Obama Unveils New Strategy for Afghanistan

By Ioana Botea

Friday, March 27th, President Barack Obama unveiled the new strategy for the war in Afghanistan, specifically aimed at defeating Taliban and al-Qaeda militants in the region. By focusing on a narrower objective, Obama distanced himself from the broad attempt of nation-building the Bush administration has sought in Iraq. He declared that, “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future.” The primary target of his speech was the American public who has become more skeptical to war, and who needed to be reminded why American troops still are in Afghanistan. Calling the region “the most dangerous in the world,” Obama pointed out that, 7 years after the American-led invasion, the situation in Afghanistan is “increasingly perilous,” with the Taliban progressively regaining control over the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Following the recommendations of a two-month policy review led by special envoy Richard Holbrooke, the new strategy is centered on the idea of treating the Af-Pak border as a “single theatre”. According to Mr. Holbrooke, the real source of the problem lies in Pakistan, which has become a safe haven for the Taliban and al-Qaeda elements. In order to thwart the further expansion of the Taliban, Obama announced an increase in the resources devoted to Afghanistan, as American involvement in Iraq is diminishing. He had already ordered 17,000 additional troops, coupled with 4,000 more “trainers” to be sent to the country by the end of 2009. He also announced the decision to increase Afghan security forces. The local army is expected to grow from 80,000 to 134,000 by 2011, with estimations up to 250,000. The decision to shift more responsibility to governments in Kabul and Islamabad is motivated both by the attempt to reduce the costs associated with mobilizing Western troops, and by the need to gradually enable them to re-establish control over their countries.

Obama insisted that, “we need a stronger, smarter and comprehensive strategy.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Richard Holbrook both favored wide-ranging coordinated efforts to fight corruption and diversify the economy in Afghanistan. However, in addition to the “comprehensive” strategy to develop the infrastructure and promote democratic governance in Afghanistan, the administration is also planning for an eventual exit. Obama emphasized the critical need to tackle terrorists, but he also suggested that prolonged occupation of a foreign land should be avoided. In an attempt to gain international support, Obama insisted that, “This is not simply an American problem – far from it. It is, instead, an international security challenge of the highest order.”

America's Bailout, Bonuses, and Broken pieces

By Jaya Spier

The US media this past week was flooded with reports about the financial corporation American International Group Inc. (AIG) as taxpayers protested the large bonuses AIG employees received as part of a retention plan. Unfortunately this backfired as many people left the company after getting their bonuses.

On March 19 the House of Representatives passed a bill to tax 90 percent on bonuses paid, not just by AIG, but also by any company that had received more than $5 billion from the government in “bailout funds.”  AIG had already requested that their employee’s return 50 percent of their bonuses and some even volunteered to return 100 percent of the money they had received. Some employees had received death threats. Apparently American taxpayers are not willing to let this pass, understandably as it is their money that is being pilfered away on the guys who got the company into this mess in the first place.

The $30 billion that AIG received from the Federal Reserve at the beginning of March was only one of many “interventions” that the company has received to avoid bankruptcy. “Given A.I.G.’s size and the complexity of its deals, federal officials decided that a bailout was preferable to the havoc in international markets that would likely follow bankruptcy” (NY Times).

While some truly believe that the loss of AIG would really hurt international markets others feel that the government should allow these large companies to go belly up so that the money from the Federal Reserve can be put to better use. Taxpayers want to know why we are buying out the guys that screwed us over in the first place. It is because our economy cannot stand the loss of so many. The scandals and the relative poverty that people are experiencing is overwhelming the domestic sphere and the government is trying to provide a sense of stability. America is seen as the world’s superpower, the United States must at least appear to be fixing the cracks in the structure, otherwise it will all fall apart. 

Even though the taxpayers are angry and the government has switched from approving to disapproving, others say that taxing the bonuses may prove to be counterproductive. “If US businesses start worrying that the government will force them to break inconvenient contracts, it will set the financial system on an even more slippery slope” (BBC).

President Obama is stuck between a rock and a hard place. “He needs to convince Americans he shares their mounting fury over the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars being pumped into companies like AIG. At the same time, he needs the executives and employees of those companies to help the government untangle the current financial mess” (WSJ).

It sure seems like the world economy is spiraling downwards as countries get stuck in debt or in some cases, like Iceland, bankrupt. But people haven’t lost hope, they’re still strong enough to get angry so they will be strong enough to pick up the pieces and eventually put it all back together.

            

South Africa Blocks Dalai Lama's Visit

By Michael Burgevin

The South African Peace Conference has been postponed during a rising storm of diplomatic turmoil after the government denied a visa to the Dalai Lama. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and former President F.W. de Klerk, who had personally invited the Dalai Lama to the conference, lambasted the government for refusing to issue the visa, pulling out of the meeting in protest and accusing Pretoria of bowing to Beijing's whim. “We are shamelessly succumbing to Chinese pressure,” Mr. Tutu told reporters on Monday. “I feel deeply distressed and ashamed.” This is the first time that any foreign government has denied entry to the Tibetan spiritual leader.

The conference, set to take place on March 27, was intended to explore the role that soccer can play in the fight against racism and xenophobia leading up to 2010 World Cup, which will be hosted by South Africa. Organizers decided to suspend the event indefinitely in light of the government’s decision, announcing that “in the spirit of peace, (we will) postpone the South Africa Peace Conference to ensure it is held under conducive conditions.” Event organizer Mandla Mandela, grandson of Nelson Mandela, expressed his great disappointment in Pretoria. “This rejection by the government, to not issue a visa, is really tainting our efforts at democracy,” he lamented. “It's a sad day for South Africa. It's a sad day for Africa.”

Government spokesman Thabo Masebe announced that the Dalai Lama’s visit could present a “distraction” during the buildup to the World Cup. “The people would be talking about Tibet, talking about China and so on,” said Masebe in defense of the government’s decision. If Pretoria's intent was to avoid conflict, the plan backfired. Many domestic and global leaders have questioned the government’s commitment towards democracy and human rights. “Just the very fact that this government has refused entry to the Dalai Lama is an example of a government who is dismissive of human rights,” said Health Minister Barbara Hogan.

A senior presidential aid told The Times that although “we have nothing against (the Dalai Lama), we have a key strategic relationship with China and we would really not want to do anything to jeopardize that.” South Africa is China’s largest trading partner in Africa, accounting for more than 20 percent of Beijing’s trade with the continent. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang announced that Beijing is “resolutely opposed” to any country providing the Dalai Lama with a forum to address the world, and applauded South Africa’s decision.

St. Paddy's, when everyone is Irish

By Rachel Oppenheimer


At 11:20 am on Tuesday morning, 86th Street and 5th Avenue started out full of police barricades and sparsely populated with parade attendees. The drinking here had yet to begin. Well before the parade reached the area, the Upper East Side section of the 247th New York City St. Patrick's Day Parade staged more police officers than Irish-Americans or festive partiers. But as time progressed, the parade began, and the Streets went down numerically, the party raged.

St. Patrick's Day is the day when everyone's Irish – it's about fun and inclusion. On the fourth of July, you wouldn't say everyone's American. On the day of the Puerto Rican parade, not everyone is Puerto Rican. But on St. Patrick's Day, when asked if parade-watchers are Irish – non-Irish simply respond “Today I am” and have no reservations about it. New Yorkers seem to derive this attitude from the lightheartedness of the Irish people. “How crazy it is to be Irish. The most easy going people you'll ever meet. There's nothing I'd rather be but Irish,” said Michael Dolan, a student of State University of New York Maritime College in the Bronx. With a brown paper bagged drink in hand, a drunk but articulate Dolan explained that when someone in the Irish community dies, friends and family rejoice rather than mourn. “Let's go celebrate their life,” they say. “They're lighthearted about everything.”

Out of lightheartedness can grow heavy drinking, but the common stereotype that the Irish have a strong tolerance for alcohol was only supported by the day's lack of unseemly, unsafe, or unwell behavior. Only one puking kid was spotted throughout the day. Head on the table and nearly passed out, he vomited into a fast food bag at the McDonald's on Vanderbilt, but none of his high school Junior friends had consumed any alcohol and his consumption miscalculation probably had less to do with St. Paddy's and more to do with a teenager's immaturity and irresponsibility. As Dolan said, in general, “The Irish don't need to prove anything to anyone. Alcohol and Irish just go hand in hand.” When probed further about the connection between drinking, the Irish, and St. Patrick's Day, Dolan's friend James Franklin, also of Maritime, explained that “Everyone knows that alcohol is a social lubricant. Alcohol is a godsend.” The Irish coined the term “pub,” he explained, deriving it from the Irish public houses, centers where people came to gather and socialize. Sure, times in Ireland are tough, Franklin, Dolan, and John Frederick agreed, but the Irish “just go have a drink and forget about it.”

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.

China rounds up the troops - will Tibetans keep up the fight?

By Rachel Oppenheimer

Chinese embassies worldwide gear up for Tibetan protests. Tuesday, March 10 will mark the 50th anniversary of the failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule that forced the Dalai Lama into exile. Qiangba Puncog, the Chinese-appointed governor of Tibet, assured that past dissenters now trust the Chinese government. He expects only minor unrest come Tuesday.

If last year's events indicate lasting Tibetan sentiment, protesters may well prove Puncog wrong. A year ago this month, angry nomads stormed through the Tibetan plateau of Maqu, China, raiding a police compound and setting fire to squad cars. Further north, Tibetans on horseback galloped into a schoolyard, replaced a Chinese flag with a Tibetan one, and shouted “Free Tibet!” Violent riots in Lhasa last March resulted in 18 civilian deaths. In monasteries, nomad tents, villages, and grasslands, Tibetans' fury against Chinese rule has raged since last year's riots and the violent repression that followed. Signs of this year's mounting resistance abound, including the Tibetan advocacy group report that security officers shot at a monk from Sichuan who lit himself on fire in a market last Friday.

Beijing will make a strong show of force in Tibetan areas to prevent a repeat of violent acts. A kind of martial law already exists in anticipation of the anniversary, with constant tension spreading across a third of Beijing's territory. In preparation for the big day, Nepal authorities said they have increased security near the Chinese Embassy. Between 20,000 and 25,000 Tibetan exiles live in Nepal. “Rallies, sit-ins and sloganeering will not be allowed within the prohibited area,” said Nabaraj Silwal, the chief of the Kathmandu city police. The Nepal government, which recognizes Tibet as a part of China, has little patience for anti-Chinese activities within its borders. As tensions run high in Tibet, New Zealanders too plan protests, including a demonstration outside the Chinese consulate office, a march on Queen Street and a memorial service outside the Auckland Museum. Only Tuesday will tell how much protest the Tibetans have left in them.

Violence or Silence: Will 50th Anniversary of Tibetan Rebellion Bring Another Uprising?

By Alyssa Landers

This Tuesday, March 10, 2009, will mark the 50^th anniversary of the Tibetans’ rebellion against China, and although there have been reports of preparations for violence, Chinese government officials, along with Qiangba Puncog, the Governor of the Tibet Autonomous Region, claim that all is well in the region. 

 Last year on the anniversary of the 1959 rebellion violent protests erupted in the region as Tibetans clashed with Chinese police forces in the area.  It was also said to be the most violent protest since the actual uprising itself in 1959, with ambiguous death tolls ranging anywhere from 10 to 40 people killed and thousands imprisoned.    

 Judging by last year’s displays, it would seem that violence would be anticipated for this year as well, but both the Chinese and the Governor maintain that there is nothing out of the ordinary, despite the fact that journalists and tourists are banned from the region. 

 However, Chinese testimony that there are no ethnic or national hostilities in the area leading up to this year’s 50^th anniversary milestone remain unconvincing, as travelers reported the deployment of Chinese police to secure the area against another violent uprising similar to that of last year, as well as a tense environment in the region.  According to The New York Times, it is “the largest troop deployment since the Sichuan earthquake last spring.”   

Tibet, a region whose sovereignty bas been debated for centuries, was invaded by the People’s Republic of Chine (PRC) in 1950, and has been under its rule since then.  In 1959 in Lhasa, the region’s capital, Tibetans staged an uprising against the Chinese government, but it proved futile in gaining independence for the region. 

Although the Chinese note progress in the area, the vast highland region to the west of China remains resistant to Chinese rule.

 In the meantime, the Dalai Lama, who fled to exile in India following the 1959 uprising, is urging his people to be peaceful and patient.

 Despite this warning, some Tibetans have forgone any consecration of Losar, the Tibetan new year, and many monks have held rallies, with one monk actually lighting himself on fire in protest. 

 As of now, it remains unclear as to whether another rebellion like that of March 2008 will emerge.  Yet with this year marking the 50^th anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan stand against China, it seems like everyone is preparing for the worst.  

Pakistan's Chance for Something New

By Jaya Spier 

Pakistan is not a country known for its stability and since the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and the state of Emergency announced by Pervez Musharraf, President of Pakistan (at the time) and Chief of Army Staff, in 2007 the government has been especially unsteady. This month lawyers in Pakistan are marching to the Parliament building to protest the dismissal of 60 judges, as well as the liberal former chief justice Ifikhar Muhammad Chaudry.

On March 12 lawyers from different cities all over the country will begin their march to Islamabad. They plan to arrive on March 16 where they will demonstrate in the form of a sit-in on Constitution Avenue. Those involved have said the sit-in will last as long as it needs to until the judges are reinstated (xinhuanet.com).

Ifikhar Muhammad Chaudry was a rival of Pervez Musharrafs and there is fear that if Chaudry is reinstated he will call for charges against Bhuttos widower husband, now President Asif Ali Zardari and son Bilwali of corruption. Musharraf is part of the ruling (Bhutto’s) party, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) he was removed from his unconstitutional position as President in September 2008 when Zardari won by a majority in Pakistan’s elections.

Along with President Musharraf’s decision to rid Pakistani courts of so many of its judges a new party formed in opposition, the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N). Former Prime Minister, Nawaz Sharif, heads this new party. He has stated that PML-N will fully participate in the march to Islamabad in support of the rehiring of the deposed judges.

“Today is the historic day that the lawyers and judges have come out to protect the country and the constitution," said Sabihuddin Ahmed, the deposed head of the Sindh high court, in Karachi” (guardian.co.uk).

Another aspect that could prove to be extremely beneficial is the possibility of Pakistan gaining the support of private investors. As always we come back to the economic crisis. However, Aitzaz Ahsan, top lawyer, protest organizer and member of Zardari’s party believes that if the President kept his promise to reinstate Chaudhry he could end the protest.

Ahsan also said, "Iftikhar Chaudhry's reinstatement can open the flood gates to private investment…Private investment goes only to countries where the judiciary is independent…I know the world is under a deep recession but as and when the wheels start turning, that's the only recipe we have for attracting investment in a country that is bedeviled with so many problems” (in.reuters.com)

If the protest works, perhaps the government can come to some sort of compromise, “flooding” Pakistan with new money and some liberal ideals. 

Global Buildup for G20 Summit

By Michael Burgevin

As countries and financial institutions from around the world await the upcoming Group of 20 summit, cooperation between the member states has become a key issue. The G20, whose members control 85 percent of the world’s economy, will convene on April 2, 2009, at the ExCel Exhibition Center in London in hopes of creating a clear and defined global strategy for economic restoration. Many world leaders have already formed foreign alliances, recognizing that this summit has the potential to transform the way countries approach international finance.

China has already outlined its commitment towards international cooperation. Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi recently stressed the importance of multinational collaboration at the London summit, stating that China is “ready to work with the United States and other countries to weather the storm and make joint efforts to overcome the difficulties brought by the financial crisis.” Yang also announced the need for developing countries to hold more authority within the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, a change that would further Chinese influence in both organizations. However, it remains unlikely that United States or the EU would support such a measure.

Many European countries have also announced their commitment to intrastate collaboration. On February 22, the European leaders of the G20 gathered in Berlin, formulating a cohesive continental platform for the summit. Topics covered included the advancement of financial regulation and the bolstering of the IMF. The leaders stressed the significance of financial regulation, emphasizing their stance “that all financial markets, products and participants... must be subjected to appropriate oversight.”

However, many worry that the United States will be unwilling to support strict financial control. Mark Duckenfield, professor at the London School of Economics, recently explained how financial regulation contradicts the fundamental American dream of a free market. “Any effort,” Duckenfield concluded, “to come up with international rules applicable to the U.S. usually raises fears about American businesses finding themselves hog-tied as a result, which gets Joe the Plumber types shouting bloody murder.”

While many U.S. politicians have expressed their personal opinions toward international cooperation and financial oversight, the Obama administration has not yet released a detailed position for the G20 summit. Many view U.S. support as imperative for the summit’s success, as demonstrated during a recent visit of U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown to Washington when, in an address to congress, he stressed that "the challenges we all face are all global" and requested that the U.S. support international cooperation.

Citigroup's last stand?

By Michael Burgevin

The Federal Government reached an agreement with Citigroup to increase governmental ownership from eight percent to 36 percent in an effort to revive the deteriorating bank, the Treasury Department announced Friday evening. The plan marks the third consecutive attempt by the U.S. government to save the company in the past five months, after two lifelines of a combined $45 billion failed to shore up the weakened organization.

As outlined in the plan, the government will convert $25 billion of their preferred stock holdings into common stock, increasing Citigroup's potential to boost their profit after five successive negative quarters. Depending on how many companies follow suit and convert their holdings, Citigroup’s tangible equity could increase from $29.7 billion to $81.1 billion by the end of this year. Although Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit will be allowed to stay on, many of the top Citigroup administrators will be replaced in a move backed by the Fed.

News of the deal broke just two days after Federal Reserves Chairman Ben Bernanke announced that the government does not plan to nationalize major American banks. In a House Financial Service Committee hearing, Bernanke described nationalization as “when the government seizes the bank and zeros out its shareholders ... we don't plan anything like that.” He did say that the government may end up owning a “substantial minority” of some failing financial companies.

However, many experts see this move as just another step towards the ultimate nationalization of the banking sector. In a recent interview with Bloomberg Radio, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Arthur Levitt stated that the United States is in the process of an "economic revolution" and reiterated the inevitability of nationalizing weakened banks. The Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugan explained recently that Citigroup is essentially nationalized already and only continues to exist because the U.S. government has been implicitly guaranteeing all of its obligations.

Regardless of whether or not the government’s minority ownership of Citigroup marks a continued march towards nationalization, there is little doubt that the U.S. government has become a longtime player in the company’s existence. The government has not owned a large, long-term stake in a major bank since 1984 when it bought 80 percent of the failed Continental Illinois. Even in a bull market, it took the federal government seven years to sell off its holdings. Brookings Institute Fellow Douglas J. Elliott compared the two cases, stating that “I think we're going to own a substantial portion of Citigroup for years.”

Obama’s New Defense Budget

By Alyssa Landers

 

NEW YORK, Mar. 1—On Wednesday, President Barack Obama spoke to Congress in his first un-official state of the union address.  In the speech, he spoke of plans to reform the education and healthcare systems, as well as America’s energy policy, but devoted little time to a discussion of foreign policy. 

 

The largest allocation of budget funds for 2009 is for defense.  With the estimated average cost of the Iraq War at about $10 billion per month, many within Pentagon officials over the past year expected cuts.  Although Mr. Obama pledged to withdraw all troops from Iraq by August of 2010, during his Wednesday speech, he was clear about advancing the defense budget to $534 billion, thereby giving almost half of the national budget to defense.  

The administration justifies the proposed defense budget increase by its commitment to a thorough review of all entraneous expenses that are costing the government millions of dollars annually, including farm subsidies and nuclear weapons programs.  The defense budget increase also places a particular emphasis on augmenting the salaries of military personnel.     

 

And considering his plans to increase the national defense budget by 4%, military contracting companies are waiting with bated breath.  After Mr. Obama’s announcement this past Friday that he plans to withdraw from Iraq by the end of next year, economic prospects for contracting opportunities overseas looked dim, especially in light of the current economic crisis.

 

President Obama’s Wednesday speech, however, gave a ray of hope to contractors looking to gain an economic foothold and keep afloat.  Much of the allocation of resources will be determined by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, as he will decide which programs are viable and which are not. 

 

And as Congress debates over the next two months which programs should stay and which should go, the debate is expected to get heated. 

 

One thing that is not under debate, however, is the president’s approval rating, which rose to approximately 68% following the February 25^th congressional address.  Although some remain skeptical, attributing Mr. Obama’s consistently high approval ratings in spite of the economic crisis simply to his “new-ness,” others view his proclamation to withdraw the troops as a possible harbinger of economic prosperity.  

 

Either way, it is clear that even if a few of the provisions under Obama’s stimulus package will be contested, American citizens are backing up the president.  

U.S., Japan and the issues they face

By: Jaya Spier

President Obama has made a very big deal about his decision to interact with other countries in a way that implies partnership rather than compliance. Over and over again on each issue that he has deemed important for the American agenda, he has stressed the need for the global community to work together. Issues like the economy and global warming need international cooperation and President Obama is determined to get that.

This past week the first foreign leader came to visit President Obama at the White House. This was the Japanese Prime Minister, Taro Aso. Japan has been very interested in making sure that they maintain their status as a top U.S. ally. PM Aso stated on Tuesday that "on behalf of not only Japan but as a nation, we are very honored to be here as the first of foreign guests." He also said that Japan and the United states “will have to work together, hand in hand” as they are the world’s biggest economies. (Washingtonpost.com)

The new democratic government had some Japanese policymakers uncertain about U.S.-Japan relations. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton tried to ease their concerns when she made Tokyo her first stop on her trip to Asia. As Obama said at the beginning of talks with Aso "The alliance that we have is the cornerstone of security in East Asia, it is one that my administration wants to strengthen.” He continued on to say that the United States’ relationship with Japan is “extraordinarily important” and "It is for that reason that the prime minister is the first foreign dignitary to visit me here in the Oval Office." (France24.com)

Some of the topics discussed were the economy, the potential threat of North Korea as it plans to release a satellite into space, which is seen as a test for advance missile technology, and Japans continued support of humanitarian and financial aid in Pakistan and Afghanistan in their fight against terrorism.

Obama and Aso have pledged to work together on these issues. The United States government wanted to assure Japan that Japanese relations would not be sacrificed in an effort to work well with China. With the economy being a main concern “both countries are to agree to resist any rising trend toward protectionism,” they also agreed to “cooperate with each other in stabilizing the global financial system and supporting developing countries. Aso also was going to suggest to Obama that Tokyo and Washington should create a framework for new Japan-U.S. dialogue on economy" (yomiyuri.co.jp).

Prime Minister Aso was only in town for a brief 24 hours but the visit reaffirmed U.S.-Japanese relations and sent a message to the global community showing that President Obama really is ready to reach out and work with other countries on global issues.