http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/31/darfur.troops.reut/
The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to authorize up to 26,000 troops and police in an effort to stop attacks on millions of displaced civilians in Sudan's Darfur region.
The resolution allows the use of force in self-defense, to ensure freedom of movement for humanitarian workers and to protect civilians under attack.
The resolution calls on member states to finalize their contributions to the new force, called UNAMID or the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur, within 30 days. UNAMID would incorporate the under-equipped and under-financed 7,000 African Union troops now in Darfur.
As people from the MDC, more developed country, we are exposed to global events everyday in the media. I feel like almost everyday on the news, there is a story about the war in Iraq and/or conflicts in other regions of the world. As viewers of this global news, we have become accustomed to this type of violence and hearing about genocides throughout the world. Especially when there is no personal story or face attached to these people in countries that we have never traveled to or heard of. Because of this, the stories seem like they are so far away from us. Additionally, because of our ignorance towards the African continent, we tend to group all Africans together and when we hear about all of the different conflicts that occur there, it is almost too overwhelming to feel like anything could be done to help. Ultimately, we live in a country where we are fed information about tragic world events daily, we have become unable to understand the horror of most events and continue with our daily lives because we feel that there is nothing we can do to help. In my opinion this attitude is similar to our democratic process. Americans are getting too lazy and feel like they have no part in the decision-making process anyways, so why do anything?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Seeking Japan's apology on "comfort women"
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/30/house_seeks_japans_apology_on_comfort_women/
The U.S. House of Representatives called on Japan to apologize for forcing thousands of women into sexual servitude to its soldiers during and before World War II.On a voice vote, the House approved a nonbinding resolution intended as a symbolic statement on the Japanese government's role in forcing up to 200,000 "comfort women" into a wartime brothel program starting in the 1930s. In 1993, Japan acknowledged a state role in the wartime program, which mostly victimized Chinese and Korean women. Japan's government later established a fund, which collected private donations and offered payments of about $20,000 to 285 women.
But more recently, Japanese officials including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, have denied there was evidence the government or military were directly involved in procuring the women. He later apologized for the women's suffering and said he stood by the 1993 statement.
I used to believe that there must have been systemic kidnapping by the Japanese army as a matter of course. It seemed, everybody said so. When I started looking at some Japanese sources, I found some arguments to the contrary, but I did not change my mind. It was true that many of the evidence against Japan were either misrepresented or unreliable, but the Korean argument that the hard evidence must have been purposely destroyed by the Japanese army sounded more convincing to me. It was also true that some of the most famous ex-comfort women frequently changed their testimony or were outright wrong about wartime events, but I let it slide since these women were old and not the best educated. There were also some notable forgeries and liars who, as it turned out, were being paid big money to testify against the Japanese (often by the Japanese media themselves), but that was to be expected when you had such a sensational media frenzy. Years ago, I personally visited to Japan. Japanese Society hasn't changed--business men leave their wives and children all the time to travel to Korea, Taiwan, China and Thailand for sex. In Japan, war crimes are turned into myths and war criminals are worshipped. I believe if the Japanese had a chance, they would commit the same atrocities again. This article reminds me of the Korean past history and the brutality of the Japanese Imperial Army and how these women suffered both physically and psychologically. In my personal opinion, requiring Japan's apology on 'Comfort Women' is a descent and necessary step toward deepening relationship among Asian countries.
The U.S. House of Representatives called on Japan to apologize for forcing thousands of women into sexual servitude to its soldiers during and before World War II.On a voice vote, the House approved a nonbinding resolution intended as a symbolic statement on the Japanese government's role in forcing up to 200,000 "comfort women" into a wartime brothel program starting in the 1930s. In 1993, Japan acknowledged a state role in the wartime program, which mostly victimized Chinese and Korean women. Japan's government later established a fund, which collected private donations and offered payments of about $20,000 to 285 women.
But more recently, Japanese officials including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, have denied there was evidence the government or military were directly involved in procuring the women. He later apologized for the women's suffering and said he stood by the 1993 statement.
I used to believe that there must have been systemic kidnapping by the Japanese army as a matter of course. It seemed, everybody said so. When I started looking at some Japanese sources, I found some arguments to the contrary, but I did not change my mind. It was true that many of the evidence against Japan were either misrepresented or unreliable, but the Korean argument that the hard evidence must have been purposely destroyed by the Japanese army sounded more convincing to me. It was also true that some of the most famous ex-comfort women frequently changed their testimony or were outright wrong about wartime events, but I let it slide since these women were old and not the best educated. There were also some notable forgeries and liars who, as it turned out, were being paid big money to testify against the Japanese (often by the Japanese media themselves), but that was to be expected when you had such a sensational media frenzy. Years ago, I personally visited to Japan. Japanese Society hasn't changed--business men leave their wives and children all the time to travel to Korea, Taiwan, China and Thailand for sex. In Japan, war crimes are turned into myths and war criminals are worshipped. I believe if the Japanese had a chance, they would commit the same atrocities again. This article reminds me of the Korean past history and the brutality of the Japanese Imperial Army and how these women suffered both physically and psychologically. In my personal opinion, requiring Japan's apology on 'Comfort Women' is a descent and necessary step toward deepening relationship among Asian countries.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Official: $20 billion arms sale to Saudis
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/28/saudi.arms/
The United States is developing a proposed $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia. The proposed sale is intended to upgrade the Saudi military's ability to counter possible Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf region has been discuessed. The discussions with the Saudis are still going on and the arms sale deal has not been completed. Israel is expected to raise objections to the arms package, and has expressed concerns about previous Saudi arms deals.
The concept of “nuclear credibility.” The term essentially means that a country with these weapons must appear to be willing and able to use these weapons. Whether the country would actually unleash these horrible weapons upon someone else is not of much importance. Only the appearance that a country could and would is the most important part. Having nuclear creditability meant that you have the weapons and you have the guts to actually unleash such a horrible terror. Naturally, no country wants to use these weapons due to the fact that they are so destructive and also that there would be suicidal consequences that followed. If you use the bomb, you are probably going to be bombed as well. Therefore, the only important part of the arms race was to build these horrible weapons to use them only as a threat in order to deter something from happening. It troubles me to know that all this money was spent simply on the fact that they might be used. I am obviously glad that the arms race did not turn into a nuclear war. But it is hard for me to accept that all that money that could have gone to education, health care, and other government programs went to building bombs that could kill millions of people and also bring this kind of destruction to our country. What if we had used one of these bombs during the arms race? How many bombs would have been dropped on our country in response to our offensive? People say that you should hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. I guess that is the approach the government took in the arms race.
The United States is developing a proposed $20 billion, 10-year arms sales package for Saudi Arabia. The proposed sale is intended to upgrade the Saudi military's ability to counter possible Iranian aggression in the Persian Gulf region has been discuessed. The discussions with the Saudis are still going on and the arms sale deal has not been completed. Israel is expected to raise objections to the arms package, and has expressed concerns about previous Saudi arms deals.
The concept of “nuclear credibility.” The term essentially means that a country with these weapons must appear to be willing and able to use these weapons. Whether the country would actually unleash these horrible weapons upon someone else is not of much importance. Only the appearance that a country could and would is the most important part. Having nuclear creditability meant that you have the weapons and you have the guts to actually unleash such a horrible terror. Naturally, no country wants to use these weapons due to the fact that they are so destructive and also that there would be suicidal consequences that followed. If you use the bomb, you are probably going to be bombed as well. Therefore, the only important part of the arms race was to build these horrible weapons to use them only as a threat in order to deter something from happening. It troubles me to know that all this money was spent simply on the fact that they might be used. I am obviously glad that the arms race did not turn into a nuclear war. But it is hard for me to accept that all that money that could have gone to education, health care, and other government programs went to building bombs that could kill millions of people and also bring this kind of destruction to our country. What if we had used one of these bombs during the arms race? How many bombs would have been dropped on our country in response to our offensive? People say that you should hope for the best, but be prepared for the worst. I guess that is the approach the government took in the arms race.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Thousands arrested in Zimbabwe for not cutting prices
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/07/26/zimbabwe.arrests.ap/index.html
Thousands of store owners, managers and business executives have been arrested since the government began its campaign to slash prices last month in Zimbabwe.The government ordered that prices be slashed by around 50 percent to curb inflation, officially at 4,500 percent but estimated to be twice as high.Already scarce staple foods, gasoline and many basics have disappeared from shelves because store owners say they can't afford to sell at the new low prices.Foreign investment, loans and development aid to Zimbabwe have dried up amid years of political and economic turmoil after Mugabe's government began often-violent seizures of thousands of white-owned farms in 2000.Mugabe rejects criticism that the meltdown is the result of mismanagement and instead blames Western sanctions.
This article showed me a clear interdependent relationship between economy of developing nations and international economic institutions. It seems discouraging that international institutions and their policies are not working properly as they were intended. While the IMF's stated purpose is to create global economic and currency stability, many of its policies are highly controversial. The IMF offers bailouts to foreign countries but with what it refers to as "Structural Adjustment Policies". These policies are supposed to liberalize the market, reduce governmental spending, and increase transparency in order to attract foreign investors and prevent overspending and corruption. However, many of these policies are counterproductive. Additionally, many of the proposed bailout loans proposed by IMF's sister, the World Bank, are conveniently required to make up for the budget deficits of an overly burdened national economy. These economies are so overly burdened that they cannot make sufficient investment in necessary national infrastructures required to keep the economy going. It must be noted that the World Bank loans, like the IMF, also tout structural adjustment policies that may plung the national economy into another depression.
Thousands of store owners, managers and business executives have been arrested since the government began its campaign to slash prices last month in Zimbabwe.The government ordered that prices be slashed by around 50 percent to curb inflation, officially at 4,500 percent but estimated to be twice as high.Already scarce staple foods, gasoline and many basics have disappeared from shelves because store owners say they can't afford to sell at the new low prices.Foreign investment, loans and development aid to Zimbabwe have dried up amid years of political and economic turmoil after Mugabe's government began often-violent seizures of thousands of white-owned farms in 2000.Mugabe rejects criticism that the meltdown is the result of mismanagement and instead blames Western sanctions.
This article showed me a clear interdependent relationship between economy of developing nations and international economic institutions. It seems discouraging that international institutions and their policies are not working properly as they were intended. While the IMF's stated purpose is to create global economic and currency stability, many of its policies are highly controversial. The IMF offers bailouts to foreign countries but with what it refers to as "Structural Adjustment Policies". These policies are supposed to liberalize the market, reduce governmental spending, and increase transparency in order to attract foreign investors and prevent overspending and corruption. However, many of these policies are counterproductive. Additionally, many of the proposed bailout loans proposed by IMF's sister, the World Bank, are conveniently required to make up for the budget deficits of an overly burdened national economy. These economies are so overly burdened that they cannot make sufficient investment in necessary national infrastructures required to keep the economy going. It must be noted that the World Bank loans, like the IMF, also tout structural adjustment policies that may plung the national economy into another depression.
Congress sends 9/11 panel recommendations
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/07/28/congress_sends_intensified_antiterrorism_legislation_to_bush/
Congress sent President Bush legislation to intensify anti-terror efforts in the U.S., shifting money to high-risk states and cities and expanding screening of air and sea cargo to stave off future September 11-style attacks.The measure carries out major recommendations of the independent 9/11 Commission. The bill elevates the importance of risk factors in determining which states and cities get federal security funds -- that would mean more money for such cities as New York and Washington. The independent 9/11 Commission in 2004 issued 41 recommendations covering domestic security, intelligence gathering and foreign policy. Under the new formula a larger percentage of grants will go to high-risk urban areas.It strengthens security measures for the Visa Waiver Program, which allows travelers from select countries to visit the United States without visas.
As I read this article, I could see that the state is intervening in trivial matters more so than in the past. In the modern age of "terror" and globalization, the state is assuming a more active role in the everyday lives of its citizens not because it is losing effectiveness on the world stage, but because it has the ability to do so under the guise that it is necessary for the "security" of its citizens. The state is opportunistic by nature and to preserve and strengthen its power it must have more control over the activities of its subjects.
Even after the 9/11, US government is still acting in a way that there will be even more blowback. All the military action occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan are only going to create more generations of people who hate US and want to bring US down. Many people wants to send troops into that area of the world after the terrorist attacks so that the victims would not die in vain. But they probably did not think about the children of the parents that died in all the counter attacks. These children are going to grow up and become the next generation of terrorist, with their own intentions vengeance. I am truly not looking forward to and fear the future “blowback” our country is almost certainly going to witness. Reading this article about the recommendation of the 9/11 commission, I get to wonder how this would contribute to the world peace. It might achieve national security but not globally. I feel like US Congress is trying to alienate other nations. How would this Bill assure the trustworthy among nations?
Congress sent President Bush legislation to intensify anti-terror efforts in the U.S., shifting money to high-risk states and cities and expanding screening of air and sea cargo to stave off future September 11-style attacks.The measure carries out major recommendations of the independent 9/11 Commission. The bill elevates the importance of risk factors in determining which states and cities get federal security funds -- that would mean more money for such cities as New York and Washington. The independent 9/11 Commission in 2004 issued 41 recommendations covering domestic security, intelligence gathering and foreign policy. Under the new formula a larger percentage of grants will go to high-risk urban areas.It strengthens security measures for the Visa Waiver Program, which allows travelers from select countries to visit the United States without visas.
As I read this article, I could see that the state is intervening in trivial matters more so than in the past. In the modern age of "terror" and globalization, the state is assuming a more active role in the everyday lives of its citizens not because it is losing effectiveness on the world stage, but because it has the ability to do so under the guise that it is necessary for the "security" of its citizens. The state is opportunistic by nature and to preserve and strengthen its power it must have more control over the activities of its subjects.
Even after the 9/11, US government is still acting in a way that there will be even more blowback. All the military action occurring in Iraq and Afghanistan are only going to create more generations of people who hate US and want to bring US down. Many people wants to send troops into that area of the world after the terrorist attacks so that the victims would not die in vain. But they probably did not think about the children of the parents that died in all the counter attacks. These children are going to grow up and become the next generation of terrorist, with their own intentions vengeance. I am truly not looking forward to and fear the future “blowback” our country is almost certainly going to witness. Reading this article about the recommendation of the 9/11 commission, I get to wonder how this would contribute to the world peace. It might achieve national security but not globally. I feel like US Congress is trying to alienate other nations. How would this Bill assure the trustworthy among nations?
Friday, July 27, 2007
Libya-French Meeting
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/07/25/france.libya.reut/index.html#cnnSTCText
The article I reade is about French President Nicolas Sarkozy meeting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to deepen relations after helping to resolve a diplomatic standoff that hurt the oil exporter's ties with the West. Libyan officials said the two countries would sign an accord on cooperation on a military-industrial partnership and another to activate previous agreement on cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.There will be the signing of an agreement on cooperation on a military-industrial partnership.
Reading international news articles helps me to learn not only about what is going on in the world I am living now but also to learn about the history, the past that causes the status of its present and future. It gives readers a breif history of the past relationship between Libya -French and other nations. Lybia ended decades of international isolation in 2003 when it agreed to halt a weapons program prohibited by the United Nations and pay compensation for the bombing of a U.S. airliner over Scotland in 1988 in which 270 people were killed.French-Libyan relations, which had been warm in the 1970s, hit a low during the UTA dispute and French officials spoke of a new era after the compensation deal.
To be honest, I am caught between two different thoughts. I feel happy for these two nations signing of an agreement on cooperation on a military-industrial partnership, further promoting the world peace. However, I keep doubting whether deepening relationship between Libiya and Frece is truly fair for both sides. I know that France has a nuclear along with England, Russia, the US, China). Why is it acceptable for some countries like France to have nuclear weapons but not other countries? I wonder whose interest this meeting is based on.
The article I reade is about French President Nicolas Sarkozy meeting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi to deepen relations after helping to resolve a diplomatic standoff that hurt the oil exporter's ties with the West. Libyan officials said the two countries would sign an accord on cooperation on a military-industrial partnership and another to activate previous agreement on cooperation on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.There will be the signing of an agreement on cooperation on a military-industrial partnership.
Reading international news articles helps me to learn not only about what is going on in the world I am living now but also to learn about the history, the past that causes the status of its present and future. It gives readers a breif history of the past relationship between Libya -French and other nations. Lybia ended decades of international isolation in 2003 when it agreed to halt a weapons program prohibited by the United Nations and pay compensation for the bombing of a U.S. airliner over Scotland in 1988 in which 270 people were killed.French-Libyan relations, which had been warm in the 1970s, hit a low during the UTA dispute and French officials spoke of a new era after the compensation deal.
To be honest, I am caught between two different thoughts. I feel happy for these two nations signing of an agreement on cooperation on a military-industrial partnership, further promoting the world peace. However, I keep doubting whether deepening relationship between Libiya and Frece is truly fair for both sides. I know that France has a nuclear along with England, Russia, the US, China). Why is it acceptable for some countries like France to have nuclear weapons but not other countries? I wonder whose interest this meeting is based on.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Taliban kills South Korean hostage
One of 23 South Koreans held hostage in Afghanistan by the Taliban has been killed.
Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousif Ahmadi said the man had been killed because Taliban demands -- which included a prisoner release and withdrawal of South Korean troops from the country -- hadn't been met.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/afghanistan.hostages/index.html
As a Korean international student in the US, I have become more aware and even vulnerable to any news
related to Korea. My family and friends talked to me about this tregic news over the phone this morning.
I could not really understand what they were talking about when I first heard it. Reading this article with my own eyes made me realize the current situation of the world. The war between Iraq and the US is not the only war
between two countries. It showed me how we as participants of the globalized world is interdepended to our environments. I feel so sad that one of 23 innocent Korean hostages has been killed by the Taliban. I often times feel that everything around me is so peaceful that international issues does not really matter to my personal life. However, reading this article helped me understand how my personal life can be affected in this one globalized society.
Taliban spokesman Qari Mohammad Yousif Ahmadi said the man had been killed because Taliban demands -- which included a prisoner release and withdrawal of South Korean troops from the country -- hadn't been met.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/07/25/afghanistan.hostages/index.html
As a Korean international student in the US, I have become more aware and even vulnerable to any news
related to Korea. My family and friends talked to me about this tregic news over the phone this morning.
I could not really understand what they were talking about when I first heard it. Reading this article with my own eyes made me realize the current situation of the world. The war between Iraq and the US is not the only war
between two countries. It showed me how we as participants of the globalized world is interdepended to our environments. I feel so sad that one of 23 innocent Korean hostages has been killed by the Taliban. I often times feel that everything around me is so peaceful that international issues does not really matter to my personal life. However, reading this article helped me understand how my personal life can be affected in this one globalized society.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)