Recipe for Democracy: a dash of morals, pinch of tradition, mixed on a base of representation and rights

What calls for a stable democracy? Does a religious foundation help? If a nation is attempting to institute a democracy, religion needs to be considered. If a religion already exists, it would be quite difficult for it not to play a role in how the democracy will be formulated. Though it is common for the Western democracies to be built upon Christian ideals, they are other variations of democracies–successful democracies.

  When Turkey officially was granted its independence in shortly after World War II, an authoritarian government arose. Despite multiple military coups, the transition to a democracy has been successful. This democracy was founded, and has flourished in an Islamic nation: over 95% of the population are Sunni Muslims. 

 This dispels the argument that democracies will not succeed in non-Christian countries, or the even more specific argument that Islamic nations are not conducive to strong democracies. Turkey is a secular state, just like many of the Western examples it has elected to follow. Religion is not intertwined in the legal system. Yet, how possible is it for it to be entirely removed? The ban on the head-scarves has been removed, an issue that combines religion and politics. However, the rationale is not for a stake to be driven between religion and law, but merely for them to peacefully coexist without drastically affecting the other.                                                                                             

Turkey has embraced the modern-world, seeking to join the predominately Christian European Union. They have also opted to establish a second Confucius Institute, in order to enhance ties between the growing bond of Turkey and China. Embracing the new world, while maintaining traditions is a difficult balance—one that all countries are struggling with, Christian and non-Christian alike.

The New Face of Green.

Sri Lanka is not creating new currency because it is running low in quantity, but rather to create a new face for the country: the current president Mahinda Rajapaksa. Though it is traditional to have important and influential members of a country’s government on their currency, it sends a clear statement when the current head of state is on a bill—the government controls the money.  

Fortunately, the economy is not in the hands of the separatist group the Tamil Tigers. If these rebel forces were to gain control of the economic market, most of the country would be in grave danger. Yet, that is not a current concern, as the Sri Lankan government does have a solid holding on the economy of their nation, and its citizens are now reminded of that every time they use their 1,000 rupee note.

Money Matters.

Though Turkey may not have recently discovered a goldmine of lootable resources, they did receive confirmation about a large sum of money: the World Bank is giving them $6.2 billion, to stabilize financing program over the next four years. The rationale for doing this is to help create better governmental and state programs for the citizens so that the Turkish economy will be at a level that the EU requires for entrance into its organization.  Though the World Bank (and the IMF) have not always had the best reputation amongst those countries who they have loaned money out to, they have done a good job in keeping the money in the government—not in rebel forces. This money could be a very dangerous thing if the Kurdish section of Turkey were to use it in order to strengthen their separatist movement.  

However the Turkish government is not planning on vacating the state, which has unfortunately occurred in other countries around the world—such as Sierra Leone. The Turkish “rebel forces” will not be in control of the nation or the economy; that responsibility will be left up to the state. How well they use this money, will greatly depend how their future come 2015.

I am Canadian…. Can I enter the United States?

There are so many peeople trying to obtain the United States citizenship so that they can come to the United States more freely without any problem.  The United States are very strict with their immigration law to control visitors to make the United States safe. The United States are located between Canada and Mexico. Both boarder line is very important for the United States to be safe. Most of time, media focus issues with Mexican boarder and trying to ban Mexicans to enter to the United States. According to the CNN, Canadians were able to across the United States from Canada without no passport or visa because all they have to say was ” I am Canadian”.  Is it discriminating between Mexian and Canadian because Mexian does not have common language, English, like Canadians do?

The United States really worry about the security of the country whenever someone from the other country enters. For example, whenever I come to the United States, I have to make sure i have my passport, Visa, I-20 with signature to confirm that I am a student here and reason to be here. I had to give them finger print and picture to go through. But Canadians didn’t have to because they were just Canadian which allowed them to freely cross the boarder. Depends on citizenship of countries, they dont have to have visa to enter the United States.

Is this a discrimination because of wrong citizenship and create a huge security holes and cause the United States to face huge security problems? 

 Now they are trying to make Canadians to have proof to show that they are Canadian to enter the Untied States, but still it is way to easy for them to across the boarder than Mexians do.

I was really shocked with this news and how they are really discriminating Mexicans and treat them differntly because of the citizenship

Hunting for a Cause?

Is Islam a Civilization? Depends who you ask. Samuel Huntington would argue that yes, Islam has its own culture. Yet if you were to ask a Muslim believer, the response could be quite different. A Muslim in Iraq will view their culture differently than a Muslim in Turkey—which is where the issue of the Kurds comes in. Though this Kurdish clash is not exclusively religious, it certainly has spiritual undertones to the fight.

Yet what are the Kurds fighting for? Essentially they are fighting for their own nation. Their nation is being enveloped by the state of Turkey, and the clashing is not recent, rather escalating. The Kurds have something that many separatists groups have: nationalism. The Kurds do not have patriotism for their state; instead they have a fueled dispassionate taste for it. However they do have a strong sense of nationalism, which is binding them to their cause.

 

Though Huntington believed was correct in his location of where the culture war would emerge: where the West and Islam communities meet. Turkey straddles these two territories. However, where Huntington’s argument went astray is in regards to who would be fighting on this fault line—for it is not the West vs. “the rest”. Instead it is the nations which comprise the Islam community that are at ends with one another—sects that do not affiliate well together under the same blanketed term of Islam. Yet incorrect in his division or not, despite the fact that he has attempted to fit the cultures of the world into cookie cutter cut-outs, he did define the cause: culture. It is about culture and community, together which form our nations—which give us a reason to fight.

As Mark Tessler addressed in his Islam and Democracy in the Middle Eastpiece, religion does play a role in the politics of Islam nations. Therefore religion is imbedded in their nationalism. The religion is something that they all have in common, and is currently becoming the priority in their identity. Since they are placing their nationalism before other aspects of the identity (for example that they are Turkish citizens) Amartya Sen, author of Civilizations Imprisonments, may tone down her argument against the aforementioned Samuel Huntington. She critiqued Huntington’s arguments, claiming that the only way in which this theory could become practice is if everyone only associated with one identity, or rather one culture. Though the Kurds may possess multiple identities, the Kurdish separatists place their religious nationalism before everything else.  Their vehicle (let’s call it a Lexus) is their tradition (perhaps an Olive tree?).

The Implementation of Military Forces: A Rational Choice

The current situation in Sri Lanka of the on-going conflicts between the Tamil Tigers and the government does not look like it will end soon. Each side is losing numerous members, without the fighting giving any sign of alleviation. Therefore, the possibility of outside resistance is one to be considered. Countries, such as Great Britain, is  not opposed to sending forces, but they would like others to support this cause as well. There are options: 1 remaining on the outside of Sri Lanka, allowing hundreds of lives to be taken. 2. Give aid to Sri Lanka, in means of physical forces. 3. Give financial assistance.  

All options should be considered. Remaining on the outside could cause Sri Lanka to become the next Darfur regarding ethnic cleansing. However, if Great Britain does not send troops, they would not lose any lives in the entanglement. Option two has a high risk rate; yet, it also has the highest potential success rate. Lives of British troops would likely be lost if they were deployed to Sri Lanka. Yet hundreds of lives would be lost if they (or someone else) does not. Option three would be more feasible if the government was stable enough to properly use the monetary aid. Currently though, Sri Lanka is far from that.

 Though resolution has not been made regarding the issue of sending troops, it does seem that the rational choice would be to sending assistance.  Despite its higher risk, the potential damage of not giving aid is not a conclusion anyone would like to see. Thus, the rational choice theory seems to indicate that giving physical force assistance would be the most profitable, as it will help alleviate the current disastrous situation at a lesser cost than doing nothing now, and potentially having to aid in reconstructing a failed country.  

Role Reversal

Instead of the terrorists attacking the state, the state is attacking the terrorists in Turkey. The Turkish military claims to have destroyed 70Kurds through an aircraft attack over the weekend. Turkey is a unique country in regards to terrorism, as it currently is a fairly stable country. They are well on their way to gaining entrance into the EU, they just recently lifted the ban on the wearing of head scarves, and they are maintaining the cultures of two different worlds. It seems that problems would be inevitable in such a situation, and though problems do exist right now, Turkey happens to be handling them without causing too much disturbance within the country. The state is remaining stable in a sticky situation. The country is sedating the terror the terrorists continue to illicit.

No Tresspassing

Tourists beware: Sri Lanka is not a welcoming place. The state cannot protect its citizens nor its visitors from attacks. Sri Lanka has held its rank at 25th on the failed state index for both 2006 and 2007. Though Sri Lanka is now ranked as the “Third deadlist place for journalists” the state itsels is faring better than most of the other at risk counties. They are still able to provide public services to their country, which Robert Rotberg would claim is a sign of stablity since they can still produce public goods. However, their security cannot be as high as it claims to be on the Failed State index chart, if it is now such a deadly place for journalists.

Terror in Europe. Almost happend

Europe is the biggest target for terrorists to attack. So far there were train boming, subway boming and more suicide bombing all over the Europe. Recently, there was another attempt in Europe by this terrorist group and it showed the world we are not safe yet and it is getting more dangerous by these terrorists group trying to destory this society.

Sri Lankan military= new terrorist group?

In class, we talked about state and how they were using necessary violence to meet their goal. Sri Lankan military is using their forces to get rid of their rebellions. Is it going to help the country or destory it completly by killing innocent people. Or war is necessary to diminish terrorist group of their own?