Acknowleding the Green Revolution: Is It Time to Reassess US Policy Towards Iran?

By Fae MacArthur Clark

Days after an article in the Wall Street Journal proclaimed that "there's still a revolution going on in Iran" and challenged Obama to reassess his approach to Iran, the annual Iranian news expo in Tehran has become a locus of ongoing opposition demonstrations.

The expo, which usually attracts only small crowds, showcases Iranian news media and international outlets with offices in Iran. This year the expo has been the site of heavy tensions between large crowds of opposition supporters and representatives of the largely state-owned media predominant in Iran. Opposition candidate Mehdi Karroubi and Ali Reza Beheshti, a top aide to the favored opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, are both reported to have been roughed up at the event by pro-government supporters with a video of a disheveled Karroubi leaving the expo amid calls of "long live Karroubi" and "may Mousavi endure" circulating on Youtube. Mr. Mousavi himself is reported to have been prevented from entering the expo after unrest accompanied rumors of his imminent arrival.

The Wall Street Journal article calls for increased support from the US for democratic resistance in Iran and pulls together examples of pulled or redistributed funding by the US government for programs supporting democracy in Iran, alongside Obama's discussions with officials from Tehran, to paint a picture of hostility, or at least ambivalence, from the Obama Whitehouse towards the demonstrators. An article from the British newspaper the Guardian, published during the original opposition demonstrations, points to another side of the coin. Maybe Iranians don't want foreign intervention.

Indeed, I wrote an editorial on just this topic last week over on Bard Politik's online journal. When promoting US intervention in Iranian democracy we must always remember that this sort of intervention has a history which Americans may have forgotten but Iranians certainly have not. It was arguably the US supported overthrow of democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq back in 1953 which set Iran, by way of 20 more years under the Shah, on the path to the Islamic Revolution of 1978.

Still, even without US support, the Green Revolution in Iran is an important force which cannot be ignored in Iranian politics. On this count, the Wall Street Journal article is correct. Obama cannot afford to stick with policies he drafted and articulated prior to taking office, when it was still believed Iran harbored no significant opposition forces, without taking into account the events of this summer. It is a fine line for him to tred. The waiting game is not an option unless we resign ourselves to a nuclear Iran. On the other hand, simply working with Ahmedinejad's officials ignores changes and developments on the ground. The third, hopefully highly unlikely, option of an invasion of Iran is also further complicated by the presence of the dissidents and would be highly likely to nip the demonstrations in the bud before they have any real chance of developing further.

All of this said, Obama's current policy of negotiations with Iranian government officials may truly be the preferable option. In this way he leaves open the ability to adapt our policy if and when conditions in Tehran change while still, hopefully, stalling the possibility of a nuclear Iran. This policy, however, hinges on an awareness that things are changing on the ground in Iran and US policy will likely need to continue to adapt to accomodate this.

A Reality Check for Rio

The 13th Olympic Congress was held on Oct. 3, 2009 in Copenhagen, Denmark.

By Sue Gloor

Barely after Brazil’s ecstasy died down over being chosen to host the 2016 Olympic Summer Games three weeks ago, the country’s chronic drug trafficking problem reared its ugly head in Rio de Janeiro, the capital.

Drug traffickers wielding a “large-caliber weapon,” according to police, shot down a police helicopter during a larger clash which killed 26 people overall. The attack was a shock even to Brazilians, who have long since accepted the prominence of drug violence in their increasingly economically disparate capital city.

This violence has been ever-present throughout Brazil for decades, and is exacerbated by the police’s neglect of favelas, the shantytowns that border the wealthy neighborhoods of Rio. The flow of weapons into these criminal strongholds, and the absence of any true action to stem it, is a factor that helped enable the recent event to occur.

Eduardo Paes, the mayor of Rio de Janeiro, was quick to admit that Brazilians have never attempted to hide the city’s drug problems, and will not do so now even with the new decision to host one of the largest competitions in the world. Still, direct action must be taken if Brazil wants to remain the host of the Olympics in 7 years.

Brazilian President da Silva seems to have finally turned his full attention to the situation. He has vowed to address the drug problem by providing extra federal funds to combat drug violence and increase security in the years leading up to the Olympics. A community policing effort will be established which will give police a greater presence in the favelas, and housing and road-building projects are being considered to aid in eliminating violence.

Though Rio de Janeiro is not the first Olympic city to have to deal with prominent violence after receiving its bid (after the decision in 2005 to host the 2012 summer games in London, the city experienced deadly terrorist attacks on its public transportation system), it is a problem that cannot be ignored away.

Brazil will have to step up to show the international community its determination to provide a safe venue for the world’s athletes.

Iraqis Live in Fantasy World Amidst the Reality of Guesome Violence

By Shaan Sachdev

It seems unlikely that a country sporting the infection of a stale war, pickling in the displacement and death of millions, can still tend to ordinary problems. As schools in the developed world are still being closed and re-opened due to swine flu scares, nearly 2,500 schools have been shut down in Iraq due to rumors about a swine flu influx.

Dr. Ihsan Jaafar, general director of the Public Health Directorate in the Health Ministry, attributed such panic to "irresponsible announcements", insisting that Iraq has been relatively unaffected by the pandemic. Indeed, Iraq has only seen 121 confirmed cases of swine flu, a remarkably small number in comparison to its neighbors and other states.

Still, parents seem paranoid, ensuring that their children wear surgical masks and stay at home. Some children, like Zahra Ahmed, seem perturbed by such hysteria. "I miss my teachers and friends from school," says Zahra, a sixth grader who has been forced to stay at home for nearly a week.

For a moment one might be tricked into believing that Iraq has returned to normalcy, once again able to worry about issues that the rest of the world shares. Upon closer inspection, it becomes obvious that Iraqis are either living in a fantasy world or are so dulled by the atrocities of war that minor issues have become more worthy of their reaction.

For as schools shut down around the country because of swine flu scares, others do so for graver reasons. Mustansiriya University, a prestigious university in northeast Baghdad, closed its 24,000-student campus after a violent gang called the Students League assaulted a professor.

The Students League, a politically-motivated group of armed Shiites, have murdered, tortured, and raped several students, and shot three professors to death. The beating of this particular professor finally caught the country's attention after he personally went to Prime Minister al-Maliki's office, "wearing his bloodied clothes and with untreated gashes on his face and head".

More than 335 students and staff members have been killed at Mustanisiriya University since 2007, due to bombings and such attacks, and yet the institution had remained open, unwilling to submit to the products of instability. It is darkly ironic that schools around Iraq are reacting vehemently to a swine flu scare, as the murder and torture still raging around them have become old news.

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.

Afghanistan and the Need for a Credible Leadership

By Fae MacArthur Clark

Last night, Afghanistan's
Independent Election Commission ordered a run-off election between the two main contenders, Hamid Karzai and Abdullah Abdullah. This morning Afghani President Hamid Karzai accepted the commission's findings, calling them a "step forward". The run-off has been scheduled for November 9th.

This announcement comes in the wake of comments by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on CNN's "State of the Union", Sunday. Emanuel stated that the primary concern of the administration was whether they had "a credible Afghan partner for this process that can provide the security and the type of services that the Afghan people need."

The comments made by Rahm and other key officials have faced responses from some critics which point to the argument for credible Afghani leadership as an "excuse[] for dangerous delay" on the question of sending more troops to Afghanistan.

This deliberation, however, has much to commend it. Democratic Senator John Kerry's recent statement in a CNN satellite interview from Kabul that "it would be entirely irresponsible for the president of the United States to commit more troops to this country, when we don't even have an election finished and know who the president is and what kind of government we're working in" certainly has a lot to recommend it. Whatever our strategy in Afghanistan over the coming years, the Afghani leadership is going to have a significant affect upon whether it achieves its goals and what Afghanistan looks like when the US finally withdraws.

Still, a further delay in making a plan for Afghanistan risks allowing the situation to deteriorate between now and November. If President Obama is going to wait until after the coming election to make a final decision about US policy in Afghanistan in the coming years, then he at least needs to have an interim policy in place until that comes into effect which includes a policy towards the process of the elections themselves.

The current White House debate on Afghanistan is a black box, absorbing information and allowing very little out by way of an indication as to what direction US policy there might take. We cannot afford to continue with this lack of information. The White House needs to make a decision and tell it to the American and Afghani people, even if that decision is simply "we will not commit further US troops to a nation which lacks a credible government and the ability to effectively protect its citizens when US troops do leave. Consequently we will pursue X policy until the conclusion of the coming elections at which point we will reevaluate whether a continued or increased US presence in the country of the sort which General McChrystal has proposed is a feasible option. If a credible Afghani government is not formed then we will need to radically rewrite our policy towards our involvement in that country."

Darfur Joins the "Never Again" List

By Shaan Sachdev

One of the most prominent humanitarian crises of this century briefly regained the spotlight this week when the Obama administration announced the details of its stance on the Sudanese government. It seems as though Obama will recognize Omar al-Bashir’s administration while advocating “a tougher approach”.

The genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur in 2003 remain an unresolved issue. The conflict still continues, embodied in sporadic violence, displacement, and starvation.

The conflict began on a relatively simple level—Darfur has always been divided between Islamic and African tribes. Khartoum’s continual neglect of Darfur only increased such divides.

Colonel Gaddafi of Libya’s decision to arm Islamic militias throughout North Africa (in an attempt to unify Muslims) incited violent conflict between Muslims and other Darfurian tribes that started in 1987 and continued onwards.

To quell what became a revolution, Omar al-Bashir’s administration sent in the Janjawiid and the genocide of Darfur followed. After 2004 the conflict complicated greatly as various rebel groups rose to power and the presence of aid organizations largely influenced the movement of tribes.

Why was there no effective international intervention? America was exhausted from the massive diplomatic effort extended in ending the war in south Sudan. France was too busy preserving stability in Chad. Russia did not want to instigate an arms ban on Sudan (to whom they sold plenty of MiG’s each year) and China was not keen on banning Sudanese oil exports (for equally obvious reasons). The burden thus went to the African Union, who were ill-equipped and whose mandate didn’t allow the use of force.

Six years later, after the International Criminal Court has repeatedly called for the indictment of Omar al-Bashir due to his committal of war crimes and genocide, Barack Obama’s newly-established stance on Sudan may indicate the extent to which America is willing to intervene in international crises that actually exist.

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both failed miserably in preventing humanitarian crises (at least on time), contradicting America’s constantly-repeated pledge to ensure no repeat of the Holocaust.

Barack Obama has already been accused of being too soft in his approach toward international relations. There are differences, however, between effective diplomacy and the legitimization of war criminals. The decision to negotiate with Ahmadinejad of Iran may hold validity because, despite his fraudulent election and oppressive tendencies, he has not killed hundreds of thousands of civilians and he is not a war criminal.

The tired analogies to Hitler and Milosevic and Pol Pot seem almost useless at this point because however pertinent it may have been to maintain stability in Germany, Yugoslavia, or Cambodia, the prospect of diplomatic relations with such criminals today seems outrageous.

Yet Omar al-Bashir, who has been accused of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, accompanied by pretty damning evidence, has not been entirely dismissed by the “leaders of the free world”. Instead, they have decided to be a little stricter.

Susan E. Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N., says that “Engagement is not a reward. To definitively end the killing and dying ultimately requires a solution the government is willing to implement. There’s no way around it.”

Some argue that this has not been America’s policy in the past. Some argue that Obama’s position as president of the world’s most powerful country would allow him to pressure the Security Council into cornering Khartoum until al-Bashir relinquishes power.

With a state department unwilling to release specific information on how the United States plans to be harder on Sudan, might Obama be heading in the same direction as his genocide-friendly predecessors?

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.

A Dangerous New Challenge Arises for Immigrants

By Sue Gloor

Despite the American financial crisis and the resulting stem in the flow of migration to the United States, people from Mexico and other Latin American countries continue to attempt to cross the border into the North. In fact, the heightened economic tension may be a factor stimulating the development of a lucrative new business—the kidnapping of these migrants for ransom.

Recently in Mexico the kidnapping of desperate and poverty-stricken migrants has increased. These people might not have extensive funds themselves, but they are usually carrying the phone numbers and email addresses of a number of relatives who have already made it to the US and can be forced to pay large sums for the safe return of their traveling loved ones.

The con artists, usually from Mexico, lure immigrants by promising them help crossing the border and small jobs to gain much-needed money, for example. Once alone, the criminals beat the immigrants and demand their US contacts. Raping and even killing are also tactics which are sometimes used if the immigrants do not comply with the demands of their kidnappers.

Up north in the US, family members get calls or emails for huge amounts of money for the release of the kidnapped, which they usually pay in order to ensure the safety of the victim.

Unfortunately, the problem of kidnapping illegal immigrants is hard to pinpoint and address, since many of the incidents go unreported. Immigrants, particularly those from Latin America, don’t know the Mexican area well and are afraid of being deported back to their home countries if they tell law enforcement officials. Sometimes the Mexican police are actually working with the kidnappers.

Mexico’s National Human Rights Commission estimates that 9,758 migrants were kidnapped as they tried to cross from Mexico into the US between September 2008 and February 2009 alone—a period of just six months. Given the difficulty of recording the incidents, this is most likely a modest figure.

Halloween Costume Exacerbates Stigmas Against Immigrants

By Noquel A. Matos

Among the many distasteful costumes that sale prior to Halloween there’s a particular one causing disdain among the immigrant population: the “illegal immigrant.”
The custom that appeared in Targets online sale this last week with the following description: “He’s got his green card, but is from another planet! Sure to get some laughs, the Illegal Alien Adult Costume includes an orange prison-style jumpsuit with 'Illegal Alien' printed on the front, an alien mask and a 'green card," has alarmed immigration rights groups.

Angelica Salas from the Coalition for Humane Immigration Rights of Los Angeles has asked Minneapolis-based group to remove the “distasteful, mean-spirited and ignorant of social stigma” costume. Other social action groups as United Farm Workers have also urge their supporters to send complaints to the stores that sale the dehumanizing costumes.

Although Target has responded positively to the complaints and has agreed to remove the costume from its online offers, this is just represents a small triumph.
There is at least five other online stores of the size of Target that sale the costume. The costume can be found in toyrus.com, amazon.com, meijer.com, Walgreens.com, and buycostumes.com.

The illegal alien costume aims at stigmatizing undocumented immigrants. Most like minstrel shows, it aims to ridicule an underrepresented community to further marginalize it. In times where this country chooses to look at the other side when it comes to the immigration debate or bluntly enforce overly inflexible immigration law, this costume stands as a retreating step from a desired fair immigration reform; it perpetuates the already existent xenophobic feelings present at the core of the immigrant debate and it slows it down.

By any way or principle this costume should not have a place in the America market. It negates the humanity of 12, 000 people that help run this economy.

Losing the Myth of Chinese Homogeneity

By Fae MacArthur Clark

Six people were sentenced to death this week for their roles in the riots in the Xinjiang province of China in July of this year. The six were convicted of murder as well as lesser crimes of "arson, leading mobs and causing 'economic loss'."

The riots had the effect of shattering widely held myths in both China and the West about Chinese social harmony and ethnic homogeneity respectively. The argument that China has grown so quickly because of the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of its population is not an uncommon one. However, it is highly inaccurate.

While the Chinese population is officially over 90% Han, the term Han itself encompasses a variety of differing ethnicities and cultural traditions. Furthermore, China has a history of ethnically and culturally motivated unrest particularly in Tibet and Xinjiang (the site of this year's riots). It is also worth noting that a large part of the 9% of the population considered non-Han are concentrated in areas of significant natural resources.

Even without the question of control of resources, any consideration of China's approach to Tibet and Taiwan (a non ethnically motivated example) shows a distinct aversion to seperatist movements which likely derives from fears that such demonstrations of unrest make China appear less powerful to its own citizens. For a government which gains legitimacy from its ability to grow the Chinese economy and raise China to a position of power in the world, any such unrest is highly troubling.

That said, ethnic unrest is certainly unlikely to cause the toppling of China any time in the near future. However, it does have two clear effects. Firstly, it forces us to reconsider the argument that China's success stems from some fictitious cultural unity and consider other ways of understanding its rise. Second, it undermines China's own ability to project an image of social harmony both at home and abroad which is essential to its ability to wield that power effectively.

A Move in the Right Direction

By Noquel A. Matos

PHOENIX- The Immigration and Custom Enforcement agency finally limited Maricopa Country Sherriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies’ ability to enforce federal immigration law. The department equipped with 160 federally trained deputies to conduct immigration arrests, the largest in the country, have widely terrorized the local immigrant community with high levels of racial profiling, for which it’s under investigation by the Justice Department division of Human Rights.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio known for being a fierce enforcer of immigration law in his county says the decision will not deter his mission of deporting undocumented immigrants. If necessary he’ll take them to the border himself, he stated.

The decision to limit the immigration hardliner’s power to perform immigration arrests comes from the White House. Most likely as Obama’s response to a letter sent by the Hispanic Immigration Caucus denouncing the abuses committed under this program that allows local officers to enforce immigration law.

However, this is not a call to victory yet, it’s just a move in the right direction.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio as many others biased officials with special interest in carrying out deportations still hold uncheck power to have their way. They still have room to carry on with their invested private interests under state laws.

“Let them all go brag, they took away the Sheriff’s authority. Let them all do that. That doesn’t bother me. I don’t have an ego. I will continue doing the same thing,” Sheriff Arpaio warned upon finding the federal agency decision to cut his notorious program.

Although, Arpaio’s deputies’ power to make field arrest was limited, they still have the power to question inmates in jail about their immigration status, which concerns immigrant right advocates that know the Sheriff investment in cleansing his county of undocumented immigrant or anyone who look like them:

''All he has to do [now] is get people to the jail, rather than being able to question them about their immigration status on the street,'' Joan Friedman, immigration policy director for the National Immigration Law Center, predicted.

Until a federal immigration reform is passed in Congress that overhauls immigration law enforcement nationally, we’ll keep seeing abuses of power in immigration law enforcement on xenophobic and racist states.

Pakistan Thunders

By Shaan Sachdev

The attack on the World Food Program office in Islamabad on Monday, for which the Taliban has already claimed responsibility, added more questions to a transitory period in Afghanistan’s future. As the American government decides on the question of sending more troops to Afghanistan, it is becoming impossible to ignore Pakistan any longer.

Pakistan has remained almost too difficult to think about in the last decade of America's "War on Terror". Afghanistan seemed to be an obvious attacking point, as the blatant host of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, after 9/11. Iraq seemed almost completely idiotic to most, even before the invasion’s inception. Yet Pakistan has never provoked a particularly opinionated consensus, despite the high concentration of Islamic militants swarming the Swat Valley.

Perhaps this is because Pakistan is more powerful than either Iraq or Afghanistan, presided over by a government less dispensable than those of Saddam’s or the Taliban’s. Yet could the existence of instability, manifested in both consistent insurgent attacks throughout Pakistan and a firmly entrenched terrorist presence, alongside an allegedly functioning government present a greater threat than governments functioning with no pretense? Legitimacy, after all, provides much greater access to the international arena.

The first question regards legitimacy itself. While President Zardari of Pakistan has committed to cracking down on militants inhabiting the north, most Pakistanis are unwilling to trust a man who has been sent to jail several times on corruption charges. More importantly, Zardari’s sporadic crackdowns in the Swat have not accomplished enough to deter the Obama administration from considering a greater presence in Pakistan.

The next question consequently addresses the extent of American presence in Pakistan. While the number of troops operating in Afghanistan is as accessible as Obama’s approval rating, the American public’s knowledge of investment in Pakistan remains shadier.

Congress consented to an aid package of $7.5 billion over the next five years, intended to assist Zardari’s government in driving out terrorist groups and “to ensure that the military does not interfere with civilian politics,” according to Jane Perlez of The New York Times.

In addition, the Obama administration is planning for the construction of a massive American embassy in Islamabad. The embassy will naturally be accompanied by various high-security trinkets, some of which have already been flown in to the capital.

Armored vehicles and private military contracting companies are among the changes Pakistanis are witnessing as American diplomats prepare for a greater presence. Among such companies is DynCorp, which has already been the subject of accusations of civilian abuse.

Such activities have served as early warning signs for many Pakistanis, who have been quick to predict Pakistan’s subjugation to an Iraqi-style invasion. The presence of Blackwater hasn’t deterred such parallels.

Similar attitudes of independence exist in more remote areas. Jamal Nasir, mayor of Swat, has assembled a private militia of thousands of villagers who intend to protect the valley after the Pakistani army leaves. The villagers inhabiting such regions have been exposed to more civilian casualties than anyone and are tired of Taliban dominance.

Such approaches have occasionally demonstrated successful results—the corpses of Taliban associates strewn about the Swat countryside have been more frequent finds in the last few months.

Should a certain amount of autonomy be left up to these more or less independent villages, capitalizing on their interests to achieve a similar goal?

Should the Pakistani peoples’ voices be heard, and authority be left to the country’s incompetent government and military?

Or should the United States add another battle to its plate, perhaps the most complex yet, given its history of an inability to fight wars without mass civilian atrocities and very little progress? The steps taken in the next few weeks might answer such crucial questions.

The views expressed in this blog are my own and do not reflect those of CNN or Time Warner.

Iran: An Iranian Perspective

By Fae MacArthur Clark

The French newspaper Le Monde published an interesting little article this week in the wake of long awaited talks between Iran and the P5+1 (the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China). The article comes from an interesting angle that appears to have been largely missing from the English language media coverage: an Iranian perspective. Le Monde interviewed five individuals of Iranian origin and otherwise diverse backgrounds about their views on Iran's nuclear program.

The resulting short essays make quite an interesting read (unfortunately google's translation of the page is abysmal so I'll do my best to translate the relevant parts below).

Ali Rastbeen, founder and president of the Paris Academy of Geopolitics, writes about US-Iranian political relations, pointing to disagreements over nuclear energy as only part of the relationship. He writes "Since 1979 Washington has used nothing but demonstrations of force towards resolving its differences with Iran. The Iranian regime who, by their nature, have need of a pretext to turn public opinion away from questions of domestic policy, have never ceased to play with this political struggle against the US."

Jaleh Bradea, presenter of the French television show "Women's Destinies", takes a different approach. She writes "I dream that my two small sons, half French, born in France, will one day have the choice to live in a democratic Iran, one which perhaps we might help in building. A democratic country who, if all the other countries keep their nuclear weapons, will also have that right. For its securitye, their security... I think of the mother of Neda (the symbol of the recent protests by the Iranian people) and of all the young people killed or tortured for an ideal Iran for which they fight at the cost of their lives... They do not care about nuclear power, they would just love a bare minimum of liberty and security... I am always afraid that in all the geopolitical discourse, economic and strategic interests, and relations between Iran and the international community, we forget what counts most in my eyes: the Iranian people."

Ehsan Emami, president of the telecommunications company Mediaserv, comes from an altogether different angle, stating "I remember still the beautiful pictures the secret service so skillfully painted of bunkers in the Afghan mountains filled with the most modern and destructive weapons. And what did they find? Some caves several meters deep, without technology, without water, without electricity." And pointing similarly to the predictions of WMDs in Iraq.

Ramin Parham, author of The Secret History of the Iranian Revolution, quotes Mohsen Makhmalbaf, one of the spokespeople of the recent "Green Revolution" in Iran, "The Iranian green movement does not want an atomic bomb!" and places his hopes in the the green revolution.

Ataollah Mohajerani, former minister of culture under Iranian president Khatami, completely rewrites the basis of contention. This is not the US and the international community vs. a nuclear Iran, it is Iran vs. a unipolar US. He recommends that anyone troubled by current events "take a visit to the Museum of Peace at Hiroshima", but his argument does go beyond this sort of rhetoric. "The principle question is this," he writes, "is the American attitude commensurate with that of the international community?"

These arguments each differ in varying degrees from those most commonly bandied about in the US media. However, they do each have something interesting to bring to the table. Perhaps empassioned pleas to think of the Iranian people, and excessive confidence in the potential of the Green revolution will not have amazing affects upon the shape of policy towards Iran, but they do make us think of aspects of Iranian and world politics that must be taken into consideration in any plans to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions.

[All quotes are in translation and subsequently not direct quotations. I am not a professional tranlator. All translation is approximate.]

Chicago's Lost of Olympic Host Title, Benefitial Or Not?

By Noquel A. Matos

President Barack Obama, first lady Michelle Obama and celebrity host
Ophra Winfrey flew to Copenhagen, Denmark to lobby for their hometown
Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic Games. The attempt reinforced with a
charged emotional speech from the first lady reminiscing about how
inspiring it was to watch Olympic Games in the lap of her sick father
and President Obama’s speech on the great qualities of the city of
Chicago was not enough to get their city the host title. Brazil with a
heavy bid of US$240 billion knocked out the passionate warriors on the first
round, along as with other contesting cities, Madrid and Tokyo.

Chicago that was expected to win the hosting privilege because of President Obama’s exclusive support was the first to lose. The defeat came as a strong blow to the city that had spend $50 million in the last four years to get to host the event; by the time that Brazil was announced winner the charismatic supporters of Chicago had already left the room in Lebron James fashion, knowing they were already eliminated from the hosting title race.

With the current economic crisis unfolding in this nation one cannot help but wonder
if this wasn’t for the better. Historically, we have seen how expensive is to host a sporting event of the magnitude of the Olympic Games. Athens, for example, that hosted the 2004 Olympic ended spending 10 times its estimated budget. In addition, to millions of dollars more to maintain the large state of the arts stadium that it does not even utilize.

On the other hand there are those who argue that it is rewarding to host an event that sparks tourism, which in turn revives the economy. However, one is tempted to ask if increased tourism in Chicago could have helped bring the United States out of its economic recession.

Tell us what you think. Is it more beneficial for the United States to actually not host the 2016 Olympics than to have hosted it?

Post your opinion!

Obama's Not Quite Up to the Challenge

credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Sue Gloor

Though President Obama pledged on his inauguration day to close the terrorist detention center Guantánamo Bay in one year, the path toward achieving this goal has proven to be riddled with obstacles. Now, officials are saying this timetable will likely not be followed, as 220 suspects are still currently detained.

The hardest suspects to address are probably the Yemenis, who account for nearly half of the total number of detainees at Guantánamo.

For example, Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, a man from Yemen, was detained for 7 years without formal charges, and was released just last week after a long-awaited trial. American officials dug their heels in sending him back to Yemen, hoping instead to enroll him in a rehabilitation program in Saudi Arabia in order to curb any terrorist tendencies he might have picked up while in prison.

Officials are worried that even detainees who have been proven not guilty may have been radicalized against Americans while being detained at Guantánamo, and thus might join an insurgency after being released.

This is especially a fear with regard to Yemen, a country with a growing presence of al-Qaeda operatives. And unlike Saudi Arabia, it has no rehabilitation program in place to pacify the suspects once they return home.

Add to this the idea that Yemen is soft on terrorism after the outbreak of 23 suspected terrorists there in 2006, and American officials are becoming increasingly hesitant to dispatch suspects to the country, even after they are classified as “not dangerous.”

What this means for Obama’s promise is becoming increasingly apparent: a little over 300 prisoners have been released from Guantánamo, but over 200 also remain. It’s clear that the closing of the detention center is farther off than Obama promised, especially since 97 of those remaining are Yemenis.