The World Savvy Monitor Blog has moved

Please check out all future postings of our blog at: http://worldsavvymonitor.wordpress.com

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.

Democracy in Afghanistan? Not so fast…

Last week, the world was watching as Afghanistan held its much-anticipated Presidential and provincial elections. This is only the third time that elections have been held in this country since the invasion of NATO and US troops and the ouster of the Taliban in 2001. American-backed incumbent Hamid Karzai was one of 30 candidates for the Presidency, challenged primarily by Dr. Abdullah Abdullah and reformer Ramazan Bashardost.

As the votes are being tallied and accusations of fraud are already widespread, we thought it would be helpful to return to the fall 2008 edition of the World Savvy Monitor on Democracy around the World to take a look at what these elections can tell us about democracy in Afghanistan.

First and foremost, Afghanistan is a great case study of how democracy is about more than voting. A recent Foreign Policy blog post highlights the argument that Afghanistan’s Election does not make it a democracy. Indeed, despite holding elections at all levels over the past 6 years, under both international supervision and national control, Afghanistan is NOT considered a true democracy by any of the independent organizations analyzing governments around the world.

• The Economist Intelligence Unit classifies Afghanistan as an authoritarian country (not even a flawed democracy), giving it failing grades on most measures including electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation, and political culture.
• Over the past year, Freedom House has downgraded Afghanistan’s status from “partly free” to “not free,” largely due to insecurity, corruption, inefficiency of government institutions, and human rights abuses.

See the Democracy edition of the World Savvy Monitor for a detailed description of electoral versus true democracies, especially the section entitled “What is Democracy?” Running the Afghanistan example through a checklist of the components of democracy is a great exercise, revealing how far the country still has to go toward joining the world community of liberal democracies, no matter how current elections play out. Even if voting is determined to be “fully free and fair” (which, by most accounts it was not, largely due to the intimidation of voters and alleged fraud), this will still not be sufficient to earn Afghanistan the moniker of democracy.

Afghanistan’s transition-in-process is also a good case study of the debate over sequencing in democracy-building.

• It bears remembering that Afghanistan has no real history of democracy; or even of a credible central government of any kind. It needs rule of law. It needs institutions, transparent processes, trained leaders. It needs economic development that will bring civilians in as stakeholders in its future as a nation-state.
• Consolidating and deepening its nascent democracy promises to be difficult under any circumstances; achieving this during war-time is a extraordinary task.
• Should this institution-building have taken place before elections were introduced? The years 2001-2003 saw the country ruled by a Transitional Administration chosen by a special council. Should this interlude have been extended in order to prepare fertile ground for democracy? Could the international community have asked the Afghan people to wait any longer for elections?

The political situation in Afghanistan is of immense concern to the United States, and is also a good lesson in the complexity of geopolitics, especially around Democracy Promotion.

• On one hand, the US (as a democracy-promoting country) would like to see Afghanistan’s democracy deepen and mature. But this process is often messy – in the short term, it could be marked by protests and upheaval over election results. This messiness is often formative and even necessary, a step along the path to true civilian participation in government.
• BUT, the US already faces a “deteriorating” military and security situation in Afghanistan, where 62,000 US troops are committed and more on the way. Thus, on the other hand, the US has an interest in getting this election over with so that it can focus on defeating the Taliban. American soldiers’ lives literally depend on it. Internal political divisions in Afghanistan mean that the array of players lined up against the Taliban are fragmented, and this is no good for the war effort.

Official results from this most recent election will not be released until September and are likely to be highly contended, with numerous complaints of fraud, voter intimidation, and vote rigging already filed. As the world watches on, what do you think this recent election can tell us about the potential for democracy in Afghanistan?

-By Cate Biggs, Editor, World Savvy Monitor

Suggested Reading:

• BBC: Q and A: Afghan Election
• Democracy International: Field Reports and Articles on the Afghan Elections

The Global Status of Women

Women and girls make up 70% of the world’s poor and two-thirds of the world’s illiterate population. Globally, 1 in 3 women will experience some type of domestic violence. There is little difference between poor and rich countries on this measure.

The statistics are daunting, yet little attention is paid to the global status of women in mainstream media. However, this past weekend the New York Times Magazine was devoted entirely to this incredibly important yet under-covered issue. The Magazine includes an article from Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn about the status of women around the world and the violence and brutality inflicted against them, from sex trafficking to acid attacks, bride burnings to mass rape. The edition also offers a interviews with Secretary of State Hilary Rodham Clinton on her ongoing efforts to raise the status of women around the world and Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, President of Liberia about the role of women in bringing peace to Liberia.

To understand the context behind the issues addressed in these articles, check out the recent edition of the World Savvy Monitor on the Global Status of Women. In this edition we examine the root causes, the symptoms, and the nuances behind the statistics relating to women’s representation in much that is good and bad in the world today. Although grim at times, especially as it relates to women in living in poverty, the story is about potential as much as it is about vulnerability.

Two Months After the Iranian Elections and Protests: What Did We Learn?

Iran’s disputed Presidential election in June and its violent aftermath dominated international headlines this summer, before slowing to a trickle as Ahmadinejad was inaugurated last week. Having completed an in-depth Monitor report on Iran in March, we at World Savvy were riveted. What were we witnessing? What did it all mean? Like many all over the globe, we followed the developments and duly compiled updates to our profile of this complex country.

Now as the dust settles, we step back and look critically at the big picture. After the twitters and shaky video images, the outrage and rhetoric, the pundits and experts, we ask ourselves: “What did the world really learn about Iran in the summer of 2009?” The answer is that, despite more coverage of Iran than we have seen in the media in decades, we don’t know much more than we knew before. It appears that the drama in Tehran, rather than revealing new insights, mostly served to confirm things the world already knew, and to reinforce the fact that we don’t know enough about this complex country.

We feel this is being somewhat lost in the media frenzy as hopeful observers in the West have a tendency to read into situations what they want to see going on in Iran in the wake of contested elections – a weakening of an oppressive regime’s legitimacy, a flowering of democracy, the triumph of reformers, a color revolution in green like those in the former USSR. The point is that we just don’t know yet. This could be the start of something new… It could be that a full-scale revolution is brewing - it’s tough to say when successful reform movements get their legs. Often, we only know that in hindsight.

For now, the certainty with which some commentators are proclaiming the beginning of the end for the Iranian status quo seems premature. The reality is that the clerical/military regime led by Ayatollah Khameini and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not in any real danger of falling at this time, despite the convulsions of Presidential politics and unrest in the streets. The theocracy remains firmly in control of not only the government, but the state security apparatus and the press as well.

An interesting comparison that perhaps we should be seeing more in the press is that of Tiananmen Square in China in 1989 where many in the West thought they were seeing the undoing of a different powerful regime, a regime that went on to survive and flourish up to this day, twenty years later. More on this as developments unfold. In the meantime, see the China edition of the World Savvy Monitor for food for thought.

What We Know:

1) The theocratic regime is well-entrenched and wields enormous influence over the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, even amidst considerable discontent. What seems to be getting lost in the noise is that the world knew this well before the elections. In the run up to the vote, almost no one predicted that Ahmadinejad would lose to Moussavi; and, in fact, it looks like Ahmadinejad would have won even if there had not been irregularities and alleged fraud. (An interesting conversation here is why the regime felt the need to steal an election it was going to win anyway).

2) The regime in Tehran will go to great lengths to ensure that its popularity is bolstered by demonstrations of strength against its critics, including repression of free speech, imprisonment of dissidents, and violence. In other words, legitimacy conferred by Allah in the form of “divine right” is often accompanied by military might conferred by the Revolutionary Guard. But, again, the world already knew this - the regime may not have had quite the stage the post-election protests provided, but it hasn’t stayed in power for 30 years without using a few of these tools before.

3) Many Iranians are fed up with inflation, unemployment, and economic isolation stemming from the regime’s policies; and this discontent simmers under the surface, threatenening to explode into protests at any time. We knew this before June as well. It is no secret that that countries with large, well-educated youth populations and few economic opportunities are ripe for serious protest movements, especially now in the era of cell phones and twitter. The world may have been surprised by the scale of post-election protests, but not by the tensions they revealed.

4) The regime is experiencing internal strife over how the principles of the 1979 Revolution are to be interpreted and realized in the 21st century. Khameini, Ahmadinejad, Khatami, Moussavi, Rafsanjani - tensions exist among these men and their followers over the legacy and ideals of the 1979 Revolution which Iranians have always seen more as an ongoing process than an event. But, even as they play out in current headlines, these fault lines are hardly new, nor are they new to the world– see the Iran edition of the World Savvy Monitor for a description of conservatives, pragmatists, and reformers over the past decade. We must remember also that the regime has survived this division within the ranks before, (see the ultimately chilly Tehran Spring 1997-2004). Perhaps most importantly, from history, the world also knows, but often forgets, that all of these men are stakeholders along the spectrum of the current system – status quo players – and are unlikely to advocate for its radical upheaval.

5) If the winds of change are in the air, if the convulsions of summer 2009 represent a democratic opening…this change has to be carried out by the Iranian people, not by exiles or well-intentioned people in the West. The world knows all too well that the “meddling” of outsiders in Iranian affairs is a flashpoint (throughout history and especially today). It is not helpful to dissidents and would-be reformers in Iran to give the impression that the West or the US in particular is pulling the strings. Any intervention by the US in Iranian internal affairs in the wake of the election would likely only play into the hands of the hardliners who use anti-Americanism to bolster domestic support. It is important to note that we already know that intervention need not be physical to have this effect – even words of condemnation from US officials are viewed in Iran as an affront to the Islamic Republic’s sovereignty. And sovereignty concerns still pack a punch, a half- century after the CIA-linked Mossadegh affair.

What We Do Not Know:

Too much to be saying anything else with certainty. The events of the summer have driven home how much we do not understand, and cannot understand about the Islamic Republic of Iran at this time. Such as…

What the Iranian people want at this juncture. Even though, we know what many Iranian exiles believe, and we know some Iranians citizens connected with the diaspora believe, we do not know what the Iranian people want for their country. Assuming it is a Western model of secular democracy has gotten us into trouble before in pursuing our “freedom agenda.”

How decisions are made within the regime. Or how serious the internal rivalries really are at this point. With few reliable, transparent sources of information about dynamics inside Iran - no embassy presence, few free media outlets, little formal contact – Western analysts can only try to interpret speeches, rhetoric, and prayers for vague and often contradictory signals by Iranian officials. Presuming that we have insight into how the regime functions is largely wishful thinking and has led to faulty predictions in the past.

The Bottom Line:

Overall, caution (and even humility) seems warranted as we in the West consume media commentary, discuss these issues in classrooms and around dinner tables, and make conclusions based on what we know and what we think we know about Iran. Tiananmen Square or Green Revolution or something else entirely? The events of summer 2009 invite us all to be students of the gray areas and uncertainties of geopolitics.

-Cate Biggs, Editor, World Savvy Monitor


Recent articles we like on Iran:

“Tehran or Bust” by Hooman Majd in Newsweek, June 1, 2009.

“In Praise of Caution” by Paul Kennedy in The New York Times, June 30, 2009:

Editorial by Beatrice Montamedi, a contributor to New America Now from the July 24, 2009 radio show.

Introducing the World Savvy Monitor Blog

The World Savvy Monitor is a free online current events resource for educators looking to deepen their understanding of global issues and integrate these issues into classroom instruction and discussion.

Since Summer 2008, World Savvy has published ten editions of the monitor on subjects ranging from democracy around the world to Pakistan on the world stage. Click here for a full list of past editions.

On this blog, we will connect current developments in world news to past editions of the Monitor. We will provide context behind the headlines and offer new ideas for integrating world news into classroom instruction.

Coming soon....get behind the headlines to understand recent developments in Iran.