FGM in the Media

In American media, FGM is one of the many international human rights issues that is not addressed regularly. On cnn.com this was the last mention of it which was on September 22 of this year, and the most emphasis was placed on the U.S. Attorney General's strong, but uncharacteristic stance against the woman's deportation, due to its status as a small case dealing with deportation. And prior to that In reality, the media coverage of FGM in the U.S. has been limited to say the least. It seems FGM was not a salient issue with the American public until documentaries and stories were released by outlets such as the Discovery Channel, which are more likely to focus on the human rights issues associated with certain cultural practices. The American "hard" news organizations such as CNN, tend to focus on the legal ramifications and any international decisions, but do not make the issue a priority in their coverage of international human rights issues.
In contrast, BBC News has more coverage of FGM with a wider breadth of informaton available surrounding the issue. FGM is practiced in many cultures internationally, and the BBC News coverage shows that. While it is not given it's own section of the website, FGM is discussed in relation to where the news stories occur and on the larger scale, examining the efforts large organizations are making on behalf of the cause. This story in particular looks at how the UN has become a champion of women's rights, and is working to eliminate all abuses against women during the observance of the UN's International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.

Obama and McCain's Views

Differences between McCain and Obama:

JOHN MCCAIN VIEWS ON TAXES
$300 milion in tax cuts
Cuts corporate tax rate from 35%-25%
Allows immediate expensing of business-investment
Makes all of income tax cuts permanent
Reduced death tax
Replaces unlimited exemption from employer-sponsored health insurance
Earns more than $250,000 and raises payroll taxes on taxpayers after 2018



BARACK OBAMA VIEWS VIEWS ON TAXES
tax increases after two years
Makes most of income tax cuts permanent
Reduced death tax
Obama's tax proposals exemplify his view that redistributing income among citizens is more important than increasing their earnings and creating jobs citizens is
more important than increasing earnings and creating jobs
Raises payroll taxes on a delayed basis, increases the use of the tax system to redistribute the income to those who pay little or no income tax




JOHN MCCAIN'S VIEW ON HEALTHCARE
Equal tax treatment for health coverage
Health insurance competition on a national scale
Federal assistance to the states to cover vulnerable populations
Creating a universal tax credit for health insurance
Fixing federal tax policy on health insurance
Tax equity and transparency




BARACK OBAMA'S VIEW ON HEALTHCARE
Saves the American family $2500 in medical costs
Offers affordable, comprehensive coverage
Comprehensive, federal standardized healthcare structure
Consolidates more healthcare dollars and decisions in D.C.
New government-run national healthcare program
Expansion of existing government health programs, restrictions on state experimentation, and mandated coverage for children
restrictions on state experimentation, and mandated coverage for children
Federal regulation of healthcare delivery
More federal involvement






BARACK OBAMA'S BUDGET PROPOSALS
Depends on $1 trillion over 10 years in tax revenues from unspecified sources
Adheres to the PAYGO by promising to exempt his proposed extension of 2001 and 2003 tax cuts
tax cuts
Relies on $924 billion over 10 years
Raies social secuity by 4 percent





JOHN MCCAIN'S BUDGET PROPOSALS
Will modernize social security, Medicare, and Medicaid
Cuts corporate tax rates, tax rates and doubles the income tax exemption for dependents
Gives $577 billion budget deficit and additional tax relief
Reduces troop presence in Iraq and achieves some savings and eliminates earmarks



MCCAIN EDUCATION PLAN
Schools competing for the most effective, character building teachers
Provides federal financial support so that parents can take their children out of
failing schools and send them to better ones
OBAMA EDUCATION PLAN
Obama enhances American education: Reforms No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Works to ensure that all children have access to a strong science curriculum at
all grade levels
Better protection of U.S. chemical plants from potential terrorist attacks
Better guidelines for keeping track of spent nuclear fuel
Mandatory planning for the evacuation of people with special needs during emergencies



MCCAIN ECONOMY
End policies that contribute to higher transportation and food costs
Give all deserving American families and/or homeowners the opportunity to trade
burdensome mortgages for manageable loans that reflect their homes' market value
Premanently repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in order to save middle-class
families nearly $60 billion in a single year
Reduce the federal corporate tax from 35% to 25%
Call on Congress to suspend 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from
Memorial Day to Labor Day
Creates two income tax systems where Americans can choose the new simplified
version, or stay with the existing IRS system
Freezes discretionary spending, except for military and veterans, for one year to
evaluate all programs. Consolidates redundant federal programs, as well as
strengthens community colleges and technical training for displaced workers to find
similar or better jobs.

OBAMA ECONOMY
Tackles America's economic crisis
Creates a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1000 per
working family; this tax credit eliminates income taxes for lowest earning Americans
Fights for a trade policy that opens up foreign markets to support good American jobs
Helps all workers adapt to a changing economy by updating the Trade Adjustment
Assistance system
Doubles federal funding for basic research and making the research and development
tax credit permanent to help create high-paying, secure jobs
Raises the minimum wage index to inflation and increases the Earned Income Tax Credit
Does not privatize social security and works to maintain solvency issues
Protects consumers with credit card bill of rights
Simplifies IRS tax filings for middle class, including making a universal home mortgage
credit available to those who do not itemize their tax returns

MCCAIN CIVIL/SOCIAL
Overturns Roe vs. Wade as a "flawed decision"; states should decide abortion issue locally
Protects children by utilizing technology to restrict access to sexually explicit material
on the web via federally-supported libraries and schools
Supports some types of stem cell research, but opposes the "intentional creation of
human embryos for research purposes"
Creates two income tax systems where Americans can choose the new simplified
version, or stay with the existing IRS system
Calls on Congress to suspend the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel
tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day



OBAMA CIVIL/SOCIAL
Obama to ensure rights of individuals are maintained and empower individuals:
Preserves women's rights under Roe vs. Wade
Opposes a constitutional ammendment that makes abortions illegal
Strengthens domestic violence and hate crimes laws
Equalizes pay for all Americans working the same jobs; women and minorities continue
to make less doing the same work
Eliminates sentencing disparities for similar crimes

Somali reality

This is an article about a 13-year -old rape victim in Somalia, who was stoned to death.

US Response to Physical Torture

The United States response to female genital cutting has only come to the forefront in recent years. While the act of female circumcision is seen as physical and mental torture to most individuals around the world, it is strongly defended by those who are deep rooted in its culture and practices.

USAid, (who I have cited as a primary US relief group helping many international causes), released a policy on September 1, 2000 officially stating: "Policy: By this guidance, USAID recognizes FGC as a harmful, traditional practice that violates the health and human rights of women and hinders development. USAID opposes any practice of or support for Female Genital Cutting (FGC) and works toward the goal of total elimination of FGC. Under no circumstances does USAID support the practice of FGC by medical personnel. " (www.USAid.gov). The purpose of this policy is to spread awareness about the travesty going on in other countries and to support the Agency Strategic Plan along with other US Government policies trying to end FGC. Specific actions that this policy address include:
*updating agency strategy to include topics of gender, personal health, human rights and democracy governance
*support indigenous women's groups community leaders and religious organizations to ensure that all eradication activities are culturally appropriate
*identifying that FGC is only going to stop once the demand for it ends. Therefore USAid will work in close partnerships with indigenous community leaders as well as national and global policy leaders to promote broader education of the dangers and perils that FGC poses.
*coordinate elimination efforts and public support through working with donors and advocacy groups to enhance collaboration and coordination of elimination efforts.

The United Nations and the World Health Organizations (WHO) have both been privvy to the happenings regarding FGC, but have only recently begun to speak about it. In 1979, a formal policy statement was released, recommending to eliminate the practice.

Often, we only attempt to spread awareness and relief to causes that affect us personally (poverty, hunger, war, etc.) Because of this attribute of human nature, there is not as much US aid to FGC as I would have thought. There are many International groups and initiatives forming in countries in Africa and the Middle East, where FGC poses as a direct threat to the women that are born there. Other than releasing official statements condemning these procedures, the United States preveriably has its hands tied due to the deep rooted cultural ties this terrible tradition holds.

FGM! NO WAY!

Tribal communities around the world find westernization as a threat to maintaining cultural value. When the world began to recognize FGM as a human rights violation, practicing communities spoke out in defense of the procedures.

For example, the men in an Egyptian village demonstrated against the states attempt to ban 'circumcision'. This country is conservative, religious and guided largely by traditions, even when those traditions do not adhere to the tenets of their faith, be it Christianity or Islam. For centuries Egyptian girls, usually between the ages of 7 and 13, have been taken to have the procedure done, sometimes by a doctor, sometimes by a barber or whoever else in the village would do it.

FMG is considered necessary here to preserve chastity and honor. The skeptical public must be convinced that men will marry a woman who has not undergone the procedure and that circumcision is not necessary to preserve family honor. It is a challenge to get men to give up some of their control over women.

Both sides have been heard, but the terminal health risks associated with this tradition has the world speaking out against it. Culture can be upheld without threatening the lives of the women who cherish their heritage just as much as their grandmothers and mothers have in the past.

The Story of Yasmine a Victim of Female Gental Mutilation

Female genital mutilation is recognized internationally as a human rights violation. According to the World Health Organization “It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women.” Since it is usually performed on minors, it is often classified as a violation of the rights of children. FGM is a tradition, inherent to Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East that arises from social, rather than religious customs. Its purpose is to safeguard young girls’ virtue, as the procedure makes sexual intercourse unpleasant and painful. FGM has severe short term and long term consequences, ranging from life-long psychological and psychosomatic disorders to death.

The statistics is sticking - between 100 to 140 million girls and women worldwide are living with the consequences of FGM. In Africa, about 92 million girls age 10 years and above are estimated to have undergone FGM. Many women are unwilling to give the practice because they see it as continuing traditions passed from generation to generation.

Here is the story of Yasmine, who was 14 when she underwent FGM.

I’d never heard of FGM [female genital mutilation] before it happened to me. Then one morning, when I was 14 years old, my uncle came and woke me up and took me to the house of a tall woman I didn’t know.

Together, they tied my hands and blindfolded my eyes. Then they laid me in the backyard with big banana leaves spread out on the ground. They took off my pants. I was fighting, but the woman sat on my chest. I wanted to die at that moment but I couldn’t scream – they put a cloth in my mouth. It felt like I was suffocating. There were no anaesthetics – they just cut me.

Three days later they said that they hadn’t cut me properly, that my clitoris was "growing back" and they had to scrape it off again. I can’t describe the feeling; you only know when it happens to you.

I stayed there for three weeks. They used to put herbs in a bottle and put it on the wound – it was so painful, like putting pepper on a cut.

I think the mutilation is cultural – many groups of African people are circumcised. They say that if you don’t get circumcised you will smell and a man will not want to marry you.

After they cut me they burned all my clothes and everything I had touched. Then they took the ashes and rubbed them on my stomach. They said that if I told anyone what they had done my belly would swell up and I would die.

Sometimes I get very, very angry. I wish I could talk to the people who did this to me – I wish I was back in that position to stop them. I wish I had a choice.

I had "type three" FGM, and I still feel the effects. I shuffle when I sit down because I get uncomfortable. I feel pain in the night. My period pain is terrible, and I always get infections. And there is a scar.

I came to the UK when I was 15. I was seeking asylum from the war, and from my uncle, who was sexually abusing me. The Home Office said that I was lying and wanted to send me back – that’s when I got married.

Now I’m 19 and I’ve just finished studying for a B-Tec diploma in health and social care. I’m looking for a job – I want to become a social worker so that I can stop other girls going through what I did. In Africa, there are no social workers, but some cases of FGM would be prevented if there were – that’s why I want to be one.

The first time I told anyone what had happened to me, I was 17. I told my best friend in college.

I was scared to talk. I was paranoid that my belly would swell up like they said; I started dieting after I told my friend what happened, and I’d cry if anyone said that I looked fat.

I’m scared to give my name or photo in case someone attacks me because I’m a disgrace, but I don’t feel I have betrayed anyone.

Now I work with groups of young people in the UK. I tell my story so that no one else has to go through it. When I tell the Asian girls in my college they get sad and scared. "This is not Sunni," they say; it’s not. They’re from Bangladesh so they’re Muslim, but they don’t practise FGM.

My husband and I want to open a charity in Sierra Leone. We want to give money to girls who are trying to leave their families because they don’t want to undergo circumcision.

My husband is my everything. Without him I wouldn’t be sitting here talking to you now, and I wouldn’t have got my award from college. He sat crying with me on the floor when my asylum application was refused. He took me to Africa to see about my visa although he is not rich. I wake up every morning and think: "Thank God I have you."

I don’t think FGM is taken seriously enough in Britain – girls are still being taken out of the country. We need more education on it – people don’t really believe it’s going on and they don’t know how serious it can be. A lady in my country bled to death after she was cut. There can be tetanus on the blade or HIV if they don’t sterilise the needle. Having a baby can be made a lot more difficult by circumcision.

We shouldn’t keep quiet; we should stand up and say that those people are not forgiven for what they did and prevent it happening to others. If I heard about any cases of FGM I’d be the first to go to the police.

If someone breaks your teeth you can replace them, if someone knocks out your eye you have a second eye, but when they take this part of you away no one can ever replace it.

If I have a baby girl and any soul tries to touch her, I’ll kill them. I’ll go to prison, but I’ll never let it happen.

No further comments…….

Resources used:

Female Genital Cutting Education and Networking Project(http://www.fgmnetwork.org/faq.php)

UNFPA (http://www.unfpa.org/gender/practices1.htm)

World Health Organization(http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en)

Religious Tolerance (http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm )

Must-see videos on youtube: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=bg&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla:bg:official&hs=NUZ&q=female+genital+mutilation&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#

Female Genital Mutilation

GENITAL MUTILATION

Female genital mutilation is also known as female circumcision (FC) and female genital cutting (FGC). Circumcision gained a growing support in the 1970s. This term was adopted at the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children.

The World Health Organization uses the term Female Genital Mutilation to describe varying types of genital cutting. Type I is the total or partial removal of the clitoris or prepuce. Type II focuses on partial or total removal of the clitoris and labia minora. Type III is the narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal that cuts the labia minora and/or labia majora. Type IV is referred to as “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes such as pricking, pinching, piercing, incising, and scraping. It is found in many diverse ethnic groups. These ethnic groups include: Senegal on the West Coast, Ethiopia on the East Coast, Egypt in the north, Tanzania in the south, Sudan, and Mali. Northern Saudi Arabia, southern Jordan, and Iraq are the other countries where genital mutilation is prevalent.

Sanctions: Means for Resolution or Human Rights Violation

The response by the United States to the Darfur crisis is similar to what they did with Cuba. Economic sanctions seem to be a better alternative to war, but it may also be true that the consequences of these sanctions hurt civilians more than the target itself. The U.S. imposed economic sanctions on seven Sudanese individuals and more than 160 companies owned or controlled by the government of Sudan or linked to militia to increase pressure on Khartoum to end the violence in Darfur. In an increasingly interdependent world such sanctions cause significant suffering of the poor and indirectly furthering impoverishment.

There are some provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that are especially vulnerable to violation under sectioned regimes: the right to life; the right to freedom from inhumane or degrading treatment; the right to an adequate standard of living including food, clothing, housing, medical care; and the right to social security in the event of lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond a person's control. The U.S. addresses human rights concerns by contributing $440 million to the U.S. Agency for International Development and the World Food Program. Do these efforts really fix anything? Maybe for some, but definitely not for most.

Under sanctions, the rich get richer as they take control of the black market and smuggling and the poor get poorer. The middle class, well, they fall into the former. I believe that economic sanctions are only effective in a truly democratic society. Considering the current world economic situation, I question if U.S. sanctions could possibly even hold a weight over Khartoum. Also considering that oil is Sudan's main source of wealth, U.S. sanctions are ineffective when fuel is incredibly desirable and the rest of the world does not follow suit.

"USA Sanctions have Little Effect on Sudan"

Darfur and US Support

Generally when looking for the United States response to and International problem, I have to complete multiple searches and weed around for relevant material. Upon looking for US response to the genocide in Darfur, however, I found a plethora of US based organizations and groups speaking out in support. Additionally, my searches generally result in some websites offering support, along with other websites refuting the problem or denying a crisis. The exception to this rule is apparently the Darfur situation, where the overwhelming result is for organizational and charitable support.

A few of the primary organizations I found were www.TeamDarfur.org, www.SaveDarfur.org, and DreamforDarfur.org.

Team Darfur is a coalition of athletes who are banding together to help spread awareness and to create and end to the crisis occuring in Darfur. The group was started by two Olympic athletes who vowed to donate the bonuses from their Olympic medals to help the people of Darfur. Since then, over $1 million has been raised. The campaign for Team Darfur led up to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing. Suggested support included purchasing Team Darfur wristbands (reminiscent of the Livestrong wristbands) as well as celebrating the Olympic spirit during the 2008 games in support of the men, women, and children who are prisoners in Darfur.

Save Darfur is an international coalition of everyday citizens who are devoted to "inspiring action, raising awareness, and speaking truth to power on behalf of all the people in Darfur". The coallition is an alliance of over 180 faith-based, advocacy and humanitarian organizations. The group joins together people of different races, gender, religions, beliefs, and political orientation. Save Darfur was founded in 2004 and is run by a board of directors. Additionally, the group works closely with congress in attempt to have strong UN backing for Darfur. Some examples of domestic campaigns include rallies, speaking tours, monetary donations, and awareness education.


Dream for Darfur is a completely different kind of support organization. Unlike Team Darfur, Dream for Darfur is protesting the Beijing Olympics and urging individuals to bring attention to the genocide rather than the Olympic games. Although the time has already passed, I found the website to be very interesting- taking a peaceful approach to supporting Darfur while taking a stance which is the polar opposite from a different support-lending initiative.

These are just three of the many organizations supporting Darfur. One thing they all have in common is having US government support and sometimes funding. While some are aiming to aid financially, others are just trying to spread awareness. This proves that regardless of resources, whether it is capital, time, or even passion, the smallest effort can make the biggest difference.

SAVE DARFUR TODAY!!!!!!!

Development economics defines famine as a distribution failure. In other words, famine occurs not because of lack of resources, but because of lack of fair distribution of resources. In Darfur, the lack of fair distribution of resources, combined with the lack of fair distribution of military power lead to countless murders, rapes, molestations, and abuses so inhumane that they almost seem unreal. But they are real.

I read a story about a villager in a Chadian refugee camp who was forced to eat his children’s ears right before he watched them burn to dead. I did a little research and it turns out that roughly at the same time about 119,569 people were watching Paris Hilton’s naked video on youtube.

Unfortunately, stories like that cannot be found in mainstream media. Mainstream media talks about with murder statistics, arms embargoes, international policies, and political talks. The real face of the horrors and atrocities in Darfur – the orphans, the cripples, the starvation, the diseases, remain largely out of sight for the general public. But they are there.

Will They Ever Find Relief?

Woman and children in traditional Turkish-Kurd dress.

Turkey has been criticised over its human rights record towards its Kurdish population. As a result of the on going war against Kurdish guerrillas, entire populations were displaced from their homes. In the past, they were denied the right to reclaim their property unless they signed papers releasing the the state from any responsibility. At one point Iraqi Kurds were granted refuge in Turkey with the stipulation that it was temporary. When Turkey no longer wanted responsibility of these refugees, they were shipped out on bus loads to Iran with little to no knowledge or where they were being taken. The reasoning? They don't want the Iraqi Kurds to infect Turkish Kurds with their ideas of autonomy. Considering Turkey's desire to be part of the European community, they probably just don't want to get into a fight with the Iraqis.

Now, with the establishment of Kurdistan in northern Iraq, Kurdish separatism seems more of a threat than ever to Turkey. Their strong reactions to rising Kurdish nationalism thus far only aggravate feelings of alienation among its Kurdish population. I question whether the Turkish government is actually trying to target more than just Kurdish rebels.

In Turkey, Kurdish nationalism seeks autonomy, not secession. Most Kurds there have stakes in the economic and political system and seek improvements in their civic and political rights rather than separation. They still admire the symbolic achievements of Iraqi Kurdistan. However, such expressions of cultural and political identity face legal persecution and administrative hurdles in Turkey.

Turkish-Kurd Conflict: An Overview

How Turkey's Political Party Wins Kurdish Support

What's All This Mumble-Jumble About? Give It To Me Simple.

History of Sudan

Arachaeological sites on the Nile and above Aswan confirm human habitation in Sudan for over 60,000 years. Prehistoric burials show northern Sudan has the earliest warfare dating from the twelfth millennium B.C. Hunting and fishing along the Nile were popular past times. Herding cattle and gathering grain were also popular. Nagadan Upper Egypt as well as Nubia were preydnastic periods that conquered and unified the whole Nile Valley.

The earliest historical records come from Egyptian sources. Egypt exerted a profound religious and cultural influence on the Kushite people. Grain was carried to Kush and returned to Aswan with hides, carnelian (a stone in jewelry and arrowheads) for shipment down the river.

Egypt established political control over Kush and destroyed forts along the Nile River in 1720 B.C. Egyptian power revived in the years 1570-1100 B.C. Egyptian became the most widely used language in every day activities. Egyptian priests and military personal, merchants, and artisans all settled in the Egyptian region.

By the eleventh century BC, the authority of the New Kingdom dynasties had diminished, allowing divided rule in Egypt, and ending Egyptian control of Kush. Kush emerged as an independent region ruled by Napata by a line of monarchs who were quite aggressive.

Another form of the Turkish population were the Ottomans in 1820-1821. The northern part of Suan was unified and conquered by them. They looked to open new markets and sources of natural resources. The pestilential swamps of Sudan disallowed expansion into the deeper south of the country. Although Egypt claimed present Sudan during most of the nineteenth century, and established a province known as Equatoria in southern Sudan to further this aim, it was unable to establish effective control over the area. This remained an area of fragmented tribes subject to frequent attacks by slave raiders. In the later years of the Turkiyah, the British missionaries traveled from what is now modern day Kenya in to the Sudd to convert the local tribes to Christianity. European initiatives in the 1870s against the slave trade, caused an economic crisis in southern Sudan, precipitating the rise of Mahdist forces.

The Struggle to Survive and the US Response

The oppression of the Turkish Kurds is one that encompasses their entire lifestyles- all national rights have been revoked (such as attempt to speak their own language, to gather a political party, to survive economically independently, and even to live...Kurds are being executed regularly). I say national rights, of course, from a Democratic point of view, which is not the case. Another factor going along with a lack of democracy is often violence and terrorism- which is how a select group of the Turkish Kurds are choosing to react to their reality. The main conflict arises in distinguishing the violence-driven PKKs (The Kurdistan Workers Party) from the peaceful oppressed Kurds who are just trying to coexist.

The United States historically has helped Turkey, its NATO ally, to the chagrin of the Kurds. According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor*, the Turks have been emboldened by the suppport and intelligence recieved from the US military to carry out a sweeping air assault against the PKK (The Kurdistan Worker's Party)...thereby further encouraging the Turkey/PKK war.

In 2007, President Bush sent Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice's senior aid to visit with Turkey's top diplomatic and military leaders. The result was a promise that the US would help Turkey and Iraq battle the PKK, which has been designated by both the United States and the European Union as a terrorist organization. The US Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, additionally visited the Kurdish section of Iraq to take firmer steps against their armed camps. The US stance on the entire situation is that "a terrorist is a terrorist...and if they are attacking a NATO ally, it is our responsibility to defend it."

*http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0225/p01s07-wome.html

A lesson on how to Turn the problem into the Solution

The

The burden of the Kurdish issue is still hanging over the head of Erdogan and it is the issue that most severely undermines the Turkish government’s credentials in the international scene. In fact, the main criticism that the political opposition raised during the electoral campaign in 2007, was the inability of the government to tackle the guerrilla attacks that are frequenting the Southern part of the country.

The problem with the Kurdish separatism dates back to 1925 and has had huge impact on the Turkish politics ever since. The Turkish constitution does not allow recognition of national minorities with the presumption that this will unify the nation .On the contrary, the constitutional framework opened a Pandora’s Box of repression and social injustice.

The Kurds have been culturally repressed, banned from practicing their own language or expressing their ethnic identity in the public domains for decades. The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), known for its terrorist activities and separatist initiatives, is perceived as the main threat to the Turkish sovereignty.

POSITIONS

The Turkish army, which is the second pillar of the Turkish governance, insists on managing the conflict by invading northern Iraq. In military terms, the fight against the Kurds is a zero-sum game and high-rank military officials have numerously censured the government for not acting firmly on the issue. The governing party, however, has to bounce off the domestic pressure and the European Union’s demands. The EU has been clear that intervention will not be well received and will block the accession process. Moreover, if Turkey is to undertake effective adoption of the acquis comunitare, it needs to not only allow the Kurds to freely express their cultural and ethnic heritage, but also to protect their right to do so. The situation is further complicated by the deterioration of the relations with the United States. Bush’s policies towards the Iraqi Kurds are seen in Ankara as hostile to the Turkish national interests. The US is unwilling to take decisive actions against PKK, because it fears that such actions will alienate the Kurds in Iraq, who have been very cooperative with the coalition forces.

THE RESULTS

That gambit situation puts Turkey in a state of limbo. Therefore, in order to strengthen and reaffirm his position as the mediator between Europe and Asia, Erdogan has manoeuvred his way back to binding with the neighbours. Considering the Islamic roots of his party and the strategic geo-political position of Turkey, the apparent shift towards Saudi Arabia and Syria has caused quite the stir in Washington and Brussels. Consequently, Turkey is reassuming its role as an important stakeholder on the international political scene.

History of Immigration (primarily U.S. immigration)

The history of immigration began with the first Americans. Most immigrant groups came with hopes and dreams of the “Promised Land” and a secure future. U.S. immigration history spans over a long period of time. The first group of immigrants who came to America was Native American. About 20,000 years ago, the Northeast Asians came to America.

In the year 1000, Vikings came to America. Then, 500 years later, the great European migration began. People from Africa also came to build a new nation. Settlers from Europe and Asia came to seek their independence.

In 1619, slaves from Africa and the Caribbean were brought to America forcibly. Between June 11 and June 28, 1776, Thomas Jefferson drafted the first Declaration of Independence document. The Declaration of Independence announced the separation of colonies in Great Britain. It conveyed the convictions of American people for individual liberty, and enumerated their grievances against the King to justify them breaking from the mother country.

The following are significant historic dates in the history of U.S. immigration as found on the following website: http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_immigration_history.html


Significant Historic Dates in U.S. Immigration
Naturalization Act of 1790: Stipulated that "any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States"
1875: Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.
1882 The Chinese Exclusion Act: Prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
1885 and 1887: Alien Contract Labor laws which prohibited certain laborers from immigrating to the United States.
1891: The Federal Government assumed the task of inspecting, admitting, rejecting, and processing all immigrants seeking admission to the U.S.
1892: On January 2, a new Federal US immigration station opened on Ellis Island in New York Harbor.
1903: This Act restated the 1891 provisions concerning land borders and called for rules covering entry as well as inspection of aliens crossing the Mexican border.
1907 The US immigration Act of 1907: Reorganized the states bordering Mexico (Arizona, New Mexico and a large part of Texas) into Mexican Border District to stem the flow of immigrants into the United States.
1917 - 1924: A series of laws were enacted to further limit the number of new immigrants. These laws established the quota system and imposed passport requirements. They expanded the categories of excludable aliens and banned all Asians except Japanese.
1924 Act: Reduced the number of US immigration visas and allocated them on the basis of national origin.
1940 The Alien Registration Act: Required all aliens (non-U.S. citizens) within the United States to register with the Government and receive an Alien Registration Receipt Card (the predecessor of the "Green Card").
1950 Passage of the Internal Security Act: Rendered the Alien Registration Receipt Card even more valuable. Immigrants with legal status had their cards replaced with what generally became known as the "green card" (Form I-151).
1952 Act: Established the modern day US immigration system. It created a quota system which imposes limits on a per-country basis. It also established the preference system that gave priority to family members and people with special skills.
1968 Act: Eliminated US immigration discrimination based on race, place of birth, sex and residence. It also officially abolished restrictions on Oriental US immigration.
1976 Act: Eliminated preferential treatment for residents of the Western Hemisphere.
1980 Act: Established a general policy governing the admission of refugees.
1986 Act: Focused on curtailing illegal US immigration. It legalized hundred of thousands of illegal immigrants. The 1986 Immigration Act is commonly know as the 1986 Immigration Amnesty. It also introduced the employer sanctions program which fines employers for hiring illegal workers. It also passed tough laws to prevent bogus marriage fraud.
1990 Act: Established an annual limit for certain categories of immigrants. It was aimed at helping U.S. businesses attract skilled foreign workers; thus, it expanded the business class categories to favor persons who can make educational, professional or financial contributions. It created the Immigrant Investor Program.
USA Patriot Act 2001: Uniting and Strengthening America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism.
Creation of the USCIS 2003: As of March 1, 2003, the US immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) becomes part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The department’s new U.S. Citizenship and US immigration Services (USCIS) function is to handle US immigration services and benefits, including citizenship, applications for permanent residence, non-immigrant applications, asylum, and refugee services. US immigration enforcement functions are now under the Department's Border and Transportation Security Directorate, known as the Bureau of US immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

One Man's Mission for the Gaza Strip

A couple years ago, I was fortunate enough to briefly meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu. We were aboard a rocking ship headed to Capetown and I ran into him in the hallway. He was looking for the bathroom and I was looking for the answers to heal the world. I asked him how one man could motivate change in humanity. "Passion, dedication, faith," he answered.

This past spring, Archbishop Tutu traveled to the Gaza strip and found the humanitarian situation was completely unjustified. He also called-out the international community for their complicity and silence, and even related the human rights violation to the situation in Myanmar. During his visit, Archbishop Tutu met with Prime Minister Ismail Haniya and told him the firing of rockets into Israel was also a violation of human rights. BBC Article

It may seem like a worthless effort to have a Nobel Peace Prize winner walk in and politely ask for the genocide to cease. But there are others who have also taken a stand to end the massacre. Saad Eddin Ibrahim is a sociologist from the American University in Cairo. He is lobbying members of congress to attach conditions to America's $1.5 billion annual aid to Egypt. He has been criticized as an idealist, and even sentenced to two years in jail with labor when an Egyptian court ruled his writings had ruined and tarnished Egypt's reputation. Washington Post Article

We are all guilty of being silent and complicit. How is one man supposed to really make a difference? I would answer that with knowledge. We all can't put ourselves on the Gaza strip and really understand what people are experiencing. But we can make ourselves aware that the problem exists and in some way, large or small, we may be able to play a part.

Words from Saad Eddin Ibrahim

Another No Man's Land

The historic conflict over the Gaza strip hardly stirs anybody anymore, except of course the Jewish lobby in the US Congress. There is a decent amount of media coverage of the new developments and the ongoing outbreaks of violence, but the international public does seem to be too concerned with the issue.

This is what happens with historic conflicts: people are either fed up with constant reminders by the media about the problem or they are so frustrated by the fact that no one has come up with a viable solution that they choose to ignore the problem altogether. Still, during the past four years there were a number of decent attempts to resolve the issue.

Ariel Sharon’s disengagement plan offered some light in the tunnel. Despite the controversy of the measure, the large majority of the Israeli electorate supported it. Unfortunately, as it usually happens with democracies that are far from being fully-fledged, there was no one to execute the popular will after Sharon’s dead.

The road map that the international community so eagerly proposed was another viable and much needed solution. However, as time passes it becomes more and more clear that both sides are anything but prepared to make the hard-core commitments that the road map requires. Naturally then, all the proposals for the establishment a single state or dual state remain unfeasible. The ongoing violent incidents during the Oslo Peace process made it all the more clear that the idea of mutual compromises is very far-fetched one.

I want to end this post by a quote by Bruce Barton, which vary much refers to the meaninglessness of the fights for the Gaza Strip,” What a curious phenomenon it is that you can get men to die for the liberty of the world who will not make the little sacrifice that is needed to free themselves from their own individual bondage.”

History of Kurds/Iraq

The Kurds are a Sunni Muslim people who primarily live in Iran, Turkey, and Iraq. Their culture is made up of 25 million people. The Turkish, Persian, and Arabic friends/neighbors are not like the other Kurds and Sunni Muslim people. There are many cultural differences between the groups such as: approximately 10 million live in Turkey, four million in Iraq, and five million in Iran, with the rest scattered all across the world. In President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, he promises the Kurds he will give them a sovereign state. The Treaty of Sevres in 1920 said the Kurds could have an independent state if they desired one. They established a semi-independent state as a result and succeeded in forming the Kingdom of Kurdistan. This lasted from 1922-1924.

The Iraqis destroyed approximately 5000 Kurdish villages during the 1980s. From this point on, the recent history and current state of these conflicts between the Kurds and the Turks and the Kurds against the Iraqis is demonstrated.

For instance, the areas of geography and political geography and economic geography are shown. The Kurds are ethnically and culturally different from the Turks and the Iraqis. They speak a different language and all practice slightly different religions.

The Turks and Iraqis look at the contrast in ethnicity in very different senses. The government of Turkey views any religious or ethnic identity not their own to be a threat to the state. In addition, Saddam Hussein believes the Kurds to be a bother in Iraq and perceive them as a threat. He carried out a mass genocide of the Kurds in his country for this reason. A third factor in these conflicts has to do with economic geography. The following areas of Iraq, Turkey, and Syria the Kurds now live in is referred to as Kurdistan. Kurdistan is an important area strategically due to its trade embargo against Iraq that has been in place since 1991.

Meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue4/jv6n4a5

History of Palestine/Israeli Conflict

Palestine is the name given in the 2nd century C.E. to a region of the present day middle east. The name was derived from “Palaestina” or “Land of the Philistines.” These people settled a small coastal area north of Egypt near Gaza. Palestine is held sacred by Jews, Muslims, and Christians.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a dispute that is ongoing between the Palestinians and the State of Israel. This is a dispute between two national identities with claims over the same area of land. Many people believe that a two-state solution is the best way to end the conflict. Both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip constitute the area of their future state. The following are involved in this conflict: the Israeli government, the United States, Russia, and the European Union as well as the United Nations.

Palestine is at the crossroads of Asia, Africa, and Europe. It has been the battleground of great powers in the region throughout history. In the first century B.C.E., the Romans conquered the region and drove out most of the Jews in the area. Jewish immigrants returned to Palestine in increasing numbers as they fled Russian persecution. In World War II and the Holocaust, there was a surge in Jewish immigration.

It was held sacred by the great empires that came into power in the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The West Bank, Israel, and the Gaza strip, as well as Jordan, Syria, and parts of Egypt were once part of Palestine.

The demography of the area is estimated at 2000 people. It was originally 1,132,063. Approximately 99.5 percent or 2,020,298 people are Palestinian Arabs. 17 percent are Jewish. Interestingly, half the population of the west bank is under the age of 15. It is situated on the Eastern middle end of the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea.

The Palestinians are a Semitic people much like the Jews, and the language of the two are very similar. The Palestinian flag consists of three bands that contain a black, white, green, and red flagstaff side pointing to the center of the white band.

History of Human Rights in Sudan and Georgia

What are human rights? Human rights are basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Everyone is given the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law. However, in Sudan and Georgia this is not necessarily the case. There are several conflicts that occur between the Sudanese and Georgia governments and rebel groups on a daily basis.

In Sudan and Georgia, not many people have access to human rights.

In Sudan, enslavement still exists and is encouraged by the Sudanese government. In the Darfur region, war is prevalent between Africa tribes and Arab groups over access to land. Last year, two armed African groups rebelled against the Khartoum regime. The government responded by giving military support to Arab militias. The Sudanese military planes are bombing villages after which Arab militaries rape and kill survivors. Sudan currently has 17,000 child soldiers fighting on the government side. Several hundred students were imprisoned as well after the members of the Justice and Equality Movement.


( http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide)

A new humanitarian disaster is likely to take place now that the fighting is still in progress. History has shown that peace in the south is nearly impossible if fighting continues in the south. Famines in Sudan have occurred from the burning of homes and villages, grain, community structures, and the killing of children and women.

(www.hrw.org)

In Georgia, torture is a huge issue. However, there have been numerous reforms on the part of the government to decrease it. Human rights are guaranteed in Georgia by the constitution. Georgia proclaimed its total independence on April 6, 1991. Between 1992 and 1993, the government engaged in armed conflict with separatists. In 2002, Georgia's military was trained in antiterrorism measures. Work began on the Georgian section of the ambitious Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipelines that runs throuh Georgia. In 2005, the Georgian Orthodox church placed a considerable monopoly in Georgia. For this reason, minority groups found it hard to build places of worship.

A recent news briefing from CNN said that Georgian leaders blame Russia for the conflict that raged in South Ossetia in response to devastation in the city of Tskhinvali. Mikhail Gorbachev told CNN’s Larry King that Russia called extra troops into Georgia to stem violence. On August 7, 2008, fighting broke out after Georgian soldiers attacked South Ossetia. An enclave in Georiga that won de facto independence in the 1990s. Separtists in South Ossetia retaliated, and about a dozen troops and civilians died in the battles. Fighting between the two sides has been sporadic since Mikheil Saakashvili was elected president of Georgia in 2004 and sought to resume control over the region. Russia sent 150 tanks into South Ossetia on August 8 to support the region. In addition, on August 9, Russia intensified its involvement by moving troops into Abkhazia, another breakaway region, and launching airstrikes at Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia. In Gori, Georgia, approximately 1,500 civilians were killed when Russia launched an air strike.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Georgia_country)

In Georgia and Sudan, the jihad is of great importance. Michael Rubin quotes The Wall Street Journal, saying, “The jihad is our way, and we will not abandon it and keep the banner high.” The jihad refers to those who "struggle in the way of God." People in both Georgia and Sudan continue to struggle to keep their human rights.

Posted by Katie Robertson at 6:58 PM 0 comments

Posted by Katie Robertson at 7:56 PM 0 comments



History of Human Rights in Georgia and Sudan

What are human rights? Human rights are basic rights and freedoms to which all human beings are entitled. Everyone is given the right to life, liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law. However, in Sudan and Georgia this is not necessarily the case. There are several conflicts that occur between the Sudanese and Georgia governments and rebel groups on a daily basis.

In Sudan and Georgia, not many people have access to human rights.

In Sudan, enslavement still exists and is encouraged by the Sudanese government. In the Darfur region, war is prevalent between Africa tribes and Arab groups over access to land. Last year, two armed African groups rebelled against the Khartoum regime. The government responded by giving military support to Arab militias. The Sudanese military planes are bombing villages after which Arab militaries rape and kill survivors. Sudan currently has 17,000 child soldiers fighting on the government side. Several hundred students were imprisoned as well after the members of the Justice and Equality Movement.


( http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/sudan_genocide)

Israel vs. Palestine in the Media Part 1

For some years, the conflict in the Middle East has been one of the most regularly covered topics in the media. While the majority of the coverage has been negative, related to suicide bombers or other violent attacks, there have also been some interesting human interest stories that have accompanied the negative coverage. Personal opinions aside, the U.S. has generally taken a position that is more supportive of Israel as opposed to Palestine, which has transferred in to the media's coverage of the events. 

 For instance, from the Israeli side, the most recent news is Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's decision to submit his resignation in light of the charges he is facing for corruption related to financial dealings. An election was held last week to determine who would be Olmert's successor.  The CNN article includes a quote from the President Shimon explaining how he plans to proceed and what his role in the upcoming phase will be.  It also touches on the importance of the next six weeks because whoever successfully forms the cabinet will ultimately be the main negotiator with Palestinian officials in an effort to end the conflict as peacefully as possible.  The BBC article gives a straight forward synopsis of the election , outlining exactly what will happen over the next six weeks and what will happen in the event the requirements are not met within the alloted time period. The expert analysis in the article is from a BBC reporter who is based in Jerusalem. 

This difference in coverage is in support of the idea that American media does maintain it's bias (see below) while still reporting the facts.  For the uninformed, the BBC piece accompanied by the background section offers a clear cut explanation of this election process giving them the necessary facts.  The CNN piece gives more of a context to the magnitude of the issue without sensationalizing the story.  For the reader, having the President of a country comment on an issue shows that the issue is prominent and of great importance to the political process of that country. 

Does this article support the idea that American media (specifically CNN) is more biased than it's international counterpart BBC? Or does it show that the BBC gives its audience the news objectively, without the subtle bias?

In the next installment, I will examine the Palestinian point of view with an article directly related to the conflict. I will also take a look at the media outlets on each side of the conflict.

For the remainder of this semester, I will examine media coverage for each human rights issue discussed. I will primarily look at two major sources, CNN and BBC World, as I am particularly interested in mainstream media outlet's coverage of international conflicts.  Earlier this year, BBC World released a report supporting their claim that American media outlets are extremely biased in their coverage of news. In the summer of 2007, BBC World launched a guerilla marketing campaign to support their claims and encourage the American public to demand the addition of BBC World to local cable offerings across the country.  At the time, I was a part of the team who conducted the media outreach in support of the guerilla marketing campaign and found this topic very interesting. I will also look at the media outlets available in the particular country to analyze any biases that may exist. 

Little Relief in the Israel-Hezbollah Conflict

While so many international conflicts have countries declaring clear partisanships, the ongoing Israel-Hezbollah conflict seems to be dwelling in an eternal gray area. Numerous international humanitarian and relief organizations are still straddling the line- with the chief concern being relief for one and all.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, expressed grave concern for the growing number of casualties in Israel, Lebanon, and surrounding areas in a released statement. She called for unrestricted and secure passage for all humanitarian assistance.http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/International_bodies_express_concern_over_Israel-Hezbollah_conflict

The Red Cross' efforts to export necessary medical assistance is severely limited due to ongoing hostilities. A reminder was issued regarding the obligation to distinguish between civillians and military targets in such battle zones. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch additionally released similar statements.

Rather than physical relief, this battleground area of Israel, Lebanon, and surrounding territories are recieving "urgent requests" and "issuing of statements". Regardless of personal belief or partisanship, United States aid vehicles are keeping their physical distance from all related territories. The greatest aid is coming from the actual citizens (Palestinians and Israelis) as well as sympathizers (people all over the world who identify with the Palestinian cause and Hezbollah members vs. the Israeli, and furthermore Jewish, cause). This may have something to do with the fact that while 25% of Americans think the Government should side with Israel, and 1% side with the Hezbollah, a whopping 74% think that the US should stay neutral regarding the conflict.

Because there are religious undertones in the ongoing fight (the battle for Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip), many want to steer clear of become involved in the conflict. The United States Government has been on both sides of the fight. Since 2006, the US has commited over $371 million in security assistance, including Humvees, cargo trucks, armor, helicopter repair parts, assault rifles, etc, to Lebanon. http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1013
US assistance to Lebanon has also skyrocketed from $41 million to $520 million in overall military aid in 2007. http://www.pulitzercenter.org/openitem.cfm?id=1013

Israel is the United State's closest ally in the Middle East and receives roughly $3 billion per year in military aid. This rise in military aid is balanced out by a depletion of economic aid. While Israel is one of the top recipients of U.S. forgeign aid, it is also in competition with all of those who consider themselves part of an area formerly known as "Palestine" (i.e. Israel is competing for aid against a large portion of the Middle East- Lebanon, Syria, Jordan...and all of its sympathizers.)

The Georgia conflict in the media

The Georgia Russia conflict has been one of the most talked about international issues in the last month and a half, especially in the American media. Major American news outlets have a tendency to focus heavily on a particular international issue for a while, as the immediate conflict dies down so does the coverage.  

The Georgia Russia conflict began in early August, and CNN reported the invasion of Russian troops with their eyewitness crews.  In some articles and commentary, it has been argued that the U.S. maintains a strong interest in this conflict because of economic interests in the region and therefore has remained in the forefront of major news outlet's international coverage. In the same instance others believe that the American media has not made the conflict a big enough priority. Based on 12a@ CNN covered the Georgian president's opinion of this conflict, while coverage of Russia's point of view has been limited.  According to the American Thinker Blog, in the days after the conflict made headlines, Russian government felt that they were being portrayed incorrectly by western news media. 

Each of these articles and opinion pieces frame the Russia conflict differently. An interesting reasoning of the differences in coverage can be attributed to each media outlet's biases that govern the way that news is distributed. Besides political interests, some media outlets frame issues and stories based on their religious and social beliefs. American media is consistently criticized for not providing a wide enough objective scope of issues that occur in the global community.

Congress Reaction to Russia-Georgia Conflict

Congress began its August 2008 recess at the start of the Russia-Georgia conflict, but members still spoke out on the issue. Senator Joseph Biden warned Russia that its aggression in Georgia jeopardized congressional for legislation to collaborate on nuclear energy production. Senator John McCain warned of severe, long-term consequences to Russia’s relations with the U.S. and Europe, and offered support to Georgia. Senator Barack Obama called for Georgia to refrain from using force in South Ossetia and Abkhazia to pursue political settlement addressing the region. Both McCain and Obama encouraged NATO to extend to Georgia(1).

The incompliance of Russia to the six-point plan has sent up a red flag. The six-point resolution was agreed upon by both Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and his Georgian counterpart Mikheil Saakashvili on August 12. The principles state there be no recourse to use violence between the protagonist, the cessation of hostilities, the granting of access to humanitarian aid, the return of Georgian armed forces to their usual quarters, Russian armed forces return to positions held before hostilies began in South Ossetia along with peacekeepers to implement additional security measures until an international monitoring mechanism is in place and the opening of international discussions on the modalities of security and stability of South Ossetia and Abkhazia(2).

According to U.S. analyst Ariel Cohen, the West should send a strong message to Russia that “redrawing the borders of the former Soviet Union is a danger to world peace.” During a United Nations Security Council meeting on August 28, some suggested sanctions against Russia including exclusion from the G-8, withdraw of support for Russia as the 2014 Winter Olympics host and reconsideration of the World Trade Organization membership.

The Russia-Georgia conflict is an example of power struggle where citizens, innocent humans, are involved and harmed because of political strife. I agree with Obama’s immediate statement to reconcile through dialogue, not threats. Now I will step down from my soap box.


(1) Nichol, Jim. Russia-Georgia Conflict in South Ossetia: Context and Implications for U.S. Interest. CRS Report for Congress, 29 Aug. 2008. Congressional Research Service RL34618.

(2) Deutsche Presse Agentur. “Background: six-point peace plan for the Georgia-Russia conflict.” Relief Web. 15 Aug. 2008. 17 Sept. 2008..

USAid for Georgia Relief

US efforts to help the people of Georgia have been spearheaded by a group called USAid. USAid is an independent federal governement agency. They receive foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State and spend less than .05% of the federal budget. USAid conducts itself on the platform of supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade, global health, and deomcracy. (www.usaid.gov)
USAid has been in Tbilisi since August 15, 2008, distributing food supplies, creating temporary transitional shelters for families, and offering local transportation in emergency relief communities. In correlation with USAid's office of Food For Peace, $1 million was provided to airlift emergency food supplies using US and navy aircrafts for those areas in ongoing emergency. With help from the US embassy, emergency medical supplies, blankets, bedding, clothing, and hygiene items have also been distributed. Other donors to Georgian cause are the World Bank, the United States, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the European Union (EU) (www.usaid.gov). All of these groups have donated millions of dollars to help- the World Bank has issued agricultural development loans while the EU has been working on rehabilitating transportation through Georgia.The USAid assistance to Georgia is valued at nearly $39 million.

It’s the Gas, Stupid!

This week the foreign ministers of the European Union are planning yet another meeting to discuss the plan action for resolution of the conflict between Russia and Georgia. As the world powers threaten to hold their breaths if Russia does not adhere to the cease-fire agreement, Putin is counting his Gazprom stocks and bonds. What is interesting about the international response to the crisis is that Western Europe finally admitted their vulnerability to Russia’s foreign interests. If it had not become clear from the Kosovo crisis or the Chechnya frozen conflict, the situation in Georgia made it pretty clear - Russia can do whatever they want, as long as the pipelines are still running. This time the media showed little courtesy and blatantly revealed Europe’s incapability to manage and/ or prevent conflicts, which combined with the Irish rejection of the European Constitution, raise serious concerns about the future of the EU. As much as the EU leaders have tried to reshape the image of the union of “economic giant, political dwarf, military worm”, the response (or lack thereof) to Russia’s imperial appetites, showed to the world that the EU is hardly the political actor it pretends to be. Well, we have to be understanding, asking Russia to remove its troops from Georgia, is not quite the same as imposing economic sanctions on third-world countries….

Protests in Myanmar

This is my first time learning extensive information about the protests occurring in Myanmar, formerly known as Burma. These protests began due to the price of fuel that was significantly increased by the government. The government intimidated
Protestors and then the Buddhist monks became involved.

The latest march by the monks occurred in the central town of Pakokku, 370 miles from Yangon. This crackdown stifled anger at 45 years of military rule and poverty that deepened.

(Information found through MSNBC)

On August 19 2008, in Myanmar, there were 400,000 military men and monks from poorer families. In Myanmar and other Buddhist nations, many joined the monks in protest against the rising costs of transportation and basic goods. After a fuel price increase, the price of transportation and goods were increased. The monks retained ultimate moral authority.

(Information found through the New York Times)

The Sangha (also known as the Buddhist hierarchy and spiritual status of the monks) are of utmost importance. All leaders have adhered to the Buddhist pratices. Over the years, the junta (also known as the military or political group that rules a country after taking power by force) worked to co-opt the Buddhist hierarchy. They placed chosen men in key positions angering and alienating younger monks.

My personal opinion about the protests is the monks in Myanmar are fairly standing up for their rights with just cause. Due to high fuel and food prices, they have reason to be frustrated with their current situations.

Other causes for tension and frustrations may be attributed to the fact that only one percent of the people of Myanmar are educated. There is political repression, religious tension, and very little national unity. The poor economic policies have led to a retardation of economic development. The Burmese state has very little control over their economy. Their economy is made up of mostly rice agriculture, and is in British, Indian, and Chinese hands.

Should you travel to Myanmar? Is it the ethical thing to do?

Myanmar offers various beautiful temples and beaches as well as various languages and a modern city--but is it safe for tourists?

Currently the Burmese pro-democracy leader and Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi is being held in prison. In a written statement from US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, "Aung San Suu Kyi has been denied her liberty and fundamental political and civil rights by Burma's military rulers. This is a deplorable situation and must end." Suu Kyi is in prison because the military refused to honor the victory in the parliamentary elections. This has created various protests not only for the freedom of Aung San Suu Kyi, but for human justice of the citizens. In addition to this, in May 2008, tropical cyclone Nargis caused extensive damage and fatalities in Myanmar, up to 130,000 lives were lost and over two million people were affected. There are also large anti-government demonstrations taking place throughout the country and several bomb explosions all occuring in places frequented by the public.

With all of these things happening listed below are the pros and cons to travelling to Myanmar right now.

Reasons not go:

- The government has used forced labor in order to complete tourist-related sights and services.

- International tourism can be seen as a stamp of approval to the Myanmar government.

- It's impossible to visit without some of tourist dollars going to the military junta, (estimated

US$20.00 per VISA, US$10 per departure fee and seven to ten percent tax on

purchases) which fuels government repression.

Reasons to go:

- Tourist attractions remains one of the few areas tourists and locals have access--as it relates

to income and communication.

- Human-rights abuse are less likely to ocuur in areas where international community is

present.

- The majority of the careful independent traveller's expenses can go into the private sector.

- The government stopped forcing foreigners to change US$200 into government notes upon

arrival.

If you decide to go, it is suggested you do the following:

Stay at a private, locally owned hotel and guesthouse. Avoid package tours connected w/Myanmar Travel and Tours, avoid MTT-sponsored modes of transportation, buy handcrafts directly from artisans as opposed to government owned shops. Avoid patronising companies involved with the military-owned Myanmar Economic Holdings.

Fast Facts
Country Full Name - Union of Myanmar
Population - 47,373,958
Electrical Plugs - 230V 50Hz
Languages Spoken Official: Burmese
Time Zones GMT/UTC +6.5
Country Dialing Code +95
Weights & Measures Imperial

Excerpt from U.S. SANCTIONS AGAINST BURMA A Failure on All Fronts by Leon T. Hadar

Burma has not traditionally been a top foreign policy concern for Washington, although it does have some limited effect on U.S. economic and strategic interests as well as on counternarcotics policy. (Burma is the world's largest grower of opium.)

Washington has sought to isolate Burma since the State Law and Order Restoration Council came to power in 1988, and especially since it refused to transfer power in 1990 to the National League for Democracy, which had defeated the SLORC in an open election. (Burma's ruling junta officially abolished the SLORC in November 1997, only to replace it with the equally repressive State Peace and Development Council.)

The United States has refused, among other things, to recognize the government's change of the country's name to Myanmar, but it has maintained limited diplomatic and economic ties as well as counternarcotics cooperation with Rangoon. In 1990 Washington withdrew its ambassador from Rangoon, and since then it has opposed Burma's membership in various multilateral financial organizations, refused to approve licenses for the export of military-related items to Burma, and imposed limited economic sanctions on that country (for example, suspending Burma from the U.S. Generalized System of Preferences).

Since 1990 the U.S. policy of isolating Burma has been rejected by America's trade partners in Asia, who happen also to be Burma's major trade partners, but it has received some symbolic backing from Washington's Western allies.

The entire document is available on http://www.cato.org/pubs/trade/tpa-001.html

Report on U.S. Trade Sanctions Against Burma

http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/32106.htm

CRS Report for Congress Burma: Economic Sanctions: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22737.pdf

The International Reactions or Lack Thereof

The international community failed to respond adequately to another severe humanitarian crisis. The concerned members of the United Nations found it hard to agree on the basic policy measures that need to be implemented and decided to take the soft measures approach…. again. On the other hand, the big players – the US and the EU wanted to promote their image of world policemen and renewed their economic sanctions on Burma. The academic and the political elites in the EU and the US debated the effectiveness of those types of measures during the last decade. Now, there is a silent consensus that the sanctions are adopted as “good wishes” type of measures, rather than actual means to alleviate the dreadful situation in Burma. What is worse, every freshman in college can tell you that economic sanctions, by definition, have profound adverse effects on the population of the country, the same population that they are designed to protect. As much as I tried to avoid engaging in political debates, I am really looking forward to open the discussion on the issue of the lack of adequate international response to the Burmese crisis.

I will attach a number of documents that provide background information.

Introduction

Myanmar, formally known as Burma, is a country about the size of Texas located between Bangladesh and Thailand. It is governed by a military junta, the State Law and Order Council, who changed their name to the State Peace and Development Council in 1997. They have been in place since the military coup in 1988. Despite multiparty elections in 1990 that resulted in the victory of the opposition part, the National League for Democracy, the military junta refused to hand over the power to key opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi. She was placed under house arrest, and under house detention in 2000. On May 27, 2008, the military junta extended her detention for another six months to a year. Her supporters are often harassed or imprisoned. NOTE: This information was obtained from the World Fact Book of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.

So, where am I going with this? In August of 2007, there were a series of anti-government protest led by students and government opposition activists. It was sparked by the unannounced decision to remove fuel subsidies, causing the price of fuel to raise exponentially. The junta responded harshly, arresting and detaining hundreds of protesters. A peaceful movement, also known as the "Saffron Revolution", was then led by Buddhist monks where thousands joined marches, particularly in the capital, Yangon. The government allowed the proceedings until Sept. 26, when the junta violently cracked-down on any opposition. Rumors are that monks were detained and their bodies would show up weeks later, some never seen again. Video clips of the violent response by the military are documented all over the Internet.

According to an article in Asia-Pacific News, Ibrahim Gambari, United Nations Under-Secretary-General and special envoy to Myanmar, attempted to meet with Suu Kyi this August at her compound, but failed when she did not come out. Supporters speculated that Suu Kyi is frustrated over the U.N.'s inability to bring about democratic reform in the country. Gambari has been mandated by the U.N. to deal with Myanmar's military regime in addressing international concerns about human rights violation, slow-paced political reforms and ongoing political prisoners. However, the junta shows little willingness to work with the overall mission.

This is an issue that one would think should consistently be on the world stage, however, it seems that it has faded, particularly in U.S. media, after the initial protests of 2007. Why do you think this is?

Myanmar Protests

As someone who is newly educated about the situation occurring in Myanmar, I am posting some background information as well as a few of my initial views that might aid some in gaining a better understanding:

Myanmar is the name of the country previously known as Burma (as of 1989). Although the military government changed the name officially, the US State Department does not recognize Myanmar or the military regime that represents it (www.infoplease.com). Although the National League for Democracy came out victorious in a May 1990 election, the State Law and Order Council failed to implement the new governmental system. The people of Myanmar are now being held captive of their government- a tyrannical regime that has no plans of giving up their power. Suu Kyi, the NLD leader, was placed under house arrest to prevent her from publicly defying the SLORC.


According to Wikipedia, Yangon (also known as Rangoon) is the largest city and former capital of Burma...with a population of 6 million it is the country's largest city and most important commercial center. Although it is the hub for music, news, movies, and advertising, all media content must first be approved by the military government. Foreign media of any kind (satellite television, newspapers, radio stations) are extremely hard to access and can be expensive to obtain.

In 2005, the military junta secretively relocated the seat of government from Yangon (Rangoon) to a mountain compound called Pyinmanaa (www.infoplease.com). In 2007 a bill was signed stating that the military regime would continue to control ministries and and that political parties would have limited power. Pro-democracy protests began to break out, resulting in fatal backlash from the government as military officers fired into crowds and arrested monks. Peaceful protesters were killed. Months later, in May 2007, Cylcone Nargis tore into Yangon, killing thousands and leaving many injured and homeless. Although they accepted financial relief, only 10% of supplies were actually distributed to the people in Yangon- solidifying my belief that the current government of Myanmar has no concern for its people.

Below are some links to pictures and visuals:
a map of Myanmar: http://www.infoplease.com/atlas/country/myanmar.html

U.N. special envoy Ibrahim Gambari, left, poses with Myanmar junta chief Senior Gen. Than Shwe, second left, and other unidentified generals, during their meeting in the junta's remote new capital, Naypyitaw, Myanmar, Tuesday, Oct. 2, 2007:
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0eFecAKaXm9jp/610x.jpg

Myanmar monks in a peaceful protest:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Myanmar-monks.jpg