Medvedev's Russia Takes Progressive Steps

By Sue Gloor

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has decided to change the way Russia approaches nonprofit groups. Traditionally, Russia’s political system has not made accommodations for nonprofits and its civil sector has not been particularly focused on charity or donations, unlike other countries such as the United States.

This is probably because Russia’s history of socialism at least partly accounted for societal needs. When the Soviet Union was powerful, social provisions that are normally within the scope of nonprofit organizations were taken care of by the Communist Party.

For instance, equal rights in healthcare and the workplace were once solely promoted or restricted by the Russian government, but are now the subject of many civilian-based initiatives.

Under Medvedev’s predecessor Vladimir Putin, these types of initiatives were repressed and sometimes punished.

But President Medvedev has proven to be uniquely attentive to the benefits of groups that advocate for human rights, positive policy changes and election reform, for example, stating that Russia needs to “stimulate philanthropy” and motivate volunteers in this arena.

To meet this end, he has relaxed governmental requirements for nonprofit operation and spoken out to attract more attention to these causes.

This is an extremely progressive step for a country that has barely erased its “oppressive” label leftover from its Communist height a couple of decades ago. If Medvedev wants to change the international view of his East European country, he is going about it the right way. Activity by nonprofit groups can stimulate the poverty-stricken nation’s economy and help establish it as more liberally forward-thinking.

In a new global climate where Russia is attempting to more closely negotiate with advanced countries, like by pursuing disarmament agreements with the US, this type of progressive and open activity can only help. Russian citizens will be able to have at least some effect on their nation’s actions and will be able to express their own opinions productively and thoughtfully.

Reverse Flow of Remittances Signals Deepening of U.S Economic Recession

By Noquel A. Matos


Renowned figures in the financial world like Larry Spinelli, nominated president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) by President Obama this past January, believe that increasing bonuses in banks might be a sign of improvement in the current economic recession. However, a reverse flow of remittances from Mexico to the United States might tell otherwise.

Within this last year with the deepening of the mortgage fiasco induced economic recession, Mexican immigrants that usually sent 80% of their salaries to their family, have not being able to send no money at all. High unemployment rates have cost many of these day workers that did not enjoy a stable job their source of income. Family members back in Mexico have had to carry the burden.

As a result an unusual phenomenon without precedents have started, where a country where half of its population lives under the poverty line sends money to its migrants living in the world’s dominant power. The phenomenon hard to measure, because of its novelty and informal networks of remittances delivery however does not represent a complete shift in the flow of remittances. The number of remittances going from the United States into Mexico is still very significant with a record $16.4 billion for this year.

Nevertheless, in Chiapas, one of the Mexican districts’ with the largest population of immigrants in the United States, there is actually more remittances being sent by Mexicans to the US than Mexican immigrants in the US to their families in Mexico according to a small Chiapas banker.

This counter flow of remittance when Mexico’s situation is not particularly better than that of the United States with a predicted decline of 7.5% next year tells of the benefits of a different live style where one is self-sufficient and the importance of having a unified family. The families in Mexico that send money to their children in the US are poor peasants that they live in rural areas where they own their own land, and harvest their food.

All in all this might be the lesson in this phenomenon of reverse remittances that promises to be temporary, that in economic difficult times what matters is not abundance, but might.

In Search of a Velvet Revolution

By Fae MacArthur Clark

As a year which begun with cautious hope that a new US president might bring a new approach to Israel-Palestine negotiations draws to a close, the world seems increasingly to be coming to the realization "that the peace process has no clothes". For many this has been evident for quite some time but, with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas essentially throwing up his arms in a statement to that effect, even the most optimistic anylists are finding it hard not to concede the point.

This year, however, does not merely mark the inauguration of a new US president and, perhaps, the end to the term of an old Palestinian one. Twenty years ago this month, the Berlin Wall was disregarded and dismantled by the very people whom it had separated for nearly three decades. Historically, this event is connected with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via the chains of cause and effect which followed WWII and led both to the creation of the Berlin Wall and the state of Israel, two otherwise entirely unconnected spaces. However, some Palestinians would point to another connection - a second wall - the most recent link in the chain which created Israel itself. On the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Palestinians and foreign peace activists staged a timely reminder that there are still dividing walls around the world*. On two separate occasions, activists dismantled sections of the Israeli-built "separation wall" which ostensibly serves to protect Israel from attacks from within the West Bank. The wall, of which only 15% follows the "green line" which officially separates Israel and the West Bank, cuts through Palestinian settlements, cordoning off sections of the West Bank in which Palestinians must obtain permits to remain in their homes and from which they face difficulty accessing the remainder of the West Bank. The wall has been ruled illegal by both the International Court of Justice and the UN has passed several resolutions demanding its removal. Like its German counterpart, the "separation wall" serves as a graffiti canvas for protests against Israel and the wall itself. In stark contrast to the events of 1989, however, this year's activists were dispersed with tear gas and rubber bullets. Several were arrested.

These two protests, while small in scale and largely unnoticed by the international community, might give us some idea as to where the peace process might turn if political routes prove to be entirely exhausted. If such a people's response to this issue could prove as peaceful as the dismantling of the Berlin Wall, the Velvet Revolution (the twentieth anniversary of whose first demonstration we celebrate today), and other events of 1989 then we might see some hope yet for this conflict. The question is, are these activists on the one side and the shministim and their allies on the other a sufficient movement to bring about such change? At this point, almost certainly not. In the future, however? One can hope.



* The wall between Isreal and the West Bank is not the only current wall likened to the Berlin Wall. Other such walls still in existance include the Korean demilitarized zone, the Wagah border crossing between India and Pakistan, the US-Mexico border fence, and, in virtual terms, the great fire-wall of China.

How the Falling Of The Berlin Wall Gave Me Life

By Noquel A. Matos

20 Years ago, the Berlin wall was knocked down on November 9, 1989. While it significance it is still debated, popularly we can agree that for Germans it symbolized the unification of their country, and for the rest of the world it signified the beginning of the end of communism and the Cold War. For anyone living at the world at this time, the falling of the Berlin Wall marked a paramount historical moment that carried the promised of freedom into the century to come, and for those who were not alive and did not presence the falling of the wall, the event’s legacy lives on with their generation inhabitant of a free democratic world. Hence, no matter who you are there is some way that this event that happened 20 years ago relates to you.

I like to think it relates to me in an extra-special way. I was born August 17, 1990, nine month after the falling of the wall. I can’t help imagine that my parents conceived me in the mist of this celebration. It’s very much possible. It’s not only the theory of relativity but the place they were when it occurred.

On November 2009 , my parents lived in the great city of New York. My mother had come to the United States on 1986 and my father on 1973 fleeing the repressive government of Joaquin Balaguer. Not Unlike many Latin American countries at the time, Balaguer was the strong man put in power in the Dominican Republic by the United States to ensure it did not become communist. When the Berlin Wall fell, and my parent’s neighbor and the television celebrated for the end of communism, my father celebrated the end of the Cold War. After 16 years of having left his country with fear he could look back and hope to return. I like to think that the happiness he felt on that night brought about my conception. That is how the Berlin Wall gave me life.

Freedom by Accident: Why the Wall was Supposed to Remain

By Sue Gloor

In the wake of the anniversary of perhaps one of the greatest indirect US victories—the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of a communist stronghold in Europe—Mary Elise Sarotte points to the fact that the whole event was never supposed to occur in such a sweeping and symbolic manner.

Sarotte writes in The Washington Post that exactly twenty years after the breakdown of the barrier between East and West Germany, much of the world is still unaware about the specific circumstances surrounding that fateful day.

Apparently, the wall was never supposed to come down that quickly—a period of a few hours was all it took for some raucous and rebellious East Berliners to climb their way to freedom—or even at that point in time.

But the East German Politburo, the executive committee for the communist party, had already decided to pacify its repressed citizens by developing more “lenient” travel standards. It delegated a spokesman to explain the reforms during an international news conference.

The reforms were barely significant at all, and rather merely suggested freedom within a “fine print” context riddled with East Germany’s characteristic regulations. The spokesman, Guenter Schabowski, skimmed the new standards before holding the conference and mistakenly led the journalists present to believe that the wall was about to come down.

The ensuing breaking news stories in West Germany were all that was needed to exacerbate the misunderstanding, and soon the great physical divide was no more. It is strange that in an age where news broadcasts are considered the most trusted form of communication worldwide, we are reminded of how falsely reported news once changed the course of history.

It may be true that the Berlin Wall would have come down sooner rather than later in 1989, but the fact that its actual demise was stimulated by a muddled answer to the press is quite remarkable.

Lost in Translation? - How Military Might Can't Win in Afghanistan

By Fae MacArthur Clark
Photo is a work of the US Federal Government

We've been hearing for ages that translators are thin on the ground in the key areas of conflict in which the US is engaged. What we haven't been hearing much about is how this shortage of available translators opens the doors for candidates with less than adequate fluency in the languages in question. Recently, however, allegations that faulty translations of prisoner statements by Canadian military translators have led to false accusations of Taliban involvement have come hand in hand with similar worries about US military translators.

So, the translation question is back on the table. But what's the military supposed to do about it? It's not like the US has an abundance of Pashto and Dari speaking citizens just waiting to heed the call of the military. The only significant source of people speaking Afghan dialects that we have access to is Afghanis and, if Iraq is any indicator, the US military doesn't do such a great job of working together with locals on the ground.

Even if the US military could muster together a significant supply of Afghan translators in its employ, learn to trust them, develop their trust, and really learn to utilize their knowledge of Afghani language and culture, they would still represent, at best, a very small part of the US military presence. The vast majority of US soldiers would still face insurmountable difficulties in communicating with the Aghanis they are supposed to protect. Furthermore, the language barrier makes the oft-trumpeted "winning hearts and minds" a virtual impossibility. Just ask Air Force Maj. John Loftis, one of the rare Pashto speaking US troops in southern Afghanistan, speaking the language certainly helps smooth out the rough edges inherent in trying to ensure security.

This is something which isn't so frequently put into the context of the argument about US troop involvement in Afghanistan. On the one hand, US troops are certainly superior to their Afghan counterparts in terms of training and equipment. On the other, Afghan troops know the language, culture, and history of the country they're fighting for and have a personal investment in its success. The debates over how many troops for how long seem to dominate the discussion in the US and yet the miriad of other questions, each of undeniable importance to the future of Afghanistan, are largely pushed to the background. Talk of the Afghani military replacing US troops are presented as a way to get US troops out, even if this is at the cost of stability in the region, rather than a necessary move towards that same stability.

In the mean time, 40 or 20 thousand more troops may not be the central question the Obama administration faces. Both the US and Afghani militaries need more training and while that training is underway they need to utilize the fact that their strengths are complimentary.

Hondurian Agreement Sets Precedents

By Noquel A. Matos

Happy crowds in Tegucigalpa celebrated the signing of an agreement between Honduras De Facto government and ousted President Manuel Zelaya this past November 29th that promised the restitution of the overthrown president. The agreement negotiated by U.S officials, after 4 months of political stalemate, ensures Zelaya’s return to power if congress approves the agreement.

While the deal it’s a “historic agreement” as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated, it should not be taken as a call for victory.

The congress that is to decide whether Zelaya returns to power or not, it’s the same congress that decided to strip him of his presidential powers four months ago. This is not to mention that the president of congress, Jose Alfedo Saavedra, it’s government De Facto acting president Roberto Micheletti’s personal friend.

Some speculate, however, that the fact that Zelaya would only be in power for 3 months if re-instituted and would not be able to pose as a candidate for the next presidential elections, just as Roberto Micheletti, would make Congress approve the deal to reinstate legality to the country. Nevertheless, this is yet to be seen and it is not clear when Congress will be carrying out the process.

“At this time, nobody, absolutely nobody can impose deadlines or terms on Congress,” President of Congress Saavedra stated in the wake of the events.

With the future’s uncertainty as our premise we can’t be sure of what to expect to develop in Honduras, however we can be sure to expect this agreement to hold a very special place in Western Hemisphere Political History. The Honduran coup was the first coup of the post-Cold War era and it seems it will be the first violence-free coup in Latin American history. Also, this agreement will remain a testament TO America’s progressive leadership in a New World Order.

Drawn-out Election Results in Default to Karzai

By Sue Gloor

On Nov. 1, main opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah announced his withdrawal from the Afghan election, effectively handing the presidency to incumbent Hamid Karzai.

This move comes as a vague surprise, as during the over-two-month interim between the Aug. 20 election and now the Afghan political scene has been riddled with allegations of Karzai’s fraud, ballot recounts and talk of a new, fairer runoff election between the top two candidates.

This period of time has involved many conflicts, including a spat between UN Mission to Afghanistan officials and longtime friends Kai Eide and Peter Galbraith (which resulted in the firing of Galbraith and his disgruntled return to the US), increased Taliban insurgency activity in the region, uncertainty about holding a runoff during the winter and US distress over its reputation for supporting an openly-dishonest presidential candidate.

Now, after all this, Abdullah has withdrawn and forfeited the second election that so many have toiled to provide.

Obama’s advisors stated that Abdullah’s choice “would not greatly affect American policy and was in line with the Afghan Constitution,” but this seems simplistic. In the somewhat haphazard recount of ballots from the initial election, officials from Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission threw out nearly one million fraudulent votes for Karzai. Presumably, even more votes could have been discarded and brought Karzai’s impressive 56% lead down considerably.

So how could Abdullah’s pulling out have no potential effect on America? If the US’s next partner in Kabul was headed by a new candidate, not the incumbent, who is a member of a different tribal party, wouldn’t this significantly change the US’s policy toward Afghanistan? If nothing else, its approach would have to be altered to address the shifting political environment there.

It is unfortunate that the fraudulent fiasco in Afghanistan was never remedied with a more legitimate runoff election. Hopefully that despite his dishonesty, Karzai will work with the US to establish the credibility and fair representation in Afghanistan that the country drastically needs.