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”."

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.

[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.

North Korea Plans To Launch Missile

In the past month, news has grown within the international community that North Korea will launch a ballistic missile, most recently speculated to be scheduled for launch April 4. The story has received little attention until the past week, when Japan announced it was preparing its missile defense systems in preparations for the launch, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama lashed a harsh tongue on North Korea for its actions.

North Korea says the missile, a Taepodong-2, carries a satellite which will help the nation learn more about space, but others, including the US, Japan, and South Korea, say it could carry a warhead that could reach locations as far as Hawaii.

Six-party talks have been ongoing between the US, Japan, South Korea, Russia, China, and North Korea, which could be threatened should North Korea continue with the launch.

This all seems to be a game of politics, however, as North Korea attempts to ratify itself as a legitimate nuclear contender. Some western states have criticized the nation as more of a fear-monger than actual threat, but with rumors that Iran and North Korea may have somehow collaborated on nuclear plans, the missile launch comes as a legitimate threat to nearby nations. It is, nonetheless, a major security threat, and comes as recently US President Obama and Russian President Medvedev spoke about diminishing their missile arsenals.

Japan's mobilization of its missile defense system sent a clear message to North Korea that should any "debris" fall over the island nation, its defense system would be used. North Korea retorted that any attempts to intercept the missile by Japan would result in strikes on Japanese targets.

The US has also readied warships equipped with missile defense systems off the coast of South Korea, but officials say they are unlikely to be used unless the missile is headed for Hawaii, something, they admit, is quite unlikely.

There are UN sanctions against North Korean ballistics at stake, according to political leaders, that will be broken if (and probably more likely when) North Korea launches the missile. However, it seems as though Kim Jong Il now has no choice, having backed himself into a corner in the international system. Were he to forfeit the launch now, it would only make a mockery of his valiant attempts to prove a legitimate threat in northeast Asia and to his nuclear-able western counterparts.

A successful test would also show other states that North Korea is not afraid of global pressure and give it confidence in its ballistics program.

All should be told within the next four days, however, as the missile has (according to US spy planes, which North Korea has also threatened to shoot down) been being assembled and fueled under a large canopy, and should be due to launch sometime before April 8.

New Times Call For New Methods

Okay, so I'm doing all my pre-graduation prepping, and keep asking myself how I am going to get a job in an industry that is everywhere shedding jobs. The best thing I can think of is to formulate a model of news format and delivery that would be most appealing and accessible to people like me.

I recently surveyed people on the Internet about news, social media, and new media. Of the 140 responses, 125, or 89% were aged 16-24, 6% were aged 25-34, 2% were aged 35-49, and 3% were aged 50+. Admittedly, the survey was directed, primarily, at the 16-24 year old age group because that is the age group that will be “tomorrow’s generation” of news consumers.

The first question I asked was how often respondents used social media such as Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Stumble, or other social media network. 98% of respondents said they used social media at least once a day, while 58% said they used social media at least five times per day I then asked the respondents’ main source of news. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents said that the Internet was their main source, compared to 19% for television, and 4% for newspapers. One person stated that magazines were their main source of news. No one answered selected radio.

The responses to these questions demonstrate that younger people are using social networking widely and the Internet is their main source of news. Although this survey represents a small sample, the results are indicative of a generally wider use of internet resources across the population.

I next asked for the respondent’s opinion on three questions:

1. Do you feel more connected to a story when it involves or is reported by someone of your age group?
2. Would you liked to be more involved in the news process, i.e. communicating with reporters and producers, suggesting story ideas, and getting feedback?
3. Would you like to see more international news (news outside of the United States) being reported?

Answers to the first question were split right down the middle, with seventy saying yes and seventy saying no. Although the quality of the reporting is definitely the most important thing to people, many young adults feel more connected to someone like Anderson Cooper and other younger reporters. Reporters that deliver quality reports, and appear to understand the issues of their audience, are likely to be more trusted, and, thus, more viewed. The second question was answered similarly -- split nearly down the middle. Seventy-six people said they wanted more interaction, Sixty-four said they did not.

The third question produced an overwhelming response. Eighty-four per cent of those polled said they wanted to see more international news reported by the American media. It seems to me that the American media, as a whole, focuses very little attention on what happens outside of the United States. This became apparent to me when I was working on the Mumbai terror story in November. At the time, when I talked to people back home, many people knew little, if anything, about it. I checked all American websites. There was little more than a headline and brief story buried among the other news items. The Mumbai attacks were one of the biggest terrorist actions in recent history. Despite the severe international implications, much of the story went unreported in the United States. I find this unacceptable and so, apparently, do many other people. Americans, I think, generally, are trying to become more educated about the world. Keen to the realization that America is not the only nation in the world that has an impact on our everyday interests, a major market exists for international news. Someone has to come up with a way to reach that market.

After offering my respondents several multiple-choice questions, I gave them an opportunity to elaborate. “What is the most important subject to you that you would like to see reported more extensively on any level (local, national, international),” I asked. 128 people responded. Forty-nine responses dealt with international news, and 17 with international conflict and war. Some of the responses:

• “International relations, putting conflicts into context and getting a real picture of how the world views America and our policies”
• “I would like to see more attention paid to international news from different perspectives, breaking from the normal American view.”
• “international affairs; human rights issues/violations; environmental advances; technological developments”
• “INTERNATIONAL NEWS PLEASE! I don't care about octo-mom.”
• “I'd like to see coverage that gave more context to stories. Covering the breaking news story isn't enough for me, I want to hear and read about the people directly affected by that news. A story becomes more real, to me, if I know how an event impacted peoples' lives.”
• “I would like to get a better insight as to how the rest of the world truly views the United States. Don't just show me protests and US flags burning, but really tell me how other people are reacting to the actions of the US”
• “Definitely the human aspect of international war.”
• “I'm no expert but I have a different sort of view on this question - if I want to read about specific international affairs issues I'll go to bbc.com, if I want a general overview of what's going on in the world I'll go to cnn.com, etc. I'm a fan of news sources that find their niche and do an outstanding job covering that subject matter.”

The way I see things, and my findings support this, there needs to be an Internet platform for in-depth, quality international reporting. There are few, if any, places on the web that combine all aspects of journalism in one place to make a product that can appeal across generations and hit all the demographics of news users.

I have also noticed that many in the generation that did not grow up with the Internet are following the lead of the tech-savvy generation and working hard to learn what is going on with all this “new media”. In the last few months, 12 of my aunts and uncles have signed up for Facebook, as have both of my 53-year old parents, my 80-year-old grandmother, and my 84-year-old great aunt. People are realizing how much the internet is being used for everything these days, and are starting to catch up with the times.

Therefore, how do we in the media take advantage of this phenomenon? After scanning news sources all over the Internet for years, and even more since I was with CBS last fall, I noted the best of what I found, and came up with a website plan. This online-only news website would feature original video content in the form of pieces and extended interviews, original photos, AP-style original web stories, a blog platform for producers, correspondents, and others involved, a microblog (like Twitter), and the opportunity for users to interact with producers and correspondents in real-time.

The focus of this site’s media would be on the most important international news of the time. Budget restraints could inhibit the site’s coverage at first, but I think properly launched and managed, an audience would quickly grow. To tell the best story, reporters and producers need to be on the ground in those locations. On the other hand, an interactive technology-enriched audience could be groomed as contributors when having someone “there” just is not possible.

Humanization is the key to this project, which is why I think that all aspects of journalism need to be incorporated. Original video puts people there, seeing what is happening in “real time”. Photos capture a point of time and emotion that sometimes tell the best stories. Including a typical AP-style story will appeal to readers. A blog platform (think World Watch) helps humanize producers and reporters by giving them the ability to voice emotion they might not typically include in a regular story. They can also use this to update people on what they are currently working on, or even solicit input on trends, events, or possible stories. The microblog allows instant communication with a Twitter community that is hungry for the humanized correspondent. Journalists are already seeing increases in their appeal through this form of new media. Here are some relative examples:

Rick Sanchez
Richard Quest
Terry Moran

Claire McCaskill, one of the senators from the state of Missouri, and a rising star in the Democratic Party, is on Twitter. In a recent “tweet” McCaskill reported, “CBS just wanted to know if tweeting was a fad or here to stay. I said here to stay. Easy, fun, and helps me stay connected to people at home.”

The plane crash in Amsterdam was first reported on Twitter.

And here is a story about the growing need for newsrooms to keep pace.

At my current station, an NBC affiliate, and the number one station in the market, we are already putting much of this into place. Except for our news director, assignment editor, web editor, and senior producer, students run the station nearly completely. As a reporter, I pitch three or four stories each morning for my shift. Usually, I am assigned one of those. I then have until 5 P.M. to shoot my video, arrange and perform my interviews, write and edit my script, record voice-overs, edit the video and voice-overs into a piece, and prepare for live or on-set shots. Stills from my video are used for our website. I also write a web story different from my television package, and the TV hit (with piece) is uploaded to the web with “web extras”, such as extended interviews or extra information not included in my piece. We are encouraged to use Twitter throughout the day to keep viewers updated on what we’re working on for the evening news. It all seems to be working. KOMU was the first station in mid-Missouri to go 100% high definition. Each year brings several Emmy’s, Peabody’s, and Hearst awards. The station is currently getting a new set, complete, so I've heard, with touch-screen technology, new green screens, and other technologies that many top-20 markets do not yet have.

Now, what about the money? Obviously, the biggest question in these times is how something like this could be funded. First of all, there would be a lot of multi-tasking by the staff. A skeleton crew would, initially, do it all. With limited newsroom support, this could even be one person. Travel costs necessary to put someone “on-the-spot” would be limited. Producers and reporters might often be the same job, and sometimes producers may have to shoot and reporters edit. Sometimes a cameraman would be paired up with a reporter/producer. Everyone would have to learn to edit, write, shoot (both video and still), and learn how to use the web efficiently. This would be a small-time operation at first and would require a lot of work and dedication by those who were doing it, but what is the point of putting out a product produced by non-dedicated people?

Then comes the question of revenue generation. Marketing would initially focus on a readily available existing base of readers: the Internet. Facebook currently has 175 million active users and is growing quickly. Three billion minutes are spent on Facebook worldwide each day. Each user has an average of 120 friends. The fastest growing demographic is aged 30+. If there is a larger platform for marketing and advertising, it is difficult to imagine. And the best thing…it’s free! Twitter has millions of users and is growing quickly. Links and word of mouth could do much of the marketing for the product by itself, for free. The expanse of social media is the perfect platform for advertising and marketing. For a generation with an ever-shorter attention span, they want news a simple click away.

The growth of social media is just starting to blossom and people are beginning to realize its possibilities. The stories on this site could easily be linked to my anyone with a blog, Facebook, Twitter, or Digg, which are things that I believe soon many people across the globe will be using as a normal part of life. Also, with the growth of multi-purpose mobile phones, people can get their news at hand at any time. They don’t want to sit through commercials or carry around a gaudy paper when they can sift through what interests them with a small device in the palm of their hand, and share those things instantly with other people.

The idea behind all of this is that once a group of people find out about a good idea on the Internet, it spreads like wildfire. Likewise, with the growth of the Internet, new news can become old news in a matter of hours, and often times, people want information before the Evening News starts. No one has yet found a great new way of doing the news. Once someone does, they are likely to be the leader in tomorrow’s news generation. A multiplatform news source would appeal to all users (television, print, radio) because it would include all of those things. The idea, after all, is to get viewers to consume our product, no matter how they access it.

People are catching on quickly. CNN might be the current leader, but has yet to pull it all together. Other organizations have pieces in place, but remain behind. Company leaders should realize they need to put faith in a younger generation’s ideas. In a business that has forever put the most glory on those journalists that have the most experience, while I realize that the experience these journalists have is very important, must realize changing times call for changing methods. Journalism is an inherent part of society that cannot be marginalized or sacrificed. Finding the means to put out a superior and competitive product is necessary. Sitting idly by worrying who will have a job tomorrow is not acceptable. A bold and active approach is demanded. I have found out in my short life that the worst that can happen in any situation is someone will tell you no. For something in which I believe, I would take a million no’s for that one yes. If this plan can help me get a job, it can also offer further security to other journalists while bringing a new and exciting model of news delivery to the world.

Talking Climate Change

Climate change is as real as the world around you and it is greatly affecting the world around you.

It seems that the only way to get this point across to people is to be blunt about it. Democrats and Republicans in America's government have spent so many hours inside the halls of Congress debating back and forth about its existence and what to do with it, have cut money cited as "pork" at the time that focused on climate change, and have, even in my short lifetime, largely ignored the subject.

Isn't it funny, then, that now that people have started to accept that it is happening, everyone in the government is clamoring to do something about it, but still, little is actually getting done.

CO2 emissions are the biggest cause of this climate change. And this is how it happens:

CO2 is released into the atmosphere, where it stays and is not broken down. Sunlight travels in through the atmosphere to the earth's surface, where some of it is absorbed, and some reflected. The sunlight (and energy) that is reflected bounces back into the atmosphere, where most passes through back into space, but an increasing amount (due to the buildup of CO2) is being retained by our atmosphere, thus creating the Greenhouse Effect that we've all heard about.

But the part that you probably haven't heard about has nothing to do with the Earth's solid surface, but its liquid surface. The amount of sun reflected is called albedo, and is measured on a scale of reflectivity. The ocean, being dark blue, retains a lot of light and heat and has a low albedo, while ice, being white, reflects nearly all of the light and heat, and has a high albedo. Since global temperatures have begun to rise, glacial ice and sea ice have begun to melt, creating a rise in water levels. Every year, less and less ice is retained in places like Greenland, the tundra of Canada, and Antarctica. Since there is less ice, and that ice is becoming water in the case of sea ice, there is a lower global albedo as the ice is not around to reflect that light and heat. So where does that light and heat go? Into the oceans, which in turn become warmer. Warmer water means less ice during the annual freeze, thus furthering the cycle.

Since every year, more ice melts, the rate at which the oceans are warming just because of the ice melts is alarming. Add in the factors of pollution and the general lack of response by many nations to acknowledge this problem, much less act on it, and we have a climate change crisis on our hands. Also, much of the industrial processes that were employed by the US, UK, and other western nations that started the problem are now being used by developing nations like China and India because it is the cheaper alternative to new, cleaner technology.

Acting on this situation is something that needs to be done by the global community, and action needs to come fast because if it is not already reversible, it seems it may be soon.
(Photo at right source surveygalaxy.com, NASA)

Looking At The London G20

The G20 world summit is coming up on 2 April 2009, and it is arguably the most important G20 Summit in its ten-year history. 19 of the world's largest economies and the European Union will meet in order to discuss the world economy and the stakes have never been higher. At this meeting will be:

• Chairman of the International Monetary and Financial Committee
• Financial Ministers of 19 of the world's largest economies, including the G7
• Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund
• President of the World Bank
• Most of the G20 nations' heads of state
  

With many of the world's markets at their lowest points in over a decade, including the DJIA (6627 at last close), FTSE (3531), Nikkei (7173), and Hang-Seng (11922), it is obvious that in order to save the world's economy from slipping further into recession (or possibly depression). The plan at the London Summitt seems to be to review how things have progressed since the summit in Washington, D.C. in November 2008, and to judge whether what was laid down at that time has been effective.

Much of what has been promised seems to be "reform" related, as in "reforming the current financial system, the IMF, and World Bank". Pressure seems to be higher than ever on the heads of state and financial ministers in attendence to get things done. Many have argued that the Washington Summit did little other than address the sources of the financial collapse (mortgage lenders, banks, etc.) but the guidelines that were laid out have been completely ineffective. It has also been noted that several leaders, including Sarkozy and Brown, have disagreed on occassion on what should be done.

I'm sure that free-trade and globalization will once again be the "solution" to the economic collapse, but it seems as though pressure is mounting from global citizens to look elsewhere for a solution. Another thing I find interesting is how much of a role the emerging economies of Brazil, India, and China will have in the talks. Their presence was felt greatly at the talks in Washington, but are the old economic powers ready to fully admit that they might not be the hegemons anymore? The inclusion of the EU is also something that should be followed, as the IGO could be one of the biggest economic players in the coming years as it includes four of the other G20 nations (UK, France, Germany, Italy) as well as several other quickly-developing nations, including those of Eastern Europe and the old Soviet bloc.

Another focus of the G20, though it will probably be overshadowed by the economic talks, will be on climate change. There's no denying by anyone who knows anything about it that climate change is very real, and it's happening right now. CO2 emissions are the largest source of climate change, and they continue to rise simply because the nations who are working to reduce them have not focused on it enough, and developing nations are not fiscally-secure enough to use new technology and are thus relying upon the technologies that the US, UK, and much of the rest of the west used for years and years to get us into this situation. It is up to the G20, as the world's largest secure and developing economies, to set an example to the rest of the world as to how to handle climate change as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Thinking about the G20 Summit, it seems as though much of the problems we are now trying to solve have only become these major problems because we failed to care enough about tomorrow. Our banks didn't fail, houses foreclose, markets crash, and ice caps melt at ungodly rates by some awful miracle overnight. It is because all people, from the heads of state all the way on down to you and I, failed to assess the risks of what we were doing today and how it would change the way we live tomorrow. Now that everyone has realised that the world is going to shambles, people are finally beginning to realise this. Things aren't going to get done overnight, just as they weren't undone overnight. But people need to know about the G20 and put pressure on the leaders at the G20 Summit to get done what needs to get done in order to attempt to fix the exorbitant number of problems facing our world today.