European Reflections on the Scottish Referendum: Political Engagement and the 45%

By Eddie McCafferty

On Thursday, after two years of hard campaigning on both sides of the debate, the Scottish people voted against independence. Whilst the result was not as close as had been forecast in polls, a significant minority of voters were convinced by the arguments in favour- just under 45 per cent.

Given the historically high turnout of 84.59%, this amounts to over 1.6 million people. So despite the clear victory for the campaign against independence, confidence in Westminster politics- and the political framework of the UK as a whole- remains fragile.

Who are the 45%? And why did they vote the way they did? A short consideration of these questions- with data from Lord Ashcroft’s post- referendum poll– makes for encouraging reading for future political engagement, challenging the generally accepted trend towards voter apathy throughout Europe. If we are to attempt to foster this engagement, it has implications for European politics as well.

The 45% are pragmatic

Of those who voted Yes, 74% said that an important factor in their decision was disaffection with  Westminster politics, rather than for nationalist or economic reasons. Over half made their final decision on which way to go less than a year before the vote.

Conversely, No voters were primarily concerned with retaining the currency, and 72% said they either made a decision more than a year before voting, or had always known how they would vote.

The 45% are young

The generational difference between voting behaviour was quite marked. 73% of those aged 65 or over voted No. Voting in this referendum was controversially open to 16 and 17 year olds- all of whom were first time voters, who chose to engage and were overwhelmingly in favour of independence (71%).

Additionally, the Yes Scotland campaign reported on social media on Saturday that in the 48 hours following independence, the three political parties in favour of independence- the popular Scottiah National Party and the comparatively small Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialist party- gained around 5800 new members. Engagement in Scotland is set to continue.

People engage when they have a voice

From a Scottish perspective, voter turnout has been historic. It is worth noting that turnout in other independence referendums elsewhere has also been exceptionally high- 93.5% in the 1995 Quebec  referendum, for example.

When people see that they have a choice to effect real and lasting change, they are generally more engaged. The European Union can learn lessons from this.

The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has gained considerable support- notably in the last European elections– by tapping into a perceived loss of sovereignty and barrier to democracy presented by the overtly bureaucratic European institutions.

UKIP’s rise is indicative of a wider democratic deficit between the European institutions and citizens. The editor of New Europe highlighted the need for Europe to tackle this in a recent open letter to Jean Claude Juncker, President of the European Commission: “Open Europe to its Citizens. Functionaries of all grades of the Commission must stop hiding from the people and the press… they must be open to the people”.

If Europe takes some lessons from this referendum, and strives to engage more directly with the citizens of Member States in communicating its aims and ethos, we can foster young, pragmatic political interest and ultimately create a more democratic European society.

About the author: Eddie likes to think he was post-structuralist before it was cool. He likes films, and searching for a common humanity.

In Gaza, the vexed language of international ethics gives Israel tools for internal legitimacy as human costs rise

By Edward McCafferty

Ideas of human security and security through emancipation-which argue for individual rights and interests as the best focus for achieving peace and stability- have heavily influenced discourse on ethics in international politics. It is therefore not surprising for the international community to wish to encourage Palestine to achieve full statehood so as to provide social and cultural rights to its citizens and a voice in international affairs.

In 2012, Palestine made what was widely regarded as an important step towards peace and security for its people, in being officially recognised as a UN Observer State with an overwhelming majority of supportive votes from the UN General Assembly. The Universal Declaration for Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a nationality, and so this outcome came with great promise for the individual security of Palestinians through the international recognition of a state to directly represent that nationality.

The past three weeks have served as a severe reality check. Following the failure of US-led peace talks, murders and retaliatory killings, and the continuation of sporadic rocket attacks, Israel has launched a massive military offensive in Gaza. As the civilian death toll of Operation Protective Edge moves into the thousands, the UN has called the situation a “human tragedy”, requesting support from member states in efforts to assist in their humanitarian efforts for those affected.

The most explicitly tragic events presented by the media have been the bombing of UNRWA schools in Gaza, resulting in the deaths of scores of children who had either been seeking refuge or had been unable to escape targeted areas following Israeli warnings. As the media focused on images of the destruction caused by such strikes, the Israeli ambassador to the US was on CNN to justify his state’s actions, and criticise the media for not focusing blame on Hamas.

His argument is a perverse one. Israel understands that despite focusing their efforts on political gains through electoral success and international recognition, Hamas is officially regarded as a terrorist organisation by the majority of the western world. Israel accepts no moral responsibility for the death of children at public buildings as Hamas has deliberately used these buildings to store weaponry in the knowledge that they would likely be targeted and that this would lead to international criticism. By continuing to refer to their belligerents as terrorists, Israel has apportioned to Hamas the modus operandi of using non-combatants as legitimate targets for violence, and aligned with them the common threat that preoccupies western governments.

Terror as a political force becomes effective because of its unpredictability. It has the capacity to disrupt public life and affect the individual security of citizens with minimal firepower, instilling a culture of fear and undermining a state’s responsibility to provide security to its citizens. 3 Israeli civilians have been killed since the beginning of operations, and in Gaza the number is over 1300. Shells have landed on schools, markets and people’s homes. Israel remains defiant despite the knowledge that their targeting of public buildings is leading to so many innocent deaths. From this perspective, it is hard to see Israel’s actions as any different from Hamas’, on a larger scale and with a veil of legitimacy given that Israel is demonstrating its ability to maintain an overpowering coercive influence on its belligerents.

This veil of legitimacy seems worryingly effective for Israelis themselves, and western democracies. A recent poll suggested that 91% of Israeli citizens are supportive of the operation. Although the US has publicly criticised Israel’s recent actions, they continue to provide material support in the form of funding and ammunition.

The same poll found that the majority of Israelis support a two-state solution in ending hostilities. It is clear that the general population want to reach some form of agreement and reconciliation. The UN’s lack of military and economic coercive power in its current form means that in the short term it is ill equipped to dissuade Israel from acting aggressively, yet they have a responsibility to continue to highlight the human cost of events such as this. The media will also continue to do so, regardless of any pressure from Israel or their supporters.

It is unclear when and in what manner this current operation will come to an end. At some point, the human cost will become too great for the Israeli government to continue to use the loaded language of terrorism and security to legitimise their actions.

About the author: Edward likes to think he was post-structuralist before it was cool. He likes films, and searching for a common humanity.

The United States Cannot (And Should Not) Solve All Of The World’s Problems

By John Haltiwanger

The ongoing crisis in Iraq has prompted us to revisit a question that has been at the heart of international relations since the end of WWII: Should the United States act as world police?

It seems that whenever there is a crisis in the world, the US is viewed as either the cause or the solution. Even if the US intervenes and succeeds – a very subjective analysis, as success depends largely on who reaps the benefits – it will inevitably be criticized.

The fact of the matter is there are many competing interests in this world and it is nearly impossible to satisfy everyone through any single action.

As an economic and military superpower, the US will almost always be expected to act, even if it makes matters worse. Recently, we have seen this unfold in Syria, Ukraine, and now, once again, in Iraq.

The current crisis in Iraq is a product of the misguided policies of Western powers that date as far back as WWI.

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of that war, Western powers arbitrarily carved up the Middle East in a manner that served their own interests without considering the complex ethnic and religious divisions in the region.

Western hubris, arrogance and greed are to blame for many of the problems we have witnessed in the Middle East over the past century.

Yes, it is true that many corrupt regimes have come to power in this region, which has certainly not helped improve the situation there. Still, who do you think put them into power and helped sustain their rule?

US policy in the Middle East has followed this trend. It has been a perpetual story of pursuing short-term interests while creating long-term problems. Iraq is a prime example.

It is a country with stark divisions across religious and ethnic lines that create an extremely convoluted situation on the ground.

No degree of military might, power and resources will bring stability to a region that must find its own path to peace, given its current struggles are a product of a long and tumultuous history of tribal conflict.

One cannot solve a complex situation like by relying on nothing more than brute force. The “bull in a china shop” foreign policy of the Bush administration, or the Bush Doctrine, is not a prudent way to approach any international crisis.

Just how complex is the situation in Iraq right now? Most of the West can’t even agree on a common nomenclature for its newest enemy. Is it ISIL, ISIS or Da’ish.

Westerners will never have an intimate understanding of the Middle East because the region has always been viewed as alien. There has never been sincere engagement. The West’s approach to the Middle East has been perpetually patronizing or paternalistic, yet it still wonders why extremism there still flourishes.

You have to engage people as your equal in order to truly foster respectful and healthy dialogue and breed unity and stability in the future.

Obama just sent 300 military “advisors” to Iraq. First of all, it is evident these individuals are not simply advisors, but rather special forces dispatched to spur the Iraqi military into action.

Moreover, one wonders what “advice” they might offer, given the fact that the United States is in many ways directly responsible for destabilizing the region.

That said, it is unclear what course of action the US government will ultimately take in this situation. A number of options have been put on the table, including cooperating with Iran against this common enemy.

US leaders constantly talk about the need to preserve “American interests” in the region. And some have argued that it would be against “American interests” to cooperate with Iran, as this would allow the country to establish regional hegemony, a deeply concerning prospect for America’s allies.

What this really means is that members of the US government likely don’t want to antagonize AIPAC and other pro-Israel entities that have a chokehold on the American legislature and don’t want to see Iran gain influence in the international arena.

Frankly, it’s laughable to say that the United States can’t cooperate with Iran on the basis of its corrupt, totalitarian government.

Throughout history, the United States has frequently cooperated with authoritarian regimes around the world, and in some cases, have helped them rise to power for reasons of convenience or in pursuit of advancing “American interests.”

This not to say that the United States does no good in the world. America has substantial economic and military resources that are often used to further just causes. The world is not black and white, and neither is US foreign policy.

There are plenty of instances that the United States acts responsibly as a global citizen. But there are also many competing interests acting within the US government, including an overly powerful and hawkish Israel lobby, which complicate our foreign policy objectives.

We should learn to recognize that the politics of the day – i.e. a politicians desire to be reelected or win popular support – cannot dictate long-term American foreign policy.

Disengaged diplomacy doesn’t work, the United States has invested too much time, manpower and resources across the globe, and it must accept the consequences of those choices.

Unfortunately, the backing of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is another example of America supporting a corrupt leader for short-term political gain. As Peter Beinart notes for the Atlantic:

“In recent days, Republicans have slammed Obama for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But the real problem with America’s military withdrawal was that it exacerbated a diplomatic withdrawal that had been underway since Obama took office… The decline of U.S. leverage in Iraq simply reinforced the attitude Obama had held since 2009: Let Maliki do whatever he wants so long as he keeps Iraq off the front page.”
Obama wanted to keep his campaign promise to the American people to end US involvement in Iraq, but in the process, it appears that he ignored many of the practical implications of that decision.

We live in a complex and interdependent world. The borders we have established are enforced by law and the norm of sovereignty, but they are ultimately arbitrary and artificial.

In most cases, they do not reflect the history and cultural construct of the world. Every foreign situation or crisis must be properly contextualized in order to be approached effectively.

Accordingly, it is absurd that the individuals responsible for the 2003 Iraq War are now trying to offer guidance on how to handle this crisis in Iraq.

It is also ludicrous that people are suggesting that Obama should have kept soldiers in Iraq or intervened in Syria sooner. These were no-win, complex situations. And it’s very easy to make these types of arguments as a Monday morning quarterback.

The United States cannot simply barge in and solve all of the world’s problems. The world does not work that way. It’s that kind of misguided arrogance that led this nation into this situation in the first place.

Moreover, Obama ran on a campaign promise to wind the War on Terror down, and Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to sending more troops back to the Middle East.

So for all of those saying the United States needs to send more troops there, why don’t you send your own sons or daughters to fight that battle or go there yourself? If you think it’s worth the sacrifice, pull up those boot straps and head on over.

Deploying American troops in the Middle East creates the illusion of stability while perpetuating animosity towards the United States and fostering more long-term problems in the process.

Just as drone strikes are essentially recruiting posters for extremism. Simply put, no one relishes the idea of having a foreign entity occupy his land.

Imagine how Americans would react if the situation were reversed. If a foreign army came to advise and provide security for all of the gun violence that occurs on our streets or to police our borders to stop drug trafficking.

The American people simply wouldn’t stand for it, and you can be certain that a resistance movement would form.

This is not to justify the extreme tactics that ISIL is currently employing, but only to contextualize the situation. When you push people, they will likely push back. Extremism does not grow out of thin air.

What America needs to do is build new partnerships in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. It needs to encourage infrastructure development and education. Knowledge breeds justice and understanding.

The United States also needs to educate its own citizens on the region so that the people there are humanized and no longer viewed as “others.”

It seems all too easy for America to generate public support for its drone campaigns, all while generalizations about Islam and terrorism pervade public discourse and make Americans comfortable with the idea of collateral damage for the sake of the “greater good.”

As a planet, we need to break down these cultural barriers and promote empathy and understanding. All of the world’s peoples simply want to live free and happy, and no one is born hating others.

But we are all a product of our experiences, and when people grow up in hostile and violent surroundings, it is almost inevitable that they will accept this as the norm.

In Iraq, there is no single response that will bring stability to the country or the surrounding region. At present, the United States’ best option is to offer the resources and intelligence it has to the governments in the region, particularly the Iraqi government, and to see how the situation develops.

Ultimately, the fate of Syria and Iraq are up to the people in the region, but a the brutal violence that currently prevails leaves the future looking very grim.

This does not mean that the United States should turn to isolationism. Instead, it needs to find a balance between the cautious and relatively disengaged diplomacy of the Obama administration and the clumsy, guns-blazing approach to adopted by the Bush administration.

Intervention is a messy business, and while there are instances in which it has been successful, more often than not, it exacerbates the problem.

At the same time, in an interdependent world, the predominant world powers cannot afford to sit back and let the region descend into chaos. We are all in this together. Caution, engagement, forethought, empathy, context and cooperation are the keys to prosperity in today’s globalized world.

When the United States offers extreme responses to extremism, we are playing right into the terrorists hands.

Rather than looking at this situation subjectively and asking, “How does this get solved?,” the question should also be, “How did we get into this in the first place and how can we avoid returning here in the future?”

Note – This post was originally featured on Elite Daily and can be found at: http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/united-states-solve-worlds-problems/644019/

About the author:

John Haltiwanger is the Editor-in-Chief of One World, Many Voices. Currently, he works with both the World Affairs Councils of America and the Scottish Global Forum. He holds a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland and an MSc in International Relations from the University of Glasgow.

The Farcical Elections In Syria: Political Theater Amidst Chaos

The upcoming elections in Syria are widely regarded as a cruel joke on the people, as they are unlikely to change the tumultuous situation in the country. Unsurprisingly, Assad has announced that he will run for re-election.

By John Haltiwanger 

For the past 3 years, Syria has been immersed in a bloody and complex civil war that has claimed the lives of over 150,000 people.  Millions more have been displaced, and it is unlikely that they will be returning home anytime soon.  For those still in Syria, death and destruction have become commonplace, and daily life is a constant struggle:

According to the U.N., more than 9.3 million people are affected by the crisis and 3.5 million Syrians are living in areas under siege. Men, women and children have fallen victim to bombardments, rockets, mortars and other attacks. Cities that are surrounded by government troops or militias lack food and medical supplies. One-third of the country’s water treatment plants no longer function, and more than half of the health centers are destroyed.

In February, the UN Security Council unanimously passed a resolution to boost access to humanitarian aid to Syria.  While this was a progressive move for the characteristically obstinate institution, it has done little to change the dire circumstances within the country.   Moreover, there appears to be no end in sight, as peace talks between the government and the opposition have failed continuously.

The current government in Syria has been accused of war crimes, but President Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly refused to step down.  In September, the UN found clear evidence that the government had utilized chemical weapons.  Subsequently, under heavy pressure from the international community and the threat of a US intervention, the Syrian government agreed to a UN Security Council resolution requiring it to eliminate its chemical weapons arsenal.

On April 27, the Syrian government missed the second deadline to complete this task, but is apparently only days away from finishing the job.  According to the New York Times, Syria has now shipped out or destroyed 92.5% of the arsenal.  That accomplishment, however, “… is now overshadowed by reports that Syrian forces have attacked targets with bombs filled with chlorine gas. The government denied those reports.”

Moreover, there have also been reports of army helicopters dropping barrel bombs in heavily populated areas.  Barrel bombs are drums filled with shrapnel and explosives, and are capable of leveling entire buildings.

Despite the continued violence and disarray, the Syrian government recently announced that it would hold presidential elections in June.  Many have viewed this as a cruel joke on the Syrian people.  After all, the Assad family, which is much like a mafia, has viciously ruled over Syria for decades, and it is unlikely that they will allow this to change.  Moreover, Assad just announced that he will run for re-election, and it is widely considered that he will win.  Additionally, as Ben Hubbard notes for the New York Times:

Recent changes to Syrian law have made it somewhat easier for relatively friendly candidates to run, while ensuring that prominent opposition figures are excluded. The Constitution adopted in 2012 requires that any candidate have the written support of at least 35 members of Parliament, for example — probably unattainable for anyone who opposes the government. And a recent law disqualifies any candidate who has lived outside Syria in the past 10 years or who holds citizenship in any other nation, effectively excluding all members of the Syrian National Coalition, the internationally recognized opposition group.

Hence, many have viewed the elections as a sham and a pathetic attempt for the Syrian government to appear legitimate.  Not to mention, millions of Syrian refugees will not be able to vote in the elections.  Furthermore, for those still in Syria, heading to the polls could mean the difference between life and death.  Why would anyone risk his or her life to vote in a predetermined and undemocratic election?

To make matters worse, the UN has claimed the elections could derail the Syrian peace process.  Lakhdar Brahimi, a peace mediator, recently told the members of the U.N. Security Council, “If there is an election, then my suspicion is that the opposition, all the oppositions, will probably not be interested in talking to the government.”

Despite all the criticism, the Syrian government has maintained that the elections will be fair and democratic.  On April 23, lawmaker Maher Abdul-Hafiz Hajjar became the first officially registered candidate.

Unfortunately, these elections inspire little hope for change in Syria, and it is very difficult to be optimistic about this country’s immediate future.  Moreover, the current crisis in Ukraine has regrettably drawn a great deal of focus away from Syria.  Syria’s fate is largely tied to relations between the veto-wielding states in the UN Security Council, primarily the US and Russia.  Presently, that relationship is very strained, as thousands of Russian troops have amassed along the Ukrainian border, and, in response, the US has sent troops to Poland for exercises.

Correspondingly, Fawaz Gerges, who holds the Emirates Chair in Contemporary Middle Eastern Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science, contends:

Assad would not have sought a third presidential term if Iran and Russia, his two powerful patrons, had advised against it. Both have tipped the scales in his favour and obviously view him as indispensable. This explains Assad’s ability to resist the powerful regional and international coalition battling his regime and to go on the offensive. Indeed, the new proxy battle playing out in Ukraine between Russia and the US would stiffen President Vladimir Putin’s resolve to resist Western efforts to unseat Assad. The Ukraine crisis will most likely intensify the great power struggle over Syria and the Greater Middle East.

Ergo, the US and Russia must learn to overcome their differences and cooperate, or countries like Ukraine and Syria will continue to pay the price.  Powerful states have often allowed weaker states to suffer in the pursuit of their own selfish interests, but what is occurring in Syria is absolutely despicable.  Accordingly, a UN-appointed human rights commission recently argued that the UN Security Council bears responsibility for the war crimes in Syria.  As Al Jazeera notes, “The UNSC, whose five permanent members wield veto power over resolutions that could force the international body to intervene on behalf of Syrian civilians, is divided over the conflict, with Russia — and to a lesser extent China — blocking measures aimed at punishing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s government.”

Therefore, the international community needs to make a more concerted effort to end this conflict for the sake of the Syrian people.  We cannot stand idly by as this country rips itself apart.  The Syrian government must be held accountable for its crimes.  This will never occur if the major powers continue to allow their differences to prevent decisive action.  In this complex and globalized world, cooperation is the key to survival.

About the author: John Haltiwanger is the Editor-in-Chief of One World, Many Voices – A Global Conversation. John is 25-years-old and grew up in the Washington DC area. He earned a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland. In Dec. 2013, John completed an MSc in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. At present, John works as a Communications and Project Support Officer for the Scottish Global Forum, an independent research institute. John aims to research and write in the areas of international politics, human rights, social justice, defense and security, conflict resolution, and war and media studies. He enjoys traveling, writing, football (soccer), music, and film.

Was the US justified in denying a visa to Iran’s ambassador to the UN?

 Hamid Abutalebi, Iran’s proposed ambassador to the UN. (Image Source: NYT)

By John Haltiwanger 

The United States and Iran have had a very difficult relationship since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, but things appeared to be improving when a deal was made between world powers over Iran’s nuclear program in November 2013.  Yet, the US recently made a rare and controversial move that could jeopardize this progress.  Last week, the US announced that it would not grant a visa to Iran’s proposed ambassador to the UN, Hamid Abutalebi, given the envoy’s ties to the 1979-1981 hostage crisis at the US Embassy in Tehran.

According to Al Jazeera, Abutalebi has admitted that he was an interpreter for the group that held the hostages, but claims that he was not part of the takeover of the embassy.  The United State’s decision has drawn immediate criticism, and one wonders why they would risk crucial talks with Iran surrounding its nuclear program over an event that occurred 35 years ago.  As the Washington Post notes: “The administration’s decision is likely to be viewed by some other governments as a breach of the United States’ responsibilities as the host country for the United Nations.”

US law allows for the government to bar diplomats that are considered national security threats, but is very difficult to characterize Abutalebi as such.  From the looks of it, Abutalebi played a very limited and nonviolent role in the hostage crisis.  Moreover, he is a veteran diplomat, having served as the Iranian ambassador to Italy, Australia, and Belgium.  Thus, refusing his entry is a blatant insult to a country that the US already has historically poor diplomatic relations with.  Accordingly, the United State’s decision appears to be a product of an inability to let go of the past and move forward.

This is not to say that the actions of the individuals responsible for the hostage crisis were somehow admirable, but one should remember that the crisis was largely a product of the complicated history of Iran in the 20^th century.  This includes a CIA orchestrated coup that deposed Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953, which restored an absolute monarchy under the Shah: “Mosaddeq’s overthrow, still given as a reason for the Iranian mistrust of British and American politicians, consolidated the Shah’s rule for the next 26 years until the 1979 Islamic revolution. It was aimed at making sure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard the west’s oil interests in the country.”

The United State’s powerful position in the world means that it will almost always be included in important discussions between countries surrounding topics of global concern.  Most countries do not have the same luxury, however, and it is troubling that the US is using its position to exert influence over the United Nations in this manner.  After all, the United Nations is a forum for the world’s nations to come together and find common ground, not an exclusive club in which the US gets to decide who has the right to speak and who doesn’t.

Richard Gowan, an international relations expert at New York University, makes an important point on the matter: “If the US starts to pick and choose who can represent other countries at the UN, other countries are likely to react angrily.  How would Washington feel if Switzerland vetoed its choice for American ambassador to the Human Rights Council in Geneva?”

Consequently, Iran has complained to the UN about this decision.  According to the BBC:

Iran’s deputy envoy at the UN in New York, Hossein Dehghani, wrote that the US had violated its legal obligations and set a dangerous precedent… Mr Dehghani wrote to the UN Committee on Relations with the Host Country to request an urgent meeting.  He complained that the US had violated its legal obligations under international law, and under the agreement establishing Washington’s responsibilities towards UN headquarters.  “This decision of the US government has indeed negative implications for multilateral diplomacy and will create a dangerous precedence and affect adversely the work of intergovernmental organisations and activities of their member states” he warned.

Under the 1947 Headquarters Agreement the United States is typically required to grant visas to individuals invited to the UN in New York.

On Monday April 14, Iran requested a special meeting of a U.N. committee on the United States’ refusal to grant a visa to Tehran’s new UN ambassador appointee.  Cyprus U.N. Ambassador Nicholas Emiliou said a meeting would likely be held next week.  Emilios chairs the 19-member committee dealing with issues including immigration and security.

It should be noted that the decision to bar Abutalebi is not exactly final, both the Senate and the House of Representatives have voted in favor of passing the bill that would make his entry into the US illegal but President Obama still has to sign it into law.  President Obama has come under a lot of pressure to do so, according to Michelle Nichols: “The White House is still reviewing the legislation, which would bar any U.N. representative deemed to be behind acts of terrorism or espionage against the United States.”

At the moment, it is apparent that Abutalebi’s visa application has been denied, but Iran is not backing down.  White House spokesman Jay Carney said the UN and Iran had been told “that we will not issue a visa to Mr Abutalebi”.  Neither the White House nor the US State Department has provided any further details.

According to Barry Rosen, one of the hostages in 1979, the refusal of Iran to acknowledge the hostage crisis is one of the reasons that this issue is still relevant and controversial:

On Nov. 4, 1979, a group of radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and kidnapped the diplomats inside, flouting fundamental international law.

I and 51 of my colleagues then suffered through 444 days of fear, beatings, solitary confinement, mock executions and other horrors — some so unspeakable I prefer not to immerse myself in the memories. Some of us had teeth knocked out, bones broken and our bodies bruised. We lost weight and sanity. Some tried to kill themselves… No matter how Aboutalebi tries to minimize his past, he is as complicit as each vengeful radical who terrorized us… Before we can move forward, with serious nuclear negotiations as well as a rapprochement between our two countries, Iran must affirm that it committed heinous crimes against us, breaking and altering our lives forever.

Rosen may have a point, as noted above, the CIA recently admitted its role in the coup that removed a democratically elected leader and dramatically altered the history of Iran and the lives of its people.  This acknowledgement is not necessarily an apology, but it is a start.  Likewise, it might be beneficial for Iran to directly acknowledge the hostage crisis.

However, the fact of the matter is both countries have engaged in activities and behavior that has served the detriment of the other.  Thus, without dismissing the horrors that Rosen and his colleagues faced, perhaps it is time for all parties to move forward.  The individuals involved in the takeover of the American embassy were not representatives of Iran as a whole, but a group of radicals deeply impacted and enraged by actions of the US government and the Shah.  That does not excuse their actions, but an entire country should not be punished for their transgressions.  After all, the US government does not exactly have a perfect record either, and its relationship with Iran has been complicated.  As societies, the differences between Iran and the US are many, but they must learn to coexist for the sake of the wider world.  Focusing overwhelmingly on the past will undoubtedly ensure that this will never occur.

There are now generations of Iranians and Americans coming into adulthood that were not alive during Islamic Revolution or the hostage crisis at the US Embassy, and the legacy of these events should not destroy their chance of living in a world in which their countries can interact with civility.  While it might be fair and understandable for the US and Iran to harbor resentment against one another for what has happened in the past, the United Nations should not be compelled by these sentiments.  It is no secret that the Iranian regime is guilty of serious human rights violations, but when the US gives it reasons to speak negatively about the West it reinforces their position and makes it less likely for the situation to change there.  Diplomacy often requires reconciliation, and both countries would do well to remember that if they hope to see our world progress.

About the author: John Haltiwanger is the Editor-in-Chief of One World, Many Voices – A Global Conversation. John is 25-years-old and grew up in the Washington DC area. He earned a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland. In Dec. 2013, John completed an MSc in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. At present, John works as a Communications and Project Support Officer for the Scottish Global Forum, an independent research institute. John aims to research and write in the areas of international politics, human rights, social justice, defense and security, conflict resolution, and war and media studies. He enjoys traveling, writing, football (soccer), music, and film.

The U.S. Government’s Recent “Cuban Twitter” Scheme Reveals Why It’s Time to Lift the Embargo on Cuba

Students gather behind a business looking for a Internet signal for their smart phones in Havana. Photograph: Ramon Espinosa/AP

By John Haltiwanger

It was recently revealed that the U.S. government secretly developed a “Cuban Twitter,” in what has been described as an attempt to undermine the communist government of Cuba via social media.  The project, spearheaded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), established a network that eluded Cuba’s Internet restrictions and connected users through a text-message service.

According to Politico: “The project… sought to evade Cuba’s stranglehold on the Internet with a primitive social media platform.  First, the network would build a Cuban audience, mostly young people; then, the plan was to push them toward dissent.”

The program, known as ZunZuneo, lasted for over two years and drew around 68,000 subscribers.  AP claims that it was financed through foreign banks and built with secret shell companies.

The program was designed to conceal that the U.S. government established it, thus users were unaware of its origins.  AP received a series of documents on the project from a contractor for USAID, and one memo apparently stated, “There will be absolutely no mention of United States government involvement.”

As AP notes: “Users were neither aware it was created by a U.S. agency with ties to the State Department, nor that American contractors were gathering personal data about them, in the hope that the information might be used someday for political purposes.”

The project’s covert nature and focus on the use of technology for political ends is reminiscent of the Cold War, and some have questioned the judgment that initially led to the scheme.  Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy had only three words to describe the program: “Dumb, dumb, dumb.”

Accordingly, the U.S. government’s response to this issue has been somewhat mixed.  The head of USAID, Rajiv Shah, defended the project before a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 8.  Shah claimed that the program was not covert and was simply meant to “increase the flow of information.”

A blog post published by USAID prior to his testimony claimed:

… The AP’s story ‘makes for an interesting read, but it’s not true.’ The article went on to rebut eight of the AP’s claims, denying there was any attempt to trigger unrest and saying ZunZuneo was merely an attempt to overcome the ‘information blockade’ in Cuba.

Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, made similar remarks on the Obama administration’s behalf:

Suggestions that this was a covert program are wrong. Congress funds democracy programming for Cuba to help empower Cubans to access more information and to strengthen civil society. These appropriations are public, unlike covert action. The money invested has been debated in Congress.

Yet, Senator Leahy also claimed that the program was never adequately described to Congress.

Furthermore, according to Al Jazeera:

The Associated Press published microblogs intended for the program that seemingly poke fun at Cuba’s leaders, appearing to undermine earlier claims that no U.S.-generated political content was involved and that the social media platform was never intended to stir unrest on the island.

Ultimately, as David Sanger notes for The New York Times, the project was a failure and eventually ran out of funding: “The program ran from 2008 to 2012, when it abruptly ended, apparently because a $1.3 million contract to start up a text-messaging system ran out of money.”

Hence, there are still open questions about the nature of the program and its overall aims.  Should the program have been designated as “covert” by U.S. national security law?  Did the program endanger its users by keeping them in the dark about its connections with the U.S. government?  Will these revelations place other USAID employees around the world in danger?

USAID is typically known for the humanitarian aid work it does, not for covert operations.  Accordingly, Al Jazeera aptly notes:

At minimum, details of the program appear to muddy USAID’s longstanding claims that it does not conduct covert actions, and could undermine the agency’s mission to deliver aid to the world’s poor and vulnerable — an effort that requires the trust and cooperation of foreign governments.

This is also very relevant given a major source of tension between the U.S. and Cuban governments was the arrest of the USAID employee Alan Gross in 2009.  Gross went to Cuba to deliver communications equipment and to establish Internet access for the Jewish community there.  The Cuban government accused Gross of attempting to destabilize the regime and sentenced him to 15 years in prison.

While these are all valid concerns, perhaps the bigger question here is, “Why does the US government still have such a difficult relationship with Cuba?” 

The Cuban government released a statement shortly after AP broke the story: “It is once again demonstrated that the government of the United States has not given up on its subversive plans against Cuba, which seek to create destabilizing situations in the country in order to provoke changes in our political order.”

While it is still debatable whether or not this was a sincere attempt to “subvert” the Cuban government, it’s true that the U.S. government has actively sought to supplant it in the past.  As David Sanger states, “At first glance, the program seemed to be in the spirit of many failed efforts by the United States government, dating to the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, to destabilize the Cuban government.”  Thus, the Cuban government has every right to be suspicious of the U.S. government’s intentions in their country.

The United States and Cuba have had a troubled relationship for decades, beginning with the Cuban Revolution, led by Fidel Castro in 1959.  The revolution supplanted Fulgencio Batista, a Cuban leader with long-standing U.S. ties, and effectively established a communist government in Cuba.  This was at the height of the Cold War, when the United States greatly feared the spread of communism and actively sought to prevent it.  The U.S. government essentially believed that if one country fell to communism, the surrounding countries would also succumb to its influences.  This is known as the “Domino Theory.”

Initially, the U.S. government recognized Fidel Castro’s regime, but connections between the two countries swiftly decayed.  This was largely a consequence of the nationalization of U.S. properties in Cuba by the new government.  In response, by October 19, 1960, the U.S. government had prohibited basically all exports to Cuba, establishing what is now the longest embargo in modern history.

To make matters worse, in 1961, the U.S. government attempted to overthrow Castro using C.I.A. trained Cuban exiles at the infamous Bay of Pigs Invasion.  This endeavor failed miserably, and President John F. Kennedy was forced to publicly admit his role in the embarrassing operation.  Understandably, the incident also made the government in Cuba even more suspicious of the U.S. government.

In February 1962, the U.S. continued to pressure Cuba economically by banning imports on basically all Cuban goods.

US-Cuban relations reached a dismal low in October 1962, when the U.S. government discovered that the Soviet Union was constructing missile sites in Cuba based on a secret agreement that was made following the Bay of Pigs Invasion.  The events following this discovery became known as the Cuban Missile Crisis, which almost culminated with a US invasion of Cuba.  Such an invasion could have led to nuclear war between the Soviet Union and the Unite States.  Accordingly, this has often been characterized as the tensest moment of the Cold War, and one in which the world came closest to full-out nuclear conflict.  Luckily a nuclear holocaust was ultimately avoided, but there have still been reverberating consequences for Cuba.

Today, the United States does not have formal diplomatic relations with Cuba and it is very difficult for people to travel between the two countries as a consequence of the embargo.  Cuba also remains on the U.S. State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism, “a designation first assigned in 1982 in light of Fidel Castro’s training of rebels in Central America.”

Despite the fact that the Cold War is now over and the Soviet Union no longer exists, the U.S. continues to perpetuate a policy that is a product of an era long-gone.

In essence, communism is not a threat to the U.S., and as President Obama once said to Mitt Romney during a presidential debate, “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”  Perhaps President Obama should follow his own advice in regards to Cuba.

Despite the fact that the U.S. treats Cuba like an enemy, in reality it is not a substantial threat whatsoever.  The military and economic might of the United States far surpasses that of Cuba.

The present relationship between the U.S. and Cuba is a product of an anachronistic worldview and the refusal of certain politicians, primarily a small group of Cuban exiles, to admit that the embargo has failed.  These exiles, among others, have an understandable right to feel disgusted by the Castro regime, given its many crimes and human rights violations, but it is apparent that the embargo has now failed in bringing about its demise.  Moreover, the embargo now negatively impacts generations of Cubans that had nothing to do with the events of 1961-62 and arguably makes the U.S. look like a bully, rather than a beacon of democracy.

Both the United Nations and Amnesty International, among others, have denounced the embargo and called for the U.S. to lift it.  As the Council on Foreign Relation notes, there is global support for engagement with Cuba, and a majority are against the U.S. embargo.

Although, it is notable that the Obama administration has taken positive steps from previous administrations on this issue.  As noted by the Washington Post in 2009:

The White House announced that it is abandoning longstanding restrictions on family travel, remittances and gifts to Cuba, and is also taking steps to open up telecommunications with the island, a significant shift in policy that fulfills a promise President Obama made during his election campaign.

Yet, one still wonders why the government hasn’t lifted the embargo altogether.  President Obama does not have the power to lift the embargo without the support of Congress, and there is opposition in both parties to such an action.

Still, it is somewhat baffling that the U.S. government continues to engage in dubious activities, like this recent social media scheme, to further its interests in Cuba.  Why not engage the Cuban government directly?  DeWayne Whitney captures this notion quite succinctly for USA Today:

The irony here is that Cuba has been moving toward more openness in recent years without an assist from USAID. It has liberalized its travel laws, outlawed workplace discrimination against gays and lesbians and slowly, but surely, become more accepting of dissent… Though the USAID seems oblivious to such signs of progress, the White House should be more discerning. Obama ought to shut down U.S. efforts to topple Cuba’s government and seek ways to spur a more open society there by earnestly engaging it.

This is precisely why Senator Leahy argued that if U.S. companies were allowed to operate in Cuba, this would undoubtedly lead to the use of Twitter, and a secretive program like ZunZuneo wouldn’t even be necessary.

Furthermore, as Daniel Griswold, from the Cato Institute think tank, puts it:

As a foreign policy tool, the embargo actually enhances Castro’s standing by giving him a handy excuse for the failures of his homegrown Caribbean socialism… If the embargo were lifted, the Cuban people would be a bit less deprived and Castro would have no one else to blame for the shortages and stagnation that will persist without real market reforms… If the goal of U.S. policy toward Cuba is to help its people achieve freedom and a better life, the economic embargo has completely failed. Its economic effect is to make the people of Cuba worse off by depriving them of lower-cost food and other goods that could be bought from the United States. It means less independence for Cuban workers and entrepreneurs, who could be earning dollars from American tourists and fueling private-sector growth. Meanwhile, Castro and his ruling elite enjoy a comfortable, insulated lifestyle by extracting any meager surplus produced by their captive subjects.

Therefore, it is time for the US government to seriously consider lifting this outdated embargo, and to cease engaging in questionable activities against the Cuban government.  It is readily apparent that it’s in the interests of both countries to resume open dialogue and economic relations.  In fact, polls show that a majority of Americans would like to reestablish normal relations with Cuba.  Democracy, coming from the Greek words for people (demos) and rule (kratos), literally means “rule of the people.”  Both the American people and the wider world have spoken, and it’s time for the U.S. government to listen – lift the embargo, and say goodbye to a bygone era in which we came to the brink of nuclear destruction.

 

About the author: John Haltiwanger is the Editor-in-Chief of One World, Many Voices – A Global Conversation. John is 25-years-old and grew up in the Washington DC area. He earned a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland. In Dec. 2013, John completed an MSc in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. At present, John works as a Communications and Project Support Officer for the Scottish Global Forum, an independent research institute. John aims to research and write in the areas of international politics, human rights, social justice, defense and security, conflict resolution, and war and media studies. He enjoys traveling, writing, football (soccer), music, and film. 

Hope Returns to Afghanistan in Landmark Presidential Election

By John Haltiwanger

Afghanistan, a nation marred by violence and poverty, has been given little cause for optimism in recent times.  This past weekend, however, hope returned to the hearts of the Afghan people as they came forth to cast their votes in the presidential election.  The election marks the first-ever democratic transfer of power for Afghanistan, making it an exceptionally historic event for a nation often defined by turmoil.

Despite concerns of fraud, threats of violence from the Taliban, and general intimidation, a record number came out on April 5th for the vote. According to the BBC, 7 million out of an estimated eligible 12 million voted in the election for the new president, making it an enormous and largely peaceful success for Afghanistan.  Accordingly, the election also displays the immense courage, integrity, and determination of the Afghan people.

The Taliban threatened to thwart the vote, pledging to attack the election and anyone involved with it, but it is apparent that they failed in this endeavor. Unfortunately, however, there were still reports of violence in the country on Saturday. According to the Kevin Sieff, “At least 23 people were killed on election day and the prior day, mostly soldiers and police officers, the government announced.” Additionally, eighty-nine Taliban militants were also killed, and 179 other fighters arrested.

Yet, there were no large-scale attacks in Kabul, and the day was decidedly more peaceful than many predicted.

In an exclusive interview, Sam Schneider, the English news editor for the Kabul based TOLOnews, stated:

The campaign season went pretty well, though a lot if it was theater rather than substantive. But in a country where just over 40% of people are literate, that’s not all that surprising. The main themes of the lead-up were definitely Taliban violence, government interference and voter fraud. There was a slue of attacks in the two weeks before the vote, with attacks on election officials, security personnel and journalists nearly everyday. Most expats were evacuated by their companies over election weekend, pretty much only journalists remained. Democracy International even pulled out the observers it was going to use. All of this contributed to an overwhelming gloomy outlook peddled in western media. But when Election Day came and went with less violence than most average days see, the build-up fell flat on its face and gave way to a ubiquitous sense of accomplishment and pride across the country.

In 2009, during the last presidential elections, the story was much different as there were widespread allegations that the election was rigged in favor of the incumbent, President Karzai.  Now, however, Karzai must step down as the constitution limits him to two terms.  Thus, this election is arguably more egalitarian and democratic.

Furthermore, as Helena Malikyar notes for Al Jazeera, “It will take a few days to know approximate numbers of voters and vote distributions and two weeks before Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission announces the final figures. But, many observers estimate that around 7 million eligible voters cast their ballots on April 5. That will make a turnout of close to 60 percent, while in 2009 about 4.5 million had voted.”  Hence, it is apparent that this election was a vast improvement from Afghanistan’s previous presidential election, and a huge step forward for the country.

However, there were still widespread concerns of fraud leading up this election, largely as a consequence of the nature of the election in 2009. As Emma Graham-Harrison notes for The Guardian, “After more than a decade under President Hamid Karzai, there have been widespread fears that the election would be sewn up in favour of a chosen successor, or that people disillusioned with corruption and mismanagement would stay away. In 2009 the vote that returned Karzai to power was marred by widespread fraud, with more than a million ballots thrown out.”

While these fears and concerns were well founded, it appears that the anti-fraud measures put in place for this election were largely successful. As Sam Schneider puts it:

Regarding the allegations of fraud, there was undoubtedly some ballot box stuffing and attempts by voters to use fraudulent voting cards or recycle ones that had already been used, but early reports from Afghan and non-Afghan observers have suggested that it was significantly less of an issue than it was in 2009… In the 2009 vote, Karzai still had sway over most local officials, which the constitution allows the president to directly appoint, which gave him an advantage in leveraging interference in his favor… The big question regarding fraud now is whether or not the ballot shortages that were seen all over the country surprising early in the day were related to ballot box stuffing or simply the fact that more people showed up to vote than expected… By the end of the day, there were thousands of people in provinces like Herat, Kabul and Balkh (which saw the highest turnout) that did not get to vote despite waiting in line because there were not ballots left for them.

It will take at least 6 weeks for the results to come in and a final result to be declared. Hence, as Schneider notes, “What matters most moving forward is how the vote counting process goes, and whether or not people see the result as being legitimate… The next few weeks and months are going to be just as important, and vulnerable, as the last few were.”

Afghanistan is nation with deep ethnic divisions, which will play a large role in the outcome of the election. It is notable that the two campaigns consistently leading in the pre-election polling have crossed ethnic lines to form their tickets. There are eight candidates in total, and in order to win one will have to score over 50 percent of the vote in order to avoid a run-off with his nearest rival.  Some are concerned that this could lead to violence in a country that desperately needs strong and stable leadership.  As Al Jazeera notes, “There are a number of efforts underway to prevent such crisis by bringing most, if not all, of the top candidates together under a form of a coalition government.”

The top three contenders are Ashraf Ghani, Zalmai Rassoul, and Abdullah Abdullah.  Ghani was the finance minister under Karzai, while Abdullah was Karzai’s foreign minister.  Abdullah also ran in 2009, but dropped out in protest over widespread voter fraud.

While Karzai has not formally endorsed Rassoul, it is widely argued that he is the establishment candidate.  Accordingly, Schneider notes:

I think a major sign of whether or not the vote was compromised, and meddled with by the Karzai administration, for example, will be how well Zalmai Rassoul does. Most experts recognize that he is not nearly as popular nationwide as Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani, and surveys leading up to the vote support that view, but he was endorsed by Karzai’s brother, Qayoum, and is generally regarded as being the favored candidate of the palace. If he somehow manages to place second, or first, that would seem pretty fishy.

If there is no winner, a run-off election will occur on May 28 between the two front-runners.

One of the biggest concerns with this is that a delay could impact the completion of a pact between the US and Afghanistan that would keep up to 10,000 US troops in the country beyond 2014. In February, President Obama announced a complete withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan by the end of the year, while simultaneously stating his preference for keeping residual forces in the country in order to prevent terrorists from gaining a foothold there.  Karzai refused to agree to this and his relationship with President Obama and the US has become quite strained recently, but the top three candidates have all pledged to sign it.

President Obama has congratulated Afghanistan for its election and has pledged to work closely with Karzai’s successor – whoever that may be.  The US military has been present in Afghanistan since 2001, in what has been the longest conflict in US history – the War in Afghanistan. Furthermore, Afghanistan has been a constant point of frustration for the Obama administration. Thus, it is not surprising that Obama and the US government are watching this election and its outcome closely.

The future of Afghanistan is still up in the air, but the world can congratulate it for holding a successful and peaceful election after 13 tumultuous years in which at least 16,000 Afghans have died.  Hopefully this positive trend will continue, and it is reassuring that the Afghan people seem determined to come together and regain control of the fate of their country.

 

About the author: John Haltiwanger is the Editor-in-Chief of One World, Many Voices – A Global Conversation. John is 25-years-old and grew up in the Washington DC area. He earned a BA in History from St. Mary’s College of Maryland. In Dec. 2013, John completed an MSc in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. At present, John works as a Communications and Project Support Officer for the Scottish Global Forum, an independent research institute. John aims to research and write in the areas of international politics, human rights, social justice, defense and security, conflict resolution, and war and media studies. He enjoys traveling, writing, football (soccer), music, and film.

Gender Equality in Chile and Sweden And the Dangers of Making Comparisons

By Aili Cecilia García

“A man who cooks is very sexy. A woman who cooks is not that sexy. Because it’s associated in our mind to the domestic cliché of the woman” – Isabel Allende.

When I first came to Chile, where my father and his family were born and raised, I had lived all my life in Sweden, my mother’s home. There are no words to describe how excited I was, I’d heard so many stories about this miraculous country, a cultural goldmine that had fought its way through some very troubling times and was now developing rapidly. There are many Chileans in Sweden, and my family has always thought it obvious to incorporate us – the second generation of Chileans – into our cultural heritage, so I did not experience any significant culture clash when I arrived. What I soon realised, however, was nothing I had spent much time thinking about before.

Where was my place in this remarkable society? As I was getting to know some cousins I had never met before, we got into the subject of cooking and I revealed a horrible truth about myself: “I cannot cook.” I told them how I used to contribute with groceries and dishwashing to let my brother do the cooking for me and they were shocked to say the least. How was I to take care of the men in my life without being able to cook? Was there any man in my life? My answer, “No.” This was, if possible, even more appalling. The idea of a young girl without neither boyfriend nor husband, who was perfectly fine with the idea of remaining single seemed extremely confusing to these men. But after making a couple of jokes about it, they let go of the topic and seemed to accept my strange stand. After another couple of similar encounters, where I was told I could not possibly write poetry, or know anything about politics as a girl, I realised that ideas of this kind have always been present around me, reinforced, perhaps most strongly from my own grandmother. I need to cook and clean, sow and behave appropriately, and, to my horror as a tomboy child, I need to always look pretty, tidy, and female.

The traditional view of women as caretakers is upheld by men and women alike in Chile, and a 2010 UNDP study shows that as many as 62% of Chileans oppose full gender equality. The Latin-American “Machismo”-culture and religion steadily reinforce these ideas in Chile, but so does legislation. The Pinochet-led dictatorship promoted a policy-based return to traditional views of women. It encouraged the treatment of female workers as a secondary workforce and their discrimination in the workplace, while also maintaining the now outdated and scrapped marriage law. This law stated that, once married, the husband had rights over his wife and her assets, thus inheriting all of her wealth, but also, by law, her faithfulness and obedience. Before 2004, divorce was also unlawful in Chile. My grandmother experienced a lot of trouble with these laws. She divorced my grandfather in Sweden, but could not do so in Chile, which resulted in a long, still on-going battle of assets and territory between the two.

The new divorce law has also been crucial for women searching for a way to get out of abusive relationships in Chile. Larger financial decisions require the husband’s signature, thus women have been subject to financial manipulation by their husbands. Domestic violence has however been the more pressing issue, where, in 2004, 50% of Chilean women had suffered spousal abuse and more than half of these had been subject to physical violence.

“Here, they teach you to accept the lot you were given… Unfortunately we are a generation of repressed women . . . They teach you that marriage is for life and I was ashamed to admit that I had made a bad choice. And so I tried to maintain the relationship, hoping it would improve with time. But it only got worse.” These are the words of a woman who escaped her husband after he had threatened to kill her on Christmas Day almost 15 years ago.

Despite the 1994 Intrafamily Violence Law, sufficient means to address punishments for perpetrators and victim protection are still lacking due to the compromises that had to be made for the law to pass. A study made in 2004 shows that many women in Chile accept domestic violence as a normal occurrence due to its high prevalence in Chilean society. It thus becomes clearer how deeply these macho ideals are rooted in Chile – where many women accept their inferiority.

I was born in ancient times, at the end of the world, in a patriarchal Catholic and conservative family. No wonder that by age five I was a raging feminist – although the term had not reached Chile yet, so nobody knew what the heck was wrong with me” – Isabel Allende.

The most crucial problem facing Chilean women today however arguably falls under the title “reproductive rights.” The idea that women can only reach complete self-fulfilment through motherhood permeates Chilean culture and was also something I experienced first-hand during my visit in the country. Part of the alarm brought about with my own singlehood was that it meant I wasn’t in the process of having children – in Chile it is not atypical for girls to have their first child before turning 20 – often, it is rather the opposite. In the case of my own family, this has led to a few experiences of single motherhood, where relatives of mine have faced extremely hard times trying to pursue their own goals in life with a baby on their arm. Traditional beliefs about women’s roles as mothers have contributed to the rarity of sex education in schools and women’s unlikeliness to use contraceptives.

The distribution of emergency contraception was, in fact, recently completely outlawed by the Chilean government. Most detrimental to the well-being of women are, however, the abortion laws introduced during the dictatorship in 1989, which have been deemed amongst the strictest in the world. Chile is today one of five countries in the world banning abortion in all cases, even where the pregnancy endangers the woman’s life. Just two years ago an 11 year old girl was denied abortion despite being a victim of continual incidences of rape conducted by her mother’s partner. About 120-160,000 Chileans however pursue illegal abortions annually – abortions that are generally unsafe.

Last year’s appointment of Michelle Bachelet as President nevertheless bears promises for the future of women in Chile. Although the law she pushed through in 2006 to make emergency contraception available at state-run hospitals was reversed by the highest court in 2008, Bachelet’s 2013 election-campaign called for a relaxation of the abortion laws. During her first term in office she fostered opportunities for women through, for example, improving and expanding child care, making free child care centres four times more frequent, pension-reforms, and increasing the budget of the national institution dealing with Women’s rights (SERNAM). She also ensured that half of her cabinet were women.

In terms of women’s employment, Michelle further criminalised the request of gender-information on job applications and employer’s requests of pregnancy tests by their employees. Whereas Chilean women and men share similar attendance in higher education, only about 48% percent of the former are actually employed. Bachelet’s child care reforms, proved, in 2012, to have failed to impact on women’s participation in the workforce and most child care provisions remain unattainable for the poorer. Furthermore, the overall gender income gap stood, in 2007, at 33%, however among those with university degrees the pay gap rises to about 40%. This amounts to one of the worst pay gaps in the world.

In 2012, former minister Laura Albornoz stated: “When I was minister, whenever the male ministers told me that they had a lot of responsibilities, too, I’d ask them, what’s your family going to eat at home today? And they couldn’t answer because they’d never been on their way out the door, in the morning, and stopped to take a chicken out of the freezer, to thaw for dinner.”

The difficulties of being a mother while participating in the labour force are widely felt among women in Chile. A cousin of mine, with her child’s father absent when I last met her, was working three jobs during the day to earn her living, while studying night-time to pursue her career in medicine. Luckily for her, her mother had agreed to help care for the baby. Whereas there are indeed laws to favourably regulate the wages and working conditions of women in work, these are rarely applied in reality. Paid maternity leave is, for example, provided for women, but applies only to women in the formal sector with employment contracts – something many women still lack in Chile today.

Ultimately, the attitudes facing women in the workforce often remain discriminatory. Many of the difficulties Bachelet faced during her first term were often blamed on her gender by both men and women. Indeed, Chile maintains a relatively low number of women in Congress in comparison to the rest of South America.

As the former head of the United Nations organ directed to promote gender equality, and as a generally popular former president, Bachelet’s election-campaign demonstrated a more firm stand to promote women’s rights in Chile in the coming term. With a steady focus on equality and non-discrimination against women, Ms Bachelet is now provided the opportunity to improve the daily lives of women in Chile.

My experience with the Chilean way of reasoning about women has often led me to think of how lucky I am to have grown up in Sweden – the ‘ultimate model’ for women’s emancipation. Through encounters with people of other nationalities, and also through foreign and national media channels, I am repeatedly told of how ideal Sweden is for a woman. In 2000 Sweden was titled an ‘exemplary country’ by the UN when it comes to gender equality. And I tend to agree.

Sweden has one of the highest employment rates in the world for women, where according to the OECD about 72% of women are in paid employment in contrast to 76% of men. With special protection for part-time workers, laws restricting employers from firing women who have recently become mothers throughout their maternity leaves and further anti-discrimination policy measures for women in the workplace and in schools, it is hard to state otherwise. Swedish national television even assures equal amounts of airtime to women’s and men’s sports!

Public childcare is guaranteed to all parents, and fees are highly subsidized, with parents paying fees proportional to their income and their number of children, while facilities operate whole days (about 12h/day). In terms of parental leave, the Swedish model guarantees 13 months of leave paid at 80% of the most recent income, with an extra 3 months paid at a fixed rate for Swedish couples. Of these, each parent has a nonexchangeable claim to two months of compensated leave – with an additional economic incentive for more equal childcare called the ‘Gender equality bonus’ that relates to the take-up of parental leave benefits. Contraception is moreover free in youth clinics available in most cities, and can also be found at the school nurses’ office. Abortions are available to all women up to the 18th week of pregnancy, and there’s generally nothing controversial about it. In comparison to Chilean society, Sweden therefore seems like a heaven for women.

Personal experiences also tell me that the notion of equality is something accepted by most people. However, there appears to be a difference between adhering to a belief, or believing to do so, and actually acting by it in practice in Sweden. In the work sphere, women still earn, on average, 17% less than men. Moreover, three times as many women than men work part-time, less than a third of entrepreneurs are female and about as many women are in managerial positions, and women who work in Swedish corporate boards are often there due to quotas. The combination of part-time work and parental leave applicable to many women today means that women’s aggregate lifetime salaries in Sweden amount to about 330,000£ less than those of men.

According to the Globe and Mail the Swedish labour market also belongs to one of the most gender-segregated in the world. Linked to this, is, according to SKL, an organisation for employers and members of Swedish municipalities and counties, a structural wage discrimination where professions generally dominated by women are less valued than what are arguably equivalent occupations dominated by men. Examples of this are assistant nurses who earned about 240£ less than per month than machine-minders, and social welfare secretaries that earned around 1,100£ less than IT consultants in 2012.

Finally, despite the fact that Swedish men are increasingly taking up household-work and, according to one study, do more housework than men in the rest of the world, about 66% of this work is still performed by women. Women also tend to work less after having children, taking almost four times as much time off with their kids, where Swedish fathers for example utilise a mere 24% of the total time of parental leave. It thus becomes apparent that many spheres in Swedish society still need improvement for gender equality to fully take place. Old gender norms still apply, and affect people’s daily conducts, where, despite encouraging policy attempts to increase gender equality, men and women are still operating on different terms in society.

Viewing Sweden as the ‘ultimate model’ for women’s emancipation is therefore dangerous if the goal is equality. If even in highly progressive countries such as Sweden equality is still far away, feminism cannot be treated as a time-constrained issue, or something you achieve and can thereafter put a lid on. With regards to Sweden, people – me included – reinforce the idea that we have come very far in terms of gender equality, and in a comparative perspective to countries such as Chile, we have. However, to belaud Sweden can be detrimental to the country’s future successes, as could it be detrimental to do so in other progressive states. It is very easy to point at other countries and say that ‘in comparison, we are better, so why worry about the little things’. The problem is that these are not little things, although, in a comparative perspective they may seem to be. To consider the strife towards gender equality ‘finished’, or ‘almost finished’ business may even give room for the types of backwards progress visible in some European countries where abortion laws are on the agenda to be reintroduced in for example Spain. Feminism therefore needs to be treated as a constant, something that should be actively upheld, to see our societies prosper. This, until the day that our norms have fundamentally changed – something still far away, but absolutely achievable.

 

About the author:

Aili is an Undergraduate student of Politics at Glasgow University. She is passionate about human rights and does not believe in purely black and white portrayals of the world.

The Clash Within Civilizations And The Changing Dynamics In The War On Terror

By Will Follmer 

Over the past decade the “Clash of Civilizations” theory, which dominated the 90s and early 2000s, has largely been debunked and the present trend has moved towards a “Clash Within Civilizations”. What has essentially happened is that the world has become more multipolar than in the past, with regions throughout the world reaching a closer equilibrium with the West.  However, in many ways this has been to the West’s advantage, which is not surprising.

The old model was that different regions, and the developing world, were united as a counter balance to the West and which was necessary to reach a closer sense of a power balance. Regions often showed a strong sense of solidarity on global issues (although there were seeds of the internal regional conflicts even during that period, they are just intensifying).

As many regions are quickly becoming more influential on the global stage and Western powers are losing influence, there has been an increase in the emergence of regional hegemons and a jockeying for regional influence.  In southeast Asia, China is increasingly at odds with its neighbors, Russia is reasserting itself in Central Asia and Eastern Europe, Brazil and Mercosur are being challenged by the Pacific Alliance as a model for the future of the hemisphere, and within Africa South Africa’s traditional place as the giant of the hemisphere is being challenged by Nigeria and other fast growing states.

As the U.S. and a few other Western states still have the unmatched ability to project power throughout the globe (although less so presently relative to the past) regional actors who used to show solidarity against Western influence are increasingly looking to partner with Western powers (though on more equitable terms than in the past) in order to counter balance the regional hegemons. However, the West (especially the U.S.) benefits in that these emerging states are more able to better contribute to shared defense rather than relying heavily on U.S. resources.

As the West recovers economically and the emerging states begin their economic cool down, this pattern will likely continue. This will be more partnerships than vasselships than in the past.  This pattern is the most acute in Asia, and it is also apparent that in Africa countries that are more willing to bring in French aid than in the past.

What does this have to do with the War on Terror? A lot.  The West and Israel are no longer the central focus of the Jihadists, but are utilized for influence within the region and as part of an increasing proxy war between state actors.  Although they still remain primary antagonists in the narrative of the Jihadists, it is apparent that this relationship and the makeup of the Middle East has transformed.  The divides are between Shias and Sunnis, secular vs Islamists, different regions and even within former coalitions. The landscape of the War on Terror has completely changed, and has somewhat more intensified.  Thus, U.S. objectives are becoming more nebulous (shifting from an active to supporting role) and oddly aligned.

Al-Qaeda in AfPak, once the nerve center of the global movement, is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Although Al-Qaeda is seemingly bigger than ever, it is in fact only in name the same organization that became infamous following the events of 9/11. Different regions have increasingly asserted autonomy from the central organization, and as a result, are more focused on regional than global objectives. AQIM (Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), which actually preceded AQ during the Algerian conflict, is focused far more on gaining stronger influence within post war Libya, fighting the Algerian government, and gaining a foothold in African regions. In Egypt, the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood and Morsi, returned Egypt as a flashpoint for conflict between Islamist and secularists. AQ and other groups in the Arab Peninsula are trying to assert influence in the weak Yemen state, and have developed a stronger cliental relationship with the Gulf Cooperation Council (though this has already been present) in order to use them as proxies for global influence.

The U.S.’s mission in AfPak has also weakened its attractiveness as a gathering point for Jihadists (though this might change after the withdraw though they will still be distant regional), and their leadership and major operators have a difficult time organizing within the region with the drone campaign making it a less attractive home for the region. 

The Taliban might become a renewed force in the region, however, they will most likely have little appetite for involvement in the global jihadist movement as regional influence is more important for them. Moreover, once the U.S. leaves they will have little desire to cause renewed U.S. attention in the region as they do not wish for a repeat of the 2011 invasion which was triggered by the presence of AQ’s and their involvement in 9/11.

Syria has of course been the largest catalyst for this changing dynamic and the centerpiece of the Jihadist movement. The West takes a back-burner role for these fighters, whose main targets are now Shia actors such as Hezbollah, Maliki, Assad, and Iran  

Even within the Sunni movements there is a new struggle for influence that is breaking out in open conflict. Al-Nusra (backed by the central AQ structure) and the ISIS (AQ recently threw them out) have turned against another, and it is not even clear how much influence the central AfPak leadership even has in their decision making.

As the objectives switch, so does the nature of Jihadist operations. Al-Qaeda no longer has terrorism has it main focus, it takes up only perhaps 5% of its current resources. Instead its focus has shifted to more conventional warfare and insurgent training. These tactics reflect a switch in adversaries. Against the West these sort of tactics are nearly completely ineffective as it has overwhelming military superiority against any open force, terrorism is there best chance to inflict damage. Against the Western states, there is no conceivable scenario in which they can hold territory or become a governing body, however, this opportunity is presenting itself in new autonomous regions.

Meanwhile the U.S. is also dealing with the shifting global landscape. It has gained new global priorities in Asia and Eastern Europe in which the environment makes their involvement more conducive and does not involve open conflict. With the change in the strategic objectives of the Jihadist movements there is less of a need for the U.S. to assert itself to protect the homeland and its allies, and it is not even clear what factions they should be fighting. The assertion of Russia’s influence southward and China’s westward makes it possible that in the near future they could become new targets for Jihadists, they are both more accessible due to proximity and have resistive Islamic populations. The U.S. is likely to and should provide counter-terrorism support even to rivals such as Russia and China, but it is less likely to take the same hands on role as it did in the last decade (especially as its energy interests are less dependent on the region and the public is war weary).

In conclusion, the clash between Islam and the West, the narrative (that in some ways was inaccurate before) of the last decade, has been replaced by an internal clash of state and non-state actors for regional influence in an increasingly multi-polar world.  Consequently, we will witness a constantly changing dynamic in the way the U.S. interacts with the globe in the coming years.  

 

About the author:

Will is a Graduate of Maryland’s School of Public Policy, Class of 2013.  He specializes in International Security & Economic Policy, and International Development.  Will has researched and written papers on international law and the use of force,  global economics and trade, international politics (with a focus on the Middle East and Turkey), U.S. bilateral and multi lateral security partnerships, policy making processes and human rights.

 

Image credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/War_on_Terror_montage1.png

Femininity: in focus

Photograph of Sunni Kahle, the 8-year-old girl from Virginia whose grandparents withdrew her from school after receiving a letter from the school recommending that she behave more ‘feminine.’

By Lauren Pascu

Across all forms of media in recent weeks there seems to be a common theme of article appearing on the subject of femininity.  So I thought I would throw my two cents in to the debate.

Given how quickly stories spread around the internet these days, I would assume a sizeable number of social media users have now heard the story of the 8-year-old girl, Sunni Kahle, from Virginia whose grandparents withdrew her from the school after receiving a letter from the school recommending that she behave more ‘feminine.’  Well, this story angered me. So what if Sunni has short hair and enjoys playing with toys that have been marketed at both genders?  This was true of many girls I knew growing up and my favourite toys were the toy cars and Lego bricks that my brother had grown out of, not Barbies or dolls in prams.

I must admit that the reason this angered me is partly because only a few days ago in a ‘Media and Democracy’ class at university my classmates and I were analysing how women politicians are treated differently to their male equivalent by the media and their reinforcement of gender roles.  The sheer frustration I felt from what I had learned in that class regarding gender identity and the media is still raw, so that in combination with Sunni’s story helped to fuel this article.

Female politicians must endure commentary on their fashion choices as well as their policy ideas, because clearly whether a woman chooses to wear a kitten heel or stilettos is critically important information that voters need to make an informed decision.  In media interviews, women are inevitably questioned about how they balance family life and a life in politics, something that rarely crops up when a male politician is being interviewed; it is assumed they have a wife at home caring for the kids.  And having a powerful, confident wife is an asset for a male politician – just look at how Michelle Obama has been portrayed throughout her husband’s campaigns and subsequent Presidency.  Contrast this with Hillary Clinton – she will never be able to escape the fact that her husband was once the Most Powerful Man on Earth and some people will therefore question whether it isn’t really her husband pulling the strings or at least having a fair amount of influence on her decisions.

Women also face an age barrier when entering politics.  If they are too young and attractive they are assumed to be brainless bimbos without any experience.  If they are a more ‘mature’ lady they are invariably seen to be ‘past it’ – contrast that with older men who are seen as suave and worldly and like a fine wine that gets better with age.  To be successful they must shun ‘feminine’ (read: weak) traits and become more aggressive and tough and strong-willed in order to succeed, because that is supposedly what we expect in our leaders.  Except, if they become too decisive and aggressive they are then labelled as ‘power hungry’.  It seems to hark back to attitudes present in the Middle Ages where women were considered to be devilish, untrustworthy and far too ambitious for their own good.  It seems women cannot win; if they are themselves then they will not succeed and if they mould themselves to how they believe they should be they are just as unsuccessful.  They are damned if they don’t and damned if they do.

It is bad for everyone, male or female, if women do not get involved in politics because they are simply put off because they feel they have to be other than what they are.  Once women are involved in politics they will be able to push for more equal opportunities and this will benefit every mother, sister, aunt, niece and daughter which in turn will benefit every father, brother, nephew, and son.

About the author: Lauren Pascu is completing a Masters degree in International Relations at the University of Glasgow. She is also a Political and Social Journalist at Affairs Today and a guest contributor for Chayn Pakistan.