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.