Occupying "Wall Street"

It is now out in the open that for the past 3 weeks, there has been a movement in downtown New York City called "OccupyWallStreet." The first two weeks, the media did not give the movement much coverage, but now, that the demonstrators haven't left their designated park, the media is all over the movement. And this is good. It will get the Occupy Wall Street's name out and may even draw in more supporters. The official website is not too technically savvy, but it gets the message across that the only way to change the current politico-socio-economic system is through activism and rational conversation. (The movement does not condone violence, though who knows if it will lead to that?). The interesting thing is that there is no real list of demands, except for accountability, respect, equality, and well, jobs for qualified individuals. Though to get a better understanding, I encourage you to read this CNN article, which was not written by a mainstream CNN reporter. My take is what I said earlier about the Egyptian demonstrators - many do not have jobs and want to express their disappointment with the system. Many demonstrating do have jobs, however. But most just do not feel important enough in the system, even if they are employed. Maybe they are looking for a purpose, or maybe they are looking to for something to do.

Here are some pictures from the demonstrations, though there are so many out there now:

A friend wrote this piece to American students (please note that it is edited):

"For the students, if you're getting [a college/master's] degree because of a concern with what is wrong with the world and wish to do something about it, I suggest you join the movement. The general assembly process offers you and the your communities more potential for impacting the lives you want to live then [a] degree does.

This is not to denigrate [a] degree but as a [degree holder] I have seen the brightest and most talented of my peers struggle to find work or find work beneath their abilities. Sadly the non-profit and government labor markets favor those who buy in to the current systems, settle for reform, imagined or real, while it punishes the creative among us who would change or replace the system for lasting solutions. If, for example, you are the kind of person who is getting a degree to get a nice UN salary, do some shopping, then you should go to liberty plaza and see how much more potential collective action has than consumption.

As you guys learn about states, global governance (UN, IMF, WTO, WB, Basel, etc) and even civil society, keep mind that these may not just be necessary evils but not necessary at all. There are horizontal alternatives that my coursework never taught me that I had to find out for myself.

In short, everyone go to the marches, go to liberty plaza as much as possible and participate and help out and converse. "

And just like Al Jazeera had a live stream of the Egyptian revolution and Libyan revolution, you can watch a live stream of the OccupyWallStreet movement here:

http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

Or you can read about it and watch it here:

http://gothamist.com/2011/10/05/live_video_stream_occupy_wall_stree.php

Again, there are numerous media outlets now covering this development.

Analyzing Social Media and Revolutions, Again.

This past week, CNN put out an article on social media, one that asks the question whether social media hinders revolution. The basis of the piece comes from an article by Navid Hassanpour, a grad student at Yale, who calculated equations and came to the conclusion that the organization of revolutions are hurt by social media because it discourages face-to-face contact and the real understanding of the current situation by seeing it/experiencing it/and discussing it with others physically. This may be so. Social media via the internet and through devices such as laptops, cell phones, and tablets, let people connect to others without physically meeting or seeing them. Hassanpour argues that people have no choice but to organize and mobilize without social media, which doesn't seem that groundbreaking. Aside from the calculations to prove this, the answer here is part of everyone's metamemory or metacognition, meaning, we have known all along that people will organize in the absence of social media, but just needed to be reminded of it. Some call this "hindsight bias" but still, this the argument of Hassanpour is nothing out of the ordinary.

Taking from the CCN article, they quote the New York Times regarding social media's role in organizing people: "All the Twitter posting, texting and Facebook wall-posting is great for organizing and spreading a message of protest, but it can also spread a message of caution, delay, confusion or, I don't have time for all this politics, did you see what Lady Gaga is wearing?" Confusion spreading, yes, as there is a plethora of information coming from social media apparatus on the internet, and one cannot always discern between accurate and inaccurate information. But for those who are staying abreast of a revolution through social media, the NYT is wrong to assume that people would just get bored with the revolution (politics) and wander on to other topics (Lady Gaga??). Those in tune with the revolution will most likely not be distracted by other goings-on in the world and will be highly focused on the revolution.

The question here is "does it really matter if social media hinders or helps revolution?" Yes, it is always good to analyze the effect of social media on all things, Clay Shirky has done this multiple times. It is also good for theoretical work to discuss this, but it has no practical value because technology will only advance and social media is here to stay (Google+ just came out, right?) Perhaps statistically social media may bring less people out to the streets, but that does not necessarily mean that social media makes people less interested in current events. It provides more outlets to disseminate information and news, whereas this information is in the public domain and can be viewed by people who otherwise would not have been interested enough to go directly to the source. And it is a fact that social media helped the revolution in Egypt.

Revolution from Evolution

Protests, violence, revolutions. This has been the norm recently throughout the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), dubbed the “Arab Spring.” The uprising began in January in Tunisia in January against former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, who was thereafter ousted, and picked up steam with the protests in Egypt, which led to the downfall of long-time president Hosni Mubarak. Insurrections then sprung across the region to, most notably, Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain, but also to Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Djibouti, Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Many of these anti-dictator movements have been suppressed by the use of force from their respective governments. Though things remain largely unchanged in many countries in the MENA, the current wave of demonstrations has made its mark on those autocratic regimes. Most analysts and reporters have rightly contextualized these mass uprisings as a reaction to political, societal, and economic disrepair. A prime example is Egypt, where Egyptians became fed up with the dilapidated economy, zero job prospects, poor health care, and lack of housing. The unemployment rate is around 10%, yet 88% of Egyptians between the ages of 15 to 29 are unemployed—meaning they had nothing else to do except remain on the streets and “fight for their rights.” Similarly in Yemen, the general unemployment rate hovers around 8% and for those under 30 years of age, the rate is between 16-45%. One can assume the same for Libya, which also has a general rate between 15-30%. This allow for Syrians and Libyans to take to the streets without suffering economic consequences (since many do not have jobs). But what if these socio-economic factors were not the primary reasons for the revolutions, but rather helped induce an evolutionary change in the protestors and demonstrators, which has pushed them to their limits?

An ecology article entitled “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force”[1] by Stephen R. Palumbi makes the case that humans, and human technology, has accelerated evolution in our eco-system through the industrialization of “our agriculture, medicine, and landscape.” Palumbi states that “technological impact has increased so markedly over the past few decades that humans may be the world’s dominant evolutionary force” and efforts to decrease evolutionary change are usually ineffective. In short, he cites examples of the human impact on the speed of evolution in pests and diseases to resist man-made antibiotics and pesticides, claiming “such changes are apparent in antibiotic and HIV resistance to drugs, rapid changes in invasive species, and pest adaptation to biological engineering products.”

If bugs evolve to resist pesticides, then perhaps there is an evolutionary force for humans to resist corrupt regimes and demand better governance. This is not to say that Middle Easterners and North Africans are analogous to pests, vermin, diseases, or viruses; nor do corrupt dictatorships resemble pesticides and antibiotics. Rather, it is the comparison of unknown forces present in small organisms and human beings that enable both to build up defense systems to resist either a debilitating pesticide or in our case, authoritarian rulers. As species of organisms and animals evolve, the species Homo sapiens also exhibits evolutionary changes, particularly in intellectual thought. Yet just because Homo sapiens are one species, not everyone within the species evolves at the same time. This does not make anyone less human than any other, but it is generally accepted that each and every person on this planet is different, particularly in intellect. Moreover, it is evolution by context. As each situation is unique to each country throughout the MENA, the new challenges that develop and the ways that those citizens will respond to these challenges will ultimately make them evolve. It must also be noted that here, evolution does not equate with civilization and those who live in the MENA are no less civilized than those who live in Europe or the United States. Normally, ecology and international affairs do not go hand in hand, but perhaps there can be another way to argue these developments in the MENA. What if there has been an evolution of thought and feeling in the MENA protesters that has come about as a way to resist the suppression and dominance of the governing regimes?

The combination of protesters’ grievances of being denied the right to freely express themselves, the constant violations of civil liberties, and no real political representation—not to mention the high rates of poverty and lack of economic and education opportunities—have exacerbated the need to form democratic governing structures in place of the current authoritarian and/or monarchial regimes. The result is that what has been transpiring in the MENA has been the evolution of thought and feeling into a more democratic outlook. The citizens of the MENA have evolved from acquiescing to their “revolutionary” leaders and the accompanied forms of authoritarian government that came to oppose full-fledge Western democracy; even though many of these leaders claimed they ran democratic states, such as with Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen, Abdelaziz Bouteflicka in Algeria, and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. Although the MENA leaders constantly claimed to bring about the much-needed reform for its citizens, it has never come about. They blamed the West for their own shortfalls, and many times this has rallied the public to the support of the government. But no more. The MENA citizens know the system is broken and are now in the process of rebelling to implement other, more socially progressive systems of government that are more democratic in nature.

According to Palumbi, two factors move the process of evolution: natural selection and technology. Natural selection, or survival of the fittest, is when certain traits and characteristics—in our case ideas and feelings—become stronger and eventually the mainstay due to the influence of the surrounding environment. It is still to be determined whether the MENA protesters will be the ones to survive, along with their new ideas of how to govern a state; yet it is rather hard to eliminate ideas. For example, the people of Libya, Yemen, and Syria have built up this will to survive through the decades of injustices and corruption to show that they will stand no matter what force the government may bring to bear on them. Those brutal methods utilized by government forces, such as deploying the military to open fire on civilians, beatings, tear gassing, unlawful arrests, detainments, disappearances, and even murder are what Palumbi calls the “social price of evolution.” These “overkill strategies” such as we see in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, and Yemen, try to “slow the evolution of resistance” in hopes to eliminate the opposition to their rule. Firepower, however, is no longer a deterrent. In Syria, unofficial statistics put the casualty number at over 1,000, but Syrian demonstrators are standing strong against Bashar al-Assad. The situation is similar in Yemen, with over 500 killed and hundreds more wounded from the military response of President Saleh, who has recently arrived in Saudi Arabia for medical treatment for an injury sustained in a rebel mortar attack on his presidential palace. Additionally, a major social price throughout the MENA is the shutdown of the economies, causing losses of income and livelihoods. Yet economic difficulties are not unusual in this region and it appears that these citizens are ready to sacrifice their current situation for future prospects.

Palumbi refers to another method, “refuge planting,” which is the planting of “insecticidal toxin genes” into crops to repel pests without using external pesticides. Translated for our context, refuge planting is the planting of spies in civil society or within the opposition movements to dismantle the opposition and report back to government officials. In Egypt and Libya, demonstrators detained who they believed were plain clothes police officers or government subsidized mercenaries trying to tip the balance of power away from the citizens in the streets. This begs a question to be asked as to why some evolve but others do not, namely those who support and protect the acting regime. This is not easy to answer. Although one may be surrounded by the proliferation of ideas relating to new governance and liberty, does not necessarily mean that one will absorb them. A comparison would be the use of flu shots and their effectiveness. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[2] the flu shot is not 100% effective nor does it prevent the flu similarly in children and the elderly. In shot, the flu vaccine can kill one strain in some people but not the same strain in others. And as flu strains adapt and change, so does the vaccine. It takes time and patience to prevent against the flu such as it takes time for people to evolve intellectually, an essentially towards democracy. This does not mean supporters or corrupt regime are inherently “bad” or “stupid” rather they have not been opened to new ideas and ways. Revolution gives everyone something to believe in and fight for, regardless what side one lies on.

The impact of technology has advanced the evolution of the citizens in the MENA. The oppression and lies by MENA governments have not been able to stop the proliferation of technology, which has helped spread new ideas through civil society—ideas people may have either read or experienced through the likes of travel, the internet, TV, and even text messages. Yet just by having access to upload pictures or videos of the protests, including the military responses, enables more people to experience the movement and to understand the flaws of the current governing system, thereby reinvigorating the evolutionary drive of democratic ideas to solve the problems. In particular, social media networks, namely Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube, have been utilized to arrange demonstrations, disseminate information and news, and show the world the violent reactions of government forces. For example, the April 6th youth movement in Egypt that began in 2008 and took control of the Egyptian Revolution was only possible with the use of cell phones and the Internet, as they used the web to spread anti-government messages, videos, and assemble Egyptians to demonstrate. Further, Syrian and Yemen opposition groups utilize Facebook and other social media outlets to organize mass rallies on specific days, including Syria’s “Friday of Anger” and Yemen’s “Friday of Honoring Martyrs.” Telephone technology has played a major role in Libya, where engineers siding with the opposition have been able to restore and secure rebel phone lines that aid the rebels in locating targets and people as well as passing on information to friendly forces. Without these phones (and the support of NATO technology) the rebel forces would have been crushed and evolution suppressed. But because of the spread of technology in the MENA, people do not need to a join physical opposition groups to be introduced to different views on the world and governance. Now, one can turn to the internet or TV. As Dina Shehata states in her recent Foreign Affairs article, “The Fall of Pharaoh,” technology has created a “new generation of protest movements open to members of all ideological backgrounds and to those without any particular ideology at all.”[3]

The evolutionary change in the citizens of the MENA has resulted in new thoughts, ideas, and strategies toward governance, and has culminated into the current situation of the region. Technological advancements have proliferated the availability of knowledge, which in turn has progressed intellectual evolution. Those in the MENA are now fighting for their liberty because they reject the injustices brought on by their current (or former) governing administrations. Although it appears that the result of the protests will be democracy, or at the very minimum democratic principles such as freedom of expression, equal rights, and free and fair elections, how these uprisings evolve into newfound political, social, and economic action will be fascinating. Each country’s state of affairs is different and we cannot assume these reformed countries will be overtly democratic in nature or that they will be receptive to the relationships and interests of the West, particularly the United States. However, because democratic values have been a part of the foundation of the uprisings, the development of a sort of democratic hybrid governing scheme could come about, one where religion plays a role in domestic and international policy making. Or new dictators could once again emerge, setting the MENA population backward, but still fueling the fire of evolution within.

Palumbi suggests that we should try to use the evolution of different species and diseases to our advantage, and so too should we support the protesters of the Arab Spring. This is not the first time a group of peoples has risen up against their government and it will not be the last. Yet the outcomes of the MENA uprisings will have far-reaching implications. Let us hope that those “fittest” to lead these new countries will do so in accordance with the will of the protesters.

---

[1]Palumbi, Stephen R. “Humans as the World’s Greatest Evolutionary Force.” Science. Sept. 7, 2001. Vol. 293 No. 5536. pp. 1786-1790.

[2] “Vaccine Effectiveness.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm

[3] Shehata, Dina. “The Fall of the Pharaoh.” Foreign Affairs. May/June 2011. Vol. 90 No 3. pp 26-32

At the World Trade Center

Well it known that crowds gathered in front of the White House and the World Trade Center on Sunday night when bin Laden was pronounced killed in action. As I work in the area, I took some pictures of the World Trade Center the past few days and would like to share them here. The pictures are from my second generation iPhone, so they are not the best quality.

Bin Laden is Dead?

Every major news corporation has reported that Osama Bin Laden has been killed by a US mission in Islamabad, Pakistan. He was targeted and killed in a mansion in the city, news sources have stated. It appears that it was a manned mission, as opposed to that of a drone attack, which is very commonly used by the US and NATO in Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan. Bin Laden's body is in US custody and his DNA has been double checked for accuracy. Of course many will deny this report online and in news media, particularly those supporters of al Qaeda; however Qaeda can use his death as a huge martyrdom experiment to recruit and inspire recruits. This will be a tangible success for the US and its mission on the 'war on terror,' but this does not mean that al Qaeda will fall apart in the short run, and perhaps not in the long run either. Al Qaeda has splintered into so many groups and factions throughout the world that although the head of the group has been killed, the loss of his direct leadership will be minimal on most groups affiliated with al Qaeda, such as al Shabaab in Somalia.

It is fascinating that this operation was successful during the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, called the Arab Spring. Will it have any affect on the protesters and demonstrators as a way to inspire them that the symbol of Islamic extremism has been killed? By bringing down this symbol, perhaps it can invigorate these MENA citizens to rebel harder against their own dictators, to start a new era that accurately represents Islam and governance not just for the region, but for the world.

Some things that are interesting which I have been hearing and reading from these various news media outlets:

1) Al Qaeda will strike back hard; therefore the US has not scaled down any security measures around the world just because the AQ leader is dead;

2) Although bin Laden was killed in Pakistan, Pakistan has vehemently denied his presence in their country. Afghanistan, on the other hand, reiterated that bin Laden was not stationed in Afghanistan, but was in Pakistan this entire time.

3) Several hundred people outside the White House are celebrating the news, singing the national anthem and chanting "USA, USA."

The operation was a man mission, being led by the military but in cahoots with the US. Obama directed Leon Panetta, director of the CIA to make killing/capturing bin Laden the top priority, and last August, he got a lead to where bin Laden was hiding in a compound in Pakistan. Last week Obama authorized the mission and today he gave the mission a go. No Amriecans were harmed as it was a small unit of men, yet there was a small firefight, with led to the killing of bin Laden and captured his body.

Basically Obama said talked up 'war on terror' mission in Afghanistan, although bin Laden remained at large until today. He said that it was a significant achievement in effort to rid AQ, but understands the war is not over. He reiterated that the US is not a war against Islam. He also noted that there was cooperation with Pakistan, even though the Pakistani intelligence service is constantly accused of colluding with the Taliban and even aiding bin Laden. Some of his memorable quotes will be "Justice has been done" for those affected by bin Laden's terror and "America can do whatever we set out mind too," which is also a segue into his political campaign.

Obama really struck on the 'gaping hole in our hearts' for those lost in 9/11. The tie with the events of 9/11 is really the only one with Bin Laden in recent memory. This is a good thing that there weren't more large scale attacks orchestrated by bin Laden. Other than any repercussions on al Qaeda and how they will react to this news, it will also be interesting to see how the US's global power is viewed and how the US's relationship with Pakistan will continue.

End of the American Dream

Apologies for the formatting of this post. Blogger.com sometimes does this for no reason.

Before I delve into a presentation by Nobel Laureate and world renown economist, Joseph Stiglitz, I want to cite his recent article "Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%" as well as another article, entitled "Suffer the Young" by and up and coming professor and economist Max Fraad Wolf. Both of these articles share the same theme: America is losing job opportunities and the ones who are hurting the most are the middle class and America's youth, both of which the US needs to to break out of its recession. They are not necessarily apocalyptic articles; however they are neither uplifting nor optimistic about the US economy or the majority of people hoping to find a job in it. This is very disheartening for all of us, especially recent graduates and the unemployed. What needs to be done is the creation of jobs by the US government. The government needs to stimulate job growth - most likely through more spending and raising taxes to justify the spending - and loaning money to small and medium businesses, which are major employers for the middle class. However the recent budget debates in Congress (if you have not heard about this, just google) appear to be heading the opposite way, i.e. cutting public funding in education and innovation, and lowering taxes for the uber rich, basically making it harder for the middle class to survive. In his article, Stiglitz ponders whether the US will rise against the government and its ultra rich, much like the Arab and African world has.

New Case for a Humanitarian Intervention

The United States and the European Union are calling for a "no-fly zone" over Libya as a way to thwart government attacks on revel forces and Libyan citizens. The Security Council has approved the action, with Russia and China abstaining from the vote-however not vetoing the action. This is an interesting occurrence, because in a way, it is a humanitarian intervention, albeit not the kind that was utilized in Kosovo, Somalia, or Sri Lanka. The no-fly zone, which is already implemented as France is already underway in patrolling the skies, is not directly intended to kill Qaddafi-backed forces, although this will probably will occur, but rather as a way to prevent Qaddafi from using aerial bombings - something that the rebel forces cannot defend against. And as in the video below, a jet was already shot down over Benghazi, although it is unclear how it was downed.

How the US and other EU states will participate remains to be seen. Qaddafi is obviously not happy, and has written letters to both Obama and France, the UK, and the UN (collaboratively), claiming that intervening in Libyan domestic affairs will only hurt the region and Souther Europe. If the US gets involved, they may try to mission creep into Somalia, but this is HIGHLY speculative, and this observation comes from un-credible news reports such as this.

Below is a video posted on the BBC that shows a Libyan fighter jet shot down and talks about the no-fly zone humanitarian intervention

Holding Off Migration

Alexander Betts' Global Migration Governance rouses the interest in a governance scheme that will regulate and protect global migration, something no international institution does or can do. Betts says that no one state can address this problem in isolation and thus there needs to be a multilateral agreements to implement migration governance. Currently individual states utilize their power over their own migration processes and issues, such as America's visa system. But global migration governance (GMG) will regulate not just states but also non-state actors whose characteristics are transnational. There will be no 1 size fits all policy because different areas of migration require different rules and way so of thinking. For example, corporate immigration, i.e. the moving of employees to different countries for work reasons is quite different from migrants moving to different countries in pursuit of new jobs and new lives. Within GMG, there will also be trade offs of economics, security, and rights for a new system of regulation, and most importantly will we need a paradigm shift in the way states think about migration. A change in the paradigm opens up the ability to talk about common issues and interests that states have in the migration field, as opposed to what they have against each other.

GMG is not about controlling migration, however. Yet controlling migration is the hot topic in Europe currently, as countries like Italy and France fear the rise of illegal migrants and asylum cases from the violence in Libya, Tunisia, and other countries that are part of the spillover effect of 'democratic uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. The United States has also been involved in controlling the migratory process in North Africa, helping both France and Italy fly Egyptians out of Libya so they would not try to escape to southern Europe. Other people in Libya, who came for work and are waiting to go back to their country of origin, were not so lucky to be flown out by Western governments. Instead they have created a shanty town around the airport in Tripoli, hoping to leave once the violence subsides. Controlling migration is a risky business because it inhibits freedom of movement, an inalienable right bestowed on all people (or at least it should be, because obviously in countries such as North Korea, it is very difficult to emigrate). Perhaps then a global migration governance is something that is very relevant now, because it would better deal with the movement of people in conflict zones. These are the sticky issues that GMG would need to deal with, because promoting rights is not always in the interest of societal well being (i.e. 1 child policy of China) but on most issues, promoting rights is the best way to go.

It's funny - right when one NYT article lays out how al Qaeda has not been an influence in the Arab uprisings and ponders why they might now be; the next day a cleric with alleged ties to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula voiced his opinion that Yemen must be turned into a true Islamic state. It is an interesting development since al Qaeda has not played any role in the protests throughout the Middle East and North Africa (as far as we know, since these protests have been characterized as pro-democracy). Expect for case of Libya, where Qaddafi has blamed al Qaeda and hallucinogenic drugs for the riots and violence, and a government spokesman Musa Ibrahim claimed that rebels in the city of Zawiyah are hiding Qaeda members from the media.

But for the most part until today, there has been no mention of al Qaeda in relation to the uprisings in the MENA in the Western media. This is because the media has been portraying the protesters as embracing democracy and fighting for democratic principles that will soon be implemented in their new governments. However we must remain skeptical of how the new governments will form and with what governing methods. Right now, Tunisia and Egypt are the two countries that have ousted their dictators and new governments are being formed as we speak. It appears Libya is going the same way, and perhaps Yemen is not far behind. Yet we must wait (while the international community tries to influence) the new look of these two governments.

Still, it has been odd that al Qaeda has not even addressed the uprisings. This does not mean al Qaeda is not plotting something while waiting in the wings or will not begin attacking demonstrators in certain countries, especially Libya and Yemen, as a way to instigate sectarian violence, as insurgent groups did in Iraq. In fact, disorder in these countries could be beneficial for AQ as they could more easily maneuver, recruit, propagandize against the current government, and even create cells in cities. Further, if the outcome of events prove disappointing for the protesters, e.g. Egypt and Tunisia become dictatorships once again, civilians will have only one other alternative to get results - engage government forces in battle with organizations that are knowledgeable in this area. To join up with radical groups like al Qaeda is most likely to become influenced by their ideologies and outlooks for an Islamic state. Although this does not necessarily have to happen; people can fight for the same cause and not agree politically.

The debate has begun as to whether the uprisings pose a threat for al Qaeda and its affiliates, because if democracies are to come about in the MENA, citizens will have legal and secure outlets to voice their grievances. Subsequently they would not have to join up with radical groups to fight the government if they disagree, rather they can use their freedom to express themselves in public. On the other hand, if democracy does reign in the region, it could strengthen al Qaeda forces with those who disagree with a 'Western' form of government, one that may not let religion play a lead role in formulating laws and policies. All of this remains to be seen, but should play out soon as the uprisings continue.

PBS - Frontline: "Revolution in Cairo"

An interesting report from good, old PBS. The video is embedded, or you can go to the Frontline website.

A discussion on Kosovo at GPIA: Intervention and State-building

(Left to Right: Anna Di Lellio, Julian (?), Lamberto Zannier, James Rubin)

I attended a discussion hosted by the Graduate Program in International Affairs at the New School University (my alma matar) this past week. The discussion was titled: "Kosovo: The Hazards of Intervention and State-Building" with panelists James Rubin, Former Assistant Secretary and Chief Spokesman, Lamberto Zannier, the current Special Representative of the Secretary-General and the head of the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), and Zannier's Political Director for UNMIK (who was a fill in for Zannier until he showed. Unfortunately his name was not posted, but his first name is Julian, I believe). Although the moderator, Anna Di Lellio, wanted to at first speak about the past and bring the conversation to the present and future of Kosovo, like all discussions with diplomats, it did not go as intended. But nevertheless it was interesting to hear what Rubin, Zannier, and Julian had to say - Rubin was the most loquacious of the three. Here is a summary and brief analysis of the event:

The first question Di Lellio brought to the panelists was whether the humanitarian intervention was successful in light of the problems and failings it has has economically, politically, and socially. Rubin, who was part of Madeline Albright's entourage at the peace discussions between Kosovo and Serbia in 1999, was adamant that it was successful, for two reasons. The first being that it prevented a genocide, which he was sure would have occurred, and second because there was no commercial interest or potential for profit in state-building. Hence Rubin believed the intervention was successful for the US and the West in the moral use of military action. Yet the problems in which Kosovo faces currently have been there since the war's end and it will take some time to solved the Kosovo crisis, which Rubin says won't be over night (or in a decade since the end of the war in 1999, apparently).

Of course it will never be known how many Albanians would have been killed by former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic had NATO not intervened in Kosovo. And there is also a critique that NATO actually prompted Serbia to kill more Albanians before they their potential defeat by NATO. But the past is the past, and there is a general consensus according to Rubin that atrocities to Albanians in Kosovo would have been worse if NATO did not intervene. (There is two sides to this story, which includes the Kosovo Liberation Army and how they might have stepped up their attacks on the Serbian army and Serb residents because they believed they were backed by NATO no matter what. This is another debatable topic, which you can read about in my Kosovo posts of this past summer).

The second question was addressed to Julian, since Zannier was not present at the time. Di Lellio asked whether one can measure the progress of democracy in Kosovo, especially with the presence of all the state-building and democracy-promoting international institutions. Julian, who works for UNMIK, addressed his answer first toward his organization. He said that UN Resolution 1244, which allowed UNMIK to administer to Kosovo and prepare it for its independence, was never meant to be in place 12 years after implementation. There is now something of a 'checkmate' in Kosovo since Kosovo has its independence and is calling for UNMIK to leave. The UN supposedly wants to repeal 1244 because it has largely fulfilled its mandate, but it is not up to the UN, rather to the UN Security Council. But because Russia and China are on the Security Council, they will not repeal the mandate because this would imply they are recognizing Kosovo's independence, which they do not. (The other members of the SC recognize Kosovo as an independent state.)

This is where things got a bit interesting. Rubin proclaimed that China will eventually change its disposition on Kosovo and recognize it. Julian stated that if Kosovo receives over 100 recognitions from UN member states (it now has 75), there could be a psychological shift within the UN to see it as an independent state. Julian did sound skeptical that this would happen any time soon. Zannier, who showed up by this time, had this to say: Kosovo has a parallel universe, on one side it is the citizens of Kosovo and the other it is the stakeholders (i.e. international community, donors) who expect results. Particularly when one talks about the rule of law in Kosovo, it cannot be just about Pristina, the capital, but about the whole country, and much needs to be done. Although UNMIK is trying to scale down activities, there is still a number of countries who object to Kosovo's independence and there are many political problems that UNMIK can assist with. Hence, UNMIK still survives. Rubin, on the other hand, simply stated that the US needs to get moving on this issue, because the US is still a world leader, and "without US action, it is unlikely international action can be galvanized."

The last big question Di Lellio was able to posit before opening it up to the floor, had to do with the prospect for partition in the North of Kosovo. Zannier answered first. He said the the government of Kosovo's strategy of penetrating the North and trying to convince the Serbs in Kosovo to play along with it is not working. No matter how much money the Kosovo government funnels into the North or the institutions they try to implement, the Serbs are not buying in to becoming a true citizen of the Kosovo government. Serbia however is pushing partition or some sort of special status in the North, like Republika Sprska. There have been rumors of a land swap in the North, meaning North Kosovo will go to Serbia and in return, there will be some land in South Serbia which is mainly inhabited by Albanians that will fall under Kosovo's jurisdiction. Or there has been a proposal of a free trade zone in the North, which would include Mitrovica South (see previous blog posts on this city), but Zannier seemed to dismiss these propositions. He said that territorial adjustment would set a precedent for malfunctioning, multi-ethnic societies, which is potentially destabilizing in these areas. Although Zannier did not give a direct answer or solution, he did say that Kosovo has been relatively stable since independence, which is a good thing. But to address the situation in Northern Kosovo, the root of the problems between Serbs and Albanians in this area must be addressed.

I'll conclude with some brief remarks by Rubin and Julian on what Kosovo means for the field of humanitarian intervention. Rubin says that the international community will have to solve the problems in Kosovo to avoid arguments against the aftermath of interventions, i.e. state-building. But also that in the future, if one threatens force, one may have to use it, which was the case of NATO against Serbia in Kosovo in 1999. Julian ended with saying that the nature of peacekeeping has changed due to the creation of regional and sub-regional organizations like the African Union or Organization of American States. The UN has decreased its peacekeeping operations in the face of these organizations doing the work for them, but it is still the case that in the most dangerous places, like Sudan (but not Somalia), the UN is the only organization that will attempt peacekeeping missions.

This event was taped and should be posted on the GPIA website soon. It will most likely be located under "Announcements" when you scroll down.

Unbelievable! Hosni Mubarak Leaves Office! History is Made!

(Taken from NYT)

Today, the Hosni Mubarak waived his term in the office of the President of Egypt. The crowd goes wild! He is now the former president of Egypt and has asked the military to take charge. Newly appointed Omar Suleiman may also take responsibility in leading new Egypt. He is supposedly residing in his mansion in the Sinai resort town along Egypt's coast. I do not think anyone in the Western world, or the world for that matter, really saw this coming. People have talked about what ifs, but now this is reality. Obama is going to have to make some smooth moves to remain friends with Egypt's new leadership. Although I do not think this will be a problem. Israel on the other hand will have its work cut out to keep the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. They may have to make a lot of concessions now because their 'friend' has now left. It is very exciting to see how things will resonate in the Middle East now. Freedom has been sought (as of now) in Egypt. Let us hope that the new administration progresses this freedom the way the protesters desire.

You can watch live on Al Jazeera: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/.

UPDATE:

Hamas has welcomed Mubarak's resignation and urges the new administration to drop the Gaza blockade and open up the route for freedom of access. This route connects Gaza with Egypt and obviously not everyone is allowed to pass between the borders. This is exactly what is expected to have happened - many other Arab political parties will try to use the new administration to their advantage and leverage the new administration to work towards Arab demands/needs. Of course Western nations will do the same thing. It will be a scramble to see how foreign governments interact with the new Egyptian government (as of now the military). It is said it may take close to a year for a real, new government to become elected, and rightly so. It will take time for Egypt to reform the political process and hold free and fair elections.

Waxing Philosophic (or trying too)

(Photo taken from NYT)

With the protests raging on in Egypt, and those that have sprung up in Jordan, Yemen, and now Serbia, many questions come to mind. For one thing, what are we, as on-lookers (particularly from the West) exactly living for? Those protesters in all these countries have something to live for - a new government, a new economy, a new life in a new political social system (whether that be democratic or not). The Western media believes that what they want is democracy, but this is not necessarily true. Perhaps they want more democratic principles added to their political system, such as multi-party representation, freedom of the press and speech, but these things are starting to become a norm, internationally. But really what these protesters want is a better life with more educational and economic opportunities.

So some questions for us on-lookers: are we content with our lives? Are we greedy? Two-thirds of the world live in poverty, they strive to live, in the minimal sense of the word, whereas the other 1/3 strive to live, in the maximal sense of the word. Should we not just live for the day (the age old question), since we don't know what will happen in the future? Every country has an elite class (read rich people), but many normal people are driven by greed - greed to acquire wealth and live materialistically. However greed is an unobstructed driver of motivation that propels one to excel and "grab whatever is in front him/her." Greed can maximize one's potential in the world, although it may be negative potential depending if you see greed as bad or good. It can also push others to the limit, such as what we are seeing in Egypt, and hence greed can be an inhibitor of action, albeit indirectly.

Perhaps this is a system of the world, and not just the Western world. All countries has elites can we cannot fault them for being born into the system. But this is also motivation to change the world, which is a bit of a Marxist argument, because to change the system most likely means to change the social class system. And to have a hypothetical here, if the class system was eliminated and everyone started on the same level with the potential to earn the same amount, there will still be a percentage of people that become rich, a percentage that becomes poor, and a majority that fluctuate in the middle. Most will remain content with their living situation and many will struggle. The world would probably look the way it does now, just because it is not in everyone's nature to be the best one can be.

But does greed bring out the worst in people (this too can depend on how one define's greed). For example, Warren Buffett, one of the world's wealthiest persons, is greedy. He is 80 years, loves making money (and a lot of it), and shows no sign of slowing down. Making money is his forte. Yet he is major philanthropist; so his greed results in good things too. But what is the point of being rich? We die and we don't know what happens next, we don't know what happens to our stuff that has accumulated nor do we know what will happen to our legacy, if we have one. Some people are honored and recognized after death, but the dead person does not know this. Even if this is what the person wants, does it matter, if s/he is revered after death since this person does not know it? This also begs other questions to ponder: why do some people have the motivation to succeed, why do some succeed, and why do others not succeed, especially when all are presented with the same opportunities before him/her (barring mental illness, disease, and the like). Why are people allowed to be different in the working world? To clarify, if efficient people product efficient things, then why do we allow people to be inefficient?

Right now, it seems that in Egypt, people are not being inefficient, mainly because there is nothing else to do but to protest the government. In this way they are able to voice their opinions in a way that is not being repressed (as was in the past). Some think that the time to transition to democracy has passed for Egypt (you can get this sense in this NYT article or in Foreign Policy), but that is not necessarily so. The situation is fizzling a bit, the police are moving back in and discussions are taking place, but demonstrators are still going strong and it doesn't seem to be letting up. As long as they are motivated to protest Mubarak's regime, they will be maximizing their potential as a person because they are fighting for something they believe in, even if they don't live to see it.