Reminiscing..

With the end of the year in view, I feel it’s appropriate to look back at this blog all the

way from its genesis in September. Over the course of the last three months, I started out as a

novice in the world of blogging, not to mention blogging about political, social and other pertinent

world issues. In fact, the only blogging I was familiar with was me complaining and whining

about my life and my parents, and how “unfair” life was.. in high school. That said, I feel

confident in saying that I’ve made some leaps and bounds over the course of this blog’s duration.

Indeed, as I’ve looked outward towards the world, I ended up looking inward, finding things

about myself that I didn’t think I had in me. I’ve always thought of myself as educated, but at

the same time I would also admit that I wasn’t exactly the most politically or socially conscious

person. I’ve grown over the course of the last few months in that I’ve realized I do have views

and opinions that are heard, and that the world isn’t as far away as I think it is. In this entry, I

will string together several of my posts from the past three months that I feel reflect my

development and progress from beginning to end. I think it’s only fair to do this, to see where

I’ve been, so that I can look forward and face new challenges with confidence in the future. The

following posts range, in terms of post date, from the middle of September to the end of

November, and I feel each reflected a unique aspect, as well as growth, in my written works.

The first post, on Uganda, was actually the first post ever made on my blog, and I think it shows

the passion for world issues that I never thought I had before. The second post, “A Bad Name

Indeed”, represents an expansion of my vision as it was my first post outside of politics and

world issues. Furthermore, it was also a direct response to a fellow blogger’s previous post, a

sort of networking I hadn’t been comfortable about jumping into until that point. My last

selected post, “Rock Hard”, I think represents a combination of my earlier endeavors in political

blogging with my personal interests. As it talks about music, a love of mine, and its role in China

and North Korea, the repressive regimes, I feel it reflects how I took what I learned over the

course of this blog’s life and branching out in talking about something more personal.

(From the post “Uganda: What is the Opportunity Cost of Hosting Chogm” from 9/14/07)

Earlier today, I read this article by Sam Akaki of The Monitor regarding Uganda and its hosting of Chogm (which stands for Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting). In short, Chogm is a biennial summit meeting of the heads of government from all Commonwealth nations hosted by a different member nation each meeting. The purpose and the theme of Chogm has been "Transforming Commonwealth societies to achieve political, economic and human rights" but the article expresses the irony that arises from the said goals and with Uganda being the host country this year.

The intention of the event itself is perfectly acceptable as it is a time to meet with the commonwealth nations to debate, negotiate and discuss issues that affect various member nations. While that may have been easier in practice in its earlier years, with the growing number of members (there are over 50 member nations in Chogm) and leniency/relaxation in its agendas, there have been questions raised about not only its relevance but also its ability to establish any sort of political consensus.

A fact that gets lost in the shuffle is that Uganda is the host country for the 2007 Chogm conference. With the budget for the conference rising above 1 trillion schillings for the nation of Uganda and asked in the parliament how much the UK government would provide of that total, the Foreign Office Minister Ian McCartney replied, "The government of Uganda will meet the full costs of hosting Chogm. The [British] government will [not] contribute [anything] to these costs". And in this is where the contradiction lies, the fact that a nation whose history has been plagued by economical, political and social problems that needs help more than anyone else has been asked to help in solely hosting its events and the financial costs that come with it. The article states my thoughts perfectly:

Given that Uganda is facing catastrophic social, economic and political crises including explosive population growth; rapid deforestation; falling food production; violent scramble for land; increasing unemployment among graduates; growing rural-urban migration; power shortages; crumbling health, education and road infrastructure; over one million citizens who have been living in the Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) camps for the last 20 years; louder and wider complaints about ethnic marginalisation; political opponents dying or disappearing in detention; non-existent prospect for peaceful change through free and fair elections; calls for secession in Buganda and the north - all making lethal cocktail that will sure tear Uganda apart; one would expect hosting Chogm at a cost of one trillion shillings to be the last thing in the minds of Ugandan rulers and its western backers.

The irony cuts deep in that while Uganda hosts Chogm, an event that promotes the well being of the commonwealth nations, the host country is receiving a lack of help in these times when they need assistance in all those said areas. Regarding the title of the article, the opportunity cost of an action is defined as "the monetary cost of an alternative that must be forgone in order to pursue another action; or the benefits you could have received by taking that alternative action". This refers to what could have been if the responsibilities and burdens placed on Uganda could have been lightened or redirected. The article, in fact, mentions several of areas of benefits that could be realized if an alternative action was taken.

Why didn't we spend that money to resettle over one million men, women and children who have spent 20 years in camps; or create decent jobs for tens of thousands of graduates and other professionals who are working as security guards, hotel waiters, petrol station attendants, international drug traffickers, mercenaries in Iraq, or walking the streets looking for employment?

Why not spend the money to renovate Mulago Referral Hospital, and provide equipment and staff for the badly needed specialist units for treatment of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, neurological disorders and burns?

How many more new doctors, nurses, primary and secondary school teachers would be trained with this amount of money? What if some of the money had been spent on increasing the salaries for doctors, nurses, teachers, policemen, civil servants and university lecturers?

Why not spend the money on building one first class primary school in every parish, fully staffed with properly trained and remunerated teachers, and build one first class secondary school in every county, well equipped with science laboratories and fully staffed with properly trained and remunerated teachers?

Why not spend the money on providing descent accommodation for our police officers who are sharing one room with married colleagues?

Why not properly maintain or purchase brand new military transport vehicles to avoid frequent needless deaths in freak accidents?

Why not spend the money to recruit and train more judges and other judiciary officials to deal with the huge backlog of cases in which thousands of Ugandans are on remanded for alleged defilement, murder and treason without trial for decades?

Why not use the money to build at least two water boreholes in every parish throughout the country; or renovate the Owen Falls Dam and accelerate the construction of two or more hydro power stations to arrest the terrible power shortage?

Why not use the money to organise an effective population control programme including reproductive health education, safe pregnancy termination clinics, cash rewards to families with fewer than three children and imposing taxation on those with more?

Why not use the money to implement the recommendations of the Commonwealth Observer report to ensure free and fair elections in 2011 and avert the prospect for violence?

For myself, this is an issue that is a personal burden for me, having gone to Uganda this summer as part of an short term summer mission with my campus Christian ministry, Korean-American Campus Mission (KCM). Personally seeing with my own eyes the poverty, the homeless and ill kids, the pain and just the lack of help and resources was a humbling experience. Realistically, change won't occur at a miraculous overnight pace, but things could be done better in helping this nation stand for itself. The one enduring and unfortunate fact that was evident in my month-long stay was the fact that there is a pervasive beggar culture. Just seeing so many beggars, homeless and people who would offer me their children for money made me realize that even if there is foreign aid, it's not enough to just donate, but to take initiative and help them to stand on their own. Unfortunately, as this article indicates, there has been more that's been hurting rather than helping the people of Uganda.

(From the post “A Bad Name Indeed” from 11/16/07)

In a recent posting on the Ketch Up blog entitled, "A Bad Name for USC", the blog refers to the incident involving former USC college student, Holly Ashcraft, who is best known for having been tried for charges stemming from her dumping newborn baby in a trash bin on 29th street in 2005. In fact, it was just a year prior in 2004, when she gave birth to another child in a dormitory bathroom, whose remains remain unfounded to this day.
As noted in Ketch Up, there is something to be said about the fact that Ashcraft went from facing charges of murder three times, to having the case dismissed citing lack of evidence, and recently having bail reduced just last week. She expresses this sentiment in stating:

Seems to me that the authorities are going way to easy with this woman even though she has done this before. The prosecutors in this case continue to believe that Ashcraft's baby was born alive and she dumped it in the trash bin in order to get rid of her son while the defense lawyer, Mark Geragos, continues to argue that there is no evidence Ashcraft knew she was pregnant or that the baby was born alive. Also arguing that putting the child in a box in the dumpster was not intentional. What kind of defense is that?

As appalling and as unbelievable as her crimes and acts may have been, the circumstances in the trials have been just as unbearable. And this is just for the 2005 incident. One would think that the previous incident in 2004 would corroborate charges and suspicions against Ashcraft, but so far, she hasn't faced anything near the justice that is necessary. Also pointed out is the fact that the defense lawyer, Geragos, is arguing that the woman did not know she was pregnant nor that it was alive. I would think that if you give birth and hear a baby crying, those would be pretty clear signs of whether you were pregnant and whether the baby was alive or not. But I guess that is the sticking point, that no one knows for sure if the baby was still-born or still alive when it was abandoned in the dumpster. At the same time, it is puzzling that he also argues for Ashcraft that abandoning the baby in the dumpster was not intentional. If so, did she accidentally throw her baby away? I'd like to see how you would do that.
In the concluding paragraph, Ketch Up noted:

Not only does this woman need a psychological evaluation but she needs to go to jail. She intentionally took the life of her two children and is not suffering any consequences. Holly continues to say she is not guilty. Only time will tell if Holly will ever have to go to jail. But it seems the longer this case continues, the more lenient the circumstances are for this woman.

There are multiple levels of trespasses committed by Ashcraft. The murders are one thing, but I think there is something to be said about her psychologically if she is sleeping around, getting pregnant, giving birth and then killing/abandoning her baby in some sort of a sick little cycle. And as noted earlier, as distressing as this situation is, it seems as time passes by, indeed she faces less and less justice. One can only hope that, in time, this case will move forward and reach a conclusion, for Ashcraft's punishment and for the memory of her children who never lived to say a word to their mother.

(From the post “Rock Hard” from 11/30/07)

Recently, Communication Breakdown posted this commentary on the issue of the western music making its way into China and its impact. It had to do with a lot of music sales being down and out largely due to the rise of shareware programs like torrents, IRC, limewire, etc and how western artists are seeking new artists and opportunities in the East:

Western music is looking to the East to play live shows, and capitalize from merchandise and technology. Peter Grosslight, worldwide head of music for the William Morris Agency believes that “China is on the tip of everyone’s tongue. There are 1.3 billion people there. It’s becoming a much wealthier place. How can we ignore that?” According to “For all the Rock in China” printed in Sunday’s New York Times, China has come to embrace Western music again as they “were once largely closed to foreign music, but the country has gradually loosened it’s restrictions,” and has thereby become a necessary destination for pop music.

This is no problem at all. In fact, it's smart business and this isn't the first time (or the last) that western industries seek bigger pastures on the other side of the yard. A notable example that comes in mind for me is professional American sports organizations such as the MLB and the NBA going over to China to expand its business and take advantage of the rising population and wealth there. In terms of music, I think the best and most recent example of (though it went further than just east) would be Michael Jackson and the sheer number of concerts, album sales, etc, that were acquired outside the U.S. Similarly, due to opportunity AND necessity, western artists seem to be heading east.
At the same time, China is still under a repressive regime, and unsurprisingly the authority extends to concerts, music, lyrics, you name it. So on the one hand, we have artists from the west, more specifically, America, such as Linkin Park, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Beyonce, etc, etc, seeking new opportunities in the east, including China. But on the other hand, China offers nothing but its authoritarian regime who decides everything from the lyrics, to set list, to venue, sound, etc. Communication Breakdown offers a very real perspective on the issues that obviously arise out of the conflict:

What is more important to a musician- playing sold out concerts in China where lyrics and every minutia of your set is scrutinized or playing in a small club where you are free to play your music as you intended it? As an artist I cannot easily understand why so many US music groups are willing to hand over their creativity to the Chinese Ministry. The discrepancy between the band’s China sponsors and the music they actually sell illustrates the point that China is only out to make a profit… even if that means disrupting a global marketing plan along the way.

This is especially interesting because in a recent article entitled, Concert Without Strings, the New York times talked about a similar issue in North Korea. The article refers to the New York Philharmonic considering performing in Pyongyang, North Korea. The article further commentates about how just like in China, everything from the guest list, to the venue, set list and everything is determined by the government, in this case, it would be Kim Jong-Il. The article also refers to examples of when there has been any detraction in terms of unwavering allegiance to the North's music, program and organization as to what is to be listened to. One such example was the story of a Ji Hae Nam who was imprisoned for 3 years and suffered physical abuse to the point she couldn't walk for a month. With all this said, the authors offered a sort of an open ended challenge:

If, as some starry-eyed commentators have suggested, the dictator’s willingness to let the Philharmonic perform demonstrates a new level of “openness,” then the orchestra should be able to make reasonable demands: that the orchestra alone set its program; that the performance be broadcast on state radio for everyone to hear; that the concert hall be open to the public, not just the elite; and that the Western press be allowed to attend. If the regime refuses these conditions, the Philharmonic should, in the name of artistic freedom, decline to perform in North Korea.

In considering this case as well as the Communications Breakdown post from earlier, it is indeed important to ask ourselves, especially musicians, if business ventures and breaking through to China, North Korea, wherever, if it is at the cost of artistic integrity. Indeed, I would say that it's not really breaking through if you are not allowed to do it on your terms. Just because an artist may be performing in China or North Korea doesn't mean that their music is going to progress any further than that. The interesting question at this point is if the artist stays or goes, and if the artist stays are they really willing to be at the mercy of the local government's imposing will? Or, if the artist leaves, they face a set of entirely different and similar problems back home, especially in America with its RIAA and downloading epidemic. Either way, it's clear that there are questions everywhere, both at home and abroad for western musicians.

Rock Hard

Recently, Communication Breakdown posted this commentary on the issue of the western music making its way into China and its impact. It had to do with a lot of music sales being down and out largely due to the rise of shareware programs like torrents, IRC, limewire, etc and how western artists are seeking new artists and opportunities in the East:

Western music is looking to the East to play live shows, and capitalize from merchandise and technology. Peter Grosslight, worldwide head of music for the William Morris Agency believes that “China is on the tip of everyone’s tongue. There are 1.3 billion people there. It’s becoming a much wealthier place. How can we ignore that?” According to “For all the Rock in China” printed in Sunday’s New York Times, China has come to embrace Western music again as they “were once largely closed to foreign music, but the country has gradually loosened it’s restrictions,” and has thereby become a necessary destination for pop music.

This is no problem at all. In fact, it's smart business and this isn't the first time (or the last) that western industries seek bigger pastures on the other side of the yard. A notable example that comes in mind for me is professional American sports organizations such as the MLB and the NBA going over to China to expand its business and take advantage of the rising population and wealth there. In terms of music, I think the best and most recent example of (though it went further than just east) would be Michael Jackson and the sheer number of concerts, album sales, etc, that were acquired outside the U.S. Similarly, due to opportunity AND necessity, western artists seem to be heading east.



At the same time, China is still under a repressive regime, and unsurprisingly the authority extends to concerts, music, lyrics, you name it. So on the one hand, we have artists from the west, more specifically, America, such as Linkin Park, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Beyonce, etc, etc, seeking new opportunities in the east, including China. But on the other hand, China offers nothing but its authoritarian regime who decides everything from the lyrics, to set list, to venue, sound, etc. Communication Breakdown offers a very real perspective on the issues that obviously arise out of the conflict:

What is more important to a musician- playing sold out concerts in China where lyrics and every minutia of your set is scrutinized or playing in a small club where you are free to play your music as you intended it? As an artist I cannot easily understand why so many US music groups are willing to hand over their creativity to the Chinese Ministry. The discrepancy between the band’s China sponsors and the music they actually sell illustrates the point that China is only out to make a profit… even if that means disrupting a global marketing plan along the way.

This is especially interesting because in a recent article entitled, Concert Without Strings, the New York times talked about a similar issue in North Korea. The article refers to the New York Philharmonic considering performing in Pyongyang, North Korea. The article further commentates about how just like in China, everything from the guest list, to the venue, set list and everything is determined by the government, in this case, it would be Kim Jong-Il. The article also refers to examples of when there has been any detraction in terms of unwavering allegiance to the North's music, program and organization as to what is to be listened to. One such example was the story of a Ji Hae Nam who was imprisoned for 3 years and suffered physical abuse to the point she couldn't walk for a month. With all this said, the authors offered a sort of an open ended challenge:

If, as some starry-eyed commentators have suggested, the dictator’s willingness to let the Philharmonic perform demonstrates a new level of “openness,” then the orchestra should be able to make reasonable demands: that the orchestra alone set its program; that the performance be broadcast on state radio for everyone to hear; that the concert hall be open to the public, not just the elite; and that the Western press be allowed to attend. If the regime refuses these conditions, the Philharmonic should, in the name of artistic freedom, decline to perform in North Korea.

In considering this case as well as the Communications Breakdown post from earlier, it is indeed important to ask ourselves, especially musicians, if business ventures and breaking through to China, North Korea, wherever, if it is at the cost of artistic integrity. Indeed, I would say that it's not really breaking through if you are not allowed to do it on your terms. Just because an artist may be performing in China or North Korea doesn't mean that their music is going to progress any further than that. The interesting question at this point is if the artist stays or goes, and if the artist stays are they really willing to be at the mercy of the local government's imposing will? Or, if the artist leaves, they face a set of entirely different and similar problems back home, especially in America with its RIAA and downloading epidemic. Either way, it's clear that there are questions everywhere, both at home and abroad for western musicians.

We All Need Some Musical Healing

A few weeks ago, JSorg's Spot published a post entitled "Can Your Therapist Really Prescribe Music", which talked about music therapy. After reading, I realized although I love music, I also was not that familiar with music therapy, so at one glance, as JSorg pointed out, music therapy sounded like something that had to do with

an eclectic gathering of reefer-smoking, tree-hugging hippies attempting to relive the “flower power” days of the 1960’s.

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that people, myself included, have often associated music therapy and the like with some metaphysical development. This almost ethereal quality, I think, has resulted in a lot of skeptics who still remain under doubt about the validity of musical therapy.



The exact goal of musical therapy is to achieve non-musical goals through musical means. JSorg points out the American Music Therapy Association's goals are "to promote wellness, manage stress, alleviate pain, express feelings, enhance memory, improve communication, and promote physical rehabilitation". But this is only the tip of the iceberg as it supposedly is capable of several other functions:

It can be used in a wide range of therapeutic techniques from prenatal to hospice care. Musical therapy is often used in mental institutions and it can be used for both adults and children. Musical therapists apply music in psychology to treat depression, schizophrenia, and eating disorders for adults. It can also be used to help children learn counting, numbers, colors, and even social skills.

Aside from these specific treatments and applications, the post also refers to practical applications of musical therapy:

Specifically, music can be used in certain daily applications to promote a healthy lifestyle. Listening to music provides a beat which encourages our rhythm while exercising. It can also be effective while eating, helping us to savor taste, aiding in digestion, and helping us to eat less. Music can also be used during meditation which helps lower blood pressure, depression and stress.

I'm sure there are a lot of psychological terms, figures and numbers that can attest to the validity of these effects and services musical therapy does for a person. But I'm reading this, and asking myself, "doesn't music do these things in the first place?". I guess I'm scratching my head a little bit, but I feel like they've taken a natural phenomenon, branded and patented it as their own. Reading about all these formal functions of musical therapy, I realized that these things happen for me or any other person every day. I mean, I listen to music to relax, to fall asleep, to pump myself up, or simply to keep me entertained as I do work. So by this definition, am I some "sick" person who is a patient of this phenomenon? or am I someone who just enjoys music? To be sure, I do agree that there are some peripheral benefits that are key for those going through unnatural depression, sicknesses, etc, but I just find it a little silly to take the musical experience and to give it a name, or pigeonhole as though it's only available for those who need it.

I guess the line that is drawn, and pointed out by JSorg is that there are supporters of musical therapy on one side, but on the other, are those who can't seem to place their faith in it.

Despite the research in music therapy, some people still believe that its claims seem improbable. Although some forms of music therapy are not an exact science, they have proven to be rather effective. Anyone who is critical and doubtful of music therapy may not be receptive to it simply because they are close-minded. The power of the brain is something that we will never be able to understand or grasp. Sometimes believing in something alone seems to be enough to let if affect you. Those who lack faith in music therapy may never see its true potential or embrace it.

Although, a point that I would raise, and JSorg could have further elaborated on, is that we're all capable of musical experiences everyday. After all, most of us listen to music for leisure, for fun, and to enjoy ourselves. If we're capable of that, it isn't too much of a stretch to say that music can have some sort of positive effects on some higher-functions of our brains and minds. It may not be tangible in logic and numbers, but that's what makes emotion, well, exactly that, emotional.

A Bad Name Indeed

In a recent posting on the Ketch Up blog entitled, "A Bad Name for USC", the blog refers to the incident involving former USC college student, Holly Ashcraft, who is best known for having been tried for charges stemming from her dumping newborn baby in a trash bin on 29th street in 2005. In fact, it was just a year prior in 2004, when she gave birth to another child in a dormitory bathroom, whose remains remain unfounded to this day.

As noted in Ketch Up, there is something to be said about the fact that Ashcraft went from facing charges of murder three times, to having the case dismissed citing lack of evidence, and recently having bail reduced just last week. She expresses this sentiment in stating:

Seems to me that the authorities are going way to easy with this woman even though she has done this before. The prosecutors in this case continue to believe that Ashcraft's baby was born alive and she dumped it in the trash bin in order to get rid of her son while the defense lawyer, Mark Geragos, continues to argue that there is no evidence Ashcraft knew she was pregnant or that the baby was born alive. Also arguing that putting the child in a box in the dumpster was not intentional. What kind of defense is that?

As appalling and as unbelievable as her crimes and acts may have been, the circumstances in the trials have been just as unbearable. And this is just for the 2005 incident. One would think that the previous incident in 2004 would corroborate charges and suspicions against Ashcraft, but so far, she hasn't faced anything near the justice that is necessary. Also pointed out is the fact that the defense lawyer, Geragos, is arguing that the woman did not know she was pregnant nor that it was alive. I would think that if you give birth and hear a baby crying, those would be pretty clear signs of whether you were pregnant and whether the baby was alive or not. But I guess that is the sticking point, that no one knows for sure if the baby was still-born or still alive when it was abandoned in the dumpster. At the same time, it is puzzling that he also argues for Ashcraft that abandoning the baby in the dumpster was not intentional. If so, did she accidentally throw her baby away? I'd like to see how you would do that.

In the concluding paragraph, Ketch Up noted:

Not only does this woman need a psychological evaluation but she needs to go to jail. She intentionally took the life of her two children and is not suffering any consequences. Holly continues to say she is not guilty. Only time will tell if Holly will ever have to go to jail. But it seems the longer this case continues, the more lenient the circumstances are for this woman.

There are multiple levels of trespasses committed by Ashcraft. The murders are one thing, but I think there is something to be said about her psychologically if she is sleeping around, getting pregnant, giving birth and then killing/abandoning her baby in some sort of a sick little cycle. And as noted earlier, as distressing as this situation is, it seems as time passes by, indeed she faces less and less justice. One can only hope that, in time, this case will move forward and reach a conclusion, for Ashcraft's punishment and for the memory of her children who never lived to say a word to their mother.

Much Ado About Nothing

In this article, Jason Shaplen and James Laney summarize the ongoing peace negotiations and the North Korea's disarming of their nuclear weapons and centers. In it, they summarize the progress of the peace negotiations but raise the issue of what will happen to the weapons and the stockpile of the already existing fissile material. Though much progress has been made, to the tune of North Korea's promise of disarming all its nuclear centers, the Beijing talks, and the U.S. aid of $25 million among others things, Shaplen and Laney nevertheless still agree that "Still, the nuclear accord is ambiguous on one issue that threatens to derail it: the question of what will happen to North Korea’s existing stockpile of fissile material".

It is an important question to ask, since more than ever before, Bush has spent resources and efforts to pursuing this end. He has dissolved and stepped over the 6+ years of conflict between hard-line conservatives who want to oust Kim Jong Il's regime and those who favor negotiation, and vested responsibility and power in Christopher Hill, a member of the State Department who is the point man for North Korea. North Korea has thus far mostly, and encouragingly has complied, with much aid from America, of course. But with all this progress with the disarming of nuclear centers and factories, it is just as important to consider the fate of the current stockpile of nuclear items that has been sitting, unused.

This issue is significant. The article cites that North Korea "has reprocessed approximately 50 kilos of weapons-grade plutonium — enough for as many as 10 nuclear bombs — and this stockpile will soon be Mr. Kim’s last remaining card". On the one hand, Kim can hold on to it as a trump card for perhaps, more aid and rights. But on the other hand, giving it up could severely weaken his regime and could mean Kim would be at the mercy of reformists who wish to eradicate his regime.

The article offers a suggestion, one I agree with, that North Korea cede the material to one of its closest allies in China. This would not only allow China to hold on to it, but it would prevent North Korea from making more bombs or selling it to, for example, a terrorist organization for some much needed quick cash on the go. Another important reason why China could be a viable option is that outside organizations, especially ones associated with the U.S., such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, are often distrusted by Kim and North Korea. Case in point would be when he threw out inspectors in 2002. Furthermore, because there is, ultimately, a trust in China that it is not seeking the overthrow of his regime, Kim can rest assured in that respect. In addition, China has mass subsidies and aid that it could use in case North Korea falls out of line.

Whatever the case may be, Korea is a step closer than ever before in uniting, but this issue remains as a hurdle to be cleared. Timing is key and it is just as important as to who will deal with and handle North Korea and its fissile material. But as North Korea becomes more integrated with the rest of the world, and everyone is beginning to acknowledge, as the article states, "the elephant in the room", progress isn't looking too far away.

A Boy Raped by 3 Men and Dubai

Evidently, Dubai’s policy on male-rape cases is “Don’t tell and we won’t ask”.

As reported by the New York Times, a French 15 year old, Alexandre Robert was raped and sodomized by three Emirati men while he was vacationing with his family in the United Arab Emirates. It was during Bastille Day in July, when a chance encounter with one of his schoolmates led to a traumatizing ordeal with the three men.

It was during the aftermath when the Robert family found out that underneath Dubai’s status as the Arab standard of modernization and wealth, and its good reputation of protecting foreign investors, there lingers a criminal system that remains stagnant when it comes to the issues of homosexuality and protection of foreigners.

In fact, as revealed by his family and French diplomats, the Dubai authorities not only discouraged Alexandre from pressing charges, but also threatened to charge him with criminal homosexual activities. Instead of finding the reassuring comfort Dubai is known for, they were met with only hostility. This doesn’t even scratch the surface with the fact that they neglected for weeks on end to inform anyone in his camp that one of his attackers had tests HIV positive four years prior. As he flees from school to school fearing a jail term in Dubai, Alexandre reveals “They tried to smother this story. Dubai, they say we build the highest towers, they have the best hotels. But all the news, they hide it. They don’t want the world to know that Dubai still lives in the Middle Ages.”

Despite the fact that the perpetrators have jail history, and that their sperm were found in Alex, United Arab Emirates law does not recognize these rapes of male individuals, save for a crime of “forced homosexuality”. This adds a tragic touch as it becomes an undertone of a country that is a financially bustling and tourist center. Alexandre's case, furthermore, cannot be passed over as an exception to the rule because of the fact that at least 90% of the Dubai population are not of Emirati citizenry, the same majority that has raised concerns regarding this unequal treatment of foreigners.

Looking deeper, this case study reveals the taboos of HIV and homosexuality that resound strongly in Dubai, which many residents say has led to rampant harassment and discrimination, as well as the health system’s falling in line as they treat HIV in secret. In fact, under Emirates law, foreigners with HIV and those convicted of homosexual activity are deported. Those, such as Khalifa Rashid Bin Demas of the United Arab Emirates legal system claim otherwise, countering the “legal and judicial system in the United Arab Emirates makes no distinction between nationals and non-nationals”. But those such as a 42-year-old gay foreign businessman, who wishes to remain unidentified, save for his nickname Ko, chronicled his 13 years of residence in Dubai as filled with routine harassment and has said he will be leaving the country due to his fears of deportation and continued harassment.

The grim reality revealed by the facts and misfortunes of Alexandre’s case and the reality of Dubai owing its economic resurgence to foreign investors and companies must somehow be reconciled. But the legal system has continued to be a system of contradictions in many ways. Not only were the victims treated as though they were the guilty, but truth was the first casualty of the Alexandre case. It was over a month before the family learned that the police were incorrect in saying the assailants were all HIV negative.

However, this lack of aptitude runs deeper than just the legal/police force. The happy-go-lucky naivete and ignorance of the issues at hand resides with the health system as well. In Alexandre’s case, the doctor who was examining him the night of the assault accused Alexandre, “I know you’re a homosexual. You can admit it to me. I can tell”. This is the sort of conundrum which could end up hurting not only the case against the assailants, but making Alexandre’s irreparable hurt even worse.

Indeed, on the one hand, Dubai and much of the rest of the United Arab Emirates have a lot going for their legal system. Dubai has managed to successfully uphold a system based on Islamic values along with the best practices of the West, resulting in a modern legal system. This holds true especially in business and finance, an area in which Dubai has earned the reputation for its impartiality and swift justice. However, the opposite seems to hold true for its criminal justice system which is rooted in the contradiction between its laws rooted in conservative Arab and Islamic culture and its population whose overwhelming majority consists of foreigners.

In spite of much rhetoric on the part of Dubai officials, there is still much reservation about the focus and aim of the criminal justice system. In looking at Alexandre Robert’s case, it is only the tip of the iceberg as Dubai deals with a population full of foreigners. It also remains to be seen whether the criminal system is progressing to become that “modern legal system” or if it will remain the same stagnant system which Alexandre’s mother stated only moved forward after much diplomatic and public pressure.

You're All Invited to Uganda's Dinner Party!

What’s the recipe for success for an impoverished country? Simply bust out an apron, an Emily Post book and have themselves a dinner party!

This November, Uganda is set to host over 50 commonwealth nations for the annual CHOGM (Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting). This is where the heads of government gather to discuss issues regarding member nations.

Ironically, the country whose poverty and disease are only surpassed by its tragedies is the one left with the burden of hosting CHOGM. In light of recent floods and British Foreign Minister McCartney’s revelation that the Ugandan government would meet the full costs of hosting CHOGM, it is clear that the world needs to stop wondering how Uganda can help them, but how they can help Uganda.

The numbers are known, and the situation has been publicized. There have been over 100,000 deaths, 20,000 abductions and over 1.5 displaced in and out of Uganda due to the LRA and war. Though things have improved, the total population for the IDP (internally displaced persons) camps in Uganda alone is easily half a million. And though there has been some U.N. aid, to the tune of 18,000 mobilized, it still has not been enough. Furthermore, a recent study by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz reveals that the monthly bill for the war in Iraq is $4.5 billion dollars. If this were calculated in terms of the Ugandan schilling, it would equate to over $7.2 trillion schillings!

In addition to these well-publicized facts and numbers, these don’t include the havoc wreaked by the recent floods. The contamination of two-thirds of the water sources has led to a 30% rise in malaria and other illnesses. Furthermore, the flood has taken away Uganda’s bread and butter, the harvests that come from their farming industry, creating severe food shortages. The floods have also shut down 300+ schools which educate over 100,000 students. The Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, has had to declare a state of emergency due to the flood displacing over 300,000 people as well as claiming 21 lives.

And yet, despite these trials, with little help in sight, Uganda has had to bend over backwards even more to accommodate the CHOGM conference. Uganda is like the hostess who, thanks to Emily Post, puts on fantastic dinner parties for the public, but desperately needs help to straighten out her personal life. There are real problems going on, but it seems that the commonwealth nations that are going to gather have been anything but worrying about Uganda. They have found it convenient and more beneficial to them and enjoy the “dinner party” while Uganda finds itself picking up the pieces. This is especially unfortunate since the point of CHOGM is to promote the well-being of all member nations.

The cold, as-a-matter-of-factly indifference towards this issue is summed up by British Foreign Minister Ian McCartney, who stated the “government of Uganda will meet the full costs of hosting Chogm. The British government will not contribute anything to these costs”. On the one hand, the $1 trillion schilling cost for Uganda in hosting CHOGM could be easily covered by less than a week’s worth of bills due to the U.S. for the Iraq War. But just as easily, in a kind of throwback to colonialism, Uganda’s loss has been the West’s gain.

The opportunity cost of something is defined as the monetary cost that is lost in order to take another course of action, or, conversely, the benefits that could have been received by choosing to take that alternative course of action. Nowhere is this opportunity cost more apparent than it is in Uganda. Having spent a month there this summer, I personally saw the widespread poverty and lack of funding in the IDP camps in Gulu. The kids ran all over the place, with rags for clothes, scar tissue on thei bodies and bellies full of poverty. The reality of Uganda, as I saw it, makes the CHOGM mission statement, “Transforming Commonwealth societies to achieve political, economic and human rights", less a rallying call and more a passing phrase.

In all this, the opportunity cost that could have gone towards stabilizing Uganda has been mismanaged. The costs that have gone towards CHOGM, the lack of funding on part of the commonwealth nations and the War in Iraq have been at the expense of avenues that would have been to Uganda’s benefit. The rising contradiction between the costs of an unproductive CHOGM and rising crises in Uganda serves as the focal point of the issue at hand.

So, knowing this, why not redirect focus and monetary funds away from an outdated conference and towards resettling displaced people settled in camps? Or towards creating jobs that are more than just the rudimentary security guard and hotel waiters? Why not redirect funds to renovate hospitals such as the Mulago Referral Hospital and provide adequate equipment? These are just a few of the many questions that plague Uganda daily.

In looking forward, for the betterment of international relations and the stabilization of the African continent, we need to be less concerned with what we get from Uganda in the here and now; but rather, what we can give Uganda for long-term stability. Maybe then, we can return the favor and invite them over to our place for dinner.

Things Looking Up for North Korea

These days, you don't seem to be hearing a whole lot about the tensions between North Korean and the U.S., and also, South Korea. The days of nuclear threats, political tension and cold shoulders may not be a thing of the past, but they are en route to becoming distant memories. Thanks to talks between the Northern dictator Kim Jong Il and the Southern President Roh Moo Hyun, things are indeed looking up for North Korea.

One example is the development of freight transportation and service that has been allowed by both sides to cross the North-South DMZ (demilitarized zone) for the first time in the last 50 years, as summarized by this article. This would mean the collaboration of the major North and South railroads and corresponding companies. More specifically, through these discussion and summits, the short term benefits would include the South using cheap North labor to send its good to above the border. The article expresses this view in stating:

Lee (President Lee Chul of Korea Railroads) said freight train services joining the South and Kaesong will sharply cut costs for South Korean businesses and help reduce tensions between the two sides, which remain technically at war under a truce after the 1950-53 hostilities.

Many, including Lee, hope that this symbolic unity in business will lead to more than symbolism and a temporary goodwill. Many are hoping that this railroad connection will be followed by a physical and national connection, a hope which has its many dissenters who cite skepticism regarding the North's intentions and the sheer difficulties it would mean for the South. Another development is the South, North and China having talks regarding the Olympics and a possible joint North-South Korean dance/cheer team to be sent there. All these events seem to be discrete and not radical, but in something as delicate as the North Korean issue, time, patience and safety is all that can be advocated.

In more compelling news, it looks as though the nuclear issues of the North could be distant memories sooner than expected. In this article, President Roh has expressed that based on his meetings with the North's leader, Kim, that "North Korea wants the standoff over its nuclear weapons program resolved in order to forge better ties with the United States". This, of course, doesn't come as too much of a shock since North Korea has been more and more compliant in international discussions to get rid of its nuclear program while the U.S. softened its approach toward Pyongyang after tense times when the North ran its first nuclear test. Some of this compromise has been seen in the form of the North shutting down nuclear reactors in exchange for economic aid and political concessions.

In looking at prospects for unity, President Roh has been one to speak out saying that Korean reunion would not be a burden for the South, going as far as stating that "North Korea is not a land of danger, but a land of opportunity for us". In fact, the two sides, spearheaded by its leaders in Roh and Kim, are looking to formally end the war and spur up summits to discuss related issues. These peace talks would include the two Koreas, the U.S. and China.

I am all for these developments and peace talks, and in fact, I'm excited for whatever developments may come about in the coming months, especially with the goodwill that will further come about due to the Beijing Olympics. However, I would tend to disagree with President Roh's optimistic view of the possible reintegration of the North by the South. In fact, reality dictates that any integration of the North would parallel the integration of East Germany by the West, after the fall of U.S.S.R. and the Berlin Wall. What this would mean for South Korea is that there is going to be a lot of hard times ahead. First issue would be is what to do in terms of the leadership -- do they hold new elections? or is it assumed that they are united under a democratic regime? Also, it also remains to be seen how the South will integrate the communist north. Do they slowly integrate the north to the democratic south? Or do they resort to "shock therapy" and immediately privatize Northern firms and expose it to market economical forces? More than politics and economy, it will be a challenge to see socially how the democratic South helps those in the North who will find it impossible to live without an authoritarian regime. Integration is still a ways away, to be sure, but as it seems to become more and more a realistic possibility, it's necessary that it is looked at realistically. And Roh needs to realize that things won't be easy. After all, Germany still hasn't fully recovered from its reunion.

The Public Intellectual (Part 3 of 3): The Conclusion

In considering the personal status and state of the public intellectual and also their jobs, Stephen Mack makes a good point about where our priorities should be:

it needs to begin with a shift from “categories and class” to “function.” That is, our notions of the public intellectual need to focus less on who or what a public intellectual is—and by extension, the qualifications for getting and keeping the title. Instead, we need to be more concerned with the work public intellectuals must do, irrespective of who happens to be doing it. (Stephen Mack )

As Mack mentions later, “It’s a distinction that matters” because it really is significant regarding whether the public intellectual focuses on his perceived status or his function in society. This dichotomy expresses itself in William Dean’s review, if not a critique, of Richard Posner’s book, Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline. Essentially, Posner, a federal judge and law professor argues for a variety of factors that have led to the decreasing number and the decline in status of the public intellectuals. However, Dean points out in an example that:

Posner launches into an ill-fated and lengthy exercise in ranking the 571 public intellectuals who in the years 1995-2000 received the most media attention and Web-site hits. None of the great public intellectuals I cite above (from Addams to Lasch) makes Posner's top 100, and three fail to show up among his top 571. Not only is this ranking a ridiculous way to assess real public influence, it undermines Posner's own project; he himself would predict that the ranking would stimulate public intellectuals' vanity, causing them either to preen or be wounded and then to ignore the book's larger argument. (William Dean)

In this example, Dean exposes Posner’s ridiculous method of measuring public influence through something that can be amounted as a popularity contest. Indeed, Posner only grazes the surface, failing to recognize that something as trivial as web site hits is hardly an indication of true influence of a public intellectual. Furthermore, as Dean points out, Posner not only focuses on what he shouldn’t, but fails to give insight on what should matter – the function of the intellectual:

But Posner is not a pragmatist when he disregards public intellectuals who discuss public philosophies and attitudes. These public intellectuals sometimes uncover implicit orientations and worldviews that, in turn, affect public decisions and actions. (William Dean)

Thus, Dean points out the fact that the public intellectual, despite what his standing in or perception by society may be, has an important role, one that can have important effects on a nation and its people. Jean Bethke Elshtain corroborates, stating “the public intellectual needs, it seems to me, to puncture the myth-makers of any era, including his own, […] Public intellectuals, much of the time at least, should be party poopers” (Jean Bethke Elshtain). She implies that the intellectual is to push aside myths and peripheral issues that only get in the way of the only thing that matters – the job of the intellectual, which is essentially to work to expose issues, create awareness and agitate the status quo. Mack concludes this issue in stating:

And so if public intellectuals have any role to play in a democracy—and they do—it’s simply to keep the pot boiling. The measure of public intellectual work is not whether the people are listening, but whether they’re hearing things worth talking about.

Therefore, a public intellectual should not be so concerned with his status as he should be

regarding the state of his profession. As Mack illustrated, there is no need to worry about who

delivers the message, as long as the message is getting delivered. Furthermore, the more one

becomes worried about and convinced of a decline in his status, he will engage in a self-fulfilling

prophecy. That is, in his almost paranoid concern over himself, he will lose focus on what he

should be most concerned about, delivering the message. So in this sort of "moping" and

"whining" which leads to a lack of focus, his concerns will certainly come true. In fact, dealing

with these issues this way will only make the issue worse as the public intellectuals deviate from

what their protocol and in effect become public "complainers" rather than "intellectuals".



In looking over the public intellectuals over the last three weeks, I have explored few of the

many issues that are prominent in the realm of the public intellectuals. Specifically, there have

been analysis of the "paradox" between religion and politics as well as the dichotomy between

status and function of the public intellectual. The common conclusions that were reached in both

cases was that both are still issues still hotly contested today. Indeed, the platform and ideas

have been established on both sides of both issues, and though I have advocated one side for

both issues, this has been but a battle that is part of the war going on in public forums in the rest

of the world. Another common conclusion for both issues that has been overlooked is that, no

matter what, the public intellectual is neither a full intellectual elitist nor an everyman. He is a

synthesis, a medium, of those two seemingly opposite ends. He must remember that in both

issues, he not only speaks for them in certain cases, but speaks to them as well. That is why in

the first issue, the intellectual finds himself contorted by varying viewpoints, beliefs and codes of

conduct. And as for the second issue, there has been too much deviation from the "public" in

favor of the "intellectual". It is in that deviation in which the intellectual forgets his function of

delivering the message, and forgets that he is often the crucial link between the public and the

socio-political world. Indeed, instead of seeing himself and the public as "us", his vision has

blurred to the point that he refers that "us" as "them" and "me". In looking forward, the public

intellectual should remember that its not ultimately his reputation that matters, but rather the

existence of the message of the intellectual and its ability to move society.

The Public Intellectual (Part 2 of 3): The "Decline" of the Public Intellectual?

A second issue that the public intellectual faces is that of his status as well as role in today’s society. To be specific, I believe that the former may be unclear, but the latter remains firmly established. In the case of the former, there have been questions as to whether the public intellectual, as related to his society, has been respected and effective. John Donatich, in a panel discussion, stated:

In preparing for this event, I might as well admit that I've been worried about making the slip, "the future of the public ineffectual." But I think that malapropism would be central to what we'll be talking about. It seems to me that there is a central conflict regarding American intellectual work. How does it reconcile itself with the venerable tradition of American anti-intellectualism? What does a country built on headstrong individualism and the myth of self-reliance do with its people convinced that they know best? (John Donatich)

The issue he raises is an important one. Worrying about the effectiveness of the public intellectual, or the “ineffectual”, he raises the point that there is a tension that needs to be reconciled. That is, he points out the culture of anti-intellectualism in America as butting heads with the public intellectual, resulting in the latter’s loss of credibility. But Mack contends in his response to this that the myth of America's anti-intellectual is just that, a myth:

One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum. (Stephen Mack)

I might agree that this myth of the hostile everyman opposed to the aristocratic elite is just a myth, but I would say that the two reasons he states are exaggerated for effect. First, while "the American Dream" and the idea of education are well hallowed in America's society, it doesn't reveal the fact that even in this, there is a division of the haves and the have-nots in education. Some go on to be the public intellectuals, while others go on to be laborers, and to a certain extent, there will always be some discontent from the latter towards the former. After all, it was the founding fathers, the public intellectuals of their day, who founded America, not the farmers and uneducated. In fact, it was the latter who tried overthrowing the government multiple times in incidents such as Shay’s Rebellion. For Mack's second point, he might define the anti-intellectualism as something entirely something it claims to be the opposite of -- intellectualism. To be fair, some may have properly educated and rational set of ideas and articulations that govern their "anti-intellectualism". But on the other side, some may just be ones who harbor hostility to intellectualism out of spite and emotions and not much more. But, even if we accept that anti-intellectualism actually ends up being intellectualism, it doesn't necessarily show the myth of anti-intellectualism to be false as much as it shows those dogging anti-intellectuals to be unintentionally hypocritical.

Not only are the intellectuals facing hostilities from critics and public alike, but they experience their share of distrust. Jean Bethke rationalizes that “Democracy requires laws, constitutions and authoritative institutions, but it also depends on what might be called democratic dispositions". When she specifies on those democratic dispositions, however, she reveals "We find deepening cynicism; the growth of corrosive forms of isolation, boredom, and despair; the weakening, in other words, of that world known as democratic civil society, a world of groups and associations and ties that bind"(Jean Bethke Elshtain). So in this reality of skepticism and cynicism, which hasn’t exactly been helped by the Iraq War, the public’s distrust and hostility are often exacerbated. In essence, she says that a democratic system built on these dispositions on the part of the public crumbles when it erodes. And as a result, not only do the heads of the state and government suffer, but so do the public intellectuals, who are often seen in the same light as those very politicians.

The Public Intellectual (Part 1 of 3): The Public Intellectual, Religion And Politics

The concept of the public intellectual has at times been mired in anonymity and tension. Many people wonder just who or what a public intellectual is, what their role encompasses, when and where they operate and most importantly, why they do what they do. From one perspective, they appear to be public commentators on issues of today, but on the other hand, they appear to be dissenters. On the matters of public intellectuals, many argue over issues such as whether they are to be guided and, to a certain extent, restricted in their rhetoric. Indeed, questions are raised in which people wonder if these intellectuals truly are public commentators governed by their own opinions and belief systems, or whether they are merely the mouthpiece of the American public, compromising their personal beliefs in favor of representing the public opinion. Coupled with an ever changing world and media along with the growing uncertainty of his role, the public intellectual faces these challenges. One of these complicating challenges is the issue of the dichotomy involving politics and religion. Is the public intellectual to argue by logic, reason and politics? Or do his own personal convictions and religious beliefs shape his rhetoric? The two major problems that seem to be plaguing the public intellectual seems to be how they are to reconcile the roles of logic and politics and personal religion in public forums and second, what the role of the intellectual is in the present day and if they are facing a possible decline in society.

In looking over America’s past, the 200+ year old nation’s beginnings have been inundated with politics and religion. After all, the beginnings of America is laced with countless numbers of Puritan colonials, such as John Winthrop, leaving England for a new beginning, politically and religiously, in America. It’s seen in many other points in our history as well. This study reveals the fact that the founding fathers, the 56 signers of the Declaration of the Independence all had religious affiliations. Another incidence shows up in the first amendment in guaranteeing the freedom of religion and speech among other rights. In this example, the fate of religion and press and speech are intertwined. The irony is, our nation whose foundation has roots in these two ideologies also is at the same time, divided by them. As Stephen Mack put it, “they are, more or less, alienated kindred vying for the same space in the human imagination”. Mack makes the point that religion and politics have been driving forces that give our lives a purposeful meaning and a sense of existence but at the same time, paradoxically polarizes society as a whole. Indeed, any unity that has existed between the two has been uneasy. In fact, it was as early as 1635 when Roger Williams highlighted the tension between church and politics when he was kicked out by the Massachusetts colony for being critical of their mixing of religion and politics.


As this nation continues to witness the dichotomy of religion and politics, the public intellectual finds himself in the middle of this mess, deafened by the polarizing results. However, as polarizing as these forces have been, there is historical precedence in there being some coexistence, albeit an uneasy one. Thus, it makes more difficult for the public intellectual to determine where he stands in the middle of that mess. In fact, it has become an issue of “either us or them” in public debating, which is for the intellectual, a key aspect of his existence. Do they stick to the language of politics and logic, supposedly the language of the public masses or base their rhetoric on personal belief and religion? For the former, Peter Beinart of The New Republic states:

It's fine if religion influences your moral values. But, when you make public arguments, you have to ground them--as much as possible--in reason and evidence, things that are accessible to people of different religions, or no religion at all. Otherwise, you can't persuade other people, and they can't persuade you. In a diverse democracy, there must be a common political language, and that language can't be theological. (Beinart)

and for the latter, Stephen Mack countered with two flaws that arise out of Beinart’s argument. First, it’s hard to argue for the lack of credibility of religion in public debate and conduct when America’s history has been one filled with and shaped by “activist theologians from the right and the left”. Second, as Hugh Heclo put it, Beinart’s demand “amounts to a demand that religious believers be other than themselves and act publicly as if their faith is of no real consequence”. This is a conundrum that has personal implications for me. Personally speaking, I am a Christian, and yet, I find myself actually agreeing with the side that I shouldn’t, that is, I understand Beinart’s rationale that religion is something that is not a common language and thus won't appeal to everyone. I also understand that having been built on logic and reason, those should still be the only things driving public debating to this day. However, the essence of being a public intellectual, I believe, is in expressing your views and opinions and how they relate to the matters of the world today. And it goes without saying that, to be deprived of your fundamental beliefs and religion means to lack the passion and core values that shape your arguments in the first place. I believe that just as the fate of freedom of religion and speech were intertwined in the First Amendment, it should hold true in public debate today. For anyone who calls themselves a public intellectual, they owe it to not only the public, but for themselves to stick to what they believe in.

I believe though, much of the skepticism regarding the church-state and any derivatives of, comes from examples that are of a national level. On an individual level, in public forums, what I believe is that one should always be governed by what they know and believe, otherwise, their rhetoric comes off as nothing but a resounding gong. However, at the national level, things are a little unclearer, even as a Christian. Not everyone is of the same religion, but political regimes and governments are institutions that usually have the approval of the majority, even if it is an uneasy one. On the one hand, many of the basics and beginnings of America, the right of the individual for one, and many movements such as abolitionism of slavery, women's suffrage and civil rights all drew upon these basic human rights and Christian values. And the point that Mack makes from one side is that:

(John) Winthrop teaches us that a people deeply committed to a religiously inspired vision of society will inevitably try to make that vision law. And our history teaches us that American democracy would not be nearly so liberal or humane if they hadn't. In the American experience, in short, religion and civil society are political codependents. (Stephen Mack)

Thus, in one respect, many of the greater political developments have risen out of a Christian foundation, but the skepticism expressed by those like Beinart grows when people are aware of Roger Williams' recognition of the fact that Mack reveals, that, "this codependency had a dark side". That the fear of religion mixing with politics isn't mostly due to its clashing with people's beliefs, though it plays a part, but rather it seems a dangerous contradiction to them that a democracy, which is built on compromise, teamwork and tolerance, could be headed by religious zealots whose personal beliefs can only be defined as being uncompromising. Luckily, the role of the public intellectual is one that isn't of any formal affiliation or official position, but one that is guided, at its root, by the same right that the rest of us possess, that is, our freedom of religion, speech, press and assembly. In fact, if a public intellectual were to be involved at the national level in some level of government, there would be a very dangerous risk that not only would the political leadership be compromised, but also their own personal beliefs. By entering politics and their religion into a melting pot, not only is the reputation of their religion at stake, but their conduct as called for by their religion is likely to come into conflict with political duties. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote on this point that when religious leaders become politicians, they end up having to possibly "defend allies who are such from interest rather than from love".

It is an interesting paradox that even when you think you have it figured out, you find yourself back at square one. Because I believe that the role of the public intellectual is limited to that as a third party, non-political citizen, for reasons which will be explored later, the complications that arise from the national level cannot impede him. That is, because his role finds its roots in public forums and speech, and I argued earlier that he has the right and also the responsibility to stay true to his beliefs, his role is clear. Now if we were talking politicians, that would be a different story.

A Redirection of Foreign Focus

It goes without saying that ever since the 9/11 attacks, American foreign policy has been fundamentally changed. That is, the crux of the post-9/11 American foreign policy has been constantly attached to two words: “terrorist” and “regime”. First it was Afghanistan in the wake of the attacks, then it was Iraq with its “weapons of mass destruction” and the “Saddam Hussein regime” and there have been recent rumblings regarding Iran. Of course, let’s not forget to mention North Korea. The Bush administration taking the offensive against these “threats” can be seen from two ends. On the one hand, the best defense is a good offense, as the saying goes, as exemplified by the U.S.’ pre-emptive policy, especially in Iraq. But on the other hand, while the U.S. has been taking action watching out for its own interests, suffering in other areas of the world has been relatively neglected. Amongst the chaos of war, terrorism and American fingerprints all over the Middle East, areas such as Uganda and Darfur have been lost in the shuffle. So it is the combination of a lack of progress in the Middle East and the growing problems in those other areas that I believe should call for a slight redirection of America’s focus, especially where foreign policy is concerned.

The “War On Terror”, in short, can be summarized as the “War of Adjustments” due to the many twists and turns that have occurred along the way ever since the attacks in September 2001. In his speech to the nation on the eve of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, President Bush iterated towards the end:

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly -- yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.

Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory. (President Bush Addresses the Nation)

Thus, Bush outlined from the beginning that with U.S.’ pre-emptive measures, the purpose would be to end the “outlaw regime” and rid any risks by getting rid of their “weapons of mass murder”. He buttressed those points by emphasizing a swift and effective invasion as to avoid disaster back home. However, because he has had to acknowledge the lack of progress and high costs due to circumstances that will be explored later in this piece, Bush has resorted, among other things to point out notable deaths and captures to appease and draw attention away from the lack of U.S. progress in Iraq. As recently as August 2007, in Maine, Bush admitted slow progress in Iraq, but quickly appealed to the death of notable Al-Qaeda member, Haitham Sabah al-Badri, as he commented “His death is a victory for a free Iraq, and a sign that America and the Iraqi government will not surrender the future of Iraq to coldblooded killers” (Bush sees 'encouraging news' in Iraq, Afghanistan). Another notable speech was his momentous speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln back in May 2003 when he declared:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.

Operation Iraqi Freedom was carried out with a combination of precision and speed and boldness the enemy did not expect and the world had not seen before.

With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. (Bush makes historic speech aboard warship)

From this sample of his speeches across the duration of the invasion of Iraq, he has made several statements and assertions that have yet to come to live up to the visions he outlined. It also didn’t help that from the beginning there was a lack of legitimacy and certainty with regards to the basis of the war. Starting with the “weapons of mass destruction”, the very reason the invasion was based on turned out to be nothing more than exaggerated and baseless accusations.

And of course, there was not only an apparent inconsistency internally, but external skepticism regarding the existence of the “weapons of mass destruction”. This lack of legitimacy was not only expressed internally by many critics, but externally as well, not the least of which was the U.N., whose former Secretary-General Kofi Annan commented in September 2004, “I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal" (Iraq War illegal, says Annan). He prefaced that comment by pointing out that it was concluded that “it’s best to work together with our allies and through the UN” (Iraq War illegal, says Annan). Having defied U.N. opposition to the war, Bush and the U.S. not only disregarded the U.N.’s authority but also the opinion of its ally nations. Having committed such actions on grounds of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, it came like a car crash when the Downing Street Memo leaked. Now, fundamentally speaking, when you cite a justification for doing anything, and that justification is shown to be false, then you lose that justification and right of that action. As such, the leaked memo revealed that the officials of U.S. and U.K. knew about the deception behind the basis of the Iraq invasion (C stands for Secret Intelligence Service head Sir Richard Dearlove):

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD (weapons of mass destruction). But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC (national security council) had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. (The Secret Downing Street Memo)

The reasons for starting the war and invasion were dubious at best. It didn’t help that once they were in Iraq that the fruits of the U.S.’ labor have so far been marginal at best. Referring back to Bush’ speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln regarding the end of major conflict, events since then have indicated that little has changed. The irony of that speech was that his words indicated a sense of clarity, accomplishment and hopefulness. However, as major warfare closed and occupation took priority in Iraq, order only led to more chaos. As things got moving with the Iraq elections of 2005, Thomas Ricks, in his book, Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq, noted that insurgent attacks that year increased to 34,131 recorded incidents, versus 26,496 the year before. However, although the current Iraq government took office in 2006, it was also followed by more bad news. Although Iraq was pulling itself together, the U.S. still hadn’t accomplished anywhere near where it set its goals. In fact, there were many shortcomings rather than successes in Iraq. As the U.S. set out to eradicate remnants of the Saddam Hussein regime and bring about a new democratic order, they fell short in that. In fact, studies released and compiled by the US Foreign Policy magazines and the US-based Fund for Peace think-tank in 2006 indicated that, based on a variety of factors ranging from “chronic and sustained human flight” to “rise of factionalized elites” ranked Iraq as 4^th on the list of failed states (Sudan tops 'failed states' index). Furthermore, in a tragic twist of irony, there have been sad and unfortunate events between the soldiers and the Iraqi civilians they were supposed to protect and honor. In particular was the April 2004, incident involving the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. According to a New York Times Report (Detainees Describe Abuses by Guard in Prison), the following abuses Iraqi prisoners faced included, but were not limited to:

o Ordering detainees, threatened by soldiers with knives if they didn’t do it fast enough

o Forced masturbation

o Piling into pyramids, completely naked

o Being urinated on

o Physical beatings

o Forced to eat pork against their Muslim faith

Indeed, as the times have become tougher and stressing, the U.S. measures have become more and more desperate. As of January 2007, President Bush announced changes in the military policy in Iraq, calling for the beginning of the “surge” strategy which had at that time been known as “The New Way Forward”. The new policy called for more than 20,000 additional American troops to be deployed to Iraq with their main priority to secure local cities and neighborhoods and defend against continuing insurgency in Baghdad, as outlined by Bush in his address to the nation in January 2007. The result of this new policy has been less than impressive, even startling. According to figures released by government figures in April 2007, the monthly death toll in Iraq rose by 15%. The same authorities also revealed that more people died on the average in March than they did in February. Furthermore, Iraqi civilian casualties rose from 1,646 to 1,869 from February to March. On top of this, the death toll was nearly double those of the Iraqi army (Iraq toll up 15% despite crackdown). Compounding that issue is the fact that the new security measures have only been applied in “only 146 of the 457 Baghdad neighborhoods” (Commanders say push in Baghdad is short of goal (registration required)) and the Iraqi police and armed forces have been lacking and unable to perform rudimentary tasks. Several military officials such as Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks admitted the troops are “at a difficult point right now” (Commanders say push in Baghdad is short of goal) with the lack of progress, and Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno conceded that the government’s goal of meeting a midsummer timetable for establishing peace was unrealistic, commenting, “This was always going to be conditions-driven” (Commanders say push in Baghdad is short of goal).

A war that once stood for the preservation of democracy and the end of tyranny in Iraq has only led to more strife, turmoil and confusion. The story of the Iraq war can be summarized in the fact that while the gains have been few and far between, the cost for those few gains has been very great. First off, a 2006 study by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has estimated that over 650,000 Iraqis have died since the 2003 U.S. invasion and that nearly a third of these deaths were due to the Coalition force in some form (Updated Iraq Survey...). However, as of September 2007, in light of the new surge strategy, a new poll conducted by Opinion Business Research has revealed that over 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since 2003, which would actually far exceed the death toll of the Rwandan genocides from 1994 (More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered). As for the U.S. troops, their toll went over 3,000 as of the beginning of this year, which surpassed the toll of the victims of the 9/11 attacks of 2,973. In addition, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees and the Iraqi government have estimated that as of October 2006, there were 1.5 million people displaced within Iraq, and 1.6 million Iraqis displaced outside Iraq in Jordan, Syria and Iran (UNHCR). In addition to the cost of lives, a recent study released by Columbia University economist Joseph E. Stiglitz reveals that in the long term, the Iraq War costs could top $2 trillion dollars. The same study revealed that the monthly bill for just military operating costs was $4.5 billion dollars. (Iraq War Costs Could Top $2 Billion)

Looking over the facts and the developments that have transpired over the last four years, it has become clear that something went wrong along the way. Bush promised a war of efficiency, swift justice and peace for the Iraqis in getting rid of the Hussein regime and the “weapons of mass destruction”. Thus far, none of those promises have been kept, and while Hussein and those “weapons” are gone, little has changed. In short, by focusing so hard on the Middle East and specifically, Iraq, the U.S. has used many resources that have had little returns. Once again, the question is not regarding the U.S.’ right to protect itself, but rather if the pre-emptive policies against Iraq and the Middle East were undertaken in an effective way. So far, all signs point to a resounding no. The important point is that, simultaneously, while all this was occurring, there have been continuing and growing sufferings in places such as Darfur and Uganda. As John Edwards put it:

As everyone in this room knows, the Iraq War has made it far more difficult to deal with other global challenges--whether it's the worsening situation in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is resurgent... the nuclear ambitions of states like North Korea and Iran... the crises in Darfur and Northern Uganda... the effort to help bring peace between Israel and its neighbors... the growing economic and security threats from global warming... the plight of the over a billion people who live on less than a dollar a day... (Bush's global war on terror has backfired)

The struggles in Uganda and Darfur have been well documented. The two nations are not unlike each other in the pains they have experienced in displaced citizens, famine, deaths and genocides. The conditions in the two countries have been up and down but foreign aid needs to come sooner than later. In Uganda, they are still recovering from the atrocities committed by the LRA, also known as the Lord’s Resistance Army, whose reign of terror has plagued Northern Uganda for decades. The following excerpt is part of a story that is all too common among many children and young adults of Uganda:

A young woman I met had been abducted by the LRA along with other members of her village. She calmly described their first night's "welcoming meal," in which one of the villagers was killed and the rest forced to eat him, to instill a proper fear. (The Price of Peace in Uganda)

This is the same LRA that has been responsible for over a 100,000 deaths, 20,000 abductions and the displacement of over 1.5 million people. Although the storm has calmed in Northern Uganda, especially with the LRA retreating to the Garamba National Park in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even though there are some 18,000+ United Nations peacekeepers nearby, there still must be more done for Uganda in defending against the LRA. The worry is that the LRA is rearming and planning to strike again when the time is right. This worry is echoed by President Museveni who revealed that not only was there a lack of U.N. aid in the early 90s, but that the effort against the LRA was hamstrung by the international community’s insistence on placing restrictions on defense funds that go towards Uganda (Invisible War). This is on top of the already existing problems for the displaced persons and the children who still walk every night homeless to avoid being captured. As of February 2006, according to internal-displacement.org, the total population of all the IDP camps in Uganda has been numbered at 460,226 (Chart). An earlier post I wrote also indicates another sign of Uganda’s struggles. Reading that blog and looking at what could be done, if the $4.5 billion spent per month on military operation by the U.S. were allocated to aiding Uganda, that would amount to roughly, with a dollar roughly equaling 1600 schillings, an astounding $7.2 trillion schillings.

Similarly, Darfur has suffered heavily as well due to the genocides, warfare between the Sudanese government, militias and rebel forces and with a lack of aid. The current death toll according to one report has been something of a point of contention, with one study revealing that death estimates for Darfur have been inaccurate, with the Government Accountability Office citing that past figures released by the government have been off, and in some cases an underestimation (Death Estimates For Darfur Inaccurate). U.N. officials have estimated to be somewhere around 400,000 while those that have been displaced have been numbered at some 2 million (Annan welcomes extension of African Union). Even to this day, deaths, displacement and a sense of hopelessness still continues, as recently as September 18, 2007, thousands more have fled Darfur as the UN Office for the coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) stated “Over 240,000 people have been newly displaced or re-displaced during 2007”. The same report by OCHA continues stating that “the humanitarian situation in Darfur has deteriorated” with the UN staff having to relocate 24 times in 2007 due to the hostile environment. (Thousands More Flee Violence in Darfur). As for foreign aid, the Minority Rights Group (MRG) summed it up when they stated, “Darfur would just not be in this situation had the UN systems got its act together after Rwanda: their action was too little too late”. What made it worse was that in spite of MRG reports on the worsening conditions in Darfur, the U.N. in 2003 removed Sudan from its watch list of the Commission on Human Rights. They expressed that “this report clearly shows that the UN was given several opportunities to act on Darfur but failed to do so” (UN Could Have Averted Darfur Crisis).

As I have explored throughout this reading, as the U.S.’ grip in one place, that is the Middle East, has loosened, those suffering off in the distance in Darfur and Uganda have been continuing to fade, just as they had been before the war. As the troops and President Bush try in vain to correct mistakes, to re-allocate resources and efforts in resolving the instability in Iraq, the current sufferings, histories and violence will only continue to linger and rear its ugly head sooner than later in Uganda and Darfur. One can only hope that the U.S. officials will resolve the issues in the Middle East they have been obsessing over and work with the international community to bring aid to those nations whose humanitarian, economical, social, political and religious problems have been plaguing them long before the Iraq invasion in 2003.

Works Cited

Faraj, Salam. “Iraq toll up 15 percent despite crackdown” Relief Web. 1 April 2007. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/KHII-6ZV4DW>

Gerson, Michael. “The Price of Peace in Uganda” Real Clear Politics. 25 Jul. 2007. 19 Sept 2007 <http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/heart_of_darkness.html>

Pleming, Sue. “Death estimates for Darfur inaccurate - U.S. study” Reuters. 12 Dec 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N11255774.htm>

Regan, Tom. “Report: Iraq war costs could top $2 trillion” 10 Jan. 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0110/dailyUpdate.html>

Ross, Will. “Uganda’s Invisible War” BBC News. 19 Sept 2007
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3944371.stm>

Zernike, Kate. “Detainees Describe Abuses by Guard in Iraq Prison” The New York Times. 12 Jan. 2005. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/12abuse.html?n=Top/News/World/Countries%20and%20Territories/Iraq&_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190254484-3m+iT/P4LQ4vGvLQcbfEDw>

“President Bush Addresses the Nation.” The White House. 19 Mar. 2003. 12 Sept. 2007< http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030319-17.html>

“Bush makes historic speech aboard warship” CNN International. 2 May 2003. 12 Sept. 2007
<http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/05/01/bush.transcript/>

“Bush sees 'encouraging news' in Iraq, Afghanistan” CNN International. 11 Aug. 2007. 18 Sept. 2007

< http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/11/bush.radio.ap/index.html/>

Edwards, John. “Bush's Global War on Terror Has Backfired” Real Clear Politics. 23 May 2007. 19 Sept. 2007
< http://realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/a_strong_military_for_a_new_ce.html>

“Iraq war illegal, says Annan” BBC News. 16 Sept. 2004. 18 Sept 2007< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm >

“The secret Downing Street memo” TIMESONLINE. 1 May 2005. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election2005/article387390.ece>

“Sudan tops 'failed states index'” BBC News. 2 May 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4964444.stm>

“September 2007 - More than 1,000,000 Iraqis murdered” ORB. Sept 2007. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78>

“U.S. deaths in Iraq, war on terror surpass 9/11 toll” CNN International. 3 Sept 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/03/death.toll/>

“U.S. Troop Deaths in Iraq” USA Today. 1 Jan. 2007. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-31-us-death-toll-3000_x.htm>

“Commanders Say Push in Baghdad Is Short of Goal” New York Times. 4 Jun 2007. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/world/middleeast/04surge.html>

“Updated Iraq Survey Affirms Earlier Mortality Estimates” Public Health News Center. 11 Oct. 2006. 19 Sept 2007
< http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html>

“IDP Camps and Population” Internal-Displacement.org. Feb 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004BE3B1/(httpInfoFiles)/94A9D7E83DDB0279C12571470038488F/$file/IDP%20camps%20and%20population_Gulu-%20Feb2006.pdf>

“Sudan: Thousands More Flee Violence in Darfur – UN” allAfrica.com. 18 Sept. 2007. 19 Sept 2007
< http://allafrica.com/stories/200709180683.html>

“Annan welcomes extension of African Union mission in Darfur” UN News Centre. 21 Sept 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=19948&Cr=sudan&Cr1>

“UN could have averted Darfur crisis – MRG” iOL.com. 16 Oct. 2006. 19 Sept 2007
<http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=136&art_id=iol1160956523318B235>