Category Archives: WT

What is NOT Democracy

In September 2011 David Barsamian, an American Radio broadcaster and writer, was deported from New Delhi airport on arrival. Immigration officials cited a 2009 violation of his tourist visa (which he used to report on the situation in Kashmir) as the reason for why they now banned him from the country. A ‘side’ fact is that Barsamian has travelled to India regularly over the past 40 years and has commented on many hot spots in the country, including Kashmir. Needless to say, his stories and analysis do not coincide with the government’s narrative.

Barsamian was not the only person to be refused entry into the world’s largest democracy. Professor Shapiro, a US based academic, was refused entry citing the same reason – ‘violation of visa’. Many argue that it was largely because his Indian born wife, Angana Chatterjee, also a US based academic, happens to be the co-convener of International People’s Tribunal on Human Rights and Justice in Kashmir. Recently, Gautam Navlakha, a human rights activist, was denied entry at Srinagar airport also because of his writings and comments on the Kashmir issue.

So, would securing research and journalists’ visas resolve the problem? Probably not; instead of deportation, visas would be denied. Academics in general, and journalists in particular, gather information in all places and at all times. While some of them tend to take on an activist’s role after gaining first hand knowledge and experiences of those in conflicts, others are, by default, analysts who depend on such information for strengthening their academic credibility.

All of the above cases come from India, but the fact is that every country today, including the US and UK, routinely keep academics, activists, and journalists from entering their borders. That democratically elected governments feel the need to keep individuals who are critical of them off of their soil definitely represents politics of fear. Governments fear those who have the power to tell the world the “truth”.

It is politics by fear because it basically threatens anyone presenting views opposing the government with more severe repercussions than deportation. This is captured in the words of Barsamian in a Tehelka report: “I have my fingernails, no welts on my back, no electric shock. I am safe and sound unlike some others”. And, it is politics for fear because actions such as deportation are meant to deter people from openly questioning the government. Fear is an emotion, represented through the emotion of hate and by adopting defense mechanisms and aggressive postures.

So, if this is what democracies do, then what gives them the right to morally challenge and attack dictatorships, theocracies, and autocracies which also treat those who question their rulers as “enemies”?

Can India, as the world’s largest democracy, try setting an example? Can she transform her politics to tolerance, openness, and respect for those who tread her soil? Because, let us be clear: the politics of fear, by fear, and for fear is NOT democracy.

Uzbekistan and Its Route to Independence: The Challenges of Democracy and Civil Society Building

Leave a reply

By Sardor Abdullaev Mukhudinovich

Democracy and civil society building are the main challenges for independent Uzbekistan. The movements to construct a civic mentality and a social contract between ordinary people and the power-sharing state are very slow and need transformation if Uzbekistan wants to remain a secular, independent, and progressive state.

Historical examples show that authoritarian governments have no future or success and that their failure is just a matter of time. The “negative” peace maintained by the Uzbek military regime cannot promote any radical transformation or real implementation of reforms needed in the country. Instead, it creates a vacuum of political and economic instability for the Uzbek people and state as well as for all of Central Asia.

The insurgence of Islamist groups and the threat of terrorist attacks have closed the eyes of the Uzbek government on deepening democratic reforms and the empowerment of civil society. There is much doubt in the Uzbek government’s desire for a strong and empowered society, liberal economy, and development. This doubt comes from the state politics during these last twenty years (1991-2011), which caused discontent in the masses by depriving them of basic human rights and needs as well as creating fear and oppression.

The only solution to Uzbekistan’s search for real democracy will come from a free and equal civil society that plays the role of an active partner, guiding the state in the right direction. It does not mean that civil society has more importance than the state structures, nor that the state is above civil society. On the contrary, they should be equal partners in an interactive dialogue.

This dialogue is key in building a relationship between an active, politically involved civil society and the state. The main goal of this dialogue is an active community with a civic mentality that acquires full citizenship and transforms any conflict in a different way, creates changes for development, and builds a strong base for future generations.

“Abode of Peace”?

Leave a reply

By Denise DeGarmo

Garbage Piles, May 2011

The Old City is the walled area within the municipality of Jerusalem, which is divided between Palestinian (Muslim) East Jerusalem and Israeli West Jerusalem, with formal occupation of the east by the Israeli government. Although Israel has proclaimed the entirety of Jerusalem as the capitol of their state, the international community views this proclamation contentiously. Despite contested grounds, the Israeli government uses their economic and military power to systematically erase the Muslim narrative from Jerusalem – especially in the Old City.

The Old City serves as a religious focal point for Muslims, Christians, and Jews alike. However, the treatment of people inhabiting each sector is predicated upon the policies of the Israeli government and the presence of Israeli Occupation Forces. For instance, the delivery of city services to the Muslim quarter is quite different from services delivered to the Jewish Quarter. Under the Israeli-led municipal government, the Muslim Quarter does not receive regularly scheduled trash pick-up. The government then points to the slovenly nature of Muslims as a reason to prohibit them from inhabiting the Old City. The movement of Palestinian Muslims throughout Jerusalem is controlled by a permit system. If a Palestinian Muslim does not have the appropriate permit, travel to the Holy City is prohibited, thus denying entrance to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Family members often become separated as a result of the permit system. Fewer and fewer permits are being issued to Palestinian Muslims. Because of land scarcity within the Old City walls and the quest to remove Muslims from their quarter, the Israelis demolish Palestinian homes on a weekly basis so that Jews may take possession of the land. Arabic signs throughout the Old City are being systematically replaced with Hebrew signs. Eventually there will be little to no trace of the Palestinian Muslim community within the walls of the Old City. It is no wonder that tensions run high on this contested ground.

While the Israelis claim that these types of actions are meant to enhance national security, it seems to me that security is really not the issue. After all, the Israelis have guns and rockets while the Muslims have rocks. Translated from Hebrew, ‘Jerusalem’ means ‘Abode of Peace’, while in Arabic it means ‘The Holy Sanctuary’. After experiencing the Old City of Jerusalem, I can tell you: peace does not live here.

Thoughts on environmental conflict resolution

Leave a reply

By Glenn Curtis

Environmental issues are a seemingly ideal field for conflict resolution strategies: on most questions there are identifiable sides with strongly founded viewpoints, based on philosophical differences or purely economic interests. This disparity, which is often implicit in the give-and-take of commercial interests vs. conservationist interests, has become an accepted part of a variety of land-use “deals,” ranging from coal extraction in West Virginia to townhouse development anywhere in rural/suburban America. In such transactions, both sides come to the table prepared to give up part of their initial position in order to achieve a final goal: either to preserve a piece of habitat or to gain the legal right to utilize a part for commercial or extraction purposes. However, in reality this procedure may merely be a form of negotiation or bargaining if the fundamental principles of conflict resolution are not applied.

Thus, for example, conservation interests in a community may seek to block entirely the expansion of a commercial mall into adjacent land that is valued by the community for its natural qualities, while commercially oriented community members may advocate for the surrender of an entire parcel for immediate or later expansion. Most often the outcome of this conflict is a compromise in which a part of the parcel is preserved in the expansion process.

A question in such cases is whether in this process one side or the other has compromised something vital that cannot be regained, something considered expendable in the short run but against the public interest in the longer term. In most instances, the achievement of a final settlement containing elements satisfactory to each side is considered to override any such loss. Thus the conservationists can be satisfied at having retained perhaps two-thirds of a parcel while ceding the remainder to stores or parking lots, and the commercial interests can commence development and anticipate a new compromise in the next round of negotiations.

Environmental issues that are addressed in this approach do not utilize the principles of conflict resolution because they do not address the core issues underlying disagreements over environmental conservation. The “salami tactics” that slice away pieces of habitat in the negotiation process fail to compensate for two fundamental points: first, environmental resources are fundamentally non-renewable, hence non-retrievable once ceded; and second, habitat changes fundamentally as it is subdivided. A land parcel cut in half loses more than the arithmetical 50 percent of its environmental value, and in some instances may lose virtually all of that value. The degree of such loss may depend on utilization of the “lost” portion: coal mining would constitute a complete loss while residential development with mitigation by enlightened plantings might constitute a somewhat lesser loss. For environmental conflict resolution to occur, however, the essence of what is negotiated away must be central to any discussion, rather than being relegated to the background. This is because the value of potential loss is what is really in dispute in each such issue.

IMF Director’s Behavior Goes Unscrutinized

1 Reply

By Carrie Stiles

The managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), arguably the world’s most powerful institution, was recently arrested for sexually assaulting an African woman. French journalist Tristane Banon also accused Dominique Strauss-Kahn of attempted rape ten years ago. The news media and international community have failed to address this grotesque manifestation of the misogyny endemic to the IMF’s hegemonic decision-making process. Strauss-Kahn’s absence was depicted as an inconvenience to European economies.

Why has the behavior of the French politician gone publically unscrutinized in relation to the institution he represents? Many grassroots organizations, like Jubilee USA, feel that the IMF metaphorically rapes the developing world through Structural Adjustment Policies (SAPs) and International Debt relations. SAPs were imposed in the global economic order under the Washington Consensus.

The Washington Consensus contained ten standardized, neo-liberal economic prescriptions designed to promote ‘market-friendly’ economic policies in developing countries. Following the deregulation disaster that led to the global economic crisis, the top-down Washington Consensus was replaced with the Seoul Consensus, which provides a larger role for state intervention. The Seoul Consensus places greater consideration on the needs of individual developing countries.

Yet, SAPs are still coercively imposed upon poor countries through imbalanced debt-relations created by the granting of loans that promote the IMF’s agenda. Through the IMF, rich countries control how poor countries are allowed to prioritize their budget because of conditionalities attached to loans and debt. Conditionalities enforce free-market programs and policies such as the privatization of natural resources. Countries that fail to enact free-market policies are subject to punitive, fiscal sanctions. Despite a shift towards more politically correct rhetoric, codified in the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, the IMF’s agenda and decision-making process is clearly structurally violent.

The direct violence perpetrated by Dominique Strauss-Kahn mirrors the structural violence inherent in the IMF’s misogynistic, hegemonic decision-making processes. These processes neglect and marginalize the needs of billions of impoverished people in the developing world. The courage of the African immigrant victim to voice her experience of assault serves as a point of inspiration for marginalized communities who are the victims of the IMF.

Where are my rights?

2 Replies

By Rona Kabiri

During the Taliban regime, I was confined to my house for years. I was deprived of my education, of studying and teaching. I was not allowed to run, to speak loudly, to laugh hard. I was ‘bad’ if I talked to male classmates or colleagues. But now the chains are broken, the prison is ruined, and the women are out.

After 9/11 and the US presence in Afghanistan, the lives of Afghan women has become an important topic in the media. It is a joy to see that we, Afghan women, can now be educated, study, teach, and participate actively in the politics, business, and social reconstruction and rehabilitation of Afghanistan. But there is still a real worry. Every 30 minutes, an Afghan woman dies during childbirth; 87 percent of Afghan women are illiterate; only 30 percent of girls have access to education in Afghanistan; 1 in every 3 Afghan women experience physical, psychological, or sexual violence; the average life expectancy rate for women in Afghanistan is 44 years; and 70 to 80 percent of Afghan women face forced marriages.

As an Afghan girl, I am pleased with what I have accomplished so far and what my mother’s generation has done for my homeland. I am happy, yet insecure. I am proud, yet discouraged.

The questions before us are: will Afghan women’s rights be secured in the reconciliation talks between the Afghan government and Taliban insurgents? Will it be guaranteed that women’s schools will not be closed again? That our jobs will not be taken from us? That our daughters will be able to attend schools? That our movements will not be restricted? That we will be given our human rights as any other Afghan citizen? Where are the rewards for my mother’s hard work, and where will be my daughter’s right to education, marriage, and a free and independent life, if not guaranteed in the reconciliation talks with the Taliban?

We have suffered from war and we have been victims, and we must be included in the peace talks too. We, Afghan women, must have a say in what peace looks like in Afghanistan.

The Immigration Problem in America

1 Reply

By P.K. McCary

Immigration remains a high-button issue in the U.S. When journalist Jose Antonio Vargas revealed that he was an illegal immigrant living in America, there was an overwhelming flurry of responses, both in support of and against his remaining here. Vargas says that after reading “about four students who walked from Miami to Washington [D.C.] to lobby for the Dream Act,” he recognized his own story. The legislation proposed in the Dream Act would grant amnesty to people younger than 36. Immigrants who arrived in the States as children, who have lived in the States for at least five years, or who attend college or serve in the military would be granted permanent residency. The complexities of this legislation are numerous.

When the Dream Act failed, Vargas knew he had to confess. His family and friends urged him to remain silent. Revealing his status was clearly a risk.

In an episode of Intelligence Squared, a radio broadcast, a debate among experts focused on a motion that the U.S. should not welcome undocumented immigrants. Pre-debate polls showed that 42% were for the motion and 34% were against, with 24% undecided. At the end of the debate, 60% were for the motion, 37% were against, and only 3% were undecided, proving that those who are ‘undecided’ may prove a powerful force in this debate.

Immigration debates are complicated by the polarizing opinions expressed by experts, who often misrepresent facts to score a point. More appalling is that these misrepresentations go unchallenged. Sensational language, designed to provoke emotional responses, runs rampant on both sides. Additionally, there is the disturbing lack of information on actual immigration reform. No one wants to take responsibility for immigration’s sad state.

What does this tell us? Debates can be a powerful tool for seeing more than one side of an issue, but it also depends on how the issue is framed. We have to ask the right questions. Immigration is not a simple matter of welcoming people into a country, and it has layers beyond mere pundits and opinions. Voices of the undocumented immigrants need to be heard too. Vargas’ case may help us decide. One can only hope.

Remembering the Human Element of Social Media

Leave a reply

By Caitlin Turner

It is becoming inevitable that any discussion of revolution and the Arab Spring will at some point end in talk of social media. The tendency is to talk about how this technology is new, powerful, and important for collective action. What is often missing from these conversations is a nuanced understanding of what social media really is, and how it really works. We will best be served if we add the human element back into the discussion of the technology and its use.

Social media is a powerful platform for creating networks. As many writers on the subject will point out, social media does allow for the creation of networks amongst people, many of whom do not know each other. With that acknowledgment, we need to go one step further and remember that not all networks created by social media will lead to collective action. The effectiveness of a network is reliant on the actors who create it. Networks are most effective when formed by highly motivated actors around principled ideas and values. The quality of the network is the responsibility of the user, not the technology.

Social media is also being heralded as a communication wizard. Many people speak of how it allows everyone to have a voice, to express themselves, and to organize based on shared ideals. Yes, social media allows for these things. But it is a vehicle for delivering the message, not the creator of the message. Effective communication in a time of unrest relies on messages that are clear, purposeful, thought out, and conveyed over long periods of time. It is the user, not the tool, which is responsible for the purposeful and meaningful creation of the message. Without a highly conscientious and motivated user, the tool is simply a vehicle for noise.

It is acknowledged that the roles social media play in unrest are far more complicated than just networks and communication. And while we as a field struggle to stay on top of the complexity, we are best served if we begin to add the human element back in to the functionality of the tool.

Jersey Shore and the Headscarf

Leave a reply

By Quinn Van Valer-Campbell

MTV’s Jersey Shore has concluded filming season four in Florence, and newspapers have been covered in headlines detailing how much the Italians hate their so-called “guido” and “guidette” American counterparts. They have been ridiculed for their usual antics, which are a cocktail of drinking, cursing, and wearing inappropriate clothing.

In the field of conflict studies, we believe that culture is the vehicle on which conflict rides. Culture does not cause conflict; it only intensifies it and is used as a scapegoat. For the cast of Jersey Shore, their culture and heritage is central to their identity. Being Italian, as they define it, dictates how they behave and relate to people.

But what happens when your ‘own’ culture does not welcome you, and even blatantly hates you? The cast has been banned from museums and refused restaurant seating. Their “Italian” attire of gold crosses, Italian horns, and the Italian flag has done nothing to help them assimilate or get along with the locals. Furthermore, their brazen lack of consideration for decorum raises the question of how, or if, one should conform to the local culture.

When low-cut shirts, mini-skirts, and rude behavior receive outcries from the Italian government similar to those from the French government about headscarves, I cannot help but wonder: what is the difference? They are both forms of expression (though one is of poor taste) that, for one reason or another, do not sit well with certain people.

The headscarf is a religious display or a political statement. But, if I was in an overtly Muslim country, I am not sure if I would cover myself. This is not to say that I would disrespect their traditions, but I am not Muslim nor do I cover my head on a daily basis.

So can the cast of Jersey Shore be allowed to express themselves as they want? Yes, but there is a balance between disregarding the people and the country one is visiting, and respectfully being oneself and maintaining one’s identity. Unfortunately for Americans, and Italian-Americans in particular, Jersey Shore has forsaken the latter for the former.

Challenges of self-determination: The Case of South Sudan

Leave a reply

By Michelle Glasser

As the international community celebrates the birth of the newest country in Africa, many questions remain unanswered. On July 9th, the day South Sudan celebrated Independence, there were mixed feelings among the population in Khartoum, North Sudan: one of sadness to lose a third of their country, another of happiness when supporters of the Just Peace Forum (JPF) went out on the streets to celebrate getting rid of the ‘African element’ in North Sudan and preserving the ‘purity of their race’.

All hopes for unity disappeared when John Garang, first vice-president of Sudan and former SPLA leader, mysteriously died in a helicopter crash. Self-determination became the only way for the South Sudanese to achieve democracy and the only way equal rights for all the different races and religions could be provided.

Now that separation has become a reality for this long contested area in Sudan, it remains to be seen what will be the fate of the oil rich states of South Kordofan, Darfur, and Blue Nile, where many ethnicities other than the North’s ‘pure ruling race’ are rooted. Both Sudan and South Sudan are staking their claims to these regions. As the world watches massacres in Darfur, ethnically based executions, aerial bombings, and mass displacement in the Nuba Mountains and South Kordofan, memories of decades of war with the South return. Since the door to self-determination was opened for the South, these other regions may return to war until they are granted the same opportunity. There is also the possibility of the Arab spring reaching Sudan; if it does, will it keep the ethnic groups in the North united under one cause?

As peace talks in Doha and Addis Ababa continue to decide the fate of some of these contested regions, will the international community support splitting countries into smaller, ethnically similar territories for the respect of human rights and diversity? Or will they advocate building understanding and acceptance between ethnic groups and religious beliefs under a working democratic system?