VOLUME VII ISSUE VI by JHU Politik

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

JHU POLITIK WIKILEAKS

AND ITS FINANCIAL STATE

ISSUE VI INTERNATIONAL TALKS BETWEEN THE US AND NORTH KOREA RESUME by by Julia Allen, ’15 - Page 3 KARZAI PLEDGES SUPPORT TO PAKISTAN by Cary Glynn, ’13 - Page 4 THE END OF THE LAST ARMED CONFLICT IN EUROPE? by Akshai Bhatnagar, ’15 - Page 5

OPINION REDEFINING AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP IN THE FACE OF TERRORISM by Virgil Doyle, ’14 - Page 6

Besides his company’s mounting financial woes, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange confronts extradition to Sweden, where he faces rape and sexual assault allegations. (SOURCE: http://guim.co.uk)

by RACHEL COHEN, ’13 Staff Writer

ikiLeaks, the infamous international non-profit organization known for publishing private, secret, and classified information from anonymous sources and whistleblowers, is currently facing intense financial pressure. The result of a “financial blockade” led by the United States, this pressure could force the organization to shut down by the end of the year. Last year, WikiLeaks drew worldwide attention as it released and passed huge quantities of secret United States military and diplomatic cables on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to news organizations like The New York Times and The Guard-

ian. Established in 2006, the organization has sparked a fierce and intense public debate on whether full transparency in a government system harms society by endangering national security, or whether it benefits society by strengthening its overall democratic character. WikiLeaks’ current crisis is caused by a 10-month-old blockade that consists of credit card companies such as MasterCard and Visa refusing to process donations to the website. In addition, its bank accounts have been shut down and even web-hosting sites are reluctant to host the site on its servers. WikiLeaks’ most famous source, US army soldier Bradley Manning, has

A TRIAL FOR SAIF ALISLAM QADDAFI by Jacob Grunberger, ’14 - Page 7 SYRIA AND SELF DETERMINATION: FOREIGN INTERVENTION by Megan Augustine, ’13 - Page 7

JOHNS HOPKINS’ Only WeeklyPublished Political Magazine

been held in solitary confinement without charge for over a year, in conditions that many human rights activists believe amount to torture. Founder and Editor-in-Chief of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, calls the blockade a “dangerous, oppressive, and undemocratic” attack. He argues that his organization has been deprived of “tens of millions of dollars” and that the blockade has hindered (continued on Page 2) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

THE POLITIK EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Hannah Holliday

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Will Denton

LAYOUT EDITOR

ASSISTANT EDITORS

Ana Giraldo-Wingler

Randy Bell Jeremy Orloff Matt Varvaro

STAFF WRITERS

Colette Andrei Megan Augustine Rachel Cohen Cary Glynn Ben Goldberg Eric Feinberg Anna Kochut Daniel Roettger Ari Schaffer Hilary Matfess Michael Bodner Robert D’Annibale Chloe Reichel Sindhusha Ravi

PRODUCTION MANAGER

Neil O’Donnell FACULTY ADVISOR

Steven R. David MANAGING EDITOR

Alex Clearfield JHU POLITIK is a student-run political publication. Please note that the opinions expressed within JHU POLITIK are those of the author alone.

INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 1) 95% of the organization’s revenue. Currently, WikiLeaks receives less than $10,000 per month. The Wau Holland Foundation, a keeper of the organization’s records, issued a report this year stating that WikiLeaks raised $1.8 million in 2010 and spent a little over $550,000, resulting in a surplus of about $1.3 million at the start of 2011. However, the blockade is clearly putting a huge strain on that money, and WikiLeaks is raising nowhere near the money it once did. WikiLeaks is responding to this situation in part by auctioning off “valuable” items in order to raise money. Among these was a laptop computer that is said to have been used in the preparation of distributing the secret American cables. The laptop was posted for sale at $550,000, but the highest early bid came in at only $6,000. On Twitter, WikiLeaks advertised the laptop, telling potential buyers, “In this exclusive auction item, you will get the full set of WikiLeaks cables, the WikiLeaks computer and its passwords.” As a result of its financial predicament, WikiLeaks has been forced to stop its work of processing the tens of thousands of secret documents it received and instead focus its energy on lawsuits they filed in several countries, among them the United States and Australia, challenging the blockade. WikiLeaks is also focusing on submitting a formal petition to the European Commission to try to restore donors’ ability to send in money to

the organization. These controversies have damaged WikiLeaks during the past year, causing some of Mr. Assange’s closest partners to quit the organization. Julian Assange insists that he and WikiLeaks were victims of a “conspiracy to smear and destroy” them, and that this conspiracy was led by the United States Treasury, American intelligence agencies, and right-wing forces such as powerful corporations like Bank of America. Assange declared on October 25 that, “In order to ensure our future survival, WikiLeaks is now forced to temporarily suspend its publishing operations and aggressively fundraise in order to fight back against this blockade and its proponents.” Whether Wikileaks will be able to fight the financial blockade and continue releasing confidential and private material to the world is unclear, and whether they should, regardless of their financial capability to do so, remains the subject of continued and heated debate. s

WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

INTERNATIONAL REPORT Preliminary Talks Between the US and North Korea Resume by JULIA ALLEN, ’15 Staff Writer

nvoys from North Korea and the United States met in Geneva this past week for “exploratory” talks about the future of Pyongyang’s nuclear program. Recently, North Korea has expressed its desire to resume the six-party talks, which dealt with disarmament-fortrade negotiations between South Korea, China, the United States, Russia, Japan, and North Korea. These talks disintegrated in 2008 because of a dispute over the extent to which North Korea should inform the international community about its nuclear program and how often international inspectors should be allowed in. The negotiations that took place this past week on October 24 and 25 were a continuation of similar talks held in New York this past January. This recent string of communications has been intended to gauge North Korea’s willingness to make changes to its nuclear program before official negotiations can be resumed. Mark Toner, the Deputy State Department Spokesman, said that the United States government was “not seeking to have talks for talk’s sake,” and will continue to delay six-party talks until North Korea complies with the agreements it has made in past negotiations. On October 24, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta highlighted the importance of stabilizing relations with North Korea, stating that because of its tendency to “engage in reckless and provocative behavior,” the nation poses a threat “to the entire region.” American officials point to the current uranium enrichment program, the shelling of a South Korean island, the continuation of nuclear and missile testing, and the alleged sinking of a South Korean ship as evidence of North Korean aggression. The US requires that North Korea freeze its nuclear program, halt nuclear and missile testing, allow United Nations inspectors to operate within the nation, and promise not to attack South Korea before the desired disarmamentfor-aid talks can resume. North Korean officials resent the fact that the United States has required unofficial negotiations prior to resuming the six-party talks. In response to American complaints about its uranium enrichment program, North Korea argues that the 2005 agreements allowed for the peaceful development of a nuclear power pro-

gram. Despite this disagreement, North Korea has several good reasons to participate in these preliminary negotiations: not only has China been urging its ally to improve relations with the United States, North Korea is also facing food shortages that threaten its population and now require international aid. Although the U.S. and South Korea don’t officially base humanitarian aid off of political situations, David Austin, the program director for the North Korean division of Mercy Corps, says, “its all wrapped in a political process.” After completing two days of negotiations, U.S. special envoy for North Korea and the leader of the American negotiators Stephen Bosworth said that the talks were “moving in a positive direction,” but that both parties “still have differences that we need to resolve.” Though these talks have not made any groundbreaking progress in the overall relationship between the United States and North Korea, it is important to acknowledge the positive role that they have played. The negotiations were not prompted by any specific event, but the fact that they have been revived shows mutual interest in preventing any massive miscalculations that might be the result of a prolonged lack of communication. s

Karzai Pledges Support to Pakistan by CARY GLYNN, ’13 Staff Writer

n an interview taped in Kabul on Friday and aired in Pakistan on Saturday, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said, “God forbid, if there is a war between Pakistan and US, Afghanistan would stand by Pakistan.” Yet, his statement came one day after he joined US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in encouraging Pakistan to curb aggression against Afghanistan emanating from within Pakistan. Further, in September the Afghan government accused Pakistan’s intelligence agency of being involved in the murder of Afghanistan’s chief peace negotiator, Burhanuddin Rabbani. The notorious Haqqani Network—accused by US officials of engineering numerous attacks in Afghanistan, including the recent assault on the US embassy in Kabul—enjoys de facto sanctuary inside Pakistan. Interviewer Saleem Safi, an anchor with Pakistan’s largest Urdu news channel and host of GEO TV’s current (Continued on page 4) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

INTERNATIONAL REPORT (Continued from page 3) affairs program “Jirga,” immediately realized President Karzai’s statement would cause a global political sensation and followed up: “Then I asked him what would he do in case there is a war between Pakistan and India. He said whosoever attacks Pakistan and Pakistan requests Afghanistan for support, it would stand by Pakistan in the same way as Pakistan has been with Afghanistan.” Safi wrote an article in the October 25 issue of Karachi’s News International responding to statements from Kabul that Karzai’s remarks had been taken out of context and misrepresented. Safi asserts that Karzai and his media people were given opportunities after the interview to view the tape and clarify or even delete portions of what had been said, but declined to do so. Safi insisted that the interview was aired intact and without altera-

Above, Afghan President Hamid Karzai shakes hands with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. His statements about supporting Pakistan in a hypothetical war against the US come only hours after Clinton’s visit to the region. (SOURCE: http://guim.co.uk)

tion and that he was not responsible for the interpretations of Western news outlets. Enmity and distrust between Pakistan and India are deep and longstanding. India has become Afghanistan’s largest regional donor and has pledged billions of dollars in aid for reconstruction and development projects, as well as training programs for the Afghan police and army. As a new agreement was signed earlier this month that included increased economic and military commitments, Karzai said, “Pakistan is a twin brother, India a great friend. The agreement we signed yesterday with our friend will not affect our brother.” Karzai’s recent comments send contradictory messages in numerous directions. Official reactions from the US and India, however, have been subdued and indicate an understanding of the Afghan president’s predicament. Indian officials realize these statements are

an effort by President Karzai in a delicate balancing act with Pakistan. “India has just signed a strategic partnership with Kabul. This is not something the Afghans have with anyone including the US. India is not worried about this. There is a realization that Pakistan is worried about Indo-Afghan ties and Karzai has to have good ties with Islamabad as they share a porous border,” relayed an anonymous source inside India’s Ministry of External Affairs. Earlier this month, President Karzai expressed a strong desire to negotiate directly with Pakistan instead of the intransigent and unreliable Taliaban. The US was supportive of this, with US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Marc Grossman commenting, “what we continue to talk about is the need for engagement between the United States and Pakistan. And if I might add, also the need for engagement between Pakistan and Afghanistan.” Although the Karzai interview created a sensation on cable news stations and online blog sites, US officials have essentially brushed it off in much the same fashion as have their Indian counterparts. In Washington on Tuesday, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, referring to the idea of a war between the US and Pakistan, said, “it is not an issue, because it is not going to happen.” The White House also downplayed the controversy, with spokesman Jay Carney saying, “I don’t have any reaction beyond that our relationship with Pakistan is complicated but important. Our cooperation with Pakistan continues and is vital to our efforts to combat al Qaeda. And, I mean, that’s a hypothetical that doesn’t have a lot of bearing on current reality.” Meanwhile, President Karzai continues to maintain that the media misinterpreted his remarks. Siamak Herawi, a spokesman for Karzai, said that the president had been trying to express solidarity with Pakistan for having taken in millions of Afghan refugees. Whatever his intentions might have been, President Karzai walks a rhetorical tight rope in anticipation of a post-US Afghanistan in which he must reach a settlement with an insurgent Taliban controlled by “brother” Pakistan. s

WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

INTERNATIONAL REPORT The End of the Last Armed Conflict in Europe? by AKSHAI V. BHATNAGAR, ’15 Contributing Writer

ast week, Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), which means “Basque Homeland and Freedom” in Basque, announced a permanent ceasefire with Spain and France, ending a 43 year old armed conflict. Classified as a terrorist organization by both the EU and the US, ETA has orchestrated numerous attacks in order to achieve its goal of an independent Basque state. Since 1968, the organization has claimed over 800 lives and is known to have collaborated with other terrorist organizations, such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA). Even though ETA has broken its ceasefires in 1989, 1996, 1998, and 2006, many believe that this time the conflict is truly over. As former British Prime Minister Tony Blair said of ETA in a New York Times op-ed piece this week, “Its leaders have put violence behind them for good. This really is the end of the last armed conflict in Europe.” ETA was founded in 1959 with the goal of achieving an independent Basque state along the Franco-Spanish border. The Basque people are believed to be some of the oldest inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula as their language bears no relation to the Indo-European Romance languages that surround it. From 1968, when it definitively began its terrorist activities, to the late 1970s, ETA enjoyed a certain degree of sympathy, both within Spain and internationally. Dictator Francisco Franco had captured and tortured leading Basque intellectuals and banned the Basque language. Many ETA leaders found refuge in France, which was willing to accommodate them in their fight against the Fascist Franco regime. It was during this period that ETA orchestrated one of its most famous and dramatic attacks: Operation Ogre. After tunneling under a street, ETA operatives bombed a car passing overhead that was carrying then-Prime Minister Luis Carrero Blanco, Franco’s presumed successor and confidant. The bomb tossed the car five stories into the air, killing all of the occupants. Supporters of the attack controversially claim that by removing Franco’s successor, Operation Ogre helped bring about the end of the Franco regime.

ETA entered its most violent period in the years immediately after Franco’s death in 1975. In 1980 alone, ETA attacks claimed 100 lives. However, as Spain transitioned to democracy, support for the movement faded. Its 1987 Hipercor bombing, in which twenty-one people, including a pregnant woman and two children were killed, drew widespread condemnation. ETA’s dwindling level of support was made even more apparent after its 1997 execution of Miguel Ángel Blanco, a local politician who was kidnapped and executed after the Spanish government refused to release all ETA convicts from prison. The execution of such a young, relatively low-level, politician (Miguel Ángel Blanco was 29 and recently engaged) caused such a huge outpouring of grief that even members of ETA repudiated it. Since his death, two ceasefires have been tried and abandoned by ETA, the most dramatic being the 2006 Peace. Just months after announcing it, ETA broke its 2006 ceasefire and blew up a parking garage of the Madrid Barajas Airport, resulting in 54 casualties. During the Franco regime, many Basques supported ETA; however, ETA’s actions since the Spanish transition to democracy have decimated its support. A 2009 poll showed only one percent of Basques gave ETA total support and 77% of Basques do not support the group. As its violent activities have continued to lose support, ETA has been pressured on other fronts. Spanish and French police have been increasingly successful in collaborating to foil ETA plots and freeze its funds. The political wing of ETA, Batasuna, was recently outlawed in Spain under a new law banning undemocratic and terrorist-supporting political parties. New anti-terrorism laws, which treat terrorism suspects differently than other criminal suspects, have made it easier to detain ETA members. Spain’s harsh crackdown on ETA has drawn criticism from human rights groups such as Amnesty International, which accuse some Spanish authorities of torturing suspected ETA terrorists. The eroding level of support and government pressures forced ETA to announce a new ceasefire last year. This week they have announced that the ceasefire will be permanent and testified to the “definite cessation of armed activities.” While the White House and others have been cautiously optimistic about the news, many high-profile international leaders appear to believe that this truly is the end of the violent Basque separatist movement. Former (Continued on page 6) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

INTERNATIONAL REPORT/OPINION (Continued from page 5) United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan, President of Sinn Fein Gerry Adams, and former Prime Ministers of Ireland and Norway attended ETA’s announcement, which was supported by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, and former U.S. Senator and former US Special Envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell. As a vindication of outgoing Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the peace agreement signed this week will hopefully go down in history as the end to this long and bloody conflict. However, a lasting peace would also have a broader significance. Sixty six years after the Second World War ended, it appears the Europe may finally be at peace. s

O P I N I O N

Born in the USA: Redefining American Citizenship in the Face of Terrorism by VIRGIL DOYLE, ’14 Contributing Writer

n September 30, an American drone strike killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a senior al-Qaeda cleric, in Yemen. Awlaki was a prominent figure in al-Qaeda, an imam, and a regional commander in Yemen. After Osama bin Laden’s assassination in May, it was even rumored that Awlaki was in the running to take the reins as leader of al-Qaeda from bin Laden. For years, he preached messages of violent extremism against the West and martyrdom in the name of Islam. These sermons were devastatingly influential and effective: from the 9/11 attacks to a 2005 assault on London’s Metro system, dozens of acts of terror were influenced by Awlaki’s lectures. Though his initial prominence came from his rhetoric, in recent years Awlaki began directly planning attacks against the United States. In 2009 alone, he helped to orchestrate the mass shooting at Fort Hood that killed 13 residents of the Texas military base and was also instrumental in the attempted “underwear” bombing of a commercial flight in Detroit. By any standard, Awlaki was a terrorist, directly and indirectly inciting acts of violence against civilians. Yet, Awlaki had the unique distinction

of being not only a terrorist, but also an American citizen, born to Yemeni parents in New Mexico. He earned degrees in engineering and education from American universities, and even spent a few months in 2001 working on a Ph.D at George Washington University. Normally, the assassination of a high profile target like Awlaki would be considered a tremendous success in America. But there has been domestic and international uproar over his killing thanks to his status as an American citizen. Many argue that his assassination was illegal, a gross violation of the rights and protections granted to him as a citizen. Others argue that Awlaki ought to be considered an enemy combatant, and thus does not receive the benefits of U.S. citizenship. This debate over the killing of an American-born al-Qaeda operative demonstrates fundamental tensions over how states define citizenship, enemy combatants and security threats in our modern era. Given the new international environment, characterized by transnational connection, the United States must redefine and reinterpret exactly what it is to be a citizen in order to meet the threats posed by a changing world. In the past, our primary security threats were other states, like Nazi Germany. In traditional wars, an enemy combatant was easy to define and identify: if someone was a citizen of an enemy state and fought against us on behalf of that state, he could be categorized as an enemy combatant. But today, we are often threatened by transnational organizations, like al-Qaeda, which operate across national borders and whose ties will often transcend those of citizenship. This is what happened in the case of Awlaki. He clearly demonstrated his intent to fight against the United States by orchestrating attacks against us, but he did so not on behalf of another state but rather for al-Qaeda, a nebulously defined international organization. This is a key distinction when examining Awlaki’s constitutional rights as a citizen. American citizens are offered several protections under the Constitution that a government-ordered assassination would arguably violate. First and foremost is the right, under the Fifth Amendment, to not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” In Awlaki’s case, there was no trial or due process, but merely an executive order to assassinate him. So, if his citizenship were still considered valid, Awlaki’s constitutional rights would clearly have been violated by his assassination. Thus, the issue becomes whether or not Awlaki was still a citizen; there is no record of him ever (Continued on page 7) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

(Continued from page 6)

OPINION

formally renouncing it. There are, however, several ways in which one can legally be stripped of American citizenship. In the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, there is one especially relevant way he could be stripped of his rights, namely, if he were to enter the armed forces of another state considered hostile to the U.S. This is the key issue and the cause of the controversy surrounding Awlaki. He is, technically speaking, still a citizen: he never acted on behalf of the armed forces of another state, so he doesn’t meet the strict meaning of an enemy combatant. Yet he openly sought to subvert the American government and was at least partially responsible for the deaths of American citizens. These hardly sound like the actions of a lawabiding citizen. The debate over Awlaki is a specific example of a larger issue facing the world: how to adapt and reinterpret our fundamental principles of what it is to be an American to a world in which they may no longer fully be applicable. To keep men like Anwar al-Awlaki from exercising the rights of citizenship while actively attempting to subvert the very system that granted him those rights, we must remodel and revise American citizenship to meet the modern challenges posed by our globalized era. s

A Trial for Saif al-Islam Qaddafi by JACOB GRUNBERGER, ’14 Contributing Writer

While I never was and never will be an advocate for the government of Muammar Qaddafi, I must say that following his execution, I was incredibly distraught. It has always been said that the king must fall for a new government to rise, but the idea that a military with a populist ideology would execute their former leader without a trial had me worried about the prospects for a future democratic regime in Libya. However, I believe that the new Libyan government has the ability to redeem this error. It has been reported that the son of Qaddafi, Saif alIslam Qaddafi, is alive and in hiding. If he is to be caught, it is imperative that he is put on trial. The question then arises, where should he be tried? There are many compelling reasons as to why Saif alIslam Qaddafi should be tried at home in Libya. First and foremost, a trial and conviction of a high-ranking mem-

Volume VII, Issue VI

ber of the Qaddafi regime would provide much needed closure for the Libyan people. It is essential for state emerging from despotic rule bring to justice all individuals responsible for committing crimes against their own people. This action demonstrates to the people not only that the resurgence of despotic rule will be near impossible, but more importantly that these former leaders no longer have authoritarian control over their people. Why is it necessary, then, that there be a trial for Sail al-Islam Qaddafi as opposed to an immediate execution? The answer may be attributed to Marx, who proclaimed that in order to properly demonstrate a fundamental ideological difference with the ruling party, it is necessary for the dominated to highlight the contradictions of

Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, son of former dictator Muammar Qaddafi, remains in hiding following his father’s death at the hands of Libyan rebels (SOURCE: http://guim.co.uk)

the authority’s rule. I think that this idea fits the Libyan model quite well. Qaddafi’s regime was marked by secret interrogations and extrajudicial “trials” for political dissidents. For this reason, a fair, transparent trial would be ideal for the new Libyan government to demonstrate a marked departure from the practices of its predecessors and to show the world that the new Libya will be one of judicial independence with legitimacy drawn from the people as opposed to the ruling party. Additionally, the execution of another Qaddafi may elevate the once beneficiary of authoritarian rule to martyr status, inciting various rebellions against the fledgling democracy of Libya. However, a trial for the son of Qaddafi in Libya may not be an ideal decision. The primary reason for this is that it will most likely take a significant amount of time (Continued on page 8) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

OPINION (Continued from page 7) for the new government of Libya to establish an efficient judicial system. It would be damning for the emerging government to ineffectively try Qaddafi’s son because it would set a bad precedent for the future of the infant judicial system and it would have the potential to spark demonstrations against the government if many spoilers would have a justified claim against the legitimacy of the trial. What is the other option? According to news sources, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi has been pleading to be tried at the International Criminal Court in The Hague. While I’m not instantly inclined to favor the wishes of the son of an oppressive dictator, there are various advantages to having a trial conducted by the international community. First, a trial for Qaddafi’s son could potentially set an international standard for good governance. The initial action by NATO against the government of Libya was regarded as highly controversial for many reasons. However, one of the most common arguments against its intervention was that there was no international legal precedent for such actions to take place. The trying an individual who was complicit in and maybe even encouraged the egregious human rights violations carried out by the Qaddafi dictatorship would set a base standard for when international interference is justified. I am, for the record, not justifying a neo-conservative argument that non-republican regimes ought to be forcibly removed from power due to an ideological difference in governance. What I am saying is that at times it may be justified for the international community, as signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to interfere within states that indiscriminately bomb their own citizens. The second reason that a trial at the ICC would be valuable is that because Saif al-Islam Qaddafi will not have to fear death, he will mostly likely be much more forthcoming about the practices of his father’s regime. While he may not admit to partaking in various abuses himself, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi will most likely shed light upon the former Libyan government’s rule, which will provide valuable insights into how authoritarian governments operate and maintain control. Further, his openness may lead to the discovery of hidden Libyan assets, which can be used to aid the new government. Additionally, Qaddafi’s son may be able to discuss how his government hired mercenaries to fight the rebel military of Libya. This information would be crucial in helping the international community further understand the African mercenary market and one day put an end to the

conditions that enable it to thrive. Finally, a trial at the ICC would simply lead to the strengthening of the Court. One of the biggest obstacles of the ICC is the fact that it has never really successfully tried a high profile case. By succeeding in providing a fair trial for Qaddafi, the Court may lend itself greater legitimacy, leading to a significant increase in trials which would enable an expansion of International Law and governance. In the end, the final decision ought to be placed in the hands of the Libyan people. It will be interesting to see how this scenario will plan out. Yet, whether it held in Libya or in The Hague, a trial for Saif al-Islam Gaddafi is not only beneficial but also essential. s

Syria and Self Determination: Where Does Foreign Intervention Fit? by MEGAN AUGUSTINE, ’13 Staff Writer

t has now been over seven months since protests broke out in Syria calling for the removal of Bashar Al-Assad from power and many other democratic reforms. It has also been over seven months since the government began killing, imprisoning, and repressing the protestors. Although they have been faced with even more brutal treatment from the corrupt power they seek to throw off, the brave men and women standing up against this oppression have continued their fight. The question is: to what end? The Syrian protestors are calling for democracy and increased freedom in the form of fewer restrictions on media, renewed plurality of political parties and subsequent removal of the Baath party, and an end to extrajudicial and martial courts. These types of political freedoms and the power of the people to self-determine their government are recognized as republican ideologies associated with western-style democracy. So why haven’t western nations, in particular the United States, which is committed to the mission of promoting democracy worldwide, come to the aid of Syria? The issue is twofold. The first piece requires the invitation from the rebelling country. The second is the willingness of the western powers to give of their eco(Continued on page 9) WWW.JHUPOLITIK.ORG

October 31, 2011

Volume VII, Issue VI

OPINION (Continued from page 8) nomic and military support. The question of western involvement has intensified, though, because of the recent NATO-intervention in Libya. Interestingly enough, the Syrians seem not to want and have not welcomed western involvement. This is a striking contrast from the situation in Libya. Libyan rebels cried for western intervention and worked with NATO to overthrow Qaddafi. In Syria there is a deeply embedded belief in the harmfulness of foreign involvement within their country. This is hardly surprising when one recognizes that the very existence of Syria is based on French creation of the state which followed decades of Ottoman rule in the region. The Syrians still view the introduction of foreign powers into Syria as the worst of all options. In fact, statistics reported by the Globe show that only 40% of Syrians favor “outside assistance.” What the protestors have called for though is increased pressure from the west on the Syrian government to end its clamp down. Yet, one can only speculate how much positive gain the Syrians believe this could give them. The movement seems to have no clear leading figures or strategies for a replacement government. The protestors are demanding the president step down without offering an alternative. The movement itself is extremely anonymous and secretive due to the government’s harsh repression. These factors make it very difficult for outside powers to give them any legitimate support. The tactical logistics in Libya made the mission much easier for western intervention to be swift, successful, and fairly bloodless in comparison with the situation in Syria. So, what diplomatic tools remain available to the west that could be used to exert pressure on the regime? The US, France, Germany, Britain, and Portugal have already attempted passing a UN resolution that would do nothing but “condemn” the violence, and yet China and Moscow have stopped even this act of political pressure from passing using their veto power. There has been much debate between the US and European powers about what should be done, but at the end of the day, the question that must be answered is what actually could be done? The hard truth underlying all the debate about possible engagement in Syria is that there is no moral scale that can be used to find a right or wrong answer. It is just as wrong for Al-Assad to kill 3,000 protesting Syrians as it was for Qaddafi to essentially carry out war against the Libyans. The difference in western response is not an ideological or moral one. The situation in Syria is making it increasingly evident that the rhetoric of democracy and republican ideology

cannot always be met by action. The West has consistently used ideological language to characterize the events of the Arab Spring. Yet, the inconsistency of the West in promoting and supporting these ideas reveals a growing awareness of the limitations preventing practical application. The growing consciousness in the US of limited political and military capital is resulting in an ever-increasing cost-benefit analysis regarding the level of involvement that could be given. While it seems wrong to use such economic terminology when people’s lives are stake, the truth of the matter is that this is not our battle. Exerting “political pressure” may be all that the west really can give to the Syrians. As long as the Syrians are not asking for assistance, the US is not in a position to play a more active role. In fact, the very spirit of any western intervention would clash with the spirit of selfempowerment and determination of the Arab Spring. Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. In such a situation, foreign countries can only act on what it is possible for them to do rather than what is necessarily consistent with their ideology. What is possible must then be defined within the limitations of preserving each individual country’s interest.