How has globalization changed the world in terms of religious tolerance and stereotyping?

Globalization has changed everything. For the first time, everyone is aware of what’s going on in the world. If there’s a death among the Palestinians or a bombing in Calcutta, it’s on the news. It immediately plugs into the debate about identity.
Two, it allows people to go back to the sources. When a woman is being murdered in Pakistan and is told that “This is Islam”, she can go back to the Koran and discover it’s not Islam, it is culture. It could be tribal culture or custom, but it’s not Islam. Three, it moves away your sense of isolation.

As globalization has happened, instead of things becoming more tolerant…

This is the paradox of globalization. In the West and America, globalization is seen as a great benefactor, bringing trade and financial development. In African and Asian societies, globalization is seen as an oil tanker in a small pond. It landed there and everything has been disrupted. Some have benefited, but there are hundreds of millions of people who are stuck in poverty. There are 358 individuals who are worth more than half the world’s population. These imbalances are creating a great deal of turmoil.

The way the media works, it’s generally “if it bleeds, it leads”. The most provocative things are put out there. Does that skew people’s perspectives of the way the world actually looks?

Absolutely, so you see on CNN, Fox News, all the major TV channels, who is invited to talk about Islam? It is not the scholars of Islam. You will get someone who knows nothing about Islam but has an ideological position and will attack Islam. Or, you have Muslims who have rejected Islam, who will reinforce this negative image. The information is ideological, it’s distorted, and a lot of it is superficial.

Why is radicalism developing so much now?

I can describe three basic models of Muslim leadership today: the mystic, the modernist, and the orthodox traditionalist. After 9/11, the mystic has been marginalized. He has no answers when your house is being blown up and your wife is being raped. The mystic simply talks of love and compassion and Rumi and that seems irrelevant. The modernist seems irrelevant because he is talking about the law and writing letters. It is the traditionalist who is saying “Islam is under attack. We are being attacked.”

And that is satisfying for people?

It’s emotionally satisfying; it is giving an answer. The traditionalists respond with anger and emotion, and it is a time of anger and emotion. When Muslims look at the world, they see nothing but turmoil and anarchy. They see Palestine, Kashmir—none of these problems have been solved. Look internal to Islam; most countries are under dictatorships. Muslims are saying. “Where do we stand? We are not getting justice from the world, we are not getting justice from our own leaders, and our most cherished icons are being abused. What is there to live for?” Along comes the traditionalist who says “Okay, here’s your answer. Go to paradise.”

You found that the role models in the Muslim world were Osama bin Laden and Ahamdinejad, and anti-Americanism was rampant. What can Americans do?

The young generation of Americans can change the world. They are bright, open, thirsting to do something. One, they need to understand what’s going on in the Muslim world. 90% of information from the media is so negative; they can’t have a real understanding. They need to read, visit, and talk. Two, they need to create some bridges, with scholars, students. Three, they need to start looking at their own society and asking some hard questions. Where is this country going? Are we compromising the ideals that have created us as the great United States of America, the greatest, free-est, and most wonderful democracy?

Working on a grassroots level, or through policy?

Both. Only when grassroots awareness comes in will policy change. Right now the problem is policy in the US is not being dictated by the people. It is working in isolation, hijacked by the neocons. We will face the consequences of that.

The younger generation must recapture leadership here and on the world stage.

Some people say that Muslims are afraid to speak out.

I am giving you my own example. I have suffered, I have been attacked, and I have been smeared. You have to just stand your ground and fight. There is a great thirst to understand Islam. Muslims have to be involved in the dialogue about and around Islam. That is critical, and that is not happening sufficiently.

How do you get people with very radical viewpoints to change? Can it only be one to one, face to face?

It has to be. If I can convert one key figure, who is an ideologue, who in turn can influence thousands of people, I have achieved. I have done that.. It’s not a battle I’m pessimistic about.

To go back to the three models of Islam, the West has to support the modernist. They need books, computers, and libraries. If you support them, they fight the battle of ideas. The modernist and the mystics are being squeezed out. The pendulum is swinging towards the traditionalist. Do you want that, are you unwittingly helping that, or can your younger generation save the situation?

Are you optimistic about the future?

I am when I think of all the wonderful people who are committed to dialogue and discussion. That gives me hope. The pessimism is, against this, you have a tidal wave of ignorance, prejudice and hatred, on both sides. When hatred and prejudice are out of control, this is the slippery slope which leads to anarchy and chaos for civilization. On the heels of one hatred comes another hatred. When you get all the Muslims and put them in internment camps, who’s next?

The interview has been edited and corrected for grammar.

Originally published on April 4, 2007 by The internationalist, intmag.com.

It’s not easy being a Black African in Darfur these days. They are being ethnically “cleansed”, and no one knows how to stop it. Humanitarian groups are frantically trying to help survivors and desperately calling for military aid. They seem to be screaming their message to a deaf world; three years of genocide have already gone by. The UN has been paralyzed, and the Sudanese government is suspiciously reluctant to stop the Janjaweed (waring rebels). Currently, these rebels are free to storm into villages atop horses and camels with their machine guns and create hell on earth. Their tactics include not only slaughtering masses of people, but also burning down entire villages, and systematically raping women and young girls.

Though the UN has set an April 30th deadline for peace negations, little faith rests in their ability to make a lasting difference. UN deadlines and agreements have come and gone before, but the situation is the same, if not escalating.

How did this happen?

Sudan has been troubled from the start. The East African nation is populated with Muslims, Christians, animists, and both Arabs and Africans. The groups have always been fighting to protect their conflicting ways of life. In 1983, the mostly Arab government tried to instate Shari’ a, Islamic law, to the protests of many Christians and animists.

The current situation began in 2003. Amidst rumors that the Sudanese government had been oppressing Black Africans in favor of Arabs, rebel groups, including the Sudanese Liberation Army (SLA), began attacking the government. The government took no official action. However, another rebel group, the Arab Janjaweed, began their aggressive attacks on Africans with renewed vigor, sapping the SLA of possible recruits and effectively weakening them. The Janjaweed conveniently grew stronger during this time, equipped with expensive arms and well fed animals.

The Janjaweed have embarked on a terrifyingly successful ethnic cleansing campaign. Since 2003, they have displaced 2 million people, and an estimated 200,000 have died, both directly and due to effects of displacement. Many refugees are running to border states, and countries like Chad, already impoverished, have hundreds of thousands of refugees living (and dying) on their borders.

The displacement has caused a massive humanitarian crisis. All of these newly homeless (and hopeless) are starving, sick, and desperately poor. They have lost their lives and their livelihoods, and they live in constant fear of the ever present Janjaweed. Their refugee camps are not safe, their government is not responding, and the world shakes its head in pity, and then returns to safety and puts the ugliness of Darfur out of its mind.

This is a crisis. As we watch, thousands are dying and the map of terror is growing. The entire area is at risk of complete destabilization. The situation will not resolve itself.

The African Union has 7,000 troops on the ground, but it’s not nearly enough. The UN Security Council must decide when and how to deploy troops and countries must decide whether or not they will be sending soldiers. Every minute that ticks by while these decisions are being made costs precious lives.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on April 28, 2006

On April 12th, 2006, rebels charged through the streets of N’Djamena, Chad’s capitol city, intent on seizing power from current President Deby. The attempted coup failed that day, but the rebels haven’t given up yet. They’re rumored to be circulating just outside the city, waiting for another opportunity to pounce. Why the sudden interest in leading this indigent nation?

Chad, one of the poorest nations in the world, has recently stumbled upon a modern day goldmine – oil. For the first time, the sweet smell of crude oil is filling the air with dreams of wealth and stability. This inky promise has been enough to arouse greed in both the government and the rebels.

The World Bank has, until recently, been funding construction of a pipeline running from Chad’s valuable oil fields to the sea, liberating their land-locked crude for sale on the world market. Everyone is eagerly awaiting the money that will no doubt follow the pipeline. Being such an impoverished nation, the World Bank stipulated that a large majority of the income go to development and alleviating poverty. Chadian leaders initially agreed, but recently decided that they should have the power to allocate the oil money when and where they chose. The World Bank has since stopped funding Chad’s development.

The World Bank has good reason to be worried. The African Union has estimated that corruption costs Africa $150 billion every year. All too often, money that is desperately needed to keep people healthy and alive is used to fund the opulent lifestyles of an elite few.

Throughout many African nations, corruption seeps through almost every service. Even teachers and doctors are not immune to taking bribes in return for higher grades or better treatment. At the highest level, leaders of nations are living well beyond their means while their countries are steeped in intense and deadly poverty. This type of spending begets an negative feedback loop that Africa cannot afford: as foreign investors watch their money go to waste, they are less likely to provide more funding, and African nations are left in an even more desperate state.

Much of this corrupt behavior is not the result of an ideology of selfishness; rather, a desperately impoverished state leaves many people with no choice but to take bribes in order to feed their families. Most African countries only unlocked the shackles of colonial control within the past three decades and are still struggling to get on their feet and overcome the oppressive, exploitive infrastructure left behind by the colonial regimes. This does not excuse the despotic leaders who surround themselves with lavish luxuries, but it does help to shed light on middleclass corruption. It also suggests that the solution lies in developing Africa to eliminate such despair. Doing that is, of course, the hard part.

Only well-planned, compassionate and binding development projects will help raise this continent out of corruption and despair. Along with development, democracy will help. With multi-party systems, individuals will be more accountable for their actions because of opponent’s watchful eyes. The authoritarian colonial legacy unfortunately left room for all-powerful leaders, but as this fades, so too will the corruption.

The World Bank is right to stop funding a program that they believe will not help the country get out of its desperate situation, but it is heartbreaking to see Chad sacrifice such needed development and money. While Africa as a whole waits to see these ideas of reform come to fruition, Chad sits on the brink of a bloody power struggle, and the resource that could make stability a reality stays locked up in greedy politics.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on April 21, 2006

For the past five weeks, France has seen revolt and riots rage throughout the country. An estimated 3 million students and workers came together to shut down the Eiffel tower, worry the authorities, and effectively close many schools and universities. Political graffiti filled public space, and chants of outraged citizens - “Mr. Villepin, you are not king” – have made their way to the ears of French leaders.

Due to the overwhelming force of people power, President Chirac recently announced that the French government will drop the controversial law, dubbed CPE (Contrat Premiere Embauche), which would have made it easier for employers to fire workers under 26 who have been employed for less than 2 years.

The French youth used the one democratic process available to them, and the government was forced to listen.

In many countries, including the US, many protestors feel that their noise and numbers are merely symbolic of their discontent and largely ineffective. France has a rich history of revolt as a legitimate form of communication, and the passion that fuels these frustrated masses is fed by past success. The revolutionary spirit has coursed through their veins since the French Revolution, when the masses accomplished the monumental task of emancipating power from an absolute monarch and delivering it to the people.

The current atmosphere of wide-ranging discontent and rebellion most recalls the massive protests of 1968, which eventually caused not only reformed laws but also a regime change.

In May of 1968, several students began to protest an attempted university reform. The situation escalated after the police used violence to control the students, and French workers joined students in a mass protest. Soon, two thirds of the workforce was on strike, and the government effectively lost control of their country. Workers would not have joined the protest if they were happy; France’s unemployment was at a high (as it is now), and wages were very low. The workers were inspired by the students and reminded of their frustration with the current administration. The outlet for this frustration was strike and revolt.

In 1968, the unhappy workers were able to bring the country to a halt. President Charles de Gaulle got things going his way again, but was shaken by the intense disapproval and stepped down within a year.

This time, French officials acknowledged the mass protest as legitimate dialogue of a sort, and decided to amend their decision to fit the desires of their people. The strikers saw their desperate attempt to join the political discussion work; the leaders listened and changed. In France, the power of the people lives on.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on April 14, 2006

Charles Taylor, The former President of Liberia and indicted war criminal who spend decades terrorizing West Africa for personal gain, has been captured. Taylor was found (along with his wife and several bags of cash) 600 miles from his villa in Nigeria, where he had enjoyed a couple years of relatively peaceful exile. Taylor is responsible for completely destabilizing Liberia and Sierra Leone and for the torment and murder of thousands of innocent people. Current Liberian President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has made an official request for Taylor, which means that he will finally be tried for his crimes; mainly, his part in the atrocious civil war that rocked Sierra Leone in the 1990’s.

This wasn’t even the first time Taylor had been exiled from Liberia, nor was this his first attempted escape from capture. After his first exile, the result of a falling out with then leader Samuel Doe (understandably angry after Taylor embezzled almost 1 million dollars), Taylor fled to the US. He was captured and served a brief prison sentence before sawing through the bars to freedom in 1985.

After his escape, Taylor decided that he needed an education in murder. He went to Libya and sought out Muammar Quaddafi, who took Taylor under his wing for some guerrilla training. He made a fateful friend there, Fadoy Sankoh, who was also seeking Qauddafi’s training. Sankoh would eventually go on to become a revolutionary leader of one of the most frightful organizations in West Africa, the Revolutionary United Front (RUF).

After this training, Taylor returned to Liberia, incited violent revolt throughout the country, saw to it that Liberia was immersed in an ethnic conflict and divide that would displace over a million people and kill 200,000, and finally, took office in 1997 when an overwhelming majority voted him in. Why? He ran a campaign of threats and intimidation, telling the terrorized and exhausted Liberians that war would continue if he wasn’t elected. Liberia still hasn’t recovered; 80% of citizens are living on less than a dollar a day, and 85% are unemployed.

As part of his brutal decade-long campaign for Presidency, Taylor turned his attention to neighboring Sierra Loene. At the time, Sierra Leone was home to a peacekeeping group, ECOMOG. They had some success in keeping Taylor from gaining control, so Taylor did his part to destroy all stability and peace in the entire country in order to weaken the group. He accomplished this by funding the RUF, conveniently controlled by his old friend, Fadoy Sankoh. With Taylor’s help, the RUF committed mass-murder, raped civilians, engaged in brutal limb mutilation practices, and forced the conscription of child soldiers (whose initiation often included killing their parents, getting “RUF” etched deeply into their skin, and having cocaine rubbed into their open wounds).

After gaining control of Liberia, Taylor continued to add to his rap sheet of atrocities, but his past started to catch up with him. In 2003, the Special Court of Sierra Leone indicted Taylor for war crimes, and the UN justice tribunal soon issued a warrant for his arrest. He was also losing power in Liberia, as various rebel groups gained control of over nearly two-thirds of the country. Things did not look good for Charles. Nigerian President Obsanjo came to his rescue, offering him exile as long as he no longer interfered in politics. He took the offer, and has been in Nigeria until his recent attempted escape and capture. Johnson-Sirleaf had been under pressure from much of the world to finally try and punish Taylor.

The trial should begin shortly, and we will see how the world sees fit to punish one of the most monstrous men to walk its face in recent history.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on April 7,2006

May 1st has historically been known as International Workers Day, and as such has born witness to numerous strikes, rallies, and protests through the years (including the tragically violent Haymarket Riot of 1886). Now, May 1st can add another historic marker to its list: May Day 2006, A Day without an Immigrant.

Internationally observed as The Great American Boycott, many undocumented workers wanted to show the US what “A Day without an Immigrant” would really be like. Organizers asked immigrants to go on a one day strike and to refrain from buying anything, intending to highlight the important economic and social role immigrants play in the US.

What would the US really be like without immigrants?

Well, of course, it wouldn’t really exist. America is a nation of immigrants (disclosure: author is a second generation immigrant.) The US has long prided itself on the “tired and poor” who survived the long trip to the New World and built a great nation, having only ambition in common. Many of the masses who came through Ellis Island had no documentation. The US was built on the backs of these “illegal” immigrants, and groups from all over the world have created the industry, economy and culture that is America. Along the way, laws have been created to manage and monitor the flow of people in and out of the country. Since the 1700’s, naturalization laws have allowed residents to gain citizenship after a period of time, and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1865 gave citizenship to all children born in the US. Quotas and controls have been established and torn down throughout US history, with changes being made as various groups become more or less desirable, and now America is calling for change, bringing longstanding immigration policies into question.

On May Day, we saw hundreds of thousands of immigrants take to the streets to represent the millions of undocumented workers, mostly Latino, living in the US. Just what is the impact of this newest wave of hopeful Americans?

While it’s hard to get numbers on a group that is living beyond paperwork, here are a few facts:
• An estimated 90% of California crop pickers are undocumented.
• Undocumented workers contribute about $7 billion every year to Social Security and get no SS benefits in return.
• The American Farm Bureau predicts a loss of up to 9 billion dollars in agricultural production without undocumented workers.
• These workers pay rent, buy food, and thus pay significant housing and sales tax.
• American taxpayers are paying up to $11.2 billion every year for the schooling and medical treatment of undocumented workers.

While this group has a clear impact and is here to stay, the lack of regulation is punishing both American workers and legal immigrants, not to mention the illegals, whose status forces them into the underbelly of a wealthy society. This deeply political issue is being debated in the Senate, and hopefully a fair solution is not too far in the future.

Originally published at InternationalistMag.com on May 4, 2006

The recent announcement that an Arab company, Dubai Ports World (DP), is scheduled to gain control of 18 US ports has ignited a furor on Capitol Hill. Critics of the deal accuse the President of sacrificing domestic security; President Bush has accused the critics of lightly veiled racism.

The vast majority of US ports are owned by foreign companies. The US Coast Guard and Customs maintain control of security issues, but allow more established shipping companies to control the administrative details. Most countries outsource management of ports, which includes the movement of ships, cargo, and money, to reputable companies. The recent deal that will soon give DP the lease and management duties of ports is not specific to the US; DP recently bought the British owned Peninsular and Oriental Stream Navigation Company, for $7 billion, and will take control of all their many ports throughout the world.

The debate that has ensued is one of the most nuanced and bipartisan to occur recently. The debaters are not simply falling into line - many Republicans and Democrats are opposing members of their own party. Many high profile Republicans, such as Bill Frist (R-TN) and Dennis Hasert (R-Ill), usually staunch Bush supporters, have come out in strong opposition to the deal. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Bob Menendez (D-NJ) have proposed a bill that would ban all foreign management of ports. But some high profile publications, such as The Economist, and the Los Angeles Times, have announced their support for the transfer.

Opponents cite the problem of security as their main concern. While Dubai and the United Arab Emirates have been an ally of the US, the UAE produced two of the 9/11 terrorists, and has funded known terrorist groups. While the state-owned DP will have control only of the management of the ports, many are afraid that items intended for terrorism may more easily pass through the already permeable borders.

Supporters counter this concern by reemphasizing that total control of security is held by the US. Granted, security at the ports has always been very shallow – a very small minority of the massive amount of goods are scanned. All agree that the inspections must become more thorough. Supporters also accuse the opponents of pan-Arab racism, and maintain that the US needs an ally in the Muslim world, and should not send another arguably anti-Arab message to the world by declining the deal.

President Bush has already announced that he will veto any bills that will blockade the passage of this deal. But 67% of polled Americans, as well as many members of his Congress, have stated their opposition. It is yet to be seen whose opinion will lean towards a compromise.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on March 2, 2006

Bird flu has taken down yet another victim. Actually, 700,000 victims. Officials in India have begun a mass slaughter of chickens, and have been furiously destroying birds and eggs. Although it’s still difficult to catch the H5N1 bird flu virus (there have so far been about 93 human victims), and it currently travels only from bird to bird, and bird to human, health experts and scientists fear that a mutation could quickly turn the virus into a pandemic killer that jumps from human to human through sneezes and doorknobs.

Many animals suffer from the flu, but viruses usually evolve along with one particular species, and travel within it. The human immune system develops resistance to common human flu strains after occasional exposure to small amounts and from vaccines. Healthy humans are generally well equipped to fight off known human strains. When a human body encounters an unfamiliar avian virus, his or her immune system starts to fight it and the virus quickly mutates and evolves in order to survive. So far, the virus that humans have been getting from birds is like an intense flu, with a 50% death rate. The next jump—a strain that could travel airborne from human to human—may have even more lethal effects. Because of our close contact with birds, especially tasty ones, birds with the flu are flapping, chirping time bombs.

The enormously destructive 1918 Spanish Flu was also caused by a strain of avian flu. The flu wiped out up to 40 million people, and infected one quarter of the US and one fifth of the world. La Grippe was a gruesome killer, as victims were left to suffocate in the mucus and blood that filled their lungs within days.

The first human victim of the 1918 pandemic is thought to be a chicken cook in Fort Riley, Kansas. The virus waved through military camps in the US and killed many soldiers, but everyone was so concerned with World War I, the epidemic nature of the sickness went largely unnoticed and no real action was taken to contain it. The Spanish Flu quickly spread to affect the entire globe within 6 months, traveling with traders and army men. The flu killed many more people during the Great War than any weapons did. The war helped to spread the virus from soldier to soldier, and back to their families. Little was known about the genetics of viruses in those days and nations began to suspect some kind of biological warfare at play.

As the H5N1 strain continues to reach itself around the globe, killing poultry is only the first step. Human contact with all birds will need to become more limited, and we may soon see a drop in human to human contact as well. Bowing and “elbow tapping” may soon replace handshakes, and face masks may start showing up on the runways. If the pandemic does strike, we can all protect ourselves the same way that Japan did (they had no outbreaks) during the 2003 SARS epidemic: they never shook hands, and they taught all children the most important protective measure against disease - washing their hands!

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on February 26, 2006

For the past 18 years, Hamas has been known throughout the world as a terrorist organization single-mindedly seeking the absolute destruction of Israel. In January 2006, the Palestinian people overwhelmingly elected Hamas into the Parliament, giving them 76 of 132 seats. Does this mean that Palestinians want to see Israel wiped off the map, and that as the majority government, Hamas will have the power to do so? Should those of us still hoping for peace in the Middle East throw up our arms and walk away? Optimists should take heart; a closer look at Palestinian history and Hamas’ recent victory reveals some signs of hope.

Before last week, the state of Palestine was controlled by the Fatah party, including President Mahmoud Abbas. The recent vote to cast them out can be seen not only as support for Hamas, but as an objection to Fatah. Many Palestinians have been growing increasingly unhappy with the current domestic situation. Fatah has been riddled with corruption and careless attitudes towards the order and control of their society. Hamas, on the other hand, has been free of that sort of dishonesty and abuse of power, and has shown a great emphasis on community service. Hamas’ campaign focused mainly on domestic issues, and highlighted the greater stability they would bring. Exit polls show that almost half of voters cited worries of corruption and lawlessness as their primary concern. From this, it would seem that Palestinian people were less focused on the destruction of Israel, and more concerned with removing a dishonest and irresponsible government from power.

In order to maintain a working government and to successfully care for the Palestinian people, Hamas must have a stable relationship with the world. The US, the EU, the UN and Russia have all made it clear that they will not negotiate with Hamas if it maintains its original mission – “to remove Israel from the map.” If Hamas does not temper its views, it may be left out of the international dialogue, and potentially lose valuable financial support.

There are several reasons to believe that Hamas will join the world table. Although their mission does call for the destruction of Israel, they haven’t carried out a suicide bombing there since August 2004. There are many leaders in the party who have voiced moderate views, including the desire for peaceful negotiations with Israel. The majority of both Palestinian and Israeli people now support a two-state solution, and are eager to negotiate lasting borders. And, there is a historical precedent in Palestine of a radical, terrorist party gaining political dominance and dropping their extremist stance.

Fatah entered the scene in the late 1950’s as an armed and dangerous fringe movement intent on the destruction of Israel. Their official emblem still carries the message, depicting two fists holding rifles and a hand grenade over a map of modern day Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza strip. In 1969, Fatah and Yasser Arafat had become the leaders of the Palestinian movement. In that same year, they carried out 2,432 guerrilla attacks on Israel. However, by the early 1990’s, Arafat and Fatah had significantly departed from these violent beginnings. In 1993, Arafat agreed to sign the Oslo Agreement, which recognized the right of Israel to exist and renounced terrorism, violence and its desire for the destruction of Israel.

Will Hamas follow suit, and join the world for reasonable negotiations and discussion?

The world waits.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on February 2, 2006

In December, 2005, the House of Representatives passed a bill offering solutions to the problem of illegal immigration. The current bill includes a 700 foot long, 2.2 billion dollar wall to be constructed along the US-Mexico border. The Senate will vote on it in February, and is expected to make certain changes before attempting to pass it. Is the wall really going to happen, and follow the Great Wall of China and the Berlin Wall into history? Is it necessary and wise? The current situation does need to change somehow. But arriving at the best possible solution is undeniably going to be a great political challenge.

Since 1996, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has almost quadrupled, from 3 to more than 11 million. Immigrants are increasingly willing to take their chances with the Border Patrol for under-the-table job opportunities. Most are coming from Mexico, where there simply aren’t enough jobs and money to support the population. Currently, illegal US workers send home 16 billion dollars, making it the second largest source of income in Mexico. The Mexican government stops just short of explicit support of illegal border crossing, and recently handed out 70,000 safety maps, noting potential danger zones around the border. The money is needed, and workers are finding the jobs. US employers have been consistently giving jobs to these illegal workers, who are often willing to work for less than minimum wage and under less than lawful conditions.

America is a land of immigrants, and has been dramatically shaped by each new group. But this current influx has been unregulated for years, and the system needs to shift to make things fair and efficient for all. As it stands, American taxpayers suffer, and are paying out billions of dollars every year to provide health care and social services to the immigrants, who pay no taxes. Our borders have apparent vulnerabilities and with the well-intentioned workers come drug traffickers and potential terrorists. For every illegal immigrant who enters the workforce successfully, a legal immigrant is cursing himself as he waits years for paperwork to process. The illegal immigrants themselves are not free from worries. They have to live in fear of exposure and are often exploited by less than scrupulous employers.

It’s clear that something must be done. President Bush wants a guest worker program, with temporary work cards for immigrants. Congress is divided. Hard line Republicans oppose Bush’s plan, and want absolute removal of workers and physical walls built. Some moderates, such as John McCain (R) and Edward Kennedy (D), want workers to be able to attain citizenship legally, after paying fees and passing background checks. The idea of a wall has already passed its way through the House, but it will be interesting to see if the Senate will approve of it. Historically, walls have either been largely symbolic (the Great Wall of China) or large and impenetrable (the Berlin Wall). The current version is still vulnerable. Is America ready to build of 2.2 billion dollar message telling Mexicans to stay home?

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on January 27, 2006

On January 10th, 2006, Iranian officials broke through the seals on nuclear power plants, and aroused a worldwide sense of panic. The plants are active again, but Iran maintains that they are simply developing a source of energy. They deny plans to use this technology to create weapons. However, there has been evidence to the contrary: they are refusing to allow inspection of some sites, and American intelligence has found designs for nuclear missiles in Iranian computer files. The world has already seen the devastating capabilities of nuclear weapons. So why are Iran and other nations able to produce nuclear energy that could so easily turn the world into a pockmarked wasteland?

The Non-Proliferation Treaty was intended to negotiate this slippery slope. It was created in 1968, and a total of 187 nations signed it, including Iran. Member nations agreed to stop creating nuclear weapons, and to work to reduce and liquidate existing stockpiles. The Treaty is based on the fear of mutually assured destruction. Nations may create greater nuclear weapon capabilities if they feel that their neighbors are creating them. If left unchecked, this will pattern will continue, and both sides will eventually have a volatile stock of world-annihilating power.

However, the NPT does not demand that nuclear technology and usage be abandoned. Nuclear power is an unfortunate but highly valuable energy source. Nuclear energy is emission free. It generates an enormous amount of power in a relatively small space and time, and will be a viable option for potentially thousands of years to come. The US currently gets 20% of its power from nuclear energy, while France gets almost 80%, and the numbers are growing all the time. Because of its usefulness, the Treaty allows for, and encourages, proper development of nuclear power.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the watchdog of nuclear power. Their job is, essentially, to ensure that nations are abiding by the Treaty: they ensure that nations are developing nuclear energy for only peaceful purposes. They have the power to conduct searches and issue safeguards.

The IAEA will be meeting on February 2nd to investigate Iran. The onus is now not only on Iran to prove that it has purely peaceful motives, but also on the IAEA to prove that it has the power to stop a rogue nation.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on January 20, 2006

On January 1st, 2006, Delegate Zero, also known as Subcomandante Marcos, burst from the jungle on his motorcycle and began his six-month journey through Mexico. His goal is clear: listening to the voices of his country. Marcos and the Zapatistas will travel through every state in the country, meeting with local people, NGOs, and social organizations to start discussions on possible alternatives to the current governmental system. Their intention is to redefine democracy ‚ to create an anti-capitalist, bottom-up democracy that considers the needs of all Mexican people, especially the commonly overlooked lower classes. Called the “Other Campaign”, recognizing the 2006 Mexican election year, the Zapatistas are hoping to build a strong network of allies to put pressure on the current government, to give people an alternative to the current debates, and to eventually change the Mexican constitution.

The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) first entered in the scene in 1994 as a group of armed guerrilla fighters. At first, they were concerned primarily with the rights of indigenous communities; they had a dream of indigenous autonomy, and reclamation and ownership of lands. The struggles of these masses date back to the early 16th century, when the Spanish first began their colonization and control. The ancient Aztec and Mayan civilizations were conquered, lands and resources were appropriated, and the indigenous people were suppressed. This dispossessed underclass attempted uprisings from time to time, but the ruling class was always able to maintain control.

The EZLN originated in the areas of Southern Mexico that had been extremely depleted for farming purposes, and suffered in the face of global economic planning. The catalyst for the armed uprising was NAFTA, which many indigenous people felt to be threatening. The 1994 uprising was overpowered by the Mexican government within weeks, and the Zapatistas have been deliberately non-violent since then. Their interests have grown from being indigenous-centered to acting for all poor and underrepresented people. They have gained support throughout the world for their ability to make the Mexican government recognize those who have been marginalized by economic decisions, and to take all Mexican people into consideration.

The EZLN has their share of critics. Many are afraid that the left will divide between the Zapatistas and the current left-of-center candidates, and that the right will take power in Mexicoís 2006 elections. Nonetheless, a discussion of a grassroots democracy as a reality is intriguing to many. Doubtless, the frustrated masses will be happy to have a place to go, and will realize some satisfaction and hope through their conversations with Marcos and the Zapitistas. The Zapatistas have been applauded for their ability to rally enormous interest and support, and to bring to the table a discussion that is simply not possible in most of the world.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on January 13, 2006

Since its inception, Israel’s Likud party has caused many Palestinians to tremble with fear. Founded in 1973, in part by current Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Likud is the most conservative party in Israel, generally known for its hardline Zionist views. Many Likud members support gaining full control of Palestinian settlements, and creating Israeli settlements in all disputed territories, including the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Sinai. The party members have consistently voted against the acceptance of any Palestinian State, ever. This resistance to compromise has caused a great deal a frustration in those who desire peace, and who dream of a day when the constant battling will come to an end.

In recent years, many Israelis have begun to support a new solution, one that is still strongly nationalistic, but involves the acceptance of two distinct states. This solution reflects a new pragmatism in Israeli ideology, an acknowledgement of the reality that Israel must recognize a separate Palestinian state, or risk losing its Jewish majority and facing continued terrorism. Even PM Ariel Sharon has changed his views, and is advising the demolition of Jewish settlements in Gaza that he himself created. Followers of this belief have until recently been without a distinct political voice, and a party to fully represent them.

In November 2005, Sharon announced that he is leaving the Likud party to start a new, more centrist one, called Kadima (”Forward”). Many believe that Likud will lose significant power without Sharon, a popular figure throughout Israel. Sharon now has the opportunity to make great progress towards peace in this part of the world, which has been so hostile for so long. Kadima has already attracted support from across the board, with many former Likud members announcing their shift, along with members of the left-wing Labour party. Notably, former Labour leader Shimon Peres, who is highly respected throughout the world, and was a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, recently announced his support.

Will 77-year-old Sharon mark his career with a historic peace plan, and borders that are acceptable to both Israelis and Palestinians? This extraordinary change will require the support of his countrymen, and peaceful negotiations with Palestinian leaders. If Kadima continues gaining strength, and Likud extremists are increasingly marginalized, Israel may have just made a huge leap closer a peaceful future.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on December 5, 2005

Liberia is finally getting a much needed break from a lifetime of violence. Established in 1820 by the American Colonization Society, Liberia was intended to be an African homeland for former slaves hoping to return to their roots. Critics of the ACS opposed the aggressive tactics used to convince native tribes to “sell” the land (a gun pointed to the head), and the racist motivations behind the scheme (the ACS believed that blacks and whites couldn’t live in a society together). Many saw the country as simply an American attempt at intercontinental empire building. Regardless of the opposition, by 1867, 13,000 former slaves inhabited the area of coastal West Africa known as The Republic of Liberia.

The Americo-Liberians made up only 5% of the population, but maintained control of the country for the next 133 years. The indigenous population was suppressed, and the True Whig Party had complete economic and political power. The tribes battled this minority ruling class incessantly.

In 1980, the battles reached a peak, and a mighty coup d’etat resulted in Liberia’s first ever indigenous rule. Master Sergeant Samuel Doe and the People’s Redemption Council executed the standing President and his main officials, and seized power of the country. Though Doe established good relations with the US, the country was extremely unstable, and his win did nothing to create a sense of unity. On the contrary, rival tribes began to fight each other with renewed vigor. In 1989, civil war broke out, resulting in 150,000 deaths and forcing 850,000 refugees to flee. In 1996, a rebel leader, Charles Taylor, ran for president on the platform of continuing brutal war if he didn’t win. An election motto was “He kill my ma, he kill my pa, I vote for him.” He was elected, and the warfare came to a halt.

Not for long. Taylor’s regime was marked by corruption and military intimidation, and was largely opposed. In 1999, rebel groups began aggressively seizing control of significant portions of land. Violent attempts to remove Taylor from office eventually resulted in his 2003 flight to Nigeria. An interim government took over until fair elections could be held.

On November 23rd, 2005, Liberia announced the election of its new President, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf. The new leader is Harvard educated, and served time in jail due to her vocal opposition to military regimes. She is already making steps towards stability, having extended her hand to the Ivory Coast, a former foe. Many Liberians and Africans are hoping that a female leader will bring greater attention and a deeper compassion to human rights than former leaders. If her administration proves to be successful, doors may open for women all across the continent. To be sure, men and women all over Liberia, Africa, and the world will be watching Ms. Johnson-Sirleaf every step of the way.

Originally published by InternationalistMag.com on December 1, 2005

On October 27th 2005, two teenagers of North African and Malian descent thought the police were chasing them, ran frantically through the streets of Clichy-sous-Bois, France, and ended up getting electrocuted. Rioting, violence, and destructive fires exploded throughout the country in response. Why was there such an extreme response?? France’s social and economic problems had reached a critical mass, and the people were left with no other outlet for their frustrations. Shockingly high unemployment (23% among young people), deep frustration felt by post-colonial immigrants, and increasing discrimination against minorities (especially Muslim minorities), have resulted in violent, urgent rioting in the streets, and thousands of cars going up in flames.

The frustrations felt by French immigrants are rooted in France’s colonial past. In the mid-1900s, many French colonies in Africa and Southeast Asia began to fight for their independence. In 1954, the Front de Libération Nationale (FLN) in Algeria launched their attack on the colons (French colonists) who had settled throughout the country. The French had been in control of Algeria’s resources for more than a century, and Algerians had been largely oppressed in their own country. Islamic Algeria began a fierce guerrilla war that was to span almost a decade, winning their independence in 1962. However, the occupation left the country in a state of poverty. Many Algerians chose to try their luck in France, where they hoped for greater opportunities. Currently, there are about 5 million people of Algerian descent living in France.

North and West Africans are welcome to live in France, but are notably segregated, overwhelmingly jobless, and increasingly angry. The current immigrant group, which makes up about 10% of the population, is separated from their native land by one generation. They are forced to think of themselves as “French” in a country that doesn’t accept them as full citizens. Many studies show that these immigrants are significantly discriminated against in the workplace, and in society. A University of Paris study found that a resume with a classic French name received more than 5 times as many positive responses as one with a North African name. No government officials or public figures are non-white. Through the rioting, France’s “invisible minority” is calling for a change.