Subliminal Messages

This weekend I went to go see In Time with Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried. The movie, to me, was great to say the least. In the film, the message was quite clear, “in order for few to be immortal, many must die”. The movie represented a life as if wage was literally paid in time. The the amount of time people were paid was the amount of time they had left to live. The movie shows the realities of people living day to day (paycheck to paycheck) and people literally dying because they didn't have enough time. The poor continued to struggle and die because the upper class continued to raise the standard of living, the rich continued to live forever controlling the system. The movie that transparently showed the separation between classes is speaking subliminally about injustices around the world. The message that was repeated, “for few to be immortal, many must die”, is a phrase that is just like the one sung at Occupy Wall St. “We are the 99%.” The protestors see that the system is constantly setting people up for failure. People can not find jobs, so that means no income; people graduate from college and can not find jobs in their fields, which means no income while interest is building on student loans; there is a lack of universal healthcare; along with the standard of living continuing to rise. This system that we live in has a lot of faulty aspects, but it’s not just us in the United States that is suffering from a system where only a few are thriving. Look at Sao Paulo in Brazil for example. The wealth disparity is clear. There are hundreds of slums literally right next door to multi-million dollar condos with private pools on every deck. Even in India where a husbands family kills the bride because the dowry for the wife’s family raises, and they are unable to pay the increased wage. The grooms family kills her to be able to marry another bride whose family can afford to pay the new dowry. Even the fact that widows can’t remarry in certain parts of India making them result to beggars adds on to the system that does not properly support their citizens. This movie, even if not intentionally, is presenting many problems not just in the United States, but all over. The standard of living is getting extremely expensive and people can not even provide the basic necessities for their families. It is a very sad reality that ‘for few to be in the 1% many must struggle to survive’ living paycheck to paycheck. In the movie, they went to extremes to change the situation they were in. I wonder what it will take to change the world system so that everyone who wants it, will be able to live a prosperous and fruitful life. Lets not let our time run out!!!

Alexis Roe

Pakistan is in!

On 21 October 2011 the General Assembly in the United Nations’ Headquarter in New York, held an election about filling five empty posts in the Security Council. Nine countries ran for five non-permanent seats in the Council. Those who win have their position for two years. This year, Azerbaijan, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, and Togo won the chance to become involved in the work of the UN Security Council (UNSC).

Certainly, opinions are divided about Pakistan’s membership especially because India, its main “enemy”, has been member of the Council since June this year. The tense situation between the two countries inspired me to do a small research on them, how experts see Pakistan’s positions and what they expect from her in the Security Council.

First of all, this is not the first time India and Pakistan are members of the Security Council at the same time. It was the year of 1977 when they were both part of the Council. The countries had three wars since they gained their independence from Great Britain in 1947. I’ve read in several articles, diplomats in the UN do not think the membership of Pakistan will cause any tension in the Security Council. The only possible problem will be if Russia, China and Pakistan decide to vote against US and EU supported sanctions regarding Syria and Iran.

According to Abdul Ruff’s article, specialist and analyst of International Affairs, there are plenty of expectations towards Pakistan in the UNSC. First of all, it has to facilitate peace and prosperity in Pakistan. As Abdul Ruff stated, Pakistan has to be deliberate not to become trapped by Islamic states that might want to use the country for their own interests neglecting the interest of humanity. Pakistan is expected to fight against “illegal terror war” as well and with a truthful fight it could end the “US led NATO wars” said Mr. Ruff.

As a conclusion, there are many hopes and expectations Pakistan has to face within the upcoming two years in the UNSC.

The ten non-permanent seats are rotating between different regions. This year, the African, Asian, Latin American, Caribbean and Eastern European regions fell vacant. For the Asian region, originally Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Fiji ran but Fiji withdrew its campaign in favour of Pakistan.

-Barbara Hanis-

Variables for Future Stability in Saudi Arabia after New Crown Prince Announced

http://eurasia.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/10/28/saudi_succession_starts_to_gel

The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Sultan bin Abdelaziz Al Saud, 80, died on October 22^nd 2011 in a New York hospital after a series of illnesses. He held the position as defense minister for almost five decades, and was a committed ally to the United States. Prince Sultan is succeeded by his brother, Prince Nayef, 78, who served as the interior minister for 35 years and who was chosen as the heir through a historic vote by the Allegiance Council, a body set up by King Abdullah to ensure transparent successor procedure. Nevertheless, many argue that the successor procedure was far from democratic even within the Council as Prince Nayef was appointed second deputy prime minister already in 2009, a role that would only have been given to King Abdullah’s successor to the Saudi throne.

The appointment of Prince Nayef poses several questions for Saudi Arabia’s future.Prince Nayef is believed to be more socially conservative than his predecessor- he oversaw a tough crackdown on the opposition in the wake of the Arab Spring and he opposes women to be given the right to vote and to drive. On the other hand, he has also shown progressive tendencies such as when he supported the move to issue women identity cards with their photographs, a legislation which consequently gave women more freedom in financial and legal transactions as they were previously reliant on being registered under their fathers’ or their husbands’ cards.

The immediate political risk and the stability of the country will depend on the person who will take over after Prince Sultan as Saudi Arabia’s next Defense Minister. The overall future stability of Saudi Arabia rests on the extent of conservatism in Prince Nayef’s rule and the possible implications it will have on U.S.-Saudi partnership.

While speculations of Prince Nayef’s conservatism are circulating among media sources, it is also wrong to claim that King Abdullah is a reform-minded monarch taking into account the current state of Saudi Arabia’s affairs: women are not allowed to drive and are not permitted to leave the house without a chaperone in the form of a household representatives: their father, brother or husband. The current King Abdullah, 87, is frail after having gone through three back surgeries in 2011 alone. Nonetheless, while King Abdullah is in charge, the status quo in Saudi Arabia is expected to maintain.

- Inga

7 Billionth Baby in Today's Crowded World

The baby marking a world population of seven billion was born today. The Guardian announced that Danica May Camacho, born in Manila, Philippines, was chosen by the UN to represent the crossing of the threshold to seven billion people. It appears to me that this symbolic act on behalf of the UN is not simply a celebration of a growing global population, but it highlights the pressuring burdens on the horizon of the world community.

In order to accommodate the current population, it is necessary to increase food production. However, increased food production damages and eventually erodes the soil. In other words, we are caught in a vicious circle in which our population continues to grow (higher birth rates and higher life expectancy) while the capacity of the Earth is unable to keep up with the population growth.

When Danica May Camacho grows up, she will learn about the symbolic meaning of her birth. That she became the UN symbol of a crowded world and the vast inability of the world to support its population. This is a heavy burden to carry for a young girl. Which leads me to wonder whether the UN has ever thought of the consequences from their symbolic crowning. Just like the permanent seats of the UN Security Council are outdated, perhaps this symbolic marking is too: I understand that it was a global celebration when the first-, second-, third-, fourth-billion person entered the world, however, aware of the world’s inability to sustain a population of six billion, perhaps this symbolic marking targeted on one specific individual, can lead to increased personal problems for the chosen baby when she grows up. The possibility of psychological problems from being the symbol of a population of seven billion is not excluded as the person might feel that her existence was marked by the UN not as a celebration but as an indicator of the inevitable: “the challenges of the world’s growing population.”

In this article, the previous children who marked both the six billion population and the five billion population complain that the UN first chose them as someone special but later simply forgot about them. The parents of Danica May Camacho received some money to cover the initial costs of starting up a small shop as well as an education scholarship for their newborn. It will not come as a surprise that baby Camacho too, in a few years time, will feel ‘abandoned’ by the UN. A realistic outlook, perhaps, presents the best explanation to why the UN ‘forgets’ these children who become global symbols: with so much on their plate, and now more than seven billion people to sustain and support, the UN simply does not have the time to follow up on individual cases.

Collectively, we have been on earth for around three million years, yet in this long time we have been unable to implement a world order in which every individual has access to basic necessities and to human rights. Today, there are still numerous places where women are not treated equally with men, there are lands where women are not allowed to drive, not allowed to leave their homes without a chaperone in the form of a male family member. Today, in the ‘better’ multilateral world compared to the block system which existed until the end of World War II, countries continue to intervene in domestic politics of other countries, killing thousands of innocent civilians for political causes. The seven billionth baby further emphasizes the endless challenges of the world and the unlikely possibility of a harmonious life on Earth.

One of the ways to pinpoint the challenges this growing number presents, is by choosing a baby born in the Philippines. The UN could have chosen from many other babies in different countries born more or less at the exact same time as Danica May Camacho to mark the seven billion population, but no, it had to be a baby in Manila, a country in which 40 percent of its population lives below the poverty line, a nation in which 600, 000 of 1.5 million Filipinos born yearly are born to poor parents (data from 2001). It remains uncertain how much real action this UN effort of marking the baby that represents global population of seven billion will lead to.

We could not provide sufficient lives to our six billion people yesterday, how can we possibly provide sufficient lives to the seven billion population today?

- Inga

Surviving the Protest Lifestyle

NEW YORK, Oct 11 –To the mixed smells of fumigant and marijuana, the sounds of enigmatic buzzing and drum solos, hundreds of young people revel in peace in Zuccotti Park, a small strip of Manhattan real estate given over to twilight candles and talk of peace and reform.

“It’s like Woodstock!” an anonymous voice exclaimed.

Of course, this is not 1969. These people have been assembling in New York City, Zuccotti Park as participants of the Occupy Wall Street, a series of demonstrations. The protesters say they represent the 99 % of the American society unemployment or job insecurity while the top 1% prosper. As the protesters tell it, the “1 percenters” are represented best by the rich, greedy and corrupt banks bailed out by taxpayers in the financial crisis of 2008-2009.Call it an “American Spring,” even if it is taking place in autumn: The protesters cite the uprisings of the Arab Spring as their inspiration.

“People of many colors, genders and political persuasions…” the official website of the demonstration says.

“The Wall Street Occupation has made New York City the physical and spiritual capital of a great people’s awakening,” says a flier making the rounds from former New York Congressman Major Owens, , Entitled a “Call for Coalition and Solidarity,” Owens declared “ it is a magnificent movement and hope it goes on until it has an impact.” He definitely would like to come back and involve all the New Yorkers.

On a recent Tuesday evening, Owens took part in the movement’s nightly “General Assembly, held from 7 am till 9.30 pm every evening. Due to city prohibitions on the use of megaphones or other amplified sound, protesters employ a ”human microphone;” that is, they inform the rest of the park of the Assembly’s decisions by whispering information from one person to another until it has reached everyone in the protest.

While the Assembly helps protesters to organize and plan their next moves, the mundane realities of life in a small, crowded and exposed place go on. A volunteer is quietly sweeping the area and sanitary men are picking garbage, while, on the other side of the park, a girl is selling her graffiti pictures for $100 each.

Jay Sullivan has been giving away pirated movies for 7 years at Union Square. He has now decided to “encourage everyone who thinks it’s a good idea to do it themselves. Conversations would grow out of it and then people would start thinking about these issues. ” said

Next to them, Yoga classes are held where everyone can participate and relax for a while. A few feet away, there is the kitchen where free food is served. Nearby pizzerias offer them meals but also people from the neighborhood cook them or let them use their kitchens.

The movement also launched its weekly newspaper entitled The Occupied Wall Street Journal. People can read in two languages, English and Spanish, news of the sympathy demonstrations have garnered as they spread to other parts of the country and all over the world. On the back of The Occupied Wall Street Journal there are “Five Things He Can Do Now” to help the movement, including: Bring instruments, food, blankets, bedding rain gear, and your friends, Spread the Word, Donate, Follow the Occupation or Educate Yourself.

“People are out here and they are happy. There is free massage, medical supply, library where we can have free conversations,” said Molly McCartney , a 21-year-old young lady, who was very determined why they need to be on Wall Street. Everyone has their own stories how they ended up being among the protesters. Molly said, her father passed away in April and he had hoped that a movement like this would happen. Besides supporting the political reasons for the protest, she also came to represent her father.

While city authorizes have largely left the protestors alone (with some important exceptions), they have made life harder for the movement. Some days ago, the electricity was shut off in the park. Later, someone donated a solar power truck, and since then, it serves the protesters’ needs. Participants are not allowed to use tents in the park, so they are covering their belongings, including their donated sleeping bags, with plastic wrap.

The area is under supervision by the New York Police Department. Protesters believe the presence of the NYPD is totally unnecessary because the movement is peaceful and always will be. According to Molly, instead of having the NYPD in the neighborhood of Wall Street, they should provide more support in other areas of New York.

“The NYPD should be in Brooklyn to protect defenseless women who might become victims of the serial rapist who threatens the public nowadays,” she said.

Some people do decide to leave the park around midnight so they can sleep at home. Rob, audio engineer, has been at the protest since Wednesday last week, chose this option. He has an apartment where he also lets people crash and use the shower. Generally, people are very welcoming with the protesters. The nearby McDonalds, and pizza places have let individuals use the restrooms.

While many have offered help for the protesters as they seek to survive the elements and other challenges, others see the seamy side of letting them settle in the park. Patrick, a student of finance, said that, “No way of human being to live like that. They are selling drugs and having sex in their shelters. Yesterday, they helped to hide someone from the police. Today, the guy got arrested.”

Ruwan Meepagola, 24 years old sales manager, does not believe in protests and thinks they will never achieve their goals and should get a job. His friend, Giancarlo Alvarez, 27, agrees with the cause but not the means. “The protest is incorrect because it is very localized. This case is present across the country. There are other means of mass communication.”

No matter what some think of this protest and its fulfillment, these people are practicing two out of the five fundamental rights. They speak and assemble for one common goal and try to live by the words of Mahatma Gandhi: “Be the change you want to see in the world!”

-Barbara Hanis-

Time for Fresh Eyes on Occupy Wall Street?

NEW YORK, October 11 – Occupy Wall Street, a completely leaderless movement that claims to represent 99% of the population against the greedy 1%, staked a claim on a small piece of New York real estate known as Zuccotti Park in September 17.

Employing a range of tactics for media publicity, the movement has gathered thousands of people to occupy Zuccotti Park (private) near in the Wall Street vicinity and staged protesters all over the Manhattan, inspiring solidarity movements globally in 71 cities and drawing disdain from those opposed to their political views.

The unorthodox approach of the Occupy movement—deliberately avoiding sharp, limited demands in favor of a democratic-cum-anarchic call for change—has prompted speculation on the movement's potential success.

In spite of the vagueness of its message, this amorphous structure has proven successful. The undefined mission and intentional disorganization have allowed the movement to be inclusive, drawing people from all different walks of life –from former Wall Street traders to union organizers to professional left-wing activists.

While no one can deny that Occupy Wall Street (OWS) has been quite successful in drawing media attention and attracting solidarity movements worldwide, the ultimate effectiveness of its media strategy remains uncertain, due to the lack of defined message and an apparent absence of internal consensus.

The widespread media coverage won by the movement is so far regarded as one of the biggest successes, something that even the initiators did not expect.

“No one knows what’s going to happen the next day,” admitted Throine Peace, one of the media coordinators on the #OWS Media Team, an internal working group based in the middle of the park. “We are carefully letting people grow; now you can’t take it down,” he added during an interview, “the movement is meant to redefine itself everyday with the changes” and indeed no one has predicted the wild attention they have raised so far.

Another member of the Media and the Press Teams, Jason Ahmadi, believes their communications strategy has succeeded particularly well on the Internet.

“We are attacking all fronts” he said. He considers the movement’s website and the relationship it has developed with LiveStream as their biggest success, a place where anyone who is interested can follow what is happening even if they cannot be there.

The spread of “Occupy” protests nationwide triggered also attests to this success; the #Occupy movement in Seattle and Washington D.C. are prime examples of this. In addition, numerous organizations plan to incorporate the idea of #Occupy movement into their own campaign causes. Recently, the idea of bringing Occupy Wall Street together with the Tea Party even surfaced briefly. No matter criticism or support, cooperation or skepticism, the attention #Occupy achieved in just four weeks far outstrips the track record of recent such movements.

Turning this success of media attention into real changes, however, remains a challenge. #Occupy has yet to define a consistent message that can be condensed down to pragmatic political changes. Though everyone in the movement wants a fairer economy and to live a better life, their suggestions for changes vary widely. There are people asking for stricter governmental regulations, while others are urging for smaller government, if not an anarchic society. Some protest against job outsourcing to developing countries, while others hold signs for a truly globalized planet. The only common idea all protesters seem to share is solidarity in belonging to the “99 percent”.

People came to the Park to voice their opinions through the existing publicity, become part of the movement and help expanding the spread with their own outreach efforts. In this case, to reach a consensus among people holding conflicting opinions, if at all possible, and come down to certain specific policy options means to block out a certain group of people, who are part of and have been helping to expand the movement. If Wall Street is facing a protest, the protest is facing a dilemma.

Not surprisingly, this dilemma has caught attention from media, NGOs, scholars and politicians, including former US President Bill Clinton. In a Chicago talk show last Wednesday night, Clinton, who has sympathized with OWS, urged the protesters to come down to more specific political goals and work with people who have the knowledge and power to implement these changes.

“To make the change, eventually what it is you’re advocating has to be clear enough and focused enough that either there’s a new political movement which embraces it or people in one of the two parties embrace it,” Clinton said.

Though it is hard to predict what OWS is heading towards, a growing number of case studies in campaign, advocacy movements or NGO management have discussed lessons learned from the movement. Most of these articles focus on its successful strategy in outreach, while warning future movements to develop a more defined message.

Responding to this debate, Throine argued that a more open approach amplified the movement’s appeal. “If you say this is about one thing at the beginning, lots of people would not have come,” he said. #Occupy is a progressing movement.

Two clear but conflicting efforts to redefine OWS are in the air: one to address their weakness and, as Clinton suggested, “work with a political party” or “form their own.” This allows OWS more space to come down to real changes from the top down. The other would seek to maximize the advantages of an undefined message, or even broaden it. To make any real changes this way, #Occupy would need to influence individuals spiritually from the bottom up.

Still, some common ideas exist in either of these directions: they all recognized #Occupy’s inclusiveness as comparing to the previous protests or revolutionary movements, while at the same time even #Occupy admitted that it is not the same as those organized and targeted campaigns in many ways. This comparison of #Occupy with something it is fundamentally different from reveals a stereotype in the understanding of the movement.

The stereotype about protest movements is that they should have a central message and an organized, effective structure; therefore, when there is no defined consensus within, people think there is something wrong. The premature self-comparison with the Arab Spring may have made the situation even worse as people constantly refer back to it, while forgetting about the progressive redefinition and adaptation of the movement.

What if it is not meant to be a unified movement? What if it is not meant to carry one channeled message? What if it is just “an open resource project”, as they like to call themselves, which hosts an amalgam of ideas from everybody who is willing to contribute, but which has no defined message as a whole? Rather than asking whether this could be the third direction #Occupy could turn towards, it appears “a platform for voices” is what really defines the movement right now.

In this case, debates on #Occupy’s problem based on the ground of “campaign theory” do not shed much light on the future of the movement. If they need to make a decision for their future, it seems they already had made one. The question is, how should the world view OWS from a different perspective. Just as software programmers need to maintain the server, how can OWS keep their momentum and advantage of existing publicity and turn that to the advantage of people and groups who need a place to speak their mind.

- Yinan Hu and Adrienn Szlapak

The Return of Warlordism in Afghanistan

After a decade of involvement in Afghanistan, it appears the United States hasn't learned a critical lesson. Warlordism has been a critical component in driving the country's vicious cycle of violence. Yet as the drawdown of US and NATO troops proceeds, American policymakers are one again turning to warlord-led militias to fill security gaps.

“It is enormously short sighted to turn to these militias for stability. It all looks good on paper, but what matters is security and that's not happening,” said Rachel Reid, a researcher for Human Rights Watch and adviser on Afghanistan for the Open Society Institute. Reid and other activists participated in a recent discussion panel on human rights in Afghanistan at New York University.

The history of warlordism in Afghanistan is a long one, stretching back over thirty years to the Soviet conflict with the Mujahedin guerilla fighters. Organized in small groups, normally along ethnic or clan lines, the Mujahedin successfully overthrew the Communist government, but failed to restore stability after the conflict ended. Warlords at regional outposts promoted corruption and violence in the early 1990s, which fueled the rise of the Taliban as a force for stability. Today, with US support, disparate militia groups have once again emerged as regional power brokers and with similarly chaotic results.

“We react as if Afghan violence is something shocking and foreign when in fact we are directly responsible for the way things have unfolded,” said Matthieu Aikins, a journalist whose article on one of the most notorious Afghan militia leaders, Abdul Raziq, just appeared in the November issue of The Atlantic.

Abdul Raziq, like many of the U.S.-backed militia commanders in Afghanistan, has a record of drug trafficking and murder, but has received US support and funding for counterinsurgency operations in Kandahar Province. Since becoming involved in the U.S. fight against the Taliban in 2001, Raziq has been connected to hundreds of cases of torture and murder involving innocent civilians.

“We knew Raziq's human rights record, and this conscious decision to fund him was made. Human rights is not taken into account in Afghanistan,” he said.

Shunting justice in favor of security has become the norm in Afghanistan, but this tactic has produced neither justice nor security.

“It's been underestimated for far too long how much these abuses have actually fueled the insurgency,” explained Anand Gopal, a reporter who has written extensively about the war in Afghanistan. “US strategy is incentivizing insecurity.”

Men like Raziq have learned how to profit from US military contracts and to keep the contracts flowing in, patrols need to prove that they are still needed to maintain security. Often, innocent families wrongfully targeted as insurgents turn against the United States, and some even look to the Taliban for protection.

“Raziq represents a new generation of warlords- those who have been formed by the logic of the international contracting market,” noted Aikins, “These guys are completely new creatures, and in Southern Afghanistan, they are the ones in power.”

The return of warlordism has also stymied attempts to establish an Afghan Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The Karzai government, filled with former warlords from the Mujahedin era have put forth little effort to address the nation's bloody history since 1979. In 2007, Afghanistan's parliament even passed a law granting amnesty to those involved in conflict before 2001.

With the power vacuum growing larger, the panel's consensus delivered a bleak outlook for the future of Afghanistan, especially if the US doesn't change its strategy.

Denouncing the militia policy, Reid advocated for greater U.S. oversight of Afghanistan's top authorities.

“Don't break up the monopoly of violence through the use of militias, break up the monopoly on power. We should want the Afghan government to stop milking the opportunity for all it's worth before the money's all gone.”

Unfortunately, current United States policy appears to continue along the same trajectory. If the United States continues to fund militia warlords like Raziq, their power and the abuses they promote will only grow as U.S. troops become more scarce.

-Rachel

Ironic

Read article here.

With the death of Gaddafi, another despotic leader has been brought down. Another clear sign the Arab Spring Uprisings continue to barrel through the Middle East. No where are these uprisings more evident than in Syria. While Assad still clings to power, revolts have spread across the country. With the revolts have come the violence and bloodshed. Over 3000 Syrians have been killed since March and another 15,000 have been arrested or "disappeared".
However, the most outspoken critic of Syria's repression of its people has come from Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ironic since Iran has some of the highest corruption rates and human rights abuses in the world. In criticizing Syria's violent crackdown on dissent in the country, President Ahmadinejad said, "Nobody has the right to kill others, neither the government nor its opponents." This is surprising since Iran was much criticized for its crackdown of the green movement that formed due to what many called a skewed re-election of Ahmadinejad in 2009. Additionally, Iran has suppressed many of its own uprisings since the Arab Spring movements began.
It is also shocking because Syria and Iran hold close ties; Syria is Iran's biggest ally in the region. The Iranian President has even gone so far to suggest that Syrian President Al-Assad listen to the protesters and "be accountable to his people's legitimate demands".
Iran's stance on Syria's problems are almost comical. The exact solution Ahmadinejad is suggesting is one he has completely disregarded in his own country. Mr. Ahmadinejad should take his own advice and limit his commentary on abuses he is guilty of himself.

Gabrielle Melton

U.S. ambassador to Syria safer in Washington

Facebook can be life threatening, as Robert S. Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria had to realize. Mr. Ford, who among other things, openly denounced Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Facebook, had to return to Washington, D.C. because of “credible threats to his personal safety”.

According to an article on Aljazeera, Mr. Ford returned to Washington this weekend; however, he has no intentions of staying there long and giving up his post in Syria.

Robert S. Ford became ambassador to Syria this year, filling a post that has been vacant since 2005. Ever since the uprising started in March, he has expressed his negative views on the Assad government and has also been openly supporting anti-government groups. He visited Hama, a stronghold of the opposition, and attended the funeral of an activist as well. As a result of such deeds, demonstrators threw rocks and tomatoes on him and his company in Damascus. However, he decided to stay in the country after that incident.

This time something more serious must have happened if he had to leave to stay safe. A New York Times article refers to an incitement campaign carried out by the Assad regime against Mr. Ford. As soon as the ambassador left Syria, Imad Mustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., was recalled too.

However, the Syrian regime should not get too excited about Ford’s departure, as Haynes Mahoney, the charge d’affaires, will act on his behalf while he is gone, and the Obama administration is determined to send him back soon.

The question is whether Syria, or the Arab world in general, will ever be a safe space for a U.S. ambassador, as resentment towards Israel and its allies is getting stronger.

-Adrienn Szlapak