Industry Money and the Vote for Health Care Reform

---

It's been sixty years its been since President Harry Truman became the first president to attempt to reform the health care system. President Clinton tried it when he was in office, and reforming health care is now one of Barack Obama's administration's most pressing issues.

But as always, there are outside forces lobbying to stop reform from affecting the way our current system works.

There are an estimated 35,000 lobbyists in Washington D.C. representing various interests and industries, and from 1998 to 2008, lobbyists and lawyers gave nearly $306 million to politicians in Washington.

It's a lot of money to be flying around the halls of Congress and funding campaigns, but it's trumped by another number:

$3,589,638,934

That's the amount of money given to politicians by the health industry since 1998.

Dr. Lael Keiser, a professor at the University of Missouri's Department of Political Science, says lobby and industry involvement in Washington is nothing new.

"We certainly have a huge amount of interest groups and a lot of organizations that are involved. In something as big as health care, its huge. It affects so many different people that there are definitely lots of interests," Keiser said.

Politicians rarely voluntarily serve one term in Washington, and are thus consistently campaigning for their next election. They need money to do so, and look to companies, corporations, lobbyists, and interest groups to provide them with the cash they need. As large as the health industry is, there is a lot of money to go around. But how much of an effect does money from different corporations and interests have on the way a politician votes?

"As an elected official, if there's someone that has contributed a lot of money to a campaign, what you'll definitely do is listen to them," Keiser said.

The health industry is trying its hardest to be heard in the health care reform conversation.

Since January 2008, the pharmaceutical and health products industries spent $382 million to influence decisions in Washington, $145 million of it in the first three-quarters of 2009. From 1998 to 2008, the amount of money spent by all lobbyists more than doubled - from $1.4 billion to $3.3 billion last year.

"Its pretty clear that there are a lot more privileged groups than groups representing the average voter. And so when you're talking about health care, there's not as many groups representing the uninsured as there are groups representing health care providers, pharmaceutical companies, and those type of groups," Keiser said.

So, are private donors fighting you for your Senator or House members votes and what type of health care the public sees in the future? Keiser says it's hard to tell.

About 3.5 million Missourians are insured for health care by their employer, and coverage for a family runs about $12,000 a year. However, roughly 13 percent of Missourians have no form of health insurance, and the number of people insured fell from 73 percent to 64 percent from 2001 to 2008.

Its a consensus among Missouri politicians that something needs to be done to make the system less expensive, but no one can agree on how to do it.

In May, Senator Claire McCaskill took her position on the most controversial part of the bill: the government-run public option.

In a letter she wrote to chairmen Ted Kennedy and Max Baucus, she said: "A public option that sets the standard for quality, efficiency, and cost will create incentives for healthy competition that will serve the interests of all Americans."

In the past, she has voted in favor of measures to expand Medicare, a government-run program, and to provide health care coverage to more people, especially children.

Since 2005, she's received around $333,000 from the health industry, out of almost $9 million total in funds.

7th District Congressman Roy Blunt, a top contender for Missouri's open Senate seat in 2010, has a much different approach to health care reform, and his voting record shows it. He voted three times against expanding the State Childrens Health Insurance Plan, which would have covered up to 6 million more children.

In 2007, he voted against a measure that would require pharmaceutical companies to negotiate prices for Medicaid prescription drugs. He also voted in favor of a measure that would allow hospitals to deny a person non-emergency treatment if that person couldn't pay their Medicare co-pay.

When looking at Blunt's fundraising sources, some interesting numbers pop out.

In his 2007-08 fundraising cycle, Blunt received nearly $500,000 from the health industry, nearly a fifth of his $2.6 million in total funds.

His two largest individual industry donors came from the health professionals and insurance industries.

In the most recent fundraising cycle, Blunt ranks 17th out of the 535 members of Congress in health industry donations.

Republican Congresswoman Jo Ann Emerson ranks second of Missouri politicians in the amount of money received from the health industry at just over $250,000 since 2005. However, she has broken party lines on several occasions to vote in favor of several health care reform-friendly bills.

Democrat Ike Skelton has received nearly $100,000 over the past five years from the health industry, and usually votes with other Democrats in favor of most reform bills. However, he was one of 39 Democrats who voted against the House health care bill on Saturday, and the only Missouri Democrat to do so.

So, at the end of the day, are the greenbacks donated by industries and lobbyists doing more talking than a politician's own constituents?

"You wont find politicians who will admit that, 'Oh yeah, if someone gave me money, Ill have to appease them.' They will never say that," Keiser said.

Dr. Keiser says it seems that all will be left up to the public to decide as to whether a company, corporation, or lobby has too much influence on a politician, because there really is no way to directly link money to votes.

---

For my full interview with Dr. Keiser, click here.

Fireworks at Opening of UN General Assembly

The United Nations General Assembly opened in New York Wednesday with eye-opening speeches from leaders of three of the world's most controversial nations. United States president Barack Obama set the meeting abuzz with his first speech to the UN.

The governing body made of 192 nations is likely to be one of Obama's largest focuses in dealing with the numerous foreign policy challenges he and his administration face. He also faces a daunting task in regaining the trust of the body after it was largely undermined under recent US presidencies, including George W. Bush's administration, which sidestepped the UN and its advice when it invaded Iraq in March 2003.

Obama's standout talking point was when he pitched the Assembly on a different America under his presidency. "We have re-engaged the United Nations," he said, going on to lay out the importance of working together, as well as the policy changes he has already implemented nine months into his first year as president.

He also called out nations, though not by name, that he said have showed "reflexive anti-Americanism" in dealing with some of the more serious issues brought to the Assembly in recent years.

This proved to be a fitting starting point for two speakers who followed Obama: Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi, who spoke directly after Obama, and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Gadhafi (at left) made his first appearance at the annual meeting forty years into his reign as leader of Libya, but also as president of the African Union, which has been pressured recently to take control of several crises across the African continent.

He was allotted 15 minutes to speak, but went for 90 in a speech that urged the Security Council to adopt an African seat, but also strayed to hit on subjects ranging from the Taliban, to Iraq, an Israeli-Palestinian state, and the H1N1 virus. He also at one point said the Security Council should be renamed the "Terror Council" because of the power the veto nations have over the Council. He also tore up paper he represented as the UN Charter, which drew criticism from other leaders, including UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Despite his wide-ranging criticisms of the western world's "agenda" and his displeasure with the UN bodies in general, he did offer a glimmer of approval for Obama when he said he wished the new president would have a lengthy presidency.

Possibly the most important speech of the day, however, was made by Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his first major speech to the UN and first on US soil since his controversial election in June.

Ahmadinejad defended his presidency and called the election, rocked by massive protests after allegations of fraud, an homage to the people and "fully democratic." In classic Ahmadinejad fashion, he also delivered backhanded attacks on Israel and the United States, eventually prompting walkouts by several western diplomats, including a handful from the US and Canada.

The Security Council did break ground in dealing with one of its long-standing issues: dealing with Iran's nuclear ambitions. The five nations with veto power - China, Russia, Britain, France, and the United States, with Germany also signing on - issued a statement threatening further sanctions should Iran not cooperate in talks regarding its nuclear program, the two former being important because of their prior reluctance to take a major stance on Iran's nuclear ambitions because of trade agreements.

The nations set an October 1 meeting deadline by which Iran can decide whether or not to attend a meeting to begin negotiations regarding its nuclear program. UK Foreign Minister David Miliband read the statement, threatening harsh sanctions should Iran not comply. Ahmadinejad has acknowledged he will consider letting his nuclear scientists meet with western scientists to discuss the state's nuclear situation.

While the meeting's importance has diminished in recent years and been mostly a place for disgruntled leaders to voice their opinions or other leaders to push their agendas, Wednesday's meeting laid out many of the glaring problems facing the UN both internally and on the international scale.

It also sets quite the stage for Thursday and Friday's G20 Summit in Pittsburgh, where the organization will again meet to tackle the issues facing the global economy and financial institutions.

The two meetings are major steps in the Obama Administration's intent to improve foreign relations and to better coordinate on a global level with other nations to attack the global economic crisis as well as Afghanistan, Iraq, and other flash-point areas such as Somalia and Myanmar, where organized multi-national efforts are either under way or being discussed to stabilize the respective state governments.

Why Iran's Election Gives Israel The Nuclear Upper Hand

The United States has for years been both a mediator and flash point for international conflict, especially in the Middle East. Now, it could be stuck between two bitter enemies' nuclear posturing. It appears that Israel could be using the United States as leverage in its war of words with Iran, which could all be led back to US-Israeli relations and a dubious Iran election.

The smoldering conflict between Israel and Iran over both nations' nuclear programs was stoked Monday when Israel's Defense Minister (at right) said that "no option should be removed from the table" regarding his nation's stance on engaging a nuclear Iran. He did, however, concede that diplomatic steps would be ideal and the first option in addressing Iran's actions in its nuclear development, which Israel says is a grave threat.

The remarks came on the visit of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Israel in order to help work towards a more peaceful Middle East and just a day after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Iran's nuclear ambitions "futile."

Tensions between Israel and Iran have escalated in recent years as Israel, thought throughout the international system to possess a nuclear weapon, has repeatedly drawn (and returned) threats from Iran, which says its nuclear program is purely for energy purposes. However, many nations believe Iran has goals of producing a nuclear weapon.

In 2005 at a conference in Asia called World Without Zionism, Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "disgraceful stain" that "must be wiped off the map," according to a translation published by the New York Times. And this past April, Ahmadinejad triggered a walkout by UN members at a racism conference where he disputed the Holocaust.

Earlier this month, Israel sent two missile-capable war ships and a submarine through the Suez Canal as a posturing statement to Iran that it had the capability to reach the nation with its weaponry if needed.

The United States has a decades-long partnership with Israel, which has included supplying its military with weapons, which some say may extend to the nuclear category. The partnership has helped Israel remain strong in a region dominated by Muslims and strife with animosity towards the Zionist state.

That partnership had become somewhat strained within the past year as US President Barack Obama repeatedly called for dialogue with Iran regarding its nuclear program. Israel wanted its strongest ally to have no part in talks with its most bitter enemy. And in a roundabout way, Israel appears to have gotten its wish.

June 12 brought elections to Iran, which in turn brought massive waves of turmoil to the nation when widespread rumors of vote rigging led to major uprisings by Ahmadinejad's opposition supporters. A massive crackdown, including possible human rights violations, quickly soured what appeared to be a relationship between the US and Iran that could have at the very least led to the first conversation between the two nations in years. Only a week later, Iran's longtime nuclear chief stepped down from office.

With a possibly corrupt government seated in Iran, the last thing the United States would want to do is engage in talks with the Iranian government, not wanting to legitimise the government if the election were in fact rigged. It appears as though Israel noticed this, and has seized the opportunity to nuzzle up to its powerful western ally.

The United States is now in a tough spot as Israel pushes the envelope for a firm stance against Iran and its nuclear program. The US wants to ensure that Iran is not developing a nuclear weapon with its nuclear program, but does not want to anger other Middle Eastern nations it has been working to rebuild relationships with after the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. It also wants to leave the door open the tiniest bit for a possibility of future talks with Iran, which now appear to not be coming any time soon. And at the same time, it does not want to alienate its strongest ally in the Middle East, Israel, by refuting that nation's stance on Iran.

Israel appears to know it has some wiggle room to push the envelope with the new US administration in addressing Iran, and looks to be acting swiftly, knowing that wiggle room could soon be reduced to naught. The rest of the week should be fairly telling as to how far Israel's own new government will go on the subject, as two major US advisers will be in Israel later this week.

It looks as though Israel will continue its stern offense in dealing with Iran, which is likely to issue a similarly strong response, and that the United States will again be searching for a safe spot in between.

Clashing Xinjiang Groups Have A Bloody History

Violence rocked the western Chinese province of Xinjiang Sunday in what has been called the most serious clashes since Tiananmen Square twenty years ago.

More than 1400 people were arrested by police Sunday and upwards of 150 killed after violence broke out between the region's two largest ethnic groups: the Uighur and Han Chinese. The two groups blame each other for the bloodshed, which may have spawned from a fight between the two groups at a toy factory weeks earlier.

But the factory skirmish was just a battle in what has been both a verbal and physical war between the two groups in recent years.

The Uighurs - Muslims, and originally of Turkic descent - have been the main occupants of the territory since the Qing dynasty, which ended in the early 20th century. But displaced Hui (the third largest ethnic group in Xinjiang) and Han Chinese have gained an increasing share of the population share over the years, with recent estimates putting the population split at 45 percent Uighur, 40 percent Han.

This increase of Han Chinese has spurned several tense inter-ethnic conflicts in the past two decades. The Chinese government has encouraged Han Chinese workers to set up businesses in traditional Uighur cities and has adopted rules the Muslim Uighur population says are unfair to their religion and culture.

Because of this, the Uighur population has been increasingly vocal in support of its own independent state. Peaceful nationalist political groups make up the majority of those calling for independence, but two Uighur separatist factions, including the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, have advocated physical confrontation with the Chinese as a means to independence.

These separatist groups have led to China taking an even tougher stance against the Uighur population. They have blamed Uighurs for supposed terrorist attacks, and blame for a 1997 incident that left at least nine Uighurs dead in the Xinjiang city of Gulja was placed on the Uighurs shoulders.

Last year, tensions ran high as protests by Uighurs were staged in Xinjiang at the same time the notorious protests in Tibet were taking place. The Chinese government accused Uighurs of instigating the Tibetan protests.

And most recently, four Uighurs have been placed in custody of Bermudan authorities after their release from prison at the hands of Americans in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The Chinese have accused the men of being terrorists despite never being formally charged, and have demanded the Bermuda extradite the men to face charges in China.

The Han claimed many of the 156 killed and 1000+ injured Sunday in Urumqi were Han Chinese, while the Uighurs claimed most of the casualties and injured as their own.

Monday, Uighurs staged another protest in defiance of a major police presence in the city, shouting "God is Great," the same slogan that became their rallying cry during the 1997 protests in Gulja.

Limited press access and a government firewall banning most, if not all, internet access has made getting accurate and timely information out of Xinjiang difficult, only to be exacerbated by rampant accusations by either side. By looking at the recent past, however, it appears likely that the sporadic conflicts will continue and the relationship between the two groups will continue to boil as no middle ground seems to be anywhere in sight.

Trouble at the Top in Honduras and Niger

The recent political turmoil in Iran appears to have spawned several imitators in recent days, as controversies over the leadership of Niger and Honduras have brought the eyes of the international community away from the streets of Tehran.

Both situations have stemmed from fears that each nation's president was undermining the respective nation's constitution to seek more power. In Honduras, Manuel Zelaya was accused of plotting to throw out the Honduran constitution in order to grant himself a further stay in power, while Niger's Mamadou Tandja sacked the nation's high court when it rejected his appeal to extend his presidency another three years.

In response to Zelaya's attempts to push his presidency beyond 2010 after a maximum four-year term, the military, backed by a number of Honduran citizens unhappy with the president, staged a military coup Sunday and forced Zelaya (at right) out of the country.

The Honduran Congress then elected President of the National Congress Roberto Micheletti as the nation's new president, who has since cracked down on protesters backing the ousted president, and has said that Zelaya will be arrested and jailed if he re-enters the country. Honduran citizens are also allowed to be arrested and held without charge for 24 hours, in addition to having their homes searched and being barred from assembling at night after a curfew was implemented Wednesday.

In Niger, Tandja's bid to stay in power was quashed by the nation's highest court, which he subsequently dissolved and followed up by electing a new cabinet, seen as a degenerative move in a nation that has been working to build a more stable government for the past decade.

Perhaps the most surprising aspect of these two actions have been the reactions they have received from the international community, the same community that has been uneasy to firmly take a stance on a situation in Iran that bears some semblance to these two governmental crises.

US President Barack Obama acted hastily upon the news of the coup in Honduras Sunday, calling the new government illegitimate and for Zalaya to be reinstated. Wednesday, Obama's press secretary Robert Gibbs said Tandja's actions in Niger undermined the African country's "efforts over the last ten years to advance good governance and the rule of law."

Obama's actions have plenty of backbone. Wednesday, The Organization of American States, comprised of 34 North and Latin American nations, also condemned the coup and demanded Zelaya's reinstatement in 72 hours lest the nation be suspended from its spot within the organization. The UN General Assembly also called for Zelaya's reinstatement, among other things relating to the military overthrow.

The European Union Tuesday warned Tandja (at left) that should he continue his pursuit of illegal actions, he will risk losing aid support from the EU in a nation strife with poverty. The African Union has also sent a team of delegates to Niger to solve the ongoing political crisis.

It is curious how strong a response these two situations have received after the international community has largely tiptoed around the post-election turmoil in Iran. The likely factor behind the strong threats of pulling aid and membership for Niger and Honduras in comparison to a general lack of a tough response to Iran comes down to two probabilities. One, that these two situations are much more obvious and apparent than the speculation, despite some red flags, that Iran's government is illegally in power; and two, the fact that Honduras and Niger hold nearly no political or economical clout in the international community.

Both largely depend on other nations to stay afloat in the grand scheme of things, and haven't really any leverage in any sort of non-domestic situation, especially involving such major players as the European Union and United Nations.

It appears likely that because of this, the larger entities will have their way with things, and both coups will be short-lived - at least politically. However, socially, especially in Honduras where there are varying amounts of support for both the ousted and current government, it looks as though the aftermath of these two political shake-ups could leave lasting impressions on the governments and people of the two nations.

And So The Adage Goes...

There is an American saying that goes something along the lines of: "If you keep telling yourself something, soon enough, you're going to believe it."

It appears as though the Iranian government has picked up on it.

Its latest scheme in attempting to legitimize itself has done anything but. In fact, to nearly every outside nation, it must seem almost as if the Iranian government is yelling out to the rest of the world that it is both illegitimate and very afraid.

In the week or so that followed the June 12 election, one could not necessarily discern as to whether President Ahmadinejad had been fairly elected or not. Sure, things looked a bit dodgy as waves of green flowed through the streets of Tehran emitting a voice that pleaded with the outside world to pay attention to what it called a fixed election. But still, there was no solid proof that any wrongdoing had been afoot.

But the protests grew larger, and the world upped the sound level of the opposition supporters to hear their deafening roar at full volume. That is, until the Iranian government hit the mute button and began to feed in its own voice to the world's ears.

Journalists were banned from the streets. Most foreigners were expelled from the country. The internet was shut down and mobile texting restricted. People were arrested if they were thought to have a whiff of rebellion about them or a grain of stone residue on their fingers. They were shot and beaten, and forbidden to assemble lest they risk the aforementioned…or worse.

A gag order to the utmost extent.

So with the voice of the opposition quelled, the government was free to speak. And at today's weekly prayer service, it did. The Guardian Council, the team of senior officials who presided over the so-called investigation into the presidential election, claimed "the reviews showed that the election was the healthiest since the revolution [of 1979]," and that "there were no major violations," something that has already reportedly been proven wrong.

Then, senior cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami (at right) blamed foreign journalists for instigating the protests, and asked the government to "strongly and cruelly" punish the co-conspirators of the protests, the United States and Israel.

Not that Iran had any sort of prior opinion on the United States and Israel.

Even more, in an interview with CNN, Iran's Ambassador to Mexico claimed that the death of Neda, who has become the face of the Iran protests after her death was witnessed by millions across the globe, was perpetrated by the CIA or terrorists.

And to top things off, Khatami said during the same prayer service today that the protesters were "at war with God" ("moharem" in Persian), and that they should be punished cruelly and without mercy. And under Islamic law, the punishment for moharem?

Death.

The usual reaction for one who has been pushed into a corner by fear is to fight to the last gasping breath; to spout off accusations against the enemy in a last-ditch effort to be heard - which appears to be exactly what Iran's government is doing. The international community is strengthening its stance against the government in wake of the human rights violations that have been both reported and witnessed in the past weeks.

Sure, there is a possibility that Ahmadinejad did win the elections. But even if that were true, the actions of the government towards its opposition, as well as the international community, has no one believing the stories for a moment.

So to the government of Iran: go ahead and keep telling yourself that whatever you say is true, because soon enough you'll believe it.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely anyone else will.

In Iran, Actions Speak Louder Than Words

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is, in his mind, playing his cards exactly right.

He has largely managed to keep himself out of the limelight amidst the turmoil in Iran, letting others do the talking for him. His most important mouthpiece and supporter has been Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been an outspoken critic of protesters and staunch supporter of the election results since they were first announced more than a week ago.

When Ahmadinejad addressed his supporters last week, he blasted protesters and purported their actions as a laughable attempt to legitimize themselves and the politicians they supported. On Friday, Khamenei acted similarly. Two men who have used their mouths to express their satisfaction with the election that gave Ahmadinejad another term. Yet two men who are under ever-increasing scrutiny for being tight-lipped about an election that looks more and more like it was indeed rigged.

For Khamenei, democracy is a loose word. After all, he, as Supreme Leader of Iran, is the actual ruler of the nation. As Supreme Leader, he is the figurative Pope - the nation's divine governmental connection to Allah. And while he will hear appeals for a new vote, and even concede a "recount", he really has all the wiggle room he wants. His word is Allah's in a nation that is 98 percent Muslim. There is only one check of his power: Iran's Assembly of Experts.

Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is the head of the Assembly of Experts, and the only man in Iran who can convince the Assembly to select or de-seat a Supreme Leader. He is also an ex-two term President and speaker of Parliament, as well as an outspoken critic of both Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, who defeated him in a runoff in the 2005 presidential election.

Late last week, Khamenei ordered five members of Rafsanjani's family arrested. He threatened "revolutionary" protesters with force from the Basij militia and Revolutionary Guard, and had other people with political ties to chief opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi arrested, including several members of his election staff.

Meanwhile, Iran's own government-run press outlet, Press TV, reported election discrepancies in at least 50 cities where more than 100 percent turnout rate was recorded. Statements said up to 3 million votes could be false or misrepresented, which still would not alter election results in any major fashion. But it seems as though those 3 million could just be the tip of the iceberg. After all, when the government-controlled press is reporting major discrepancies, something is likely afoot.

Protesters continued to march in Tehran and other cities across Iran over the weekend, often times silently, "V" signs held high in the air. Yet the Basij, Revolutionary Guard, and riot Police still showed up in full force with electric batons and automatic rifles. It is estimated that at least 20 people have died and at least 100 have been injured during protests, most as a result of the harassment from these government-backing militias. A shocking video was posted on YouTube over the weekend of a young girl, called "Neda" who was reportedly shot and killed by Basij militia. Another report in the Wall Street Journal documented the story of a family who lost their only son, shot down on his way back from drama class in Tehran.

The dead have become icons to a culture who honors those killed in duty of their nation or religion, and the opposition supporters have made Neda and others martyrs of their revolution.

Shia Muslim culture mourns their dead on the third, seventh, and fortieth days since their passing. Tuesday is the third day since at least ten protesters were killed at the hands of the militia, and people are expected to once again gather to mourn. In the 1979 revolution, fortieth days often brought the largest conflicts. Mousavi has urged his supporters to honor the dead and keep their memories, as well as hopes for a fair election, alive.

The Guardian Council's return on the inquiry demanded by opposition leaders is expected sometime this week. However, one would be naive to believe there will be any change to the announced election results. If the election was rigged, there is no turning back now for Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. They have already spoken, and their voices have resounded throughout the world's political and social arenas.

While protesters have struggled to gather to make their voices heard due to the crackdown on public gatherings in favor of the opposition, it is the actions of those oppressing their voices that speaks the loudest. With every round fired and every drop of blood shed, Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and their supporters who have lauded their own victory so hastily since June 12, dig themselves further into a hole of doubt.

And it will be the words that they have spoken forever engraved on their headstones should the actions of the people turn that hole into a political grave.

Twittering Iran Protests Could Revolutionize The Mindset Of A Generation

If you asked nearly any American under the age of 30 two weeks ago what they thought of Iran, it's unlikely you would have heard anything positive in response.

You might have heard about Iran's nuclear enrichment being a major threat to the security of the United States. Others probably would have told you about an ultra-conservative Muslim nation run by old men who hate everything America stands for. Some probably would have even brought terrorism into the conversation.

Few would have mentioned anything about a democratic process. Not many would have brought up a world-class scientific community whose universities breed some of the best math and science minds of anywhere in the world. And it's very likely that none would have brought up the fact that 70 percent of Iran's population was under the age of 30.

But after protests that have swept the country and galvanized a nation in one of its first showings of outright emotion for the world to see, those opinions could soon change. (PHOTO: BEHROUZ MEHRI/AFP/Getty Images)

I am 21 years old; born in 1988, nine years after the topple of Iran's western-supported government in favor of an Islamic Republic, and at the end of a brutal war with Iraq in which it is estimated between 500,000 and 1 million people lost their lives.

By the time I was old enough to realize the world outside of my immediate sight, all I knew of the Middle East was Saddam Hussein's failed attempt to invade Kuwait, civil war in Afghanistan, and whatever George Clooney and Marky Mark showed me in "Three Kings."

Then came George W. Bush, who proclaimed Iran as part of the so-called "Axis of Evil", hellbent to destroy America and its allies because "they hate our freedom."

But after witnessing the outpouring support for presidential reform candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi in the days leading up to last Friday's election, and more importantly, the reaction to the announced results by the candidates' supporters, it is clear to me that these people "hating our freedom" could not be further from the truth.

The truth is, they envy our freedom. They crave it. They are willing to die for it.

Democracy is by no means the only nor is it the best form of government, nor should it be imposed on any nation, but it is what Iranians were supposed to be partaking in Friday. Democracy means a presidential election by the people, for the people. Americans had the Bush/Gore vote controversy of 2000, but where were the hundreds of thousands of Gore supporters marching on the National Mall in Washington D.C., demanding a recount? They weren't. No Americans were incensed enough to make a statement that their vote did not reflect the will of the majority.

After standing Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won Friday's election with a near-unfathomable 63 percent of the vote, another controversy ensued. Mousavi's supporters felt Ahmadinejad had cheated; that he had stripped them of their dearest rights in a nation still strife with social inequality: the right to vote in a fair election. The right to manifest their voice in a physical presence. The right to democracy. And the right to a reformed Islamic movement that reflected the progressive mindset of hundreds of thousands of voters across the nation.

After the news broke, Iran's government acted quickly to shut down foreign news channels, mobile text messaging, and social networking sites. But Twitter remained, and it has been that 70 percent, many of whom are Mousavi supporters, who have taken to the Internet to make sure their voices are not silenced again.

The hashtag #iranelection has been flooded with "tweets" from Iranians in Tehran and other cities as protesters gathered in masses to voice their dissatisfaction with what they call a rigged election. A steady mass of updates regarding meetings, protest sites, photos, and video from those Iranians has combined with a "Twittersphere" of other users worldwide to establish a go-to place for accurate, real-time news on developments in Iran. Worldwide, the Twitter community denounced American news channels for a lack of coverage, indicting CNN with the hashtag #cnnfail.

It appears as though the Twitter community has learned from its mistakes in reporting the Mumbai terrorist attacks of November 2008, when rumors ran rampant and false information spread like wildfire. A community of fact-checkers and a demand that information be sourced has kept the information coming in on Twitter on point and up-to-date.

But perhaps the most important facet of the Twitter universe reporting the Iranian protests has been the cohesiveness of the community. From Tehran to Toronto, Hamadan to Hamburg, Sananda to San Francisco, people have connected and found commonality in humanity - sharing the stories not just of a group people adament to be heard, but of an emotion that transcends race, location, and culture.

Monday, people shared IP addresses to keep people in Iran online and reporting. They shared videos with blogs like the Huffington Post, where a liveblog of events in Iran was constantly being updated with information via Twitter. And late Monday, after it became apparent the Iranian government was monitoring Twitter and possibly cracking down on those sending information to the outside world, people across the globe changed their location and time zone to Tehran in order to confuse authorities and keep those in Tehran safe from the government-supporting Basiji militia.

Some have been reluctant to call the massive protests in Iran a revolution. However, at least one revolution is already underway - a revolution of minds and viewpoints. A Pew study done in February indicated 65 percent of Twitter users were aged 18-34. It is that demographic that has become fluent in the language of the Internet and its possibilities, and it is largely that demographic that is stoking the fire of the Iranian Twitter Revolution.

Now, it could be that demographic, through experiences such as the Iranian protests, that sparks the dialogue that world leaders have failed to successfully engage in for so long.

And it could bring together a more understanding world of tomorrow.

Unrest And Uncertainty In Iran

Protesters have taken to the streets in Iran to voice their opinions that Friday's elections were rigged in favor of standing president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Many of the protesters are supporters of Ahmadinejad's largest competitor - former Iranian Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

The protesters claim the election results, which gave Ahamdinejad 62.63 percent of the vote and Mousavi only 33.75 percent, are highly tailored, or even reversed in value. An 85 percent turnout was reported, with many believing that Mousavi would win the election if such a number came out to vote.

Ahmadinejad's largest base of support comes from the rural and lower-class areas of Iran, where people champion his traditional, conservative style. But Mousavi was expected to win a vast majority of the younger vote in a nation where 70 percent of the population is under the age of 30.

Reports came in Friday of crackdowns on Mousavi supporters at the polls, as well as claims of arrests that barred voters from voting. Friday evening, Mousavi claimed victory after his poll-watchers reported an overwhelming response from voters in favor of the ex-Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, Ahmadinejad claimed victory just hours later, which were supported when numbers were released and backed up by a message from the Ministry of Interior.

Those numbers sparked outrage from opposition supporters, and those supporters appear to have a valid argument. Mousavi reportedly lost his home city of Tabriz, and Mehdi Kahroubi, another refrom candidate, lost his home state of Lorestan. Both seem highly unlikely according to voter analysis. But perhaps the most surprising number is Ahamdenijad's near 63 percent of the overall vote, which would make him the most popular president in Iran's history, another unlikely occurance.

Both Mousavi and Kharoubi have declared the election void and want the vote annulled by the Council of Guardians. Mousavi, who has reportedly been placed under house arrest, has also called on his supporters and other supporters of the opposition to continue protests peacefully. And while some protests have been peaceful, many have turned into clashes with police. In Tehran, protesters burned tires, garbage bins, and took to the street in opposition of the riot gear-clad police, who say they are "protecting the vote of the people." Police responded with heavy doses of pepper spray, billy clubs, and riot shields, according to sources in Tehran.

However, the so-called "vote of the people" could be anything but. Protesters are clearly outraged at the election results, but have not gone so far as to declare a revolution against the government. They say the protests are to reform the Islamic Revolution that has been a mainstay of Iranian politics for the last 30 years.

It is unclear what will come next. News out of the nation has been difficult to come by, as the government shut off mobile text messaging Friday, as well as nearly all social networking sites and international foreign news channels. Two Dutch reporters were ordered to be expelled from the country after they were arrested, and there are reports that all foreign media, including the BBC, were being kicked out. However, the social media site Twitter has avoided being blocked, and much of the news being reported is coming through via "tweets" from foreign correspondents and Iranian citizens.

Foreign governments, including the United States and several European Union members, have expressed their doubts with the legitimacy of the election results. This comes as a major blow to US president Barack Obama, whose hopes of engaging Iran in a political dialogue now seem to be slipping away. If he were to engage Iran's newly-elected government, he would lose a great deal of credibility by speaking with a government whose own credibility is now greatly in doubt.

There is speculation that the election results could spark a "Green Revolution", the color worn by Mousavi's supporters, in what some say could resemble the 1979 Islamic Revoultion that ousted the western-supported shah of Iran. That revolution was supported by a large student population, and the large number of youth supporters for Mousavi is drawing similar comparisons.

It seems as though much of what happens next will lie in Mousavi's hands. His supporters are extremely loyal to him, and though he has called for peaceful protests, a lack of real action on his behalf would likely lose him a great deal of support, and render him useless in Iran's future political arena. However, he must be careful in his actions, as the standing government obviously has a great deal of control over the nation. Word on Mousavi's next move could be coming late Sunday, as he is reported to be giving a speech in Tehran's Freedom Square.

Should Mousavi choose to act and continue to encourage protests while also pursuing actions diplomatically, there is a real possibility of revolution in Iran. If the allegations of vote doctoring are true, and the number of Mousavi and fellow opposition supporters are what they are reported to be, the will of those people could overcome the will of Ahmadenijad.

China's UN Support Bad News For North Korea

Wednesday, members of the United Nations Security Council agreed in principle to sanctions on North Korea following nuclear and missile tests conducted by the secretive nation in the past six months.

The initial draft, which Security Council members are set to vote on Friday, has received support from the five permanent members (P5) of the United Nations - the United States, who took the lead in drafting the sanctions, Britain, Russia, France, and possibly most importantly - China.

China has been reluctant to side with its fellow Security Council members in making any overly-aggressive statements in response to North Korea's recent actions. They have been a traditional ally of the Communist nation, with roots tracing back to the mid-1900s, when both nations were led by Communist governments and allies against the US, Japan, and South Korea in the Korean War.

In recent years, however, the relationship has soured slightly. One of the largest sources of the two nations' distancing has been the issue of refugees. China's border with North Korea has seen an increasing amount of activity in recent years as more North Koreans attempt to emigrate to China. North Korea has taken a stance of punishing those caught trying to make the move to its western neighbors, with offenders facing up to five years in prison for their first offense.

China has not taken to North Korean defectors warmly, even going so far as to build a wall in 2006 thought to help stem the tide of refugees and smugglers. China's cold approach has been viewed as a move to put pressure on North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il to improve conditions in his country viewed largely by outsiders as an oppressed nation.

China's support of the sanctions is likely to further isolate the tiny nation on the Korean peninsula, and with support of the sanctions from Russia, North Korea's other longtime ally, North Korea appears to have been pushed into a very tight corner.

The next months will be telling as to what North Korea's future international stature will be. The sanctions demand the nation suspend its ballistic missile program and stop conducting nuclear tests. It also bans North Korea from exporting weapons, and strongly encourages countries to stop and inspect North Korean ships suspected of transporting arms.

Pyongyang has recently issued statements saying that any interception of its ships by South Korean or US vessels will be considered a hostile action, and has also said that sanctions, such as these coming from the UN, will be considered a declaration of war. North Korea has also threatened to use nuclear weapons in the event of any hostility, and the recent sentencing of two American journalists to 12 years in a forced labor camp is thought to be further politicking by Pyongyang. There are also reports that another nuclear test could be conducted later this month.

The largest test is likely to come from the imposing nations, however. It is unclear as to how far the P5 and South Korea will go to enforce the new sanctions, as all the nations seem to hold a stance of deterrence. South Korea, despite its obvious unhappiness with its northern neighbors, could be unlikely to act because it knows North Korea has up to 10,000 missiles aimed at Seoul and the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The US has also said it does not wish to take any physical actions against North Korea.

What happens next could be anyone's guess, but it is evident that the international community has now placed an enormous amount of pressure on North Korea. With Kim Jong-Il rumored to have suffered a stroke last August and an heir-apparent purportedly named in his youngest son, Kim Jong-Un, who is also said to be far from ready to lead the country, could the 67-year-old Jong-Il make a last-ditch attempt to make North Korea a legitimate international player?

The veil covering the nation's actions has led to an international guessing game as to how much of a threat the nation actually is, but this stern response from the UN Security Council, including two of North Korea's longtime allies, shows that the international community is not taking any chances.

Drones and Displacement in Swat

Pakistan's military is pushing ground troops into cities in northwest Pakistan's Swat Valley in an attempt to rid the area of Pakistani Taliban that have had virtual control over the area for over a year. The nation's Prime Minister even went so far as to call it a "war for the country's survival."

Pakistan's army began shelling the area with mortars and aircraft fire last week to try and weaken strongholds and supply lines held by the Taliban, which seems to have proven somewhat effective as ground troops are now in place to go in to weed out the pockets of Taliban fighters.

After a mid-week meeting between Pakistan's president Asif Ali Zadari and Afghanistan's Hamid Karzai in Washington with both US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama, Zadari has so far made good on his promise to "eliminate" the Taliban in his country. At the meetings in Washington, both presidents spoke extensively about the threats of terrorism in their countries, and, evidently, the Taliban too.

US drone strikes in Pakistan have not been the most supported actions by any means of the people of Pakistan, and have put further pressure on President Zardari because of his ties with the USS. Strikes have killed dozens, if not hundreds, of civilians, and at least two confirmed strikes in the past week are said to have killed more.

Because of the nature of the fighting in Pakistan, where precision is needed but not easily available in order to get to the pockets of Taliban that often live and hide in neighborhoods and amongst civilians, many of the civilians occupants of the Swat Valley have opted to pack up and leave rather than risk being caught up in the crossfire or fighting the Taliban, as was urged by Pakistan's military.

This latest exodus from Swat could lead up to 1 million people being displaced from fighting in Pakistan. Over 500,000 have left since August, and another half a million could leave due to the current situtation. There are several international aid organizations in place to help the displaced people, but there is concern that there will not be enough supplies and cooperation to feed, water, and shelter such a massive number of people.

As most of the refugee camps lie just on the outskirts of the Swat Valley, there is also concern that fighting could spread there, creating a situation where civilians would be highly at risk, and also the concern that local governments in the area, which had a three-month stading truce with the Taliban, will be of little help in providing for the displaced citizens because of pressure from the Taliban, who are thought to be in control of some of the local governments and who many in the Swat Valley local governments are said to fear.

There is a real sense that this situation could quickly turn into an international crisis. Pakistan has about 15,000 troops fighting the Pakistani Taliban, who are said to number in the thousands. But one has to wonder if Pakistan's forces are substantial enough to take down the Taliban, something the US-led coalition in Afghanistan still hasn't done in over five years with military technology superior to that of Pakistan's. Adding to that is the concern that the hundreds of thousands of refugees will not be provided for by Pakistan's government and that NGO's and IGO's might also not be able to get as involved, which could create a major humanitarian crisis in Pakistan. Finally, in such an unstable area, the thought of another coalition to fight the Taliban, whom the US is already fighting in neighboring Afghanistan, comes to mind. US-Pakistani relations have become stronger in recent years, so might Pakistan reach out for help from the Taliban's common enemies should they run into a wall in fighting the Taliban?

The possibilities of the situation in Pakistan are many, but Pakistan's offensive against its nation's Taliban, often said to be harboring Public Enemy Number One Osama bin Laden, has to be a step in the right direction in the eyes of the United States and its war on terror. Should Zardari's troops prevail, it would be a major win for the west as well as for Pakistan, but should things fall apart, a serious crisis could be at hand.

Is The West Losing The War On Terror?

I just finished up a thesis for an International Relations course titled "Politics and War" in which I researched the so-called "war on terror" and how terrorism has affected the western allied states of the United States, United Kingdom, and Israel and the Middle Eastern states of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Palestinian territories. My basic conclusion, which is stated in the last selected paragraph, was that it is a possibility the western allies may be losing this war against terrorism. A few selections:

"The “war on terror” came to be under the guise of a war against anti-American Muslim extremists, propagated by George W. Bush and his cabinet and (some say hesitantly) supported by the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Tony Blair and other western allies in order to theoretically protect their state’s sovereignty and national security. However, nearly eight years later, it could be argued that the terrorists are winning. The Global Future defines terrorism as “the premeditated use or threat of violence perpetrated against noncombatants, usually intended to induce fear in a wider audience.” (Kegley, Raymond 2007, G-7) It is arguable that there have been few times in the history of America and the United Kingdom when such widespread fear of something or someone has been as far reaching and extensive as the “threat of terrorism”, and the fear-mongering is only fueled by the governments that say they seek so badly to quell it. The only example that immediately comes to mind of a situation even close to what has happened in the wake of terrorism in the west is the Red Scare and McCarthyism that happened in the 1950s in America, when anti-Communism sentiments washed over the United States and struck fear in a majority of Americans, propagated by the government, and for a while, unchecked by any other government body. Could the war terrorism go down as this generation’s Red Scare?"

"The United States saw one day of terrorist attacks on its soil when hijackers crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one, misguidedly, into a field in Pennsylvania. Not by any means a minor ordeal, but the actions that came in the wake of September 11, all done in the name of “national security” seem to have done more to make the nation insecure; not physically perhaps, but mentally at the very least. There was the anthrax scare, but other aside from that, there has been very little physical presence of any form of terrorism in the United States. Yet the government opened Guantanamo Bay, which allowed it throw in jail without probable cause other than the supposed threat of terrorism any person it wished, even if that person lay outside its normal jurisdiction. FISA has been strengthened since 2001 and the Patriot Act, which allows for wiretapping, search and seizure, and other surveillance not normally allowed under American law was widely used by the Bush administration and is now being used by the Obama administration (Thomas, Scraton 2002, 94-9). And while there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil since September 11 and the anthrax scares, American citizens still fear another terrorist attack (Associated Press 2006). Could the government be the root cause of this? In a July 2007 report by the National Intelligence Council titled “The Terrorist Threat To The US Homeland”, the Council states numerous times that “the US will face a…terrorist threat…from Islamic terrorist groups and cells.” (National Intelligence Council 2007) The report goes on to talk about the numerous threats facing the United States: “al-Qa’ida in Iraq,” “chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear [weapons],” and “other non-Muslim terrorist groups.” The report goes on to say that despite any real action by most terrorist groups in recent time, that the NIC perceives there to be a “heightened threat” of terrorism and that “[terrorists] would not hesitate to attack the Homeland.” The whole document reads almost as a propaganda statement by the Council, using vocabulary and rhetoric that strike up anti-terrorist sentiment and patriotism just as President Bush did following 9/11. But the most important thing documents like this and hundreds of others do is fuel the fear. The general masses of Americans tend to believe whatever the government says, frankly, because they do not have a choice. However, like any other large entity, it has an agenda and works as a giant public relations machine. And the American people have proven that they will largely follow that machine without much question, living on the fear and giving the government more leeway to do what it wishes."

"It is also this support of Israel by the two largest western powers that has fueled much of the anti-western sentiments that have led to the Muslim extremist uprising in the Middle East. Since the disputed lands of Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank have been such a flash point and rallying cause for the Muslim communities in the Middle East, for Israel to be supplied by the US and UK in its fight against what Muslims see as the Muslim community, it has made the two western states an easy and common target for Muslim extremists and a major recruiting tool used by terrorist organizations in what they see as a war against Islam. The United States’ assistance in helping develop nuclear capabilities and anti-ballistic shields in Israel have only furthered anti-American sentiments in Muslim states. And while the UK has not been as large of an arms supplier to Israel, their close inter-governmental ties have also formed many enemies amongst the Muslim community."

"Since 2001, the relations between the three aforementioned western states (the US, UK, and Israel) and its largely-Muslim Middle Eastern counterparts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Palestinian territories) have worked in a cyclical nature as terrorism has built itself to be a great asset for Muslim extremists in the Middle East for use against the west. Since conventional tactics in combating terrorism were tried, but failed by these western states, the less-powerful terrorist community has often found itself with the upper hand and with its targets constantly on their heels in an attempt to guess what is coming next. They have also succeeded in using terrorism in the theoretical sense that they have struck a genuine fear in the western communities that a terrorist attack on domestic soil is a real and legitimate threat, which has only been propagated by the governments and media of the western states. And while these western governments attempt to find ways to combat terrorism in new ways using hybrids of classical and guerilla warfare, their secondary goals of establishing democracy and dominance in the mentioned Middle Eastern states has only fueled anti-Western sentiments among Muslim extremists and created a new pool of young Jihadists and other fighters who are also at the same time adapting their methods just as quickly as is the West. And because of the nature of the cell structure of terrorist groups, winning the so-called “war on terror” has proved much more difficult than any Western premier may have thought. And while they have perhaps quelled certain potential terrorist acts from damaging their national security and infrastructure, because of the fear of terrorism instilled in the people of the US and UK, especially by their own governments and media, it is quite unlikely that future terrorist actions will subside, and quite possible that the tensions and rifts between the West and Middle East could grow and deepen as a result, and that terrorists may end up winning this “war on terror”."

Democracy Playing Its Role In India

Yesterday, India, the world's largest democracy of 714 million people, began its month-long election process, which will be staggered into five separate blocks. Polling started in the northern and eastern regions yesterday where the highest concentration of poverty-stricken Indians will cast their ballots.

The election pits the ruling Congress Party, along with some minor alliances, against the opposition party, Bharatiya Janata, a Hindu-nationalist party. India is predominantly Hindu with a Muslim minority, which should play a minor factor in how the nation votes. The BJP lost power in 2004, and seems unlikely to regain the majority because of inter-party tension.

Likely to play a key role in the elections are several regional parties which could ally with either major party to form a larger majority for one side, or could strip votes from both predominant parties, creating a situation where even the majority government are unlikely to have overwhelming power due to a fragmented government.

Still, it is promising for other pro-Democratic states that India can once again organize an election on such a massive scale. Around 800,000 voting sites will be in use, and guarding those sites from threats and attacks which have been increasingly forthcoming leading up the the election will be 2 million security personnel. Still, by Thursday evening, 14 separate attacks on polling places and trucks carrying equipment had been reported, resulting in at least 17 deaths.

Also encouraging for democracy in India was the appointment of a new lawyer for Mohammed Ajmal Amir Iman, also known as Kasab, the only terrorist captured alive in the Mumbai attacks that took place last November and left more than 170 dead and 300 wounded.

Abbas Kazmi took the role as Kasab's new lawyer after the previous lawyer was dismissed for a conflict of interest resulting from her defense of an attack victim. Kazmi acknowledged the risks of such an action, as many other appointed attorney's for the Pakistan-nationalist attacker were harassed, threatened, and even had their homes vandalised and damaged.

Kazmi called it his duty and an honor "as a democratic society" to represent Kasab, despite the obvious conflicts and contempt most Indians feel in the wake of the attacks. Mumbai's Bar Association had previously decided not to represent Kasab. Kazmi will receive government protection while the trial is ongoing.

So as India's democratic wheels turn, the pro-democracy states of the international community ought pay attention. If a state with so much diversity, inner-conflict, and class separation can set this kind of example, it may lead others to follow in similar fashion.

Will Recount In Moldova Change Anything?

A recount of nearly 1.5 million ballots began today after President Vladimir Voronin called for another look into the election in the wake of last week's massive protests in the capital city of Chisnau that left one dead, another 90 injured, and saw 200 people arrested.

The recounts will take place at more than 2,000 polling places across the ex-Soviet state. Opposition parties are boycotting the recount, saying that if they were to participate, it would only legitimise the results when tallied up. Voronin's Communist party has been accused of adding up to 400,000 ballots, some accounting for people living abroad and some for people already dead, according to opposition leaders.

However, the recount begs the question: if the elections were rigged in the first place, how will a recount by the same party leaders come up with any differing results? While Voronin's party vehemently denies any such tampering, early exit polls in the election showed the party winning 38% of the votes, only to come out of the elections with 50%, a majority which would allow the party to amend the constitution and give Voronin a third term currently not allowed under Moldovan law.

It seems that when all is said and done Friday, there will be no change to the election results. After all, when was the last time any state leader who won election gave up his power and admitted tampering and that an opposition leader should instead be in power? It would be political suicide, and could lead to even worse things for Voronin.

Don't be surprised if the latest news out of Moldova Saturday is more protests, possibly turning violent. While it seems only a few of last week's protesters took part in the destruction of government offices and that most were peaceful, a rigged-election turned rigged-recount in the minds of the protesters won't bode well for the standing government - if it is standing much longer.

**UPDATE: If you would like to find out more about what is happening in Moldova in relation to protests, alleged brutality, and possible government fraud, Jamie Dodge has directed me to this blog from a source inside Moldova that has many posts relating to such things as well as reaction from European governments. Jamie's blog, which also has information, can be found here.

Democracy's Meltdown in Fiji

Fiji's President Ratu Josefa Iloilo has taken many steps away from democracy in past days, as he abolished the state's constitution, sacked all judges on the judiciary committee, and appointed himself head of state. He also re-appointed Commodore Frank Bainimarama as interim Prime Minister only days after his Ministership, undertaken in 2006 after a military coup, was ruled unconstitutional by the Judiciary Committee's Court of Appeals.

Bainimarama has also appointed a censor for all of the state's media outlets, and reports that foreign media have been locked out of the country have also been coming out of the island nation. Section 16 of the new language adopted by the president reads that "any broadcaster or publisher must submit all material to the Secretary for Information before publication."

In 2006, after Bainimarama's coup, the military forced Fiji's leading daily newspaper and sole TV station to close after the military attempted to censor their news. Saturday, the Fiji Times, the nation's largest newspaper which has been in print since 1869, was forced to run its edition with huge blank spots after articles relating to the incidents were censored by the government's censor appointed by the Secretary of Information.

Several articles also ran that praised the new government as a "fresh start", probably forcibly printed, as the editor of the paper, Netani Rika, has seemingly been left with no choice. Two managing directors of the newspaper have been deported from Fiji in the past year.

Leaders from around the world, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as well as Australian politicians, have slammed Iloila and Bainimarama for the coups and for the censorship of journalists. Pro-journalism activist groups have also greatly criticised the actions, calling them a push against journalist's rights that they say should be universal: freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

It should be interesting to see how this story develops and whether international pressure will be placed on the island nation, something it seemingly could not withstand. Otherwise, Iloila and Bainimarama are set to have five more years of power, and, without a constitution, power to do whatever they wish. And it is unlikely to stop with the censorship of journalists.

Moldovan Protester Beaten, Journalists Kidnapped

This is video of a 23-year-old student who came back to Moldova from studying in France to vote in last week's election. After the Communist Party claimed victory (amidst accusations that the elections were rigged), he, like many other students joined in protests against the government. He tells JurnalTV that the protests were peaceful, and that after being arrested by government police, he was beaten by them "continually from Tuesday to Thursday" for assisting a Swedish news crew in translating from Romanian. Apparently, when his mother inquired as to where she could find him, she was told to "go look in the morgue".

Sources from Moldova have been telling me that the government has blocked social media sites in the state in attempts to cut people off from releasing stories and images of what is happening there. They also tell me that up to 500 people have been beaten and arrested, and many fear that those arrested could be killed, and that some might already be dead.

I have also been told that several journalists have been kidnapped by people thought to be secret government agents. A Moldovan news agency said several journalists have been detained; one, a woman, by four men dressed in white civilian clothes. She and another were released after being questioned, and said they were told "not to spread lies" about the situation there. At least one remains unaccounted for.

It has also been reported that an airplane from Russia landed at Chisinau International Airport Wednesday night, and seen being carried off it were crates of grenades and tear gas canisters, all thought to be for the government's police in their attempts to subdue protesters who they say have turned violent.

Protesters, on the other hand, claim instigators were purposely placed in the crowds by government officials to induce violence and place blame for destruction and violence on the protesters themselves. The protesters say their motives are purely peaceful, and that police brutality has led to some of the violence by protesters.

International Organizations Amnesty International and Reporters sans frontières have pushed for fairness for protesters and journalists and protection from police brutality.

"[Amnesty International] urges the authorities to independently and thoroughly investigate reports of use of excessive force by police. Detainees should also be promptly charged with a recognizable criminal offence or released and granted access to lawyers, doctors, and to have their families informed about their detention," read a statement released by an Amnesty International spokesperson.

Clear lines have been drawn between the government and protesters, and with both sides often releasing conflicting information, it is sometimes difficult to sift through. It does seem that a repressive Communist government has overstepped its boundaries and infringed upon some civil liberties, however.

Photos From Moldova

A source in Moldova provided me with some photos of the protests there.
Photos by Nicolai Mihailiuc
Provided by Tirsina Rodion, whose blogs you can find here and here.

[Social Media] Revolution in Moldova

In Chisinau, the capital of ex-Soviet state Moldova, the social media revolution might have found its face - in a real-life revolution.

Tens of thousands of people, most of them students and other young adults, have gathered in the capital city to protest what they call a rigged election by the Communist Party, headed by president Vladimir Voronin. Protestors say the ruling party manipulated elections to show a 50% majority, which allows them to change the nation's constitution to hand Voronin a third term, currently not allowed under Moldovan law.

President Voronin claims neighboring Romania, whose relationship with the Moldovan premier has continually deteriorated since Voronin came into office as president in 2001, has played a major role in the opposition protests. Voronin does have a history of bad blood with Romania, stemming from his time as Moldova's Interior Minister from 1989-90 under Soviet rule. Pro-Romanian protesters set his headquarters on fire in 1989. He has claimed recently that Romania, a newly-inducted member of the European Union, was trying to "absorb" Moldova.

Wenesday, Voronin declared Romanian ambassador to Moldova Filip Teodorescu "personae non grata", and ordered him and his envoy expelled from the state within 24 hours. Later that day, Romania appointed a new envoy, headed by diplomat Mihnea Constantinescu, who served as chief of staff to the past two Romanian prime ministers, Adrian Nastase and Calin Popescu Tariceanu. Prior to that, he was the Romanian secretary of state.

The most interesting facet of this story, however, is the manner in which the protests, which have destroyed government buildings and led to over 200 arrests so far since they began Tuesday, were organized. Much of the organization came via online social media networks Twitter and Facebook, a hint that such sites might finally be recognized internationally as something more than mere places to chat and network.

On Twitter, which allows users 140 characters to post messages, which are consolidated in a search-engine type of forum, the hashtag #pman served as a place for protesters to organize themselves and communicate with thousands of other protesters in Chisinau.

Another website has mashed up a Twitter feed with pictures, video, blog posts, and articles relating to the protests.

Thursday afternoon, Twitter users involved in the protests were claiming that Russian instigators were inducing rioting within crowds to spurn more arrests, as well as Moldovan secret police using surveillance and undercover operations to quell protesters. Reports that Facebook was shut down by the Moldovan government were also coming out via Twitter. Still, Thursday, sentiments remained strong amongst the online community involved in the protests, who were "Tweeting" in several languages, including Romanian, Russian, and English.

"[Voronin] must understand, we no longer support communism," said one protester. Another message being "Tweeted" by protesters stated: "Friday, at 10 a.m., we will be there. With a flower in our hand, and without vandalism. We are not thugs!"

As technology has evolved so quickly over the past ten years, so has the generation that was brought up with that technology. As this generation, my generation, comes of age and realizes its potential, so it is realizing the tool belt around its waist is larger and contains more tools than any generation before it. And so it just might be this generation, the online generation, that could use that ever-expanding tool belt to rebuild and restructure the world we live in.