation is needed between the states when dealing with trade, immigration, and travel. Other issues that need to be deliberated should be prisoner exchange and the way in which the Organization of American States is shifting policy towards Cuba.

The final speaker was Cecila Domeyko, a documentary film-maker. She made a documentary on an all-women orchestra in Cuba, sharing with us her thoughts on making the documentary. She hoped to show women’s empowerment through her documentary, allowing for an unprecedented view into the daily lives of the Cuban women. She wanted everyone to know what their homes looked like, their hopes and dreams. The theme was the artist and family—the universality of the artist struggle.

The various dimensions presented in the panel discussion on the past, present and future of Cuba allowed the audience to see how the relationship between the United States and Cuba has evolved, and how professionals dealing with Cuba advocate for a strengthening of the relationship.

Written by Rajit Das, a CSI volunteer.

Separation of Church and State, Muslim World and Civil Society

2009-07-29T08:18:00.000-07:00

Three major power players in the Muslim world held an intriguing discussion under the title, “Separation of Religion and State: Muslim World and Civil Society”, at the Henry L. Stimson Center on the 26th of May.

The first speaker, Elias Aoun, is a lawyer who discussed how the Islamic world should inject their legal system with common principles. Tyranny may have resulted from the lack of common law and lack of adoption of natural rights in some parts of the region. Aoun stated we should learn from religion the basic tenets of Righteousness, and just Truth, resulting in the eventual incorporation of these concepts within the law. Overall he emphasized the need for a reform in the current laws found in Muslim countries.

The second speaker, Dr Katrin Michael, a female member of the opposition party in the Iranian government, spoke about the urgent need for the reformation of existing laws and establishing new ones in regards to a rights of the women. Currently, she is a human rights activist who stressed that women are treated as second class citizens since, in Islam, a woman is legally considered to be half of a man. Furthermore, throughout her speech, she gave numerous citations of passages from the Quran, such as Article III of Surah 1.4 that allows a husband to beat his wife. She also discussed the practice of Female Genital Mutilation. She concluded her speech by saying that countries should create a independent commission for women that works along with the president, ensuring that women have a role in government, and that peace movements towards societal ills against women should become more progressive through the use of the media.

The final speaker, Peshwaz Faizulla, a Kurd and the online editor of Chiraiazadi.org, showcased some unique points in ways in which Muslim countries should reform the establishment of their laws. For example, Islam has no “church”, therefore there shouldn’t be a relationship between church and state found in certain Muslim countries. Also he stated that religion is a product of human history, and Islamic disputes are more for power than for necessity. This has led to the continuing bloody conflict found in Muslim history. He also made the point of emphasizing that knowledge is what Prophet Muhammad advocated for, and that knowledge was not desired amongst his people after his death. “Secularism” is deemed to be a western concept, unfamiliar to people in the Muslim world. Yet this form of government should be implemented in its various ways in the Middle East, according to Faizulla.

These speeches were given by reputable Middle East specialists, showcasing the multifaceted ways in which reform ideas are being circulated amongst intellectuals in the Islamic world. It allows one to think how, if possible, any changes may come in future discussions of this sensitive topic. This CSI event allowed an “outsiders” view into what is happening in the Muslim world and I am certainly optimistic of the positive changes that are yet to come for the region.

Written by Rajit Das, a CSI volunteer.

The Conflict in Somalia

2009-04-28T06:53:00.000-07:00

As timely an issue as ever, the conflict in Somalia was discussed at CSI's latest event, Thursday April 23. The volunteers of CSI pulled togethewr a knowledgeable panel from different sectors to try to help us understand exactly what brought this state to failure.

Abdirahman M. Abdi spoke first. As an economist with ties to the World Bank and Wall Street, Abdi explained the complicated economic situation in Somalia, along with highlighting the historical reasons for the piracy that has so captured the headlines recently.

Next, native Somalia Hussein Yusuf discussed the current state of conflict, bringing in the tribal wars along with the Islamist Movement and the imposition of Shariah law.

Refugees International worker Patrick Duplat discussed the situation on land as a grave humanitarian crisis where even the aid workers are now targeted.

And finally, Hassan Warsame, co-founder and Vice President of the Somalia Diaspora Network (SDN) finished up the panel's presentation by going in depth into the challenges and opportunities with the recent unity government, along with his recommendations for bringing Somalia closer to a peaceful nation.

Check our website soon for a full video recap of the panel discussion and the Q&A after: http://csiorg.org

Deja Vu

2009-02-02T10:30:00.000-08:00

This morning I got a particularly violent case of déjà vu when I read stories about Gaza militants launching rockets into Israel and Israeli PM Ehud Olmert threatening a “disproportionate” response. The likelihood of another escalation in violence makes expediency of peace agreements and ceasefires all-the-more important. But peace negotiations in the region have never exactly been described as swift.

This is mainly because Israeli-Palestinian conflict is facing such an assortment of problems on many levels. One major one seems to be the fact that the Palestinians aren’t united, that an agreement is impossible if not all Palestinians are able to take part. Though the world may see Mahmoud Abbas as the Palestinian leader, many of the Palestinians don’t, and it is their opinion that really matters to the success of any peace talks.

In an attempt to work on this particular puzzle piece, Abbas of the Fatah party is now in Cairo with President Hosni Mubarak and a few reluctant members of Hamas, trying to “negotiate a permanent ceasefire which could lead to Gaza’s borders being reopened after an 18-month Israeli blockade which has prevented all but the most basic humanitarian supplies from entering.” But they aren’t likely to get anywhere soon, and not just because of the hostility Hamas probably feels towards the Egyptian leader who turned Gazans away at the border during the 22-day Israeli offensive—“Mr Abbas has said talks were impossible with anyone who rejected the supremacy of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which he leads. This follows a statement last week by the exiled leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, said the PLO ‘expresses a state of impotence, abuse and a tool to deepen divisions.’ Hamas has never been a member of the PLO.” [BBC, 2/2/09]

Anniversary of a Revolution: Perspectives on Iran

2009-02-12T17:03:00.000-08:00

Last night CSI held its first formal program of 2009 at All Souls Unitarian Church titled: “Anniversary of a Revolution: Perspectives on Iran.” More than 40 people gathered to listen to the expert opinions and commentary of six distinguished individuals as they elucidated the many dynamics of a country that is not well known by the American people.

International political economist Allison Johnson moderated as the speakers each took a few minutes to present the issues they deemed pertinent, specifically when thinking about Iran 30 years after the revolution. The first speaker was former deputy director of the National Cathedral Center for Global Justice and Reconciliation Evan Anderson. He was able to reflect on the history and mindset that brought Iran to revolution in the first place and how those viewpoints inform Iranian decision-making. This was especially important to hear considering the state of Iranian-U.S. relations after their mention as a member of the "Axis of Evil" in 2002, now with a new U.S. Administration and in the future with the upcoming Iranian elections. “If there’s anything we need in this country,” Anderson said, “it’s fresh perspectives on Iran.”

Jamil Shami followed Anderson’s presentation with a lively recounting of the dynamics among the U.S., Arab and Iranian world. She spoke about how the U.S. relationship with Israel affects Arab and Persian perceptions of America, and also about the seeming U.S. hypocrisy of allowing its allies nuclear weaponry but not allowing Iran to develop nuclear capabilities that they consider peaceful. Towards the end of his presentation he also noted the recent empowerment political parties with financial support from Iran have received in the past few years after military engagements with Israel, such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Director of the Islamic Information Center, Nassar Haider was next to speak, choosing to focus on the dynamics between Shia and Sunni Islam, along with adamantly pointing out that “in the last 30 years, Iran has not invaded a single country.” He also spoke about civil liberties in the United States before and after 9/11.

As a reporter for London-based Financial Times, Simon Henderson was a correspondent in Tehran during the revolution, which he described in his presentation as “a chaotic time… it was one day of chaos followed by another day of chaos.” He spoke of the difficulty in putting the events in a regional context as they unfolded, but the ease later in understanding the developing signs of revolution. As a somewhat gray prediction of the times to come, Henderson said in his closing statement: “I’ve had a tremendously interesting time writing about this and writing about it for the past 30 years… but it is unfortunate that it will remain a troublesome area to write about for the next 30 years.”

Fatemeh Mohammadi, a deputy director of diplomatic affairs with the Iranian Interest Section in Washington rounded out the speakers’ comments by describing what she saw as the “peace-loving country of Iran,” a democratic state that guarantees the rights of individuals, including women like herself who choose to cover their heads out of piety, rather than out of fear of retribution. She criticized the biases of the U.S. media where “fiction takes place as fact.” She also chastised the U.S. for holding the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world and accusing Iran of enriching uranium for WMDs. She then praised Iran for it's technological developments, like the launching of a satellite last week.

During the brief Q&A section, two of the brave souls to stand up to the microphone were Iranian-born. One mentioned the victims of chemical attacks perpetrated by Saddam Hussein and the other spoke of her concern over the bias of American media. The third question brought to the discussion some of Iran’s more controversial political moves like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s demonstrated hatred towards the Israeli state, and also Iran's financing of American-recognized terrorist organizations. Mr. Henderson, Mr. Shami and Mr. Haider all responded in their own ways, Henderson stating that “there hasn’t been any indication that there will be a change in unhelpful behavior of Iran” and Haider talking about some of the similarities between Iran and the U.S. in regards to their controversial behavior.

To close, Anderson discussed U.S. engagement with Iran in the Obama Administration versus in the Bush Administration and Mohammadi reminded us all of the large population of Jewish people in Iran. But I think the most lasting message of the final comments to this intriguing discussion—organized by a small, independent organization like CSI— came from the moderator, Allison Johnson: “We are witnesses to the power of the grassroots movement… our voices make a difference.”

And here are some parting words from the CSI President:

Contrary to popular belief, America today is a polarized place. Our event on Iran was one of the very few exceptions. If you go to an event run by Islamic or pro-Iranian groups, you will never hear the voice of the American mainstream with their criticism of Islam. But if you go to any lecture by mainstream organizations, you will never hear the other side. Any foundation with institutional or government money (and those are the only ones that in the end survive) will ever host official Cubans, Iranians or other people that are hostile to the US. We are trying to bring both sides of the same issues under one roof, building bridges.

Check out the Meet-Up site!

Cuban embargo

2008-09-25T13:02:00.000-07:00

For almost 50 years the United States has continued its trade embargo against Cuba, stepping up to even more strict regulations within the past 10 years, like increased financial sanctions that isolate Cuba from the international trading community. With the devastation of Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, many in Cuba and around the world are again raising their voices in protest to the persistence of the blockade. After the natural disaster, the U.S. offered direct aid to the island, but still refuses to lift the embargo that Cuban Foreign Minister Felips Pérez Roque estimated has cost Cuba at least $222 billion (“Near-unanimous vote at UN”). Calls to end the blockade may be heard louder as the Cuban Vice President Jose Ramon Machado Ventura participates in the 63rd convention of the United Nations General Assembly this week in New York (though it is unlikely to make headlines in the U.S. while the Presidential campaign and the current financial crisis blanket news pages across the country).

Looking beyond the protestations of Cuba herself, more than 180 members of the United Nations voted to condemn the embargo in 2007. This issue has been raised religiously for the past 16 years, and every vote ends with a majority decision against the blockade. So what is the U.S. still holding on for? Are politicians trying not to lose face in the international community for giving in to such a small nation?

Having formed the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba in 2003, it would seem the U.S. government has held tight to this embargo for so many years because it wishes to see the administration in Cuba change to a democracy. But is this an efficient way to do so? When an embargo is placed on a country, who is hurt? And who do they blame for their suffering?

--Articles:

Partlow, Joshua. “Hurricanes Shift Debate on Embargo Against Cuba.” Washington Post Foreign Service, 24 September 2008, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/23/AR2008092303668.html?hpid=moreheadlines .

Van Auken, Bill. “Near-Unanimous vote at UN to repudiate US blockade of Cuba” World Socialist Web Site, 1 November 2007 http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/nov2007/cuba-n01.shtml.

A little closer to home

2009-02-01T11:04:00.000-08:00

In an increasingly lawless Mexico that some have warned may be close to a failed state, a truce has been called between competing drug lords in the infamous Sinaloa region.

The marked decrease in violence in the area after the truce would signal how closely tied the violence is to drug trafficking disputes—it would seem the drug lords have figured out that these constant killings and kidnappings are bad for business. But I’m sure President Felipe Calderon would love to attribute the positive change to his efforts in clamping down on crime—he has sent 45,000 troops around the country, pushed for legislation to decrease the number of readily available weapons and attempted to overhaul a slow and somewhat corrupt judiciary.

I commend Calderon on his courageous efforts to bring his country out of bedlam amid a global recession that Mexico is feeling, badly. But it seems odd that drug lords would just suddenly decide that random violence and kidnappings is rather counter-productive. Maybe the narco-trafficking kings are indeed reacting to Calderon’s crackdown. Let’s just hope they aren’t calling a truce to unite together against governmental forces. And if that really is the cause for the truce, let’s just hope that their compadres in Juarez or Tijuana don’t get similar ideas.

Other news from Mexico:

--Crimes are getting more gruesome: “el Pozolero”

--Still no word from the ironic kidnapping of the year: Felix Batista

A ceasefire has been reached, now what?

2009-01-18T06:33:00.000-08:00

The other day a friend of mine returned from a group trip to Israel and she seemed changed. I’ve never seen her get emotional or caught up in anything, but as she described one particular story, her eyes welled up with tears and her lip quivered for a moment before she blinked it all back.

She talked about an Israeli girl at a cross-cultural meeting of Israelis, Palestinians and Americans. This local girl was confused at much of the talk about Israelis and Palestinians hating each other. She asked an adult nearby my friend why the Palestinians didn’t like her and her family.

“It’s complicated,” the adult replied. “It’s difficult to explain.”

“Well maybe,” the girl bravely replied, “we can send my friend over there to talk to them. He speaks their language very well. He can tell them that we’re nice.”

This was the point where my friend’s big brown eyes turned red.

It truly is complicated, as the adult so matter-of-factly stated to the girl, but it’s also very simple-- it's hatred bred from years of violence based on religion and territory.

The recent events in Gaza were essentially inevitable. Hamas militants were lobbing rockets into Israel, a sovereign state. How long would it take the United States to react defensively if it was being attacked from the south by Mexico, or Cuba? Not long indeed.

However, true to form, Israel reacted disproportionately. Some Israelis have been killed but more than 1,000 Palestinians are dead. A UN school and center for humanitarian aid were shelled (which also brings up the moral question—are the ones who attack the civilians guilty of war crimes or are the ones who hide behind civilians and store weapons in Mosques and schools guilty of war crimes?). So although Israel’s reaction is inevitable, it is disproportionate and, quite frankly, counter-productive.

Hamas gains its strength and support not only from regional nations with similar hatred of the Israeli state, but also from Palestinians who have no one else to turn to. When Israel blockaded Gaza, Hamas was one of the only organizations providing adequate support to a very needy and lost population of first and second generation refugees. So it seems only natural that Hamas receives support from the Palestinians-- “people support the source that meets their needs” (Major Erik A. Claessen, Belgian Armed Forces. “S.W.E.T. and Blood: Essential Services in the Battle Between Insurgents and Counterinsurgents.” Military Review Nov-Dec 2007, p.91).

And those ‘needs’ aren’t merely physical. For a population who has lost hope in peaceful methods of obtaining a land for themselves and adequate jobs and education, who has lost hope in democracy after seeing the world turn its back on their (more or less) democratically elected party, the only hope they can find is in religion. Sadly, many of the religious leaders then use that faith against them to breed violence and more hatred.

With Israel continuing blockades and these past few weeks of air strikes and bringing ground forces into an already dire situation, the religious zealots’ jobs are, unfortunately, much easier. Israel is painted as the evil aggressor and Hamas the defender. No matter how successful Israel believes itself to be after this incursion into Gaza, Hamas will continue to flourish and quite possibly more so.

But then what can be done? Now with a ceasefire agreed upon (albeit, temporarily), what can we do to move forward? Honestly I think the little Israeli girl had it right. We need to start with the youth.

Now this is no short-term solution. This would be a long-term, hard-fought siege against a violent racism that has been stoked and prodded for years upon decades upon centuries. This presence of such deeply engrained prejudices has even forced the international community and country leaders to see very little hope of a light at the end of the tunnel. But if we start now—if the Palestinian refugees were given more aid and unbiased education, clean places to live with health services and food security, if Israel was a part of providing those food and health and educational services to Palestinians, then this majority youth population might choose peaceful economic and political opportunities instead of resorting to violence. If schools were integrated or had regular cross-cultural meetings of children so they could see that the other ‘really is nice,’ then maybe in a generation or two we can quiet the voices of racism and hatred and bring up a generation of those who understand the conflict’s history (from both points of view) and can work towards a more peaceful future.

No this doesn’t solve the territory issue, or stop other nations from funding terrorism, but it’s a start.

And I’m idealistic, I know. But someone’s got to be.

Conflict in Film

2008-12-27T11:44:00.000-08:00

With the perpetually busy lives of Americans, it would seem a lot to ask to sit down in front of the silver screen for two hours or more, but we do. And what movies do we watch?

Sure many are purely for entertainment purposes, to bring us out of our tedious lives and into a fanciful world where the hero is victorious and the vanquished see justice. But many blockbuster hits of late have portrayed the world as it is, violence and corruption and all. And this is to John Q public who may be oceans away from conflicts-- who may not have the patience to read policy papers or textbooks, but still craves truth that can be found beyond the 24-hour news cycle. Movies like Blood Diamond, Hotel Rwanda, Jarhead, Body of Lies, or Traitor have had such success that it would seem Americans use film for other purposes than simply entertainment—maybe film can be used as entertaining education.

I’ll grant that film isn’t always the best educator. Even when depicting real events, it is still a subjective portrayal, with changes in characters and timing to make the two hours as action-packed as possible. But film may have a different type of education—it may show an emotional history, and quite possibly find a deeper truth than any documentary can uncover.

So seeing the entertainment value of international conflicts, how may film be used to help end, or at least understand conflict? Can it even be used? Many terrorist organizations use music videos and short films to recruit martyrs and send a message of hate and violence by using the high emotions and energy of youth against them. But might it be possible for peaceful organizations to send their message of tolerance and understanding through film as well?

I have always been amazed by the beauty of moments in film that lend a real understanding through fictional characters. For example in Kingdom of Heaven, the main character, Balian (a Christian), listens to the translation of a Muslim prayer and states that they sound curiously like his own. Or in a similarly named, but more recent movie The Kingdom, a deeper truth in the conflict between the Western and Arab world is revealed at the end—- both sides have lost loved ones and vow to kill all the perpetrators of these atrocities, demonstrating that in a war where no one is completely innocent, we might be more similar than we believe.

Another, very recent, release Waltz with Bashir, for example, which depicts the experiences of a few Israeli soldiers during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, might lend understanding to a small part of an ongoing war, in an area of the world which is now experiencing the violent effects of continued misunderstanding and hatred.

Given the lag time between an event occurring and the possibility of portraying that event through film, it cannot be used as an everyday policy tool. But in ongoing conflicts with frequent uprisings, it might be useful to teach a younger generation (that makes up a majority of the population in developing countries, especially the Middle East) the emotional taxations of both sides, the misunderstandings that led to a semi-constant state of war or even reveal the tools that could lead to an ultimate peace

Modern-day piracy

2008-11-19T21:30:00.000-08:00

Here’s a situation I’m not even sure how to begin approaching—piracy off the coast of Somalia. What could be done? Where can we even start? This royal mess includes gangs of pirate ships hijacking at ever-increasing rates for ever-increasing ransom amounts. This is all fueled by the lack of any legitimate, sustained government in-land, and a non-existent economy, only to be replaced by a new type of economy catering specifically to the pirating industry.

This country is a place where sending anyone, from a New York Times journalist to a UN peacekeeper, is virtually a death sentence. Lawlessness has prevailed and piracy has become almost a normal means for getting ahead in life (BBC). The sad part is that this may even be expected in a “post-failed state” facing such a proliferation of fighting and famine that the “getting ahead in life” plans are few and far between—you either struggle in poverty as a victim, or struggle in wealth as the perpetrator. Why work for almost non-existent wages with government security forces when you can gain a fortune out at sea?

Any hope for peaceful solutions has walked the plank, pushed by ex-fisherman, ex-militiamen and technical experts who have convened in 10 gangs (there was only one in 2005) that plague the Gulf of Aden (one of the world’s busiest shipping ways), searching for the highest ransom (Maclean’s). And considering the ransoms have grown to an estimated $25 to $30 million this year, the practice is highly lucrative (NYT). This may be the reason why eight ships have been hijacked in the past two weeks, adding to the 92 ships already taken this year alone (NYT).

Under these circumstances, where the situation is volatile both on land and at sea (the two areas feeding off each other like sharks), where do we begin to promote conflict resolution and peace? What’s more, how do we stop this practice from being spread to other regions as they see evidence of high-value work?

Sources:

Gatehouse, Jonathon. “Blackbeard Still Lives.” Maclean’s 121(41) 20 October 2008: p38-40.

Hunter, Robyn. “Somali pirates living the high life.” BBC News online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7650415.stm.

Kumar, Hari and Alan Cowell. “Indian Navy Tells of Sinking Pirate Ship.” The New York Times Online, 20 November 2008: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/world/africa/20pirate.html?_r=1&em&oref=slogin.

The Greater Threat

2008-10-13T10:16:00.000-07:00

During the Vice-Presidential debates a question was asked about Iran and Pakistan—which country poses a greater threat to the new administration? Putting aside the vice-presidential candidate’s answers (since CSI is a non-partisan organization) I wanted to discuss this question since it’s been on my mind now for a few weeks.

First of all, can we compare the two? If we’re talking about Iran, I’m assuming the threat would be coming from their possible development of nuclear technology for WMDs (though they need the nuclear technology for Iranian citizens, and are entitled to it under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, if and only if they allow International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors to enter the country and inspect at will. So far they have not cooperated with inspectors, so they don’t get help with nuclear technology). In Pakistan, it is assumed that the threat comes from multiple sources—the Taliban fighting and growing stronger in the tribal regions, al-Qaeda also finding safe-houses, a new President that hasn’t established a strong rule yet and all of the terrifying instability that emanates from a fragmented government with nuclear capabilities. I recently heard Pakistan called “not a country, but an army”—they are unstable and difficult to handle.

So now which produces the greater threat? In Pakistan, this new unbalanced administration is in charge of a country full of terrorist safe-houses. This poses a major short-term threat not only to the people of Pakistan, but to U.S. efforts in Afghanistan—most all U.S. supplies to troops in Afghanistan go through Pakistan. Recently the U.S. decided to cross the borders of Pakistan without permission from Islamabad so Special Forces could carry out attacks on known terrorist hiding areas. Who knows how this will affect the way the new president is seen to his people, or the actions that the Pakistani military or intelligence organizations choose to take?

But Iran poses a greater long-term threat if something isn’t done now. I don’t mean the military option. Let me repeat that—we should NOT, can NOT invade Iran. We need to increase our diplomatic relations with the country and do whatever we can to foster the growing youth democratic movement there—whether that is done by involving ourselves in local Iranian politics or simply staying away, whatever works. True, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is relatively nuts and frequently spouts off something-or-other about destroying Israel, but he technically has no decision making power in the country—he is more a spokesman than anything else. But whoever has the decision making power is enjoying a healthy growing relative power in the region. It is dangerous to ignore this.

So I’m curious. What do you think? Which poses a greater threat to U.S. interests, if a threat at all?

Crossing Pakistani Borders

2008-09-16T17:10:00.000-07:00

Recently the U.S. military began sending Special Operations ground troops into Pakistani borders without permission from Islamabad. The first of such attacks happened when they landed by helicopter within the borders of Afghanistan on September 3rd, crossed into Pakistan and attacked Taliban and al-Qaeda targets. In these tribal areas there are hideouts and safe-houses where members of either terrorist organization could be planning attacks, either within that region or outside. This would seem to fall directly under the mission of the U.S. military in the War on Terror. However, attacking without permission—from the Pakistani military, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency or the new President Asif Ali Zardari—may end up being counter-productive. Here are some issues to think about and discuss:

1) The people of Pakistan, like those in most every other country, have a great enthusiasm for keeping their territorial integrity, and are understandably upset by U.S. incursions into their borders. Up until now they have been called an ally in the war on terror, albeit an unstable and ineffective ally. Through the years of fighting since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, terrorists have been able to cross the borders into Pakistan to find safe-havens and supplies, which has been detrimental to U.S. efforts in the region. It seems logical that the U.S. military should now follow them across the border to target known terrorist areas specifically. But crossing that border complicates the matter greatly. What authority does the U.S. have to do this? In a New York Times article by Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, it was stated that an American official said “the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission" (“Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan”). Is this enough?

2) With the new president, and his apparent good relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a window of opportunity was opened for improved diplomatic relations among the two presidents and the U.S. But that window could quickly close if the U.S. goes too far in outraging the Pakistani population (they already aren’t too fond of us). Both Karzai and Zardari have to walk a fine line between good relations with the U.S. and seeming like a puppet for Western powers to their own people. I’m sure hearing news that U.S. soldiers killed civilians in their area is making it difficult for them to keep good relations with Washington.

3) It is extremely difficult for U.S. soldiers to fight in civilian areas while then enemy hides out in their villages and in their homes, wearing similar clothes. This has been a big issue in Iraq as well. So who is morally at fault when civilians die in these attacks? The terrorists who hide behind these women and children, or the soldiers who are trying to do their jobs while also protecting themselves and the lives of their fellow soldiers? And if it is wrong to attack in tribal areas where civilians may be in danger, what do we do instead? The U.S. military knows where the enemy is. One New York Times article stated that U.S. special Operations forces killed “about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters” (“Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan”). So how can we expect our military men and women to stand back and wait for permission that may come too late, while they know the location of an enemy most of them joined the military to fight?

News Article:

Schmitt, Eric and Mark Mazzetti. “Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan.” New York Times Online, 11 September 2008:

Georgia and the 'new Cold War'

2008-09-04T08:35:00.000-07:00

When Russian forces moved across Georgian borders August 7th of this year, it was easy for many in the West to jump to the conclusion that Russia was the “bad” guy and Georgia was the “good” guy. Zip, bang, boom, put it in the headline. But in the weeks since, the lines between the aggressor and the victim have been blurred.

Moscow accused Tbilisi of “genocide”. Tbilisi accused Moscow of “ethnic cleansing.” And since Russia’s acknowledgement of the independent status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the borders that Russia crossed and their motivations for taking these actions have been muddled into a gray area. The international community joins Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in renouncing Russia’s action, but it was reported that the power structures of the already semi-autonomous regions actually thanked Russian President Dmitri Medvedev for his help and recognition. It could be said that Saakashvili moved his troops into the region first, and in his attempt to take them back under full control of his administration, he provoked Russia into a defensive response to protect the large number of Russian citizens that reside in the regions. But then Russia’s response has been called a “disproportionate reaction” by European leaders who met earlier this week to discuss possible sanctions (BBC News article, “EU suspends talks on Russia Pact”). The European Union ultimately decided against sanctions but threatened to delay talks on a new partnership agreement if Moscow doesn’t remove its troops from Georgian territory. This lack of sanctions has given Russia one reason to be happy, but they are still alone in their recognition of the break-away regions as independent entities and have furthered their international isolation with provocative comments like Medvedev’s recent description of Saakashvili as a “political corpse” (BBC News article, “Saakashvili a ‘political corpse’”).

Now, I won’t debate here whether the sovereignty of a country, or its right to an independent existence, is reliant on the recognition of one other nation alone, or whether an agreement needs to be reached among a majority of UN members, or whether de facto control over a territory is enough. The entire issue of the human right to self-determination is complex and would require much more space for debate. But I would like to discuss one issue I find interesting in the political discussion of the crisis as it is portrayed in the media.

In a September 2nd article from the BBC, Medvedev brought to light U.S. involvement in the crisis. Though the U.S. has sent no troops, nor imposed any sanctions, President Bush’s support of Saakashvili would seem enough for Russia to accuse Washington of provoking the crisis. Medvedev may be just flexing his muscles now in an attempt to prove that his strength matches that of his predecessor, Vladimir Putin. But with such direct jabs at the West that have become fairly regular, especially since the U.S. finally locked the agreement with Poland to place anti-missile defense systems in their borders, many have considered the idea of a “new Cold War.” But what does that mean, really? What would a new Cold War entail? And shouldn’t we give it a new name? Granted, Prime Minister Putin is ex-KGB, but Russia is not the Soviet Union. Medvedev hasn’t proved himself to be Stalin. He doesn’t seem to be Mahatma Gandhi either, but it must difficult to be the successor of a man like Putin, a leader who is revered in Russia as the one who brought the country back from the dead and into her own.

Looking specifically at the conflict in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, I can understand why so many would question the reemergence of the Cold War. If we defined that time by the actions of two major powers who prodded each other politically by using other, perhaps smaller or lesser developed nations for their battlefields, then this example might be perfect. The possibility is open that Russia’s actions in Georgia was partially backlash from the Western recognition of the Serbian break-away region of Kosovo in February, making Kosovo and Georgia the proxy wars of the new millennium.

I’m sure it also doesn’t help that Saakashvili seems to be egging on this Cold War mentality with inflammatory remarks, broadening the situation to frame it as a war between the West and Russia. Between good and evil. Between freedom and tyranny. But what I want to know is, in the very specific case of the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, minus all the Cold War rhetoric, which government really represents good and which government really represents evil? The government that sent troops to keep control over the regions? Or the government that sent troops to keeps those troops from keeping control over the regions? Do they have a right to independence, as Georgia did from the Soviet Union? Maybe. But does Russia have a right to decide? Or the Georgian government? The UN?

News articles:

BBC News, "EU suspends talks on Russia Pact” 1 Sept 2008

BBC News, "Saakashvili a ‘political corpse'” 2 Sept 2008

2008-09-01T06:02:00.000-07:00

Updates from Nagaland

2008-09-02T08:33:00.000-07:00

You may have already seen the two-part interview with Grace Collins in the “CSI Productions” tab of the website (if not, then I encourage you to watch it). I spoke with Ms. Collins recently and it sounds like she has been busy since that interview was filmed.

One “soft multi-track diplomacy” campaign she is working on is modeled after none other than her pet cat Malcolm. A strange suggestion to be an ambassador of Nagaland for sure, but her reasoning is sound. As a cultural diplomat, it is Ms. Collins’ job to share the culture of the Naga people with the seemingly apathetic American public. One medium she has chosen to spread news of the plight of the Nagas is YouTube.

Videos have previously been posted on YouTube about Nagaland, but unfortunately it seems the nation is a victim of its own obscurity—searching YouTube for “Nagalim” yields only 90 videos. Searching “Nagaland” brings in a bit more: 304. Searching “cat,” however, has very different results. This was why Collins’ decided to use her pure-bred Blue cat Malcolm to star in a three-part drama that will expose the problems the Nagas face at the hands of Indian officials enforcing the Armed Forces Special Powers Act. “I can’t afford a celebrity,” she said. “But on YouTube you can make anyone a celebrity.” The Malcolm Project will also attempt to tap into the multi-billion dollar pet fashion industry to raise money for orphans of Nagalim.

“Food, culture and art is the best way to create awareness, then comes interest, then comes action.” And it seems to be working. The first video of the Malcolm Project has been viewed more than 370,000 times, whereas the first video that comes up when searching “Nagaland” has only been viewed around 3,800 times.

In addition to the pet industry, Ms. Collins’ work has brought her to the culinary industry, making a Naga cookbook that will also tell a compelling story of the people of Nagalim. It makes sense considering how important food is to the identity of any given culture. It also makes perfect sense given the controversy of the Naga Jolokia pepper. Native to the Naga territory, it is the hottest chili in the world. Ms. Collins has even had the unfortunate opportunity of tasting it first hand. “I didn’t realize how horrible it would be until I tried it,” she said. “I took this big bite of it and my lips turned so bright red it looked like I had lipstick on. The next morning my whole hands broke out.” The main controversy of this chili is two-fold—on one hand are the alleged reports of Indians using the pepper as a torture device by making victims eat massive amounts of them or having their skin burned by forced exposure to the chili that normally requires gloves to handle. On the second hand is the controversy over whether the chili pepper belongs to the Nagas or the Indians. This is directly tied to the human right to self-determination of the Naga people: whether their land and their culture are their own, or whether they are just a part of the Indian territory.

“If you look at the UN definition of a nation, the Nagas meet all of the categories,” Collins said. So why are they still being denied independence?

Click for more information on the Malcolm Project

White South African Farmers

2008-09-01T13:02:00.000-07:00

Though there have not yet been many submissions on the CSI website, there is one that caught my eye, as I’m sure it captured the eyes of anyone who chose to open it. The powerpoint presentation on the murders of white South African farmers is graphic and emotional. There are not many facts, but plenty of passion. This makes me wonder how much of it is actually publicized. Even the quintessential source of information—Google—is relatively mum on the situation. So this presentation may be much needed, given the lack of media coverage on the issue. I had certainly never heard much of it and this prompted me to seek out more information on the subject. More information that, let me reiterate, was very difficult to find.

In the presentation it was stated that 1,600 died, but in what time period? Within any particular area? I read that the murders may have totaled 40,000 in South Africa, with around 1,200 between 1994 and 2002 (09 June 2002 WorldNetDaily Article http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27892 ). I also found information tying the killings to an organization called the Azanian People’s Organization (AZAPO)—a group from South Africa that boasts its dedication to the Black Consciousness Movement on their website http://www.azapo.org.za/. On this website it is also stated that “although our ancestors fought the [white] settlers bravely, they were defeated by superior weapons. But Azania, the land of the Black People, is still ours and that is why we reclaim it by force.”

Having found these tidbits of information I would like to know more, especially after having read an April 2008 article in the "Toronto Star" (Canada) describing similar, though not quite as violent, circumstances in Zimbabwe—“White farms seized as Mugabe backers stage 'land grab'.” Not as violent yet anyway.