Meet the Press

SOURCE: Socialist Health Association

This past Sunday on Meet the Press, Gregory David sat down with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice to discuss the current conditions of the Middle East and Northern Africa. Ambassador Rice explained the regional problems responsible for the increase of anti-government demonstrations as the presence of a "youth bulge, high unemployment, a lack of political openness" and deemed these conditions to be unstable. Supporting a reform process, she assured the consistency of their main message across the region which advocates nonviolence and, most importantly, the respect for  "universal rights of people to assemble, to protest, to speak, and to form political organizations." Gregory brought up diplomats' criticism about the inconsistent handling of our Arab allies by our administration, but Ambassador Rice ensured that there is firm support for “the legitimate aspirations of people all over the world, including in the Arab world, to have representative governments, to have governments that respect their universal rights.” Emphasizing human rights, Rice also discredited the assumption of inconsistency by asserting that the interests of the U.S. and our response to the aspirations of the Arab world are intertwined rather than a conflict on interests. In fact, the manner of response pertains to the revolution in Egypt where President Obama “publicly and privately pushed Mubarak to go without a real sense of what would come next in terms of democratic reform” Gregory touched upon the establishment and presence of the Muslim Brotherhood, reported by USA Today, which is an Islamist group that partakes in stoning adulterers, punishing gays, and killing Muslims who leave their faith through "the preservation of honor", stated by their spokesperson Abdel Fattah. 

    Due to the lack of concrete direction concerning the democratization of Egypt’s government and the U.S.’s quest to “spread democracy”, there seems to be a suspicious air hovering over the Muslim Brotherhood. In some respects, this opposition group can pose a threat through its "nationalistic" aspect illustrated by their harsh practices to support Islam and Muslim culture. This could potentially serve as a detriment to the U.S. because if the Muslim Brotherhood were to seize power, it could drastically alter foreign relations between the two countries. Nationalism is deeply rooted in an exaggerated belief in the greatness of one's country and the idea of resenting foreign domination which would jeopardize the current status as allies. Egypt is experiencing a regime change where the transition state of their government leaves the country in a fragile state and extremist groups are more likely to mobilize. As Ambassador Rice stated, the interests of the U.S. and the aspirations of reform by Egyptian citizens are essentially linked together by the fight for the protection of universal rights. The real debate stems from the deciding force that implements these rights and basis of which they are formed. The universal rights Ambassador Rice spoke about are democratic ideals listed in the U.S. Constitution, but what works for our Western society may not suit Northern Africa. Functioning under a dictatorship for thirty years and all of the sudden flipping the switch to a democracy may just be the workings of cultural imperialism.

For more information please visit MSNBC's website entitled Meet the Press!

“Mubarak is Gone After 30 Years in Power, But Questions Remain as to How Transitions Will Proceed” headlined Democracy Now’s video broadcast on Monday the 14th with Amy Goodwin covering the celebration of Egyptian citizens and the resignation of Mubarak’s 30 year reign which was announced this past Saturday. Although Mubarak is gone, his cabinet will remain in place along with the implementation of martial law by Egypt’s military over a six month period or until democratic elections can be held and a new government is formed. Egypt’s constitution has been suspended and the military plans to rewrite the country’s constitution within 10 days. The People’s Assembly and the Shura Council have both been dissolved and the military has banned meetings of labor unions to prevent the occurrence of strikes. Inspired by Egypt’s revolution, there has been a trend of other protesting specifically in Bahrain where citizens demanded the release of 450 political activist currently in jail. Violence ensued as 14 protesters were reported as being hurt by tear gas and rubber bullets used by officials. Protests in Yemen with similar interests to remove their 30 year regime from power have occurred as well as in Algeria.




SOURCE: International Dialogues


    Egypt’s recent revolution exemplified just how much power actually resides in the governed as opposed to the formal structures of government and its officials. Lasting only 18 days, citizens in Cairo and other cities mobilized and challenged an institution that had been in place for three decades. Leading by example, the youth and peaceful assemblies of protesters illustrates how effective a united front can be and most importantly the intensity of public opinion, defined as the as the collection of individual opinions about issues or objects of general interest that concern a significant number of people. The significance also lies within the aftermath of activity regarding the eradication of Egypt’s constitution and the erection of a new document. A constitution  is critical in that it is regarded as the supreme law of the land through the denotation of rules and customs by which the government should conduct its affairs. The “sacred” document should essentially write the national ideas of the country, formalize the structures of government, and attempt to justify the government’s right to govern. If written within 10 days, how effective will the Egyptian’s constitution really be in capturing and tailoring itself to the current amends and demands of the people contrasting policies that have been in place for 30 years?

Want to read more? Go to Democracy Now! on the web and get the fulls scoop.

Media Crackdown

SOURCE: Federal Trade Commission

This past Sunday, February 6th, marked the two week duration of the uprising in Cairo and the protesting of Mubarak's regime by Egyptian citizens. Reporting from Tahrir Square in the country's capital, Democracy Now's Sharif Abbdel Kouddous detailed the current "media crackdown" experienced by other journalists and ground reporters covering the revolution. In response to the army general's request for protesters to leave Tahrir on Saturday night, the crowd replied with "we're not leaving until he leaves", alluding to the end of Mubarak's regime. The "crackdown" on reporters has killed one person and left many others beaten and battered. Police, guised in plain clothes, have even gone so far to search and scan the footage the journalists have accumulated by checking their cameras, laptops, and cell phones. Cell phones are extremely crticial in this situation as being the last resort of the reporters' publication tool because carrying cameras are a dead giveaway. Kouddous spoke with Dana Smillie, a multimedia journalist, who has lived in Cairo for 15 years and currently ten minutes from Tahrir, but described "the last 12 days [being] the most exhilirating and the most terrifying 12 days of [her] life." Another reporter, Steffen Jensen from TV2Denmark, said he was attacked by a group of Mubarak supporters behind a museum. Although yet to be confirmed, the latest news suggests that all journalists entering Tahrir must get confirmation from the Ministry of Interior by registering their pictures and gaining permission thereafter.

    Under the assumption that the media effectively acts as a fourth branch of government, being a "watchdog" of sorts, it is responsible for the presentation of information to the public and creation of the public's reaction to the content. Supported by the Agenda Setting theory in the field of communications, the media emphasizes and influences the way people think about certain issues and their importance. The Egyptian government told their citizens that the journalists reporting and gathering information in Tahrir were spies and went so far to shut down the internet from February 25th to the 28th. The "systematic targeting" of journalist is a direct reflection on the Egyptian government’s efforts to contain the revolutionary activities within their borders. The withholding of this information can, and will, essentially contribute to the world's oblivion regarding the atrocities occurring, both witnessed and unknown, because the publication of stories are in jeopardy along with journalists' lives. Detrimental to the human rights organization and other countries' aid efforts, the monitoring of information will play a vital role, globally, in the coming events of the protest and the end of Mubarak's regime.


Here is the article's link on Democracy Now!'s website in addition to other articles following the African revolutions.

SOURCE: CartoonStock.com

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) supports an alternative view adhering to network neutrality principles that act as “an important safeguard for free speech on the Internet.” The principles are basically designed to prohibit networks from tampering with information from the source, as it is en route to the receiver, by either halting or slowing the process of data. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) suggested a rule that protects the openness of the Internet but only for wired connections, whereas the wireless service can be dominated by companies through their varied rates and charges for their services. The ACLU argue that the Internet should be granted the same exact rights as free speech to protect the customers because without it, the consumers and users are subjected to “large telecommunications companies [from] manipulating or interfering with the public’s access to information online.” There is a valid argument in that the ACLU wants to prevent the infiltration of big companies regarding the passage of original content, but the free speech and press protection is too broad. The way to uphold the individual integrity of online text is to create a law specifically stating and addressing the issue. If we continue to honor the broad spectrum of the First Amendment, which really only details speech as in oral and press as in print, then there will be numerous cases causing continuous debate.

Visit ACLU on the web for the full article and more information regarding the organization's fight for civil liberties.