It’s no secret that mankind’s industrial explosion has precipitated global climate change for over a century. As industrialism continues worldwide at a seemingly interminable rate, greenhouse gases are incessantly spewed into the atmosphere. Evidence gathered in 2009 demonstrated that since the onset of industrialism in the mid-18^th century, global carbon dioxide levels rose 38% and methane levels 148%. And, if that doesn’t make our impact on Mother Nature clear enough, a recent report compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reveals that the 21^st century has proven to be the warmest century on record by far.

Despite the obvious, few nations have taken sufficiently aggressive measures to curb the destructive effects of economic expansion. The feat is certainly a challenging one to achieve, considering the dependency of many industrial economies on natural resources. Arguably one of the most important habitats to the global environment is the Amazon Rainforest, of which 13% is situated within the boundaries of Peru. The trees that canopy the lush jungle are so massive and so numerous that the Peruvian Amazon is one of the largest stores of carbon in the world. In other words, the forest is one of the most critical sources of clean, breathable air for the entire human race.

However, the Peruvian economy has threatened world health with its mining industry. With large reserves of gold, silver and copper pocketed within the depths of the Amazon, mineral mining composes approximately 15% of the nation’s total GDP and 60% of exports. And, because of this, trees continue to fall staggering rates.

Of course the significance of the Amazon to the atmosphere is no foreign matter to the government of Peru—the country established the Ministry of Environment in 2008 as a condition in signing a free-trade agreement with the United States. Even so, the Ministry’s influence has now been reduced to null as recent economic interests have trumped environmental concerns. Lackluster investments and decreased mineral exports have prompted the government to loosen up on environmental restrictions on the mining industry, effectively depriving the Ministry of its purpose and placing much of the Amazon under the control of corporations.

But long-term global environmental concerns take on an exponentially higher sense of urgency when they levy extreme abuses of human rights and give rise to oppression. The mining industry has had a profound effect on the quality of lives of Peruvians situated in Amazonian regions. To cite but one example, a report compiled this past June by the human rights organization Front Line Defenders (FLD) cites that nearly half of the Cajamarca region is under mining concession. Despite two decades of mining activities in the area, it seems that the locals have no privilege of reaping a share of these economic benefits; 52% of the population lives in poverty—the highest in Peru.

Not only are mining corporations snatching up all the profits, but they are also concurrently destroying the habitats of the Cajamarca’s food sources. Much of the region’s settlers are indigenous and depend on farming to sustain themselves, and mining activities have destroyed significant amounts of farmland and have rendered much land unfertile. Water sources have been polluted with mercury and other toxins. The natural wildlife has been distorted. Local communities have been displaced both by excavation projects and a necessity to relocate to habitable environments. It seems that not even the well being of its own citizens fazes the Peruvian government in its pursuit of economic development.

What’s more is that the Peruvian government is effectively purging mineral-rich territories of any citizens that stand in its way in order to pursue economic gains. In 2011, three individuals were killed and several others injured when the national army brutally dispersed rural Peruvians who were protesting the development of the Tia Maria mine. Instead of recognizing its violation of basic human rights and granting environmental defenders their freedom of speech, Lima instead opted to provide soldiers and police officers a “license to kill” protestors, even if they were not endangered. The law safeguards government officials by granting total immunity for committing tyrannical violence against its own citizenry. This is all under the “state of emergency” that has been declared by President Ollanta Humala, which further underscores the extent to which profit eclipses a regard for human rights.

This type of repressive response towards protesters intervening in governmental environmental exploits is by no means a new matter for Peru, however. In 2009, during President Alan García’s term, police officers responsible for “protecting corporate interests” were discharged to quell a protest being held in the city of Bagua shortly after the signing of a Peru-US trade agreement that would unconstitutionally allow for the seizure of land from indigenous Awajúns and Wampis by oil and logging companies. The event infamously became known as the “Bagua Massacre,” and resulted in 20 deaths and over 200 injuries. When police forcefulness prompted a violent clash, García outlandishly accused demonstrators of “committing genocide” against his police force.

Peruvians were optimistic for an end to this oligarchical oppression with the election of current President Humala in 2011. The majority of support for Humala’s campaign came from indigenous and left-wing demographic groups within the country. However, their optimism was swiftly erased once it became clear that Humala would follow in García’s footsteps. It was shortly after his election that the Tia Maria mine demonstrations began, and rather than break from the style of his predecessor, Humala once again sent in the army to defend economic interests against the disquiets of his own citizens.

Environmental protesters are not only deprived of their freedom to express themselves, but have lost their freedom to privacy as well; according to the same FLD report, many individuals involved with protests against the government’s exploitations of the environment stated that they believed that they were almost always under physical or electronic surveillance. Some of these protesters who contributed to FLD’s report actually testified that they were certain that they were being kept under close watch, having been notified of their surveillance by intelligence services. Several accounts also indicate that personal homes were broken into while homeowners were away, with nothing stolen or broken, suggesting that these individuals were under surveillance and the break-ins were premeditated means of intimidation.

By prioritizing its economic gains over the freedoms and security of its own citizens, Lima is making a bold and dangerous statement: money matters more than the people of Peru. The nation is shifting from a democracy to a plutocracy as corporate interests dictate every politician’s move. Officials have levied an assault against their own people instead of making the effort to address protests in a diplomatic manner. And, with the government planning to continue expanding mining activities, there is no doubt that the bloodbaths are far from over. Humala is risking sacrificing stability and his nation’s international “democratic” reputation for economic gains, which in the long run will do little if human rights continue to be undermined. The Peruvian government must reform its methods of response to address protests in a nonviolent and conversational manner and reach compromises between both citizens and economic interests. This is the only way in which Lima can secure stability—through regaining legitimacy and the support of rural and liberal interests, which compromise a significant portion of the national demographic.

Given the current state of chaos ensuing in the Peruvian Amazon, it is imperative that this year’s UN Climate Change Convention, which is slated to take place in Lima in December, prioritizes the reinstallation of stringent government restrictions on environmental exploitations by corporations. The destruction of the carbon-rich jungle is of vital interest to the rest of the world given the fact that global air quality will continue to deteriorate from deforestation. And, because national stability is always interlinked with international economic relations, it is no question that the growing instability of Peru will have a negative impact on global trade markets as well.

It is imperative that all nations present in discussion frame environmental concerns in a manner that simultaneously serves to institute safeguards against the violation of citizens’ basic human rights. By reaching an agreement on curtailing corporate control of the Amazon in order to preserve the environment, the onslaught on the well being of indigenous communities will consequently come to a halt. Because it seems as though the quality of life of its citizens are of little interest to Peruvian officials, this change will most likely be brought about successfully only if introduced under the pretext of an extremely legitimate global environmental concern. Although Peru’s economy continues to progress, true national development will remain absent until the government can agree to respect the rights of its citizens and find middle ground on which to continue economic development in a sustainable matter while fostering political stability and concord.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Deadly Deforestation appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

If a democracy topples somewhere in the world, but no one is around to witness it, did it really fall? Time after time, this has been the Obama administration’s style: to pick-and-choose its battles while turning a blind eye towards others. The current focus has remained the Ukraine-Russia crisis over 5,000 miles away, and is only becoming more intense. First came the battle of sanctions between Presidents Obama and Putin, and then the Malaysian Airlines crash added to the White House’s already full plate. But what about the turmoil consuming next-door neighbor Venezuela? Though Venezuela further spirals into destruction, Obama continues to ignore the grave issue just south of our borders.

Protests, which took root in early February, have escalated into widespread violence between disgruntled citizens and government officials and only seem to be growing more intense. The anger stems from a multitude of problems left unresolved by the late President Hugo Chávez and his Bolivian Socialist Revolution. Although, former vice president and Nicolas Maduro, who assumed leadership following Chávez’s death, hasn’t been able to match the charisma or effectiveness of Chávez. Fed up with a skyrocketing national crime rate, a shortage of basic goods, mediocre infrastructure, healthcare and educational institutions, and a toppling economy, protestors – mostly students – have flooded the streets.

What has Maduro done to quell disorder? Rather than address these serious problems plaguing his country, he has responded to demonstrations with violent crackdowns on basic political freedoms, especially freedom of speech through intense media censorship and demonstration suppression. Further, he has spewed fallacious and unfounded statements pinning the “fascist” United States as the scapegoat for the country’s hardships. Unfortunately, the violence may aid the resurrection of a dictatorial Venezuela from the collapse of an only-recently democratized nation.

The question posed by many Americans in response to international crises is as follows: why should we care about dilemmas brewing outside of our borders? In the case of Venezuela, there are imminent and severe repercussions that could affect the United States as well as the global economy if the violence is not contained and the country slips into totalitarianism.

First, there are economic ramifications. Absent of China’s case of intense economic growth under an authoritarian regime, democracies tend to promote long-term economic prosperity. Although history offers cases of several prosperous non-democratic regimes, these countries accrued wealth only in the short-term. The GNP of the Soviet Union, for instance, eclipsed that of the US for an extended period of time. However, the USSR could not sustain its rapid economic growth, and on the heels of the collapse of its economy came the collapse of the regime. An optimal environment for economic development arises amidst guaranteed freedoms, not government oppression. It is this liberalization, which authoritarian regimes lack, that encourages long-term economic development.

The prevailing reason why Venezuela must maintain this type of economic environment is the influence of the country’s massive oil industry. Venezuela has not only been a long-time energy exporter to the United States, but also provides substantial amounts of oil to Latin American and Asian countries. Of significance is that Venezuela’s influx of hard currency comes from exports to the United States, not China. China accepts roughly 640,000 barrels per day from Venezuela as repayment for loans exceeding $40 billion that have been accumulating since 2008. This has lead Venezuela to marginally reduce its exports to the United States as compensation. Coupled with crippling infrastructure, as the oil industry continues to collapse, so will Venezuela. Given that the current protests are largely focused on the economic failures plaguing the nation, the disorder will only become exacerbated as the oil market, constituting 95% of national revenue, crumbles.

While the US may not be drastically affected by a plunge in Venezuelan imports, countries that are wholly dependent on Venezuela for their oil imports certainly will be. For instance, the stability of Cuba hinges on Venezuela’s oil production, as Cuba imports the majority of its oil from its Latin neighbor. If exports to Cuba drop substantially, unrest may very well follow. Potential unrest in Cuba would also be detrimental to delicate US-Cuba relations. The importance of promoting prosperity of the Venezuelan oil market thus transcends the aim of restoring stability to the country; it also directly affects the security of other nations geopolitically significant to the United States. Even though our dependence on Venezuelan oil has diminished, the industry still practically controls the state of many other countries.

The other major focus in promoting stability and democracy in Venezuela is the prospect of peace. Democracies in which citizens enjoy abundant civil liberties are less likely to collapse into chaos, making it crucial that Venezuela does not deteriorate into an authoritarian nation. The overbearing oppression of freedoms in response to the protests will only worsen the situation, and no legitimate steps towards improvement of the nation’s flaws can be taken amidst such a suffocating atmosphere. If the economy of Venezuela is to be salvaged, unrest must first be quelled.

In America’s eyes, it is dangerous to have such turbulence so close to home. The United States and Venezuela have long had tense relations, especially under Chávez, who fabricated a sense of Latin American nationalism under the pretense that the United States posed an ultimate evil to Latin America. And now, with fingers being pointed at the United States by the government amidst the chaos, the anti-American sentiment that had been planted by Chavez only continues to burgeon.

Furthermore, America’s hopes for improved relations remain a distant prospect thanks to irresponsible politics. When the protests had just begun in early February, Maduro expelled three American diplomats from the country, having accused them of orchestrating the whole ordeal by recruiting students to the protest. In a childish response, Washington countered in the same manner, hastily expelling three Venezuelan diplomats. This action only fueled criticism of the United States by the Maduro’s administration and in no way contributed to mending relations. The White House should pursue improved relations with Venezuela while pushing for Maduro to restore basic human rights. Instead, it has chosen to continue to jeopardize its already minimal chance of creating an ally out of an already antagonistic nation by partaking in the Venezuelans’ “blame game.”

While unrest continues less than 3,000 miles south of our borders, Obama continues to focus on Asia and the Middle East. At least thirty-nine people have now been killed as a result of protests in Venezuela against the crippling economy, and hundreds more have been injured. If nothing else, with grotesque human rights abuses rising as political freedoms continue to be suppressed and masses of protesters are dragged away in handcuffs for practicing their democratic right to speech, it behooves the United States, as the global bastion of democracy, to maintain that legitimacy and act from a humanitarian standpoint. Congress must take diplomatic initiative and urge Caracas to restore basic political freedoms and peace to the streets of Venezuela. Only after this is done can any real progress be made towards improving the fickle state of the country, beginning with economic restructuring.

But how could the United States actually intervene in the situation without provoking greater violence? A military presence in the country is out of the option given the dark history of US imperialism in Latin America and Venezuela’s well-known disdain for the US fostered under the Chavez presidency. This would only fuel the fire already burning against the US. And, Americans know very well from attempts such as Iraq and Afghanistan that military interventions designed to promote democracy typically end in failure. Another option is to impose an embargo on Venezuela’s oil exports. However, sanctions of this nature would most likely only worsen the economic crisis afflicting the country and contribute to Maduro’s campaign against the United States. The US must be careful as to not take any kind of action that could potentially be used as evidence by Maduro for his baseless claims of Washington attempting to topple his regime.

Considering the less-than-perfect relations shared between the US and Venezuela over the years, the best solution as of now is to apply the pressure indirectly through third-party Latin American countries. Venezuela will certainly be more willing to listen to other Latin American governments on issues than any mandates coming from the “fascist” Obama administration. The question that stands, however, is whether the White House would even be willing to make as much as a small effort to communicate these concerns to other Latin American administrations. Recall when the violence in Syria was first escalating, when Obama drew a humanitarian “red line” which he swiftly recalled after receiving criticism for never following up his rhetoric with action. Based on the Obama administration’s track record, it seems more likely than not that it will continue to discount the grave situation brewing next-door in Venezuela until its full repercussions are felt by the United States, at which point it will be far too late for the White House to take any considerable action.

The views expressed by these authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post The Overlooked Crisis Next Door: Why Washington Needs to Focus on Venezuela appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In April, the infamous Islamist terrorist group Boko Haram broke international headlines after kidnapping over 200 Muslim schoolgirls from their dormitories during the night. Now two moths later, only a handful of the girls have managed to escape to safety, and the Nigerian government efforts to recover the remaining hundreds of victims seem to be little more than rhetoric. Nigeria has been in a state of emergency for nearly a year now under President Goodluck Jonathan in response to the group’s campaign of terror. The enduring presence of Boko Haram and this latest outrage is beginning to undermine citizens’ confidence in their government.

Sub-Saharan Africa regularly makes headlines as home to the most extreme poverty, underdevelopment and political strife in the world. It is important to note, however, the substantial role played by extremist terrorist groups in stymieing the region’s stability and development. Consider Boko Haram’s role in the region’s development. The name ‘Boko Haram’, which translates to “Western education is a sin,” reveals precisely how the group hinders progress in Nigeria. An affiliate of al-Qaeda, the group holds an ultimate goal of establishing an Islamist state in Nigeria, and works to achieve it precisely as the group’s name suggests—by targeting Western education as it did a month ago.

This is not the first time Boko Haram has targeted schools. In February, a college killing spree left at least 29 students dead. And in June and July of last year, Boko Haram was responsible for storming two local schools and killing several students and teachers. The violent war on education in Nigeria has cloaked the country in fear, discouraging many students from continuing to attend schools and even prompting the closure of schoolsin desperate attempts to prevent more bloodshed. A country without education is a country without prospect of prosperity. And, as long as Boko Haram is active, Nigeria will not see stability and development.

While it is of no doubt that a major contributing factor of Sub-Saharan Africa’s unproductivity is indeed corrupt governmental practices, the overwhelming influence of terrorist groups like Boko Haram cannot be neglected. It is an undisputed fact that the few countries in the region that are entirely free of such widespread terrorism, although not perfect, are absolutely developing countries rather than deteriorating or stagnant. Consider Tanzania, for example – while the country is by no means invulnerable to terrorist attacks, it is not at all handicapped by fear. In fact, Tanzania is one of the most politically stable countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Data collected by the European Commission reveals that annual GDP growth levels have been on the rise since 1995. And although poverty levels remain problematic, Tanzania has successfully worked to achieve certain Millennium Development Goal targets, including notable improvements in primary education, infant health and access to clean water. There is no perfect case of a developing country free of flaws; the point to take away from this is that, although slow and steady, Tanzania certainly is continuing to progress towards attaining the status of a developed country, and it is able to do so without the obstacles of political strife and regular terrorist activity.

So how exactly is Nigeria to rid itself of Boko Haram’s terrorist dominance and progress similar to that of Tanzania? Like most terrorist groups, Boko Haram emerged from a weak economy and social marginalization of the Muslim-majority North. While the seemingly obvious solution to the issue may be simply to improve these problems, the remedy is not this simple. Without an educated populous, which will remain impossible as long as Boko Haram roams freely, it is extremely difficult to stabilize a crippling economy. Of course, solving these problems require political reforms—an initiative hopefully undertaken by the new leadership in 2015.

However, political reforms alone will prove to only minimally alleviate terror if Boko Haram remains free to attack. Although the Nigerian militaryhas been pursuing Boko Haram, efforts have proven to be ineffective. The country’s forces could benefit from foreign aid, and this is where the United States comes into the picture. Boko Haram’s terror campaign has much farther-reaching implications than merely hindering development in the country. If the organization continues to enjoy a strong foothold in Nigeria, there will be more opportunity for recruitment and training of Islamist militants. If Boko Haram’s base grows, its power will grow as well. If its power grows, its influence in the country grows, and it will inevitably cross over into the bordering countries of Niger and Cameroon. With ever-expanding power, Boko Haram will also make itself readily available to cooperating with other Islamist terrorist groups in the region to attain pan-Islamist pursuits. And with a stronger base, Boko Haram will begin targeting not only Westerners in the region, but may very well also extend its influence overseas to the United States, as al-Qaeda did on 9/11.

The infinitesimal amount of attention paid by the United States to Sub-Saharan Africa is not only pathetic, but also potentially dangerous. America must provide humanitarian and military aid to struggling countries like Nigeria for, among other reasons, national security. The development of Sub-Saharan Africa is no longer an interest restricted to Africa alone. Boko Haram and the like must be eradicated, progress must be promoted and stability must be maintained throughout the region. Although this will certainly prove to be quite a challenging feat, the West must recognize the international threats posed by Boko Haram in Nigeria and other similar Islamist terror groups in the region, and understand that aid is a promising long-term investment in its own safety.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The post Terrorism Trap: Boko Haram’s Role in the Deteriorating Condition of Sub-Saharan Africa, and Why We Should Care appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

You can keep screaming and kicking. Hell, cry your heart out and shout at the top of your lungs until an avalanche erupts on Mount Everest. You still won’t get what you want.

For the past month now, Kim Jong Un has been floundering in his own seething anger as he continues to drag out his usual outlandish temper tantrum akin to one thrown by a child over a can of SpaghettiO’s in the canned foods section of the supermarket. Desperate for attention, the dictatorial tyrant has spewed yet another nuclear threat at the annual Foal Eagle military exercises between the United States and South Korea that he disapproves of so immensely. Consequently, two DPRK mid-range ballistic missiles originating from Pyongyang soared overseas for about a few hundred kilometers before plummeting into the ocean. This outburst takes place as the leaders of the U.S. and South Korea met with the president of Japan at the Hague,

Well, Mr. Kim, you’ve certainly grabbed the attention you were seeking. With unusual haste, the United Nations Security Council met behind closed doors on Thursday emerging with a unanimous condemnation of the missile launches. The Security Council’s North Korea sanctions committee is also investigating the possibility of expanding the U.N. blacklist to encompass more North Korean nuclear entities in addition to those already listed, although it will most likely take several weeks for an agreement on the action to be reached.

While South Korea, the United States, and the UN are interpreting his most recent antics as an international threat, this seems little more than another one of Kim’s outlandish outbursts of inconsequential aggression that will quickly blow over as Foal Eagle operations approach their close in April. One may recall last year’s Foal Eagle operations when Kim publicized threats of hurling nuclear missiles at the United States in retaliation to its warm relations with the South. To this threat, Washington responded by hurriedly deploying a series of missile interceptors to Guam, complementing those already stationed at Fort Greely, Alaska. But this action was intended only to warn North Korea that the United States is certainly capable of matching its bombastic rhetoric. Needless to say, no defensive action was necessary as Foal Eagle activities came and went without any intervention from the ballistic dictator. This year’s scenario is a carbon copy; we can safely assume that Kim’s most recent threats are as hollow as ever.

Unless Kim’s threatening actions transcend mere intimidation, we know well enough that there is no real threat at hand here. Each year, North Korea becomes enraged by these annual military drills ensuing in the South, and each year reacts with threats of nuclear action that dwindle to oblivion with the culmination of the exercises. Although it is estimated that the missiles launched Wednesday are capable of being launched to Japan, Pyongyang will stop short of sending the missiles over the Japanese islands. Moreover, everyone knows that even Psy’s “Gangnam Style” has more hits than North Korea’s faulty missiles ever will. So no need to take cover from the illusory war threat – Kim will surely simmer down as the coming weeks pass.

Is it worth considering that perhaps the troublesome leader has some new antics up his sleeve? Every year, there is the possibility that if Kim does not elicit the immediate reaction he wants from his enemies, he may attempt to launch a small-scale ground attack against the South. Knowing very well from previous tantrums that the playpen fence barring him from South Korea is far too strong to tackle, Kim may try throwing the ball over this time. What that ball would be – a missile, propaganda balloon, etc. – is anybody’s’ guess.

Even still, it is highly unlikely that Kim will match his rhetoric with reality. The plan is an ugly backfire waiting to happen. Chances that North Korea’s actions would be met with a response of equal nuclear force from the international community are slim to none. So the way that I look at it, as Kim’s outlandish pouting and grumpy attitude drags on, there are really only two options that the U.S., South Korea, and Japan, and the U.N. can take; these states can either look past his tantrums and troubling rhetoric or, in the case that North Korea does end up pursuing a ballistic strike, take military action forcing Kim into a timeout.

Nevertheless, North Korea’s nuclear capacity remains limited. The world will most likely yet again witness the disappearance of North Korea’s meandering threats with the culmination of Foal Eagle in early April. The annual military exercises will continue, despite Kim’s belligerent disapproval. The most to take away from this entire situation is that the only “explosive” thing at play here is Kim’s infantile temperament. We’ve seen this childish temper tantrum erupt and wane one too many times already. So stop banging your fists and causing a scene, Kim – you’re still not getting your SpaghettiO’s.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The post No SpaghettiO’s for you, Kim Jong Un appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While the new leader was warmly met by the eager masses ready to move past the repressive Ahmadinejad era, there was no telling whether his words would bear fruit. Rouhani’s potential to affect such change was eclipsed by a shadow of doubt stemming from the supposition that he would serve as merely yet another slave to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and his Islamic regime. So has Iran’s “angel” Rouhani upheld his rhetoric presented during his campaign since entering office? Now, more than 6 months into his presidency, the gulf between his words and actions can be qualitatively tracked.

Appeasing the Hardliners

How has Rouhani performed thus far in winning the favor of governmental hardliners while working towards his progressive reform plans? At the start of his presidency, Rouhani took initiative to begin thawing strained US-Iran relations with a visit to the United Nations. You may recall his fifteen-minute phone call with President Obama during the trip, a call that garnered both support and criticism. Regardless of the critics, this phone call was a huge first step in the right direction towards reconciling US-Iran relations considering that the two states have not shared this level of contact since the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Furthermore, Khamenei approved of Rouhani’s October trip to the United States. Although unable to appease hard-liners on the issue as they derided his approach, as long as the President is able to maintain the Supreme Leader’s support, he will be able to ward off hard-liner criticisms in his advances towards a relaxed relationship with the West.

Catering to Reformists

During his reign thus far, Rouhani has been performing a careful balancing act; he has struck a careful balance between the hardline and reformist camps while avoiding alienating Khamenei and other key government players. The new President has successfully garnered and maintained support from notable predecessors, including popular former reformist President Mohammad Khatami and former President Akbar Rafsanjani, one of the pillars of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, who remarked that “Rouhani’s success in New York is the mark of the divine victory.” Although not to the degree which former president Khatami was able to mobilize the “Iranian street,” Rouhani seems to have been met with considerable success in galvanizing the reformist camp, namely the youth who have warmly accepted his overtures to reduce Internet censorship.

Ending Sanctions

Perhaps his most significant achievement thus far has been unveiled at the negotiation table with Western powers. Back in November, Rouhani was able to successfully reach a temporary deal with the United States while entering into a year-long negotiation period to construct a permanent deal to ease sanctions. The $7-billion USD received by Iran in sanctions relief created room for a rise in the Iranian Rial and a minor stabilization of the national economy. Both the initial agreement and the overtures by both parties have been called nothing short of “historic” in the media.

Economic Viability

As mentioned, some of the easing of sanctions has seen a rise in the purchasing power of the Rial thereby providing Iranian citizens with some relief. Analyst groups claim that “last year, with economic pressure at its peak, Iran suffered from severe hyperinflation, and the Rial became the least valued currency in the world. This is no longer the case, as the Rial has gained significant value in 2013’. However, further economic steps must be made; the nuclear deal with the West has yet to come into full form, and whether Obama will be able to convince Congress to further repeal sanctions will prove to be a major determinant of whether Rouhani’s reform efforts retain momentum.

Relations With Israel

Thanks to his reputation as the new face of Iran, Rouhani has garnered a considerable amount of positive press and, for the most part, positive attention from the West – which has acted as a negative force against Israel. Within a month of Rouhani’s holding office, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu dubbed him a “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” immediately dismissing him as nothing more than another mere slave to the Islamic regime. However, it seems that Israel emerged as the real loser in this love triangle between the United States, Iran and itself, failing to turn the West against its enemy as it had hoped. Within weeks after the Prime Minister’s fiery comment, Iran successfully brokered the temporary deal with the United States. Since then, public Israeli threats and comments against the country have subsided as the country now seems more preoccupied with the Palestinian question than the Iranian-nuclear issue at the moment.­­­

Human Rights

The human rights issue is arguably the weakest front of Rouhani’s presidency thus far. The leader’s promises on this subject seem to be little more than empty rhetoric, as notable action has yet to be taken to restore basic human rights and create equality among members of the citizenry. Premature optimism for Rouhani to improve civil rights issues has all but withered as the only observable change has been a steep rise in executions since he took office.

Another warning sign in his term stems from the detainment of prisoners within the country. The government’s minor gesture of releasing a few political prisoners in December did little to placate the mounting concerns of relatives and families of those still imprisoned, including activists of the “Iranian Street.” Additionally, despite early promises to address the house arrests of Green Revolution leaders Kharibi and Mousavi’s house arrests, not even a mention of the issue has been made. The president has remained silent even amidst mounting claims from close family and friends that their health is deteriorating significantly as a result of being confined within their households for several years now.

Whether Rouhani’s strategy to maintain popular support follows that of his predecessor Khatami’s path remains to be seen. In the middle of Khatami’s second term, his base fell apart due to youth and women disenfranchisement. Rouhani’s track record on human rights and freedoms may very well be what determines his support from his base.

Implications for U.S.-Iran Relations

Despite his shortcomings on the human rights dilemma, Rouhani’s successes have provided the Iranian regime with some degree of legitimacy it had been lacking for years, both in the eyes of the international community and the Iranian electorate. The real question for the Obama administration, however, is whether the Rouhani government’s newfound political capital and prestige is enough to placate conservative Hawks in Congress on both sides of the aisle who have been itching to introduce further sanctions. Any new congressional sanctions against Iran would not only spell the end of the current deal but would most likely set back nuclear negotiations by a number of years. Yet Rouhani, a veteran statesman and diplomat, is keenly aware that the halls of Congress are just as significant an arena for statecraft and diplomacy as the negotiating table. Rouhani’s foreign minister Javad Zarif has recently made a concerted effort to promote lobbying of their position to Congress via the small-but-growing Iranian-American lobby already present in the country.We will know soon enough how far Rouhani is willing to go to make good on his campaign promises in seeking to uplift the Iranian state.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The post Checklist: Has President Rouhani Lived Up to his Promises? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On December 5^th, a chilling announcement made by South African President Jacob Zuma was quickly heard worldwide: Nelson Mandela (95 years old) had died.

The former revolutionary in the movement against South Africa’s National Party’s apartheid regime, and later President of South Africa left behind a legacy that will likely remain unparalleled by other world leaders for some time to come. While some mourned the loss of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning global icon who committed his life to peace, compassion and forgiveness, others snubbed the passing of a coldblooded ‘communist’ murderer who was imprisoned for 28 years and was considered a ‘terrorist’ by the United States until only five years because of his anti-apartheid involvement.

Regardless of whether you’re on the cheering side or on the jeering side, the fact stands that Mandela’s leadership had a global impact making him one of the most influential world leaders to date. But it seems that even in light of his recent death, our own leaders cannot look beyond partisan divides and quarreling. Consider the Obama-Castro handshake at the memorial; a civil and brief greeting between the two leaders led right-wing conservatives to label the gesture as despicable, traitorous conductwhile liberals dubbed it a thawing of tensions.

Despite the geographic proximity, the United States maintains a distant relationship with Cuba having severed diplomatic relations over fifty years ago when Raul’s brother Fidel assumed power. Contrary to the imagination of those lambasting the handshake, there was no political game at play – the handshake was merely a handshake. Period. What else was Obama supposed to do? Completely ignore Castro’s presence and rebuke him? It was appropriate for Obama to shake hands with another world leader while attending the memorial of the world’s greatest symbol for peace.

In spite of being raised by their parents to always shake hands when meeting or greeting someone, Republicans felt the urge to immediately slap a partisan sticker on the situation. Senator John McCain even likened the handshake to that between British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and German Third Reich leader Adolf Hitler in the lead up to WWII – a completely inappropriate and exaggerated analogy. McCain even dared to note that the leader of the freest country in the world has no business shaking the bloodstained hand of a ruthless oppressor who is “keeping Americans in prison.” Well, Senator, there are just two minor faults in your statements. First, have you ever heard of the Gitmo? Second, may we remind you that you not only shook hands with, but also spent a ‘late evening’ with, the late dictator Muammar Gaddafi at his ranch in Libya. You then tweetedabout it. Apparently Obama’s courteous handshake with Castro was more deserving of condemnation than McCain’s play-date with Gaddafi.

Let’s consider three more historic presidential handshakes with other less tans savory leaders. The handshake between British Prime Minster Winston Churchill, U.S. President Harry Truman and Soviet Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin at the 1945 Potsdam Conference was designed to symbolize that communist and non-communist interests could be set aside in the wake of Nazi Germany’s collapse. The image was supposed to capture an alliance determined to move forward.

And then there’s the Reagan-Gorbachev handshake. In 1998 at St. Catherine’s Hall at the Kremlin, President Ronald Reagan shook hands with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev before their final summit meeting. The planned handshake symbolized the first meeting between the U.S. and USSR in six years and marked the start of a thawing in bilateral relations.

All three of these handshakes between American Presidents and foreign strongmen were carefully constructed to convey a specific message in a specific context. On the contrary, Obama’s handshake with Castro was unplanned; it was simply a display of courtesy and nothing more. There was no predetermined plan for the two to encounter each other and shake hands in front of the camera and we are unlikely to witness any change in bilateral relations with Cuba. In fact, it would have been extremely inappropriate had Obama not greeted Castro at Mandela’s memorial; Obama shook hands with each leader he encountered which was the appropriate, civil thing for a world leader to do while honoring a man who stood for peace and compassion. It is inappropriate for certain individuals in the media and Congress to be spinning the memorial of the South African leader into a groundless and ludicrous controversy over a non-event between two men with hands. Those shouting at the gesture need to get a handle on the broader message before us all, that being Mandela’s legacy.

The post The Handshake Heard Round The World appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Although you probably did a double take when news broke that the politician who lost to George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election is now handling our volatile international affairs, Secretary of State John Kerry has already proved to be a defter politician than expected.

While the post-Gadhafi state of Libya remains in shambles, Kerry’s actions as Secretary of State have already contributed to an upsurge in Islamic militia groups contending for power amidst the State Department’s “capacity building” project within the region. In what was supposed to be a top-secret discussion between the U.S. and Libyan governments, interim Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zeidan agreed to a U.S. commando raid in Tripoli to capture al-Qaeda figurehead Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai (Abu Anas al-Libi) who was accused of orchestrating the attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. The mission was designed to call no attention to al-Libi’s disappearance.

Moving beyond the obvious missteps, most groups within Libya view the Prime Minister’s abnormal and unexpected kidnapping as a sign of an acute weakness within the government. Because the interim leader of the country could not even avert being kidnapped – regardless of the fact that it was only for a few hours – there is consensus among Libyans that he is not capable of leading the country forward. Zeidan is now considered to be something of a cancerous cyst to the already debased government; and with that now being the primary sentiment, we are likely to see the strongest push yet by Islamic militia groups quarreling for political power to orchestrate a coup. As unfathomable as it may seem, Libya will inevitably fall into a further state of degeneration and chaos because of this fiasco.

So in his supposed focus on “building capacity” within Libya, John Kerry has managed to heighten the security risks posed by al-Qaeda and make the pursuit for key terrorist leaders abysmally more challenging all while plunging Libya deeper into a state of pandemonium. Bravo, Mr. Kerry – it seems as though you are the right man for the job after all!In sum, the brilliant leak from the White House, which seemed to have been something of a trial balloon released out of ignorance, greatly undermined the neo-colonial regime established in Libya by Washington and its NATO allies following the overthrow Gadhafi in 2011. The flop highlighted the incompetence of the U.S. in artificially establishing regimes within unstable regions such as Libya. However, this is not the only instance in which Washington’s intervention has proven itself to be futile and damaging. Consider other neo-colonial endeavors such as operations in Afghanistan and Iraq – both ended in seemingly endless states of war and state capacity remains frighteningly low.

Although it is only Zeidan’s kidnapping that is at the center of national discussions at the moment, the repercussions will no doubt begin to unfold in the near future. Perhaps Libya’s impending situation will strike a chord within Washington and officials will finally come to realize that such neo-colonial interventionist efforts have, and always will, lead to heightened disdain for the West and more rapid and severe degeneration of the country being occupied. Given the White House’s track record, it seems more likely than not that nothing will be learned from the mistake. Going forward, American national security interests will face greater challenges in the region and, if the winds continue to blow in the same troubling direction, the State Department will continue to make diplomatic fumbles as it harms both itself and its “allies.”

The post Neo-Colonial Capacity Building at its Finest: The U.S. in Libya appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Al-Shabaab, a Somali militant group (the Arabic name translates to “The Youth”) came into existence in 2006 as the radical youth wing of Somalia’s Union of Islamic Courts. The coalition began as a faction fighting Ethiopian forces who entered Somalia to back the country’s interim government. During this period, foreign jihadists flocked to Somalia to help al-Shabaab in its fight gradually establishing a link between the group and al-Qaeda. Al-Shabaab has seen its influence dwindle in recent years, beginning with its forced-removal from Mogadishu in 2011 and then again its loss of control of the region after leaving the port Kismayo a year later. These losses deprived them of the ability to levy taxes and acquire supplies in areas under their control.

Given its diminishing hold on regional power, it comes as little surprise that al-Shabaab decisively chose to strike beyond its borders and launch a fatal assault on the popular Nairobi mall; Westgate shopping center is a major tourist hub attracting western foreigners and affluent Kenyans. The attack sends a clear message to radicals and other extremist al-Qaeda-linked organizations stating, “We’re still here, and we’re still in serious business.”

But al-Shabaab’s propagandistic attack was not meant to radicalize Islamists exclusively in the region. The group of fighters that day was comprised not only of Somali nationals, but also of international recruits – most significantly at least two fighters have been confirmed to have come from Minnesota and Missouri. In other words, a number of these recruits who were involved in this gruesome Jihadist strike were United States citizens loyal to al-Shabaab.

Why is this significant? Consider the following factors in conjunction with one another: (1) the choice to attack a site of this sort rather than one with government or military affiliation was largely a publicity-driven move, (2) both the targets and the al-Shabab recruits were an amalgamation of foreigners originating from an array of western countries. The attack was more than just another anti-west assault launched by Islamists; it was meant to serve as an initiative in capturing the attention of Somalis and Muslims – specifically within the United States – for recruitment to the group’s militant forces.

The American-Somali population saw a spike in numbers following immigrants escaping the country’s 1991 civil war . An estimated 50,000 to over 150,000 Somali naturalized citizens reside within the United States today, living in concentrated groups, the largest of which is situated in Minnesota. And although the majority of Somalis have assimilated to American culture, the adjustment of the population has been met with interruptions by the Islamic radicalization of its youth that has been occurring since at least 2004. In 2007, al-Shabaab began openly calling for foreign fighters around the world to come join their extremist forces – and a number of American-Somalis began taking heed to their calls, leaving for Somalia to train in the name of jihad.

While there is nothing new about Americans being recruited and trained to fight for Jihadist terrorist organizations, al-Shabaab and its Nairobi propaganda attack not only increased the probable numbers of radicalized Americans migrating to the region but also highlighted an acute new domestic security concern within the United States. Through recruiting, radicalizing and training, al-Shabaab is able to extend its extremist goals directly into the United States through Somali citizens who leave for Somalia as Islamists and return to the States as new Jihadists. U.S. intelligence forces need to begin focusing on al-Shabaab’s recruitment among the swelling American-Somali population, as it will soon prove itself to be among the next major threats to the borders of this nation. If the government is to minimize the effects of al-Shabaab’s recruitment campaign, it must take initiative to locate both the locals responsible for radicalizing these Somali-Americans, as well as those who have left the country to receive training, to ensure that they do not reenter the country equipped with ambitions of Jihadist destruction.

Not only must it track and locate recruiters and militants who are nationals, but the United States must also keep a close watch as to where in Somalia its dollars are being wired. In addition to the number of recruits the group receives from this country, al-Shabaab’s supporters have maintained direct contact with its leaders; recorded transactions indicate that the group has received at least tens of thousands of American dollars through money transfer businesses over the years to the organization. Since al-Shabaab was added to the State Department’s list of designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations in 2008, the providing of money, communications, weapons, human capital, etc., to the group has been deemed illegal, which has appeared to have had somewhat of a preventative effect with twelve individuals convicted in 2011. Regardless of this initiative and the seemingly negligible reported amount of funds channeled to the organization, there still exists the prominent threat of “under-wraps” al-Shabaab recruitment and funding that occurs entirely undetected within the United States.

Perhaps in spite of all these considerations, al-Shabaab’s horrific, newsworthy assault on the Westgate Mall was a mere cry for attention – an act of desperation to reclaim what little is left of its legitimacy as a serious terrorist organization. After all, the group’s primary aim has always been to maintain ironclad control over Somalia, and with that gone, al-Shabaab has little to its name within the region. Some argue that the attack will fail to create a substantial wave of radicalization and influence potential recruits in such a dramatic manner. However, the truth still indicates that the threat is grave. The attack shows that al-Shabaab is still serious about its exploits, and the Americans involved prove that the group’s recruitment is still effective and in full swing within the States. Moreover, the White House must marshal its intelligence services in cracking down on domestic recruitment, and perhaps most importantly monitoring the reentry of American-Somalis returning from Somalia, in order to ensure that domestic grounds are kept secure from the new security threat posed by al-Shabaab and its terrorist outlets on U.S. soil.

The post Islamic Radicalization in Our Own Backyard appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Last summer, President Barack Obama vowed to employ a military intervention in civil war-stricken Syria if either side resorted to use of chemical weapons.

This summer, there has been confirmation that the conflict has crossed that “red line.” It’s your move now, Mr. President, but remember – whatever you decide to do, it’s a little too late to avoid checkmate.

Instead of drawing a line and waiting around playing the “sitting duck” game, the United States should have provided the Syrian rebels fighting in the civil war with military aid from the start. By passively watching the progression of what started as a peaceful protest of President Bashar al-Assad met by harsh government crackdowns, the international realm has allowed the situation to escalate into a full-scale civil war. The incumbent Assad regime – backed by Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Iran and Russia – is fighting a rebel opposition backed by al-Qaida. By remaining inactive in the civil war, the West has played a clear role in allowing the death toll in Syria to continue to skyrocket. So the way I see it, the White House will tolerate the appearance of radical Muslim organizations in the conflict, and will tolerate the countless numbers of civilians killed daily, but the moral compass for some reason only prevails when the use of chemical weapons is introduced into the situation.

So what exactly will the Obama Administration do? Well, the answer is simple: do what has always been done. The White House has decided to supply military support through arming the rebels with “light” weapons. The United States is going to arm al-Qaeda-backed rebel forces who have already faced an astronomical death toll and most probably view the US with little credibility, thanks to our delay. Does anyone else see the obvious problem here? President Obama needs to take a note from history and consider the repercussions of what he is planning to do. Remember when the United States decided to arm Bin Laden and his supporters in the 1970s to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan? Those forces were then used to build up al-Qaeda as we know it today, which turned swiftly against its creator and spawned a massive terrorism campaign met by President George W. Bush’s infamous and seemingly endless “War on Terror“.

Is it too far-fetched to suppose that the Syrian rebel fighters will undoubtedly turn on the United States with animosity for its delay in assistance? Perhaps. But I don’t think it’s throwing the ball too far out of the park to say that with nearly 100,000 civilians already dead, from a humanitarian standpoint it may have behooved the White House to act more promptly. But then again, there is that consideration that the United States doesn’t really feel any sort of humanitarian obligation to the international realm, and particularly to the Middle East. Not only that, but our intervention within the region has been sporadic and confusingly contradictory. For instance, while the Obama administration saw no problem in thrusting its military forces into Libya in 2011, and liberally continues to dowse Yemen and obliterate countless innocent citizens with drones, it holds reservations in assisting the Syrian people from what appears to be escalating into a new-age genocide. Likewise, the administration has worked effortlessly to combat al-Qaeda by locating and killing Osama bin Laden, yet it continues to bolster al-Qaeda bases by arming al-Qaeda-backed rebel fighters in Syria.

Had the United States decided to act two years ago, in 2011, when the civil unrest began, it may have actually had a legitimate shot at quelling the war against Bashar al-Assad and his regime while at the same time preventing the rise of extremist groups such as al-Qaeda. That time has passed, so all we can hope for is that the Obama administration decides to intervene strongly enough. So let’s hope the White House is going to arm the Syrian rebels with more than just light weapons; without supplementing mere ammunition with antitank rockets and antiaircraft systems, there is little hope that the Syrian rebels will be able to finally put an end to this bloodshed and emerge victorious. With vital United States national security interests – namely containing al-Qaeda and preserving the security of Israel – being threatened by the civil war, it is now more urgent than ever for the Obama administration to take action to protect not only national interests but also human dignity and put a stop to the coldblooded carnage plaguing Syria.

The post Obama’s Delay on Syria and Why the Response is a Little Too Late appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Will Iran’s new moderate “Superman” Rouhani be able to withstand the forces of Ayatollah Khamenei and his theocratic kryptonite?

Last month, some salvation was finally delivered to the tense and oppressed citizens of Iran with the victory of newly elected president Hassan Rouhani. Under former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranians were subjected to his abusive policies, most notably demonstrated by the harsh crackdown of the 2009 Green Movement.

Although Rouhani, who will officially replace the current hotheaded president in August, has been termed a relative moderate in comparison to Gung-ho fundamentalist Ahmadinejad, the Iranian people have already received him as an angel on earth. The so perceived “savior” has verbalized his intentions to improve the country’s international reputation. And this may even be the first time since the onset of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 that we may see a resurrection of limited aspects of western society within the country, as Rouhani has expressed his desire to restore basic human rights beginning with the improvement of women’s rights and the gradual deregulation of the strict national dress code.

But don’t tear your headscarves yet, ladies –– while I am sure that you are more than eager to sport your fashionable new hairdos, there is still something dodgy going on here. Despite Rouhani expressing his personal wishes for reform, he remains at best merely another puppet of Supreme Leader and master puppeteer Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Although the voting process within Iran may bear a democratic façade, it is simply a hollow disguise masking a deviously controlled and complex method of strategically inducting figureheads who will ultimately serve to carry out the wishes of the Ayatollah. Here’s a quick breakdown of how candidates are selected for participation in the presidential race:

The Guardian Council is fully responsible for filtering potential candidates and selecting those who they feel fit to run. The Council is composed of six clergymen, who are selected by the Ayatollah himself, and six jurists, selected by the head of the judiciary (also appointed by the Ayatollah). The entire Council is thus essentially appointed by the Supreme Leader and reflects the same fundamental ideals as him: all candidates bear complete loyalty to the Islamic Republic and all of its fundamental assets. Following a three-week campaign period after candidates are announced, voting takes place. If a single candidate does not take a simple majority, then the top two candidates will face off in a runoff election.

Doesn’t seem so egalitarian anymore, does it? With the Supreme Leader virtually controlling all aspects of the elections, up to the voter’s free choice of casting a ballot, the citizens of Iran are no more than spectators trapped in the “Ayatollah Khamenei Show,” starring Khamenei and Khamenei, and featuring Khamenei.

The understanding of the Supreme Leader being the central power holder and final arbiter of Iranian governmental policies is essential to understanding Iranian politics. There has been some jubilance over the fact that Rouhani has promised to give transparency to Iran’s hotly-disputed nuclear program, which will hopefully serve to ease tensions between the country and the rest of the world as well as break Iran free of its international isolation. In February, incumbent Ahmadinejad suggested the national nuclear program may see changes as evidenced by his statement that he would be willing to discuss the program in detail with the United States so as long as the West stopped pressuring the regime. However, the acidic rain of truth pierces umbrella shields of optimism once the realization is made that these statements of hope are emptier than outer space itself. As long as Khamenei remains the final authority on major state decisions, he remains the supreme ringleader of the chaotic circus that is Iranian politics; no vital information regarding the country’s nuclear program will be spilled to the West, and that is final. In terms of Rouhani’s plans to restore basic liberties to the country, being that the current Supreme Leader was the one responsible for the 1979 Islamic Revolution, replacing an autocratic monarchy with largely western ideals with a stringent Islamic theocracy, it seems highly doubtful that the new president elect will be met with success in his quest for social and political reform.

To the Iranian citizenry, I say celebrate now, for it is still too early to tell whether the Angel Rouhani and his plans for reform will fall prisoner to the devilish iron fist of Khamenei. Only time will tell how the new Rouhani-Khamenei dynamic will play out. While the Iranian citizenry initially will almost certainly be met with a minimal degree of improved autonomy and treatment under the new president, as long as Khamenei remains, the streets will continue to be lined with revolutionary guards executing the will of their Supreme Leader. So sit tight, Iran, because things aren’t going to change while Khamenei is still around, and await instead the day the tyrannical leader is succeeded, for only this holds the dawn of a new beginning for the country plagued by an era of dark and oppressive theocratic rule.

The post President-Elect Rouhani Brings Hope to the Citizens of Iran appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.