Kenyan Leaders Oversimplify Displacement

“We have decided as a government that people should go back where they were evicted from.”

President Mwai Kibaki has apparently “decided” that Kenyans displaced as a result of December’s election mayhem should return to their homes. Yet realizing this statement is for many a matter of life or death. Kenya’s political turbulence in the last few months have given rise to ethnic conflicts similar to those in other African countries and at a time when two estranged political leaders of different tribes are forced to work together, their people are less willing to force friendships.

The rival leaders have agreed to share power: with Odinga taking the new post of Prime Minister and Mwai Kibaki taking the role of president. Yet despite this deal, there are still remaining power struggles, including the question of how to divide Cabinet positions between the two parties. While they peripherally represent collaboration in politics, the two individuals are continuing to fuel ethnic conflicts by being unable to solve them.

Within the last four months, Kenya has lost approximately $1 billion because of the continued violence, largely due to the severe lack of tourism. At present, 157,000 Kenyans remain displaced as a result of the violence; many refuse to return to their homes for fear of continued ethnic violence, others because of the memories of death and dying that the survivors witnessed. In a place where even the police are threatened, peace and calm seem, at best, at a distance.

"It is better that I become a beggar in Nairobi than to go back to my farm and see the people who killed my children.” -Hblitzarun Mwangi, 52, displaced Kenyan

Hmmm "Turkishness" or the "Turkish Nation"? Same Concept

While Turkey gets more creative with its legislation, the European Union is finding new creative ways to exclude Turkey from membership.

With its confusing location, this progressive state finds itself torn between Middle Eastern culture and European influence. Despite desperate attempts to gain membership into the EU, Turkey is falling short with legislation that the EU feels limits free speech—an integral part of democracy. Article 301 of Turkey’s penal code outlaws insults on “Turkishness.” Last Friday, Turkeys Parliamentary justice panel began debating a proposal by the government to soften, although not completely remove, the wording of the controversial article. As it stands, citizens can be prosecuted for saying anything that would be deemed disparaging towards Turkishness. Although the proposal would change the wording to “Turkish nation,” and would require that the justice minister decide punishment, it does not change the nature of the article. While Turkey claims that other European nations have similar legislation, in Turkey, many individuals and non-judicial institutions are taking up the challenge of punishing those they deem as insulting toward their nation.

In a time where the legitimacy of a democracy can either be undermined or reinforced by public opinion, Turkey is excluding itself from the fray by punishing dissenters through legislation. This legistlaiton is deemed crucial by the government at a time when Kurdish resistance is at its peak and unity of Turkey is seen as important to its nationhood. Yet it becomes hard to believe that the legislation is well-intentioned and aimed at the prevention of hate-speech when even bands and their non-political messages are attacked. In 2007, a punk rock band was prosecuted for criticizing a nation-wide high-school exam (a type of SAT) through their song. The band was acquitted but their eligibility for prosecution can indicate nothing other than a sanction of the freedom of speech.

While the EU continually looks for reason to exclude Turkey from membership, Turkey is victimizing itself by failing to curb legislation that is deemed contrary to the idea of democracy and freedom of speech.

Chinese Protest the Protests

As people around the world are uniting and protesting the bearing of the Olympic torch through their respective homelands, China is protesting its reception in certain countries. In France, hostile protests led to the torch taking a shorter route than originally scheduled—in response, thousands of Chinese citizens have mobilized outside of the French supermarket chain, Carrefour, in several cities.

The protesters were armed with images of Mao Zedong and Chinese flags, and even some pictures of Jin Jang, a rather unknown fencing athlete who clung to the torch as he ran through Paris earlier in April, despite determined interference from a Tibet supporter.

While the world protests China’s violation of human rights, the Chinese themselves are retaliating with a protest that advocates a united China, in which Tibet forms a legal part. Chinese media has taken advantage of this countrywide protest to make an international showing of its own citizens’ support for the government in relations to its dealings with Tibet. While the international community continues to support Tibet in its independence movement, segments of the Chinese population are rallying to display their own support for issue that (to them) should be considered a domestic, as opposed to international. While protests continue as the torch makes its way through the world, it is evident that this has become a China vs. the Rest ordeal.

So what is the touchiest change a Tibetan must make according to the Chinese government? Sacrificing the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader for the Chinese-appointed Panchen Lama. Assimilation therefore requires more than simply a central political belief, but also a unified religious belief. To that end, the Dalai Lama is currently in exile. Any dissent by Tibetans has been met with harsh government actions—which have been seen as violations of international law. While Chinese protesters assert their right to host the Olympics, they are simultaneously endorsing their government's clear violations of international. If it is a question of a unified China through violent means, then the end certainly doesn't justify the means.

Hillary's Optimistic America vs Obama's Bitter America. Reality?

        As strategic mudslinging continues, candidates are losing the battle to keep their noble image. While Hillary Clinton laughs to keep from crying, Barack Obama attempts at redeeming himself from a flawed image created by a rabid pastor are being undermined by his most recent speech, in which he called blue-collared workers "bitter." The statement was originally made at a meeting with private donors on April 6th in San Francisco as an explanation as to why American workers in Pennsylvania are hesitant to back his campaign, which he reiterated again at a public speech in Indiana only days later when asked a question regarding his statement in San Francisco. In his speech he stated "People are fed up, they're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter and they want to see a change in Washington and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America."

      As the media cracks down on Obama's word-choice in describing the American people, it is becoming evident that this candidate-shredding is taking on a more specific form. While Clinton has stretched the truth about her Bosnia trip, she seems to be quick to turn the tide on Obama as he describes Americans in a truthful, although not positive, way. At a recent speech in response to Obama, Clinton emphasized her humble beginnings--or at least those of her grandfather--as a worker at a lace mill in Pennsylvania. She has also managed to such up to the population by calling Americans "optimistic," as she attempts to contrast what she sees as a condescending Obama with an angelic opposition. This Chicago-born, Yale-trained lawyer doesn't quite fit into the "small town" identity she attempts to give off. Perhaps the reality is that none of the presidential candidates fit into the appealing profiles of humble, average, blue-collar, or small-town individuals.

      John McCain, meanwhile, is laying low as he attempts to scrap up evidence for the forth-coming presidential election, while allowing the democrats to do the damage. While his representative has called Obama "out of trust" with the American population, this military man, with endless vocabulary regarding lengthening the Iraqi liberation war, seems out of touch with the war-fatigued nation.

     Despite the irritation over Obama's word-choice, there is an underlying message--one that goes beyond simply labeling people, but that analyzes why this group of Pennsylvanian people (and likely workers from other states) are not backing Obama's campaign along with its promises. Obama claims that the explanation as to why workers are bitter is the deterioration of the American economy, the loss of health care and pensions, the loss of jobs (often due to outsourcing) and lack of resolution by the past three administrations. The fact is that election after election, administration after administration, little to no change is being made. Instead of airing this criticism of prior administrations and the promise of the Obama campaign, the media has sought to highlight the single word: "bitter." Repeatedly.