Anwar Ibrahim’s Jail Sentence: an American Lens, a Burmese Parallel

On February 10 Malaysia’s Court of Appeal sentenced Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim to five years of jail on the grounds of having sodomized his former aide, Saiful Azlan, under Section 377B of the Penal Code. This is the second time Anwar Ibrahim has been charged for sodomy since 2008, the year he took up the mantle of opposition leader, albeit of a weakly united coalition of three political parties.

The consequence of his imprisonment too conveniently disqualifies him from running for a seat in Parliament in the next general election, slated for 2018. Additionally it prevents him from securing, by de facto, the position of Prime Minister that would end more than 60 years of Barisan Nasional—the ruling coalition—rule. But Anwar’s imprisonment implies more than just the disadvantage the opposition faces for the next years to come, at least for now. It is also the American reaction, or rather, the lack of reaction to the sentence that further signifies the Obama Administration’s half-hearted commitment to ensuring that human rights is upheld in all parts of the international community. 

While Independent Senator Nick Xenophon from Australia urges his government to impose sanctions on Malaysia for an “injustice” imposed by a “repressive and ruthless regime”, spokesperson for the U.S. State Department, Jan Psaki, expressed American concern regarding the “the Anwar case” and moved on to remark that later that day American officials were to meet with the Malaysian Department of Defense to discuss the Islamic State.  In other words, business was to carry on as usual.

This is not the first time the American government has exercised double standards when dealing with Malaysia, or any state for that matter. While Prime Minister Najib Razak was criticized for playing golf last December with President Barack Obama in Hawaii during a national relief effort to aid those affected by the floods on Malaysia’s east coast, it seems that the latter should also have been criticized. The criticism, as negligible as it seems at the moment in time, should be more than justified looking back. Had President Obama been playing golf in Hawaii with President Thein Sein of Burma and refused to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi, who is essentially Anwar’s counterpart in the world’s ongoing resistance movements to unjust regimes, the news outlets would have put him under the scope and lambasted his inability to exemplify political integrity.

Just like he visited Aung San Suu Kyi and gave weight to the remarkable efforts the Titanium Orchid, as she is affectionately known, brought forth for her people, for democracy, President Obama’s direct intervention and bold action to acknowledge all that Anwar has done for his people and all that the current regime has unjustly done to its people, is long overdue. For Malaysia’s own Aung San Suu Kyi has not just been jailed, but has been put back into his cage, one he has known for more than six years.  

The ball is now in America’s court. If he, as President, is truly to serve as the leader of the world’s bastion of justice and democracy, for which he has only paid lip service for the majority of his presidency, then he will do more than to satisfy his mild conscience and owe up to the status of an office long bereft of sterling moral values that were once so honorably upheld through both speech and action. True, Anwar Ibrahim has not been confined to a life of solitude for as long as Aung San Suu Kyi has. And yet, his larger-than-life personality and dreams and aspirations for his country and his people stands in parallel to the latter’s, if not—dare I say—more.

-Hezril Azmin

Photos: The Guardian (left), Malaysian Review (right)

Labor Intensive

The Human Rights Watch (HRW) has recently published a 90-page report on the status and conditions of migrant workers in the UAE, and NYU is directly implicated. Beyond the gross abuse of human rights lies a more chilling fact: in the 5 years since the HRW first disclosed information regarding the human rights violations endured by scores of laborers on Saadiyat Island in Abu Dhabi, almost nothing has changed.

Housed in squalor, denied their promised recruitment fees and wages, and robbed of their passports, around one thousand migrant workers from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines and Sri Lanka have found themselves in debt, without a home, and more recently, without work. When hundreds of workers went on strike to protest their conditions, unfulfilled promises, and low pay they were faced with deportation after a brief stint in a Dubai jail cell.

Last week, the NYU Coalition for Fair Labor and several NYU academic departments hosted a panel called “Who Enjoys Human Rights in Abu Dhabi?” to discuss the release of the HRW’s report. An independent journalist, two members of the HRW, and a Gallatin faculty member and human rights lawyer all provided insight into the state of the laborers and laid suggestions for NYU’s future course of action. Sarah Whitson of the Human Rights Watch noted that NYU regarded the dissemination of these findings of abuse in the HRW report, as well as in a highly publicized New York Times article among others, to be a PR crisis more than anything else. NYU spent millions, according to Whitson, to cover up and erase the bad press and degrading claims.

This money could have easily been spent to quell the demands of the laborers: assuaging their short-term requests, as well as ensuring no future violations.

Hopes for unbiased and genuine attempts at monitoring the conditions of laborers on the projects on Saadiyat Island have been crushed, as the governmental agency behind them, Tourism Development & Investment Company (TDIC), hired PriceWaterhouseCoopers as its compliance monitor. Vasuki Nesiah, NYU faculty and human rights lawyer, spoke to the corporatization of state regulatory mechanisms and to the creation of an abusive environment by the very organizations that should be scrutinized are setting the standards.

The HRW’s report comes in tandem ironically, albeit unintentionally, with the launch of Robert L. Bernstein Institute for Human Rights at NYU Law. It is an obviously positive contribution to an already established law school and here is much scholarship and research to be had on the vast field of human rights, especially by those who have a passion for the subject. I can only hope that with a mission statement that pledges to “deepen engagement between scholars and those beyond academia – practitioners, law makers, diplomats, nongovernmental organizations, and international institutions” the Institute understands the critical need to involve themselves in this process. There is abundant and necessary opportunity to forge these connections outside of the classroom, only amplified by the very fact that NYU classrooms on Saadiyat Island have been built by migrant laborers under exploitative conditions and on unjustifiable hours. In the name of expansion and education, (both legitimate pursuits if handled without the influence of corporate style management and acquisition, an area of expertise of Board of Trustee Chairman Marty Lipton) NYU has commissioned a large-scale abuse of labor rights, decried by NYU students, staff, and observers at large. The launch is representative of a larger and almost clinical divide between theory and application. The large absence of human rights protection for the laborers behind NYU’s stunning Abu Dhabi campus should be made tangible, as human rights litigation aims to do. The Robert L. Bernstein Institute for Human Rights can be a potential step towards raising and addressing critical questions about abuse on our own campus, even if more than 6842 miles away.

- Sabine Teyssier

On the Politics of Free Speech

Following the recent attacks on Charlie Hebdo in France, conversations surrounding free speech have been brought to the forefront of public discourse. Everyone from religious figures like Pope Francis to politicians like British Prime Minister David Cameron have chimed in on the issue, presenting a variety of opinions, showing us that it isn’t as black-and-white as it is made out to be. Academics and writers have also played their role, with hundreds of articles having been published in the past few weeks with regards to the limits and meaning of free speech. Now, while many of these publications have emphasized the preservation of unrestricted free speech as a fundamental facet of all liberal democratic societies, they have focused much less, if at all, on how free speech is invoked in these societies, in which contexts, and the politics that underscore our perception of it.

The recent arrest of controversial French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala has made apparent a discrepancy with regards to the allowance of free speech. Dieudonné was arrested for a social media post saying, “I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” – a play on the names of Charlie Hebdo and gunman Amedy Coulibaly – on grounds of supporting terrorism. His arrest came only days after a march where over a million people – including numerous world leaders – gathered in France as a display of solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and in support of free speech.

Dieudonné is himself no stranger to controversy, having been convicted in the past for promoting anti-Semitism in his comedy, a crime punishable by law in France. Even a former Charlie Hebdo satirist, Maurice Sinet, was fired for creating an anti-Semitic cartoon in 2008. Now such reprimands are understandable if seen in the backdrop of France’s dark history of violent anti-Semitism, a history that the country would be remiss to forget. Even Voltaire, who is often evoked as an exemplar of free expression, had himself been a sometimes brazen anti-Semite. Therefore, France’s laws protecting a community that has been subject to the brunt of state-sponsored oppression and that has been pushed to the margins of French society serve a sensible, protective purpose[AH1] . This begs the question however, as to why there exists a double standard when it comes to offending Muslim sensibilities.

At a time where anti-Islam sentiments are sweeping across Europe, where Muslim citizens are held collectively responsible for the crimes of a few, where they are routinely scapegoated and vilified, it becomes clear that Charlie Hebdo’s offensive depictions of the Prophet Muhammad were adding insult to a preexistent injury. This, of course, isn’t to say that the attacks were at all justified. On the contrary, the attacks should be condemned to the utmost degree and no person should be killed for a mere expression of speech, however offensive it may be. However, it is important to recognize the greater political context in which these cartoons were made.

Acknowledging the politics that underscore our perception of free speech is vital, because this acknowledgment will serve as a lens through which we recognize the greater structure of the power dynamics at play. Dieudonné’s humor is blatantly offensive, inflammatory, provocative and more, but how is it any different from the line of humor portrayed by Charlie Hebdo? Why silence the humor of one but glorify the humor of the other? And what does it say about us when we invoke free speech as an unrestricted right – almost as a convenient tool – only when we use it to abuse oppressed groups? Where in history have we seen this happen before?

Indeed, the level of free speech allowed by a society has necessarily become the litmus test by which that society’s commitments to liberal ideals are affirmed. However, in the case of France, the way the Republic deals with its minority communities will be the true test of its commitment to these ideals. And as the rest of the free world watches, let us use this as an opportunity to assess ourselves. As we strive to adhere to our principles, it is important for us to address our own inconsistencies, because if there’s anything that’s clear about free speech, it’s that it isn’t clear at all. 

- Asad Dandia

Photo: Bloomberg

No Justice, No Police

In the wake of senseless deaths, in the aftermath of collective outrage that seized the attention of the nation and the world, and in the midst of worsening relations between Mayor Bill de Blasio and his police force, perhaps the most striking element in the current state of race relations has become the unprecedented media attention and high profile scrutiny that continues to characterize these events. Why?

The widely publicized deaths that occurred tragically in Missouri, New York, and Ohio in recent months, and in Florida two years ago, are but a manifestation of a systemic pattern of unwarranted police brutality disproportionately targeted toward America’s black male population. While the separate grand juries’ decisions to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson nor New York officer Daniel Pantaleo were shocking, they were not uncommon against a backdrop of historical instances in which racially motivated police violence has repeatedly been absolved or ignored in court rooms across the United States – a short history of this phenomenon is outlined here. 

Why have these particular instances sparked a (justified) outrage felt and exercised by tens of thousands, with a vigor not seen since the Rodney King uprising that took place over 20 years ago, but on a scale that far surpasses it in size, organization, unity, and (relative) peace?

Repeated incidents involving the police and communities of color, especially African Americans, are not, and have never been mere coincidences. The harrowing number of black arrests in relation to population percentages (28% and 13% respectively in 2013), and blatantly incongruous incarceration rates (black individuals at nearly 6 times the rate of whites) should now serve as impetus enough to call for a critical examination of our legal system and those employed to enforce it. But have efforts like Mayor Bill de Blasio’s to curb racist stop-and-frisk practices drawn enough attention to the immediate need to improve police-community relations, and thereby acknowledge underlying tensions in places like Ferguson, where black people make up only 5.6% of the police force but 67% of the population? 

Twice a week, black suspects are killed at the hands of white officers, according to seven years of FBI data. Due to self-reporting bias and a lack of a complete database, this statistic actually severely underestimates the true number of fatalities. Regardless of what made these recent losses especially resonant and what triggered the demand to overhaul the status quo for thousands of activists, writers, politicians and everyday citizens, I am optimistic that #blacklivesmatter will become more than just a movement, but rather a paradigm shift.

An important, but inadvertent, shift has been underway in New York City, where the problematic “broken windows” policing, as advocated for by Police Commissioner Bill Bratton, has recently been spurned by officers, albeit for reasons other than expected. Broken windows policing involves a crackdown on minor infractions in the hopes of discouraging greater acts of violence and criminal activity. Minor infractions include turnstile jumping or limited marijuana possession, and 86% of these arrests are black and Latino men. Trends such as these serve only to exacerbate deeply entrenched distrust between law enforcement officials and black communities that emanates from horrifying brutality exhibited by police during the 1960s Civil Rights Movement, in which dogs were unleashed and high-pressure water hoses released.

Here it becomes incredibly frustrating to note that the original crime for which police approached Eric Garner was the selling of loose cigarettes. This would be considered a minor infraction, the likes of which police are now refraining from acting upon during their recent and rebellious “work stoppage.”

For the NYPD, the deaths of Officers Ramos and Liu two weeks ago at the hands of a disturbed gunman have been shrouded in political contention in the same way that those of Michael Brown and Eric Garner have. Unintentionally echoing the activities of the Black Lives Matter movement, the NYPD have been involved in protests, in public demonstrations, and in demands for systemic change. In the case of the NYPD, these demands boiled down to a cessation of displays of police demonization heralded by public officials, especially Mr. de Blasio.

An op-ed published by the New York Times by retired police officer, Steve Osborne, attempts to shed light on the true source of NYPD’S contempt towards Mr. de Blasio. Mr. Osborne describes Mr. de Blasio's word of caution to his biracial son about the dangers of interaction with the NYPD as disrespectful, as failing to acknowledge its accomplishments.

As long as black men continue to face discrimination at the hands of police officers and other law enforcement officials, black men should be warned about it, by whoever cares for their future, their integrity, and their humanity. As long as black men continue to be portrayed as just that, “black men,” a monolith against which projections of delinquency, of risk, and of inferiority, are made and acted upon by police forces, so too should black youth learn to face all police officials with a designated demeanor. If black Americans must continue to bear the painful burden of sweeping generalizations then police officials must similarly be met with a standardized conduct: wariness and caution.

While police officials possess many venues in both the public and private sector to voice their concerns and influence public discourse, black citizens lack sufficient legal and political platforms with which their grievances, their injustices, and their inequalities can be communicated. They are in want of the justice and peace that they are campaigning for across the county, and it is why these chants can be heard reverberating in cities across the country.

- Sabine Teyssier

What Will Bibi Do Next?

It had been over a month since nuclear talks with Iran collapsed. The holidays have come and gone and everyone feels safe again. While many are still alarmed by the failed negotiations, President Obama’s demeanor seems to convey that these fears are unfounded. Iran seems to be cooperating overall and maybe, just maybe, the current government under President Hassan Rouhani actually has peaceful intentions behind its nuclear energy program.

Mohammad Javad-Zariff, Iran’s foreign affairs minister, has reassuringly said, ”[w]e have repeatedly said that if there is political will and there are no excessive demands, we will be ready to accept a logical, fair and rational solution.” Secretary of State John Kerry and the Obama Administration are strong believers in the Iranian’s words. As Mr. Kerry was recently quoted, “[b]ecause I believe, President Obama believes, the administration believes that it would be the height of irresponsibility, it would be against our own interests and those of our closest partners, to walk away from a table when and if a peaceful resolution might really be within reach.” The leaders of Iran and the United States, it would seem, are partners in peace. The United States is interested in keeping the world safer, and by agreeing to limit Iran’s nuclear power, the international community would be at ease. For Iran, the lifting of sanctions would restore its crippling economy and collapsing currency, and perhaps assuage longstanding tensions with Saudi Arabia, which has long been wary of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

This outcome seems favorable for both countries – and every other country in the world – so why does neither pursue it? Although the United States would like to broker a peace deal with Iran, the Obama Administration is still cautious of Iran and must keep their international image in mind since other countries will see any concession or outstretched hand to Iran as a sign of weakness and appeasement. Yet, while the immediate threat of a nuclear Iran is going to the back the United States’ mind, it is still looming for another country: Israel. For Israel, a country less than 1200 miles from Iran, it is nearly impossible to forget the imminent danger of Iran’s ability to create a nuclear weapon. While the world only knows about their uranium enrichment plants, the Israeli public does not really have a grasp on how much Iran has developed their nuclear program.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly advocated for increased sanctions. His voice is heard as the strongest opposition to any compromise with Iran. He does not see a world in which it would be possible that Iran would be producing nuclear power for peaceful purposes. While his grip on reality seems accurate, his diplomatic appeal toward the United States is in check. The Obama Administration has ignored nearly all of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s thoughts on the conflict. Which is not surprising since over the past few months, the opinions of many Israeli officials have been invalidated with sharp disagreements with officials from the United States. It seems as if Mr. Kerry and Netanyahu’s interactions are indicative of the current state of the U.S.-Israel relationship. As opposed to aiding in each with their different opinions, they are turning into schoolyard children who call each other names.

Mr. Kerry has stayed firm in his opinion. He has repeatedly come out against Netanyahu saying that if the negotiations succeed, “the entire world — including Israel — will be safer for it.” While Mr. Kerry has repeatedly demonstrated his confidence in this conviction, Netanyahu does not seem convinced. He has ignored Kerry’s opinion while repeating his own, hoping that the repetition will lead to persuasion. This gridlock is one that will never lead to a resolution. Netanyahu seems to get more belligerent every time they meet. Understandably so, Mr. Netanyahu, better than anyone else in the world, is aware of how non-negotiable Israel’s security is. Netanyahu, as a man who deeply understands people’s actions, knows that Israel cannot be safe with a nuclear Iran. He will do almost anything to protect his people. No one is denying that; in this regard, he is admirable with his imperviousness and does not embody a demagogic facade.

However, with Israeli elections fast approaching in March and Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party suffering in the polls, there is no telling what Mr. Netanyahu will attempt to do to protect Israel. It seems more likely that with the United States not responding to Israel’s calls for action against Iran, Mr. Netanyahu may be willing to take drastic steps before the March elections. Mr. Netanyahu has repeatedly warned the United States, and the world, that it may seek to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities. In the past Israel has not been afraid to bomb a belligerent country’s nuclear program (here are some examples) . Israel is efficient and effective in clandestine operations in order to preserve the security of their people.

Now seems like the perfect time to for Netanyahu to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. This may seem drastic, but with nothing to lose, Mr. Netanyahu may be willing to take unprecedented action against Iran, more dramatic than what has been seen before. He will not back down until Israel is a safe place. If this means ignoring international wishes, he may be prepared to do it.

- Naomi Kadish

Book Review: Ron Chernow’s Alexander Hamilton

Ron Chernow has long held a storied place among historians for his vivid and eloquent tomes on great figures in American history, ranging from corporate giants like John D. Rockefeller and the Morgan family, to towering political figures including George Washington, and soon, Ulysses S. Grant. Each of these figures has already received tremendous attention from historians, and their legacies, it would seem, are somewhat settled. None will deny that Washington was a model president and leader, especially given his time or that Grant’s administration, while well-intentioned, was so scarred by repeated scandals that it has largely been deemed a failure.

But Chernow’s 2005 book, Alexander Hamilton, could not have chosen a more pivotal figure whose legacy deserves both reckoning and clarification; and Chernow accomplishes both in this outstanding, enthralling piece that firmly establishes the first Secretary of the Treasury as a flawed but prescient intellectual, military leader, and politician whose vision for America has won out above all others.

Born in the British West Indies on January 11, 1755, Hamilton was the bastard child of a single mother, living in squalor on the slave-trading outpost. Recognized for his bright intellect as a youth, local businessmen paid for Hamilton to be schooled in America, where – to make a long story short – at the ripe age of 22, he dropped out of school to work as the aide-de-camp to then-General George Washington (makes you wonder what good college is doing you, no?).

From then on, Hamilton’s career experienced a meteoric rise to fame and prominence, one which Chernow traces with a seemingly endless stream of letters and documents that follow Hamilton’s beginnings from a young man craving the opportunity to demonstrate his talents to a (still relatively young) statesman whose tenure as the Secretary of the Treasury oversaw the creation of the base of the modern American economy. This is to say nothing of Hamilton’s role as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, his status as one of New York’s most preeminent lawyers, his founding of the Bank of New York (and, indirectly, the Manhattan Company, now a part of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.), his authorship of the majority of The Federalist Papers, and other achievements. Over the course of his career, the self-conscious wunderkind from the Caribbean, who developed into a thin-skinned, headstrong political pugilist, earned as many friends as enemies for his often unyielding and outspoken views.

Indeed, Hamilton reveled in political debate and discourse, often coming out on top not through compromise or deal-making, but through sheer force of will, Herculean work ethic, and intellectual conquest. Both during and after his tenure as Treasury Secretary, Hamilton’s “swashbuckling” (Chernow’s very appropo adjective for Hamilton) often came into conflict with the more laid-back and demure Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson whose political views violently collided with Hamilton’s, creating an incredible clash of ideas whose reverberations can still be felt. Undoubtedly, populist sentiment against banks (both unjustified and not), differing beliefs regarding the size and role of government, tensions between Northern and Southern states, and widely varying interpretations of the Constitution are all issues that generate as much contention today as they did then.

The conflicting beliefs that these men shared were nearly Manichean in their differences. Hamilton, as Chernow discusses in the opening pages of the book, believed that free men and women (Hamilton was a fervent abolitionist), businesses, cities, capital, manufacturing, finance, and dynamic governance were the keys to future American prosperity. This is a striking contrast to the Locke-inspired agrarian society envisioned by Jefferson, whose misled and pernicious beliefs regarding banks, economics, and, obviously, slaveholding repeatedly come across as disappointing throughout the book. Indeed, the circumstances and outcomes of Hamilton’s repeated public and vicious bouts with Jefferson make the former seem outspoken, righteous, and nearly heroic, while the latter often chose to attack the other through intermediaries or whisper campaigns that make him seem dishonest by comparison (though there are two sides to every story, of course). The prolonged political war between these two men, fought in the White House, Congress, newspapers, Europe, the streets of New York City, and across the United States is the book’s climax and highlight.

It is through these public disputes, his deliberations, his occasional mood swings, his perennial embarrassment with his status as a bastard child, his love letters to wife, or even his agony over his extramarital affair that Chernow turns Hamilton into a fully-formed human being, lifted from the dusty volumes of history. Truly, when Hamilton meets his end at Weehawken, New Jersey during his infamous duel with Aaron Burr, it truly feels like a light went out. Hamilton’s species of forward thinking, high-minded scholars with integrity, commitment, charisma, and energy no longer exist in America, instead replaced with the kinds of vain, dramatic politicians and operatives that fuel books like This Town (another work to review!). That is not to say that Hamilton and his legendary contemporaries were not vain – Chernow provides ample evidence of this – but neither he nor his peers saw politics as an exercise in vanity. They saw it as a public service in aid of pursuing a grand experiment in human freedom and dignity; one to which Hamilton and his compatriots devoted their lives. Chernow’s work not only gives us insight into a consummate American statesman, but also reminds us that the giants who once walked in Washington are long extinct, but not forgotten.

- Alex Hasapidis

Anti-Islam Sentiments Escalating in Europe

On New Year’s Day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel delivered her yearly New Year’s Address to the nation. Beyond addressing concerns regarding Germany’s stagnant GDP, the Christian Democratic Union politician also used this very public platform to speak out against a growing injustice in her country: the rise of anti-Islamic sentiment. This sentiment has been best captured by the mushrooming “Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West” movement, known colloquially in English as Pegida. Chancellor Merkel, who grew up in East Germany during the Cold War, pointedly criticized Pegida’s xenophobic use of the slogan “Wir sind das Volk” (“We are the people”), a rallying cry that eventually brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Formed in October 2014 by self-styled activist and advertising agency owner Lutz Bachmann, Pegida is touted as a movement against the wide swaths of immigrants entering Germany every year (Germany is estimated to process applications for over 200,000 asylum-seekers annually), in an effort to protect Germany’s Judeo-Christian values. Pegida counts neo-Nazis and members of Germanys’ lower and middle class among its supporters, and claims that the German media is deliberately maiming their image. Some Pegida supporters have criticized the mainstream German political parties for not doing enough to stem the increasing tide of immigration. In fact, leading conservative politician Hans-Peter Friedrich has concluded that since Ms. Merkel ignores conservative issues, Pegida — along with the populist, equally xenophobic Eurosceptic Alternative for Germany (AfD) party — has formed to fill a vacuum in right-leaning politics. As a result, what started as a small Facebook page in October has grown into thousands of people participating in “street marchers” and small-scale protests. However, in December, larger assemblies of civil disobedience took place. Over 18,000 people took to the streets of Dresden on Monday, replete with signs saying “No to Islamisation of Europe!” and “worried for my country.”

Fortunately, this antagonistic, racist behavior has not gone unnoticed. Beyond Chancellor Merkel’s pleading German citizens not to engage in these racist protests and reminding her constituents of their moral role to take in refugees, thousands of anti-racist protestors countered Pegida supporters in Dresden. In the city of Cologne, authorities switched off the lights inside of the city cathedral as a mark of protest against extremism. The scene of large German flags waving in the sky, battling life-size crosses painted in German colors, represents the serious crossroads that Europe’s most stable economy is facing.

Sadly, Germany’s current struggles with nativism are far from unique on the European continent. After the emergence of ideologically driven parties like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) in the United Kingdom and the National Front in France, anti-immigrant sentiment has been inflamed in even the most tolerant of Europe’s corners. Anti-Islamic sentiments have also been gaining strong footholds in Denmark and Sweden, the latter of which has been called “Europe’s Open Door” for its friendly immigration policy. Burning mosques and harassed hijabi (Islamic headscarf worn by Muslim women)-wearers are becoming increasingly common throughout the continent. This steady flow of Muslim immigrants into Europe will swell as the civil conflict in Syria and violence in parts of Africa — areas with high Muslim populations — continues unabated.

The United States is no stranger to anti-immigrant movements (in the late 19th century, there was a political party, the Know Nothings, devoted solely to the cause), as evidenced not only by the lack of comprehensive immigration reform addressing the status of undocumented immigrants, but also by the polarization of the two political parties on how to address the issue. Especially after 9/11, anti-Islamic — in fact, anti-South Asian — acts of racism are, sadly, not unheard of. Given the recent unrest over the deaths of young black men by white police officers (and the subsequent murders of two New York City police officers), it is evident to both domestic and international audiences that the United States continues to experience deep racial divides that have sown mistrust in its criminal justice and law enforcement systems. However, the United States has yet to see the emergence of charismatic, well-tailored political stars like Jimmie Åkesson of Sweden and Marine Le Pen of France, who have not only made their anti-immigrant voices heard, but have been able to achieve significant political victories at the polls. Only time will tell if a 21st century version of the Know Nothings will emerge to take advantage of the situation.  

- Anjana Sreedhar

 

Op-Ed Response to “Dire Consequences: Abbas Edition”

While it is unacceptable for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, or any leader, to blame others and not take accountability for their own actions, we must first understand that the harrowing killings at a Jerusalem synagogue several weeks ago were the result of the irrational and violent mentality that has plagued both sides of the divide in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nevertheless, I completely agree that Mr. Abbas should have immediately condemned the act of terror without waiting for United States Secretary of State John Kerry to force his hand into doing so.

Concomitantly, we must remember that this irrational and violent mentality did not manifest itself out of nowhere. It has manifested over the course of over thousands of years of frustration and exhaustion over the issue of land; land that has been subject to countless conflicts between countless peoples who have fought for its possession in the name of religion. Now, however, there are two sides: one side has land that its people get to call a country, while the other side has land that they do not have autonomy over to prosper, let alone to live under normal circumstances that we are privileged to have here.

Obviously, this is not an excuse for the Palestinians to physically harm Israeli citizens or soldiers. But what I’ve just described is the stark reality: the Palestinians feel and have felt, for over six decades, like an already-caged tiger being cornered into a smaller cage. Humans are not passive creatures. If we are being cornered, if we feel threatened, we will lash out: that is the inevitable construct of the human psyche.

The problem here, however, is not singular – it is not just Mr. Abbas. The root cause of a failed permanent solution is that both the Palestinian and Israeli leaderships continue to find excuses to not sit down like grown adults and hammer out the co-existence of a Palestinian state alongside an already existing Israeli state. Ms. Elisa Jacobs was right that Mr. Abbas sending a letter of condolence to the killer’s family heightens the already mounting tension (the family who, by the way, has been ordered by Israeli authorities to move back to the West Bank, because their house is to be demolished for their son’s crime – a crime they are not responsible for).

It’s true that Bibi (as Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu is fondly referred to) doesn’t send condolence letters to the families of dead Israeli criminals. Yet, he didn’t condemn Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) soldiers who shot a 10-year-old Palestinian boy twice for “loitering” at the Kissufim checkpoint. It is also cases like these that continue to drive a wedge between both peoples. Did the soldiers take the boy to a hospital? They did, but that does not justify their benighted sense of conduct. Just as Mr. Abbas’s letter reinforces the state of hostility between Palestinians and Israelis, so does Bibi’s apathy towards the injustices the IDF perpetrates against harmless Palestinians. And yet, he remains a crucial figure to the peace process, while Mr. Abbas no longer is one? Perhaps then if the international community is to find new a partner on the path to peace, then they should not look for a partner, but rather partners other than both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu.

And they better hurry. If one warning shot for a 10 year-old-child is not enough to get him to back away, then the hundreds of bullets the IDF possesses are certainly not enough to stop the Palestinian people from lashing out to free themselves from their cage.

- Hezril Azmin

Photo: Al Arabiya

Dire Consequences: Abbas Edition

During Mahmoud Abbas’s Cooper Union address, he called for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to help “make peace.” What he failed to mention was how he and his party were going to do the same.

After last week’s horrific terror attack on a Jerusalem synagogue, the deadliest attack in over three years, the Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization had little to say. Soon after the attack Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.  "This is the direct result of the incitement being led by Hamas and Mahmoud Abbas, incitement which the international community is irresponsibly ignoring," Netanyahu stated in his address.  Only after hours of waiting and a statement by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry did Abbas finally react. While Abbas’s response included an apology, it also needled in an excuse:  "We also condemn the violence and call to stop interference at Al-Aqsa [the Temple Mount] and the incitement by Israeli ministers," Abbas’s office stated.  Abbas uses simple victim blaming tactics, forcing the victims to take responsibility for the attack and removing culpability from the terrorists.

The Temple Mount, an important religious site for Jews, Muslims, and Christians alike, has been a target for violence over the weeks leading up to the attack. Aside from sporadic violent riots on the Temple Mount, Rabbi Yehuda Glick, the leading advocate for Jewish access to the Temple Mount, was shot four times in the chest by Mu’taz Hijazi, an Arab gunman. Glick had just given a speech at the Begin Center in Jerusalem regarding the lack of Jewish presence on the Temple Mount and was met outside by a man on a motorcycle.  According to Glick, who survived the attack, before shooting him Hijazi said, “I’m very sorry. You are the enemy of Al-Aqsa.”

Hijazi, a Jerusalem resident living ten minutes away from the Temple Mount, resisted arrest and was killed by Israeli police.  Instead of condemning Hijazi’s reprehensible actions, Abbas sent his family a letter in the mail.  According to the Jerusalem Post, Abbas wrote that he received with “anger and condemnation the news of the heinous crime committed by the gangs of killing and terrorism in the Israeli occupation army.” 

Upset by this, Netanyahu stated, "When we are trying to calm the situation, Abbas sends condolences over the death of one who tried to perpetrate a reprehensible murder. The time has come for the international community to condemn him for such actions.” This recurring passive reaction has gone on for too long. Abbas did not mention the assassination attempt. He did not mention the peace that he demanded Netanyahu to make. Instead he concluded that this killing would be added to the “crimes of the Israeli occupation army against our people since the nakba (in 1948).”

For people unfamiliar with Israeli politics I offer you an episode worthy of comparison.  In 1994 Baruch Goldstein, an American-born Israeli, killed 29 and injured 125 Arab Muslims who were praying inside of a mosque.  Former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin condemned the attack, describing Goldstein as a "degenerate murderer” and "a shame on Zionism and an embarrassment to Judaism.” No one made an excuse. No one pointed a finger. The Israeli government owned up for what they knew to be wrong and censured Goldstein.

What Abbas told the crowd at Cooper Union was that he was looking for a partner in peace.  After his continual lack of leadership, world leaders like Kerry, Glick, and Netanyahu are thirsty for the same thing Abbas claims to want- an active partner in peace.

- Elisha Jacobs

Ferguson: Race and the Law

The investigation into now-former police officer Darren Wilson, accused of shooting unarmed black teenager Michael Brown this past summer, was indeed a high-profile event not only for members of America’s black community but for millions across the nation. What happened next seems like it almost came out of To Kill A Mockingbird: on Monday November 24, the Missouri grand jury shocked the nation by deciding not to indict—to formally accuse of a crime—the police officer for his actions. Beyond exacerbating existing hostilities between the black and law enforcement communities, originally formed during slavery and the civil rights movement and sustained by the regular monitoring and policing of black people in urban settings, it is to be noted that grand juries almost always decide to indict. Other atrocities that occurred after the shooting and during the investigation include leaving Brown’s body out for several hours, not writing down testimony from law enforcement on the scene, and lack of clarity regarding the events after the shooting.

The point here, however, is that this event did not take place in a sleepy Southern town in a fictional novel. This did not take place during an instance of civil disobedience in the 1960s. This occurred on a warm summer day in 2014, six years after electing the country’s first black president, 50 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, more than 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation. Perhaps the realization – or simple reminder – that the murder of African-Americans can go unpunished in America is what shocked people the most. W.E.B. Du Bois’s immortal words “the system cannot fail those it was never meant to protect” come to mind.

Amidst chants of “hands up, don’t shoot!” and “this is what democracy looks like!” and among images of police in riot gear and facing protestors while in tanks, many Americans complain about black rage in the face of alleged racial progress. Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani did no one any favors by citing black crime statistics, stating that the need for white police officers in areas heavily concentrated with blacks stemmed from black-on-black violence. While the statistics on black-on-black crime are alarming, Giuliani has uncovered other more serious problems within American society: socioeconomic and geographic segregation in neighborhoods, and the lack of police officers of color in predominantly black areas. Other notable conservative commentators have said that this is not a race issue, without realizing the brutalized history the African American community has with the police. It is in statements like these when race relations in American are invalidated and ignored.

In terms of the actual court proceedings of the grand jury, some experts have said that it is difficult to find a probable cause for Wilson to have shot Michael Brown, and that even if he was indicted, getting a conviction would have been difficult, if not impossible. This reading of the case stems from the fact that jurors found that witnesses were unsure what Michael Brown was doing with his hands when he raised them either to allegedly surrender or assault Wilson, and many of those same witnesses offered conflicting and even self-contradictory accounts of the nature of the interaction between Brown and Wilson. These questions may complicate the way people think about the case, but racial power asymmetry cannot be denied. In a country where 60% of people stopped at traffic lights by police are black males, it is difficult to expect the legal system to work objectively for racial minorities who are otherwise subjected to extreme levels of discrimination.

I stand with Michael Brown’s family and his supporters. I mourn his loss and mourn the justice that his family and friends will never receive. It is difficult to disassociate race relations and the inner workings of the legal system, and for that reason, anger rages on in Ferguson and across the United States. 

- Anjana Sreedhar

The Politics of Pipe Dreams

The Keystone Pipeline System – a TransCanada Corporation project designed to transport crude oil from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin in Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and Texas – is not only large in its physical scope, but also in its political, social, and economic implications. Perhaps what is most at stake, however, is the environmental impact of the construction of the Keystone XL.

Keystone XL is a proposed additional segment to the already existing pipeline system, traversing about 1,700 miles from Canada to the United States and crossing highly sensitive terrain. This includes an active seismic zone in Nebraska that experienced an earthquake as recent as 2002, and the Ogallala Aquifer, an underground freshwater source in the Great Plains which provides drinking water for two million people and supports one-fifth of the wheat, corn, cattle and cotton industries in the United States. A leak in these areas would clearly prove calamitous to those affected, both in terms of potential health issues that could be caused and the funds needed to address repairs. Bitumen, a component of the oil sands, is specifically conducive to explosions and corrosion, having already led to 14 minor leaks in Keystone. In dealing with these variables of simultaneous magnitude and fragility, it has become clear that the risks the construction of the Keystone XL poses cannot be overstated.

Beyond these immediate concerns, Keystone XL does not provide even a partial solution to the issue of American dependence on foreign oil, contrary to what many of its supporters claim. OPEC’s oligopolistic power and vast supply of cheap oil ensure that it will be difficult for the United States to make itself energy independent in the near-future. Indeed, the domestic oil generated through the pipeline will not be significant enough to counter these foreign forces; however, the process to extract the oil will be unrivaled in its levels of carbon emissions. The method by which the oil is derived from the Canadian tar sands produces 17% more carbon dioxide than conventional sources. Given the dangers of greenhouse gases such as carbon, this figure was enough to lead the head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, scientist James Hansen, to call it “game over for the climate.”

In short, the Keystone XL will severely exacerbate unsustainable carbon emission trends, pose direct risks to the health and livelihood of millions, and fuel our addiction to fossil fuels. To obfuscate these facts, TransCanada has manipulated various supposedly impartial environmental studies of the pipeline. An assessment performed by Cardno Entrix reported little environmental impact as a result of the pipeline. It was later discovered that the firm that had authored the study had "previously worked on projects with TransCanada and described the pipeline company as a 'major client' in its marketing materials". Further demonstration of TransCanada’s disreputable practices lie in the threats of eminent domain faced by landowners in the pipeline’s proposed path. Even though the project had not yet received federal approval, as of October 2011, TransCanada had "34 eminent domain actions against landowners in Texas" and "22 in South Dakota.”

Those in favor of the Keystone XL tend to cite job creation as a positive outcome of the project. Of course, a report written by the Perryman Group, later revealed to be hired by TransCanada to evaluate the Keystone XL, found that the pipeline would create 20,000 jobs and generate $7 billion in consumer and investment spending. An independent study performed by the Cornell ILR Global Labor Institute, however, found that only 2,500 to 4,650 temporary construction jobs would be created. The estimated number of long-term permanent jobs created by the pipeline is, frankly, paltry – the State Department estimates that the Keystone XL will support 127 permanent jobs.

The takeaway is clear: TransCanada’s claims about environmental impact and job creation with regards to the Keystone XL are not credible or reliable, especially as the company continues to put its thumb on the scales to hide the truth of just how harmful this pipeline will prove to be.

The Senate’s recent rejection of the Keystone Pipeline XL construction bill is a reflection of the dire need for more stability, security, and sights to the future. The slim margin by which it was rejected indicates that we are, quite literally, treading on shaky ground. Probably Senate majority leader, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell, predicts a bill approving the construction of Keystone Xl would be “advanced very early up in the next session” in the new Republican-controlled Congress. Following the vote, North Dakota Republican Senator John Hoeven stated his belief that the bill will be passed in January, “when a number of new senators who support my legislation take office and the new Congress begins.” The strong relationship between big oil money and conservative politics is representative of an ensuing favorable political climate for the Keystone XL. Ten more pipelines, comparable in scope to Keystone and similar in their risky management and implementation, have been quietly approved while the contention of Keystone waged on. Still, Obama is the ultimate proprietor of power in granting or denying TransCanada’s application. Given his previous rejection of the permit, his stipulation that the pipeline "not significantly exacerbate the climate problem”, and a lack of reelection prospects, Obama may hold his ground against a pipeline that threatens it.

- Sabine Teyssier 

Darling, Reproductive Rights Gives India A Bad Name

I am always struck by the diversity of languages, cultures, perspectives, and ideas from around the world that I have experienced and studied. But there is one tragic commonality in many of these: the systematic humiliation and degradation of female-identified people and children. From equal pay in the United States to genital mutilation in Africa to sexual trafficking in Southeast Asia and beyond, the widespread abuse of women in political, social, and economic arenas is not uncommon.

India, a rising developing nation with numerous grave women’s rights violations of its own, has made its way into the news yet again. On November 12th, over 80 women, mostly from the state of Chhattisgarh’s poor, lower caste communities, underwent government-sponsored sterilization, which resulted in the deaths of 11 and illness of 60 of them. Women’s rights advocates blame the monetary incentives—1,400 rupees or approximately $20 US—given to these women by the state to undergo these operations.

In this diverse, burgeoning nation, where over 2/3rds of the population is under 35, sectors such as natural resources or the job market will begin to experience strain. Unlike its autocratic, communist neighbor, this democratic nation does not have a demographic policy to curtail population growth. While many grassroots initiatives started by scholarly institutions and advocacy organizations have attempted to build conversations and dialogues around family planning and contraceptives, issues such as sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, and continued poverty as a result of lack of education abound.

India is no stranger to being exposed in the news about methods to slow birth rates, often with disastrous results. The most popular method is providing monetary incentives for sterilization procedures. Health rights advocates have criticized this approach for putting the onus on the woman and thereby seriously limiting their family planning birth control options. It also doesn’t help that the former Health Minister Harsh Vardhan is known for making controversial statements, such as advocating banning comprehensive sex education in favor of practicing yoga.

Accordingly to the World Economic Forum’s 2012 Global Gender Gap Report, India stands at 105 out of 135 countries surveyed on women’s political, social, and economic empowerment. In health and survival, they are second to last, only ahead of Azerbaijan. India suffers from high rates of maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity, with violence against pregnant women regularly exercised. This will severely affect not only the way that India develops in the future, but also its reputation on the international stage.

To be clear, the United States is no stranger to the “war on women;” an increasing number of states have closed down abortion clinics and state representatives have made inexcusable, medically inaccurate comments about rape and pregnancy. Women’s access to reproductive care, especially for ethnic and racial minorities, continues to be an obstacle due to the rise of right wing rhetoric. However, India, unlike the United States, is still trying to prove itself to the world that it will not be “the power that could have been.” Understandably so, reproductive health and economic growth are invariably tied. While its obsession with economic and job market success is not unfounded, India needs to address women’s rights in the context of reproductive health in order to be legitimized as a future powerhouse.

- Anjana Sreedhar