Muammar al-Gaddafi and his trouble with the West

Muammar Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi1 (also known as Colonel Gaddafi; born 1942) has been the de facto leader of Libya since a coup in 1969. He is the longest-serving ruler of Libya. As an early follower of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his Arab socialist and nationalism ideal, he took a part as a teenager in anti-Israeli demonstrations during Suez Crisis. An early conspirator, he begun first plan to overthrow monarchy while in military college. He received further military training in the United Kingdom.

On 1 September 1969, a small group of junior military officers led by Gaddafi staged a bloodless coup d'état against King Idris I, while he was in Kamena Vourla, a Greek resort, for medical treatment. His nephew the Crown Prince Sayyid Hasan ar-Rida al-Mahdi as-Sanussi had been formally deposed by the revolutionary army officers and put under house arrest; they abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic. The 27-year-old Gaddafi sought to become the new "Che Guevara of the age". To accomplish this Gaddafi turned Libya into a haven for anti-Western radicals, where any group, supposedly, could receive weapons and financial assistance, provided they claimed to be fighting imperialism. The Italian population in Libya almost disappeared after Gaddafi ordered the expulsion of Italians in 1970.

Throughout the 1970s, his regime was implicated in subversion and terrorist activities in both Arab and non-Arab countries. By the mid-1980s, he was widely regarded in the West as the principal financier of international terrorism. Reportedly, Gaddafi was a major financier of the "Black September Movement" which perpetrated the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and was accused by the United States of being responsible for direct control of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing that killed three people and wounded more than 200, of whom a substantial number were U.S. servicemen. He is also said to have paid "Carlos the Jackal" to kidnap and then release a number of Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil ministers.

Tensions between Libya and the West reached a peak during the Ronald Reagan administration, which tried to overthrow Gaddafi. The Reagan administration viewed Libya as a belligerent rogue state because of its uncompromising stance on Palestinian independence, its support for revolutionary Iran in the 1980–1988 war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and its backing of "liberation movements" in the developing world. Reagan himself dubbed Gaddafi the "mad dog of the Middle East". In December 1981, the US State Department invalidated US passports for travel to Libya, and in March 1982, the U.S. declared a ban on the import of Libyan oil and the export to Libya of U.S. oil industry technology; European nations did not follow suit. The U.S. attacked Libyan patrol boats from January to March 1986 during clashes over access to the Gulf of Sidra, which Libya claimed as territorial waters. On 15 April 1986, Ronald Reagan ordered major bombing raids, dubbed Operation El Dorado Canyon, against Tripoli and Benghazi killing 45 Libyan military and government personnel as well as 15 civilians.This strike followed U.S. interception of telex messages from Libya's East Berlin embassy suggesting Libyan government involvement in a bomb explosion on 5 April in West Berlin's La Belle discothèque, a nightclub frequented by U.S. servicemen. Among the alleged fatalities of the 15 April retaliatory attack by the U.S. was Gaddafi's adopted daughter, Hannah. Libya responded by firing two Scud missiles at the U.S. Coast Guard navigation station on the Italian island of Lampedusa, in retaliation for the bombing. The missiles landed in the sea, and caused no damage.

In 1984, British police constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London while policing an anti-Gaddafi demonstration. A burst of machine-gun fire from within the building was suspected of killing her, but Libyan diplomats asserted their diplomatic immunity and were repatriated. The incident led to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya for over a decade.In late 1987, a merchant vessel, the MV Eksund, was intercepted. Destined for the IRA, a large consignment of arms and explosives supplied by Libya was recovered from the Eksund. British intelligence believed this was not the first and that Libyan arms shipments had previously reached the IRA. An alleged plot by Britain's secret intelligence service to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi, when rebels attacked Gaddafi's motorcade near the city of Sirte in February 1996, was described as "pure fantasy" by former foreign secretary Robin Cook, although the FCO later admitted: "We have never denied that we knew of plots against Gaddafi."

For most of the 1990s, Libya endured economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation as a result of Gaddafi's refusal to allow the extradition to the United States or Britain of two Libyans accused of planting a bomb on Pan Am Flight 103, which exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland. Through the intercession of South African President Nelson Mandela – who made a high-profile visit to Gaddafi in 1997 – and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Gaddafi agreed in 1999 to a compromise that involved handing over the defendants to the Netherlands for trial under Scottish law.: U.N. sanctions were thereupon suspended, but U.S. sanctions against Libya remained in force. In August 2003, two years after Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi's conviction, Libya wrote to the United Nations formally accepting 'responsibility for the actions of its officials' in respect of the Lockerbie bombing and agreed to pay compensation of up to US$2.7 billion – or up to US$10 million each – to the families of the 270 victims. The same month, Britain and Bulgaria co-sponsored a U.N. resolution which removed the suspended sanctions. (Bulgaria's involvement in tabling this motion led to suggestions that there was a link with the HIV trial in Libya in which 5 Bulgarian nurses, working at a Benghazi hospital, were accused of infecting 426 Libyan children with HIV.) As a result, President Bush signed an executive order restoring the Libyan government's immunity from terror-related lawsuits and dismissing all of the pending compensation cases in the US, the White House said. Gaddafi's 2009 welcome to the return of convicted Lockerbie bomber Megrahi, who was released from prison on compassionate grounds, attracted criticism from Western leaders and disrupted his first-ever visit to the United States to attend a UN General Session.

Gaddafi appeared to be attempting to improve his image in the West. Two years prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks, Libya pledged its commitment to fighting Al-Qaeda and offered to open up its weapons programme to international inspection. The Bush administration did not pursue the offer at the time since Libya's weapons program was not then regarded as a threat, and the matter of handing over the Lockerbie bombing suspects took priority. Following the attacks of 11 September, Gaddafi made one of the first, and firmest, denunciations of the Al-Qaeda bombers by any Muslim leader. Gaddafi also appeared on ABC for an open interview with George Stephanopoulos, a move that would have seemed unthinkable less than a decade earlier.

Following the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by US forces in 2003, Gaddafi announced that his nation had an active weapons of mass destruction program, but was willing to allow international inspectors into his country to observe and dismantle them. US President George W. Bush and other supporters of the Iraq War portrayed Gaddafi's announcement as a direct consequence of the Iraq War by stating that Gaddafi acted out of fear for the future of his own regime if he continued to keep and conceal his weapons. Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, a supporter of the Iraq War, was quoted as saying that Gaddafi had privately phoned him, admitting as much. Many foreign policy experts, however, contend that Gaddafi's announcement was merely a continuation of his prior attempts at normalizing relations with the West and getting the sanctions removed. To support this, they point to the fact that Libya had already made similar offers starting four years prior to it finally being accepted. International inspectors turned up several tons of chemical weaponry in Libya, as well as an active nuclear weapons program. As the process of destroying these weapons continued, Libya improved its cooperation with international monitoring regimes to the extent that, by March 2006, France was able to conclude an agreement with Libya to develop a significant nuclear power program.

In March 2004, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair became one of the first Western leaders in decades to visit Libya and publicly meet Gaddafi. Blair praised Gaddafi's recent acts, and stated that he hoped Libya could now be a strong ally in the international War on Terrorism. On 15 May 2006, the US State Department announced that it would restore full diplomatic relations with Libya, once Gaddafi declared he was abandoning Libya's weapons of mass destruction program. The State Department also said that Libya would be removed from the list of nations supporting terrorism. On 31 August 2006, however, Gaddafi openly called upon his supporters to "kill enemies" who asked for political change. In July 2007, French president Nicolas Sarkozy visited Libya and signed a number of bilateral and multilateral (EU) agreements with Gaddafi. On 4 March 2008 Gaddafi announced his intention to dissolve the country's existing administrative structure and disburse oil revenue directly to the people. The plan includes abolishing all ministries, except those of defence, internal security, and foreign affairs, and departments implementing strategic projects. In September 2008, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Libya and met with Gaddafi as part of a North African tour. This was the first visit to Libya by a US Secretary of State since 1953. In January 2009, Gaddafi contributed an editorial to the New York Times, suggesting that he was in favor of a single-state solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflicts that moved beyond old conflicts and looked to a unified future of shared culture and mutual respect.

On 30 August 2008, Gaddafi and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed a historic cooperation treaty in Benghazi. Under its terms, Italy will pay $5 billion to Libya as compensation for its former military occupation. In exchange, Libya will take measures to combat illegal immigration coming from its shores and boost investments in Italian companies.The treaty was ratified by Italy in 6 February 2009, and by Libya on 2 March, during a visit to Tripoli by Berlusconi. In June Gaddafi made his first visit to Rome, where he met Prime Minister Berlusconi, President Giorgio Napolitano and Senate President Renato Schifani; Chamber President Gianfranco Fini cancelled the meeting because of Gaddafi's delay. The Democratic Party and Italy of Values opposed the visit, and many protests were staged throughout Italy by human rights organizations and the Radical Party. Gaddafi also took part in the G8 summit in L'Aquila in July as Chairman of the African Union. During the summit a handshake between US President Barack Obama and Muammar Gaddafi took place (the first time the Libyan leader has been greeted by a serving US president), then at summit's official dinner offered by President Giorgio Napolitano US and Libyan leaders upset the ceremony and sat by the Italian Prime Minister and G8 host, Silvio Berlusconi. (According to ceremony, Gaddafi should seat three places after Berlusconi).

In September 2009, at a South America-Africa summit on Isla Margarita in Venezuela, Colonel Gaddafi joined the host, Hugo Chávez, in calling for an "anti-imperialist" front across Africa and Latin America. Gaddafi proposed the establishment of a South Atlantic Treaty Organization to rival NATO, saying: "The world’s powers want to continue to hold on to their power. Now we have to fight to build our own power."

Quotes made by Gaddafi

"God damn America" – Time magazine, April 2, 1973

"The statements of our Kenyan brother of American nationality, Obama, on Jerusalem ... show that he either ignores international politics and did not study the Middle East conflict or that it [Barack Obama's expression of solidarity with Israel] is a campaign lie. We fear that Obama will feel that, because he is black with an inferiority complex, this will make him behave worse than the whites. This will be a tragedy. We tell him to be proud of himself as a black and feel that all Africa is behind him."

"It is a response to greedy Western nations, who invade and exploit Somalia’s water resources illegally. It is not a piracy, it is self defence. It is defending the Somalia children’s food. If they (Western nations) do not want to live with us fairly, it is our planet and they can go to other planet."

"Any Muslim in any part of the world who works with Switzerland is an apostate -- is against Muhammad, God and the Quran,"

"There are signs that Allah will grant Islam victory in Europe - without swords, without guns, without conquests. The 50 million Muslims of Europe will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades."

Interview with Larry King

Information from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muammar_al-Gaddafi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjNAGyMCEik&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJdk5ANcJIo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PlpLpexwfk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wOaFfrQaYk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MrpigxYD4E&feature=related

About the Rwandan Genocide

The Rwandan Genocide was the 1994 mass killing of hundreds of thousands of Rwanda's Tutsis and Hutu political moderates by the Hutu dominated government under the Hutu Power ideology. Over the course of approximately 100 days, from the assassination of Juvénal Habyarimana on April 6 through to mid-July, at least 800,000 people were killed, according to the estimate of Human Rights Watch. Other estimates of the death toll have ranged between 500,000 and 1,000,000, or as much as 20% of the total population of the country. As an ideology, Hutu Power asserted that the Tutsi intended to enslave Hutus and thus must be resisted at all costs. The assassination of Habyarimana in April 1994 was the proximate cause of the mass killings of Tutsis and pro-peace Hutus. They were carried out primarily by two Hutu militias associated with political parties: the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi. The genocide was directed by a Hutu power group known as the Akazu. The killing also marked the end of the peace agreement meant to end the war and the Tutsi RPF restarted their offensive, eventually defeating the army and seizing control of the country.

Numerous elite Hutu politicians have been found guilty for the organization of the genocide. The Rwandan Military and Hutu militia groups, notably the Interahamwe, systematically set out to murder all the Tutsis they could capture, irrespective of their age or sex, as well as the political moderates. Hutu civilians were forced to participate in the killings or be shot, and were instructed to kill their Tutsi neighbours. Most nations evacuated their nationals from Kigali and abandoned their embassies in the initial stages of the violence.

National radio, with the exacerbation of the situation, advised people to stay in their homes, and the Hutu power station RTLM broadcast vitriolic propaganda against Tutsis and Hutu moderates. Hundreds of roadblocks were put up by the militia around the country. Lieutenant-General Dallaire and UNAMIR were in Kigali, escorting Tutsis, and were unable to stop the Hutus from escalating their attacks.

On April 9, UN observers witnessed the massacre of children at a Polish church in Gikondo. The same day 1000 heavily armed and trained European troops arrived to escort European civilian personnel out of the country. The troops did not stay to assist UNAMIR. Media coverage picked up on the 9th as the Washington Post reported the execution of Rwandan employees of relief agencies in front of their horrified expatriate colleagues. On April 9–10, US Ambassador Rawson and 250 Americans were evacuated.

Most of the victims were killed in their villages or in towns, often by their neighbors and fellow villagers. Militia members typically murdered their victims by hacking them with machetes, although some army units used rifles. Victims were often found hiding in churches and school buildings, where Hutu gangs massacred them. Ordinary citizens were called on by local officials and government-sponsored radio to kill their neighbors, and those who refused to kill were often murdered themselves. "Either you took part in the massacres or you were massacred yourself."

Several individuals were active in attempting to halt the Rwandan genocide, or to shelter vulnerable Tutsis, as the genocide was being carried out. Among them there are Pierantonio Costa, Antonia Locatelli, Jacqueline Mukansonera, Paul Rusesabagina, Carl Wilkens, and André Sibomana. You can read about these great people in our post on the Key Figures, due out one hour after this post.

In 1998, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda made the landmark decisions that war rape in Rwanda was an element of the crime of genocide. The Trial Chamber held that "sexual assault formed an integral part of the process of destroying the Tutsi ethnic group and that the rape was systematic and had been perpetrated against Tutsi women only, manifesting the specific intent required for those acts to constitute genocide." Although no explicit written orders to rape or commit sexual violence have been found, evidence suggests that military leaders encouraged or ordered their men to rape Tutsi as well as condoned the acts taking place, without making efforts to stop them. The Special Rapporteur estimated that between 250,000 and 500,000 Rwandese women and girls had been raped.

The UN and its member states appeared largely detached from the realities on the ground. In the midst of the crisis, Lt. General Roméo Dallaire was instructed to focus UNAMIR on only evacuating foreign nationals from Rwanda. The change in orders led Belgian peacekeepers to abandon a technical school filled with 2,000 refugees, while Hutu militants waited outside, drinking beer and chanting "Hutu Power." After the Belgians left, the militants entered the school and massacred those inside, including hundreds of children. Four days later the Security Council voted to reduce UNAMIR to 260 men. The U.S. government was reluctant to involve itself in the "local conflict" in Rwanda and refused to label the killings as "genocide", a decision which then-president Bill Clinton later came to regret in a Frontline television interview. In the interview, five years after the genocide, Clinton stated that he believes if he had sent 5,000 U.S. peacekeepers, more than 500,000 lives could have been saved. The UN conceded that "acts of genocide may have been committed" on May 17, 1994. By that time, the Red Cross estimated that 500,000 Rwandans had been killed. The UN agreed to send 5,500 troops, mostly from African countries, to Rwanda. This was the original number of troops requested by General Dallaire before the killing escalated. The UN also requested 50 armoured personnel carriers from the United States, but for the transport alone they were charged $6.5 million (U.S.) by the U.S. Army. Deployment of these forces was delayed due to arguments over their cost and other factors.

Following an investigation of the plane crash of 6 April 1994 that killed both the Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira and precipitated the genocide, and in which three French crew had also died, the French judge Jean-Louis Bruguière indicted eight associates of Rwandan president Paul Kagame on November 17, 2006. President Kagame himself was not indicted, as he had immunity under French law as a head of state. Kagame denied the allegations, decrying them as politically motivated, and broke diplomatic relationships with France in November 2006. He then ordered the formation of a commission of his own Rwandan Justice Ministry's employees that was officially "charged with assembling proof of the involvement of France in the genocide" The political character of that investigation was in turn further averred when the commission issued its report solely to Kagame - symbolically on November 17, 2007, exactly one year after Bruguière's announcement - and the head of the Rwandan commission, Jean de Dieu Mucyo, stated that the commission would now "wait for President Kagame to declare whether the inquiry was valid." In July 2008, Kagame threatened to indict French nationals over the genocide if European courts did not withdraw arrest warrants issued against Rwandan officials, which by then included broader indictments against 40 Rwandan army officers by Spanish judge Fernando Andreu. Findings of the commission were released at Kagame's order on August 5, 2008 and accused the French government of knowing of preparations for the genocide and helping to train the ethnic Hutu militia members; named 33 senior French military and political officials of involvement in the genocide, including then-President Mitterrand and his then general secretary Hubert Védrine, then-Prime Minister Edouard Balladur, then-Foreign Minister Alain Juppe, and his chief aide at the time, Dominique de Villepin. A statement accompanying the release claimed that "French soldiers themselves directly were involved in assassinations of Tutsis and Hutus accused of hiding Tutsis... French forces committed several rapes on Tutsi survivors", though the latter was not documented in the report. A BBC report commented that French Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, denied French responsibility in connection with the genocide but said that political errors had been made.

The suspicions about United Nations and French policies in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994 and allegations that France supported the Hutus led to the creation of a French Parliamentary Commission on Rwanda, which published its report on December 15, 1998. In particular, François-Xavier Verschave, former president of the French NGO Survie, which accused the French army of protecting the Hutus during the genocide, was instrumental in establishing this Parliamentary commission. The commission released its final report on December 15, 1998. It documented ambiguities and confusion in both the French and UN responses. Regarding Operation Turquoise, it regretted that the intervention took place too late, though it noted that this was better than the non-response from the UN and the opposition by the U.S. and U.K. governments to such a response. The Parliamentary Commission did not find any evidence of French participation in the genocide, of collaboration with the militias, or of willful disengagement from endangered populations, to the contrary. It documented multiple French operations, all at least partly successful, to disable genocide-inciting radio broadcasts, tasks which the UN and the United States had rejected calls for assistance with. The report concluded that there had been errors of judgment pertaining to the Rwanda Armed Forces, but before the genocide only; further errors of judgment about the scale of the threat, at the onset of the genocide; over-reliance on the UNIMAR mission without awareness that it would be undercut by the United States and other parties; and ineffective diplomacy. Ultimately, it concluded that France had been the foreign power most involved in limiting the scale of the genocide once it got started, though it regretted that more had not been done. In 2010, French President Nicolas Sarkozy acknowledged that France made "mistakes" during the genocide, but did not offer an apology.

Approximately two million Hutus, participants in the genocide, and the bystanders, with anticipation of Tutsi retaliation, fled from Rwanda, to Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, and for the most part Zaire. Thousands of them died in epidemics of diseases common to the squalor of refugee camps, such as cholera and dysentery. The United States staged the Operation Support Hope airlift from July to September 1994 to stabilize the situation in the camps.

After the victory of the RPF, the size of UNAMIR (henceforth called UNAMIR 2) was increased to its full strength, remaining in Rwanda until March 8, 1996.

In October 1996, an uprising by the ethnic Tutsi Banyamulenge people in eastern Zaire marked the beginning of the First Congo War, and led to a return of more than 600,000 to Rwanda during the last two weeks of November. This massive repatriation was followed at the end of December 1996 by the return of 500,000 more from Tanzania after they were ejected by the Tanzanian government. Various successor organizations to the Hutu militants operated in eastern DR Congo until May 22, 2009.

Imperialism: America actions throughout the Caribbean

America actions throughout the Caribbean and the South Pacific during the 19^th and early 20^th centuries were not justified. Throughout the years that the United States was intervened in Cuban affairs there was no mention of hidden actions. It was assumed by Cubans that the primary goal of the United States was to secure and maintain the government of Cuba. Throughout these years the United States became viewed as the protectorate for Cuba. Since Cuba was not able to attain independence from Spain it was up to the Americans to help Cubans become free. “In the cause of humanity and to put an end to the barbarities, bloodshed, starvation, and horrible miseries now existing there, and which the parties to the conflict are either unable or unwilling to stop or mitigate”[1] To ensure that the United States would not try to control Cuba Henry M. Teller proposed the Teller Amendment.

The Teller Amendment stated, “That the United States hereby disclaims any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over said island, except for the pacification thereof, and asserts its determination, when that is accomplished to leave the government and control of the island to its people”. The purpose of the American involvement in Cuba was only to ensure peace in Cuba. Any attempt to control Cuba or limit its independence was a complete violation of the amendment. To bypass all of the violations the United States created a loophole which was used to create the Platt Amendment. This loophole “except for the pacification thereof”[2] seemed to Cubans as a good thing since it helped them to ensure peace. The Platt Amendment laid down eight conditions to which the Cuban Government had to agree before the withdrawal of U.S. forces and the transfer of sovereignty would begin. The United States also reserved the right to intervene in Cuban affairs in order to defend Cuban independence.[3]

The Platt Amendment restricted Cuba’s independence using eight articles. The Platt Amendment stated, “That the government of Cuba shall never enter into any treaty or other compact with any foreign power or powers which will impair or tend to impair the independence of Cuba”.[4] This article restricts Cuba’s independence by not allowing them to enter into treaties with other foreign nations. By restricting Cuba’s access to foreign treaties Cuba had no choice but to rely on the United States for its necessities such as a stable government and security. It is through this reliability that the United States will be able to gull implement its imperialistic strategies.

The Platt Amendment also had hidden intentions of control. This was a move that would expose the hidden intentions of the United States. The third article of the Platt Amendment states "That the government of Cuba consents that the United States may exercise the right to intervene for the preservation of Cuban independence, the maintenance of a government adequate for the protection of life, property, and individual liberty……."[5] It is through this move that the United States is hoping to acquire some control of Cuba but America would call it intervening. The concept of imperialism is never said by the United States, but it is a safe assumption to think so. The United States wanted to be able to establish territory in Cuba and use it under the precedence that they base is ensuring Cuba’s life, liberty, property, and individual liberty.

The United States was not able to justify its actions of imperialism in the Caribbean through its use of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine. This was not a smart move since the Monroe Doctrine was obvious to spreading the control of the United States. This document stated “Therefore it follows to aid the respecting, just, and far-seeing nation should on the one hand endeavor by every means to aid the development of various movements…”[6] This statement can easily be interpreted as the United States being able to assist in the development of civilized nations. By doing this the United States is expanding its control of the Caribbean and South Pacific area.

It was becoming clear what the intentions of the United States were. Walter Nugent’s book, Habits of Empire states, Years later, the Cuban historian Emilio Roig de Leuchsenring remarked that the Cubans had just about beaten the Spanish by themselves, “when the United States intervened, not to ensure Cuban freedom but to prevent it.”[7]. The United States was only in Cuba to control, and this became apparent to Spanish officials what the United States intentions were. Upon realizing that the government that the United States assisted them in creating was based on lies, Cuba dismantled its self government.

In conclusion, the actions of Americans throughout the Caribbean and South Pacific during the 19^th and early 20^th century were not justified. The purpose of the Americans being on the land was to only ensure the peacefulness in Cuba. The Platt Amendment restricted Cuba’s independence using eight articles. There is no way that the United States would be able to serve its purpose by restricting Cuba’s access to foreign treaties. The main objective was to acquire and the United States was well on its way to doing so. It later became clear what the intentions of the United States were.

Cortez A., U.S.

---

[1] Latin America and the United States, Robert H. Holden, Oxford University Press 2000, The Decision to Act against Spain, pg. 71

[2] Latin America and the United States, Robert H. Holden, Oxford University Press 2000, The Teller Amendment, pg. 73

[3] http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/ip/86557.htm

[4] Latin America and the United States, Robert H. Holden, Oxford University Press 2000, The Platt Amendment, pg. 81

[5] [5] Latin America and the United States, Robert H. Holden, Oxford University Press 2000, The Platt Amendment, pg. 82

[6] [6] Latin America and the United States, Robert H. Holden, Oxford University Press 2000, “The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine”, pg. 101

[7] Chapter Ten, Around the Caribbean, Walter Nugent, pg. 284

Historical Knowledge: What is history and its role in society?

A paper I wrote about history, what it is and its purpose in society.

History invokes emotion, logic, ideals, perceptions, opinions, bias, and etc. History is a complex subject to talk about in addition to analyzing. History is not scientific. It encompasses a person moral ideals and beliefs. As I look throughout history I cannot ignore the impact that it has had on the development of the American society. The fact is that history evokes emotions inside different people. It is true that history is not scientific but moral. History allows us to utilize what has happened with what is happening now. History allows us to make corrections to the present by looking at past problems.

“It should lead us to acknowledge our profound and chastening frailty as human beings….. that the future outwits all our certainties and the possibilities of the future are more various than the human intellect is designed to conceive. ” This quote is simply stating that history provides a basic foundation as where to start our search for history and search for our future. It is true that this search will not be an easy find. As a society we now know how to learn from history and adapt its laws into our society. In oppose to hundreds of years ago when we had no idea what we were in for as a society.

History also lets us know how easily we are swayed as human beings. Throughout history citizens have been the primary audience of leaders. These leaders feed the citizens words that intoxicate them. These are the words that make the leader in command in the citizens powerless. I take evidence from Slobodan Milosevic who started a campaign for ethnic cleansing movement inside the country of Serbia. “Countries under foreign command quickly forget their history, their past, their tradition, their national symbols, their way of living, often their own literary language.” To some nationalist this movement was a great movement while to others it promoted mass genocide.

When I look at leaders such as this in history I cannot help but feel sad for the thousands of people who have lost their lives. History sparks emotions inside people that allow them to feel empathy for other people. This is the reason why it is classified its values as a moral concept. History makes a person or its reader dwell deeper into themselves and fact their moral self. This is the self that helps you to determine what is morally right. The knowledge issue that is developed with this claim is how can you truly judge a person and their action through your emotions?

In regards to the human aspect of history, it does a major part in helping people to realize that we are all humans. I take reference from The Search For Truths by Jacques Barzun where he states, “Above all, we should stop fighting over tentative notions we believe in.”[1] Societies have been fighting over what they believe to be truth for years. Many of their truths are based on their concept and interpretation of history. This has lead to many wars and many battles and lots of lives lost. The concept of history and its truths are subjected to change anytime.

This is what makes these truths tentative notions because they may be changed at anytime or new evidence can come to contradict these truths. These truths are subjected to constant historical interpretations or biased opinions. These things inadvertently create knowledge issues. What makes your historical interpretations better than anyone else? How is it that absolute truths are subjected to other people’s opinions? How is the right person to make such claims?

When we look at history we must not forget the concept of time. Time is defined as a non-spatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.[2] There are two different types of times mechanical time and body time. Mechanical time is measured in seconds, minutes, hours, days, and years. In oppose to body time which is not measured and is based upon the individual. History and time are interrelated to each other, without one we would not have the other.[3] These two things come together and create an event. In fact, some would say that history is composed of events. I think this is partially true because we must ask ourselves the question of who is to determine this.

History is enabling us to be in control of our actions and our destiny. History is embedded in us from the moment that we are conceived. When I look at my actions that I have done to influence my own destiny I see the role of history. It is through history that I have control of myself. I am able to know my past actions and the consequences that came from them. It is also through history that we meet the future. History shows us what we have done as societies and what has to be done. In post-racial America some may say that we are past the concept of race while others say that we are not. I say that we still have work to be done before we can truly claim the title of being truly post racial. When we say this it would mean that we are past race and its questions but we have just touched this concept and have not explored it deeply enough.

As you think of history we must remember the fact that it is subjected to others opinions. “History is a doomed enterprise”[4]. History is constantly victim of people’s beliefs, truths, and bias. Every person has a different perception and different objective of history. This is how history is constantly changing because people are constantly changing what they perceive to be true. This is how some tentative truths become absolute truths and how some absolute truths become tentative truths. It is this movement of history that will forever have it changing or added onto with the emergence of new evidence.

History is the basis of society and civilizations. “History is the cure of omnipotence and omnipresence”. It is true that people tend to think of themselves are all knowing individuals. This is how absolute truths are developed. History cures this because it shows us that the power rests in the individual. The methods that a person used to achieve power can be copied by someone else. History also shows that citizens have rebelled against people who consider themselves all knowing or all powerful beings. This may interfere with beliefs which they feel is an absolute truth. This raise a knowledge issue of to what extent can you be guided by your emotions?

History encompasses a person moral ideals and beliefs. History also lets us know how easily we are swayed as human beings. History does a major part in helping people to realize that we are all humans. History is forever changing and is constantly subjected to other people’s opinions. History is enabling us to be in control of our actions and our destiny. History is very complex and as a society we are understanding history more and more and its complexities. It is through history that we would gain an idea of how to interact with individuals and societies.

Cortez A., U.S.

Questions for you:

1. What do you think is the purpose of history ?
2. What if we as humans did not have history?
3. How important is history to you?

---

[1] The Search for Truth, Jacques Barzun

[2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com/time

[3] Einstein’s Dream- Alan Lightman

[4] Folly’s Antidote

BNP Video: Multiculturalism FAILING in Burnley

British Political Parties: The BNP

In Britain there are three main political parties: Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats. However there are also many small parties who try to gain support such as the Green Party, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the British National Party (BNP).

The BNP is a far-right political party. Until 2009, when it was challenged in the courts on grounds of racial discrimination, it restricted membership to people of "Caucasian origin". After a vote by members in a February 2010 extraordinary general meeting the party dropped this policy, with chairman Nick Griffin saying that the party will now "accept anyone as a member providing they agree with us that this country should remain fundamentally British".

The BNP seeks to restore the overwhelmingly white ethnicity of Britain that existed prior to 1948 through legal means, including "firm but voluntary incentives for immigrants and their descendants to return home", and the repeal of anti-discrimination legislation. It believes that there are significant differences between races.

The party has very little respect from other political parties and has never gained enough power to have an MP (member of Parliament). However in the 2006 English local elections the party doubled its number of seats in England. The BNP finished fifth in the 2008 London mayoral election with 5.2% of the popular vote and secured one of the London Assembly's 25 seats. They won their first county council seats in 2009 together with two seats in the European Parliament.

At its founding, the BNP was explicitly racist. In October 1990, the BNP was described by the European Parliament's committee on racism and xenophobia as an "openly Nazi party ... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions". When asked in 1993 if the BNP was racist, its deputy leader Richard Edmonds said, "We are 100 per cent racist, yes". Founder John Tyndall proclaimed that "Mein Kampf is my bible". When Nick Griffin became chairman in 1999, the party began to change its stance with regard to racial issues. Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism". He claims that his core ideology is "concern for the well-being of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish ethnic nations that compose the United Kingdom".

The BNP previously required that all members must be members of the "Indigenous Caucasian" racial group. The party does not regard non-white people as being British, even if they have been born in the UK and are naturalised British citizens. Instead, Griffin has stated that "non-Europeans who stay", while protected by British law, "will be regarded as permanent guests".

The BNP is opposed to mixed-race relationships on the stated ground that racial differences must be preserved; the party said that "when whites take partners from other ethnic groups, a white family line that stretches back into deep pre-history is destroyed." Nick Griffin stated: "...while the BNP is not racist, it must not become multi-racist either. Our fundamental determination to secure a future for white children is restated, and an area of uncertainty is addressed and a position which is both principled and politically realistic is firmly established. We don't hate anyone, especially the mixed race children who are the most tragic victims of enforced multi-racism, but that does not mean that we accept miscegenation as moral or normal. We do not and we never will".

In April 2006, Sky News confronted the party's national press officer, Phil Edwards (it has been claimed that this is a pseudonym for Stuart Russell) with a tape of a telephone conversation the previous year. On the tape, Russell could be heard to say that "the black kids are going to grow up dysfunctional, low IQ, low achievers that drain our welfare benefits and the prison system and probably go and mug you." He responded: "If I thought I was going to be recorded ... I would not have used such intemperate language, but let’s be honest about it, the facts are there".

The party states that "The BNP has moved on in recent years, casting off the leg-irons of conspiracy theories and the thinly veiled anti-semitism which has held this party back for two decades. The real enemies of the British people are home grown Anglo-Saxon Celtic liberal-leftists ... and the Crescent Horde—the endless wave of Islamics who are flocking to our shores to bring our island nations into the embrace of their barbaric desert religion".

Suggested policies to help police this "threat to all of us" include a Muslim no-fly policy, which would ban Muslims from flying in and out of the UK. The BNP erected a plaque in Oldham, Greater Manchester in memory of Gavin Hopley, a 19-year-old white man who was mugged and kicked to death by Asian Muslims in the street in Glodwick, in February 2002. The plaque was later removed by the local council.

The BNP states that homosexuality in private should be tolerated but believes that it "should not be promoted or encouraged". It opposed the introduction of civil partnerships and wishes to ban what it perceives as the promotion of homosexuality in schools and the media; and believes that homosexuality should be returned "to the closet".

BNP spokesman Phil Edwards stated that homosexuality "is unnatural" and "does not lead to procreation but does lead to moral turpitude and disease". Mark Collett, former chairman of the Young BNP and current Director of Publicity, described homosexuals as "AIDS Monkeys", "bum bandits" and "faggots" and said the idea of homosexuality was a "sickening thought".

The BNP was criticised over a list on their website titled "Liars, buggers and thieves" which grouped several gay politicians in with convicted murderers, rapists and paedophiles. The compiler of the list, BNP local councillor for Redbridge, Julian Leppert defended it and said that the reason why gay MPs were included was because "it fits in with the headline, the bugger part, I guess" and stated that the BNP are "a family party with family values".

Articles published in the Sunday Times and Daily Mail have alleged that Nick Griffin had a four year homosexual relationship with Martin Webster, although Griffin denies this. On his appearance on BBC One's Question Time on 22 October 2009, he stated in response to being asked about the death of Boyzone member Stephen Gateley, "I said that a lot of people find the sight of two grown men kissing in public really creepy. I understand that homosexuals don't understand that but that's how a lot of us feel, Christians feel that way, Muslims, all sorts of people."

According to their website, the BNP policy on immigration is to:

- Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally;

- Deport all those who commit crimes and whose original nationality was not British;

- Review all recent grants of residence or citizenship to ensure they are still appropriate;

- Offer generous grants to those of foreign descent resident here who wish to leave permanently;

- Stop all new immigration except for exceptional cases;

- Reject all asylum seekers who passed safe countries on their way to Britain.

They say that "India would not tolerate millions of non-Indians taking over that society. Pakistan would not tolerate millions of Hindus or Christians entering that country and changing it from a Muslim society into something else. Japan would not do it; China would not do it – so why should Britain?"

The BNP policy on education is:

- The restoration of discipline – including corporal punishment – uniforms, traditional teaching methods and stricter exams (e.g. ‘0′ levels);

- The reintroduction of grammar schools with entrance exams at 11 and 13;

- The reversal of the programme to close special needs schools which penalises the most vulnerable;

- The reintroduction of competitive sports and daily Christian assemblies;

- The teaching of old-fashioned literacy skills (as opposed to clearly failed “modern” teaching methods);

- The teaching of old-fashioned mathematics skills which have practical application to everyday life;

- The teaching of a full curriculum of British history. This will instil in our young people knowledge of and pride in the history, cultures and heritage of the native peoples of Britain, and not the cherry-picked politically correct drivel being fed to children today;

- The abolition of fees and the restoration of full grants to university students studying proper subjects (as opposed to fake “social sciences”);

- The improvement of school food as proper meals have been shown to be linked to behaviour and achievement;

- The ending of the scandalous and racist neglect that has left working class white boys at the bottom of the table for academic achievement;

- The introduction of tax breaks for home-schooling parents or direct subsidies as their fair share of the education budget;

- The introduction of a compulsory Community Award Scheme for all school-leavers to teach them work ethics and social and community values. This would consist of work caring for the elderly or handicapped people, or environmental or heritage restoration projects, or military training. These courses would be character-building and instil discipline, social and community values and work ethics in all young people. Service in this scheme would entitle each individual to get ’something back’ from the society to which they have learnt to contribute, such as free university education, a properly supported apprenticeship, or business training and start-up capital for would-be entrepreneurs.

The BNP foreign affairs policy is:

- Reach an accord with the Muslim world whereby they will agree to take back their excess population which is currently colonising this country, in exchange for an ironclad guarantee that Britain will never again interfere in the political affairs of the Middle East or try to dictate to any Arab or Muslim country as to what their internal government form should be; and

- Maintain an independent foreign policy of our own, and not a spineless subservience to the USA, the ‘international community’, or any other country.

- Resolutely oppose the single European currency;

- Support the overwhelming majority of the British people in their desire to keep the Pound and our traditional weights and measures.

The majority of the British public are highly against the BNP and the recent support they have received in British elections has been put down to the British populations frustration with the main political parties over immigration and the MP expenses scandal.

In 2002 the foundation Stop The BNP was created "to counter racism and fascism in elections and beyond". According to their website, "we want to make sure that people know the full story about who the BNP are and what they really stand for. The Stop the BNP website aims to do just that, serving the anti-fascist movement and providing up to date news, good practice and analysis."

(Information taken from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_Party, http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/, http://bnp.org.uk/)

Click here to watch the BNP Campaign video

Click here to watch a BNP propaganda video

Click here to watch a documentary about the BNP

What do you think about the BNP? Are there any political parties like this in your country? Comment and let us know!

A Global Citizen

Cortez A., US

What do you think it means to be a global citizen? Be specific, and use imaginative examples or illustrations. Surprise us.

A global citizen encompasses a broad definition; it branches from ethical issues to international conflicts. Some believe that a global citizen is a person who is abreast of international news. Others believe that a global citizen as a moral obligation, which can create understanding between people of different groups. The aspect that I find intriguing and believe is a global citizen is being able to merge both definitions; in addition to taking action to change the world. It is through recognition and creating action that we are able to solve global issues. Merging the broadness of these two definitions form a more realistic perception of what a global citizen is. Being a global citizen is more than knowing statistics, it is more about trying to create change.

The recent tragedy that has befallen Haiti has brought a lot of collective action. Individuals from around the world, such as entertainers, athletes, political figures and the working class have come together to help the country of Haiti. They have come together to help a country that is truly in need. When looking at this information I consider these people as global neighbors more than a global citizen. A global citizen will be concerned with Haiti years from now. The concept of helping people does not stop after the media has stopped filming, the war against poverty, violence, disease, and economics still continues.

A global citizen is someone who works tirelessly to make international issues known. They promote international dialogue which can break down negative perceptions of different people and their country. A global citizen does not allow bias to consume his or her actions; he/she knows that as this happen someone is being hurt or misrepresented. A global citizen is concerned with every aspect of international equality from war, healthcare, to basic living necessities such as food and water. For example, statistics show, a total of 350,000 South Africans died from HIV/AIDS which is reported from UNAIDS. A global citizen would find ways to make this number known across the world via media, building coalitions, or organizing fund raising events. A global citizen would try to solve the problem by educating South Africans on the danger of unprotected sex and even implement programs to increase awareness. Doing this will help get to the root of the problem instead of idly sitting back and watching numbers increase.

A global citizen is not concerned with personal gain, but is instead concerned with the personal well-being of others. A global citizen knows that as he sits back lives can be possibly lost. A global citizens knows that he/she has unlimited potential to change the world and works tirelessly to do so. A global citizen knows that the end justifies the mean, and any help, aid, or support is welcomed. We must realize that we are an interconnected world that works hand and hand; it is bigger than the clothes on our backs and the business deals that are made internationally. A global citizen works tirelessly to fix issues that they see globally.

What do you think it means to be a global citizen? do you agree with Cortez? comment and let us know!

International Relations and the Politics of China and East Asia

Joshua, UK, has been applying to Universities to do International Relations, many of which have a year abroad. For one University he had to write this essay on why he wants to study International Relations with a year in China/Hong Kong.

"Why are you interested in the politics of China and East Asia and what do you expect to gain from studying Politics and International Relations with a Year in China/Hong Kong?"

The East and the West are polar opposites that excite intrigue of the other. I have been born and raised surrounded by the interesting world of western politics and affairs; from democratic ideals, to John Locke’s political philosophy on liberalism and Hobbes’s social contract theory. There is no denying these ideas of western politics are engaging, but there is a differentiation between the political west and the political east. Never the less I am fully aware that the politics of the west is, in many cases, inexplicably linked to that of the rest of the world and that of China and East Asia. However, I feel that there is a whole new dimension of challenges and depth when they are studied in the context of the East alone, allowing me to gain a better understanding of international relations in a global context. Likewise acquiring knowledge of the various areas throughout the world individually, will allow me to establish a greater and deeper understanding of the international arena, in which I hope to venture into in the future.

One could ask why I have chosen China and East Asia as opposed to other equally important, interesting and politically complex countries. One of the reasons I begun to look into the Politics of China, and therefore East Asia, was a result of the Beijing Olympics. Here we have a country that was considered somewhat underdeveloped and most definitely not a country in pursuit of, as many would call it, super power status putting on this show that stunned the world. Subsequently China arguably became the most spectacular Olympic host ever seen. Most important for me however is that the Olympics served as China’s announcement to the world and indeed it caught many people’s attention, including mine. As a result I was compelled to look into the historical context of China’s political situation and how they had risen in power, wealth and influence on an international scale.

It is no mystery that China is the world’s fastest developing economy, despite the global recession, and this is perhaps due to the fact that they still have a significant domestic market to cater for the 1.3 billion inhabitants of China. In the context of East Asia, China are the pre-eminent power in the Far East/Pacific basin, indeed it appears that only Japan are in a position to rival China. Likewise Japan does have superiority in terms of technology, but their peace treaty that resulted at the end of WWII hinders their ability to rise into the upper ranks of ‘superpower status’. For example despite Japan’s peace force being invariably large, powerful and heavily financed it is, unfortunately, almost unknown and is not written about. Moreover it plays a small role in the operations of the UN, particularly in comparison to China who in 2007 reapplied to the ROC to gain full UN membership. Overall they are held back by their history and in turn Japan does not have the same unrestrained position as China, whom in a hundred years time could potentially be the world’s pre-eminent power. Thus the opportunity to experience, contribute and be a part of the country that is perhaps going to be the driving force behind global affairs in the future is unparalleled. In addition to this, the fact that China’s prominence is potentially on our horizon warrants a wealth of study and would allow me to step outside of studying the dynamic political systems of the past, and experience the study of a present day developmental marvel. This is not only exciting but intriguing in the sense that it is very likely in my career in British Intelligence, the EU, UN, NGO (UNICEF) or other suitable international role, this knowledge and experience will be directly applicable to current affairs. Thus this gives me an advantage in tackling the issue at hand and allowing me to contribute to my personal development, career and hopefully the world around us.

Another reason why I have an interest in the politics of China in particular regards its political system. Other countries in East Asia do not offer such a unique, alternative political train of thought. For example Malaysia adopts a multi party idea run under a federal constitutional monarchy, and Singapore and Vietnam take on the ideals of democracy. On the other hand China is a vast country, and the political system of China is dictated by its size. Thus in order to maintain control of a large space China must retain a strong central bureaucracy to govern each state. As a result China has a communist political system, but remains unique because of its implementation of a capitalist economy. Naturally from the perspective of a person who is interested in politics and international relations the individuality of China’s political system sets it apart as a dynamic place of study. With its rare culture and politics that contain numerous aspects I have never come across and now wish to understand.

Notably for me Communism is somewhat of an untouched subject, something that I have always known about, been aware of and wanted to learn more about, but it was never tangible. Thus I believe that the only way to truly experience and understand a communist system would be to live, and even study, within one. My interest in communism within China specifically was heightened following my reading of the events of Tiananmen Square, in which I begun to contemplate democratisation with regards to China. The protests which were sparked by the death of the democratic figure Hu Yaobang initiated the people’s instinct to call for reforms within the Chinese political system, reforms that took a democratic slant. What is even more interesting, yet unquestionably shocking, is that the Chinese government attempted to quell the rebellions by proceeding to shoot their own people. Such an audacious statement compels me to try and find the motivations and reasons behind such an act, never the less these motivations are complex and it appears they can only be deciphered in an environment of higher education that delves deeper into Chinese politics.

Furthermore upon learning about the event I began to question the idea that democracy as an unassailable good that should be seen as fundamental political intent within all countries. Instead it appears that it is essential to take into account the cultural implications with regards to the political system. Specifically in the case of China and the ideas of Confucius one could argue that democracy is not a principle embedded in the culture and general mindset of the Chinese people. Indeed China has been ruled as an empire because of emperors for numerous years through out its history. So it is no wonder that the Chinese people may not be accustomed to democracy. Never the less it is a flourishing nation on the rise and communism, despite common belief, can be argued to be working on a number of levels. Although to make this statement definitive, would be to look at China in a superficial context, it is true that while their economy is on the rise so is their rate of inequality. In addition China’s communist state causes them to censor their media exposure, which some would argue is an infringement of human rights. Taking these points into consideration it seems that China has a duality in which it is hard to ascertain if, in the grand scheme of things, their method of ruling is for the better or worse. I for one look forward to seeing China in the future but in the present – through higher education – I will endeavour to understand how China reached the position they are in today, so I can help understand where China will be going in the future.

As an emerging key player in the global arena, it is very likely China will begin to branch off into other countries. Indeed as a person who wishes to work in international relations it is likely that I will be required by many employers such as MI6 to possess competency in Chinese (Mandarin). Similarly employers such as MI5, GCHQ and UNICEF state Mandarin is a highly favourable attribute. Likewise as I wish to apply for a British intelligence position upon graduation the opportunity to become highly competent if not fluent in such a desirable language would be of my complete benefit. Aside from my career, I am intrigued by the world and I wish to learn several languages, of which Mandarin is perhaps the most challenging, hence becoming fluent would enhance my ability to learn yet more languages. Furthermore the difficulty of the language also means that unlike Spanish or French it is unlikely that I will have another opportunity to learn Mandarin outside of the academic environment. Particularly as my knowledge can be compounded by the year abroad, a principle that I feel is integral to learning such a complex language and a feature that is very hard to replicate outside of this course. Overall regardless of its difficulty, the language will enhance me personally as well as professionally.

Ultimately for an international relations applicant the experience of studying in China is invaluable. China to an international relations student is what the brain is to a medical student. A place of undiscovered study that will be at the forefront of research in the future. The prospect of learning the language so early in my career, gaining a deeper understanding of Chinese politics, along with analysis and interpretative skills, independence and a new outlook on global affairs that reaches beyond the headlines, can not be found elsewhere.

What do you think about China and the politics of China? Do you live in China? Are you interested in Chinese politics? Comment and let us know!