Understanding China's history on the national holiday

Today China celebrates its national holiday, marking the 60th anniversary of the People’s Republic of China (PPC). To understand the significance of this date in China’s history, we invite you to check out the June 2008 World Savvy Monitor edition on China.

In 1919, Mao Zedong, founder of the PPC, was still a teacher in China. During this time, he became interested in the Russian Revolution as he saw the poor governance and independence movements building in his country. By 1921 he formed the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and began recruiting revolutionaries in rural areas in opposition to ruling Nationalist Party (KMT) of Sun Yat-sen. Throughout 1939-1943, Japan occupied China while Civil War raged on between Chiang (KMT) and Mao (CCP). After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, significant tensions developed between US and Chiang and the US provided support and weaponry to Mao and the CCP. Chiang and KMT retreated to Taiwan in 1949 to establish the Republic of China (ROC) on the island with US support. Then, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was established under leadership of Mao Zedong. Today, the doctrine of Maoism prevails as a hybrid of Marxism, a celebration of peasant life, and perpetual revolutionary struggle.

As part of this week’s celebration, 5,000 soldiers will march, some of which have been receiving counseling for the strict formations required. 150 planes will fly in formation and 60,000 pigeons will be released. 10,000 police officers and security guards will be present, along with about 800,000 volunteers. However, there will be a limit of 187,000 for the number of people involved in the main parade. Because of China’s environmental woes, which were also spotlighted during the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the New York Times reported that “Meteorologists said their efforts to prevent foul weather on Oct. 1 involved satellites, 400 scientists, cloud-probing lasers and a squadron of transport planes capable of sprinkling liquid nitrogen into pregnant clouds.”

As China draws international attention on its 60th anniversary, the world will continue to watch to see how this country, which is taking a strong lead in global economic stage, will address concerns over human rights and political freedoms. As noted in the Monitor, “true democracy in a country with close to a billion not so satisfied customers (rural peasants and migrant/lower class laborers) would endanger the future of the CCP and, potentially, its beneficiaries.”

Teaching about elections & democracy

On September 27th, 2009, Angela Merkel was re-elected chancellor of Germany, with her Christian Democratic party winning 33% of the vote. August elections in Japan swept the Democratic Party of Japan into office, under the leadership of Yukio Hatoyama as the new Prime Minister, after over 50 years of rule by the Liberal Democratic Party. Other recent elections, such as those in Iran and Afghanistan, have been more tumultuous and potentially fraudulent (see past blog posts on Afghanistan and Iran). Each of these elections, however, highlight a number of interesting distinctions to democracy in the United States, and pose interesting comparison points for teachers currently in the midst of teaching students about the American democratic process.

To start with the example of Germany, one could ask: what is the role of Germany’s Chancellor in comparison to the President of the United States? And why are Chancellor Angela Merkel’s first steps after re-election to form a coalition with the Free Democratic Party, who garnered just under 15% of the popular vote in Germany’s elections? Why does the United States have two main political parties, but Germany has more? With all these differences, is one country more democratic than the other?

All these questions lead to an overarching essential question for students: what makes up a democracy? Elections are some of the most visible aspects of a healthy democracy, and thus aspects on which the media and those in the international community focus a great amount of attention. But what else makes a healthy democracy? World Savvy described the elements of democracy that political and academic experts believe makes up a democracy in the August 2008 edition of the World Savvy Monitor. An electoral democracy is made up of a system of governance in which people choose their leaders by casting votes. Yet simply electing leaders does not make for a healthy democracy, as recent news clearly indicates. Elections should be accompanied by the rule of law and the protection of civil liberties for its citizens, sometimes referred to as liberal democracy. Thomas Jefferson has noted that electoral democracy, without liberal democracy, is “nothing more than mob rule where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49.”

Explore the “What is Democracy?” section of the Democracy edition of the Monitor with students to investigate the elements of democracy. Have students work in groups to develop a checklist of the elements of democracy they think are most important. Evaluate the United States in comparison to this checklist, and then have students choose another country to research and evaluate based on their checklist.

What innovative strategies and lessons do you use to teach students the elements of democracy? How do you teach students the differences between American democracy and other forms of democracy around the world? We invite you to post your strategies, lesson ideas, comments or questions below.

US weighs the benefits of aligning with Russia to defend against Iran

President Obama recently cancelled the ballistic missile defense (BMD) plan set by President George W. Bush, which would create BMD sites in Poland and the Czech Republic to protect the West from missile threats from Iran. US intelligence reports that threats from Iran would be in the form of short-range missiles, not long-range. So instead of 10 intercontinental missiles, Obama plans to place at least twice as many (and eventually maybe hundreds) smaller missile interceptors launched from sea and land based closer to Iran. These systems will perhaps be upgraded later to have the capability of intercepting intercontinental missiles.

The March 2009 issue of the World Savvy Monitor explored why Iran is seen as a threat to other nations. Iranian leaders are very protective against outside threats to their sovereignty, especially from the US, and the country is also believed to support and fund terror groups in the Middle East. Iran has violated the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that it signed in 1968 by building new nuclear weapons, and an ambassador from Iran recently told the NY Times that Iran would not negotiate further with the major powers about its nuclear program. The question of whether the world can live with a nuclear Iran is up for debate, but Russia is supportive of the new US defense plan.

Russia objects to the BMD positions in Poland and the Czech Republic in part because it violates the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which restricted the US and Russia to one BMD position each, but from which the US withdrew in 2001, as discussed in the November 2008 issue of the WS Monitor. The US also declined Russian offers in 1999 for a joint offensive against Muslim terrorist groups following international attacks, including the first World Trade Center attack. In part, the US agreed to cancel the BMD plans and align with Russia on this issue, which some support, since Russia has the power to either support or veto increased sanctions on Iran as part of the United Nations Security Council. And although Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov has said, “Iran is a partner that has never harmed Russia in any way,” the country is not opposed to these defense systems and recently set up an anti-missile defense unit of its own near North Korea. NATO’s new secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen believes this an opportunity for a “genuine new beginning of our relationship with Russia.” It seems the two countries may be able to come to a consensus on defense strategy against Iran, even though accusations of hypocrisy flew in August 2008 as US objected to Russian intervention in Georgia while intervening in Iraq.

Yet some politicians in the US, Poland, and the Czech Republic as well as groups like the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance disagree with Obama’s new plan, fearing lack of protection from Russia, and that Russia is controlling the security policy of the West. Others question whether anti-ballistic missile systems will work as planned in the event of a real threat from Iran or North Korea, especially if the missile is nuclear. It remains to be seen whether aligning with Russia, a notoriously autonomous country, with the end goal of multinational security against Iran will be a successful strategy.

Remember Darfur? What is Going on in Sudan…

In April 2008, we launched the World Savvy Monitor with an edition focusing on the Situation in Sudan and the Conflict in Darfur. Since then, many of the issues we examined in this complex country have simmered largely on the back burner through the US Presidential election campaign, the start of the Obama Administration, and the world’s distraction with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea. Today, Sudan headlines are creeping back into the mainstream media. We thought it would be helpful to provide an overview of where things stand and what to watch for in the coming months:

Darfur: The violence continues as the UN/African Union hybrid peacekeeping force (UNAMID) struggles to define its mandate and bring its troops up to capacity.

• Roughly 2.5 million people have been displaced by the conflict and forced into crowded refugee and IDP camps in Sudan and neighboring countries. Exacerbating the situation is the ouster by the Sudanese government of Western humanitarian groups (NGOs) in March 2009 on whom victims depend for aid and sustenance. Other aid workers have been voluntarily recalled; and those that remain routinely find themselves in danger.
• The UNAMID force is still having trouble getting up to speed, suffering from lack of men on the ground and equipment. So far, only 18,000 of the 26,000 authorized force has been deployed; however the UN has set a goal of having 95% of the force in place by December 2009. Much controversy has been generated over the statements by (now former) UNAMID military commander General Martin Luther Agawi who proclaimed an end to the war in Darfur, and characterized the situation as one of “security issues,” “banditry,” and “low intensity conflict.” Numerous experts disagree with these assessments, believing the situation to be as dire as ever and still directed by Khartoum.
• A downgrading of the conflict and focus on Southern Sudan is expected to draw UN attention away from Darfur in coming months.

North-South Tensions: The CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) ending this decades-long civil war in 2005 continues to hold, yet political skirmishing and violence are ever-present as the 2011 Referendum on Sudan’s unity draws closer.

• All eyes are on preparations for the 2011 Referendum in which voters will decide the fate of united Sudan. The country is now embarking on a highly contentious census to determine the eligibility of voters for the referendum, which many believe will result in a secession vote by the semi-autonomous South. The credibility of the referendum and, ultimately, the viability of the CPA are considered to be at stake in decisions taking place now in the run-up to the massive balloting.
• Meanwhile, much of Southern Sudan struggles. Hunger and disease are widespread; inter-tribe violence and feuding take lives and displace families; attacks by the Lords Resistance Army (LRA) out of Uganda only add to the insecurity.

President Al-Bashir’s ICC Indictment: In March 2009, the International Criminal Court (ICC) made good on its promises to “implicate the whole state apparatus” in Khartoum for atrocities committed in Darfur by formally indicting Sudanese President Al-Bashir on war crimes and crimes against humanity.

• The ICC decision to go after Bashir was not greeted with enthusiasm by all of his detractors. Many feared the peace process in Darfur would be compromised by the indictment because Bashir would calculate that he had nothing left to lose and would be loathe to make concessions during upcoming negotiations. Others noted that the ouster of Western humanitarian groups (a measure taken by Khartoum, in part, in retaliation for the Bashir indictment) would harm victims while Bashir would most certainly remain at large. Remain at large is exactly what Bashir has done. See his very public condemnations of the ICC process and justifications for his actions in Darfur in a series of interviews recently conducted by Time and the PBS News Hour.
• Undeterred, ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo told the PBS News Hour this week that he was pursing additional genocide charges against Bashir, specifically related to the use of “rape and hunger” as weapons of war against civilians. The US (like Sudan and 30+ other countries) has not ratified the Rome Treaty and is not party to the ICC. Some African countries who have ratified the Rome Treaty are now being urged by Sudan and others to withdraw their recognition of the ICC in protest of Bashir’s indictment. Bashir’s National Congress party will hold conferences in October to determine whether or not he will stand as the nominee in upcoming Presidential elections, scheduled for April 2010. If he does run, he will be seeking a third decade in power.

US Policy Toward Sudan: This remains largely unchanged from the Bush to the Obama Administrations. A formal policy statement by President Obama’s foreign policy team is reportedly under consideration and scheduled for release soon.

• President Obama’s Special Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration embarks this week on a visit to the country to assess preparations for the North-South census and referendum, and to monitor the situation in Darfur. Gration’s statements to date have been cautious, and it is unclear what, if any, policy shifts he may recommend. He drew fire recently for his suggestions that it was now safe for Darfuri IDPs and refugees to begin to return home when many assessments of the security situation (including the additional 150,000 people displaced this year alone) would argue otherwise. He has also been criticized for seeming to downgrade the conflict in Darfur to “remnants of a genocide.”
• A coalition of US human rights organizations and Darfur advocates has launched a new campaign to pressure the Obama Administration to intervene in the region. See Opposing pressure is being applied by groups who favor normalization of relations with Sudan and an end to US sanctions that prevent US companies from investing in Sudan’s lucrative oil sector (currently dominated by Chinese companies).
• Some analysts worry that, even if American policy should turn more sharply against Khartoum, US leverage in the United Nations Security Council over Sudan is limited. The US needs China’s cooperation as concerns over Iran and North Korea take center stage – a hard-line stance over Darfur may not be possible at this time given other geopolitical realities.
• As many have predicted, the urgency of looming deadlines concerning North-South tensions may also take precedence over Darfur as the US and other stakeholders in the CPA try to preserve the fragile peace in that conflict.