Biden Visits Israel to Restart Peace Talks

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/09/world/middleeast/09biden.html?hp

Vice President Joe Biden recently arrived in Israel to facilitate the first dialogue in over a year between Israeli and Palestinian leaders about the logistics of a two-state solution to the conflict, and to encourage Israel to relinquish its threat of unilateral military action against Iran in protest of its nuclear program in favor of sanctions. The relationship between the two countries is so unproductive that the United States diplomatic efforts will consist of two simultaneous but separate conversations, reflecting an increasingly hostile prospect for resolution. The U.S. intends to dissuade Israel from taking military action against Iran, because Iran remains a volatile threat in the region, most directly to Israel (according to Israel), but the U.S. will assure the country of its support in this issue framed as an international security problem.

This meeting seems to couch realist goals in liberal rhetoric. Top American leadership is going to promote peace in the middle east- this is a great public relations maneuver. Ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is always a popular idea, so the treatment of the visit as a heroic effort to make peace is an acknowledgement of the United States’ (and other liberal countries and international organizations) demand to have their narrative of intrepid humanitarian salvation reinforced. But while this image of peacemaking will probably dominate popular coverage of the conference, the United States is also very concerned about Israeli policy towards Iran, which it views as a direct threat to its own sovereignty and wellbeing, and this interest is likely a hugely motivating factor in this diplomatic exercise, perhaps less publicized for its potential to worry anti-U.S. factions in the area.

Does this kind of diplomatic smokescreen produce any real progress? What does Palestine get out of it? Why does the conflict in Israel matter so much to the U.S. and the American people?

Internet a fundamental right?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm

In a new survey almost 80% of people survey over 26 countries said that they believed that reliable internet access was a fundamental right. The primary argument for this being that people have the right to communicate with one another and the internet is the primary connector of people the world over. The European Union is one area that is attempting to provide universal internet access, but they are struggling with several problems already. The first of these problems is bringing high speed internet to rural areas where there is little incentive to provide it now. It would be a costly endeavor to tackle in this economic downturn. The other problem is the debate over free speech on the internet. Surveys on how much power government should have on the net brought up varying results. There are many concerns for issues such as fraud, explicit content, and privacy threats.

We are studying the biggest player in constructivist social norm and identity creators in this article. The internet has come busting onto the scene of social norms and no one quite knows what to make of it yet. It has created a whole new venue of sharing and shaping identities and norms , that has proved more effective than any venue before it. Now there is a push to make the internet effective to all people, but it will take a unanimous set of rules by all countries involved. You could look at that like an impressively sized project in liberalism. We will see if all the countries can decide on rules for the internet and then deal with the consequences (of which there will be many) for which ever decision they make. I would be very interested to see how the situation develops in the EU with their unlimited internet access.

Obama calls Iraq vote an 'important milestone'

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100308/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_iraq;_ylt=AhyLSgIDoXSw9H643T2KcGGyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJlbGJuZmtyBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzA4L3VzX29iYW1hX2lyYXEEY3BvcwMxBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA29iYW1hY2FsbHNpcg--

Obama calls Iraq vote an 'important milestone'
By STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer Steven R. Hurst, Associated Press Writer

On Sunday March 7, President Obama, speaking from Washington, praised the recent Iraqi elections as "an important milestone" that "makes it clear that the future of Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq." The day's elections were the second national elections held since the US-led invasion began in 2003. Though there were several incidents of violence, the elections were largely hailed as a success. In the 2005 elections, the Sunni population largely boycotted, but this year's elections appear to have widespread participation. Obama called the vote "a tribute to all who have served and sacrificed in Iraq..." The apparent success of the elections were important steps in the planned withdrawal of American troops by Aug. 31.

This article seems in line with liberal theories about promoting the "universal" ideals of democracy. This case demonstrates, however, the difficulties that nations may face when trying to democratize, showing that democracy may not be suited to all situations. However, the apparent high turnout indicates that a majority of the Iraqi people want to have a voice in their government and make democracy work. It remains to be seen whether the national political scene will take a step away from the ethnic tensions. It also reminds me of what someone brought up in class about the US making "advertisements" for democracy. The US has a lot at stake here in making democracy work in Iraq. We have had troops on the ground there for 7 years, and in today's remarks Obama implied that the US casualties of the war were justified by the fact that they helped in the democratization process.

US using internet to culturally imperialize?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/08/world/08export.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

The Obama administration announced that they will now seek to open Internet exports to Iran, Cuba, and Sudan. They claim that this will allow citizens some freedom of speech that their respective governments have been repressing, however I have other suspicions. Iran, Cuba, and Sudan are all nations that have political turmoil, and that the United States have been trying to reform. However, these governments have been hesitant to US intervention. Opening up access to American sites will allow the US to have some sort of influence over the citizens of these nations. Whether this influence does just come in the form of instant messaging programs or social networking sites, I feel as if the US government has other interests than just opening up lines of communication.

The US is well known for imposing on nations and trying to form democratic societies, and this might just be another tactic for achieving imperialistic results. It will be interesting to hear what the Iranian, Cuban, and Sudanese government will have to say about this.

American Al Queda Spokesman Arrested

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/03/07/pakistan.alqaeda.american/index.html?hpt=T2

There are unconfirmed reports that Adam Gadahn, an American-born spokesman for al Queda, has been arrested. Gadahn, also known as "Azzam the American," is said to have been hiding in Karachi, the financial capital of Pakistan, where "[al Queda] leaders feel safe." Gadahn moved from California to Pakistan in 1998, and renounced his citizenship in 2008. Gadahn was quoted as saying,

"It is rapidly becoming clear that this already-hot global battle is about to get even hotter... This is a war which knows no international borders and no single battleground, and that's why I am calling on every honest and vigilant Muslim in the countries of the Zionist-Crusader alliance in general and America, Britain and Israel in particular to prepare to play his due role in responding to and repelling the aggression of the enemies of Islam."

We can see, when Gadahn claims that this battle "knows no international borders," that he is very upset with the violation of sovereignty that has been practiced throughout the "war on terrorism." He calls on a similar plan of action by summoning Muslims from all over the world to revolt against the "enemies of Islam." While Gadahn has made quite a name for himself in the States, it is unclear whether he has a following in the Middle-Eastern Muslim community, and of the extent of his influence. Nonetheless, it comes as a shocker to most US citizens and residents that someone could preform such an act of treason, and help the enemy of the war we are fighting. It will be very interesting to hear the proceedings of this case, assuming he was, in fact, arrested.

I'll keep you guys updated when reports are confirmed.

China's Decreased Defense Spending

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/world/asia/05china.html?ref=asia
This article is mainly concerned with the decreased increase of China’s military spending this year. It also offers some possible reasons to account for this decrease.
The first reason offered in the article is that China does not have enough money to spend on military for it has various things to do this year, such as the economic stimulus plan. Another reason it offers is that that China wants to use the reduced the growth of its publicly acknowledged defense spending to help allay international concerns about its rising power. I think that it is possible that China wants to use its decreased defense spending to ally international concerns, but it is hard for China to reach the goal. According to Mearsheimer, the country’s power can be evaluated by its population, territory, and economy. China, with its fastest economic growth in the world, has the largest population. From a realist prospective, it is not that hard for China to transfer its economic power to military power. Washington cannot imagine a China with the same GDP per person as HongKong. With a good prospect of becoming a regional hegemony, it is hard for China to develop its economy without the notice of the developed countries today. From a liberal prospective, it is impossible for China to reach its goal unless it becomes a liberal democracy recognized by the U.S.and other western countries. For trust exist among those liberal democracies. But with a different political tradition and a history of more than 3000 years, China has to choose its own path. It is almost impossible for China to become a US-recognized liberal democracy.

Iranian president: 9/11 was 'big lie'

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/03/07/ahmadinejad.afghanistan/index.html

March 7, 2010

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reportedly said yesterday that the terrorist attacks of 9/11 were a "scenario" designed as a pretext for the US's invasion of Afghanistan. He also blamed Afghanistan's problems on the presence of foreign troops there. These statements came just two days before the president's scheduled official visit to Afghanistan to meet with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Predisent Ahmadinejad's re-election last summer prompted thousands to protest in Tehran. He also has a history of denying tragedies: in the past, he has denied the existence of the Holocaust.

This was a very controversial statement for Ahmadinejad to make. Washington is certainly enraged, and might even confront the Iranian president about his remarks, which were extremely out of line. The United States is not a corrupt nation that would kill thousands of its own people just so that it could start a long and expensive war. This event characterizes the completely opposing viewpoints that western governments and many middle-eastern leaders hold. Both camps see the others as evil and wrong; Ahmadinejad thinks that the US is corrupt and out to get him and his neighboring countries. The US is simply trying to protect itself from terrorist attack. It is doing this by trying to build stable (democratic) governments in Iraq and Afghanistan. As developed, liberal states, westerners see themselves as "in the right," and they should probably do something to remove such an oppressive and evil leader as President Ahmadienjad from power. How might the international community go about doing this? Does the West have a moral obligation to "right the wrongs" in the world by vanquishing all undemocratic regimes?