Week 7: Kushner Met With Saudi Crown Prince to Push Mideast Peace Plan

See original article here: 

Read the original article here

Summary:

President Trump's advisor, Jared Kushner, finally met with the Saudi king and crown prince since the murder of Jamal Khasoggi back in October 2018. For this meeting Kushner's intentions were to  explain his plan for peace between Israel and Palestine. Although it is said that Prince Muhammed ordered the killing of Jamal Khasoggi, Kushner and Prince Muhammad still have a strong relationship. At the meeting Kushner was there to ask Saudi Arabia for support with the administration peace plan. The Trump administration states that Saudi Arabia is an important ally and that it helps boost America's economy.

                                     

Prince Mohammed Bin Salman next to Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump back in 2017

During the meeting it is said that Kushner, King Salman, and Prince Mohammed discussed peace efforts and American-Saudi cooperation with plans to improve conditions in the regions by investments. King Salman declared that his country "permanently stands by Palestine and it's people's right to an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital." East Jerusalem is the main conflict between Israel and Palestine and for now Kushner does not know how his plan can solve this situation. 

  

Kushner and Saudi Prince at the meeting

However, Kushner describes his plan as "very detailed, very in depth" and believes that it would "allow people to put the conflicts of the past behind them and to move forward and look forward to a really prosperous and exciting future." Analysts state that the plan involves investing $25 billion dollars in the West Bank and Gaza as well as tens of billion dollars in the region.


Reaction:
After reading the articles I think Kushner has the right idea about ending the strained tension between Israel and Palestine. However, the fact that the Trump administration and Kushner have stood by Prince Mohammed after he ordered the killing of Khashoggi has me a bit questionable about Kushner's actual intentions. In my opinion standing by a man who was behind a murder does not seem like the right approach to achieve a goal. But I do believe that the strained relation between Israel and Palestine does need to end because it has been going on for many years. I understand that finding an agreement that will suit both countries is very hard but if Kushner has a plan, both sides should try and listen to him. I think that the faster an agreement can be established the less tension there will be between countries.


Connection:
After a hundred years of off and on fighting, Israel and Palestine are still not at peace. Both countries have been fighting over the Gaza for decades which is known as the Arab-Israeli conflict. Because of this, the US is stepping in and is trying to find a way to end the tension between these two countries by creating a administration peace plan. There have been many attempts to try and end the fight between Israel and Palestine such as the UN Security Council Resolution 242 in 1967, Camp David Accords in 1978, Washington in 2010, etc. Both countries claim East Jerusalem as theirs which is the cause of this conflict. As we are learning about the Ara-Israeli Conflict in class right now, the meeting between Kushner and Mohammed Bin Salman just recently happened and they are trying to find a solution to end this fight.


Questions:
1. Should the US still have a close relationship with the Saudi crown prince even though he ordered the killing of Khashoggi?

2. Was the meeting between Kushner and Muhammad bin Salman affective? Will it change the relationship between the countries?

3. Do you think the Saudis will support the administration peace plan why or why not? If so what do you think the peace plan would look like?

Additional sources
source 1
source 2

Week 7 Pulwama attack: India will "completely isolate" Pakistan

Click here for original article!

Summary:

On February 14, 2019, Adil Dar part of a terrorist group called Jaish-e-Mohammad killed 46 paramilitary police in Pulwama, Indian -administered Kashmir by suicide bombing. Jaish-e-Mohammad mean army of Mohammad and is an Islamic extremist group form Pakistan. They want Kashmir to be part of Pakistan and have been around since 2000. The leader is Masood Azhar, who is well-known in the Middle East.

The Jaish-e-Mohammad flag

The suicide bomber (Adil Dar) was a high school dropout between the ages of 19- 21. He joined the group in 2018 and was ordered to do this task to show hatred against Kashmiri Muslims. Adil drove a bus filled with thousands of explosives into 78 buses carrying Indian paramilitary police. The bombing took place on the Srinagar- Jammu highway which is heavily guarded by Indian police.


Kashmir has been fought over for decades between India and Pakistan. Not until recently that they signed a treaty (Instrument of Accession) stating that Kashmir will split into two parts for both India and Pakistan. Kashmir has also been on the uprise for violent attacks in the last few years due to the attack in 2016 involving the killing of a 22 year old militant by Indian forces.

A map of  Kashmir divided into two sections which is bordered by Pakistan, India and China. The map also shows Pulwama, where the attack happened

This latest killing on paramilitary police was the worst terrorist attack in 30 years. In response, India will sanction Pakistan and asked the UN council to list the leader of Jaish-e-Mohammad, Masood Azhar as a terrorist. They will also remove Pakistan from the Most Favored Nation, a trading route between countries. This terrorist attack was the turning point for India to take initiative and "completely isolate" Pakistan.

Reaction:

This terrorist attack was terrible to read about and I think India is doing the right thing by isolating Pakistan. By doing this, it can help stop the rapid growth of Jaish-e-Mohammad and other terrorists group. Isolating Pakistan can also be a bad thing because it can anger the Pakistanis even more and maybe even cause another war between India. But as the attacks keep getting worse, India should take action as soon as possible before there is more bloodshed. I also think India and Pakistan should negotiate the land of Kashmir or recognize the borders of Kashmir to ease tensions. Overall, I think India needs to take initiative immediately and help prevent more attacks from Jaish-e-mohammad and other terrorist groups.

Connection:

This terrorist attack and the fighting for more land can relate to Nationalism from Modern World History. Jaish-e-Mohammad is on the uprising to take over Pakistan and Kashmir. This is an example of Nationalism because they don't necessarily want freedom, but they want to be heard and want to be recognized as a group of extremists who lead by fear. The conflict of India and Pakistan also relates to our unit about the Middle East. Pakistan is made up of mostly Muslims (Islam), which is the same as Kashmir. But India holds all different types of religions like Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and also Islam. There is a fight among the religions and the land of Pakistan and India which is similar to the main conflict of the Middle East. Overall, the terrorist attack in Pulwama is an example of both Nationalism and the conflicts within the Middle East.

Discussion Questions:

1. Is India's reaction to the Pakistani terrorist attack reasonable?
2. Can there be a compromise for the land of Kashmir to benefit both India and Pakistan?
3. What else can India do to help stop more attacks from Jaish-e-Mohammad?

Additional sources:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/sep/08/kashmir.india

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/jem.htm

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pulwama-attack-2019-everything-about-jammu-and-kashmir-terror-attack-on-crpf-by-terrorist-adil-ahmed-dar-jaish-e-mohammad-1457530-2019-02-16

WEEK 7: The US Cannot Crush Us, Says Huawei Founder

The US Cannot Crush Us, Says Huawei Founder

Link to Original Article Here

Background Information:

    Huawei is a Chinese multinational telecommunication equipment company. Founded by Ren Zhengfei, it is currently the world's third largest phone manufacturer (Behind Apple and Samsung). Despite Huawei's international success, the company's devices are extremely difficult to purchase in some markets, including the US.

    Over the past few years, Huawei has been providing Iraq and North Korea telecom equipment possibly capable of intensive spying on populations. These suspicions lead to the arrestment of the company's chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, who also happens to be Ren Zhengfei's daughter. Some government agencies believe that Huawei equipment contains backdoors that allow the Chinese government to snoop on customers. Recently, Huawei announced the new 5G wireless technology and hope to export this advancement globally.

Huawei 5G phone advertisement

Summary:
    Due to the security concerns of Huawei, the United States is currently attempting to ban all 5G services from leaking into the West. In Huawei's founder Ren Zhengfei's interview, he emphasizes that "Huawei will never accept anyone's instructions to install a backdoor." He also addresses the current condition of the company and states that "the US cannot crush [Huawei]." Ren believes that the absence of US market can only push Huawei forward. Currently, the U.S. is encouraging other countries to ban Huawei. By the end of 2018, Australia, New Zealand, and America completely restricted the selling of Huawei products. Other countries such as Canada and Germany proposed possible banning in the future. Despite the opposing factors, Ren states that they will continue to work with other countries such as the UK and expand international impact until Huawei becomes the largest telecom company.

Reaction:
   On a broader scale, the relationship with Huawei not only represent the willingness to cooperate with the company, but also the trust between two countries. It's shocking to me that America is putting so much effort into stopping Huawei from spreading. This also proves that America and China are competing to become the most powerful country in the world. As a Chinese citizen, I find it interesting how China manufactures a mass amount of products that are "untrustworthy," yet people are still using them. The rapid advancement of technology and new things are irresistible for citizens, and this eventually leads to the toxic market we currently have.

Connection:
    The trading of telecom products can be connected to the Belt and Road Initiative. The careful trading of Huawei products reflects the intense relationship and lack of trust between major countries. As products are transported across the globe, potential danger can emerge. As America proposed, China can use trading as an opportunity to spy on other countries. If China is actually able to gain secretive information from foreign countries, it might lead to a totalitarian world. Just like the Belt and Road Initiative, China will be able to control the decisions made by smaller countries.

Questions:
1. Do you think Huawei will be able to become the largest telecom company? Why or why not.

2. If Huawei technology really allows the Chinese government to spy on users, why are countries such as the UK willing to cooperate with the company?

3. Do you think this will impact the relationship between major countries? Why or why not.


Additional Sources:
Aljazeera.com
Businessinsider.com

WEEK 6: The evolving face of the US mission in Afghanistan

"The evolving face of the US mission in Afghanistan"

Read the original article here

Summary: 

Lieutenant Colonel Keith Benedict and Private First Class Brennen Bledsoe are two of the soldiers participating in the 17 year long war taking place in Afghanistan. Benedict is on his fifth deployment and proud to be defending his country. Benedict states, “I think the fact that we have not had an attack in the United States since 2001 is testament to the fact that what we are doing here is working, and I am committed to doing everything I can while I am on the ground here to achieving that.” The soldiers in Afghanistan symbolize the US mission; counterterrorism, building and refining the Afghan army, and defeating the Taliban.

View picture

The American army isn’t just helping to fight side by side with the Afghan troops, but rather train them. In 2013, the Afghan troops took over the army America started. But recently, the White House ordered the Pentagon to create plans to reduce American military present in Afghanistan by fifty percent.

CNN met with General Scott Miller, the Commander of the Resolute Support Mission, who is in charge of directing and training the Afghan National Army. Miller is responsible for the potential cut in military. His reasoning is that he wants to make the army as effective and efficient as possible. Cutting troops also makes the American Afghan mission more cost effective, something the US has been attempting to do for a while. While a cut in American military would be beneficial in some aspects, it also raises the question if a smaller army will be able to effectively support the Afghan military and if other countries that are also helping in the war, and depending on American support, will pull out due to the decrease in forces.

Miller has confidence that the Afghan army will be able to deal with the cuts and stay as strong as ever. When asked about how the Afghan army would deal with reduced support, he replied, “We have the resources we need…The Afghans are in the lead in this fight...It’s their fight now.” Miller believes that there will be no great military victory to end the 17 year war at this point, but rather a political settlement.

View picture

In addition to the Taliban, American and Afghan troops are also trying to find a solution to ISIS. Recently, President Trump announced ISIS has been defeated and pulled troops from Syria. In response to Trump’s actions, Miller proclaimed, “This is ultimately about national interests not just for the United States, but it is vital national interest -- 9/11 terrorists groups came from here, and today there are other terrorist groups that could affect external to Afghanistan and the homeland.” Trump’s decision created an uproar of mostly negative response. The pulling of troops will limit the amount of power the US has in that region and ISIS could potentially get stronger as an effect.

Reaction:

While I believe there are definitely benefits to cutting the troops (cost saving, helps the Afghan’s gain more independence with their army, ect.), I’m worried about how this will affect Afghanistan in the long run. Currently, there is a 17 year battle going on between Afghanistan and the Taliban, neither getting too much closer to winning than the other, essentially creating a stalemate. Pulling so many troops could have a huge negative impact on the battle, possibly giving the Taliban a lead. Whether or not giving the Afghan army more indepence is valuable overall, it could take them a while to get used to the reduced man power, as well as doing things without as much American guidance, giving the Taliban just the break they need to get ahead. If the Taliban were to win the war, the rest of the world would be drastically affected, getting everyone else involved.

Connection:

The American creation of a military in Afghanistan to fight off the Taliban has some similarities to the Cold War. The war between Afghanistan and the Taliban has been going on for 17 years, both sides making little progress due to how they both continuously strengthen their armies at the same rate. This was seen in the Cold War when both the U.S. and the Soviet Union continuously built up tension as an effect of the constant building of stronger armies and warfare. If Afghanistan and the Taliban are to continuously build up their military (and therefore build up even more tension), the war could spread to a larger scale and eventually get the rest of the world involved.  Additionally, Afghanistan's heavy reliance on America's help puts Afghanistan in a difficult position. In the Cold War, America used other colonies and countries to increase control which ended up backfiring and causing even more tension. By America removing some of their military support, Afghanistan could be severely affected. Although it's beneficial in the sense that there won't be even more military buildup, it also gives the Taliban a strong advantage. 

Questions:

1. What effect could America suddenly pulling out half their support have on the wars going on in the Middle East currently (ISIS, Taliban, etc.)?

2. What impact will pulling American troops out of Afghanistan have on the rest of the world?

3. How will the cutting of troops affect Afghanistan in the long run? Do you think it will mess up Afghan/American relations? 

Alternate Sources
Source 1 (Aljazeera)
Source 2 (NY Times)

Week 6: Venezuela Crisis: US planes carrying aid arrive in Columbia

See original article here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-47268039

Summary:

To truly understand the chaos happening in Venezuela currently, one must look at the last election, which took place June 7th, 2018, which Nicolás Maduro won. However the other two competitors refused to accept the results, saying there was a vote rigging. However, on the 10th of January this year, Mr. Maduro was inaugurated as president. On the 23rd of the same month, Juan Guaidó declared Mr. Maduro's leadership illegitimate and claimed the presidency using emergency powers. He is recognized as the president of Venezuela by the US and several other Latin American countries, staking two rival claims to the office. Then, on February 7th, humanitarian aid from the USA arrived the small town of Cucuta Colombia.

US Air force planes touch down in Cucuta, Colombia

It is being stockpiled by Mr. Guaidó, but has not been allowed to be brought in Venezuela by President Maduro. He has ordered tanks to block the road leaving them unable to bring in the supplies. Mr. Guaidó insists these supplies are needed, saying that "Children are going hungry, and nearly every hospital in Venezuela is experiencing serious medicine shortages." He has told the military to let the aid through, but it is unsure whether or not they will obey. Mr. Guaido has also stated that volunteers will carry the supplies into Venezuela on the 23rd of this month. Mr. Maduro is claiming that there is no crisis in Venezuela, and that they have no need for what the US is calling humanitarian aid. In the interview linked in the article, he claims this is a means of military intervention by the US. Though it is true President Trump could be trying to sneak his influence into the country, this aid is not easily dismissible.

Graph, dictating scarcity of food in Venezuela 2006-2016

Many are starving in this country and require aid and supplies, but Mr. Maduro refuses to accept this aid, claiming that this is set up by the Colombian and US government to humiliate his country. And that might entirely be plausible. The US has a history of tampering in the governments of countries with oil mines which Venezuela is abundant with. The support behind Mr. Guaido may be a way of getting the oil and riches. Which means Mr. Maduro could be completely correct in his conspiracies that this is a way of bringing Venezuela into submission

Reaction:

My reaction was a bit of frustration at the beginning. Why would a man in charge of so many people cast such aid aside, when it could help them so much? It is clear that the people need help and this aid could do them much good. I felt saying no simply because of what I thought were foundation-less claims was idiotic. Once I found of the truth that may lie underneath the claims, I grew more wary. Perhaps he does have a right to be worried. But I still believe it is not worth starving all the people. The aid could help the country greatly, and perhaps that is what he should focus on.

Connection:

I connected this event to the Berlin Airlift we learned of last year. It reminds me of how those in Berlin were cut off from supplies and faced devastation, but these planes saved them and kept them alive. If allowed in, I believe the aid could help Venezuela as well. They may not be cut off from the rest of the world, but they are starving and need supplies. Those in Berlin almost died from lack of food and other supplies, but they survived because of the Allies supporting them and making sure they stood strong.

Questions:

1. Do you think Mr. Maduro has a point when denying aid from the US? Do you think he should be right to be so paranoid? Why?
2. Who do you think is the actual leader of Venezuela? Mr. Guaidó or Mr. Maduro? Does being backed up by the US give Mr. Guaidó any more of a right to lead his country?

WEEK 6: The Effects of the Recent Chinese Industrial Revolution

Read the original article here: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-02/20/c_137837303_2.htm

Background:

In the early 18th century, the industrial revolution first burgeoned in Britain. It then spread throughout the rest of Europe, Asia, America. Many countries in Asia began to evolve industrially, in fear of the colonization and exploitation of their country by European nations. However, China began her industrial revolution in the year of 1958, beginning with Mao Zedong's "Great Leap Forward" plan; and thus the first of three phases of the industrialization of China became known as "The Great Leap Industrialization period". During this phase, Mao was determined to compete with Britain's steel production by commanding the residents of rural areas to stop growing crops and instead melt steel. This caused a catastrophe in Chinese history because due to a drought, a famine killed nearly 30 million people and the steel industry couldn't beat Britains.

The second phase was known as the "Cultural Revolution", in which Chinese leaders purged intellectuals and tried to spread socialism and communism throughout all of China. With a new feeling of nationalism in place, China's third phase, starting from 1978 and still continuing today, encouraged the building of more factories and industries. This very quick development caused China's GDP to triple, and now China has the world's second largest economy.

China's GDP Growth

A theory behind China's late development states that due to the competitiveness of Europe, every nation evolved in order to prevent colonization or exploitation. The competitiveness didn't affect China because she had bigger problems. During the 18th century, China's population skyrocketed from a mere 150 million residents to over 430 million residents. The leaders in office at the time weren't prepared for this situation, and thus a large famine hit China and many people couldn't find jobs.

Summary:
After many years of industrialization taking place, many residents have moved to the city for more job opportunities and to flee from poverty. However, due to poverty, they can't afford to bring the whole family, and thus many many families have split, causing the recent generations to be more independent and lonesome. Even though so many have moved, there are still 560 million residents living in rural areas, who to this day still suffer from poverty. In 2017, China decided to utilize around 7 trillion yuan (1.04 trillion usd) for rural vitalization. They planned to use this money to build more infrastructure, provide more public services, and create more institutions for the residents of rural areas. They also planned to further develop their agricultural technology in order to feed their growing population and to prevent any more famines.

New Chinese Agricultural Achievements

Reaction:
I feel that China's autocratic government has benefited the country in terms of the revolution, because the government is able to make decisions faster and easier, therefore getting things done more efficiently. I believe China industrialized really quickly because almost everyone had the same goal. The propaganda in China boosted the nationalism, and therefore encouraged everyone to have a better work ethic.

Connections: This relates back to the China Unit and Silk Road Unit because after the Silk Road was closed down due to political complications, China's economy fell. But, the nation was able to quickly become a superpower again by boosting her economy through international trade, just as she did with the Silk Road. It also relates back to the WW2 Unit, in how the totalitarian countries were able to efficiently control their economy and industries, quickly industrialize, and build infrastructure efficiently, just as China has been able to do within the last few decades.

Questions:
1) Do you think China's autocratic government has benefited the country when it comes to their industrial revolution?
2) How has China industrialized so quickly and efficiently?

Additional Sources:

• source 1
• source 2
• source 3

WEEK 6: Jailed For Stealing Grapes?

See the original article here

Elderly Japanese woman talks about shoplifting

Summary:
 A 68 year old elderly woman, from japan, was serving time for stealing grapes. However,  this was the fifth time she committing a crime like that, and had to serve time. She explains that the first time she committed a crime was when she was 53 years old and had stolen a bag, but there were tensions at home. Then she committed another crime because she was threatened by a prisoner that made her steal, if she didn't want her criminal record to come out. The reason why she stole the grapes is because they were sweet, and she didn't have the money to buy them. Although she has done this multiple times, she doesn't want to shoplift again.

As the older Japanese people get, they have started to make an increase in committing crime that puts them in prison. There are many people here who committed crimes because they didn't get along with their children. They felt lonely, and their children have their own life. Due to that, they have no time to care for their parents, which then led to these impulsive acts of crime. Junko Ageno is a prison warden at Tochigi prison, and reveal how most of the older Japanese want to go to prison. 

She talked to the repeated offenders and found out that most of them were abandoned by family, and are lonely and isolated. Junko Ageno also found out that the prison gave them food, a place to shelter and some familiar acquaintances to hangout with. Those images felt safer inside the prison then outside in society. When a prisoner finished their term, they usually shoplift again to try get back inside the prison. 

Reaction:

When I was reading this article, I was extremely surprised by how someone  could get jailed stealing grapes. Usually in the U.S, I would think that the worst punishment would be fine, but instead, in Japan you get jailed for doing such thing. Further down the article I found out that the elderly were being abandoned by their family. I was shocked by this, thinking that the people that raised and took care of that person, in return they abandon and leave their parents. At the end of the article, it made more sense why the elderly wanted to go to prison, because they had more "family" in the prison, rather than the outside. 

Connection:

This connects to the Soviet Unions revolution during WWII. In both situations food was really expensive and was not accessible to all people. In the Japanese situation the elderly did not have enough money to buy food. Similar to the Soviet Union, citizens could not afford food because of how little they had. Another similarity was when citizens got punished for committing a crime. In the Japanese situation they were sent to prison and had to serve time. Where for the Soviets, citizens had to work in the Gulags, for the crimes they committed as well. A final connection is how Schindler saved many Jews from the Nazis. Like the Jews on the Schindler's list, those Jews were safe, and had food and shelter from danger. In this case, the prison was a safe place for the elderly Japanese citizens and they  had food and shelter as well. 

Questions:
1) What do you think about how elderly find prison better than society?
2) What would you do if you were in this situation?
3) Do you think its right to punish the elderly, why or why not?

Additional sources
source 1
source 2

WEEK 5: Maria Ressa, head of Philippines news site Rappler, freed on bail

"Maria Ressa, head of Philippines news site Rappler, freed on bail"

Read the original article here

Summary:

Philippine journalist Maria Ressa was arrested by the Philippine government for "cyber libel," which could lead to her receiving 12 years in prison. Ressa is the head of the online news site Rappler and has been recognized by the Times Magazine Person in 2018 for having the power to report in an "increasingly hostile environment." According to the article, Rappler is known for being one of the few news sites that openly criticizes President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines. The site has been increasingly gaining attention ever since they published reports about Duterte's war on drugs and how the way the president has targeted the poor could lead him to be punished for crimes against humanity. Despite this, Ressa claims that the Rappler is not ant-Duterte and is just performing its job of informing the public.

Ressa leaving her office after being presented her arrest warrant

According to the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines this arrest is "clearly manipulated charge of cyber libel is a shameless act of persecution by a bully government.” They also claim that this is an example of the Philippine government attempting to silence the media in favor of themselves. The Philippines has a reputation for having a lack of freedom of the press, with them scoring 133rd place out of 180 on the rankings of press freedoms by Reporters Without Borders. Other media sites that President Dueterte has been focusing on are the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper and broadcaster ABS-CBN.

presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo claims that Ressa's arrest has nothing to do with freedom of expression

President Durerte denies that Ressa's charges were motivated by politics, but rather because it was a "fake news outlet," which caused the state to revoke Rappler's license. Furthermore the government states that the reason for Durerte's arrest is the site's failure to pay taxes on 2015 bond sales that they claim to amount to $3 million as well as a private citizen's complaint of libel for an article from 2012 rather than from the government. The government states that they do not pursue journalists who critique the government. On the other hand, according to BBC, journalists in the country actually do experience threats from Durerte's supporters.

Reaction:

As someone who writes for the school newspaper myself, I find it very disappointing that there are journalists out there who are not allowed or feel threatened to express their ideas and thoughts. Preventing and censoring new ideas will repress change and evolution of a society which could be detrimental for a society in the long run. Being able to express your thoughts and opinions should be normal and people should feel safe to express their opinions. On the other hand, I could understand in a different context why a government would want to suppress certain topics in the media or press.

Connection:

The repression of the press reflects the climate of many totalitarian countries that we studied last semester that prevented people from expressing their beliefs. For example, we studied how the Soviet Union censored the press to benefit their one party rule. This also reflects the Red Guards which would report those with non-Soviet beliefs or mindsets to the government for them to be punished by death or sent to the gulags. Furthermore, we also learned about how in Nazi Germany the government pushed propaganda to gain support for their party and censored the media that conflicts with party ideas or practices, which is similar to the Philippine government's use of the censorship of the media and press. 

the condition of the freedom of the press worldwide (as of 2016)

Questions:

1. Is it a government's job to restrict certain ideas from reaching the public?

2. Would you continue to publish your ideas to the public even though you were at risk of being arrested or threatened?

3. How should a charge of libel (a published false statement that damages someone's reputation) be distinguished and differentiated from lack of freedom of expression?

Additional Sources: Mail&Guardian, Phillipine Star, ABS-CBN

WEEK 5 - US & CHINA Trade War. Will it END?

See original article here: 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/perspectives/us-china-trade/index.html

Summary
After months of tension and debating, US and Chinese negotiators are finally willing to resolve the trade war. So far, the US has imposed three rounds of tariffs on Chinese goods, totaling more than $250 billion, covering a wide range of industrial and consumer items. Trump has threatened to raise tariffs from 10% to 25% by March 1 if a deal isn't done. If implemented, it would be tariffs on more than another $250 billion worth of goods, meaning all Chinese imports could be subjected to tariffs. However, Beijing has also fought back, establishing tariffs on $110 billion worth of US goods.

Fortunately, it seems both parties are desperate to end the trade war and determined to land a deal. Neither party benefits from the trade war escalations, as it places immense pressure on both Chinese and US markets. According to Bill Lee, chief economist and the Mike Institute.“If we had a traditional slowdown in China, China would have unquestionably pumped up credit and shot out their housing market and try to revive domestic demand that way. Right now, you see how reluctant they are to do so because they already gone on a campaign of reassuring the world we are having a policy in place that put a lid on the rising leverage. That is the big constraint the Chinese are facing now and that’s why I think they are so desperately looking to make a deal with Trump.” As stated by Lee, China is in a far more urgent position to secure a deal than the US.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, right, arrives at a hotel after talks with Chinese officials in Beijing on Feb. 14, 2019

Reaction: I feel that the trade war has considerably harmed both nations economies and needs to be put to an end. It's resulted in increased tensions and loads of tariffs. If nothing is resolved and a full blown trade war occurs, it could seriously damage the world's economy. The trade war could also damage or day to day lives as China implements more tariffs and increases the prices of regular items we buy.

Connection: This relates back to both the Cold War and Silk Road unit. During the Cold War, tensions between US and China were high at one time, as they are right now. However, it improved steadily. In the Silk Road unit, China traded with many countries, and China is also apart of the belt and road initiative - a program to increase the economy.

Questions:
1. What do you will be the outcome of the trade war between US and China?
2. How does the trade war impact the world as a whole?

WEEK 5: Russia considers 'unplugging' from internet

Russia considers 'unplugging' from internet

See the original article here

Summary: 

Russia is considering a brief disconnect from the global Internet to test and improve their cyber defenses. The test is expected to happen before April 1st this year, but there isn’t an exact date set yet. The proposed draft law, the Digital Economy National Program, requires Russia's internet service providers (ISP) to make sure that the country can operate independently in case Russia is isolated by foreign powers. This has angered many people outside and inside of Russia, some of which include NATO and its allies who are currently threatening to sanction Russia over the cyber attacks and other online interference it has been accused of. 

Huge protests have sprung up after announcement of potential restrictions on internet 

In addition, Russia is creating a new net address system known as DNS so that they can operate if connection to these internationally-located servers are cut. Although there are 12 organizations who oversee the root servers for DNS, none of them are based in Russia. Furthermore, this disconnect test is expected to involve ISPs demonstrating that they can transfer data to government-controlled routing points, which will allow the government to manipulate where the information is being sent to. Routers perform the traffic directing functions on the Internet. These will filter traffic so that data sent between Russians reaches its destination, but any data destined for foreign computers is discarded. Ultimately, all traffic will go through these routing points and will be decided upon on whether or not it should be sent to the intended destination. 

This is believed to be the setup of the foundations of a mass censorship system like the one in China, which tries to screen out all prohibited traffic. Although it is believed to cause a “major disruption”, the Russian government is currently providing cash for the ISPs to modify their infrastructure in order for the redirection to be successful.

Reaction:

To protect themselves from isolation when connection to the global net is lost, Russia does have a reason to perform such tests. I think Russia’s actions are justified, but the plan could go wrong and someone might use this chance to censor the internet in Russia, just like the mass censorship system in China. To ensure the rights and freedoms of the people in Russia, I believe that NATO and the allies should closely monitor the steps Russia is taking to perform the disconnect and their actions after the test is completed. Russia does have a record of being accused for cyber-attacks and other online interference, and this test might just be a prelude to an impending cyber war.

Connection:

Russia’s actions are very similar to those of the dictators actions we learned in the totalitarian unit. Although Russia hasn’t explicitly stated that they want to censor the internet, their actions imply that they want to do much more than just perform a simple disconnect. Many totalitarian states restrict the media and internet, causing there to be little freedom or expression from the people. Russia trying to improve its cyber defenses may also allude to a technology race against other countries, like the arms race between the US and Russia during the Cold War. By strengthening their cyber defenses, Russia can be potentially impregnable and may instead cause damage to others. 

Questions:

1) Why may this test be potentially harmful to the citizens of Russia? 

2) Due to its potential risks, should this law be passed, why or why not?
3) How may this affect other countries? Will they follow in Russia's lead or take another path?

Other Sources: 

Source 1 | Source 2

Week 5: Yemen food aid to feed millions at risk of rotting: UN

"Yemen food aid to feed millions at risk of rotting:UN"

See the original article here

Children stand near their hut at a makeshift camp for internally displaced people near Sanaa last month[Khaled Abdullah/Reuters]

Summary

Food kept in the Red Sea Mills Silos in Yemen's western port city of city of Hodeidah is said to hold enough grain to feed 3.7 million people for a month. This food aid was brought in by the  World Food Programme, and after sitting in the silos for said "months", it is now at risk of rotting and being rendered useless to the more than 10 million starving Yemenis.

Soldiers backed by Yemen's military coalition standing guard over Red Sea Mills Company in Hodeidah

The grain is inaccessible by aid organizations because Hodeidah has been under the control of the Houthis rebels since 2014, after they led armed attacks on large portions of Yemen. The movement of the Houthis caused Saudi Arabia, The United Arab emirates, and the allies to offer military aid to Yemen's government in order to resist the rebels. The situation in Yemen has sparked what the UN has identified as  the "worlds greatest humanitarian crisis".

Conflict including Houthis rebels kills more than 7,000 people

To help solve the food crisis UN Aid Chief Mark Lowcock made a plea to the Houthis rebels asking them to give relief groups access to remaining grain in order to save it from rotting, and  UN Yemen envoy Martin Griffiths established a cease fire with the rebels who have attempted to access the grain silos by way of road. The World Health Organization stated that the war in Yemen has brought caused the death of around 10,000 people since 2015, and Save the Children has counted nearly 85,000 children having starved to death in the past three years. Yemen's war has been stuck in a stalemate since the Saudis and Yemeni armies have been at odds with the Houthis rebels. The Saudis and Yemeni have been unable to remove them from Yemen's capital of Sanaa as well as other populated areas of Yemen.

UN office for the coordination of human affairs: Scale of Yemen's humanitarian crisis

Reaction
The allowing of food aid that could save millions of lives of the Yemeni's people is proof that the crisis in Yemen is currently the most inhumane in the world. This food crisis is one of many happening daily in Yemen, and it serves to further display the turbulence in the country. I believe the UN should be careful about what global issues they involve themselves with; however, they have a right to interfere with other countries affairs when it involves the preventable deaths of millions. The war is indirectly killing millions through starvation and unsuitable living conditions, and since neither side is accomplishing anything through fighting the quickest way to end the suffering of the people would come from peace settlements.

Connection
This crisis is happening in the same area of the Middle East as what we are studying with the Israeli Palestinian crisis. Yemen has connections with the anti-Jewish resistance and has offered aid in stopping the Zionist State. The horrible conditions in Yemen, as well as the stalemate, share similarities with WWII, and the stalemate on the eastern front. In both situations, millions of soldiers and civilians were killed, and the quality of life for civilians decreased. Yemen is experiencing the food and supplies shortages caused by war on a exponential level.

Week 4: Wang Quanzhang: China jails leading human rights lawyer

Wang Quanzhang: China jails leading human rights lawyer

See the original article here

(Picture of Wang Quanzhang, last person to be tried from the "709" crackdown)

Summary
Wang Quanzhang, is a very prominent human rights lawyer in China, 3 years ago, on July 9, he and several other activist and lawyers were arrested during what it called the "709" crackdown. Out of all of the activists and lawyers that were jailed, Wang is the last one to stand trial.

The "709" crackdown started on July 9th, 2015, hence its name, by detaining defense lawyer Wang Yu and her family members, commencing this enormous crackdown on human rights activists and lawyers. After the start of the crackdown, about three hundred rights activists and lawyers were affected. They were all latterly all charged with the same thing "subversion of state power".

(Update on all the people who were arrested due to the "709" crackdown)

But during these 4 years, the Chinese government's prosecution against these human rights lawyers and activists have not been ceased, they have all been sent to jail or freed after their sentence. The way that they treat these people are also very violent. Some reports say that one lawyer Jiang Tianyong, who is still currently in prison, suffers from severe memory loss, and his family suspects that prison authorities have been force-feeding him medication. In addition, after Wang Quanzhang was arrested for about 1,000 days his whereabouts were unknown when in July 2018, after lawyer Liu Weigou was released from prison, he was able to comment about Wang's whereabouts.

(Li Wenzu and activist protest against the jailing of her husband by shaving off their hair)

Wang recently stood trial on December 26, 2018, in Tianjin. The court in Tianjin states, "[Wang is] found guilty of subverting state power, sentenced to four years and six months in prison, and deprived of political rights for five years." His trial was done behind closed doors, with all journalist, foreign diplomats, and the whole public eye. His wife, Li Wenzu, was also unable to see her husbands trail. As she tried to enter the courthouse that was trying her husband, close to 50 officers prevented her from entering. 

Reaction

I think that this is not shown to the public that much due to how the government is in China. The government in China is very restrictive as we know,  seeing how China has a lot of censorship of the internet. People within a country should be able to freely speak their mind, but as we see the government in China does not like this. These people that they are restricted and arresting people who are trying to gain more freedom in their restrictive government. I believe that there should be more coverage on this topic and more widespread about how these people are being treated. These people are just trying to fight for human rights and because of their restrictive government they are being treated mistreated as they are being jailed for "going against the government". The people that are being tried are also unable to get their own lawyer and are given a government lawyer, and we all know that they still will be unable to get out of it. This implies how the system is very unfair, and no matter what you do you will still suffer. 

Connection

This subject related back to the totalitarian unit, where we saw the characteristics of a totalitarian state. Many totalitarian states restrict the media within the government and try to restrict their citizens' rights. In this situation, we see that the government is trying to silence the people within to try and make it seem like their government is the greatest. As we saw with Mussolini in Italy, he would try to hide certain things that made the government or him look bad. 

[other sources used: 1 Falun Gong Movement | 2 Wang's wife petition | 3 709 Crackdown | 4 update on Wang]

Questions
1. This situation has been going on since 2015, why do you think that there is not that much media coverage on this topic? How do you believe that we can try to share this with the general public?

2. Why do you believe that the Chinese government is trying to restrict these human rights activists/lawyers/etc? Do you believe that the government should be allowed to do this?

WEEK 4: 'What use is a degree if I sell eggs?': The Job Crisis Under Modi

'What use is a degree if I sell eggs?': The job crisis under Modi

by Zeenat Saberin

Unemployment protests towards Prime Minister Modi

Summary: 21-year-old undergraduate Sagar Kumar works as a street vender and makes only 500 rupees ($7) a day to support his family. He has a commerce graduate degree, but his only job opportunity is to work as a street vender. 24-year-old Seema works as a cook but is trying to get a government job as an office secretary. She has yet to find that job although she has had an impressive education.

Many others have been struggling to get a good paying job and have fallen into the group of 12 million Indians who enter the job market without luck. India's unemployment increased more than it had in 45 years and the rate of adults willing to work have fallen to 42%. At the end of March 2018, a data report has shown that 31 million Indians were looking for jobs. Surprisingly, India has one of the fastest economic growth patterns, at about 12% nominal growth for the past five years, but the government are still unable to provide the working class with sufficient jobs.

Percent of unemployment in India from July of 2017 and April of 2018

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of 2014 has promised 10 million jobs annually but has failed to fix any of the unemployment problems. He has been accused of creating the worst unemployment crisis in decades. Many reports have shown the levels of unemployment, but officials always dismissed it, claiming the report was unfinished and that jobs were in fact being created. This was not the case, and throughout the 2000's the percent of unemployed members of society have continued to rise. People in search of better jobs or government jobs have been protesting Modi's negligence towards their unemployment for years. Though rallies, marches, speeches, and signs haven't been enough to bring their troubles to Modi's attention yet.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi

Protesters begin accusing him of rape and murder to remove him from office

This created huge boundaries between the lower and upper castes. Villages and small towns have forged together to stand against the rapid and uneven economic growth that leaves many without jobs. While upper class farming communities are trying to demand better government jobs.

Reaction: Prime Minister Modi has promised the people much needed jobs for the past few decades, and little to no progress has been made to do so. The unemployment level has been slowly increasing at a steady rate, and there is little time left to actually begin reconstructing jobs. The officials are withholding information of the unemployment so for a time there weren't any outside countries spreading awareness. The people are left to hunt for jobs however they can, while being promised a job in the near future. It is the government's job to provide a steady income to their people and maintain a strong and balanced economy.

Connection: It connects to a couple units that highlighted leaders such as Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin, that used propaganda to make promises to the people that gave them their power. Prime Minister Modi has been promising more jobs for years and though nothing has actually been done to uncrease the number of jobs, he remained in power and people still hold him to that promise. Another connection is the strong line between the lower class and the middle and upper classes. The bourgeoisie and the Proletariat had no equal treatment in any terms. The bourgeoisie had more money and therefore more opportunities and jobs while the Proletariat was left scrambling to make and save whatever money they could. The brainwashing of people by promising leaders and inequality between upper and lower class are both strong connections to other units in this class.

Questions for Discussion: 
1) What are some ways that the unemployment issue could be resolved after decades of decreasing job opportunities?

2) Should Prime Minister Modi be removed from office because of his negligence towards India's increasing unemployment?