Archive for May, 2010

What I Learned from my Ethic’s Class

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Because of our rationality we can understand the difference between right and wrong we can understand moral laws, which it is, our duty to accept as binding. Kant said that morality is universal and objective, rather than local, historical, and subjective which mean that every rational agent has an obligation to do what is right. Consequently, it is a person’s duty to do what is morally right as an objective matter. Kant believed that ethical issues are black and white, or right or wrong. There is no grey in between. “Act only on that maxim whereby you can will that it should become a universal law”. In other words, moral activity is something that applies to everyone and we should act accordly, giving from a moral point of view what we expect in return.

Carol Blenda

Tags:,
Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

Governance and Development: Iraq after the US invasion

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

By Carol Blenda Reyes Avila

The loss of life continues to rise in the US-led invasion of Iraq as both proponents and detractors of the war begin to question the almost certain human rights violations that are occurring. Overseeing the establishment of a sound and appropriate government once appeared to be the ultimate goal although many, particularly those on the left-side of the political spectrum, are beginning to criticize America’s continued involvement in the Middle East.

The United States has had troops stationed in both  Afghanistan since 2001 and Iraq since 2003, fighting an enemy that has no face. It’s a war that crosses cultural barriers where, often times, there simply may not be a solution to a particular problem, some of which are historically rooted so deeply into cultural value systems that one would have to have grown up there, literally, to fully grasp their complexity.

Once the President of the United States determines that the mission of the American troops has been completed and it is time to go home, what happens next?  Exactly what criteria will determine our pulling-out of these situations that, quite possibly, we shouldn’t have gotten involved in to begin with. The war on terror is a never-ending battle and there will always be needed work to improve what we have voluntarily started. We complain of poverty in the United States yet we really have no idea what poverty is. We continue to focus on terroristic events that occurred on our own soil, yet we really have no idea what it’s like to live in terror, on a daily basis, none what-so-ever.

The cost of human life is too precious and there is work that needs to be done in every neighborhood across the globe. One can only imagine what it’s like for the Iraqis, having their government and way of life literally turned upside-down after being freed from the reign of Saddam Hussein and his sons who systematically violated the human rights of Iraqis and those of other countries as well. They did so with utter disregard for human rights, operating a vast enterprise encompassing at its worst mass graves, the use of torture chambers, chemical baths, routine rapes, brutal and arbitrary murder including legitimizing killings and medical amputations as punishment among other crimes (Foreign Affairs, 2003)

As of March 16, 2010, at least 4,385 US military personnel have been killed in Iraq since the invasion began exactly 7 years ago. (AP 2010). This loss of soldiers and civilian lives will only continue to mount unless an immediate withdraw of troops is implemented. President Barak Obama claims he will send most if not all troops home by August 2010. (Lothian and Malveaux 2009). However, with the approximate 120,000 troops overseas immediate withdraw will be impossible. But, as part of the agreement that former president George W. Bush signed with the Iraqi government, all troops must be out of Iraqi territories by December 31, 2011. (Cockburn 2008). Critics claim withdrawing now will only leave Iraq and its citizens in further disarray. They believe that until a proper government and infrastructure is established the United States, since they helped lead the invasion, should be responsible for overseeing that the appropriate people are put in place in order to run the country effectively. They should monitor the establishment of new laws and legislation that are best for the Iraqi citizens without forgetting the sovereign right of the Iraqi people.

However, history has shown that in many instances anytime a governmental regime is overthrown by an external power chaos will inevitably ensue. This is especially true in an area of the world where various sects and clans will claim their authority, announcing that it is their right to oversee all governmental affairs. Others, especially in Iraq, claim religious affiliations, saying the country should be ruled as a Muslim state. Obviously, even when apparently it is not evident to those who are in power, there are all of these different interest groups, each wanting a piece of the pie. Most of the populace, even knowing their particular culture, is confused with respect to what will happen next. They wonder what the Americans, who they see in the streets on a daily basis as American Troops and some civilians working in war – related jobs are going to do in the overall scheme of things. Even though Saddam Hussein’s regime has come to an end, clearly, there is still work to be done. The reconstruction of Iraq is a process that will not happen overnight. In fact, there will still be problems and conflicts long after the US presence has disappeared. (Park 2008).

Furthermore, detractors of the war have begun to examine America’s recent occupation in Iraq and there are human rights issues that are certainly of great concern. Naturally, many accusations have to do with actual combat in the city centers, like the plundering of occupied health care centers and schools. (Al-Darraji 2005). As with any war zone, people can begin to act irrationally, naturally reacting to their surroundings, and they often times lose sight of proper moral and ethical behavior. Many times, however, soldiers will begin treating anyone and everyone like the enemy. As a result, it should be no surprise that many complaints have surfaced. American troops as well as soldiers from other countries backing the Iraqi occupation are now being watched more vigilantly in regard to their treatment of Iraqi citizens. Human Rights Watch, an international non-profit watchdog group, has been monitoring the attacks on refugees ever since the invasion began in 2003. (Human Rights Watch 2003). These groups want to ensure the civilians and prisoners alike in this kind of conflict are not being needlessly abused or tortured as often happens during warfare.

In addition, various religious sects in Iraq, each claiming to now have authority and Amnesty International as well as other associations want to make sure the Iraqi people and those in power are not violating any international humanitarian laws. (Amnesty International 2010). They also want to ensure all detainees are being held with reason and are receiving the proper due process as established by The International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. (ICCPR, 2010).

In conclusion, any observer can see that the war in Iraq has led to more than just the loss of life as there are obvious human rights violations that are occurring on a daily basis reported by the media and International groups. The work that needs to be done to rebuild Iraq’s government and infrastructure will be required long after the United States military has withdrawn its occupation. Some argue that it is a futile war that America has been facing because the enemy has had no face yet others claim that this is just another form of imperialism. What is the war on terror they ask? How does one fight terror? Until an exact game plan is put into place regarding America’s overall plans in Iraq, both now and in the future, detractors around the world will continue to protest the US-led invasion of Iraq. And with the billions of dollars being spent overseas, who wouldn’t?
References
Al-Darraji, Muhamad. “First Periodical Report of Monitoring Net of Human Rights in Iraq.” Paper presented to the Secretary General of United Nations Kofi Annan, New York, NY, August 23, 2005.

Amnesty International. “Iraq Human Rights: Human Rights Concerns.” Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/iraq/page.do?id=1011173
Associated Press. “US Military Deaths in Iraq War at 4,385.” New York Times. March 16, 2010, Politics Section, Middle East Edition.

Cockburn, Patrick. “31 December 2011: Day the Last US Soldier leaves Iraq.” The Independent. November 28, 2008, Middle East Section

Human Rights Violations under Saddam Hussein: Victims speak out, hearing before the subcommittee on the Middle East and Central Asia of the committee of International Relations House of Representatives, One hundred Eight Congress, First Session, November 20, 2003  Serial No. 108–64.

Human Rights Watch. Flight from Iraq: Refugees and other non-nationals in Iraq. Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.hrw.org/en/node/12328/section/5

International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. “International Standards of Due Process.” Retrieved March 26, 2010, from http://www.worldpress.org/specials/justice/dueproces.htm.
Lothian, Dan and Suzanne Malveaux. “Obama: US to withdraw most Iraq troops by August 2010” CNN. February 27, 2009, Politics Section.
Park, James. “Iraq After Occupation.” Minneapolis, Minnesota. July 23, 2008.

Picture: http://www.china.org.cn/international/world/2008-07/22/content_16046556.htm

Reviews by: Jeffrey Alan Sunner

© 2010, Carol Blenda Reyes Avila. All rights reserved.

http://wphr.org/2010/carol.blenda/governance-and-development-iraq-after-the-us-invasion/

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Closed

President Evo Morales on Bolivia’s Human Rights and Development Issues

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
By Carol Blenda Reyes Avila

Evo Morales Ayma is a man who wears many titles – coca grower, labor leader, and president of Bolivia.  Presiding over a country wherein 64 percent of citizens live in poverty conditions, this President possesses insights into their situation that his predecessors have lacked.  Born in the Andes Highlands in the colonial mining city of Oruro in 1959 to a small-time peasant farmer Dionisio and his wife Maria, Evo was one of seven children.  Like other farm families their village, the impoverished Morales clan endured the hardships of agricultural life in a challenging region susceptible to dramatic changes in weather, which include frost, hail, and drought which are frequent in the “Bolivian Altiplano”.  Like their harvesters, the Morales’ potato crops were in a constant struggle for survival.

The President has vivid memories of chewing on banana and orange peels that were dropped by bus passengers traveling through his village.  Life was so difficult for the family that four of the seven Morales children died before the age of two.  Despite enduring great hardship and loss, the President remains both matter-of-fact and even upbeat about his difficult childhood, observing, “That’s how life is in peasant families… What luck that three of us survived!” What President Morales took from his childhood were the moral principles his parents instilled in him and his surviving siblings as well as a deep concern for human rights and a commitment to his country’s economic development .

Having confronted adversity at an early age, the President never harbored any illusions that life in politics would be easy.  His career in the National Congress was cut short by his expulsion in 2002, which he contends served “to deepen his commitment to the people”.  By 2005, his political comeback was complete as the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS) party’s presidential candidate.  The charismatic leader marketed his indigenous background to cement unity within the disenfranchised masses of natives and “cholos” that had little voice in the Bolivia political system as those with European background governed Bolivia since the early days of the Republic.

Morales is infuriated by the notion that indigenous Bolivians are still regarded as “sub-national groups” when they should be the architects of their own political and social development.  He would be the first to admit that his strong indigenous grass-roots support led to his assuming the presidency after a landslide victory on January 22, 2006, the first indigenous individual to ever assume Bolivia’s highest political office.

The President remains as hardworking now as he was when he was a little boy on his father’s farm, working from Monday to Sunday and sleeping a mere four hours a nigh.  He wasted little time in initiating changes that would contribute to Bolivia’s economic prosperity and encourage development.  Within the first year, he reduced his own salary by 60 percent and those of other government officials at a savings of 61 million bolivianos in savings, which the President announced would be used for educational and health programs.  He raised the average minimum wage 13.63 percent and also increased physician and educator salaries.  The President addressed educational and medical care deficiencies by hiring more than 2,000 teachers and doctors and through the implementation of literacy programs that benefited 300,000 citizens.

The President said he expected his ambitious campaign would have a positive impact upon the country’s widespread illiteracy within a few months.  He also revealed he was investing $217 million U.S. dollars in primary school education. Evo Morales also said his socialist reform plan would provide state medical insurance for young people and senior citizens that had been previously denied coverage. Furthermore, Cuban volunteer physicians were imported to Bolivia to provide free medical care, and with the assistance of Cuba and neighbor Venezuela, the President reveals, “We have established eleven ophthalmology centers and sixteen surgical centers, which have served more than 200,000 people” .  By far, the President’s most aggressive action during his first term he believed strongly had both human rights and developmental implications.  His “Agrarian Revolution” targeted the historic practice of concentrating land into latifundios or large commercial estates while leaving the peasant farmers with little or no land.

Evo Morales prohibited the hoarding of land by landowners and supported the peasants in their efforts to grow food not only for their families and for their villages but also so they can turn a profits .  His programs and reforms succeeded for the now ” Plurinational State of Bolivia”  and its native people but also created great animosity to many which saw power and property decreased through the “Evo Year in Power”

Not surprisingly, on December 6, 2009, President Evo Morales was voted into a second term, receiving an astounding 63 percent of the popular vote.  He wasted no time in cementing the foundation he constructed in his first term by allocating funds to further assist the poverty-stricken rural citizens.  The President has established three cash-transfer programs that expedites funds to groups that are in the greatest need – public schools, elderly pensions, and pregnant women.  There are also incentives being provided for poor farm families so they will not have to seek employment elsewhere.  President Morales has also spearheaded public works programs that distributed more than 1,000 tractors to farmers in need, paved 840 roads, built 545 medical clinics and healthcare facilities, and financed water connections for 821,000 that have existed without water resources for far too long.

Despite criticism that President Morales has become as power hungry as his reported mentor Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, he considers himself very much a man of the Bolivian people.  He explains, “In addition to being part of the Aymara nation and having lived in both the highlands of Oruro and the Cochabamba tropical area where the Quechua culture is predominant, maybe the most important thing is that I am a leader who came out of the social struggles of the country, from a situation of poverty, of knowing and experiencing the reality of most of my countrymen…  I really think that the most important thing is my life experience”.

The special connection this popular President has with his constituents is evident in the attitudes expressed by peasant housekeeper Adela Rojas, who declares she will remain a loyal supporter of ‘Evo’ “until the end”.  When asked why, she explained,  “Because Evo is us and we are Evo” .  Evo Morales is a leader with a clear vision of what the future of Bolivia should be.  Perhaps this is because he has never forgotten where he came from.
REFERENCES
Garrigues, L.  (2007).  Bolivia looks back on Morales’ first year.  Indian Country Today, 26, A7.

O’Shaughnessy, H.  (2006).  Evo Morales: How long will Bolivia’s cocalero President last?  New Statesman & Society, 135(4776), 36.

Panizza, F., & Miorelli, R.  (2009).  Populism and democracy in Latin America.  Ethics & International Affairs, 23(1), 39-46.

Shultz, J.  (2010).  ‘Evonomics’ gets a second term in Bolivia.  NACLA Report on the Americas, 43(1), 4-5.

Trujillo, A.  (2007).  Evo Morales: Commitment to change.  Americas, 59(4), 14+.

Picture: http://fiddleferme.blogspot.com/2008/10/with-bailout-socialists-say-bush-is-now.html

© 2010, Carol Blenda Reyes Avila. All rights reserved

http://wphr.org/2010/carol.blenda/president-evo-morales-on-bolivia’s-human-rights-and-development-issues/

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »