A nation barely breathing...

By Dana Muntean

Is a picture really worth a thousand words? In this age of informational revolution and with so many new and innovative multimedia and mass communication products, it often seems so.

The way the interactive started, the combination of music, photographs and the numbers was magnificent, having a very powerful impact on me. Even now in my mind persists the Death Toll in Congo since 1998. Millions of people are victims of the lack of social structure… and when you think that 90 % of them die because of the impossibility to get access to the basic medication.

Although the DRC is Africa's largest diamond producer, Congo’s natural resources remain to be a curse, but not a blessing for its people.

As we can see in this interactive, this society is shaky from its basis. Photographs of suffering, malnourished and ill children are predominant and show how children are enrolled as soldiers (more than 30000), how they die being forced to work in mines or because they do not have access to the basic health services.

The first democratic elections from 2006 do not have the desired results and the elected president Kabila continues to eradicate its opposition and to fight with the rebel groups for controlling out the resources.

In 2007 there were 40000 reported rapes, mainly in the territories with military activities. The scene where the woman whispers about how she was raped for months and how she gave birth to her child in pieces was outrageous!

There are 77,000 people living with HIV/AIDS in Congo and the main part is composed of women (40000).

The interactive emphasizes that the problem of Congo seems to the international community too big to fix, but it provides 2 solutions to it:

1) As consumers, when you buy gold or diamonds , ask where they are coming from, so you could contribute in creating pressure on the industry

2) Education of Congo people. He mentions several organizations, so one of the goals of this interactive, I suppose, is to motivate you to donate more to them in order to make a difference in Congo.

The most impressing element for me was the including of the breathing sound. It is very emotional. If you listen carefully, you understand that there is no way back and you need to become part of the change.

The Democratic Republic of Congo sits atop one of the world's most vast deposits of diamonds and gold; yet it is also home to the world's most deadly war. In Rape of a Nation, photojournalist Marcus Bleasdale explores the connection. See the project at http://mediastorm.com/publication/rape-of-a-nation

To What End?

Beginning on Saturday, March 19^th, eight years to the day since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, US naval and air power with a coalition of states began enforcing a no-fly zone over Libyan air space. Operation Odyssey Dawn, as the mission has been codenamed, was initiated as an international response to Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi's use of air power against civilian protesters at first, and now against the growing Libyan rebel opposition. The coalition states include the United Kingdom, France, Canada, and with Belgian, Danish, Italian, and Spanish forces placed under US command.

President Obama has said that the mission is “not the outcome the US or any of our partners have sought,” but he also added that, “we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy.” While nearly all can agree that Qaddafi was indeed a tyrant of the purest form, questions regarding whether or not the we as the coalition will be able to maintain a limited role in the revolution, and not resort to escalation, especially the use of ground forces.

For the US and President Obama, this mission in Libya holds great significance as one of the few times when the US has gone to war over humanitarian concerns, and not so much for its own immediate national interests. At least it appears that way. Many seem to forget or overlook al-Qaddafi's ideological and financial support for terrorism; the Lockerbie bombing being the most well known example. However, the mission is also a departure from typical US military action.

For one thing, the US has a difficult time with getting involved in a conflict and not seeing a “total victory.” This tends to go against much of the culture within the military as well as the public's view of the US's overwhelming military power. The most well-known example of when the US military intervened in a limited role was during the crisis in Bosnia in 1994-1995, when a coalition under US leadership was able to convince both sides to sign the Dayton Peace Accords.

The President's repeated statements have said the US will not maintain a leadership role, but control will be handed over to “one of our partners.” But, when Obama stated that “US policy is that Qaddafi must go,” many believed this had opened him and the US up to more criticism. How can the US maintain such a policy if it was unwilling to play the primary role in the conflict?

The obvious difference between Bosnia and the Libyan crisis today is that you have a leader who is unwilling to remove himself from power and will utilize any tools of force he has to remain in power. The US was able to successfully leverage “hard” military power with “soft” diplomatic power to bring an end to bloodshed and begin a road to peace. But Qaddafi continues to be defiant, and given his irrational pattern of behavior, it is a one in a million chance that he will agree to concessions of power. Perhaps the only way that he will agree to leave is if he is offered the means to “retire” to a vila somewhere in Africa (some states in the continent have benefited financially from his “generosity”). Although it would not be the ideal that justice would demand, would it be more expedient to remove him and stop the violence?

Whatever outcome is pursued to bring peace in Libya now that NATO has agreed to assume the mission, and if the policy is “Qaddafi must go,” it remains highly unlikely that the US will not continue to play the vital leadership role.

-Albert Ames

Europe facing Libya dilemma

By Dana Muntean

The role of the US as a world leader and conflict settler is expected to be prominent now as well. But Obama administration is tending to limit the American role in the Libyan crisis. US officials have been shifting responsibility to the European countries to take the initiative in world powers' response to Gadhafi. The current administration also wants to limit military involvement in the so portrayed civil war, emerging at a time when U.S. forces are overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is predominately a European problem, in the sense that they are the ones who have the most at stake," said a senior U.S. official. The U.S. military's minimal role in the crisis has become noticeable in recent days as several European allies, Great Britain, France and Italy sent their armed forces to evacuate citizens from Libya.

The proximity of Libya to southern Europe is raising the fears of the Italian, French and other governments. The rising violance will create a humanitarian crisis, with thousands of refugees making their way across the Mediterranean.

A big moment in the decision to intervene in Libya was when the Arab League passed a resolution calling on the Security Council to set up a no-fly zone in Libya.

The clash of interests in Europe were obvious from the start. The UN Security Council vote included an abstention by Germany, which plays a key role in the EU and NATO decision-making process. There are complications and disagreements among big European powers, one of the disputes is caused by French who not want to run the operation through NATO and Turks that began to not want to have a military operation against Libya, but now apparently backtrack it.

A remarkable scene was earlier in the week when the secretary-general of NATO criticized the French and the Germans, causing their officials' walk out of the room in anger. This fall in reaching and agreement have long-term consequences for the EU and for NATO, in part because the EU is under tremendous stress due to economic and financial problems.

Forces must be united and the European countries and their allies should follow the same discourse in order to make sure that the goal is achieved and Qaddafi goes. Their hesitation has a too big price, that of the human lives.

All Hesitant on the Western Front

The world should intervene in a nation’s affairs when innocent citizens are targeted and there is no form of protective government or authoritative power to rely on. This could be said of a situation where citizens are being fired at from the backs of ambulances or when a leader who is not ready to step down keeps holding on by whatever means necessary. Such could be derived from the current situation in Libya. An even more extreme version of this scenario is currently taking place in Cote d’Ivoire, or Ivory Coast, on the western coast of northern Africa. Both are teetering on the edge of civil war, and the world has watched from a distance for weeks now, without any action whatsoever.

“The world” can be referring to individual nations and their lack of involvement, or in the broader sense, to the United Nations, an organization that defines its existence as a force that works to facilitate international cooperation and maintain human rights. In either sense, the world has failed the Libyan and Ivorian people.

Libya and Cote d’Ivoire are in very similar places right now, as both are witness to the unraveling of their nations, following a leader who refuses to step down from power. Whereas Libya’s Muammar el-Qaddafi is facing a revolutionary force that calls for the removal of his seat of dictatorial power, Cote d’Ivoire’s Laurent Gbagbo refuses to recognize the results of a presidential election that took place in November 2010.

Each day that another piece of news comes out about either of these countries, we read statistics telling us how many people have been killed, wounded, displaced, and the countries they are fleeing to, along with approximations of numbers of refugees. Many of these statistics come from the United Nations, who don’t seem to have an issue with keeping tabs on the numbers, but have yet to take any action to prevent them from increasing on the daily.

While there is discussion among the major world powers and members of the United Nations about how to approach these issues, it is still disconcerting to observe the death tolls spiral upward and the control spiral outward to a state of chaos. It’s a bit of a stretch, but if we wait long enough, could we see another Rwanda or Darfur?

While it is not the responsibility of the United States to play mediator of all world conflicts, it is frustrating when it says one thing and does another. The United States makes moralist claims, but displays realist actions; that is to say, it prides itself on being the Democracy Enforcer and the Human Rights Crusader, but acts in favor of its own interests in more cases than not. It plays the advocate for democracy and freedom, but won’t always intervene when the rights of human beings are most challenged and denied.

The decision of action or inaction cannot be placed solely on the United States, but it is necessary for the nation, if nothing else, to play a major role in the discussion surrounding the next big move for this region, which will hopefully come sooner rather than later.

_Diana

What Should be Done?

The question facing many people when looking at Libya is whether there should be an intervention or if the country should be left alone. The issue with not intervening is that there is a growing humanitarian crisis occurring before all of our eyes. People are being killed left and right and with these come human rights violations. The idea of not intervening and letting nature takes its course is a dangerous option because no one knows when this will end or how many people will die in the process. It seems like an intervention is necessary but the real question here is who, how, and for how long?

One measure that has been taken but is not helpful in putting an end to the killings is that the Security Council met and recommends to the ICC that they investigate Gaddafi. This is currently taking place but it has no immediate ramifications. The intervention has to make its presence known from the beginning. The intervention cannot come from the United States for multiple reasons but mainly because its man-power is already stretched short. The US does not have enough resources to intervene here as well. The other issue is that the Libyan people do not want US intervention because there is a fear that Libya could end up resembling other countries.

It seems that the only intervention can really come from the United Nations. I can see two possible options that the UN could take but only one that is really viable. The first option and it is less practical is to send in ground troops or UN peace keepers. This works in some situations but it does not seem feasible in this situation. This is due to the type of conflict occurring meaning that it is within a state and not between two states. Creating a line, separating, and creating a peace agreement between Gaddafi and the rebels would not work. The only option seems to be creating a no fly zone. The thought here is that it could give some time to the rebels to unify and become a stronger group behind a possible leader, allow tribes to choose a side of the conflict, and very importantly end most of the killings. This time could be very helpful and play an important part in the outcome. Currently, the rebels are not following a possible leader but instead are just fighting and wanting Gaddafi to step down. A no fly zone decided upon by the UN is the only option for an intervention. Tomorrow a meeting is being held at the UN to discuss whether a no fly zone should be put in place. More and more states are supporting a no fly zone, which means this is most likely to happen.

As I said before the intervention needs to occur soon due to how sensitize this matter is. The killings need to stop but also there is a limited amount of time for tribes to decide and for the rebels to find a leader to stand behind. The conflict seems to be at a point where an intervention should take place. The length of the intervention is another issue that has to be dealt with. If a no fly zone were to take place, I believe it should be in place until there seems to be an answer or a resemblance of a conclusion to the conflict. A new government needs to be in place before the intervention ends. There runs a risk of the conflict resuming or another uproar occurring if the intervention ends early.

By Sara Abramowitz

Libyan Conflict Brings Attention to China

Although the focus of the Middle East is in Libya now, with Ghaddafi's forces and rebels fighting in what may end up as a civil war, the uprising has brought powerful international nations into the spotlight. I would like to focus on China, a nation so powerful yet relentless with their "no-interference" policy. Will the unrest in Libya force them to break away from a policy that has long shaded their international political participation?

In the past couple of days, over 32,000 Chinese citizens were evacuated from Libya. Most of them were businessmen, raising the issue of Chinese business in the Middle East and Africa. Although the evacuation didn't affect the economy of China drastically, it highlighted the instability in the African and Middle Eastern region that could potentially affect Chinese business in the future.

As China begins to rise in economic power and therefore global power, they need to make a stand in order to continue growing as they have been. The problem however, lies within China's position as a strong investor in many African nations. While the economy of these nations "thrive" or more like "need," Chinese business, the introduction of Chinese businesses in Africa functioned amongst corruption and inequality within invested nations. Chinese investment occurred while many of the countries were under dictatorial or corrupt leaderships. Furthermore, Chinese businesses "fueled resentment over the poor treatment of African workers" (Associated Press), and by hiring Chinese workers to work in businesses abroad. Some Chinese businessmen have been attacked by local workers.

The question boils down to whose side will China choose: the peacekeepers or the conflictors? China has notoriously chosen their own path in the past, but a nation with as much power as China cannot keep their global stance undisclosed. During the genocide in Darfur, China was pumping crude oil while supplying the Sudanese government with weapons. China is an ally of Iran and Saudi Arabia for oil. Most of their allies in the Middle East have been uncooperative with the peacekeeping body. China recently agreed for economic sanctions against Libya after Chinese workers were attacked. Was their decision significant in showing their choice to begin cooperating with the "peacekeepers" or was it rather a choice rooted with disdain for Libyan attacks against the Chinese? If the Chinese people weren't attacked in Libya, would China have made that choice?

With investments in the currently tumultuous Middle Eastern and African region, China has to face their economic liabilities. China can no longer focus solely on their economy; political intervention may be inevitable for China. As Libya continues to fight within and China shifts their global attitudes, several important questions arise: Can China continue with their closed policies/ secrecy? With great global influence, will China be able to lower international monitoring against their human rights violation (because they will be powerless against China)? As Hu Jintao and the current party prepare for a governmental transition to a younger generation, will change be for the better or will China continue with a closed policy?

Despite the conflict being in Libya, I am keeping my eye out for China (which will highlight the U.S. and all the other global powers). It's a sort-of anxious and anticipatory feeling.

Saya Iwasaki

What is the role of the United Nations, if not in Libya

by Matt Boisvert

If any action should be taken in Libya, it must be taken by the United Nations. The UN exists for almost precisely this task: to determine if there needs to be an international intervention in a country and how precisely to go about intervening. The United Nations is designed to foster international peace and human rights; intervention in the Libyan revolution falls squarely into this. The Security Council itself is explicitly charged with maintaining peace and security among counties, and the Human Rights Council is designed to ensure that no group’s human rights are violated. An impartial, multinational committee must determine if human rights are being violated on such an egregious scale to warrant intervention in Libya. If a decision cannot be reached on this matter, than the UN does not work, and must be reformed (but that is a topic for another day).

No single country, no matter how pure and righteous its intentions may seem, is justified in intervening in Libya's revolution. The select few men (with a woman or two thrown in here or there) that happen to rule a single country are not qualified to decide to intervene in the affairs of another. This is the expressed role of the multinational league of nations (thanks Woodrow Wilson), the United Nations. They, and only they, can and must determine the best course of action concerning Libya, a member nation.

The failure to follow the United Nations was exactly what went wrong in Iraq. The United States, contrary to the recommendation of the United Nations, invaded Iraq with fairly good intentions-to free the world from the international threat of Saddam Hussein and his so-called 'weapons of mass destruction' as well as free its people from an oppressive regime. However good these intentions may have seemed, they were based on false assumptions: there proved to be no weapons and the people of Iraq are no less oppressed now than under Saddam. Had the United Nations, with its Human Rights Council and multitude of weapons inspectors, investigated the matter, there would have been no invasion.

Further, Iraq may have been invaded under false pretenses by the USA; it may have been invaded for its supply of the ever-precious oil. Had the United Nations invaded Iraq, this concern would not have been on the table, for no one nation would have claim to the oil. A nation intervening in order to lay claim to Libya's oil is a very real possibility. To ensure this does not happen, to protect against another Iraq, intervention in Libya must only happen through the United Nations.

Supporting the Libyan People Means Opposing An Unwelcome Intervention

There is no question of the growing humanitarian crisis in Libya. The people in Libya, who have lived under a repressive police state for decades, want to be free. Gaddafi, instead of having the good sense to gracefully bow out, has decided to hold onto state power at all costs, unleashing a campaign of terror and violence against the people of Libya that very easily constitutes crimes against humanity. The crisis in Libya has catapulted itself onto the world stage and into the consciences of people far and wide.

Early on we began to see calls for intervention in Libya. Among the first was from the Wall Street Journal. One needn’t be a radical to question the humanitarian concern of the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page. Then it was Senator John McCain, who earlier called the pro-democracy protests sweeping the Middle East a “virus,” announced that the US needed to get “tough on Libya.” John Bolton, who had previously wanted to invade Egypt in order to prop up the Mubarak regime, seemed upset that the US had not taken more meaningful steps against Gaddafi, including recognizing the provisional government set up by protesters. Though to be fair to Mr. Bolton, his exact reasoning for doing this was that it was “our interest to that oil continue to pump, to put it into the global market, but to make sure the revenue obviously doesn’t fall into Gaddafi’s hands.” Spoken by a true champion of freedom and democracy. Others to jump on the intervention bandwagon include President Obama’s former mentor Senator Joe Liberman and The New York Times. Additionally, Foreign Policy Initiative authored a letter signed by figures such as Paul Wolfowitz and William Kristol, to Obama calling for military action in Libya, mirroring a move taken by their successor organization Project for A New American Century when it sent a similar letter urging President Clinton to invade Iraq. John Yoo, who helped design Bush's torture program, has also expressed support for US intervention in Libya.

Of course, it’s not just the right that is calling for military intervention, but many liberals as well. Longtime members of the liberal wing of the antiwar movement, such as Rep. Mike Honda and Rep. Keith Ellison, have expressed support for an intervention. And they shouldn’t necessary be chided for the company they keep. While it is right to cast aspersions on the humanitarian motivations of the creepy cabal of neocons who have never met an oil-rich Middle Eastern country they didn’t want to “liberate”, unless it was Saudi Arabia, Mubarak’s Egypt, or any of the other US approve authoritarian regimes in the region, some liberals are motivated by a humanitarian concern. After all, politics often makes strange bed fellows.

Missing, of course, from this broad-based coalition for freeing the Libyan people is the Libyan people. The National Libyan Council has repeatedly stated that it does not want US intervention, a claim echoed by the defected minister of Justice. The Guardian recently published an op-ed from a Libyan protester explaining why they did not want Western intervention. Some may wonder why the Libyan people reject Western intervention, but such a question is rooted in imperial hubris. A more modest question may be--why on Earth would that want it?

Many may forget (or simply just not know) that virtually every war has been a humanitarian intervention. Not because they were fought for humanitarian purposes, but because even in the most stark cases of naked aggression the aggressor has been cynical enough to claim some sort of humanitarian impulse on their part. Humanitarianism was one of the driving justifications for colonialism--it was the white man’s burden(or perhaps his responsibility to protect) that led him to colonize. These nauseatingly vulgar appropriation of the language of humanitarianism and human rights are not forgotten by the postcolonial world (which is why many in the postcolonial are skeptical of such projects such as responsibility to protect, not because they are backwards and somehow lack our enlightened liberalism).

It’s also worth noting that there is great skepticism as to whether humanitarian intervention even works. When Noam Chomsky was asked by UN General Secretary Ban Ki Moon to address the General Assembly on the issue of “responsibility to protect,” he noted that the worst Serbian atrocities were committed after the NATO bombing had begun, and later noted in a response to criticism of his speech that when Milosevic was indicted only one count referred to instances from before the NATO bombing. This was acknowledged by General Wesley Clark at the time, when he stated that spike in atrocities was "entirely predictable." Former UN aid worker(including in the Balkans at the time of NATO intervention) and author of The Thin Blue Line:How Humanitarianism Went To War Conor Foley has also argued that humanitarian interventions have more adverse effects than positive ones.

Finally, there is the issue of Gaddafi himself. Gaddafi is no doubt a tyrant and a thug, but for decades he managed to carve out a mantle of legitimacy for himself by adopting an “anti-imperialist” ideology (recent years though have shown that Gaddafi’s “anti-imperialism” is akin to the Wall Street Journal’s humanitarianism). While this does nothing to absolve him of the many crimes he has committed, it does lead to some rather bizarre outcomes (his friendship with Nelson Mandela being one of them). A Western intervention could very easily give credence to Gaddafi’s self-professed claims of anti-imperialism, as well as delegitimize the protestors--inverting reality. When the US (or NATO) accidentally bombs a pharmaceutical factor or some other target (and we will) the families of the dead aren’t going to be thrilled with us. And Gaddafi could very easily (but wrongly) lay the blame at the feet of the popular movement for democracy. There’s a reason Gaddafi chose the site of Ronald Reagan’s illegal bombing of Libya for one of his bizarre nonsensical speeches--a bombing that will meant to kill Gaddafi merely resulted in the death of his 15-month year old adopted daughter and 60 Libyan civilians.

I stated earlier that people should not (always) be judged for the company they keep as politics makes strange bed fellows. However, when people stand in the name of humanitarianism in direct opposition to the expressed desires of the popular movement for democracy in Libya and with cynical hawks who appear on Fox News to express concern over Libyan oil reach global markets it’s time for some reflections. Those of us who stand with the people’s revolution in Libya, also stand against Western intervention.

Chip Gibbons

Libyan Revolution Hits Home

By Albert Ames

NEW YORK, Feb. 23 – You have moved to the United States to find a way towards a better life, leaving most of your family behind. Now that you are here, you are constantly hearing reports of violence erupting near your home. Protests have risen in your country as part of a wave of democratic movements that have been sweeping the region. Many of these demonstrations had turned deadly as government forces have cracked down on the uprisings and had fired upon its own citizens. You would undoubtedly fear for your family's safety.

This, exactly, is what Ahmed, a Libyan, is facing.

Ahmed, whose name is being withheld to protect his family in Libya, was part of a rally that took place near the United Nations headquarters in midtown. He was one of the nearly 80 protesters gathered to show their solidarity with the people of Libya on Wednesday night between 47th and 48th Streets on 2nd Avenue near the Libyan Mission to the UN. With shouts of “Free Free Libya, No More Gaddafi” and the sound of drums, the protestors made the small patch of the New York City street echo the words that are being shouted across the ocean in cities throughout Libya.

Ahmed was holding a crinkled printed picture of Colonel Muammar Qaddafi, the authoritarian leader of Libya who has ruled since he took power in a 1969 coup, with a large red “X” strewn over it. While he seemed more somber than the majority of his fellow protestors, Ahmed was willing to share his own experience. By speaking through a translator, he said, “I am very happy that freedom is finally coming to Libya. My family is part of the protests there and I am proud of what they are doing.” The vast majority of his family remains in Libya and have continued to take part in the protests there. When asked more detail about his family's activity, he simply said that two of his family members had died while protesting in Tripoli, the Libyan capital.

This local protest had been formed in the wake of new reports being widely circulated that Libyan government forces have become increasingly violent in response to the popular uprising, and the seemingly inefficient response by the US and international community. Human Rights Watch, the international watch dog group, has estimated that at least 300 people have already died since protests began there on February 17. Reuters quotes the Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini estimating the number dead much higherat least 1,000 people. The vast majority of these deaths have been blamed on the Libyan government's use of force, which has now included the use of military helicopters and warplanes that have been used to mow down protestors as a means of quelling the movement.

Here in New York, the rally was not only attended by Libyans, but others of Arab descent and sympathetic people with no ethnic connection to the region. The protest organizer, Aymen El-Sawa, an Egyptian who now runs a local IT firm, had said that the use of the social media sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, were “vital” to organizing this protest and to the democratic movement in the Arab world as a whole. While speaking to the crowd from a makeshift podium atop of the bed of a pickup truck, El-Sawa urged them to “Put all your pictures and video of this on the internet tonight, so that the people of Libya and around the world will know that we are standing with them!”

WAKE UP OBAMA

While this local protest was largely a show of support for the Libyan movement, many of its speakers had been critical of the seeming lack of action by the United States and the United Nations in the midst of the reported attacks on civilians. President Obama and the Security Council of the United Nations have both issued statements in response to these reports that condemn the actions by the Qaddafi regime. However, both have also stopped short of calling for an end to his four decades old dictatorship. While the protestors did acknowledge President Obama's condemnation of the state-mandated violence, they had also shouted that “words are not enough.”

Many protestors wielded signs which spoke of the apparent indifference by the international community. One had said “US and UN must act.” One sign had simply read,“Wake up Obama.” At one point, a student had been given the microphone and announced a list of demands that included the deployment of UN peacekeepers in the country, sanctions against the regime, and the creation of a no-fly zone over Libyan air space via US air power.

Some among the protestors attributed the lack of international action as an effect of the US's desire for stability for the sake of the country's oil. While Libya only produces approximately 2 percent of the world's oil and does not export nearly the same amount of oil to the US as many other states in the region do, the quality of its oil, as it has been reported by The New York Times, is much greater than that of many other producers in the world.

This so-called “sweet” crude has a much lower sulfur content than many other varieties. This, in effect, makes Libya's oil more valuable because it costs much less to refine than the lower quality oil. Such type of crude is needed to produce fuel for the new low-sulfur demanding vehicles. Europe has been a large buyer of Libyan oil and, should the turmoil in the country continue, may be forced to purchase this type of oil from Nigeria and Algeria, already major sources of sweet crude for the US. This is seen to be attributing to the current increase in the price of oil on the world market.

WHAT'S NEXT?

While it remains unclear whether or not Qaddafi will relinquish power or somehow be removed, the opposition has been making significant progress. Currently, anti-Qaddfi groups have taken control over much of the state. The second largest city, Banghazi, is said to be “outside government control” and there have been reports of many members of the military siding with the opposition. The Libyan ambassador to the UN, Ibrahim Dabbashi, defected from the regime and other senior ministers, including the Interior Minister, have turned in their resignations. There have even been reports of approximately 130 soldiers executed for refusing to shoot civilians and of fighter pilots who had parachuted out of their planes and let them crash in the desert, rather than obey orders to fire on positions held by the opposition. Two other fighter pilots flew their Libyan Mirage warplanes to Malta.

While Qaddafi's forces still retain control over the capital, according to the New York Times, the city of Zawiyah 30 miles away has begun to change hands. As of now, there are only reports of the Obama administration communicating with the British, French, and Italian governments in attempts to work out a possible response to the violence.

The views within the opposition in Libya are reported to be hopeful. However, among the movement within the capital, Tripoli, they are said to be more somber as they fear the threat of deadly government reprisal for their actions. Despite such fears, many plan to continue to participate in planned upcoming demonstrations. Domestically, many of those that had taken part in the rally on Wednesday feel the same mixture of hope and concern. Before the rally's end, the crowd shouted in agreement as one of the men yelled from the podium, “Qaddafi may take our lives, but he will never take our freedom!”

Ahmed had said that he is happy to see his country move toward freedom and proud of his family, but he is concerned for their welfare. When asked what he sees as the final outcome, he did not seem to have an answer. However, while announcing the time and locations for future rallies, Ayman El-Sawa declared, “Maybe we will be celebrating on Saturday!” When asked how he feels the future may play out, Mr. El-Sawa said that he feels there needs to be a stable transitional government that can guarantee the freedom of the people. What comes after that, he says, “is up to the Libyan people.”

In New York, Kosovo’s Albanians Still Feel Pull of Homeland

I am glad that my News Feature was published here and more people will find out about the Kosovars in NYC and about their tragic experience. I am pleased that someone has published my piece, even if I didn't try to disseminate it.

Dana Muntean

Happy International Women's Day!

Gender is still an issue. Although the world has come a long way from the days where a woman could not even watch the same entertainment as men and could not vote, I cannot say that men and women are equal in status. On paper, they have the same rights. Legally, they are both humans and receive universal rights; but the law does not change the perception of women for some people.

In Wales, only 2 our of 50 top executives are women. A study by the EHCR showed that women were under-represented and limited in job progression.
In Japan, OL (Office ladies) are secretary-like workers that do a range of tasks from administrative work to serving tea. The OL trend began when "lifetime employment" was introduced in the 1950s, where the father would bring in the dough by working and dedicating his life to one company. In order to accommodate, the O.Ladies were secretarial assistants. It turns out that although lifetime employment is slowly declining, O.Ladies managed to stay.

In the U.S., nearly 46% of large businesses are owned by women. Forbes wrote an interesting article on how women may be better entrepreneurs than men. Yet, research has shown that the 70s and the 80s were the best times to raise children, as there was less of a conflict with work. For women, the issue is between family and work; women have always been associated with children, family, caring for life while men have always protected and fed their family. Can this stigma be broken or is this the equality between men and women, where they can fulfill their expectations?

I think no, because men do not fulfill their expectations and neither do women. It doesn't work in black and white. However, the perception in some countries where women are below men needs to change. i was actually passing by a Burger King today and its slogan read, "Just Whopper Your Way." I was slightly uncomfortable with the subtle reference to a 50s ad, where sexual innuendos or empowerment over women-- although completely irrelevant to the product, that was used to sell the product.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-12676564
http://www.forbes.com/2006/06/26/women-entrepreneurs-heffernan-cx_mh_0626womenentrpreneurs.html

Saya