President Obama delivered a speech about the war in Afghanistan that was published on December 1st 2009; a direction to deploy 30,000 US troops early in the new year. In his bid for the presidency he was clear that he favored getting American troops out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. This speech was contradictory to that proposed policy. The question therefore is whether the current US policy is oriented towards satisfying Afghan interests or US domestic political opinion?
Although he delivered the speech at West Point, a military academy which will see members of their ranks deployed as a result of this announcement, his speech suggests the interests of American domestic political opinion is to be served, not a noble interest of the Afghan population.
There are numerous aspects of Obama’s speech to support this perspective.
In his opening paragraph he outlines his desire to speak of the nature of the US commitment, the scope and strategy of his administration to bring the war to a successful conclusion. From the outset he declines to speak or frame his comments around the issue of Afghanistan, the problems they face, the successes this far to assist the people of Afghanistan.
Although Afghanistan has had a troubled history with various invaders, it is so lacking in unity it is arguably better defined as a territorial state rather than a nation. Obama speaks of al Qaeda and the years of Soviet occupation having left the country in turmoil. Al Qaeda and the Soviet Union are in fact 2 of America’s greatest enemies and if it weren’t for that fact, the US wouldn’t be very much interested in the state of Afghanistan or its people. To strengthen this fact, he clearly states the reason America fought in the first place as retaliation to the 9/11 attacks on America by al Qaeda.
To calm the people in America (the domestic political opinion) he sugar coats the situation in Afghanistan pointing out that US intervention has lead to a provisional government being established, international security force being established. He justifies the deployment of the 30,000 troops by arguing about the success the US has had in Iraq. In other words he tells the American people, you voted for me because I want to get out of war but we are Americans and we can win this thing. Later in the speech however, he contradicts his enthusiasm for the war in Iraq, noting he voted against it and and that the 8 year involvement involves enormous costs financially and at home politically.
Ironically what follows is the admission that things have been moving backwards in Afghanistan. Assuming there is no imminent threat of a government overthrow, he admits the Taliban is gaining momentum.
Later in the speech he changes directions and argues Afghanistan is the epicenter of a violent extreme and that new attacks are being plotted as he speaks.
He argues the troop deployment is required to protect the security of America and yet provided for troop withdrawal. He almost apologizes to the West Point cadets arguing that he wasn’t presented with a plan to deploy further troops before 2010.
Obama most directly states the troop deployment is for American interest and not to help Afghanistan when he states, “If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake… I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow!”
The president rightly noted Americans concern over that cost of war and the reality of their own pockets in the recession and argues this is not just an American war, that other countries also have a serious stake in the outcome. To calm these American concerns of the cost he noted that in the future the US will not be giving blank cheques, rather the money goes to those who combat corruption.
He repeatedly outlines the steps that will be pursued to overthrow al Qaeda. The steps are to target insurgency, train security forces, transfer responsibility to Afghans (so the US can get out, in other words).
Obama walks a tight rope on the troop deployment. He knows al Qaeda needs to be stopped, he knows Americans popularly want out of Iraq and Afghanistan and he tries to do both in the speech.
It is a confusing, contradictory speech and if he had delivered speeches like this during his campaign, he may not have been commander in chief today.
However, the speech is designed to suit American domestic political policy, and not for the betterment of Afghanistan.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
UN hunger summit slammed as pointless
I’ve just finished a huge family dinner…as usual and everyone is full. Of course there was dessert too! Talk about ruin your appetite, I open the paper and come across an article which reminds me that a good portion of the world is starving.
The Ottawa Citizen, November 17, 2009 ran a small article referring to the UN’s apparent inability to set up proper funding and goals regarding when they plan to do something about the billion people currently affected by hunger. While the document they drew up says, “urgent action,” no particular conditions have been set.
How many meetings have been held and yet so little be accomplished to solve the problem of world hunger? Why more meetings? Get some food to those people! With new technology, new crops, and the amount of waste in the world, there is no excuse. So why do governments do so little? I think there are many reasons. First, individuals are overwhelmed, there are so many in need that they don’t know what to do. Some give to food banks, or the Red Cross or sponsor a child but that is all individuals can do. Governments have the resources but they fear that part of society who want the tax money spent at home won’t vote them back in power. Then there is the problem of corruption in some of the countries needing the food. But id you ask me, these excuses aren’t sufficient to justify the amount of world hunger in the year 2009!
The Ottawa Citizen, November 17, 2009 ran a small article referring to the UN’s apparent inability to set up proper funding and goals regarding when they plan to do something about the billion people currently affected by hunger. While the document they drew up says, “urgent action,” no particular conditions have been set.
How many meetings have been held and yet so little be accomplished to solve the problem of world hunger? Why more meetings? Get some food to those people! With new technology, new crops, and the amount of waste in the world, there is no excuse. So why do governments do so little? I think there are many reasons. First, individuals are overwhelmed, there are so many in need that they don’t know what to do. Some give to food banks, or the Red Cross or sponsor a child but that is all individuals can do. Governments have the resources but they fear that part of society who want the tax money spent at home won’t vote them back in power. Then there is the problem of corruption in some of the countries needing the food. But id you ask me, these excuses aren’t sufficient to justify the amount of world hunger in the year 2009!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
"Accused 9/11 plotters to be tried blocks from ground zero"
The Ottawa Citizen ran an article on November 14, 2009 captioned, “Accused 9/11 plotters to be tried blocks from ground zero.” In that article it states the US attorney general announced on Friday that Khalid Sherikh Mohammed who confessed to being the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centers in NYC will be tried in a federal court in New York City. Khalid Mohammed has been held in Guantanamo Bay and was expected to be previously tried by a military court. The Attorney General said he had, “elected to forgo military trials,” because he was confident of a, “successful outcome.” He also noted the families of those killed in the 9/11 attacks, “deserve the opportunity to see the perpetrators held accountable.”
Although human rights groups are pleased with the decision, others feel the NY trials make the city a target for more terrorism. Others feel the rights granted in federal court might result in Mohammed’s release because of the brutal interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay.
It is my opinion that the US Attorney General didn’t have much of an option in making his decision at all. President Barack Obama promised in his presidential campaign to close Guantanamo Bay. In order to do that, he needs to deal with the prisoners being held there, about 215 detainees.
The world will be watching this trial. It will be a measure of many things including Barack Obama’s presidency. Human right’s activists will applaud this more but I have no doubt that Obama will suffer backlash from a big part of America if for any reason Mohammed is released. Similarly, his presidency may also take a negative turn if New York does suffer another terrorist attack because Mohammed is on trial there. There is no doubt that if terrorists could pull off another attack on NYC especially during the trial.
Legal experts and democratic countries will watch to see if someone who has been detained for years without a trial, who suffered brutal interrogation can be fairly tried by a jury in the location where the greatest recent American disaster occurred. This will be a world spectacle.
The Citizen article raises another concern about the US’s ability to give a fair judgment in other than a military setting because of a comment from the pentagon and justice department officials who said privately, “…even in the unlikely case of an acquittal, other options would enable authorities to avoid releasing the defendant into the general US population.”
This makes me wonder, has Mohammed gone insane because of isolation at Guantanamo Bay, and is the idea of trying him at all just a sham? Or, is this like the last article I blogged about, a matter where rendition might solve the problem of the wrong verdict resulted.
Although I fully understand and in fact support the feelings of Americans who want the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack to be held accountable for the disaster, it is hard to hold the image of the US law enforcement up as a model of democratic enlightenment.
A year and a little more into Obama’s presidency, I think these cases will start to shape the story of the man which will go down in history more than Obama’s charismatic rise to the office of President.
Although human rights groups are pleased with the decision, others feel the NY trials make the city a target for more terrorism. Others feel the rights granted in federal court might result in Mohammed’s release because of the brutal interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo Bay.
It is my opinion that the US Attorney General didn’t have much of an option in making his decision at all. President Barack Obama promised in his presidential campaign to close Guantanamo Bay. In order to do that, he needs to deal with the prisoners being held there, about 215 detainees.
The world will be watching this trial. It will be a measure of many things including Barack Obama’s presidency. Human right’s activists will applaud this more but I have no doubt that Obama will suffer backlash from a big part of America if for any reason Mohammed is released. Similarly, his presidency may also take a negative turn if New York does suffer another terrorist attack because Mohammed is on trial there. There is no doubt that if terrorists could pull off another attack on NYC especially during the trial.
Legal experts and democratic countries will watch to see if someone who has been detained for years without a trial, who suffered brutal interrogation can be fairly tried by a jury in the location where the greatest recent American disaster occurred. This will be a world spectacle.
The Citizen article raises another concern about the US’s ability to give a fair judgment in other than a military setting because of a comment from the pentagon and justice department officials who said privately, “…even in the unlikely case of an acquittal, other options would enable authorities to avoid releasing the defendant into the general US population.”
This makes me wonder, has Mohammed gone insane because of isolation at Guantanamo Bay, and is the idea of trying him at all just a sham? Or, is this like the last article I blogged about, a matter where rendition might solve the problem of the wrong verdict resulted.
Although I fully understand and in fact support the feelings of Americans who want the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack to be held accountable for the disaster, it is hard to hold the image of the US law enforcement up as a model of democratic enlightenment.
A year and a little more into Obama’s presidency, I think these cases will start to shape the story of the man which will go down in history more than Obama’s charismatic rise to the office of President.
Monday, November 9, 2009
"Italy sentances former CIA agents in rendition case"
On Thursday November 5, 2009 the Ottawa Citizen reported that a count in Italy sentenced 23 former CIA agents from the USA to 8 years in prison. They were convicted for their role in abducting an Egyptian terror suspect, Abu Omar also known as Osama Mustapha Hassan from a street in Milan, Italy in 2003. He as then taken to a US air force base in Italy via Germany and was sent to Cairo.
The convicted CIA agents were not in Italy and successive Italian governments refuse to ask for their extradition.
This confrontation was the first in the world for abduction by CIA agents of a terror suspect and subsequent sending of that suspect to a foreign country, which is believed to torture such persons.
The case brings a few thoughts to mind. First, this case is the first of its kind and there therefore may be other cases of the sort in the future. However, it is more likely in my view that such cases will have practical effectiveness (namely the country that tries the case would seek extradition) if that country isn’t as close a friend as Italy is to the USA. Secondly, this case does speak to independence of the judiciary in Italy because the decision of the count was clearly at odds with the political will of the Italian government. Successive Italian governments have refused to seek extradition of the US agents.
The successive view of Italian governments make it clear that their relationship with the USA is in some instance more important than rights or fairness from their judiciary’s perspective. Any individual rights of one person, particularly a suspect terrorist will not top the governments long standing protective relationship with a world power.
My third thought is how prevalent is the practice of rendition? Why or how does the USA justify the practice given that it is a country, which attempts to democratize other countries and implement the rule of law in other countries. How can the USA go and challenge other countries on these issues? How many other countries are doing similar renditions?
Ordinary citizens have no idea of what our governments are up to. This sounds like a Tom Cruise movie, something fascinating but not real. Obviously it is only too real and activities such as there are, are done with the consent of other nations supposedly for the “political good” of all.
The convicted CIA agents were not in Italy and successive Italian governments refuse to ask for their extradition.
This confrontation was the first in the world for abduction by CIA agents of a terror suspect and subsequent sending of that suspect to a foreign country, which is believed to torture such persons.
The case brings a few thoughts to mind. First, this case is the first of its kind and there therefore may be other cases of the sort in the future. However, it is more likely in my view that such cases will have practical effectiveness (namely the country that tries the case would seek extradition) if that country isn’t as close a friend as Italy is to the USA. Secondly, this case does speak to independence of the judiciary in Italy because the decision of the count was clearly at odds with the political will of the Italian government. Successive Italian governments have refused to seek extradition of the US agents.
The successive view of Italian governments make it clear that their relationship with the USA is in some instance more important than rights or fairness from their judiciary’s perspective. Any individual rights of one person, particularly a suspect terrorist will not top the governments long standing protective relationship with a world power.
My third thought is how prevalent is the practice of rendition? Why or how does the USA justify the practice given that it is a country, which attempts to democratize other countries and implement the rule of law in other countries. How can the USA go and challenge other countries on these issues? How many other countries are doing similar renditions?
Ordinary citizens have no idea of what our governments are up to. This sounds like a Tom Cruise movie, something fascinating but not real. Obviously it is only too real and activities such as there are, are done with the consent of other nations supposedly for the “political good” of all.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
"Breaking the Ice"
As international politics touches icy waters (I mean Canada’s Arctic Policy) things are warming up and not just because of global warming, but because of diplomatic initiatives.
As the Ottawa Citizen article (October 27,2009) “Breaking the Ice” noted, lawyers from the ministries of five Arctic Ocean coastal countries (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, USA) met in September to co-ordinate a proposal for divvying up the arctic seabed.
Coastal states can claim sovereign rights to the seabed beyond the 200 nautical mile mark from the shore if the area is a prolongation of the continental shelf. Negotiations would prevent overlaps between claimants which would need to be resolved by adjudication, negotiation, or otherwise. They could create conflict, as the desire for land has been a source of conflict as old as the world. The land now up for grabs is energy rich seabeds. Let’s hope diplomacy prevails because Canada’s chances in an aggressive conflict over arctic seabed would probably not be successful given out military versus that of the USA and Russia.
Diplomacy is a preferable route for resolving international conflict whenever and wherever possible. A resolution negotiated sooner than later is also in Canada’s interest as the ice packed Northwest Passage is soon to be free sailing and another reason for our sovereign claim melting away.
As the Ottawa Citizen article (October 27,2009) “Breaking the Ice” noted, lawyers from the ministries of five Arctic Ocean coastal countries (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, USA) met in September to co-ordinate a proposal for divvying up the arctic seabed.
Coastal states can claim sovereign rights to the seabed beyond the 200 nautical mile mark from the shore if the area is a prolongation of the continental shelf. Negotiations would prevent overlaps between claimants which would need to be resolved by adjudication, negotiation, or otherwise. They could create conflict, as the desire for land has been a source of conflict as old as the world. The land now up for grabs is energy rich seabeds. Let’s hope diplomacy prevails because Canada’s chances in an aggressive conflict over arctic seabed would probably not be successful given out military versus that of the USA and Russia.
Diplomacy is a preferable route for resolving international conflict whenever and wherever possible. A resolution negotiated sooner than later is also in Canada’s interest as the ice packed Northwest Passage is soon to be free sailing and another reason for our sovereign claim melting away.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority (CATSA)
On October 27, 2009 the Ottawa Citizen ran a story which said the federal agency for airport security felt they were inadequately funded by the government and may be unable to respond to new threats. Currently the Air Travelers’ Security Change, which is a fee passengers pay as they take air flights is supposed to support the CATSA agency’s cost 100%. The debate now is whether airport screening should be paid for by all taxpayers for public safety or if passenger fees should be increased.
In my opinion security of our airports is a concern for all citizens and not simply travelers and therefore should be funded by all taxpayers. This is an example of money matters and funding issues in one country can also have global political implications. Keep in mind if our airport security cannot keep track of emerging threats through investments in entrance screening a bomb loaded or tampered aircraft could land or impact another nation and citizens of any country.
All countries have a role to play in fighting terrorist threats and money matters need to be addressed reasonably with the security of all in mind.
In my opinion security of our airports is a concern for all citizens and not simply travelers and therefore should be funded by all taxpayers. This is an example of money matters and funding issues in one country can also have global political implications. Keep in mind if our airport security cannot keep track of emerging threats through investments in entrance screening a bomb loaded or tampered aircraft could land or impact another nation and citizens of any country.
All countries have a role to play in fighting terrorist threats and money matters need to be addressed reasonably with the security of all in mind.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
International Espionage
Two recent articles in the Ottawa Citizen hint at the world of international politics as a web of intrigue- genuine 007 Bond style espionage and related activity.
The first article which ran on October 27, 2009, “Not her Brother’s Keeper,” tells of Juanita Castro, sister of Cuban presidents, who reveals her employment under the CIA against her brothers in her recent memoir, “Fidel and Raul, My Brothers, the Secret History.” She describes how she helped people persecuted by her brothers’ government to escape. Although she was working against her brothers, she refused to take part in any violence against them or any member of their government.
I do not suspect Juanita Castro was a double agent, or question her motives for going against her brothers, but when payment and benefits are included, one must consider that they may also be accepting benefits from the other side. Espionage can become a very tangled web. Perhaps an even more pressing question is who is spying on out government? Certainly the world of espionage is not a one way street.
On a separate matter of international intrigue we see a different type of tangled web. In the October 29, 2009 issue of the Ottawa Citizen an article ran which links Afghan president’s brother to the CIA of the United States. (“Ahmed Karzai on CIA payroll, report alleges.”)
Although Karzai the half brother of the president is accused of being a prominent opium trafficker and involved in the fraudulent election in the summer, there are claims that he receives payment from the CIA. Although he denies accepting CIA payments some US officials said he operates paramilitary strike forces in conjunction with the CIA. This includes raids on suspected terrorists. He is also alleged to be a go-between between the US and Taliban sympathizers who might change.
The tangled web of international political entanglement is within the US itself. Although the CIA considers Karzai helpful for counter terrorism activities, the US State Department feels this is counter to their aim of building a stronger central government with Afghan support. The article also noted the disconnection with Obama’s administration of targeting corruption.
In the world of international political entanglement, the web of problems and solutions is clearly not always simply in the country where the problem is aimed to be solved. International interconnectivity is everywhere!
The first article which ran on October 27, 2009, “Not her Brother’s Keeper,” tells of Juanita Castro, sister of Cuban presidents, who reveals her employment under the CIA against her brothers in her recent memoir, “Fidel and Raul, My Brothers, the Secret History.” She describes how she helped people persecuted by her brothers’ government to escape. Although she was working against her brothers, she refused to take part in any violence against them or any member of their government.
I do not suspect Juanita Castro was a double agent, or question her motives for going against her brothers, but when payment and benefits are included, one must consider that they may also be accepting benefits from the other side. Espionage can become a very tangled web. Perhaps an even more pressing question is who is spying on out government? Certainly the world of espionage is not a one way street.
On a separate matter of international intrigue we see a different type of tangled web. In the October 29, 2009 issue of the Ottawa Citizen an article ran which links Afghan president’s brother to the CIA of the United States. (“Ahmed Karzai on CIA payroll, report alleges.”)
Although Karzai the half brother of the president is accused of being a prominent opium trafficker and involved in the fraudulent election in the summer, there are claims that he receives payment from the CIA. Although he denies accepting CIA payments some US officials said he operates paramilitary strike forces in conjunction with the CIA. This includes raids on suspected terrorists. He is also alleged to be a go-between between the US and Taliban sympathizers who might change.
The tangled web of international political entanglement is within the US itself. Although the CIA considers Karzai helpful for counter terrorism activities, the US State Department feels this is counter to their aim of building a stronger central government with Afghan support. The article also noted the disconnection with Obama’s administration of targeting corruption.
In the world of international political entanglement, the web of problems and solutions is clearly not always simply in the country where the problem is aimed to be solved. International interconnectivity is everywhere!
Saudi court orders 60 lashes
"Saudi court orders 60 lashes for female journalist” was an article in the Ottawa Citizen October 25, 2009. the article referred to a Saudi court in Riyadh ordering 60 lashes for a female journalist because she worked at a television station that had shown a program where a man talked about having sex with girls. The female reporter had not even worked on that particular show. She had worked on different episodes of the same program. The female journalist, Rozana Al-Yami said the judge sentenced her for having been a part-time employee of the operation which lacked an appropriate operating license and that she was being used as a punishment for all journalists.
Let’s consider why Al-Yami was the appropriate party for this discipline. First of all she had worked on DIFFERENT episodes of the program which had aired the offensive show. Surely others had worked directly on the program. Reason two, she was a part-time employee of the station. The assumption I am making is that this means there were full-time employees who would have had more control over show content. Reason three, she was a woman. Now I think we’ve got something!
For those who would argue that this is an example of clash of cultures as we or at least I express horror over this kind of happening, I would recommend they first receive 60 lashes before arguing the point.
This is no more an example of clash of civilizations or cultures than the dabate over the death penalty in states like Texas. Inhuman is inhumane regardless of the society. Wrong is wrong. Misguided direction is misguided direction regardless of where it occurs.
I would argue the case od Rozana Al-Yami is an example of inequality and failure to uphold human rights done in the name of religion. She was not punished for a crime she engaged in. she was not the most responsible party. She was to serve as an example to others because she was a woman.
The injustice and lack of recognition of her human rights was so glaring Al-Yami said shr did not plan to appeal as she feared she could end up with a harsher sentence.
If a society does not follow the rule of law and people are not punished on a fair basis the society is hardly civilized.
I wanted to suggest that the order for lashes was simply evil and that arguably others within the same society would agree with this sentiment. However I had nothing to back it up. The following day however, the Ottawa Citizen (October 26, 2009) ran an article indicating the Saudi King overturned the ruling. Bravo…good prevailed!
Let’s consider why Al-Yami was the appropriate party for this discipline. First of all she had worked on DIFFERENT episodes of the program which had aired the offensive show. Surely others had worked directly on the program. Reason two, she was a part-time employee of the station. The assumption I am making is that this means there were full-time employees who would have had more control over show content. Reason three, she was a woman. Now I think we’ve got something!
For those who would argue that this is an example of clash of cultures as we or at least I express horror over this kind of happening, I would recommend they first receive 60 lashes before arguing the point.
This is no more an example of clash of civilizations or cultures than the dabate over the death penalty in states like Texas. Inhuman is inhumane regardless of the society. Wrong is wrong. Misguided direction is misguided direction regardless of where it occurs.
I would argue the case od Rozana Al-Yami is an example of inequality and failure to uphold human rights done in the name of religion. She was not punished for a crime she engaged in. she was not the most responsible party. She was to serve as an example to others because she was a woman.
The injustice and lack of recognition of her human rights was so glaring Al-Yami said shr did not plan to appeal as she feared she could end up with a harsher sentence.
If a society does not follow the rule of law and people are not punished on a fair basis the society is hardly civilized.
I wanted to suggest that the order for lashes was simply evil and that arguably others within the same society would agree with this sentiment. However I had nothing to back it up. The following day however, the Ottawa Citizen (October 26, 2009) ran an article indicating the Saudi King overturned the ruling. Bravo…good prevailed!
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Tamil Tigers
Here begins my blog on issues of world politics. Given that I am not an expert on matters of international relations, nor am I yet an expert in world politics, it is essential that I note my reliance on media sources for my commentary. Although I will sift and sort through the information provided in various media outlets I must confess that my perspective regarding the reliability or accuracy of any media piece will possess at least in certain circumstances, a bias of Canada’s political perspective. To make my point the first issue I wish to discuss involves the migrant ship, which was intercepted off of Canada’s west coast last week carrying 76 Sri Lankan men.
The Ottawa Citizen’s article on Sunday, October 25, 2009, “Migrant ship belongs to Tamil Tigers: experts,” expresses the fear from not one but two experts that this ship may be the first of many ships with Tamil Tigers fighters fleeing their homeland following the 25 year civil war in that country which ended in May. Experts have identified the ship as Tamil Tiger owned and operated. Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney said the government would deport anyone found with a criminal background or terrorist background including members of the Tamil Tigers.
My concern is that as soon as we put a label on people we have depersonalized them, or put them in a little box. Once we have packaged them with a label we give ourselves an excuse for not listening to them. The Canadian Tamil Congress in the same article argued all the men were ethnic Tamils fleeing persecution.
Human rights groups as well as Tamil groups are urging broader understanding of the complex political landscape in Sri Lanka. Having followed the Sri Lanka story this past year I have yet to understand the nature of the conflict in that country. Perhaps world politics as seen through the eyes of many, is easier to deal with when we don’t delve into the detail of the conflicts and rather place labels on certain parties so that we do not need to treat them as relevant. Once labeled, we strip individuals of their unique qualities.
I also feel compelled to note that Sri Lanka is an example of a civilization fighting with itself contrary to Huntington’s thesis…more on that in future blogs.
The Ottawa Citizen’s article on Sunday, October 25, 2009, “Migrant ship belongs to Tamil Tigers: experts,” expresses the fear from not one but two experts that this ship may be the first of many ships with Tamil Tigers fighters fleeing their homeland following the 25 year civil war in that country which ended in May. Experts have identified the ship as Tamil Tiger owned and operated. Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney said the government would deport anyone found with a criminal background or terrorist background including members of the Tamil Tigers.
My concern is that as soon as we put a label on people we have depersonalized them, or put them in a little box. Once we have packaged them with a label we give ourselves an excuse for not listening to them. The Canadian Tamil Congress in the same article argued all the men were ethnic Tamils fleeing persecution.
Human rights groups as well as Tamil groups are urging broader understanding of the complex political landscape in Sri Lanka. Having followed the Sri Lanka story this past year I have yet to understand the nature of the conflict in that country. Perhaps world politics as seen through the eyes of many, is easier to deal with when we don’t delve into the detail of the conflicts and rather place labels on certain parties so that we do not need to treat them as relevant. Once labeled, we strip individuals of their unique qualities.
I also feel compelled to note that Sri Lanka is an example of a civilization fighting with itself contrary to Huntington’s thesis…more on that in future blogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)