Do Not Fix Your Antennas, Radio Is Not Dead!

By Logan Schunk

________________________________________________________________________________

Do not fix your antennas, radio is not dead! UBCO just needs a station of its own! 

Through my first couple of years at UBCO, by far the one of the most common complaints has been that Kelowna’s radio sucks. The initiative to create a UBCO radio station has been an ongoing one for some time.  A radio station did exist on campus in the past, but when UBC moved into town and the construction of our new UNC began the radio station was no more.  But I believe that the students of UBCO’s vibrant, youthful campus have the capacity to change and revive radio in the place we call home. So what would a radio station on a campus of 8,000 strong look like? 

The radio station I propose will be Internet-based. Run entirely by students and a faculty of volunteers, an online station will be fast and easily accessible.  You would have the ability to listen to it from anywhere in the world. It would provide students with experience in radio, broadcasting and production. Imagine this, UBCO - having the ability to be heard not only Kelowna and the Okanagan but to be heard from the corners of the globe, with just the click of a mouse.  The rest of Canada could listen to our perspective and opinions. Kelowna would become a hub for information and knowledge.

There are certainly some who believe radio to be an old form of technology.  But if this is so, why is it that close to fifty campuses in Canada have radio stations? What makes UBCO so hesitant to obtain a radio station? Surely something as beneficial as a radio station can only help the community experience on and off our campus. 

Take, for instance, the sense of disconnect that exists on our campus, felt by many students on a daily basis. In a 2010 Maclean’s article, a former student brought the term “disconnect” to the forefront of issues at UBCO. The University has attempted to eradicate this issue through the creation of The Collegiums, as well as through on campus events like Community Day and Club Day. Aside from the Collegium space, campus wide events happen sporadically and their full effects are in doubt. Through the implementation of a radio station on campus these issues could be discussed and a conversation could be initiated. Our campus would have the ability to reach its fullest potential.  Students will have the ability to give UBCO the community feeling it lacks, collectively with faculty, as well the outside community.     

Once implemented, a radio station would provide the public with innovative and alternative radio programming directed specifically at students that would enrich both academic and cultural life at the University and the community as a whole. It will create an awareness of local issues and it will create a voice for marginalized groups within the community. Without hesitation, I believe the time is now for UBCO to break new sound in radio and obtain a radio license. 

Hurricane Sandy Hits the US Presidential Election

By Julia Faurschou

________________________________________________________________________________

Over this past week the east coast of the United States has been ravaged by Hurricane Sandy. Hospitals have been evacuated, buildings have collapsed, and mass flooding has drenched the area. Millions of Americans have been affected by the devastating storm. But what effect could Sandy pose on the upcoming American presidential election? President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney have both been forced to cancel campaign events in affected states. With the race for the White House already so tight, a false move by either candidate could be detrimental to their presidential ambitions.

As soon as the news of the hurricane broke, President Obama sprang into action. His response to the storm could make or break his run for reelection. A poor response to the devastation could prove disastrous to his public opinion ratings, as previously demonstrated by George W. Bush and his lack-luster response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. This was Obama’s chance to show the people of the United States that he has the take-charge, decisive, yet understanding attitude needed to cement his second term as president.

Judging by the federal governments swift response this past week, this could very well prove to be the deciding factor in the final week of the election. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is, according to Vice-President Joe Biden, “working like it’s supposed to” in providing proper aid to the affected areas. The storm even had the power to change the notoriously outspoken Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie, previous supporter of Mitt Romney, into the latest fan of Obama. When asked about the Presidents role in the disaster relief efforts Christie had nothing but praise for Obama, calling him “outstanding” and “incredibly supportive and helpful to our state.” 

With praise for Obama pouring in from all across the political spectrum, Mitt Romney has been washed to the sidelines. Romney's well-wishes for victims of the hurricane seem insincere, as those experiencing the most devastating effects of the storm generally fall into that “47%” category of Americans whom Romney sees as economic free-loaders. Romney now faces the challenge of staying relevant in the wake of Obamas unfaltering leadership in the storm response. 

Staying relevant is not the only challenge Romney faces this week, as another skeleton emerged from the Mitt Romney closet. During a debate in 2011 for the GOP presidential nomination Romney argued the FEMA should “absolutely” be shut down. Mitt continued on to say that “Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.” According to Romney’s preposterous logic, not only can states do a better job than the federal government in responding to a natural disaster like Sandy, but privately owned profit-making companies are even more capable of providing the best aid possible to citizens. Try selling that campaign feature to the millions of Americans who are now struggling to keep their livelihood afloat in the aftermath of the hurricane. With images of hurricane destruction and it’s victims saturating the airways this past week, Americans all across the country must find Romney’s statement difficult to justify. 

Romney already has a very poor track record of responding to natural disasters. In 2005 Greenfield, Massachusetts suffered terrible flooding due to heavy rains and the overflow of the Green River. Roads in the area had to be shut down, the water treatment plant was submerged, and many citizens lost their homes. Greenfield’s mayor at that time reported that Romney, the governor of Massachusetts during the incident, never made any attempt to contact her and aid in the recovery. This would have been the perfect opportunity for Romney to demonstrate how states could be much more effective in disaster relief efforts, but he made no attempt to seize it. If Romney did such a poor job in responding to this smaller scale disaster, it does not bode well for his role at the federal level. 

The hurricane could be just what America needs to help bring to light just what kind of candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney really are. Obama has made sure that the federal government is readily available to citizens who are most direly in need of help. Romney, on the other hand, advocates an increased role of states in disaster aid, or worse, handing over the role of disaster relief to private companies, thus eliminating the governments role all together. Even though most of the states affected by the hurricane are traditionally Democratic to begin with, Sandy may have the power to change the mindsets of voters all over the country.

The European Union Wins the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize

By Julia Faurschou

_______________________________________________________________________________

It was announced on the morning of October 12th that the European Union would receive the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Committee stated that they chose the European Union for this years annual award because the EU has “for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe.” The award comes at a time when Europe is plagued with the mounting debt crisis and rapidly declining numbers in popular support. The $1.2 million in prize money, or an estimated 0.0027 euro per inhabitant of the EU’s member states, seems trivial in the context of the hundreds of billions of euros in debt that is currently overloading the Union.

The news of this years winner appeared to baffle both the “Euroskeptics” and the European leaders themselves. Jose Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, responded to the pleasant surprise, saying, “I have to say that when I woke up this morning, I did not expect it to be such a good day....The award today by the Nobel Committee shows that in these difficult times the European Union remains an inspiration for countries and people all over the world and that the international community needs a strong European Union.”

Nobel committee president Thorbjoern Jagland touted the EU’s zealous quest for peace despite great economic and social unrest, claiming that “The stabilizing part played by the EU has helped to transform most of Europe from a continent of war to a continent of peace.” The great irony in it all is that Norway, out of which the Nobel Committee is based, has refused membership to the EU three times. One would think that if this organization was as substantial as the Nobel Committee has made it sound, then the Norwegians would be falling over themselves to secure their own EU membership.

The rationale behind the European Union winning the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize is rather weak - there is some substance behind it, but not near enough to justify it as a substantive answer. It all stems from the fact that yes, the EU has managed to deter  another global scale, genocide ridden World War. What started as the Coal and Steel Community, designed to make war materially impossible among its six original members, has developed into the economic, social, and political integration of twenty seven member nations over the past sixty plus years. The Union has been credited with quashing emerging dictatorships and establishing democracy in its place in such countries as Spain, Greece, and Portugal. It has withstood the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Cold War, conflict in the Middle East, just to name a few. And now the EU is faced with large scale economic crisis. With the surmounting debt and repercussions of it, tension and hostility are becoming increasingly evident within the affected nations.

The United States and NATO have also been great contributors to any degree of peace in Europe. Both have been critically important in dealing with European instability. For example, the bloody conflict in Yugoslavia following the fall of the Berlin Wall only ended once the US intervened. The US spent a vast amount of time and money to provide a military wall behind which Western Europe could regain its strength. Both the US and NATO deserve mention of the supporting roles each played.  

The announcement of the prize comes in the wake of the Angela Merkel’s visit to Greece. Upon her arrival in Athens she was greeted by fifty thousand austerity protestors, complete with seven thousand law enforcement officers present to keep the German Chancellor out of harms way. Some Greek protestors were even so bold as to arrive dressed as Nazis. The hostility stems from the strict austerity measures that the EU has laden upon the Greeks in exchange for around two hundred billion euros in bailout funds. Violence is on the rise in Spain and Portugal for similar reasons. Greece, Spain, and Portugal, when initially pursuing EU membership, were required to give up their previous authoritarian regimes in exchange for democracy. Following their initiation into the EU, these countries have all experienced economic difficulties and become the recipients of large amounts of subsidies and aid. Not quite the advancement of peace and democracy the Nobel Committee had in mind. 

The EU has been accused of an assault on democracy in it’s own institutions. The Eurocrats are determined to advance European integration towards a continental government, a United States of Europe if you will, no matter the objections that have been raised. Trust in the Union has plummeted in recent years as the push for a Europe-wide government intensifies. There is minimal loyalty of European citizens to the EU, and politics in Europe remain primarily focused on national issues. More than language barriers divide the Union. There is no “European” identity, only national mindsets. The stark lack of a European consciousness is becoming more evident and problematic by the day. 

Thus, awarding the Nobel Peace prize to the EU is either a nostalgic look back to the twentieth century, the EU pre- debt crisis, or a diplomatic push in the right direction towards resolving the crisis in the most peaceful manner possible. It is a prize not so much for any current peace in Europe, but for that which is expected and encouraged. It is hoped that the awarding of this prize will contribute to fostering European moral in overcoming potential currency disaster by reminding them of what they have accomplished in the past, no matter how long ago that was, and not end up being a final parting gift. 

The (f)Utility of Social Media: Preliminary Thoughts

By Andrew Geistlinger 

________________________________________________________________________________

The last few years has seen a drastic upsurge in the international discourse regarding the place of social media. The Arab Spring has been called the 'social media revolution' by some pundits and scholars. While this is rather crass because the Arab Spring(s) are first and foremost Arab revolutions and the social media aspect is just a small part among many that seems to be getting a rather fair amount of  the attention. 

The social media craze has emerged once again with the KONY 2012 movement (if movement is the right word, I'm more inclined to call it a fad) and the power of social media is once again being analyzed as part of a radical change in the international discourse. I am not planning on weighing in on the benefits/problems with KONY 2012 and Invisible Children; rather, I am interested in the phenomenon of social media itself. Tentatively, I hope to explore the possibility of harmful effects that social media can have in international politics. I also hope to elucidate on the limits of social media and how it should not be viewed as part of a revolutionary change in how international relations work. (I'm also going to try to keep it semi-short since I do have a tendency to ramble)

Aristotle described democracy as the rule of the many over the few (paraphrasing of course, he considered it the rule of the poor in Politics, but the Occupy movement maintains that the many and the poor are the same thing). This of course leads to the tyranny of the majority which we all can agree is not a good thing; nobody wants to be on the receiving end of a majority decision that is not in their favour. This phenomenon can be seen to be emerging with the social media craze. The KONY movement is based around the idea that if enough people become knowledgeable (if they undergo a 'consciousness raising' in good ol' Marxist terminology) they will be able to pressure their governments to take action. While this may seem noble on the surface, the undercurrents of it are less pleasant. It could turn into a slippery slope whereby the populace at large could potentially pressure a government to take action in the international system that is unwise and quite dangerous. 

The debate about KONY is bringing this to the forefront. Invisible Children is for military intervention which would be: (1) very difficult to do; (2) imprudent because it violates sovereign borders and; (3) unwise in the KONY situation because he uses child soldiers and military intervention would inevitably lead to the deaths of children. 

In the Arab Spring situation Libya was doable (as well as within the national interest of France, Britain, and the US so they probably would have gone in regardless of how many people tweeted about it). Syria is something else though. Setting aside the argument about the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which was touched on in another blog post, it would be much more difficult and much more dangerous given that Syria is in a geo-political powder-keg. The possible power of social media (and the way that its effects are being theorized) could inject instability into the international system at the cost of governments being able to coherently follow foreign policy objectives.

           

With the possible detrimental effects of social media out of the way it is time to move onto its limits. Personally, I am a critic of social media in most of its forms (yes I have a Facebook account but I do not post too much and it is a nice way to keep in touch with overseas friends) and am critical about its implications in the international system.

Libya and Egypt saw a surge of tweets (and blog posts, and fb shares, and whatever forms of social media there are. Also, it was curious to see the marked absence of Tunisia compared to the other North African nations since that is where the Arab Spring started) at the beginning but as the NATO intervention of Libya dragged on social media attention began to wane. Syria went through this phenomenon even faster. I watched an Al Jazeera program before school one morning and they showed the statistics about how long it took for Syria to be tweeted less about than Hollywood personalities, it was an embarrassingly short time (from what I recall it was around about a month, possibly a little bit less, do not quote me on that though – I will do a search to find out though). It just shows that the West has the attention span of gnats and unless something happens quickly and decisively we will quickly go back to our lives (there are some good psychological studies about this phenomenon and I suggest if you have the time looking at some of them). 

I predict that KONY 2012 will suffer a similar fate. The longer this drags on and the less that is done about (less as in nothing spectacular will happen to nab him but there might be some diplomatic processes that begin between nations concerned) the more people will turn their attention to more immediate things, whether that is another cause in the Global South or what George Clooney is doing. The problem with social media is that it does not lead to action no matter how many people like a post, share a video, or check what is trending on twitter.

So I am at 900 words and would like to go on, to further delve into these musings on social media but if I did I'd slide down my own slick slope and end up writing a research paper. With that in mind I am going to cut it off there and try to make some coherent concluding comments and sum up my most basic thoughts on social media's place in the international system. 

First, it could create the impetus or a foundation from which the majority could overtake events and force the hand of government, or at least cause the hand to shift slightly in a direction that is not prudent. The entire point of the KONY 2012 movement is to get people, and governments, to take action, which is a complicated process and rather divisive idea. Second, social media has its limits. The 'social media revolution' in the Arab world was not a 'social media revolution’; it was an Arab Revolution against despotic rule. While social media played a part it would have happened at some point regardless and revolutions have historically had media outlets (the Mexican Revolution had pamphlets and La Cucaracha, which was a musical way of spreading the revolutionary method). Furthermore, the West has a less than long attention span and if we do not get our way quickly then our interest wanes precipitously. 

These musings are not definitive statements; the are exactly that 'musings'. I do think, however, that we need to critically think about the discourse surrounding social media and its place in the international political system. We should be wary about what it can do and cannot do and the fact that it is unregulated. Of course this is just my view and I am far from a fan of bottom-up democracy (I am a self-described realist with post-modern flair) and believe that the social media craze will not have the optimists' projected effects. This is all open for debate though and anything criticisms are welcome; they will help me sharpen my arguments and expand my ideas with regard to this phenomenon    

Students in Action Win Marks Transition from Community College to World Class University

By Kit Sauder

________________________________________________________________________________

The recent students union election was the first truly contested election in the previous five years. Pitting the old guard of Students4Students against a newly minted slate, Students in Action. The differences between the two organizations were marked and in this writer’s opinion signify not just long overdue change in the running of student affairs at UBCO but a shift in the culture of this campus.

When UBCO was founded in 2005, it was not a newly minted institution, but instead had inherited the legacy of Okanagan University College. OUC, although by no means a disreputable institution was for all intents and purposes a teaching college, what in the United States is referred to as Community College. This institution transformed, overnight it seems, into a campus of the province’s most prestigious university. And although we managed to nab many of the choice professors from the campus before the transition, and bring in many new ones through aggressive headhunting the transformation of this college into a university worthy of global recognition took time.

UBCO has under the leadership of Stephen Toope and Doug Owram embarked on a campaign to focus on undergraduate education of the highest level. The slow building of a university infrastructure has grown almost as rapidly as the influx of students and the erection of buildings. One of the most significant differences between the initial years at UBCO and the current cadre of students is that we are far more diverse than ever before, no longer is this a campus that represents the largely white, largely Christian identity of rural BC.

This diversity is what was represented by Students in Action, their slate of 22 members boasted nationalities from 18 countries. This cultural diversity, and the tenacity that it takes for a student to travel overseas was showcased by members of the campaign. One of the significant factors in activating voting on this campus was the involvement of this slate in so many campus activities through campus life, student societies, and charity work.

The Students in Action win wasn’t just a throwing out of S4S, who by and large were generally Caucasian and raised in Canada, but also about the student body recognizing itself in its leadership. Although many have bemoaned the fact that the parties might not be as good, and Students in Action will be lucky to find a corporate affiliation as awesome as Red Bull, the real story to take away from this win, is that having grown as a campus we are now recognizing leadership that reflects our now incredibly diverse culture.

For those S4S supporters who are bemoaning the loss of ‘your’ team, remember all of the half hearted appeals to community that you espoused, and the scattered and largely ineffective ‘political action’ campaigns you initiated to the begrudging recognition of most of campus. This change, is a change to a more worldly, more representative group of students for this campus. If we’re lucky, they’ll respect the good in the legacy you left them, and build a better future for this campus.

With hesitation, I look forward to seeing what a group of students that truly represents the diversity of this campus can do and hope that everyone here realizes that this should be praised as a transition point from what we were into what we can become.

A Place of Mind? On The Student Union Election 2012

The last few years have witnessed extremely quiet student elections. It has been refreshing, after eight years, to see an election with two strong slates running against each other. More so, to see students actually lining up to vote demonstrates a student demographic with opinions on the future of their Students Union.

Here are a few of our thoughts on the election. Read it, comment, criticise, and hold the Students Union accountable. We can promise that we will keep an eye on them, as well.

UBCO students were, for the first time in a very long time, excited about the campaigns. Many were, and still are, tired of the problems that have been associated with the current Student’s Union and want change, while others were interested in maintaining and strengthening the status quo. The school has been plastered in posters, overrun with campaigning candidates (and dogs) and buttons, all screaming for your vote.

The voter turnout has been at an all-time high. However, despite all the excitement surrounding the campaigns, there are still those who feel apathetic about the hoopla, perhaps feeling that the two parties are too similar or others viewing the election as a popularity contest. As encouraging as it is to see thousands of students participating in the democratic process, hearing first year students in line to vote say they’re voting because someone gave them candy is disheartening. Hearing other students voting because they got free coffee is just sad (and yes, coffee is too expensive on campus). However, listening to many people voting on specific causes, based on informed decision, has made us optimistic for the future of UBCO.

Critical thinking

A university is supposed to encourage and foster critical thinking and learning. UBCO is even supposed to be “a place of mind.” Perhaps that doesn’t sink in until third year for some voting students, perhaps never for others. More so, lack of critical thinking apparently goes for some candidates as well. S4S has still not been able to explain what they mean with ombudsperson (where does the neutrality part come in?). When asked by the OPINION, members of S4S had not heard anything about an ombudsperson (no name calling). On the other side, its been hard for some students to understand Students in Action’s points, other than that they want change, and “they want it now.”

The Election Process

The election process at UBCO has been plagued for years with questions of its legitimacy. The current policies hardly create an environment for accountability, fairness and participation. Both sides campaigned in the line up for then voting booth and both campaigns followed first years’ to the line up and too many were more concerned with bashing the other side, than actually talking student politics. Students in Action told the OPINION that “we believe it should not be campaigning during voting day. Then we would not have an issue with campaigning in line.”

Questions have been raised about the policies banning anything resembling “pre-campaigning.” Limiting the ability of the student population to engage in discourse regarding student politics, all year around, promotes a repressive political atmosphere. The slate system itself restricts the ability of independent candidates to participate in student politics, as they are severely limited in terms of funding and campaigning abilities. Considering these policies, electoral reform may be necessary to ensure the integrity of the Student’s Union.

We hope, but are not trustful, in that Students in Action will re-write the election policies, prohibit campaigning around the voting area, stop campaigning on voting days and facilitate a town-hall debate, where students can challenge their representatives in a mature manner. Let us lead by example. Let us, at least, try to pretend this is a serous matter. Seeing the turnout this year, there is no doubt that the general student population take the election serious. Hopefully, students will continue to debate Student Union issues, student politics, gym fees and the future of The Well. A continuous political climate of discussion, accountability and debate is, in fact, vital for the future of student’s well being at UBCO.

Although it is encouraging to see the excitement throughout the school, it is unnecessary that some people are taking the campaign too far. The tearing down and vandalism of posters has been childish, as has the amounts of slander and backhanded comments about one side or the other. The use of “bribes” – whether it was candy, branded drinks, or puppy love has no place in an election and in a governmental election, this could have been thoroughly illegal. In some ways the campaign has become too aggressive in the calling out of students, and the attempts to sway votes outside voting booth. For many, waiting in line to vote was like walking through a gauntlet, and turned some away from voting. Elections do not have to be spiteful, dirty, or tear the school apart.

Did we vote? Yes, of course (with an annoyed undertone and a feeling of relief that we can now walk from the UNC to the library in peace). However, we will miss the free candy and coffee, and the puppy. (Should someone call PETA? Or are we okay with using animals for political purposes?)

We get it. You are nervous. You want all your friends to vote for you. In fact, you are willing to go pretty far to get elected. We get it. However, running after first year students and following them into the line up, followed by a promise to throw cool parties is not really that cool. In fact, if all of the candidates took this seriously enough to let students make up their own mind, to inform themselves through debate and discussion, we are sure the “coolest” slate would still win. Don’t underestimate students.

As students of political science, it has been exciting to follow the campaign days and watch people getting so involved on campus. In the end, Students in Action won. We congratulate them and S4S for eight years of committed service. Students wanted change; they wanted action. Hopefully, they will get to see the action they voted for.

We are at your disposal as election observers next year. We’ll even throw in a debate.

Yours truly,

PSSA Executive

Please comment and debate on the comment field below. 

My Final Word On Kony 2012

By Sol O'Rielly
_____________________________________________________________________________


I’ve spent a good part of a day and night arguing about Kony 2012. I love arguing, it’s one of the reasons why I’m going into politics and law. But, it can be exhausting. As such I thought I’d just post my thoughts in one easy accessible place, so I posted it on my blog, and the PSSA people have been talking about no one writing anything for theirs so I thought I’d be a gentleman and share this.


We’re all PoliSci, IR, or as in my case PPE students, so I’m willing to bet most of us know of the situation. For those who may not, here’s a quickish summary. In 1986 in the central African state of Uganda, a man named Joseph Kony formed a rebel group called the Lord’s Resistance Army. This group wanted to form a government and laws as set down by the Ten Commandments. The LRA promptly proceeded to ignore the whole ‘Thou shalt not kill’ aspect of said laws. But that’s not the worse part, the LRA has a policy of abducting children and turning them into soldiers or sex slaves depending on their gender. they’ve also spread from Uganda to The Congo and other countries in Central Africa. These practices led the International Criminal Court to make Kony their first indictment post founding, as an aside as an aspiring human rights lawyer anything involving the ICC has me wanting to be involved at least superficially. Now I fully admit that this a massively simplified version of events, the Ugandan government is far from innocent for one thing.


Fastforwording to March 2012, a charity organization known as the Invisible Children, which was founded years earlier to showcase this conflict, launched it’s newest promotional campaign. A couple of days ago Invisible Children published a 30 minute video titled Kony 2012, and today as of this writing it has 19,986,084 views! The video explains who Kony is and what he has done, though it honestly doesn’t go more in-depth than I did really. It’s a noted experiment in social media encouraging people to share the video and on the night of April 20th, poster your local city. This is to try to create pressure on the governments of the world, with an US focused bent, to help the Ugandan government and arrest Kony.

Invisible Children has since received some criticism about some financial irregularities about how much money actually goes to the cause vs salaries, travel costs etc. Also they’ve come under fire a bit for supporting the Ugandan military and militias, which aren’t that much better than the Lord’s Resistance Army in some cases, and being in favour of military intervention. There are some claims that the LRA has virtually abandoned North Uganda, where IC is focused. The organization has posted a response to the critiques, which I’d take with a grain of salt. However, it’s better than mos responses we see come from companies or governments under fire, so kudos to them for that.


Now as to the purpose of this blog post. I view on the whole this is this: you can support the Kony 2012 movement, without supporting Invisible Children. Make you’re own posters rather than buying the package advertised by the charity, write your MP or government representative. There are plenty of ways to take part, no matter what your view on the charity behind it. As an aspiring human rights lawyer, this cause appeals to me in many buts besides that, I believe we all have a responsibility to the world and others, even if you don’t agree with that point people should take part because it’s the right thing to do. At the very least they’re bringing this to light and even people my Mother’s age who’d never heard of Joseph Kony before are learning about it. Knowledge is power after all, will free to educate yourself on the issue whole too.


Now as Osama, Gaddafi, and others have proven over recent years the strategy of cutting the head off of the snake isn’t as effective as we like to believe. If Kony is captured or killed that just the first step in address the problems in Uganda, and I hope people will stick around not just go ‘Ok, jobs done”. There will be forces left over, the kids will need a lot of help, physically, mentally and socially. As has been mentioned the current Ugandan government has its issues, with reports of looting, rape and abductions of their own, and there has been the “Death penalty for Homosexuality” bill. However, in the latter case the government caved to international pressure, at least temporarily, but it shows they’re probably more amiable to negotiation than the Lord’s Resistance Army. As I’ve said a few times to people, sometimes its about helping the lesser evil. It’ll be a long journey, but with help and their own will power and ability Uganda will be able to make it.


- Sol O'Rielly 


Update 
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/12/invisible-children-releases-new-video-in-response-to-kony-2012-criticism/

Why Europe needs to play a bigger role in the international game

The twentieth century and so far the beginning of the twenty first century has been one of tepid European internationalism. The immediate aftermath of World War Two does provide some justification for the withdrawal of Europe from the international arena for a time, after all it was that cantankerous peninsula that brought us two world wars and fascism/Nazism. Furthermore, the European purse strings were short to say the least, as well as being completely controlled by Uncle Sam. After those nations that were embroilers of conflict finished their time-out only two began to flex their muscles; France and Britain. Of course, neither was altruistic when they decided to embark on their adventure in Suez. The slap by Eisenhower for their misdeeds made France and Britain, which essentially were the only two European states that were willing to exert muscle, retreat from the Middle East and the later process of decolonization made them further contract from the international stage. While it is fair to say that this is a bit of a caricature it does hold a kernel of truth, a very important truth. Europe was not, and largely is still not, willing to work within its sphere of influence. The Yugoslav S crisis is a prime example and so are other myriad issues in the area. This Cold War passivity has become a European culture. They are more than willing to criticize and condemn US actions but when push comes to shove they're hiding under the bed (read UN).

The recent unrest in the Middle East, revolutionary unrest in some instances although the process seems to have ground to a halt in Egypt, highlights a return of history. The intervention in Libya was pursued vehemently by England and France (the US provided support and capability but was not the primary actor), the two traditional European interlopers into this neck of the world. The rest of Europe were mostly spectators (of course they were involved but not nearly to the extent that they could have been or should have been). This time around, however, the motives urging France and Britain on are slightly more pristine, although of course not completely oil and history still have a large role to play in explaining their gung-ho attitude towards intervention. The Libyan intervention seems to point to European's bearing their share of the international burden as an exception, rather than the new norm.

Now, to the main point of this polemic (I'll call it what it is); why should Europe play a bigger role in international affairs? First and foremost is energy politics and security. Not to sugar-coat it, Europe needs oil and the Middle East, North Africa to a lesser extent has it but they are the conduit, specifically Egypt, has it. While the Euro-zone may tout itself as 'green,' only Germany has any real bragging rights, the rest don't have the will or capital to inject into alternative energy sources. After all, how will countries like Greece, Poland, Slovakia, and Bulgaria manage the transition? This means that they have a tangible interest in the region and should bear some of the responsibility for achieving their own interests. Second, they've been getting a free ride for way too long. Europe is made up of some of the world's richest countries and it's high-time that the Wehrmacht (or the Bundeswehr depending on which term you find more enjoyable) get back into action, just for responsible reasons this time around. Third, France and Britain aside, the rest of Europe has not made large ripples in the international pond but will go all-out in criticizing the way the US throws its stones. This is an exercise in hypocrisy because, unlike China, they support many of the goals that the US wants to achieve but do not play a large role in actually making those goals possible. 

Europe needs to get off its moral high-horse and do something. For them to be taken seriously as an international force they first need to be an international force, not just a fancy bank (which is not doing so hot) and now is the time to do it with Iran being a bit of a loose cannon (both literal and metaphorical) in international waters. The US cannot continue being the crusader of western values (whether those values are good or bad are besides the point) and the cut in the defence budget is proving this point. The epoch of spheres of influence is back and Europe should flex its muscles in the Africa because that will be a blind spot in the new, leaner, US security and strategic arrangement. If Europe doesn't step up to the plate and become a slugger in the international arena it should refrain from crying out with moral judgements.

Syria: Nothing More Than a Libyan Afterthought

The recent intervention in Libya may have had far reaching effects in combating future human rights violations against civilian populations. Indeed, with little headway gained in stopping President Bashar al-Assad’s crackdowns in Syria, civilians of this Middle Eastern nation can vouch for Libya’s role in transforming how the international community approaches human rights infractions.

The New Year has brought about little change in Syria. Imposed sanctions by the Arab League and Western states have failed in their initial goals of crippling President Bashar al-Assad’s regime’s ability to carry out violent crackdowns on its own civilians. The Syrian crisis has been further complicated with the advent of military deserters in whom President Assad claims to have been responsible for the recent violence within the Middle Eastern state.  As such, al-Assad continues to blame crackdowns on these “terrorist cells.”  Further accusations have also been directed towards Western states, claiming the West responsible for Syria’s current destabilization. The Arab League is also not spared in Assad’s rhetorical salvoes.  Assad has emphasized that the League is now nothing more than a regional pawn of Western interests. 

Assad’s crosshairs come in response to the Arab League’s observer mission that concluded that the Syrian crisis was a “humanitarian disaster.”  And while the UN quoted another 400 dead since the observer mission began, multilateral mandated action remains off the table.

 

International paralysis

Syria’s principal undoing may have been the intervention that lead to the liberation of colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya. Without Benghazi in rebel hands, intervention by Western forces may not have played out as it did.  Syria’s rebellion is in its early stages, concentrating on protest rather than a full-blown military challenge to Assad’s government.  Ironically, Libyan precedent dictates that further bloodshed may be the Syrian population’s only hope for international intervention. Without a rebel stronghold in Syria, the rebels are unable to claim belligerency status under international law. As a result, mandated action seems unlikely to occur.

The Libyan intervention further informs the international paralysis in the United Nations Security Council concerning Syria. This is exemplified by the Russian and Chinese Veto of UN sanctions on Syria, and the abstention by Brazil, India and South Africa. Thanks to the American wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Libyan intervention, BRICS (Brazil, China, India, Russia, India, South Africa) nations see Syria as another scenario in which Western states realized interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention. Western assets in Libya were substantial, ranging from oil and gas deals to arms contracts.  Libya was the ideal case of interests lining up with circumstance for the West, an illusion easy for BRICS nations to see through.

As a result, NATO actions in Libya have made multilateral actions mandated by the UN less likely to occur. More importantly, it could be argued that the Libyan intervention has further undermined the United Nations as a forum for international peace. Unfortunately, this bodes ill for Syria, as the Syrian population appears to be the chessboard on which larger, more powerful nations are jockeying and counterweighing one another. 

It is unclear whether or not we are witnessing the BRICS nations emerging as a powerful counterweight to the Western Bloc. However, as BRICS nations are generally in favor of non-intervention, the ability for the world to respond to legitimate large-scale humanitarian infractions could be affected. In a sense, Libya was a botch, not a success. Or rather, perhaps it could be viewed as too successful. In any regard, there are winners and losers, and Syria appears to be the first of the latter. 

Responsibility to protect?

The Syrian crisis begs a further question: what exactly is the role of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) after Libya?  Or rather, how has Libya potentially redefined R2P? R2P was a released report by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), established after the failure of states to intervene during the Rwandan genocide. R2P became the legal response to the slogan “Never Again.”  Yet R2P became a delicate piece of international legality. Even before the Libyan intervention, certain states have accused the UN to be selective in R2P’s implementation, while others have gone so far as to declare it a contemporary form of imperialism.

In Libya, R2P was questioned as Western means of obtaining a UN mandated no-fly zone, in which Western states were able to realize long held interests in the North African state.  With this precedent set in Libya, it was easy for BRICS nations to oppose any resolution pertaining to Syrian intervention.

Syria has become evidence of R2P’s breakdown. UN estimates have placed the civilian death toll in Syria at 5,000 since crackdowns began last March. Still, very little has been done. International paralysis concerning Syria has left bilateral actions as the only measure in counterweighing the endemic violence against civilians in Syria.  As a result, economic sanctions have become the primary utensil of Western states. 

Economic sanctions: a self-defeating formula

As Syria’s struggle increasingly resembles a civil war, action is being called for the world over. But action taken for the sake of action is not only imprudent, but also unethical considering the consequences. Economic sanctions have become redundant and relatively ineffectual in curbing human rights violations. Sanctions, according to international legal theorist Joy Gordon have the tendency to squeeze the bottom strata’s of society. Economic sanctions trickle down and affect the poorest people in sanctioned nations, usually those who are expressing their dissatisfaction with the current regime. It is only when the screams are loud enough to be heard, does policy slowly begin to alter.

Economic sanctions are a relatively primitive form of coercion in search of policy or regime change. Thanks to the non-discriminatory nature of sanctions, affecting particular demographics is difficult. As a result, sanctions target the people and not their governments. It is unlikely that sanctions from the Arab League, Turkey, and several Western states will achieve their desired effects of halting the violence in Syria. In fact, recent reports confirming further civilian casualties have confirmed this hypothesis.

Dire straits

In view of the evolution and trajectory of al-Assad’s brutality towards his own people, it seems as though intervention is the only means of helping Syria’s civilian population.  Sanctions have been unable to achieve their set goals of stopping crackdowns. The Arab League’s suspension of Damascus and its observer mission to Syria were a failure in posturing a hard stand against al-Assad. Western and Arab states have their hands tied, having exhausted all other avenues regarding the human rights infractions by al-Assad in Syria. It is in this context that Libya becomes Syria’s afterthought, doomed to its own fate.   

The only viable intervention measures on the table were back in November 2011, when Mohammad Riad Shakfa, Syria’s Muslim Brotherhood leader, declared that opposition forces in Syria would welcome Turkish intervention. Turkey was seen as neutral state in the Middle East, holding strong ties with Europe while not a hostage of its interests.  Unfortunate for Syria, Turkish intervention was unable to occur thanks to rising Kurdish activity stirring on its southern borders.  Instead, the Turkish government joined the position of imposing economic sanctions.

Of further consequence to the Syrian civilian population may be the shift of Western attention to Iran. With the Iranian government in a standoff against the United States, Syria’s prospects for a stable future are in dire straits. Indeed, the world’s preoccupation with Iran may allow the Syrian situation to permeate and, perhaps, even grow worse. With the future of R2P in question and internationally mandated intervention unlikely to occur, the Syrian tragedy appears to be on an extended collision course with no foreseeable end in sight. 

M

Wealth Disparities

In a country as rich as ours its simply ridiculous that such a high number of our population lives in poverty, that double income families are using food banks on a regular basis, that people are living paycheque to paycheque, and that the 100 highest paid CEO’s in Canada have made more money thus far this year than an average Canadian worker will make in a year.

Normal people have seen that their paycheques are not as reaching as far as it used to, that basics like housing and food prices have increased; yet the wage of a working person has not. Still, the CEO’s and the shareholders seem to be making a profit getting outrageous holiday bonuses and spending time at events such as hockey games, events they write off as business meetings. People see these problems, but, like most things in society, people have taken this arrangement for granted, is seems like. The slowly shrinking middleclass has their consumerist-driven lifestyle of the latest and greatest, which is being sustained by credit. They are slowly making a prison for themselves. The working poor really have no disposable income, and when they do attain it, it is quickly dwindled away. They work to survive.

It is not radical that people should be asking questions about how the rich keep getting richer, or why the middle class is disappearing. What is radical is how little the government has been listening to their constituency; to those who are, by a large majority, made up of the middle and lower classes. Instead of addressing the issues of the huge wealth disparity that has emerged in the country, there has been a denial of sorts. The corporations sponsor the parties, who will be elected, and once elected and into office, no one wants to have to leave. This creates a dependency. The media, who often are owned by large corporations, adds an almost farcical tinge to this. The calls for reform are labeled as difficult and the people calling for change are hippies, dreamers, homeless, liberals, or socialists. The Occupy Movement is a good start for initiating a debate on this problem, but there needs to be more attention drawn to this issue.

http://www.policyalternatives.ca/

http://occupywallst.org/