1

Unrest

While the deaths of significant cultural figures fill the news with easy-to-sell headlines, there are still stories of life-changing news bellow the fold and aired during the non-peak hours. And, those hidden stories reflect a trend that is difficult to ignore: Unrest. 

It seems that the world is changing more quickly than ever, especially as more and more of the West's attention  is directed homeward with the hope of overcoming economic trouble. In the past months, we have seen people in some of the most government-controlled societies break out of the mold and speak out for change. In Iran, the election was nearly overturned, and still (you'll see it in the B-section news) there is discontent with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remaining in command. In the weeks after the election, the Iranian people seemed to find the ferocity and strength of their ancestors once again, and made their voices heard. The coup in Honduras reiterates that no leader, despite his strength, is safe. And now, there is conflict between the Han and Uighur in China. 

Why are these conflicts more alluring than those in, for example, Darfur? The answer is be simple. In Iran, Honduras, and China, people are acting out against authority and tradition. In Iran and China, to protest people are risking their lives and sidestepping their government's attempts to control the media. It is the battle of the underdog against the powerful--and everyone likes to see the underdog win. The situation in Honduras has created a global paradox. The USA hated the president the military ousted, but once Manuel Zelaya lost his power the USA has supported him. All these events reflect a change in thought and a change in process. Meanwhile, it is easy to turn a blind eye to Darfur because it is a familiar seen.  Genocide is not new, and the method of Genocide that has been adopted in Darfur has been seen in Africa before (Rwanda). And so, the media looks to news that is deliciously horrific, but also more than current events. To make the cut, the news must be fresh.

And that is what the happenings in Iran, Honduras, and China are. They are something sightly different than anything that has happened previously. With the world connected by easy travel and the internet, there is no longer a place for ethnocentrism or isolation. The powers of the world have had to consider the ideas of others and all people have seen that their way of life is not the only one. Social change is happening, and it is being promoted by war and the modern area. This has happened before, but never in this exact way. But, as old customs become the foundation for new ones, it is proven once again that revolution seldom comes peacefully.  And this is what the media believes new worthy, well at least worthy enough to include somewhere in the paper. 

0

The Rule of Law is Just, Or is the Rule of Justice Law?

It is difficult not to notice two major trends in current world events, mainly, in relation to the Iranian election and the coup in Honduras. In both cases, the people of these countries are displeased with the results and in both cases major political figures in these countries claim that the US interfered. These two trends shed both positive and negative light on the happenings of the world, and yet despite the violence that has erupted in both states there is no telling if a better future for the citizens and their countries will emerge.

The fact that citizens are being vocal about their anger in both Iran and Honduras is a hints that some form of development, and maybe progress, is being made. Both Iran and Honduras--and the regions of the Middle East and South American--have had long histories of turmoil and limitations on civil liberties. One can not overlook the power and wealth their governments have had, and how neither of those benefits have been reflected upon the people. Both regions have histories of restricting free speech, preventing women from living equally to men, and tainting the daily lives of people with fear of violence. In light of this, it is amazing that the people of Iran and Honduras feel they can speak out. 

It is interesting that in both cases, the political figures who are the brunt of the violence  have claimed that the United States provoked and meddled in their affairs and that such actions are what led to the upheaves. And, these claims do not come without merit. The US has taken upon itself the responsibility of promoting its ideas throughout the world, and providing aid to those who are fighting for a better means of life. But, the actions of the US have not always been without other motives, without resistance, or without poor judgement. It seems more the fault of the US than that of the controversial political figures alleging to US interference that it be put in the crossfire. The US's history of funding foreign political parties in the hopes of electing certain rulers (regardless of the popular opinion in the countries where the elections are being held) has not been limited the years of the Cold War. And so, perhaps more than ever before, it is important that the United States comes clean on the election protests in Iraq and the coup in Honduras. The world has become too globalized for meddling in other people's laws. The world is changing and it is time for a new approach. 

Of note in Honduras is the military and congress' removal of President Manuel Zelaya from power in an illegal fashion while the changes they were hoping to prevent (such as unlimited presidential terms) were being pursued by Zelaya though the means of legal process. One must ask which is more correct: allowing seemingly bad outcomes as long as legal process is upheld or chancing a betterment of government by violating the legal process. This question is also not far from the one  currently dividing Iran: the rules of government say the people have a voice but is this true in practice? 

There is no way to say for certain what will come out of either of these charged issues. But, what can not be denied is that there is potential not only for structural and political revolution but, also, a revaluation of what is right and wrong. Both Iran and Honduras are distressed with instability and violence, but that does not mean a peaceful and better future will not be the result of people questioning their legal process and rulers. Perhaps the time for civil rights and new government has come. But whatever the outcome, these controversies show that the world no longer accepts that US meddles in the elections of others. The time of promoting US principle through trickery and force is past and an era of communication and shared ideas has taken its place. No, the US is not a criminal nor a hero, just as Iran and Honduras are not. What they are are countries on the verge of change, and one can hope that that change will lead to more rights and better dialogue. 

1

Is There Another Way?

As the aftermath of the 2009 elections in Iran dominates world news, it is difficult to ignore the nature of protesters’ violence. The people of Iran are not fending off a foreign force or fighting over religious differences, they are struggling over the integrity of their government. Surely, this point should be noted with care.

Iran, for at least George W Bush's presidency and before, has been considered hostile to the United States. Of course, this tension has only very slightly lessoned as Obama tries a new approach of communicating and working with the Middle East.  Obama's approach hasn't come a moment too soon. At least since September 11, 2001, the US relationship and Arab world relationship--which at best was dysfunctional--turned into a disaster. The US is fighting at least two wars in the region directly: Afghanistan and Iraq (not to mention Pakistan). Furthermore, the US is caught up in perhaps one of the most fruitless battle of the modern era, that of Israel and Palestine. To make matter worse, as Obama looks to open dialogue between Iran and the US, Iran has exploded with internal unrest. At first the timing of this turmoil would seem detrimental to the possibility of building a positive relation between the United States and Iran--but looking deeper, perhaps the timing could not have been better.

There are many elements that have come between a peaceful relationship between the United States and Iran, but those elements are beginning to breakdown. One can not overlook the cultural barriers that seem to block every turn--religious differences, the status of women, the nature and length of our histories, and the terrain on which we live. All of these elements, and many more, have thus far prevented the people of the United States and the people of Iran from seeing eye-to-eye. But, the times they are achanging (Dylan). The United States is beginning to see that it must leave behind its desire to force its ways upon everyone else, and begin to reach out to Middle Eastern peoples on grounds that are respectful and correct to them, not just in the Western world. This breakthrough in thought has the potential of making understanding—which has not been found—an attainable outcome. Meanwhile, the Middle Eastern world, which has long been isolated from the rapidly developing cultural worlds around it, has been roped into modernization as an inevitable result of globalization. Internet communication has raised awareness of how people outside of the Islamic world live. Modern conveniences, where they are accessible, have made life easier and travel faster. In all, ideas and goods are now exchanged more rapidly and more easily. These changes seem minor, but they have made the biggest of differences.

Today in Iran, the fight is not over who follows the true God or whose natural is whose—it is over human rights. Iranians are now fighting over their right to have their voices matter in the outcome of their lives. The fact that this is a point worthy of thousands participating in protests is telling of how exchange and change has begun between/in the Middle East (specifically Iran) and the outside world. Iran has a long history of unrest. It was Persian before Alexander conquered it, and since that time it has seen its share of foreign invaders.  Religious scriptures and tradition for many generations have controlled most Iranians’ lives. And though their long history has produced a proud people, who have feats worthy of admiration, self-imposed (and leadership-imposed) restrictions have prevented them from reaching their highest potential. However, the current protests prove that Iranians do not want to be behind the times anymore.

Whatever comes out of the election protests in unlikely to dramatically change who has power in Iran, the government’s media censorship, religious beliefs, cultural traditions, or women’s rights. But it does prove that the people of Iran want their voices to be heard; they do not want men who have gained power through treachery to govern them.  This means the people of the United State and Iran have finally vocalized a common ground—one that was overlooked—we want our vote to count. This discovery hints that there might be a light at the end of the tunnel. No, Iran is not going to become another US, nor is the US going to suddenly forget its principles, but an agreement can be met. History has proven that revolution does not come from peace: the spread of Christianity, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the Iranian revolution of ten years ago. This may be no exception.  

2

US and the Arab World, Forming a Peaceful Relationship

In the Muslim world, which has a history so long that the United States is a mere pothole,  the past is not forgotten. And to make matters worse, the history of the US and Muslim world, has always been one of hostility and mistrust.  Obama has taken the first step, on a long path, in a new direction with his speech to the Muslim world at Cairo University. In his speech, Obama strove to clarify the motives and position of the United States concerning its violent actions towards the the Muslim world. Using words to express ideas and hopefully dissipate misconceptions, was long overdue as far as US and Muslim relations are concerned. It seems as though it may be too late for words. Our histories (those of the Muslim world and the United States) have reflected, though not to its extreme, the relationship between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Muslims--violence that fuels anger and a need for revenge. Both side, the US and the Muslim, have valid reasons for mistrust: the Twin Towers and the Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan war(s).  It would seem that the animosity between us will allow nothing but a spiral downward, toward greater losses on both sides. A simple speech will change little, if anything at all. 

Yet the speech had to be made. It was time. Time to crack open a new door, which now only the slightest sliver of light peaks through. As the history of the US and the Muslim world has been hostile and without successful compromise or communication, the future holds a chance to make things different. Of course, US troops probably will be stationed in the Middle East from now onward, but there is a possibility that the general populations of the two nations will reach a peaceful understanding. Of course, this will not occur while Obama is in office. Nor during the presidency of the next president. However, if the US government and people and the Muslim leaders and people push to have sensitivity for each other's differences and find ways to look past them it is possible that peace between the nations will occur. Obama's speech is little in itself. If tomorrow US bombs kill many Muslim civilians or if violations of trust continue to happen the speech in Cairo will be pushed to the fridges. But, if his speech marks a new era of communication, there is hope that it will lead to peaceful development. It may lead to a change where Iraq civilians can live without fear, where the millions of current Pakistan refuges may find homes, and where American's don't need to worry when I plane flies low over NYC. But, that can only be achieved if the United States continues down the route of speaking with Muslim leaders and people, not just now, but from now on. And if, in return Muslim leaders offer their positions and grievances. Both sides must be committed to the opportunities Obama's speech provides. Neither side can do it alone, and an agreement  will not be found without respect between both parties.