Vatican proposes a Global oversight Institution

On Monday October 24, 2011, the Roman Catholic Church (Vatican) proposed the need for a global financial oversight system, due to the failure of government oversight. The Vatican claims that the International Monetary Fund and other international economic oversight institutions have failed in response to the issue and there is a need for a more active international institution that can better address economic problems; this institution should have the ability to surpass the government’s authority in regard to the economy. According to the Vatican, the failure of states to stabilize their economy is due to the interconnectedness of all state economies (globalization); globalization is also the reason they provide for the success of a more powerful international institution for economic oversight.

The Vatican presents a liberal concept of the International system; they believe that cooperation will occur and this International institution can hold more power than a sovereign state. Yet, what the Vatican overestimates is the willingness of a sovereign state to give away authority over their economy. One can say that International Monetary Fund has not succeeded in the international economic oversight because it is not sovereign and therefore has no method of enforcement. The Vatican’s request inferred that the new institution could potentially change the balance of power and destabilize powerful nations. The change in balance of power would only occur if this new institution held more power than sovereign nations, which would mean the cooperation of sovereign states.

My view towards the international system is of a realist; I believe that sovereign nations hold the most power and they’re main objective is to have the most power, economically, technologically, militaristically, etc. There is no sovereign state that would be willing to give up some of its power without a guaranteed benefit. The idea that one international system has the authority of the world’s economy, scares the powerful nations; like the Vatican pointed out, they could potentially lose the large amount of power they have obtained. Having power ensures the survival of the state, which is a government’s main priority. Everything a nation does is to protect itself first. Therefore, the Vatican’s proposal would eventually end up failing in its purpose. Whatever the new institution were to propose, they would have no form of enforcing these regulations on every sovereign state and each government would still continue to have more power than the institution.

Word Count:395

Historic Election in Tunisia

Elections were held in Tunisia this past Sunday, the first free and fair elections in the African nation’s history. Previous elections in Tunisia were pre-determined, and 90% of votes cast were usually given to the ruling party, the Constitutional Democratic Rally. The former authoritarian leader, President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, was ousted at the beginning of this year. The Tunisian uprising marked the beginning of the ‘Arab Spring’; protests followed in the neighboring countries of Egypt and Libya and several Middle Eastern states. An interim government has been in place since March, led by Beji Caid Essebsi. This interim government assumed the responsibility of arranging elections for a Constituent Assembly that will hold power for a year. The Constituent Assembly will consist of 217 members that will draft a new constitution and form a temporary government to rule until a legitimate constitution is established. The 4.4 million Tunisian registered voters had the choice of voting for 80 different political parties, comprised of 11,000 candidates as well as several thousand independent candidates.

Clearly democracy is something that the Tunisian people have awaited for a long time. Seventy percent of eligible voters voted in the election this weekend. Voters formed long lines as early as dawn, and many lines remained even after the polls closed at 7 PM. Though the results of this historic election have not been officially announced, the moderate Islamic party al-Nahda has claimed victory, stating that it won 40% of the votes. Of the 87 constituent assembly seats definitely decided, al-Nahda has won 37. The al-Nahda party has already discussed forming a coalition government with the two leftist parties in second place, Ettakol and the Congress Party for the Republic.

The success of al-Nahda will undoubtedly have major implications for the future of Tunisia. Though the previous constitution describes Tunisia as a Muslim nation, the government was largely secular and women enjoyed a number of rights not permitted to their counterparts in more religious nations. Thus, this election was also distinctive in that it gave the population the choice of a continuation of secular rule or a new emphasis on the country’s Islamic roots. Critics of al-Nahda fear that the party gave people inaccurate information concerning their stance and will rule more conservatively than promised. The al-Nahda party asserts that it would like to establish a moderate Islamic government that will uphold the democratic rights of the people and lead Tunisia to a more stable future (especially in the economic sector).

Many have expressed their concern over women’s place in the new Tunisia. Women not only hold the right to vote but also posses equal divorce and wage rights and can legally obtain abortions. Women played an active role in the uprising against the dictatorship. Gender parity on electoral lists was obligatory in this election, guaranteeing that at least half of every party’s candidates are female. However, most major parties have male leaders, and there are not gender parity requirements for the seats in the Constituent Assembly. Both factors make it likely that gender equality will not be realized in the actual government. Many now worry that women will lose their rights in a hidden social conservative agenda of al-Nahda. The world will certainly have to wait to see if women continue to gain political importance or conversely lose their rights under this new administration.

Without having the official election results, it is impossible to ascertain how the near future of Tunisia will shape up. Given the diversity of the nation, a fusion of secular and Islamic values in a sustainable democratic government may be the best option. A “democratic” revolution is only as successful as the government that comes in its wake. One Tunisian voter was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying, “I am voting for the future of my daughter and I'm absolutely thrilled by it.” The future of all Tunisians, men and women, hangs in the balance.

An interesting comparison: in the next year, the American political scene will tear itself to pieces over the 2012 presidential election. In this year, the people of Tunisia will face the results of their first truly democratic election. As the world anxiously awaits the consequences of Tunisia’s election, we should pay homage to the great freedom that Tunisians have won for themselves.

Source: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/2011tunisiaelection/

Photo: http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/spotlight/2011/10/20111089246280661.html

Clashes as UK police evict travellers

Clashes as UK police evict travellers

Police use tasers and make several arrests in operation to evict residents from country's largest traveller site.

Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/10/2011101916130486213.html

Iran: What do we do?

Over the past week, a plot was uncovered that was meant to attack and kill the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States. Although threats are very common to most foreign diplomats, this threat is very unique. It is so unique because the United States is claiming that the assassin has been hired from Iran and used the guise of a member of a drug cartel. If proven, the trouble is two-fold; the fact that Iran is supporting terrorist organizations and terror outside its own territory and there are no more reprimands that the US can put on Iran. Since the exile of the Shah in 1979 and the takeover of the embassy America does not involve itself with Iran. So how do the Americans and the Saudi Arabians officials respond to clear violations of international diplomacy and ethics? Kick Iran out of the UN. Check. Place sanctions. Done. Cut all economic ties to Iran. Yup. Now what?

Some lawmakers suggest continuing with economic sanctions and adding more sanctions. But even with sanctions, Iran is clearly violating everything placed by the international community and no longer cares. A growing nuclear program, no concern for the violation of human rights and the ideals of fair elections Iran is becoming a problem that the international system will need to address.

With the accusations of Iran’s involvement in the attempt of killing the ambassador, should the US consider placing restrictions on companies and countries that interact with Iran? Energy companies in Russia, China and India would feel the pressure but these pressures could create a restrain in other relations that the US has with these countries. As growing countries, China, India and Russia will be important to help the American economy come back to its own feet. The options are limited as time passes by and if things get worse with Iran, will the US use military force to stop Iran (and be able to justify it)?

Two individuals have been charged and indicted in a federal court in New York for attacking the ambassador’s convoy. If the US is successful at proving Iran’s involvement what does this mean for the international system, the value of security and it could potentially address the grey areas that countries use when diplomacy fails.

The New York Times, CNN, and BBC are covering the US response and as well as the South Korean response as President Lee Myung- Bak visits the US and North Korea becomes a growing concern.

Here's a video from the White House when Presidents Obama and Lee address Iran today at the joint press conference.

Serbia clears EU membership hurdle

Serbia clears EU membership hurdle

( http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/10/20111012134434935924.html )

Bachman Mispoken

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/bachmanns-claim-that-china-blinded-us-satellites/2011/10/03/gIQAHvm7IL_blog.html

The Washington Post recently came out with an article stating that Congresswomen Michele Bachman made the claim that China ‘blinded’ U.S. satellites. Normally these kind of statements would be disregarded in everyday news. Bachman, however, is currently running for the republican nomination for the 2012 presidential election, and anything she says should be looked at closley. In order to evaluate Bachman's statements, two things need to be considered. Firstly, is there any truth behind Bachman's? The article suggest that Bachman misspoke when stating that U.S satellites were ‘blinded’. In reality, the article seems to hint that the satellites might have been slightly damaged by Chinese tracking systems during routine tracking. Specific instances of foul play by the chinese did not seem apparent. Moreover, one must consider what underlying issues Bachman was trying to address. It is hard to understand why Bachman would use China as an example to illustrate national security threats. Bachman's statements, however, are surely making reaching accusations that appear to be misleading. While the idea of the Chinese military tracking U.S. satellites might seem unsettling, one can be assured that the U.S. military uses the same tactics to insure national security.

In all, the misleading nature of Bachman’s statements is the most concerning part of this article. Bachman based her statements on unclear incidents that occurred in 2006. With little lack knowledge about the subject and the open ears of thousands of people Bachman made an unforced error. In making this error, Bachman showed no restraint nor sense of responsibility. In order to run for president, a candidate must understand that everything they say will be looked at closely. By being careless with her statements, Bachman proved that she is not ready to run for president. The general public, however, might oversee this kind of miscue. Politicians misspeak all the time and are able to get away with it. Will this be the case for Bachman?