Pakistani government bends as protests threaten national security

By Imola Unger

Asif Ali Zardari, Pakistani President reinstated chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry Monday morning after a day and night of increasingly unpeaceful protests led by opposition party leader Nawaz Sharif, who deterred arrest Sunday morning. Sharif's arrest was meant to thwart the so called long march demonstration that anti-government lawyers planned for the day under his leadership, demanding restoration of the judge sacked in 2007 along with numerous other legal officials.

The government's refusal to approve of the protest provoked strong sentiments from the population and riots broke out nationwide, necessitating the usage of tear gas and leading to violence among police and protesters. In a country dealing with grave economic issues and already on the brink of crisis due to strengthening Islamic violence, the conflict threatened to escalate into revolution. The decision to restore judge Chaudry, announced in the early morning hours in a short televised address, defused a potential violent crisis and channeled the explosive emotions into fervent celebration.

The US government welcomed the statement as a sign of democratic reconciliation in the country. "This is a statesmanlike decision taken to defuse a serious confrontation, and the apparent removal of this long-standing national issue is a substantial step towards national reconciliation," a statement issued by the Islamabad US Embassy said. At the same time, important U.S. ally Zardari's tremendous unpopularity and abrupt capitulation signal his loosening grip on the current Pakistani situation. Instated six months ago, mounting political tension already seems to point towards his stepping down from office. The negative sentiments swelled especially since Zardari recently banned Sharif and his brother from holding elected office. Involving the army in the resistance against the protesters and last week's arrests of hundreds of political workers further deteriorated his popularity index and Chaudhry anticipates that the President will leave office within a matter of days.

Sharif defied arrest in his Lahore home on Sunday and embarked on a day and nightlong rally to recruit a crowd sufficiently big to intimidate the government in Islamabad and exact a favorable decision by way of a sit-in at the parliament. Even though the city center was blockaded to keep marchers out, 10,000 protesters gathered and indeed managed to sway the President's decision, thus marking the historic event of the first success of the middle class in Pakistan.

Latin America's Turn

By Michael Burgevin

In anticipation of his meeting with President Barack Obama this weekend, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva urged the United States to reevaluate its relationship with Latin American, stating that “We are a democratic and peaceful continent and the United States should look at production and development (in the region).” Relations between the United States and its southern neighbors were strained during the Bush administration, which distrusted the growing number of leftist governments.

“The creation of leftist regimes has transformed the political landscape in Latin America since the election of Hugo Chávez in 1998,” explained Dr. Robert Kaufman yesterday at a lecture held by the Wagner School at NYU. Political change was a hot button issue during the turn of the century as the region suffered from negative reverberations following the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Leaders such as Hugo Chávez and later Cristina Fernández de Kirchner swept into power on platforms of rewriting the current political structure. In his presidential address to the country in 1999, Chávez announced passionately, “the constitution and with it the ill-fated political system to which it gave birth 40 years ago has to die: it is going to die, sirs, accept it!”

According to Kaufman, the new governments transformed themselves into either radical or social democratic regimes. Within the new radical governments, the presidents have held tight to the reigns of political power, placing emphasis on wealth distribution in programs such as Chávez’s Misiones. In contrast, social democratic regimes tend to shift authority into the technocratic administration, stressing the continuation of market-oriented strategies. “Lula’s willingness to relax his (direct administrative) authority contrasts sharply with Chávez … who now controls the entire government.”

The strength of these new governments was put to the test in the last five months as the economic crisis took hold in Latin America. The region’s onetime confidence that the global financial crisis would not reach its shores seems almost comical as industrial output plummets and unemployment spikes in the region. The question now is which style of governance will survive the growing economic pressure. Kaufman believes that the social democratic regimes are better positioned to pull through the next few years. “The popularity and economic flexibility of governments (such as Brazil) will allow for more political leeway,” he stated, well stressing that regimes in Venezuela and Argentina, which have relied on redistribution and price control, will face a larger challenge.

Ultimately, there may be no immediate change to the system, says Kaufman. However, long term political shifts, such as heightened polarization in radical regimes and strengthening of social democratic governments, could easily be set into motion during the economic crisis. One thing, says Kaufman, is certain: we are witnessing the beginning of a “new era” in Latin America.

Latin America’s Left Turn

By Ioana Botea

NEW YORK, Mar 12 – In the past decade, a wave of democratically-elected leftist governments has swept over Latin America. In a lecture at NYU Wagner, Dr. Robert Kaufman analyzed the main factors behind this change in the political landscape, and tried to assess the performance of the new generation of left-wing leaders in the region.

The election of Hugo Chavez in 1998 instigated the rise of generally labeled “leftist” leaders and parties across the Latin American continent. Following the Venezuelan example, Brazil elected labor leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Argentina chose socialist Nestor Kirchner, Uruguay voted for Tabare Vazquez, and Bolivia appointed indigenous Evo Morales to the country’s leadership.

According to Kaufman, the revival of the Left reflected the hard times of late 1990s and early 2000s. The disenchanted population manifested “retrospective voting” against incumbents, rather than an amplified preference for the political Left. In addition, there was a broad backlash against neoliberal reforms in the region. In this sense, the political changes in Latin America might be compared to the revival of the Labor Party under Tony Blair following Margaret Thatcher’s conservative reign. Nevertheless, public opinion was vacillated: while privatization was largely unpopular, there was widespread support for trade liberalization. Kaufman also pointed out that, “the most radical left governments [of Venezuela and Ecuador] emerged in countries that experienced only limited [neoliberal] reform.”

The boom period of early 2000s allowed for massive relaxation of economic constraints on policy. Bolstered by economic prosperity, leftist leaders managed to consolidate their power, despite the lack of a clear ideology their precursors possessed. However, Kaufman warned that the current economic meltdown is exposing the vulnerability of Venezuela and Argentina, which have problems of inflation and redistribution. Conversely, despite being hit hard by the global crisis, Chile and Brazil are experiencing an increase in public support for their presidents, with dissatisfaction targeting the Right rather than the Left.

Responding to one of the questions raised by the audience, Kaufman insisted that the Left is spread over a very large spectrum, and the governments of Latin America should not be lumped into a homogeneous and consistent regional block. The new generation of left-wing leaders has emerged from diverse, and sometimes even conflicting, traditions and from disparate local contexts. On one hand, countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador and Bolivia had inchoate party systems that enabled left-wing candidates to run against the system itself, on the promise of radical economic and political transformations. On the other hand, Chile, Uruguay and Bolivia had institutionalized party systems where left opposition parties were established competitors, and focused their electoral campaigns against the incumbents and not the system.

In a rather controversial classification into “bad” and “good” lefts, Kaufman contrasted the leadership of Chavez, who has taken advantage of oil revenues to promote unsustainable social reforms, with that of Lula, who has implemented numerous pro-poor programs such as BolsaFamilia, but continued with market-oriented policies. Kaufman suggested that Venezuela is an outlier, rather than an indicator of Latin America’s future direction.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu Visits Riverside Church

by Alyssa Landers

NEW YORK, Mar. 12—Along with writer and historian Thomas Cahill, noted anti-apartheid activist and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize Archbishop Desmond Tutu paid a visit to the Riverside Church in Manhattan on Wednesday to talk about the death penalty in America.

Both Tutu and Cahill sentiments spoke both about the publication of Cahill’s recent book on the life of Dominique Green entitled A Saint on Death Row, a true life account that tells the story of the injustice of the Texas incarceration system through the life of inmate Dominique Green and about how America’s death penalty policy in the southern states characterizes, according to Tutu, “one of the greatest absurdities.”

Cahill’s book tells the story of Dominique Green, a black Texan who was a victim of an abusive and schizophrenic mother and was later convicted of murder at the age of 18. According to Cahill, Green was a remarkable man who “became a legal expert, writer, and editor” while in prison and constituted one of many of Texas’ “needless, heedless” executions. Cahill also stated that Green’s conviction and subsequent execution were particularly unjust because of the fact that it was carried out despite pleas by the victim’s family against giving him the death penalty, which were ignored by the State of Texas.

Tutu, who was “awed” by Dominique, echoed Cahill’s sentiments, stating that “there clearly was a miscarriage of justice in the case of Dominique Green.”

In his talk, Archbishop Tutu specifically cited his own experience as a South African who lived during the apartheid era, saying that “the United States was a country that we admired immensely” for its achievements in diversity and tolerance. Tutu, a close personal friend of Cahill’s, was urged by him to visit Green while he was an inmate, as Tutu’s book No Future Without Forgiveness was one of the main works that had inspired him.

Although he praised America as being “an inspiration” for other nations in its advancement in terms of racial progress as well as its “generosity,” the Archbishop repeatedly asked why Americans “continue to brutalize yourselves” with violent policies like the death penalty.

David Atwood, the Founder of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and long-time resident of Texas, was also present. He remarked that although “we have a lot of wonderful people in Texas” the act of execution which is widely practiced in the state is a “horrible act of vengeance that cannot be justified in any civilized society.”

According to Atwood, who witnessed Green’s execution in 2004, Texas has executed 435 people since 1980, and has already executed 12 people in 2009 compared to a total of 7 for all of the other states combined.

Despite these harrowing facts, both Atwood and Archbishop Tutu expressed a sense of hope for the future. Even Thomas Cahill quoted the late Dominique Green, who stated before his execution that he was “not angry but disappointed that I was denied justice.”

Desmond Tutu and the Death Penalty

By Jaya Spier

New York, March 11: Archbishop Desmond Tutu, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 and Thomas Cahill came together to speak about abolishing the death penalty in America in reference to the execution of Dominique Green in 2004.

On Wednesday Archbishop Tutu and Thomas Cahill spoke along with others at the Riverside Church on the Upper West side of Manhattan. Thomas Cahill’s book "A Saint on Death Row” released on March 10th tells the story of a young black man named Dominique Green who was sentenced to Death Row for charges of murder.

Green spent twelve years on death row before he was finally executed by lethal injection on October 26, 2004 in Huntsville, Texas. He was arrested at the age of eighteen and charged for shooting a man during a robbery. Green insisted that he had not done the shooting but the all white jury sentenced him anyway. He spent twelve years on death row during which he discovered the book No Future Without Forgiveness by Archbishop Desmond Tutu. After reading this, Dominique Green decided that he would no longer be angry with life, he would forgive all those who had hurt him and try to help as many people as he could. He learned a lot from his peers and pushed Tutu’s book on as many people as possible.

Thomas Cahill first met Green in December of 2003 at the request of Judge Sheila Murphy who was dealing with Dominique’s appeal case. Cahill, who happened to know the Archbishop, requested that Tutu visit Green in Texas. He did and they both felt that Dominique Green did not deserve to die. He fought long and hard but in the end the state of Texas refused his pleas, they even ignored the pleas from the family of Dominique’s victim.

Green’s story is very unique in that he found a great deal of peace at the end, though he never felt he obtained justice. So the event on Wednesday was in honor of his life and a plea that capital punishment end in America.

During Desmond Tutu’s remarks he discussed how much he admired America. How the United States had helped push South Africans into action during Apartheid. What happened in Harlem during the 1960’s led to the Soweto Uprising of 1968 in Johannesburg, South Africa. African-American courage inspired South African courage. He said at one point “your civil rights movement inspired us [to] no end. We also had a dream.”

This is why, he said “it was a kind of disillusionment, a pain that is difficult to dscribe” to realize “that this land had this huge blot on its copy book” to find out “that you believed in the death penalty…why do you do this when you are such wonderful people?” He went on to say that the death penalty was brutalizing America and that whether we like it we are all part of the system. The death penalty turns us into violent people and we must change this to change ourselves so that no more story’s like Dominique Greens end in sorrow.

Screening history through art, Rashomon remembers

By Rachel Oppenheimer

Akira Kurosawa's Japanese crime drama Rashomon – translated as “In the Woods” – came to New York University Wednesday evening under the recommendation of Donald P. Gregg, former CIA agent, National Security Advisor, and Ambassador to South Korea. Gregg chose the film because it had “awakened [in him] an interest in Asia, leading to ten years in Japan. If I had the chance of only seeing one more movie, Rashomon would be it.” After first seeing the film in theaters in 1951, Gregg became so transfixed by the atmosphere, legacy, history, and culture of Japan that he went on to build a career on international intelligence and security, devoting extended time periods and special commitment to East Asia. To the disappointment of the event's host and audience, Gregg had last minute cancelled his planned attendance and discussion of the film in order to tend to pressing Korea-centered foreign policy issues.

Holly Carter, the evening's moderator, carried on in Gregg's absence. Carter, a journalist and filmmaker, and Executive Director of BYkids, contributed her own impressions of the film – referencing Kurosawa's various film techniques and considering the work's powerful theme of truth and its elusiveness.

Containing philosophical and psychological overtones, Rashomon artfully and dramatically represents the event of a rape and murder in a forest as reported by four witnesses, each from a unique point of view. In 1951, Rashomon won the grand prize at the Venice Film Festival and has subsequently experienced world fame as a Japanese masterpiece. Carter added that the Japanese people objected to the film's international representation and popularity, concerned that it would give the world an inaccurate and unflattering view of Japan.

Produced in the wake of World War II, some see Rashomon's raw and barren set as symbolic of the atomic bomb's lasting effect on Hiroshima's victims. Of the 240,000 people killed by the bombs, about 120,000 died of injuries and radiation sickness in the weeks, months, and years following August 1945. An NYU audience strikingly of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki generation perhaps still connects Kurosawa's bleak, poor, and violent landscape with the destructive acts of their nation's past.

World Leaders to Tackle the Crisis

By Ioana Botea

Finance ministers from the G20 group of advanced and emerging economies will meet in London on April 2 to put the world economy on the path to recovery. The G20 has recognized that global challenges and the severity of the crisis call for urgent action, and the United Kingdom’s Chair has highlighted the need for a concentrated, coordinated international response. In order to restore confidence, participants to the summit will have to convene on a set of actions to stabilize the financial system and provide further macroeconomic support. A preliminary meeting is scheduled for March 14th to lay the groundwork for financial regulation, coordinated stimulus measures and bank rescues.

Successful dialogue between representatives of the 20 biggest economies will restate the importance of free trade, and dispel concerns about slipping into protectionism. Core issues such as climate change and international development are also on the agenda. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown summarized the goals of the summit, “Let us together renew our international economic cooperation. Help emerging markets rebuild the banks. Let us sign a world trade agreement to expand commerce. Let us work together, also, for low-carbon recovery.”

Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi has also expressed his hope for international cooperation. “The pressing task now is that all countries must work together to make the upcoming financial summit in London a success,” Mr. Jiechi declared last Saturday. He demanded more power for developing countries in the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Members of the European Union support increased involvement of rising economic powers such as China, India and Brazil, in international organizations. Nevertheless, there is skepticism regarding their willingness to share power, since leaders of European states have been reluctant to renounce individual positions even to express a single European voice.

Created to tackle issues pertaining to the international financial system, the G20 has the responsibility to grapple the global crisis, and, now more than ever, to include the key emerging-market countries in the dialogue. The Chinese word for “crisis” is a combination of the characters “danger” and “opportunity”. The way in which political leaders respond to the current challenges is most probably going to determine the new hierarchy of power, and making allies in all corners of the world looks like the shrewdest strategy.