On wednesday, the military opened fire upon a pro-democracy demonstration in Myanmar (also known as Burma). For the past few months, tens of thousands of demonstrators have been led by Buddist monks rallying against the oppressive government that has been accused of human rights violations and heavy censorship that was evident in the last uprising which led to bloody clashes in 1988. The difference is that this time the government is having a harder time containing information and censoring because of the growth of use in cell phones and the internet. The government has forcibly shut down internet cafes, where most people have access since home internet connections are very restricted, and has slowed internet connections and shut down phone lines in hopes of keeping quiet the rising violence and resistance of its people. Satellite phones and internet video messaging is getting the word out of Myanmar while those inside the nation are recieving word via shortwave radio.
This just goes to show us how technological advances have revolutionized communication and makes it easier for us to find out about whats happening in other nations where the people are oppressed by their government. Myanmar has had numerous sanctions brought against it in the past and its militaristic government should be held more accountable for its human rights violations before we see even worse violence in the depressed nation.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
More Unsettling Developments from Iran
The leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has accused the "arrogant" Western powers of imposing illegal sanctions against Iran. Iran has infact defied two such resolutions from the United Nations Security Council that would suspend Iran's uranium enrichment and impose increasing heavy sanctions upon people and organizations involved in the nuclear program. Ahmadinejad accuses the United States in particular of making "every effort to turn a simple legal issue into a very loud, controversial, political issue" and using this as justification “to pursue the issue through its appropriate legal path ... and to disregard unlawful and political impositions by the arrogant powers.”
The United States delegation was not present during the speech, all having left as the Iranian leader took the platform all but one note-taker. The United Nations Security Council is discussing a thirt security resolution with even greater sanctions threatened against the ''rogue'' nation.
The fact that Iran is actually moving forward with its nuclear program in the midst of discussion about it regardless of the wishes of the UN is frightening. Regardless of whether Iran actually is building weapons or if it really is a blown up legal issue as Iran claims, the fact is that no good has come of refusing negotiations or closing discussions on such an important issue.
The full MSNBC article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20969975/
The United States delegation was not present during the speech, all having left as the Iranian leader took the platform all but one note-taker. The United Nations Security Council is discussing a thirt security resolution with even greater sanctions threatened against the ''rogue'' nation.
The fact that Iran is actually moving forward with its nuclear program in the midst of discussion about it regardless of the wishes of the UN is frightening. Regardless of whether Iran actually is building weapons or if it really is a blown up legal issue as Iran claims, the fact is that no good has come of refusing negotiations or closing discussions on such an important issue.
The full MSNBC article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20969975/
The Jena Six
A couple days ago, when Ryan asked that somebody blog about this huge controversy that is going on now about the Jena 6, Benji responded that "it's just racism, and it sucks." I agree with him on that. Although the incident was definitely a terrible occurrence-a group of students repeatedly kicking a defenseless kid- the facts clearly suggest that there was some deliberate oversight in the law's handling of the issue. It seems to me that whatever they say to the contrary, the police, judges, and prosecutors exhibited some pretty obvious signs of racism. Sure, the six students who beat up Justin Barker deserved punishment, because they did commit a crime, but what about the other incidents that led up to the beating? Why were the white children who hung up the nooses in the tree only punished with suspension when the FBI said that their actions had all the markings of a hate crime? Why weren't students petitions to the school board taken more seriously? Why wasn't the High School's arson a bigger deal? And why weren't the fights that broke out at the convenience store and the party more fairly dealt with?
I'm not saying that the Jena 6 should get off totally free, they did do something wrong, and should be punished accordingly. But then, so should everyone else. Although the Jena 6 did commit a crime in assaulting Barker, they weren't the only guilty ones. Yet they were the only ones severely punished. There are certainly signs of racism in the local official's judgments. If you want to punish someone for wrongdoing, fine, but at least be consistent.
I think one thing that we need to recognize in this issue is the extent to which racism is embedded in American culture. Yes, in all likelihood, the many of the unfair judgments in this case were rooted in racist values. The whole case itself was sparked by a dispute over which race of students sat where at lunch. And although i think that is good that so many people are speaking out against the racism against the Jena 6, I think it is important for us to recognize that racism doesn't just go in one direction. It affects everyone. It was a terrible thing for white students to hang nooses on a tree as a threat. It was likewise a terrible thing for others to respond violently. Racism started the conflict, but it also kept it going, as it still does.
Is it possible for any of us to be totally unbiased on the issue of race? Although history has shown some improvement, the tiny fact that we still recognize it as an issue shows that there is still a long way to go. We actually expect racism, we look for it. Stephen Colbert regularly claims that he's colorblind. It's satirical, but I wish we could all see things like that. Hopefully the public outcry against cases based on race will help us recognize our failings as a nation and come to the point where we no more even think to suspect a policemen of racial bias any more than we suspect him of prejudice against tall people. But that's pretty far off.
I'm not saying that the Jena 6 should get off totally free, they did do something wrong, and should be punished accordingly. But then, so should everyone else. Although the Jena 6 did commit a crime in assaulting Barker, they weren't the only guilty ones. Yet they were the only ones severely punished. There are certainly signs of racism in the local official's judgments. If you want to punish someone for wrongdoing, fine, but at least be consistent.
I think one thing that we need to recognize in this issue is the extent to which racism is embedded in American culture. Yes, in all likelihood, the many of the unfair judgments in this case were rooted in racist values. The whole case itself was sparked by a dispute over which race of students sat where at lunch. And although i think that is good that so many people are speaking out against the racism against the Jena 6, I think it is important for us to recognize that racism doesn't just go in one direction. It affects everyone. It was a terrible thing for white students to hang nooses on a tree as a threat. It was likewise a terrible thing for others to respond violently. Racism started the conflict, but it also kept it going, as it still does.
Is it possible for any of us to be totally unbiased on the issue of race? Although history has shown some improvement, the tiny fact that we still recognize it as an issue shows that there is still a long way to go. We actually expect racism, we look for it. Stephen Colbert regularly claims that he's colorblind. It's satirical, but I wish we could all see things like that. Hopefully the public outcry against cases based on race will help us recognize our failings as a nation and come to the point where we no more even think to suspect a policemen of racial bias any more than we suspect him of prejudice against tall people. But that's pretty far off.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Related Clips
MSNBC has the actual videos of the speeches. Check them out.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20942057/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20942057/
Diplomacy and Discourse
For years, relations between the US and Iran have been hostile. From America's Cold War manipulation of the nation through Shah Pahlavi to Operation Ajax, which effectively threw Mohammed Mossadegh out of office, the USA doesn't have the best historical track record in it's dealings with Iran. In recent years, relations have gotten even worse. Although the two nations recently agreed to talk once again after the 27 years of silence that followed the attack on the US embassy in Tehran, accusations of supporting terrorism, the threat of war, and Iran's alleged nuclear aspirations have kept the situation explosive. Yet today, Iran's president Ahmadinejad was invited to speak at Columbia University.
I've always believed that open discussion is one of the most important keys to peaceful relations, and so I think that Columbia's invitation was a step in the right direction. Perhaps, in the spirit of dipolmacy, it wasn't wise for Lee Bolinger to say to Ahmadinejad's face that he "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," but I applaud his bravery in openly questioning Iran's controversial political policies. As Ahmadinijad demonstrated with a significant portion of his speech, he was obviously displeased with his less-than-warm welcome. I can easily see how he might not have expected such accusatory marks right off the bat, but i think that in general it was a positive thing. Too many of our past failed relations with Iran have been dictated by a lack of communication. I think that is is far better for us to openly air our concerns and to allow Ahmadinejad to hear them, think about them, and respond to them, than it is for is to just let out disagreements grow into an outright war.
Pretensions and lies don't last long in an academic atmosphere where they are openly challenged, and I think that Columbia did a pretty good job of challenging Ahmadinejad's policies. I hope that this talk won't be the last of it's kind, because despite the controversies that surrounded it, I think it's a step in the right direction. Let's stop being secretly suspicious of each other's motives, and stop considering a war that may turn out to be unnecessary. We need more frank and open discussion like this one if we are ever to come to some sort of peaceful understanding.
I've always believed that open discussion is one of the most important keys to peaceful relations, and so I think that Columbia's invitation was a step in the right direction. Perhaps, in the spirit of dipolmacy, it wasn't wise for Lee Bolinger to say to Ahmadinejad's face that he "exhibit[s] all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator," but I applaud his bravery in openly questioning Iran's controversial political policies. As Ahmadinijad demonstrated with a significant portion of his speech, he was obviously displeased with his less-than-warm welcome. I can easily see how he might not have expected such accusatory marks right off the bat, but i think that in general it was a positive thing. Too many of our past failed relations with Iran have been dictated by a lack of communication. I think that is is far better for us to openly air our concerns and to allow Ahmadinejad to hear them, think about them, and respond to them, than it is for is to just let out disagreements grow into an outright war.
Pretensions and lies don't last long in an academic atmosphere where they are openly challenged, and I think that Columbia did a pretty good job of challenging Ahmadinejad's policies. I hope that this talk won't be the last of it's kind, because despite the controversies that surrounded it, I think it's a step in the right direction. Let's stop being secretly suspicious of each other's motives, and stop considering a war that may turn out to be unnecessary. We need more frank and open discussion like this one if we are ever to come to some sort of peaceful understanding.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)