Friday, December 18, 2015

Israeli and American exceptionalism

          The United States and Israel, at the first glance, are two countries with vast differences in size, geography, cultures, etc. The role and place each country plays in international system bear little resemblance to one another. Yet, a closer look reveals that these two powers may not be that different; there is one thing both countries share in common: each country’s emphasis on its own exceptionalism.

          Over the last centuries, America has been described as “the empire of liberty” or the “shining city on the hill.” In the past, America has always prided itself on being the leader of the free world whereas European powers were still using colonial methods to control other nations. This perception cultivates in America a sense of higher moral ground than its European counterparts. As a country once colonized by outside powers, the United States has viewed itself as more virtuous, more restrained, more just. However, there were differences between American actions and speeches. While lauding the sovereign integrity of other countries, the United States blatantly followed the “Manifest Destiny” doctrine, an imperialist program to expand the country by arms, if necessary. American exceptionalism also has its own flaws. While this mentality makes America a unique nation, it also creates a self-congratulatory image for America and makes it harder for American policy-makers to understand why other states are less enthusiastic about American dominance or irritated by American hypocrisy.

          Israel, since its founding, has viewed itself as a small nation perpetually entangled in an unprecedented conflict with its neighbors. In a speech Ben-Gurion delivered to Israeli youths, he merged the theme of Israel’s moral exceptionalism and its national security exceptionalism: “Our survival secret during thousands of years…has one source: Our supreme quality, our intellectual and moral advantage, which singles us out even today, as it did throughout the generations.”[1] Israeli exceptionalism has been a powerful narrative to form a cohesive front at home and confront the threats from abroad. But while helping to unite the Israeli nation, the exceptionalism mentality creates an image of “a lone wolf” in Israel. There has always been this perception of Israel fighting against the world, and this kind of mindset has led to Israel’s illegal occupation in defiance of international law. Believing that its problems are unique, Israel demands “unique solutions” rather than the commonly accepted answers. Israel’s perceived destiny to “dwell in loneliness” helps partly explain why Israel has not been active in formulating regionalism initiative.

          Exceptionalism is a source of pride for both countries. Each country’s belief in its uniqueness has solidified its national power. But this “city on a hill” syndrome can easily lead to the moral exoneration in both countries and the failure to comprehend their foes’ motivations.




[1] Ben-Gurion, David. 1971. Yihud and Yiud (Distinction and Destiny). Tel Aviv: Am Oved.

Why America needs Donald Trump

            It is official. Donald Trump can say anything now. The celebrity Republican candidate and billionaire real-estate tycoon has started a quite remarkably successful campaign with his rallying cry to “make America great again” without any explanation of what made it wonderful before or how he will actually make the country return to its heyday. What Donald Trump seems to be doing so far is to prove his unparalleled ability to provoke the public. Building a human-proof wall, attacking John McCain for being captured during the Vietnam War, implying that a Fox News’ anchor is having menstrual problems, etc. are some of Trump’s outrageous remarks. Trump’s recent calling for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States” maybe the final straw. But Trump’s hateful and racist rhetoric is a useful reminder that bigotry still exists in America, and there are still things that can be done to combat this outdated and dangerous mindset.

            Trump’s call to ban Muslims should not be a surprise given the growing Islamophobic sentiment in the United States, especially after 9/11 and the Paris attacks. Islamophobia, of course, existed long before 9/11, but increased in frequency during the past decade. I recently came across this video which showed exactly how anti-Muslim sentiment has spiraled out of control. Just after the Paris attacks, a Virginian civilian engineer named Samer Shalamy came to a small community forum and presented his plans to replace an old Islamic center in town. Then suddenly a man stood up and yelled at Shalamy, “Every one of you are terrorists. I don't care what you say. I don't care what you think." He later added, to the cheers in the crowd “"Every Muslim is a terrorist, period. Shut your mouth."

            This anti-Muslim prejudice is so dangerous, especially with the rise of Daesh. Its recent attacks in Paris showed the brutality of the group and helped inflame the Islamophobia that the community has been trying to quell for years. This anti-Muslim narrative transformed the problems with Daesh into a civilization conflict: Islam versus the West. But ostracizing Muslims means playing into the terrorists’ hands, for they can blame the West on Muslims’ sufferings and recruit more of those distressed citizens. Donald Trump has been the front-runner in further deliberately manipulating the anti-Muslim rhetoric for his political gains. But if anything, Trump has been successful in bringing this issue into the prime-time news and social media. The outrage from the public is incredible. Americans and the world have condemned Trump and showed their solidarity with Muslims. Politicians, talk-show hosts, etc. have also come together to defend the Muslim community. Maybe America does need a reality TV character like Trump to show how ignorance and bigotry still exist, how dangerous those sentiments can be, and how Americans can work together to protect their long-cherished notion of religious liberty.


            So thanks again, Donald!


Sunday, December 13, 2015

Behind the veil: The right to drive my destiny

"I believe that in general, for the Saudi woman, every day is a new battle. She needs to find ways to live on the face of this earth without colliding with the law, with men, with society, with the religious clerics, or with the political establishment. She is besieged. …Within every Saudi woman, there is a Scheherazade. Imagine Scheherazade trying every night to stay alive until the next night. That's how I see the Saudi woman.” - Wajeha Al-Huwaidar

On paper, it looks like the wind has changed for women in Saudi Arabia. For the first time in the country’s history, women are registered to vote in municipal elections. It is a significant step forward to empower Saudi women and girls, who are now on their way to be a part of the public sphere, not just the excluded victims of society.

          Sex segregation in Saudi Arabia is nothing new. There has always been a female sphere of activities in the kingdom, for women have a “special” nature that needs a “special” type of education and a “special” set of behaviors. By the age of seven, boys and girls are separated into a divided world of men and women: all public facilities such as transportation, banks and restaurants are segregated as a matter of law. Saudi women are subject to the concept of qawama or “male guardianship.” A woman is not allowed to travel without the permission of her male guardian; she needs him to write her a letter to enroll in university; a permission from him to get medical care or to marry. Basically, women in Saudi Arabia need men to give them permission to do everything in their life. Qawama robs women of their autonomy by placing them under the custody of their male relatives. They cannot make decisions without men’s consent. Women are only treated as objects whose ownership is passed from one man to another.


          The Arab Spring inspired Saudi women to make demands for their rights. The access to the Internet by the end of the 1990s gave rise to e-activism. Social networks have made the spread of ideas easier and more effective. Women connected with each other and created new ties through social networks. Blogging became the main platform for women to express themselves, often anonymously. The internet is a safe space where women have equal access in ways that are different from the reality where women are always subordinate to men. Blogs such as women2drive campaign, Saudi Eve, Saudiwoman, etc. are examples of female bloggers that try to bring in changes to women realities.

          The recent change in suffrage law is a landmark for a country that is notorious for imposing constraints on women. While this is a significant change for a conservative monarchy like Saudi Arabia, it probably will not make much difference. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia are not that important because local elected officials usually have little power in the country. Moreover, the right to vote does not go far enough to advance any substantial women’s rights. The most controversial restriction is the government’s ban on driving. Saudi Arabia is now the only country that prohibits women from driving or even riding a bicycle. The right to drive is very important, especially in a country that lacks transportation, the inability to drive is an obstacle to women to achieve even the smallest equality. Without the right to drive, women will have to depend on a male companion to travel to places, for it is relatively unsafe to walk and women are often prohibited from walking alone in public. There is a “women to drive” movement that attracts the media attention lately. Women participating in the movement will drive out in public spaces. But these women who broke the taboo on driving were arrested. They were ridiculed. They were condemned.



It is never just about driving. It is about being in the driver’s seat for one’s own destiny. The new extension of suffrage to women is laudable, but there is still a long way to go in the fight for gender equality in Saudi Arabia.

Cannot stand on the sidelines

          Last year when Obama assembled a coalition of its allies against ISIS, Israel was not asked, at least publicly, to contribute. Jordan and Qatar, Australia and Denmark, Turkey and Britain were all expected to help counter the threat from ISIS; although better equipped than some of these countries, Israel was kept off the list. This action, however, came as no surprise. It was certainly not the first time the Jewish state was absent from a coalition at war in the region. Going back to the Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 when George H.W. Bush was bringing together nearly 40 countries against Hussein administration’s aggression, Israel was also left out. Bush understood that in order to build a broad international (or regional) coalition that he wanted, he had to keep Israel excluded from the club. Considering how the region was still occupied with the Arab–Israeli conflict, this decision was logical and understandable. But as ISIS becomes more and more dangerous, Israel’s participation is much needed, both for its interests and for the coalition’s.

          In its first ever video in Hebrew, ISIS threatened to tear down Israel: “…there will not be a single Jew left in Jerusalem and throughout the country.” The message, however, failed to get Israeli official attention. It is true that the group does not represent a direct military threat at the moment: It has a limited military capability, and before they can come to “wipe [Israel] out,” they have to pass the Hashemite kingdom. Jordan, a strategic partner of Israel, will serve as a buffer zone and have enough military power to withstand the terrorists’ onslaught. Moreover, the threat from ISIS in neighboring Syria is now overshadowed by the escalation of the ongoing Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Anti-Palestinian rhetoric dominates Israel’s statement, as seen in Netanyahu’s latest U.N General Assembly Speech.

But downplaying the threat posed by ISIS is not a good long-term strategy for Tel Aviv. As ISIS is taking Syria piece by piece, the threat of an ISIS attack in Israel is on the horizon. Tensions occasionally spilled into Golan Heights. ISIS is gaining more outside support, some of them are from Israel, according to Israeli security officials (Source). There is also a possibility that ISIS will try to destabilize Jordan, and Israel cannot risk letting its only ally in the Levant region turn into an enemy state. The challenge from ISIS prompts Israel to take actions. Participation in the anti-ISIS coalition will demonstrate to the world that Israel is not an international pariah. It proves that Israel is an important strategic ally of the United States by standing with the superpower against terror. Israel can also play the ISIS crisis to build its new allies. Joining the coalition provides an opportunity for Israel to show the moderate Arabs that it is not an enemy but a potentially steadfast ally.


Of course the invitation for Israel’s participation has not been extended. The U.S. would want Israel, a democracy with a strong military power, to be a pillar of the coalition; nevertheless, the protracted conflict with Palestinians is an obstacle to Israel’s involvement in the coalition. Unless Israel chooses to address the Palestinian question with more creative terms in the service of peace, Israel can never be a part of the coalition that may protect its security interests. There is always a possibility of a dreadful scenario: If ISIS were strong enough to take over both Syria and Jordan, Israel would have to face both Hamas and Daesh on both sides. It is important that Israel, by joining the United States and its allies, pursues its fight with ISIS before this new enemy causes greater problems for the Jewish state.

Saturday, December 12, 2015

In search of the Jewish soul

Hatikvah (or “The Hope” in Hebrew) is one of the few national anthems written in minor key. Mournful in tone, the song tells the return to the homeland of a nation from exile. Generations of Israelis have walked the long walk they were required to walk with both grievances and hope. But this journey to the Holy Land is not impossible as long as “in the heart, a Jewish soul still yearns.” From the very start, Israel had faced a Herculean mission: A daring project to unify a nation, to establish a new state, to install a trustworthy leadership, to create formidable borders from sketch. Against all odds, Israel survives its embryonic stage and evolves into a stronger country than ever. Its success is remarkable, its strength undeniable, its soul indomitable. The Jewish soul, throughout the Holocaust experience, remained morally courageous. But is it starting to dissolve?

1967 is a watershed year. The Six-Day War has fundamentally reshaped the region: Political maps were altered and the Israeli psyche experienced a shift. The country, after the stunning victory, was filled with euphoria and hubris. It was a Pyrrhic victory regardless. The completeness and swiftness of the triumph intoxicated Israel with a sense of grandeur that led to the colonization of the occupied territories: “A greater Israel” in defiance of international law. After capturing the lands, Israel assured the international community that the wounds of Holocaust would inform the state to establish a truly enlightened occupation. But the relationship between the occupier and the occupied will always be based on doubt and fear, violence and resentment, oppression and suffering; “enlightened occupation” is only an empty slogan. For Palestinians, Israel is an alien entity that deserves no place in the land. Israel’s illegitimate occupation of a foreign people becomes a moral burden for a vibrant and intellectual country that is painfully aware of its brutal history. “This is what the Occupation does to Israel’s soul,” Silverstein laments, “It kills it in the most mundane of ways.”



A woman holds a sign reading: ‘With occupation, there is no hope,’ during a protest march against the Netanyahu government, Tel Aviv, October 24, 2015. (photo: Yotam Ronen/Activestills.org)

“Who is Israel?” is not an easy question to answer. A victim of the past. An oppressor of the present. Israel is now at odds with itself. The illegitimacy of the occupation taints the Jewish state. It is viewed as a colonialist power, and in the twenty-first century, there is no room for colonialism. The demand to end the occupation is greater than ever, but so are the risks. But it is this struggle to balance security and morality that makes up the very essence of Israel's soul, which is, in Halevi’s words, “the ability to sustain paradox.”

Friday, December 11, 2015

Live by the sword. Die by the sword.

At a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense committee in October, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu turned to the politicians present and said: “You think there is a magic wand here, but I disagree. I’m asked if we will forever live by the sword – yes.” (Source) With just a few words, he summed up his vision for the future. He pushed back against his opponents who still believe that there is a “magic wand” to solve the Jewish state problem. To survive, Israel is destined to live by the sword. But he had conveniently omitted the closing phrase of this famous saying: “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

The State of Israel was born out of war and blood, and it has lived by its sword ever since. The establishment of the Jewish state was a political miracle. A pupa that turned into a butterfly. ­A minority that became a self-reliant majority. It all started with a basic premise: “A land without a people for a people without land.” But the land, inhabited thousands of years by the Arabs, is certainly is not “a land without a people.” The Arabs would not receive Israel with open arms; they viewed the Jewish state as a foreign element and refused to accept Jewish sovereignty. “Israel is the cancer, the malignant wound in the Arab body, and the only way of remedy is to uproot it just like a cancer” (King Saud in 1954). Wars were fought, and the Arab antagonism grew with every Israeli victory. For Israel, “war made the state, and the state made war.”[1] Every battle against the Arabs fostered a common identity and a sense of community in Israel. Nationalism only added fuels to Israel’s determination to forestall any calamity. Wars to defend its existence have indeed given Israel the most severe motive: survival.

Israel’s response to the recent attacks from Palestine (or third intifada as many people called it) has been the same: Violence. And more violence. Earlier this October, Netanyahu announced “an all-out war” to combat the Palestinian terrorism. “And we will wage it aggressively,” he added (Source). But aggression will not solve Israel’s problems. Last year, after the murder of three Israeli teenagers, an Israeli Arab teen was burned to death by three Jews as a revenge (Source). Then a firebombing attack in Duma (a Palestinian town in the West Bank) killed an 18-month-old child (Source). If Palestinians attack with stones, Israel responds with fire. Will aggression quell the uprising? Someone has to put down the sword, and Netanyahu made it clear that it would not be Israel, whose actions are driven by its perceptions of existential threats throughout history. But we also have to ask ourselves why should Palestinians, under Israel’s harsh occupation, put down their sword?

It is a mental deadlock.

Moshe Dayan, at the funeral of the young Israeli security officer, delivered a eulogy that captured the siege mentality of this never-ending conflict (Source):

“…We are a generation of settlement and without the steel helmet and the gun’s muzzle we will not be able to plant a tree and build a house. Let us not fear to look squarely at the hatred that consumes and fills the lives of hundreds of Arabs who live around us. Let us not drop our gaze, lest our arms weaken. That is the fate of our generation. That is our choice – to be ready and armed, tough and hard – or else the sword shall fall from our hands and our lives will be cut short.”

But no nation can and should live by the sword forever. Both sides need to understand that if any practical agreement is ever to be achieved, their demands will only be partially met. A realistic middle ground should be established in order for both parties to avoid jeopardizing each other’s existence and acknowledging each other as free peoples. The time has arrived to build a durable peace, as the wisest of men wrote thousands of year ago, “there is a time for killing and a time for healing, a time for breaking down and a time for building up, a time for war and a time for peace.”






[1] Tilly, Charles. "Reflections on the History of European State-Making." In The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1975.

Tuesday, December 1, 2015

#thirdintifada: Social Media Intifada?

         A new wave of violence and reprisals has been flaring up in Jerusalem, across Israel and in the West Bank. These stories about the current unrest sound tragically familiar: horrific attacks on Israelis by Palestinians, followed by horrific responses by Israel. Of course, Palestine’s criticism of Israel’s occupied territories is nothing new. However, the incitement behind this latest Palestinian uprising (or so-called “Jerusalem intifada” or “Third Intifada”) is unprecedentedly influenced by social media platforms such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. The disturbing images of recent unrest in Israel and Palestinian territories have been documented and swamped Twitter through the hashtag #thirdintifada. Anti-Semitic posts calling for violence were featured on Facebook, and instructional videos on how to stab Jews effectively went viral. This proliferation of anti-Israel messages with amateur videos, images and tweets thus gave the current spate of attacks between Palestinians and Israelis the title of “Social Media Intifada.”

         Intifada is an Arabic word literally meaning “tremor” or “shuddering.” The word was first applied in 1987 as a response to the sense of helplessness and resistance among Palestinians to Israel’s occupation of West Bank and Gaza since 1967. Palestinians, with a new sense of purpose, started rising up against Israeli rule. From the very beginning, imagery has become central to these uprisings. Pictures of Israeli soldiers beating Palestinians children or tanks against rock-throwing protesters were used and distributed effectively by Palestinians. Children became soldiers and were assigned tasks according to their age. Innumerable poems were then written to glorify their deaths. Hailed as “Children of the Stones,”[1] these 10-year-old martyrs became the iconic images of the first intifada that encouraged a culture of violence among Palestinians. The second intifada began in 2000, and the provocative images of Ariel Sharon visiting the sacred Temple Mount sparked the protests among the Palestinians who viewed Sharon as a “war criminal.”

“Children of the Stones” (Source)


Ariel Sharon’s visit to Temple Mount (Source)

       This time social media has already left its mark on the uprising. Social networks are now used by the youth as a platform to convey their political messages and thus become the online battleground for the so-called third intifada. Each side has its own gruesome images and videos that incited violence from both sides. A music video that was shared more than 100,000 times on Facebook featured Palestinian musician Qassem Najjar singing “When a shahid (martyr) is made, we will take each other's hands ... workers, teachers, doctors ... from the left and from the right.” Before-and-after pictures of a shahid become popular, with one image showing the person healthy and the other showing them dead. A video was released in October showing a Jew being brutally attacked with a meat cleaver by a Palestinian man. This video fueled the pro-Israel messages, but at the same time, the attacker was described by the Shebab News Agency as a “martyr.” A Palestinian teen, inspired by this spreading violence, wrote a Facebook post about her desire to become a shahid then went out to stab an Israel man hours later. In the words of Nisman, president of an Israeli security analysis firm: “There’s a viral nature to these attacks: One person goes out, they get killed, then they get glorified, it makes other people want to go out.” (Source) The risk of more Israeli violence also increases after these ongoing conflicts as hate-filled messages (e.g. Death to Arabs) spread through Facebook.

       But will this intifada be any different from the last two? On the one hand, the shocking images and videos are circulated virally, inspiring the current violence between both sides. The angry passions aroused on social media also increase the impact of the attacks. On the other hand, the attacks were self-initiated and lacked a concerted effort or strategy. These Palestinian assailants were unaffiliated with any form of political ideology or movement. This mass of young people who tried to use social media to express their fury over Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories fail to comprehensively capitalize this energy and only make the matter worse. These leaderless acts of terrorism undermined the effort by the PLO to secure international legitimacy for an UN-declared Palestinian state. With ill-defined goals, the latest spike of violence will not change the status quo or get the Israeli – Palestinian peace talks on track. The possibility for a better tomorrow for Palestine thus remains elusive. 





[1] Peretz, Donald. Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising. Boulder, Columbia: Westview Press, 1990. 83.

Sunday, October 11, 2015

My Water Diary

According to the water footprint calculators (National Geographic and Water Footprint Network):
My average daily water footprint is 844 gallons of water per day. The average American daily water footprint is 2060 gallons of water per day.
My average weekly water footprint is 5,908 gallons of water per week. The average American weekly water footprint is 14,420 gallons of water per week.
My average annual water footprint is 308,060 gallons of water per year. The average American annual water footprint is 751,900 gallons of water per year.
Compared to the United States averages, my water footprint in daily, weekly and annual dosage is significantly smaller. Even though I know that water is an indispensable resource in life, I did not expect I rely on water for a wide variety of uses. However, as noted earlier, my water consumption is still below American average, partly because I do not have a car (A gallon of gasoline usually requires 13 gallons of water to produce – Source).  
Countries
Water footprint per year (million m3)
Water footprint per capital (litre per day)
Syria
36,000
External: 16%
5,800
Internal: 84%
Israel
14,000
External: 82%
6,300
Internal: 18%
Palestine
3,400
External: 7%
2,900
Internal: 93%
Jordan
8,300
External: 86%
4,600
Internal: 14%
Lebanon
8,100
External: 73%
5,800
Internal: 27%
USA
820,000  
External: 20%
7,800
Internal: 80%
The table above showed the water footprints of countries in the Jordan Valley (Syria, Israel/Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon) and the United States. No country in the Levant even came close to the U.S annual average consumption of water. In addition, only 20 percent of the United States’ water footprint comes from outside of the country. On the contrary, with the exceptions of Syria and Palestine, Levantine countries have more than 70% of their water footprint outside of their countries, meaning that they have to import water from the global trading system, commonly known as “virtual water.”
In terms of implications, the governments in these countries will have to face the social pressures created by water scarcity as a result of increase in population or consumption of water.  Water is used in agriculture, fisheries, forestry and livestock so the issue of increased water demand and the depletion of water can be critical to livelihoods and long-term economic strategies. If these governments do not take actions to respond to these water challenges, eventually their ruling legitimacies will be undermined by an unforgiving public. And as Morriestte and Borer pointed out, if the government is responsible for the scarcity of water resources (structural arrangements, resource captures, etc.), social unrest will be exacerbated[1].
As mentioned above, one of the ways these water-deficient countries in the Jordan Valley deal with the issue of water is to import water-intensive products from the outside. This policy has two implications for the national food security in these societies. First of all, because the indigenous water cannot meet the water needs of growing population, making more water “flow” as virtual water in the region is a good strategy to augment the declining water resources, thus securing the food security for the public in the short run. Nevertheless in the long run, for countries in the Levant, this policy implies a long-term dependency on other countries abroad for food supply, making these Middle Eastern countries more vulnerable to outside powers if for example, their trading partners decide to cut the supply and their public will have to deal with the loss of water resources. Moreover, the price of virtual water will likely to increase as WTO’s free-trade policies will further eliminate the agricultural subsidies, which make the food prices affordable for the region.




[1] Morrissette, Jason, and Doublas Borer. "Where Oil and Water Do Mix: Environmental Scarcity and Future Conflict in the Middle East and North Africa." Parameters, no. Winter 2004-05, 92.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

The “Others” in Our Community: A view from the Lowlands

A very long time ago, Lac Long Quan – the dragon king from the sea and Au Co – the immortal fairy who lived high in the mountains met, fell in love and got married.  On the day of giving birth, Au Co bore an egg sac from which hatched 100 children who grew up quickly and became as strong as their father and as kindhearted as their mother. Despite their love, Lac Long Quan and Au Co became unhappy. The dragon king yearned for the sea while the mountain fairy always found her heart longing for the highlands. They decided to part and divide their children, of whom fifty would dwell with Au Co in the mountains. Lac Long Quan would lead the other fifty to live along the coasts. They made a promise that despite distance and separation, they will always look after each other and lend a hand should one be in need.

Source : Lac Long Quan and Au Co dividing their children

The children of Lac Long Quan and Au Co are, according to this myth, believed to be the ancestors of all Vietnamese ethnic groups. The fifty children that went with Au Co are called “highlanders” while the other fifty led by Lac Long Quan are called “lowlanders.” The legend has become the pride of Vietnamese people as it implies an unbreakable bond of unity for all Vietnamese. When Ho Chi Minh, the nationalist revolutionary leader of Vietnam, returned to his home country after 30 years being abroad, he wrote a poem that likened Lenin to a river and Marx to a mountain waiting to be “united in the same country” (Vietnamese: Kia suối Lê-nin, đây núi Mác/Hai tay dựng một sơn hà). The road to communism, for Ho Chi Minh, seemed to go from nationalism as he brought home a complex and alien ideology by linking the fathers of communism to a familiar Vietnamese mythical theme – the unification of mountains and rivers from Lac Long Quan – Au Co legend. This recurring theme of “national unity” appeared even more during the Vietnam War when the country was divided in two: North Vietnam backed by the Soviet Union and communist allies and South Vietnam backed by the United States and other anti-communist allies. Lowlanders or highlanders, bounded by their shared identity as “descendants from the Dragon and Fairy,” were ready to fight for a united Vietnam.

However, after the Vietnam War, the split between lowlanders (dominated by an ethnic Vietnamese elite: Kinh people, accounted for 86.2% of Vietnamese) and highlanders (mostly ethnic minorities) became larger. It is not just a geographical division but also a cultural and economic split. The living conditions in the highlands lag behind those in the lowlands, in part because many highlanders live in remote areas and are generally disconnected from the economy. Highlanders also have higher illiteracy and school drop-out rates than the ethnic Kinh majority, some of whom tend to treat the highlanders as an underclass. In the lowlands, highland ethnic minorities are seen by a lot of people as superstitious, backward and primitive while their “slash-and-burn” agricultural practices are regarded as the main cause for the rapid deforestation. Minorities are insufficiently represented in the government; the elevation of Nong Duc Manh (an ethnic Tay) to the position of General Secretary of the Communist Party is an exception. Most highlanders do not speak Vietnamese and have customs of their own. The distance between the highlands and lowlands only contributes to the persistence of societal discrimination against ethnic minorities. 



Source: Highlands


Source (me): Lowlands (Hanoi)


As a consequence, many ethnic groups feel that they are being repressed, and ethnic minority activists started to emerge. Nevertheless, all these protests quieted down when the government arrested the leaders on charges of “causing public disorder” and “undermining the unity policy.” The problem of ethnic minorities, along with Vietnamese fear of Chinese encroachment in South China Sea, has always been central to Vietnamese national-security policy. For many years, the government has tried to address this problem by developing plans to strengthen national solidarity such as population redistribution and political integration. I personally think the gap between two communities has been generally narrowed as a result of government policy to acknowledge and celebrate cultural diversity. Customs and languages of highlanders appear more and more on television, in music and in our textbooks. Nevertheless, most of what I’ve learned in high school about highlanders were through stories of them fighting alongside lowlanders against foreign invasion to gain the right to national self-determination. In all of these stories, the state border is always the most important and relevant dividing line as lowland and highland ethnic groups are united within the frame of the Vietnamese nation.

Friday, September 18, 2015

Post-World War I Borders and the Kurdish Question

News source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turkey-pkk-iraq_55b8aa32e4b0a13f9d1ace1e

In the 19th century, the tensions in Europe had been culminating as the fear of German expansionism threatened the balance of power in Europe. In the summer of 1914, war finally broke out. The continent was then divided into two armed camps. The Triple Entente was made up of France, Russia and Great Britain; in opposition to the Entente powers was the alliance of Central Powers: Austria-Hungary, Germany and Italy. After Russia declared war on Ottoman Empire, it entered the war in October 1914 as one of the Central Powers after three months of remaining neutral. World War I ended with the victory of the Entente and the dissolution of Ottoman Empire. 

The formulation of a postwar division of the Ottoman Empire was discussed between the victors. At that time, Britain already had control of India since 1857 and Egypt since 1888. Middle East lay right in the middle of these two important colonies, and London was ready to claim its spoils of war. Initially, the British government made an agreement with Shalif Hussein bin Ali to revolt against the Ottomans. As an exchange, Britain promised to support his plan of creating an Arab Kingdom in the Middle East. At the same time, Arthur Balfour, the Foreign Secretary of Britain, sent a letter to Rothschild, the leader of the Zionist movement, expressing British’s favour of “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” However, behind the scenes, the great powers had a different plan. What came to be known today as the Sykes-Picot Agreement was a secret deal between two diplomats – Sykes of Britain and Picot of France about the future fate of the Arab World.
Source : Sykes-Picot Agreement

The Middle East’s future was then in dispute. The borders of the conquered Ottoman lands were redrawn without the regard for indigenous wishes. The League of Nations managed to create a system of new state entities, whose borders are basically unchanged from their post-World War I creation.
Source : Map of the Middle East today

The boundaries of the Arab World that the great powers divided among themselves left the issues of identities, religions and sects unresolved. When the Allied Powers carved up the Middle East, Kurdistan was erased from the world map. The Kurds, who now live in parts of Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria, were denied a nation-state. 

Source: Kurdistan

The Kurdish Question has been the protracted problem of Turkish politics. Even though the Kurds span across three other countries (Iran, Syria and Iraq), the majority of Kurdish people live in Turkey (Source), which gives Turkey a unique position when addressing the Kurdish conundrum. There has always been a deep-seated hostility between Turkish and Kurds. “Non-Turks” were perceived as a threat to a united Turkish republic, and in an attempt to deny Kurdish ethnic identity, Turkish government designated them as “Mountain Kurds” and banned Kurdish names, customs and language. 

Originated in the early 1970s, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) initially aimed for a fully independent Kurdistan and has always been a thorn in Turkey’s side. Its first full-scale insurgency began in August 1984 and ended in 1999. The armed conflict was ignited again in 2004, and in the same year, the organization is designated as a terrorist group by US and NATO. At the end of December 2012, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan agreed to start a peace process with the imprisoned PKK’s leader Ocanan. However, the cease-fire appeared to end in July 2015 when Turkey launched air strikes against PKK’s northern Iraqi camps after an IS’ bombing killed Kurdish inside Turkey’s border (Source). Turkey’s air strikes have scuttled peace talks between Ankara and PKK, and in a statement Erdogan told the reporters: “It is not possible for us to continue the peace process with those who threaten our national unity and brotherhood.” (Source

Source: Kurds in Turkey celebrate their holiday of Newroz

Even though the Kurds is the fourth largest group in the Middle East (Source), they do not have a self-ruled region for themselves. Ongoing conflicts between Turkey and PKK can be traced back to the Treaty of Lausanne after World War I which settled the borders of Middle Eastern countries. Although the European countries should not be blamed entirely for the tensions that have been flaring between the Turkish and Kurds today, they are still held responsible for drawing the imperial borders without considering carefully the ethnic diversity of the region. The Kurdish-inhabited regions were incorporated into Turkey, and the bitterness between these two ethnic groups has been nourished ever since.





Thursday, September 3, 2015

Where I live. Where they live.


Twisting streets, a churning sea of motorbikes, plastic chairs, beeping horns, amazing coffee, delicious street food, early morning flower parades, etc. – Hanoi can certainly be described with a plethora of things. It is where the 90-percent-humidity weather is blamed for almost everything: from headache, backache, heartache to being tired, being late and so on. Born and raised in this frantic city, I have learned how to blend into this sheer madness and chaos of life.

But if anything Hanoi is an ancient city with a lot of old traditions and practices. Most people in Hanoi, and even in Vietnam, consider ancestor veneration to be of utmost importance. People have altars in the houses to honor and remember their ancestors. The predominant religion in Vietnam is Buddhism, but Catholicism, Protestantism, Caodaism, Hoahaoism and Muslim have their own religious followers in Vietnam as well. However, almost all Vietnamese people consider themselves atheists. Buddhism is indeed influential, but it is viewed more as a philosophy or a way of life or even a study of the mind than as a religion in Vietnam. Of course this greatly depends on how one defines “a religion” in the first place. Nevertheless, it certainly does not influence the political arena. We have a tendency to dissociate religious activities from those of the state.

In the Middle East, on the other hand, the role that religion plays is arguably embedded in the politics of the region. After all, the Middle East is the cradle of three prominent monotheist religions in the world – Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Religion has been the heart and soul of Middle Eastern societies for thousands of years. The Iranian Revolution in 1979, Ariel Sharon’s provocative visit to Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem in 2000, etc. remind us of the important role that religion plays in politics. States such as Israel rely on religion for national identity, leaders use religion to rally support, radical groups recruit members in the name of religion and politicians cite guidance from religious commandments. Religion does matter, but perhaps not to a degree some people may believe. There is a misconception that religion is responsible for the violent conflicts that are plaguing the Middle East today. But conflicts always result from a cocktail of problems, not just from a single variable or issue.

A hindrance on my path to understand the Middle East lies in the way I have been raised to view religious practices. As mentioned above, religion is indeed present in Vietnam, but Vietnamese do not traditionally consider it as the most important factor in life, let alone in politics.  Middle East Studies does not even exist in my country as the public is generally unfamiliar with the region's cultures and history. Nevertheless, these barriers can be overcome as cultural exchanges can happen every day and the internet also makes it easier for people to get access to information. There is definitely more to Middle East than trouble or violence. It is the multifaceted nature of the cultures in the region that always seems appealing to me.