Congo in Crisis

The Democratic Republic of Congo has had a sordid history of civil war and internal corruption which has only escalated since the country gained independence in 1960.

A vast country with immense economic resources, the Democratic Republic of Congo has been at the centre of what could be termed Africa's world war.

The very roots of the country have been ingrained in war and extreme poverty, and while their neighbouring countries can barely help themselves--the Congo is left to fend for itself while western powers strip the country for all its worth. What are they after? Their resources. For the past decade, the Rwandan government and its military has been largely suspected of illegally exploiting Congolese resources, as well as the illegal traffic of products such as coltan into Rwanda--where it would then be sold on the international market to big-buyers like the US and Canada.

And while an estimated 5.4 million people have died since 1998, the war-torn country is raped of her resources for a profit on the market. Though many are trying to recognise the devastation in the DP of Congo, there is not much anyone can do. Even now, a bill, Congo Conflict Minerals Act of 2009 is in the works. It calls for, among other things, a system of oversight to keep watch on all US-based industries that utilize Congolese coltan, cassiterite, wolframite and gold, and make sure the minerals were not extracted from conflict mines controlled by illegal armed groups.

It is an area carpeted with minerals such as coltan and cassiterite, which are used in the production of consumer durables and gadgets sold in the rich world.

But people are now beginning to ask: what is the human cost of a mobile phone?

In many areas across the Congo, many people suffer under the hands of the FDLR and the FARDC--military groups whose very names insight fear into the Congolese' hearts. But I believe the blame lies solely on the manufacturing giants of the west whose hands are stained with the blood of millions--all for the end-product of an iPod or cellphone.

Children are subjected to war, violence, rape, and death. Children, who should experience only innocence, are emotionally scarred from the moment they are born--if their mother's are lucky enough to make it to their third trimester.

The future, it means dying.

said one youth, who'd known nothing but war in his country.

And in recent news, President Obama has made it blatantly clear on his stand against the human rights violations occurring in the Congo. In his budget request for the State Department for the 2010 financial year, Obama proposed significant increases in funding US arms sales and military training programmes for African countries, also citing a troops surge in the Congo, out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

One cannot help but wonder what the true motives of the American's are. History is riddled with examples of countries allying themselves with others based on each others' needs. The same can be said of the Congo; true human rights are being violated--as were the Jews during WWII, and look how long it took America to join the fight. But then again, the human rights of the Congolese have been violated for more than a decade, while the US mined their lands for profit. What does that say about the human race in general?

I guess the death of a human being is worth the price of an iPod.

Machiavellian Mirror

Niccolo Machiavelli once posed the question: "Is it better to be feared or respected?" And in today's society, one cannot help but notice that President Obama is an equal balance of both attributes.

During a speech at the United States Military Academy at West Point, Obama demonstrates Machiavellian idioms of gaining and maintaining power. He is considered merciful by the public, regardless of his nature; he inspires fear in a way that if he’s involved that he may not be hated. He reminds the public, and the world, their reason for being in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In 2001, a group of men hijacked four commercial airplanes and flew them into the World Trade Centers—killing thousands. As the public knows, the men belong to al Qaeda—a group of extremists whose base of operations was in Afghanistan, where they were harboured by the Taliban.
The Taliban are a prime example of Machiavellian theories on the matter of gaining control over a state. As soon as the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan was over, the Taliban seized control by force—since it is “easier to control a hereditary state than a new state”—as Machiavelli writes: Three methods to keep an acquired state are

i. Destroy it
ii. Reside in it
iii. Suffer by living under its own original laws and governments.
As stated in Chapter V of The Prince:

"But when cities or countries are accustomed to live under a prince, and
his family is exterminated, they, being on the one hand accustomed to
obey and on the other hand not having the old prince, cannot agree in
making one from amongst themselves, and they do not know how to govern
themselves. For this reason they are very slow to take up arms, and a
prince can gain them to himself and secure them much more easily. But
in republics there is more vitality, greater hatred, and more desire
for vengeance, which will never permit them to allow the memory of their
former liberty to rest; so that the safest way is to destroy them or to
reside there."

The Taliban became ‘rulers’ by

“wickedness and crime or by favour of the citizens.”

The Taliban keep the people of Afghanistan living in fear and submission—in accordance with Machiavelli’s question posed more than 450 years ago:

“Is it better to be feared or respected?”

The President demonstrates other Prince-ly qualities such as: appearing to keep faith, living uprightly and not craftily; he appears merciful, faithful, humane, religious and upright, but he is also ready to change to the century. He maintains his authority and is therefore judged honourably. Obama displays the five main qualities of a Prince: mercy (towards his enemies), good faith (with the public and the world), humanity (towards those who are wicked), and religion (he does not criticize Islam, nor does he explicitly state which religion is the ‘right’ one, Christianity or Islam) though he does justify Islam as

“one of the world’s greatest religions”

—demonstrating humility towards all those who are different.
Though Obama does not quote Machiavelli outright, many obvious connections can be made with Machiavelli.

In today’s politics in which the philosopher’s influence has outlasted his own life, one cannot help but question the amorality of politics—Machiavelli did not say one must be good or must be bad, but merely to utilize one’s power when necessary.

A Woman's Worth

"Women are just men with less money"-Paul Samuelson once quoted, addressing women's growing role in the modern society. Today, millions of women are now empowered and are independent, working alongside men in society. The recent issue of The Economist addresses the quick advancement of women, and the seeds of feminism, planted in the early years of the past century.

The first generations of successful women insisted on being judged by the same standards as men. Many carried the belief that by working harder and thinking smarter, women could push through the moulds created for them by a patriarchal society.

The rebellious nature of women is hard to tame, and evidence is scattered throughout history--Elizabeth I, Joan of Arc, Catherine the Great, Cleopatra, Amelia Earhart, Catherine de Medici, Rosa Parks, Queen Victoria, Harriet Tubman--to name a few. These powerful women didn't allow for men to tie them down, setting examples for women of a younger generation.

Many pioneering businesswomen pride themselves on their toughness; and indeed, the attributes of pride, toughness, and perseverance are the qualities that helped women achieve independent status.

The entrance of women into the workforce was 'official' during the times of the first and second World Wars, between 1914-1918 and 1939-1945--with some women reluctant to leave their factory jobs once the men came back from war--making weapons and parts for machinery required for the war.

After the men decided to waltz back into the lives of women and casually brush them off, the rebellious nature of them sprung up and, and idea of feminism was finally formed. Suffragists and many other women of every social class imaginable, banded together to rise up, and finally defeand themselves. Women were finally recognised as 'persons'.

Some of today's most influential feminists contend that women will never fulfil their potential if they play by men's rules. Women are wired differently from men, not just in trivial ways. They're less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competative and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. These attributes, when listed against the traits of men, cannot help but make one wonder how differently the world would be if women sat in the seats of major power--one came extremely close in recent politics.

Wars would be non-existent, and the great divide that separates nations would be blurred, allowing humility to cover the Earth.

Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of A Woman's Place is in the Boardroom, assert that women are "better lateral thinkers than men" and "more idealistic" into the bargain. These seem to be qualities that are becoming ever more valuable in business. The recent financial crisis proved that the sort of qualities that men pride themselve on--risk-taking, bare-knuckle competition--can lead to disaster. Some of the best companies are abandoning "patriarchal" hierarchies in favour of "collaboration" and "networking", skills in which women have an inherent advantage.

Though much progress has been made, it's not happening at a faster rate. Britain's Equality and Human Rights Commission calculated that, at the current rate of progress, it will take 60 years for women to gain equal representaion on the boards of the FTSE 100. With countries struggling for democracy (i.e Afghanistan), the fight for equal rights for women will take longer, if gender equality ever happens at all.

Although the future for Afghani women seems bleak, first steps towards equality are happening in schools all across the world: women now outperform men--more prominently in university.

In short, the past century is only the beginning of what is to come and what can be expected from women in the near future. The positive changes empowered women bring to the economy, politics, and social aspects of a country are welcomed in a world that has been too-long dominated by men.

Suspend Your Disbelief

In the November 7th-13th issue of The Economist, an article on Karzai's victory in the run for president was published, citing the mass involvement of the Western powers to place him there. Going against democracy, the West is forcing it upon the Afghans, electing a president for them is not the same as giving them the choice to do so. What point is there if the Afghan people are allowed to vote, only to turn around and say their votes don't count at all. Many politicians already spoke of Karzai's victory before it happened, citing their support and ignoring the other candidate, Abdullah Abdullah, who actually stood a chance at winning if he had not been forced to bow out of the second round.

"Other diplomats declared that the 48.2% of the vote Mr Karzai won both matched what opinion polls predicted and was good enough mandate to run the country for the next five years."

While President Obama claims Mr Karzai won in accordance with Afghan law, one cannot help but wonder if cheating, threats, and thousands of fraudulant votes count as "the accordances of Aghan law". To stay inside the loop of chaos and war, the Taliban gleefully claimed that the election had been decided in Washington and London--an observation that did not go unnoticed with the voters and population of Afghanistan.

"Days before Dr Abdullah threw in the towel, a Western diplomat said 'we are already looking forward to Mr Karzai's inauguration speech' ".

Ignoring fraudulant votes, the American's and their allies are planning on--and already have--used Karzai as their puppet in the middle-east to begin the movement towards democracy in their favour. I strongly believe that while the Afghans are willing to accept democracy, I don't believe that the Americans and the West need to force their policies and puppets on the people; they are clearly ready for change but instead of aiding them in their fight against internal forces hoping to keep democracy at bay, they are forcing upon the people their ways and leaders--echoing the past where the White Man claimed countries for themselves and any natives living there were forced to assimilate.

It's not just a clash of civilizations, but more of a conflict of common human values, where change will come, but patience is required on the part of the Americans and the West.

Female Cartoonist Proves Democracy & Change is on the Way

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/10/27/hajjar.female.cartoonist/index.html

In a recent article on CNN, a female cartoonist--Hana Hajjar--proves that women are rising in Saudi Arabia, and Middle-East in general, as persons and Hana is showing that the bar of inequality is being erased with every stroke of her pencil.

"I think men have put women in an unfavorable position in this part of the world. They've put women in an oppressive situation," said Hana Hajjar.

She feels it's her duty to speak on behalf of women being oppressed everywhere in the Middle-East.

The youngest of nine children, Hana grew up in a family that supported her ambitions to become a cartoonist. And though outspoken women in conservative Saudi Arabia, Hajjar hasn't faced any repercussions.

I think that this article demonstrates the strides the Middle-East is taking in modernizing their countries, bringing them, slowly but surely, into a democratic society. With help from the Western countries, the Middle-East can turn the crawl to democracy into a run and the sooner, the better.

Today, more and more fathers are allowing their daughters more freedom, freedom to explore the world around them, apply for jobs that are meant for 'men', and even sometimes allowing them to leave the country without a male member of their family as an escort. These leniencies and open-mindedness are exactly what conservative Middle-Eastern countries need to adopt in order to establish themselves in the 21st century.

On the precipice towards democracy, I believe that the key lies with the oppressed women of the extremely conservative Middle-Eastern countries. If they do not rise up (mirroring the suffragists of the early 20th century), if they don't speak up and defend themselves, then the country will be choked by the iron-grip of men's oppressive rule over women which mirrors that of a dictatorship.

_________________________________________