The US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passed 23-22 the resolution to define the atrocities committed against the Armenians in 1915 as genocide. Not a very big deal when you consider this didn't enter them into an exclusive club.
Countries officially recognizing the Genocide:
Argentina
Armenia
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Cyprus
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Lithuania
Lebanon
Netherlands
Poland
Russia
Slovakia
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay
Vatican City
Venezuela
Not to mention 43 of the 50 US states recognize the genocide. There is also a smattering of international organizations, including the Turkish Human Rights Association, which recognize the atrocities as such. So why does this matter to the Turkish government so much? Why did they pull their ambassador back to Ankara to discuss matters further? It's a political tactician's dream, that's why.
A brief summary of why Turkey is awesome:
Turkey is probably the US government's most crucial ally in the Middle East. They are the only predominantly Muslim nation in NATO. They have the second largest military in NATO. They serve as a counter-weight to the damaging effects our friendship with Israel has in the hearts and minds of inhabitants of the region. We have one military base in Turkey, with the prospects of a second now dwindling.
Thus far, they have also been the most impressive in defying the US in order to retain their status in the Middle East. This is most surprising because, to most observers, they seem to need friendship with the US as much as the US needs friendship with Turkey. So, coming back to the question, "Why would Turkey be so upset?" Remember how I said that it was a political tactician's dream? Enter Azerbaijan and the Armenian land seizure of 1993.
Recent talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the return of a Nagorno-Karabakh, a province seized by Armenia in 1993, have come to a stand-still. So, think of this as the equivalent of Alsace-Lorraine for those of you who know your popular European history. It's a disputed piece of territory that both entities lay claim to. The Armenians currently control it, and you know what they say about possession and how it relates to the law.
So, Turkey has to play the bad-ass card once again and throw a fit about US resolutions. Not that it's anything new, see 2007 under G Dub. Turkey has been a stolid supporter of its ethnic brothers in Azerbaijan. This current event serves them well to stone-wall the normalization process and apply pressure on Armenia to concede to demands already on the table. Will the gambit pay off? Who knows?
Did the US know what it was doing when it decided to pass this resolution? In the venerable words of Alaska's own, "You betcha!" The US probably decided to play this as a gift to Turkey in order to highlight the situation in Armenia/Azerbaijan/Turkey.
We can't afford to lose Turkey, or Azerbaijan, as an ally. So we would dare not do something this dire to upset them. So, we must have done it so they could stand against us and show their strength.
Also, the difficulty the ruling in party in Turkey is having comes up, but I don't think that is as relevant since the Turkish military is becoming more and more democratic. The Turkish military, by the way, being the force that has truly created modern Turkey.
Feel free to post questions. Or just welcome me back after my brief hiatus!
Peace!
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Honduras
Why is it that the world has rallied behind Zelaya?
Because he was the democratically elected leader and technically what happened could be construed as a military coup by those people around the world, by world "leaders" mind you who probably couldn't even find Honduras on a map, let alone tell you anything about it's history.
Media outlets the world over keep using rhetoric to make the event sound like a military coup. Here's a question though: Doesn't the military need to take over and keep power for it to really be a military coup? This seems more like a method of maintaining constitutional integrity and removing from power and ineffective and unloved leader.
Micheletti isn't a new dictator. He just happened to be the next in line, and has thus far found approval from every branch of government and the military. There is also an understanding that he will not stand for election come January. He doesn't sound like a military dictator in the sense of past favorites like Gaddafi or Pinochet.
Then there is the popular notion that the overthrow was committed illegally. This seems difficult to prove for some. The Supreme Court of Honduras issued an order for the military to remove Zelaya from office. The National Congress duly swore in Micheletti after Zelaya was removed to Costa Rica (with no physical harm coming to the man.) So, we have the Supreme Court issuing an order to remove a dangerous leader from power... and somehow this is illegal?
It's not like they removed Zelaya because he was a populist and was attempting to turn the country into a dictatorship. He wasn't even popular with an estimated 30% approval rating. He was however attempting to thwart legal channels. A popular referendum is no way to change a constitution. There are too many things that can go wrong with them, for example- fraud, ignorance of the electorate, fraud and of course the old time favorite for democracies- fraud.
Now, we have an argument from some that is sound. They say that Zelaya should have been tried in court instead of being forcibly removed from office. That sounds great on the surface, but with elections coming up in January the remainder of his term would have been bogged down in legal battles. With the forcible removal, the country can continue not wasting a lot of congressional time trying to wrap their minds around the legality of Zelaya's proposal.
It was a bad idea to try and change the constitution. It was a bad idea to forcibly remove Zelaya from power. It would be a terrible idea to allow him back as president. However, the EU and President Obama are trying to get him put back into power. They are ignoring the mood of the Honduran people- most of whom say that while it was probably wrong to remove Zelaya, bringing him back would cause turmoil and it shouldn't happen.
On the sidelines we also have Hugo Chavez. He is rooting for the return of his pal Zelaya. There is even an underlying threat of military intervention. How would Obama react to that? Mr Chavez has already denounced the weak response by the US. That's a leader I can get behind. With one face he is saying the US needs to leave Latin America alone, with the other face he denounces them for not doing more. Ah Chavez, you make me glad I live in America.
But, with the help of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, it seems that there might be an end in sight. Arias is an amazing leader and I truly hope that a good biography of him comes out in the near future, in English mind you so we can issue it to students and tell them, "This guy is the kind of guy we should respect." He managed a difficult situation but it seems Zelaya will be allowed back into Honduras, but taken directly to the courts. So, I guess we won't avoid the disgusting legal battles after all. We will avoid Mr Chavez doing anything stupid militarily though. I hope.
Micheletti also removed the de facto Foreign Minister after he called Obama a "negrito." This is a derogatory term translated roughly as "little black man." In case we couldn't figure that out.
So, the changes that took place will stand, but Zelaya gets to be put on trial. He still won't be president, Micheletti will retain that position. But now Zelaya has the opportunity to be imprisoned. I would much prefer that than to having the world as my oyster.
Honduras is still struggling to overcome a crippling drug-gang epidemic and I think the populace will show that they want a strong leader in office the next go-round. So, keep your eyes on Honduras and look for the elections in January, because until then its just going to be one ridiculous legal accusation after another.
Peace.
Because he was the democratically elected leader and technically what happened could be construed as a military coup by those people around the world, by world "leaders" mind you who probably couldn't even find Honduras on a map, let alone tell you anything about it's history.
Media outlets the world over keep using rhetoric to make the event sound like a military coup. Here's a question though: Doesn't the military need to take over and keep power for it to really be a military coup? This seems more like a method of maintaining constitutional integrity and removing from power and ineffective and unloved leader.
Micheletti isn't a new dictator. He just happened to be the next in line, and has thus far found approval from every branch of government and the military. There is also an understanding that he will not stand for election come January. He doesn't sound like a military dictator in the sense of past favorites like Gaddafi or Pinochet.
Then there is the popular notion that the overthrow was committed illegally. This seems difficult to prove for some. The Supreme Court of Honduras issued an order for the military to remove Zelaya from office. The National Congress duly swore in Micheletti after Zelaya was removed to Costa Rica (with no physical harm coming to the man.) So, we have the Supreme Court issuing an order to remove a dangerous leader from power... and somehow this is illegal?
It's not like they removed Zelaya because he was a populist and was attempting to turn the country into a dictatorship. He wasn't even popular with an estimated 30% approval rating. He was however attempting to thwart legal channels. A popular referendum is no way to change a constitution. There are too many things that can go wrong with them, for example- fraud, ignorance of the electorate, fraud and of course the old time favorite for democracies- fraud.
Now, we have an argument from some that is sound. They say that Zelaya should have been tried in court instead of being forcibly removed from office. That sounds great on the surface, but with elections coming up in January the remainder of his term would have been bogged down in legal battles. With the forcible removal, the country can continue not wasting a lot of congressional time trying to wrap their minds around the legality of Zelaya's proposal.
It was a bad idea to try and change the constitution. It was a bad idea to forcibly remove Zelaya from power. It would be a terrible idea to allow him back as president. However, the EU and President Obama are trying to get him put back into power. They are ignoring the mood of the Honduran people- most of whom say that while it was probably wrong to remove Zelaya, bringing him back would cause turmoil and it shouldn't happen.
On the sidelines we also have Hugo Chavez. He is rooting for the return of his pal Zelaya. There is even an underlying threat of military intervention. How would Obama react to that? Mr Chavez has already denounced the weak response by the US. That's a leader I can get behind. With one face he is saying the US needs to leave Latin America alone, with the other face he denounces them for not doing more. Ah Chavez, you make me glad I live in America.
But, with the help of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, it seems that there might be an end in sight. Arias is an amazing leader and I truly hope that a good biography of him comes out in the near future, in English mind you so we can issue it to students and tell them, "This guy is the kind of guy we should respect." He managed a difficult situation but it seems Zelaya will be allowed back into Honduras, but taken directly to the courts. So, I guess we won't avoid the disgusting legal battles after all. We will avoid Mr Chavez doing anything stupid militarily though. I hope.
Micheletti also removed the de facto Foreign Minister after he called Obama a "negrito." This is a derogatory term translated roughly as "little black man." In case we couldn't figure that out.
So, the changes that took place will stand, but Zelaya gets to be put on trial. He still won't be president, Micheletti will retain that position. But now Zelaya has the opportunity to be imprisoned. I would much prefer that than to having the world as my oyster.
Honduras is still struggling to overcome a crippling drug-gang epidemic and I think the populace will show that they want a strong leader in office the next go-round. So, keep your eyes on Honduras and look for the elections in January, because until then its just going to be one ridiculous legal accusation after another.
Peace.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Why Mogadishu matters more than Tehran
Over the past few weeks there has been quite a bit of media coverage of the situation in Iran. Apparently, the dictatorial regime in charge has been accused of rigging the "democratic" elections. There have been massive street protests and horrendous amounts of police brutality and repression of freedom-loving democratons. Wait. Let's get the facts straight here...
True- Ahmadinejad's election was probably rigged.
According to polling results, the actual number of voters in some regions is twice the number of inhabitants. And these massive numbers of voters voted for Ahmadinejad. This seems to be in keeping with the percentages he won in the 2005 elections. Which it does a very good job of. So, the ruling elite can point and say, "He got the same percentage of votes as last time." This is in fact a farce.
False- Ahmadinejad's opponents would herald a new era in Iranian politics.
To be perfectly honest, the presidential election in Iran is more like the caucuses here in the US. You have a bunch of elites running on essentially the same platform, all of whom have to be selected by the party elite in order to run. Except in Iran, there aren't two parties working against each other. There's just the one. So it turns out that we just get an Obama v. Gore, or Bush v. Cheney sort of election. While the election was rigged, it really doesn't matter. What matters is way beyond anything this election could fix.
Iran has some pretty serious issues. None of these relate to the elections. The protests in the streets are a waste of energy and are detrimental in the long run. Iran will not change over night. Two years from now (sans intervention of course) it will still be the Middle East's "Bad Guy." It will still want nukes, it will still be run by clerics and it will still have no chance in hell of a place at the international family table.
So, nothing has changed. Nothing will change. And Obama can't do a damned thing about it. Neither can Gordon Brown, albeit if Obama was in Brown's shoes that might be another story...
This brings me to my main issue with the coverage of Iran: IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT!!!
Look at what has been happening in Somalia.
-Hasn't had a stable government since 1991
-An extremist Islamic group al-Shabab controls roughly 1/3 of the country
-Pirates control the northern coasts
-The AU, the EU, the UN and the US all say,"But... we just don't know if you're worth it..."
Here's an idea: Let's all sit idly by while a new Taliban sets up camp next door to the Suez Canal. That seems like a brilliant concept right? That way they can bomb ships much easier and have greater access to, well, everything. Afghanistan doesn't have a coast on one of the busiest shipping corridors in the world!! Somalia does!!
The worst part? Al-Shabab is not a homegrown group. Most Somalians are moderate or just really laid back about religion. These terrorists/militants/bad people are pouring in from other countries because they can. They seem to know that the US/UN/EU/AU/NATO/insert acronym here won't do a damned thing to stop them. At least until it's too late.
The people of Somalia are suffering because of past interventions, but will we step in to help? Will Europe? Will Somalia's neighbors? The US just announced a shipment of arms to the UN-backed government. That kind of action hasn't helped over the last 18 years, why would it help now? A lot of the pirates and terrorists are using weaponry we sent there over the last two decades against us and the Somali government.
Somalia - 10; Iran- 0
Look at what is happening to Roma across Europe:
-Kicked out of Northern Ireland by a bunch of racist morons
-Living in slums across Europe for little reason (including Italy, France, Germany- all of the "enlightened" European countries)
-Laws are being passed stripping them of their rights- see Italy
Where is the press coverage of this? Well...they don't have the right popular appeal...
Where is the press coverage? Watching South Carolina governor's talk about infidelity. Scrutinizing how that will affect his chance of becoming president. It didn't hurt Bill. And he came from Arkansas!
Who cares about IRAN? People are dying in Somalia at a much faster rate- due primarily to pathetic attempts in the past to "help." Roma are living in poverty unlike that of most of Iran. 150 people are massacred in Zimbabwe last year- we are just now hearing about it... makes me glad I purchased a "bloodless" diamond (considering the Kimberley Process is bullshit.)
Sorry. That rant was justified. I'm sick of hearing about the oppression in Iran. It's actually pretty similar to some scenes from earlier in the year... at the G20 in London... albeit different, because it's Tehran.
I'm tired. Peace.
True- Ahmadinejad's election was probably rigged.
According to polling results, the actual number of voters in some regions is twice the number of inhabitants. And these massive numbers of voters voted for Ahmadinejad. This seems to be in keeping with the percentages he won in the 2005 elections. Which it does a very good job of. So, the ruling elite can point and say, "He got the same percentage of votes as last time." This is in fact a farce.
False- Ahmadinejad's opponents would herald a new era in Iranian politics.
To be perfectly honest, the presidential election in Iran is more like the caucuses here in the US. You have a bunch of elites running on essentially the same platform, all of whom have to be selected by the party elite in order to run. Except in Iran, there aren't two parties working against each other. There's just the one. So it turns out that we just get an Obama v. Gore, or Bush v. Cheney sort of election. While the election was rigged, it really doesn't matter. What matters is way beyond anything this election could fix.
Iran has some pretty serious issues. None of these relate to the elections. The protests in the streets are a waste of energy and are detrimental in the long run. Iran will not change over night. Two years from now (sans intervention of course) it will still be the Middle East's "Bad Guy." It will still want nukes, it will still be run by clerics and it will still have no chance in hell of a place at the international family table.
So, nothing has changed. Nothing will change. And Obama can't do a damned thing about it. Neither can Gordon Brown, albeit if Obama was in Brown's shoes that might be another story...
This brings me to my main issue with the coverage of Iran: IT'S NOT THAT IMPORTANT!!!
Look at what has been happening in Somalia.
-Hasn't had a stable government since 1991
-An extremist Islamic group al-Shabab controls roughly 1/3 of the country
-Pirates control the northern coasts
-The AU, the EU, the UN and the US all say,"But... we just don't know if you're worth it..."
Here's an idea: Let's all sit idly by while a new Taliban sets up camp next door to the Suez Canal. That seems like a brilliant concept right? That way they can bomb ships much easier and have greater access to, well, everything. Afghanistan doesn't have a coast on one of the busiest shipping corridors in the world!! Somalia does!!
The worst part? Al-Shabab is not a homegrown group. Most Somalians are moderate or just really laid back about religion. These terrorists/militants/bad people are pouring in from other countries because they can. They seem to know that the US/UN/EU/AU/NATO/insert acronym here won't do a damned thing to stop them. At least until it's too late.
The people of Somalia are suffering because of past interventions, but will we step in to help? Will Europe? Will Somalia's neighbors? The US just announced a shipment of arms to the UN-backed government. That kind of action hasn't helped over the last 18 years, why would it help now? A lot of the pirates and terrorists are using weaponry we sent there over the last two decades against us and the Somali government.
Somalia - 10; Iran- 0
Look at what is happening to Roma across Europe:
-Kicked out of Northern Ireland by a bunch of racist morons
-Living in slums across Europe for little reason (including Italy, France, Germany- all of the "enlightened" European countries)
-Laws are being passed stripping them of their rights- see Italy
Where is the press coverage of this? Well...they don't have the right popular appeal...
Where is the press coverage? Watching South Carolina governor's talk about infidelity. Scrutinizing how that will affect his chance of becoming president. It didn't hurt Bill. And he came from Arkansas!
Who cares about IRAN? People are dying in Somalia at a much faster rate- due primarily to pathetic attempts in the past to "help." Roma are living in poverty unlike that of most of Iran. 150 people are massacred in Zimbabwe last year- we are just now hearing about it... makes me glad I purchased a "bloodless" diamond (considering the Kimberley Process is bullshit.)
Sorry. That rant was justified. I'm sick of hearing about the oppression in Iran. It's actually pretty similar to some scenes from earlier in the year... at the G20 in London... albeit different, because it's Tehran.
I'm tired. Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
