In The Name of Genocide and Its Horror

For my Political Science 325 class I wrote a brief paper on the theme of genocide and of course its horror. The basis of my paper was to highlight the actual concept of "genocide"--which I will use quotes for the moment--and the creators possible intention of the word. My theory, came from Raphael Lemkin, who used the Greek word genos meaning clan, group, etc and the Latin cide meaning to kill. In Lemkin's papers, I concluded that the actual term is not what the UN General Assembly gave it in the convention on the prevention of genocide; in fact, the term itself calls for the near annihilation of said group. My paper discussed these issues, yet for the purpose of this article, I am now goind to redirect it in a different manner.

In my POL352, we were asked to in about 45 minutes to come up with a plan on intervening in the Darfur region. At first, the group I was in contemplated the UN coalition Ideal, or the UNCI as I will call it. After a brief recap on the Darfur "crisis", we concluded that the UNCI could not be attained due to the Chinese and Russian opposition to intervention. With this background, we followed the USCI, the United State's Coalition Ideal where we discussed it in terms of an American political standpoint. During this discussion, a member stated that the Darfur region could not be classified as a genocide per the reason that both the rebels and the Sudanese Government was committing these acts.

Normally, in this instance all of us would be rallying for his humiliation. Yet, this member may have a point of inquiry. At what point do we conclude that state's right of sovereignty is accepted and we could not intervene? In this case, both sides are committing the "genocidal" acts; yet, is it certainly "genocidal" or even "genocide?" According to the Bush Administration it is a genocide and that we are obligated to protect the innocent victims by certain rules of intervention and by the UN Convention on Genocide. Notwithstanding, we have an "obligation" to stop or deter the Sudanese government or other actors from continuing. The real question is whether or not there is any classifiable difference to acts of war that mingle with elements of genocide. Is genocide, in its used term now, only classifiable for a single group and not for a multi-clash of others? This is the primary and of course a secondary question we must ask ourselves. War in its own is horrible yes; inevitable? In some cases a good rationale could conclude so. In this case now? Maybe.

So how do we now classify it? I'm not sure a considerable argument could be conclusively be met to understand the issues of sovereignty--the linchpin of all international law and recognition of states as dealing with their own domestic issues without interference from other powers, small or large.

What thoughts are there for your consideration to classify Darfur as a "genocide" or "civil-war"? Could you make a good distinction from the facts above in 45 minutes to make a good plan and option?

Conservatism Failing or On the Rise?

Recently, I have neglected to follow the news and understand its most important subject: conservatism. What is conservatism? Many conclude it is a typology from the Republican Party. Is it? Probably not as much, since there are many "Republicans" who are single-issue Republicans. However, the real conservative probably is best defined by Jonathan Krohn's four principles of conservatism: "respect for the Constitution, respect for Life, less government, and personal responsibility."

These, in Krohn's view, are the constants of Conservatism. Are they valid? While I will admit fully I have not read his book, I should conclude from his synopsis that this is very much valid. So the real question you are asking is how does this pertain to the rising or falling of conservatism? I will give an example:

In the past few weeks, two friends of mine M and L--as I respect their identity--were in a store shopping for some essential food items. I commented to M that I found it funny that we spent 10 minutes discussing which brand of water to buy. Naturally, M responded with a remark that went like, "well you gotta get the biggest bang for your buck." Of course, he is correct! How could one, in an economic times such as this not look at the value of what your buying and not get the most out of it. After that, I sat down in my dorm and pondered something: if only people learned this responsibility and factored it into their life could they make a great impact on life and the community. Being frugal, as my dad taught me, is better. Use coupons when they come about and splurge rarely when you get the chance.

Now you may be wondering why I am talking about my personal beliefs and how it really connects to conservatism's failure or rise, right? Well here it is: if we could put the frugality back into government, we could easily run with less bureaucracy and less governmental oversight; especially in the free-market capitalist economy we so live in, or what's left of it. So what does this really mean for those "die hard conservatives?" It literally means we must continue to serve as an example of conservatives and implore that others will follow our example and see how each time you truly pay be the means in which you live can benefit you in the long run.

What else does this do for our fine country? It also reaches to those to preserve this ideology and its productive behavior that will instill--or hopefully--a larger perspective of our ultimate teachings.

So it is my hope you take this lesson and put in your life and show those spending losers just how much their "way" is total crap!

Pyongyang's Defiance Leads Allies to Tough Decision

In recent news, Pyongyang indicated that it would be launching a "satelite." Nations around the communist country believe differently. They feel that it is a reach for its claim to use long-range missles capable of targeting the Alaskan coast and possible the Western Coast. This poses a direct problem for the American Allies in the Asia sector.

How does this do so? In 2006, the United Nation's Security Council imposed sanctions on Pyongyang (S/RES/1695) :

Acting under its special responsibility for the maintenance of international
peace and security,
1. Condemns the multiple launches by the DPRK of ballistic missiles on
5 July 2006 local time;
2. Demands that the DPRK suspend all activities related to its ballistic
missile programme, and in this context re-establish its pre-existing commitments to
a moratorium on missile launching;
3. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal
authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise
vigilance and prevent missile and missile-related items, materials, goods and
technology being transferred to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
4. Requires all Member States, in accordance with their national legal
authorities and legislation and consistent with international law, to exercise
vigilance and prevent the procurement of missiles or missile related-items,
materials, goods and technology from the DPRK, and the transfer of any financial
resources in relation to DPRK’s missile or WMD programmes;
5. Underlines, in particular to the DPRK, the need to show restraint and
refrain from any action that might aggravate tension, and to continue to work on the
resolution of non-proliferation concerns through political and diplomatic efforts;
6. Strongly urges the DPRK to return immediately to the Six-Party Talks
without precondition, to work towards the expeditious implementation of
19 September 2005 Joint Statement, in particular to abandon all nuclear weapons
and existing nuclear programmes, and to return at an early date to the Treaty on
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and International Atomic Energy Agency
safeguards;
7. Supports the six-party talks, calls for their early resumption, and urges all
the participants to intensify their efforts on the full implementation of the
19 September 2005 Joint Statement with a view to achieving the verifiable
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner and to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in north-east Asia;

In circumspect, the Security Council's decision on these matters were highly prevalent in society and tended to carry significant weight, yet the problem remains that because of diverging ideologies and politics, the whole of the Security Council has diminished in popularity and overall power. Noting that any resolution passed by the Council has weight and carry significant penalties for a sanction, is in the best interest of the world countries fighting for democratic values (a later discussion on democratic regiems). Neverthless, Pyongyang's defiance is a complicated issue for the allies. This problem stems from Pyongyang's wish to gain dominance in nuclear technology, just like Iran, and only pushes the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty) signees and advocats spinning. The conceptualization of dominance in nuclear proliferation is easily understood. If a boy is constantly bullied, there are two options (1) do nothing and resent it later or (2) defy everything and everyone and become a person not to be challenged.

Japan already issued a military order to shoot on sight if any materials fall into Japanese airspace. The overarching goal is to shoot down the entire launch program, since it completely violates the UN S/RES/1695 to begin with. Pyongyang, under the leadership of Kim Jong Il, has masterfully propelled the world into a defensive position, one in which the United States cannot afford to do. The problem the Allies will have is to get other partners to push Pyongyang to seeking peace and return to the NPT. Moreover, it will be inheriently difficult to allow Pyongyang's move to go unpunished and may cause serious backlashes on the Obama Administration's stance on meeting with leader without preconditions.

Progressive Conservatism

Recently, a friend of mine created a note, that defined a "progressive conservative." In it, he gave his view on specific issues and I feel it needs to be pushed to the conservative base:

As I was flipping through the news channels a few weeks following Barack Obama’s election to the Presidency, I came across a very interesting discussion. The host, a prominent conservative voice, was arguing against the message of an article he read by another conservative. The article suggested that the Republican Party lost because it had moved too far to the right, and needed to move its platform left to the center in order to survive. Lampooning this argument, the host of the program desired the opposite. He said the Republicans lost because they lost their way, giving into the same types of deficit spending and corruption they accused the Democrats of when they came to power. The host advocated that the party should merely adhere to the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan to survive.

Who was wrong? To put it quite bluntly, they both were.

In 2004, the Democrats were desperate. The Republican majority had increased yet again following the reelection of President Bush. What could they do? Some argued that they should move to the right. They knew from experience that moving left would only further alienate them from voters. So what did they do?

Under the leadership of Howard Dean, Chuck Schumer, and Rahm Emmanuel, the Democratic part regrouped in 2006. In an effort to be competitive in all states, they developed a very successful strategy. They branched out and expanded their caucus WHILE staying true to their principles. On the key differences between the parties (like abortion and labor) their platform remained the same. Yet in order to achieve a majority, they recruited candidates that could win. Just look at the so-called Blue Dog Democrats. Many are financially or socially conservative, and were elected in conservative districts.

More than this, the Democrats expanded their platform. For example, in 2008 Obama proposed new community service programs to make sure any person could attend college. He also stated a desire to expand faith-based initiative programs, drawing some evangelicals to the Democrats. On important issues like energy, Democrats put forth new solutions. Regardless of the viability of their programs, they put forth solutions when Republicans simply wanted to “adhere” to the old principles.

So how do Republicans return to power? The actual answer is more complex, but the strategy is simple. While not moving the party’s platform left, recruit moderate or left-leaning Republicans to run in left-leaning states. In 2010, what if Rudy Guiliani ran for the New York Senate seat formerly occupied by Clinton? While he is pro-choice and pro-gun control, he is also a semi-conservative Republican. Where a very conservative Republican would have no chance in New York, candidates like Guiliani might. This can only work if the Republican Party retains its key positions (like income tax-cuts and pro-life stances).

Second, the party MUST, MUST, MUST expand its platform. I wish I had a dollar for every time I head the name “Ronald Reagan” during the Republican Primaries. In one debate, I lost count of the number of times Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani must have each said the name one hundred times. Most of the time it seemed as if the Republicans were just arguing over “who was more like Ronald Reagan.” Republicans have to expand. While not changing the core, they must add to what they are.

I call this new approach “progressive conservatism.” Progressive is the word that Democrats have successfully chosen to replace liberal, so why am I heaping it with conservatism? Webster has the answer. The word “progressive” simply means to promote progress; in other words, advancing the future. Instead of simply being “traditional conservatives” that cling (pardon the use of the word cling, Pennsylvanians) to the status quo, Republicans must use their basic principles to advance their ideas into the future.

This means broadening our platform to take on new issues and new solutions to the problems facing the United States. Issues that still fit logically into the context of the Republican party. This is distinct from the “compassionate conservatism” attempted by Bush; that was only the first step in a new direction. If Republicans think they can simply rely on the same Ronald Reagan politics to succeed, they are wrong. Reagan had successful policies, to be sure, but there are new issues that the party must confront to survive. As we saw in this election, Americans are focused on things besides keeping their guns and maintaining low taxes. These things are important, but if they are the ONLY message (the old message) they will not pull the new faces in that the party so desperately needs.

Progressive conservatism means a healthy debate within the party itself. A few months ago, a friend and I had a vigorous debate over the issue of waterboarding. Our disagreement over one Republican tenant did not mean one of us was not a true conservative, it was just that- a disagreement. While the core issues must remain the same, there must be a dialogue between all factions of the party.

I will use the market as an example. Republicans have been traditionally associated with an almost laissez-faire approach to the market. While we should all agree that a free-market or mixed-market system is necessary, the insistence that the free-market should be unregulated by the far-right is ludicrous. Just as big government can become corrupt and dangerous, so can big business. Regulation, not overregulation, is an appropriate function of government. Being financially conservative should not mean total commitment to the free market, but it should entail some basic common sense. We don’t need to spend our grandchildren into so much debt they will suffer for it.

At the risk of digressing further, I will move on. And I know it is all too easy for me to proclaim these truths from my laptop without laying out complex alternatives in a step-by-step fashion. That is a good argument; it is not fair for me to call for “new” ideas without defining what must be “new.” So in a second, I’ll give it a whirl.

In order to look to the future, we have to analyze what went wrong in the past. Specifically, what went wrong in this year’s election. The primaries served to fracture the already fragile Republican base into three primary constituents. There were the social conservatives, the financial conservatives, and the national security conservatives. One might say, “Kyle, there are many more Republican issues than that!” And that would be correct. But instead of trying to broaden the conservative coalition to include these issues, the candidates focused exclusively on the very issues that divided the party. Issues like immigration, corporate welfare, and the war in Iraq were NOT what the American people were looking for answers to. Healthcare, education, and financial reforms were.

Unfortunately, in an attempt to appease free-market libertarians, many of the Republicans turned a blind eye to the economy. Only Mike Huckabee initially addressed the issue, stating that while the Wall Street was temporarily succeeding, the people on Main Street were not as successful. Instead of agreeing with this sentiment, most of the Republicans ignored the economy until it was far too late.

The environment. Education. Health-care. Alternative energies. Market reform. These are just a few of the major issues Republicans must modernize their platform to address. I have never understood why the right has resisted caring for the environment. Even if some Republicans do not believe in global warming (or even if it did not exist) what harm could come from protecting our earth? Do we not want to leave our lakes and air clean for our posterity?

Here are just a few issues Republicans can and must improve on:

Age:
Consider the youth vote. In 2008, Barack Obama dominated John McCain 66% to 32% in the 18-29 years of age demographic. He went on to carry each age group, save for the 65 and older section of the electorate. Part of this is to be expected, because President Obama was in his forties, whereas McCain’s age of 72 made him look dangerously old by comparison. This is one area in which Republicans could make significant inroads. Although the Constitution states that members of the US House of Representatives only have to be 25 and older, the average age for a representative in the 111th Congress is 57. In the Senate, with a requirement of 30, the average age in the 111th Congress is 63. This is nation’s oldest Congress in history. As signaled by the election of Obama, the youth of America are a growing section of the electorate, one which Republicans must recruit. New, younger Congressmen, might help this happen. Actually, this may already be starting to happen; at 27, Republican Aaron Shock is the youngest member of the House. With many Republican Senators retiring in 2010, primary voters should strongly consider younger proponents to champion their causes.

Diversity:
One of the most needed areas for party development comes in the form of ethnic diversification. When Republicans reach out (rather than putting up walls and borders, making them just as elite as the liberal establishment they rail against) they tend to win. Look at Anh “Joseph” Cao from Louisiana's 2nd Congressional District. Cao is the first U.S. House Representative of Vietnamese descent, and he won in one of the most heavily democratic areas of the country. (True, it was against accused Congressman Jefferson, but it was still a remarkable victory in any event.) Look at Sarah Palin, the much-maligned Governor of Alaska. Whatever one may think of her performance or abilities on the campaign trail, it is unquestionable that she sparked interest and brought more female voters to John McCain.

It is unquestionable that diversity is required if the Republican Party is to survive. With the Democrats having successfully elected the nation’s first African-American president, Republicans cannot sit by on the sidelines with an aging, static constituency. And then there is the Hispanic vote.

Immigration:
In 2004, George W. Bush won 44% of the Hispanic vote (compared to John Kerry’s 53%), a demographic that comprised 8% of the electoral vote. In 2008 however, Barack Obama won 67% percent of Hispanics to 31% for McCain. In four years, the Hispanic vote increased to 8% of the total vote. This massive shift in this important constituent was undoubtedly created by fierce (and oftentimes ugly) Republican opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. During the primaries, while the Democrats were focusing on ways to bring other into America, many Republicans were arguing over who could build the biggest fence.

I understand the importance of the immigration debate. In the age of global terrorism, it is true that terrorists could theoretically slip by the border. Yet when have we heard calls to build fences on (the several) vulnerable positions on our northwestern border? As several Republican contenders used increasingly harsh rhetoric (it is impossible to deport the over 12 million illegal immigrants already here), it is no wonder the Hispanic community turned away.

Was it not a Republican President who once said, “tear down this wall?” We can increase security at our borders without the tyrannical symbol of a fence to bar others from entering America, historically a land of immigrants. Ironically, John McCain was the champion of immigration reform. George Bush did many things to recruit Hispanics, including his guest worker program.


Progressive conservatism. Conservative principles used to advance and shape a better future. As an aside, it was Theodore Roosevelt (a Republican) in 1912 who founded the original version of the Progressive Party. We lost the label, and the mantra of the future. It is time to get it back.


http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:nquikEYC86cJ:www.blog.rockthevote.com/2009/01/fun-facts-on-111th-congress.html+average+age+of+representatives+in+the+111th+congress&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us