In recent weeks,the Arab world has plummeted into more chaos with the
recent demonstrations in Syria.The demonstrations in Syria follows what
appears to be a domino effect of revolutions across the Middle East and North Africa that started in Tunisia and escalated into Egypt and then Libya.
As a result,both Tunisia and Egypt has seen their governments toppled by mass protests stage by citizens in their country.Usually, those protest organizers utilized social networks such as Facebook and Twitter to rally the masses. However, in Libya, Colonel Gadhaffi has refuse to step down leading to NATO implementing a no fly zone over Libya with increase pressure from the international community for Gadhaffi to step down and respect his people wishes. Gadhaffi has refused and civil war has claimed hundreds of lives across Libya,especially in the rebel's stronghold of Misrata. This time around, it seems Syria under the control of Bashar Al- Assad, is utilizing the same tactics as Libya's Gadhaffi to crackdown on mass protest which has angered the international community. Yet, the United States has yet to intervene militaryly. And will they?
According to the New York Times article "U.S. Moves Cautiously Against Syrian Leaders," the Obama administration has moved to impose
ecnomoic sanctions against three high level Syrian officials, including a brother and cousin of Syria's regime leader Bashar Al-Assad. Also, the Times states that the Obama Administration has not considered military action yet. Well tell me Mr. Obama, What makes Syria so different from Libya? Is Al-Assad not brutally cracking down on protesters with his men even killing protesters? Does the blood of citizens on the streets of Syria constitute the same drive and passion dedicated to help the Libyan people? Is that all Al-Assad gets, economic sanctions?
Not Surprisingly though, analyst and experts has found a reason to explain
why the U.S has not voice a hard line towards Syria. In the Times article,
Steven A.Cook,senior fellow for Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,has stated that the "Syria is important in a way that
Libya is not." Cook goes on to explain that There is no central U.S. interest engaged in Libya.But a greatly destabilized Syria has implications for Iraq, it has implications for Lebanon, it has implications for Israel.” In addition, in the most recent CNN report "U.S. slaps sanctions on top Syrian officials," states the U.S has less leverage over Syria than Libya, and that the U.S. is under pressure from allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia who fear that "Assad's departure could produce a more radical Syria and encourage further revolutions." In essence, if the U.S intervenes in Syria, radical and extremist groups could takeover the country, further plunging the country into turmoil and risking American endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Thus, it is apparent the U.S. is leading a Double Standard here. Al-Assad
actions are no less or no more worse than Colonel Gadhaffi in Libya and military option should be exercised despite the implications. After all, were there not implications to imposing a fly zone over Libya too? And According to the Washington Post, Syria is a nation listed on the U.S State Department as a terrorist sponsored country, yet the U.S is still engaging in formal diplomatic talks with Syria. How soothing to protestors and the American people. And how about those economic sanctions? The U.S did not even impose a direct sanction against Al- Assad and according to the times, those sanctions are not that effective given that Syrian leaders usually hold their money in Middle Eastern and European banks, which is beyond the reach of the treasury. In other words, those sanctions are pointless. The U.S should learn from the past that economic sanctions is not sufficient enough. CNN reports that as far back as 2004, the Bush administration had imposed sanctions on Syria, including a ban that halterd all trade between the U.S and Syria. By and large,those provisions has fell short.
Simply put, if the U.S wants to act as the International police then it should act accordingly in ALL regions of the world. The same actions in Libya that warranted military actions, albeit small scale operations, should be employed in Syria. If the U.S, due to "diplomatic pressure" cannot properly enforce its rules and act in the interest of citizens all over the world equally by the provisions it sets before it self which warrants intervention, then how can those people in Syria and elsewhere in the world have faith that Uncle Sam will rescue them. If not, then the U.S should only focus on its domestic affairs. As I am writing this, 100 protesters were killed by Syrian Soldiers the Washington post writes. Sadly enough, Obama did not answer the 3 am calls for help. Obama and his administartion acting in Libya gave hope for protesters tired of corrupt regime hope that they would be rescued, but only that light of hope is slowly beginning to fade as people realize the U.S does not have that much power and leverage in all parts of the world. The U.S. is simply
acting where its self interest is deemed more significant. And even more
surprisingly,American journalist are treating the unrest in the Arab world
as a human interest story, tending not to focus on the long term solutions
and policy. By the neutral and objective reporting of CNN, NY Times, and the Washington Post, respectable news agencies in their own rights, they
need to step up the media pressure on the Obama administration to
act in the same manner or more just as in the case of Libya.
sources :
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/29/syria.sanctions/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/world/middleeast/30policy.html?ref=politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/thousands-of-syrians-protest-military-crackdown/2011/04/29/AFeX9aDF_story.html
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Public Interest. What Public Interest?
Over the past few weeks, there has been tremendous reports featuring one of America's largest companies, AT&T . At&T has come under intense scrutiny from members of the press,government officials, and the public for its proposed takeover of rival cell phone company T-Mobile. AT&T represents the second largest phone carrier in the U.S. and its takeover of T-Mobile would make it the largest phone company in the U.S with roughly 130 million subscribers, surpassing Verizon as the leading cell phone carrier. AT&T states that the takeover of T-Mobile is necessary in order for them to improve their infrastructure, gain additional wireless spectrum to deal with large data usage from iPhone users and the growing smartphone market, and provide high speed mobile broadband and phone services to 95 % of Americans according to one AT&T executive in a CNN report. That would mean AT&T and Verizon would hold a market share of about 80% with only smaller competitor Sprint bringing up the rear end. Lawmakers in Congress has expressed concerns over AT&T quest to buy T-Mobile for $39 billion dollars, citing Anti-Trust regulations, less competition, and higher pricing for consumers. The Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) and the Justice Department review of the buyout would take up to one year as some reports suggest. But a closer look at this debate, as to whether AT&T buyout is constitutional or not leaves many in the public skeptical about government reports that they will conduct an extensive investigation into the proposed buyout. And they should be skeptical.
AT&T unbeknownst to many is the leading coporate lobbyist in Washington with $46 million dollars given to lawmakers since 1989 and $15 million in the 2010 elections alone. For example AT&T in the last congressional election gave a whopping $87,000 to current speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner and $89,650 to current Senate majority leader Harry Reid. And in 2008, both John McCain and Barack Obama received substantial amounts of money from AT&T lobbyist with $201,000 and $264,111 respectively. Now it is quite obvious for years AT&T has had political influence in Washington, enticing many lawmakers with money. By and large, AT&T poses a risk to consumers who may now face higher prices, despite AT&T claims that the market will drive prices down. AT&T is too heavily involved in Washington and the American public has to take action now. It is highly unethical and the public interest is at risk if AT&T is buying political power. AT&T behavior alone, makes it appear very confident that it will get approved for this buyout. And why shouldn't they be confident? They have strong ties politically with both Republicans and Democrats and they employ about 90 lobbyist, some of who were were former Senators and Representatives in the house, or better yet Washingtonians. Simply put, AT&T is a corporate behemoth with Washingtonian benefits. AT&T even agreed to pay $3 billion in breakup fees and give T-Mobile wireless spectrums, an absurd move for any company. Yet, AT&T does not mind making deals like this since they're confident the buyout will be approved largely due to their extensive lobbying campaign over the years. That said, Politicans in Congress cannot be trusted and the American public needs to step up the pressure on them to tell the truth. Congress members are trying to frame the news by stating concerns about this buyout, while at the same time receiving money from AT&T lobbyist. One thing the public can stay upbeat about is the fact that numerous journalist has already challenge the notion of an AT&T buyout and openly labeled such a move as violating antitrust laws. For once the American public can be grateful for the media releasing information about high level members of our government receiving money from lobbyist or else we would not have known otherwise. However, the fight does not end there. AT&T has already began spending huge amounts of money hiring more lobbyist, and creating ads trying to minimize backlash against their buyout and create a more favorable image for them in the press.
As a result, more than ever, we need more modern day watchdog journalist like Bob Woodward in the Watergate scandal of the 1970's who will take start a crusade against corporation and government manipulation in the news,specifically in this case, to oust the cozy relationship between AT&T and the government. After all, AT&T is the same comapany in the the 1970's and 1980's broken up under antitrust laws and if left uncheck this time, they may succeed in creating a scary corporation with large market capabilities and our politicians won't do anything about it because many lawmakers have a personal interest in AT&T. For example in one recent report AT&T was ranked as the "sixth most popular investment among members of the Senate and House in 2009." Thus, there need to be laws created to restrict corporations from enticing members of congress with money or providing them with election campaign funds because not only is it compromising on our democracy but it is compromising on politicians ability to do their job well and serve the public interest accordingly.
Sources
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/in-pursuit-of-t-mobile-atandt-has-fierce-lobbying-clout/2011/03/23/ABxzvlJB_blog.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704355304576215012309574044.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/idUSN2324222120110323?pageNumber=2
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-telecom-lobbying-idUSTRE72L63E20110322
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/28/technology/att_telekom_lobbying_power/index.htm
AT&T unbeknownst to many is the leading coporate lobbyist in Washington with $46 million dollars given to lawmakers since 1989 and $15 million in the 2010 elections alone. For example AT&T in the last congressional election gave a whopping $87,000 to current speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner and $89,650 to current Senate majority leader Harry Reid. And in 2008, both John McCain and Barack Obama received substantial amounts of money from AT&T lobbyist with $201,000 and $264,111 respectively. Now it is quite obvious for years AT&T has had political influence in Washington, enticing many lawmakers with money. By and large, AT&T poses a risk to consumers who may now face higher prices, despite AT&T claims that the market will drive prices down. AT&T is too heavily involved in Washington and the American public has to take action now. It is highly unethical and the public interest is at risk if AT&T is buying political power. AT&T behavior alone, makes it appear very confident that it will get approved for this buyout. And why shouldn't they be confident? They have strong ties politically with both Republicans and Democrats and they employ about 90 lobbyist, some of who were were former Senators and Representatives in the house, or better yet Washingtonians. Simply put, AT&T is a corporate behemoth with Washingtonian benefits. AT&T even agreed to pay $3 billion in breakup fees and give T-Mobile wireless spectrums, an absurd move for any company. Yet, AT&T does not mind making deals like this since they're confident the buyout will be approved largely due to their extensive lobbying campaign over the years. That said, Politicans in Congress cannot be trusted and the American public needs to step up the pressure on them to tell the truth. Congress members are trying to frame the news by stating concerns about this buyout, while at the same time receiving money from AT&T lobbyist. One thing the public can stay upbeat about is the fact that numerous journalist has already challenge the notion of an AT&T buyout and openly labeled such a move as violating antitrust laws. For once the American public can be grateful for the media releasing information about high level members of our government receiving money from lobbyist or else we would not have known otherwise. However, the fight does not end there. AT&T has already began spending huge amounts of money hiring more lobbyist, and creating ads trying to minimize backlash against their buyout and create a more favorable image for them in the press.
As a result, more than ever, we need more modern day watchdog journalist like Bob Woodward in the Watergate scandal of the 1970's who will take start a crusade against corporation and government manipulation in the news,specifically in this case, to oust the cozy relationship between AT&T and the government. After all, AT&T is the same comapany in the the 1970's and 1980's broken up under antitrust laws and if left uncheck this time, they may succeed in creating a scary corporation with large market capabilities and our politicians won't do anything about it because many lawmakers have a personal interest in AT&T. For example in one recent report AT&T was ranked as the "sixth most popular investment among members of the Senate and House in 2009." Thus, there need to be laws created to restrict corporations from enticing members of congress with money or providing them with election campaign funds because not only is it compromising on our democracy but it is compromising on politicians ability to do their job well and serve the public interest accordingly.
Sources
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-tech/post/in-pursuit-of-t-mobile-atandt-has-fierce-lobbying-clout/2011/03/23/ABxzvlJB_blog.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704355304576215012309574044.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/23/idUSN2324222120110323?pageNumber=2
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/22/us-telecom-lobbying-idUSTRE72L63E20110322
http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/28/technology/att_telekom_lobbying_power/index.htm
Monday, February 28, 2011
Shame On the Press!
Here we go again. The Middle East is once again thrust into the international spotlight,highlighted by the wave of revolutions spanning across the region. The revolutions began in Tunisia and quickly spread across various Middle Eastern and North African countries. Social networks were given valuable praise for helping to bring about the revolutions by conventional media giants such as the cable broadcast networks like CNN, and esteemed newspaper comapanies like the New York Times and the Washington Post. Groups of citizens in revolutionary countries like Tunisia and Egypt used the social networks like Facebook and Twitter to gather supporters in their country to rally the massess against their government citing high unemployment, lack of government support ,rampant government corruption, and oppression amongst many other issues as resentment towards these regimes mounted. These social leaders or opinion leaders greatly shaped the opinion of their neighbors, convincing them to no longer fear the oppressive regimes they had lived under. They challenge their fellow citizens to take a stand once and for all to combat their oppressive leaders. In the end, the governments of Tunisia and Egypt were both toppled, and these revolutions were loosely called the social network revolutions by certain members or organization of the press. Yet, another country, Libya, in North Africa is also undergoing its own social revolution much like its neighbor Tunisia experience a few weeks ago.
However, this time around, Muammar Gaddafi or otherwise known as Colonel Gaddafi, is the leader in charge and has been for the past 30 years. Gaddafi and members of his family has scrutinized the press for what they call false accusations against their government. Gaddafi has also criticize the United Nations Security Council for its harsh sanctions against Libya, in which Gaddafi and his family have their assets frozen, weapons embargo, and travel restrictions place upon them. Gaddafi stated that the UN sanctions are all based on the false news brought on by the media in which the UN has believed.
Yet, surprisingly the real story here that caught my attention is when a New York Times article that shows Wikileaks,a website devoted to ousting government wrongdoing, as having U.S State department cables detailing the Libyan leader family exploits. The international media got a hold of the story,and major outrage erupted when it was learn that various American entertainers,most notably, singer Beyonce,Mariah Carey,and Usher had performed for one of Gaddafi son's ultra exclusive party in the Caribbean island of St. Bart's for upwards of $1 million dollars for each show. The media largely focused on that part of the story, hailing the singers as irresponsible and lack moral judgement. How ridiculous? Now it is true, Beyonce and the rest , should have been more careful about who they are getting their money from, especially since they are very well known public figures.
But the international press coverage of the story is very distorting and shocking. The press has managed to frame public opinion and make a big story out of these American entertainers accepting money for their performances at one of Gaddhafi son's party. The press has failed to be a credible and reliable source. Where was the international media outrage when Gaddhafi's oppressive Libyan regime was removed off the list of countries who were sponsor of terrorism by former President George W. Bush after Libya promise to end its nuclear ambitions? Where is the evidence of that they even did this?This is a man who has committed numerous genocides against his own people, once talked about assassinating then President Ronald Reagan and was responsible for the 1986 terrorist bombing of a night club in West Berlin. Oh, still not convince? Let's see, oh that's right, I almost forgot. Where was the international press outrage or that matter, superior coverage of when U.S lobbyist firms got big contracts to represent Libya in Congress or when major oil companies with the help of high level senior authorities in both the British and American governments secured major oil deals with Libya? That's right, there was NO outpour of media criticism because the media was either not paying attention to these issues or simply not doing their job. The media has failed to serve as the beacon of change, to uphold the government to act fair and accordingly at all times. The media is becoming less and less credible, and it is time the American people stand up and start doing their own investigations. Think about it, Why is it that a story about American singers performing for members of Gadhaffi family gain more national recognition in the U.S and international prominence than any story about the major oil companies conducting business with a terrorist regime? Simply stated, the press had overlooked these connections between the U.S and British companies desire for lucrative oil deals and the backpedaling of long time sanctions against Libya. The press did no follow up story to see whether or not the Libyan government as part of the deal to be reinstated in the international community actually stopped their backroom dealings with terrorist organizations. The press has failed to act as a mutual and respectable structure to illicit the truth and force the U.S to rethink ending its sanctions against Libya, a country with a long record of terrorist opportunities.
But like the government, the press saw an opportunity to gain viewership in this laissez faire market economy. The media companies banked on the fact that these well know American entertainers so called affiliations with members of the Gadhafi family would illicit interest and viewership to their cable networks or newspaper company. They put profit over reporting, a sure sign of how times have change and how the old media giants are struggling to retain viewership.And that is why they failed to do their jobs. Shame on the press, for monopolizing on theses stories to gain money and readers, than attacking the real issues at hand. It is obvious now, the rise of citizen journalists is needed more than ever, to keep the government honest and accountable, and direct the American people's attention to the real problems we face with corrupt and terrorist affiliated countries like Libya.
Sources
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/mariah-beyonce-usher-face-calls-to-donate-qaddafi-money-to-charity-20110228
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23cables.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Gadhafi%20and%20Beyonce&st=cse
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/28/libya.protests/index.html?hpt=T2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41833115/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
However, this time around, Muammar Gaddafi or otherwise known as Colonel Gaddafi, is the leader in charge and has been for the past 30 years. Gaddafi and members of his family has scrutinized the press for what they call false accusations against their government. Gaddafi has also criticize the United Nations Security Council for its harsh sanctions against Libya, in which Gaddafi and his family have their assets frozen, weapons embargo, and travel restrictions place upon them. Gaddafi stated that the UN sanctions are all based on the false news brought on by the media in which the UN has believed.
Yet, surprisingly the real story here that caught my attention is when a New York Times article that shows Wikileaks,a website devoted to ousting government wrongdoing, as having U.S State department cables detailing the Libyan leader family exploits. The international media got a hold of the story,and major outrage erupted when it was learn that various American entertainers,most notably, singer Beyonce,Mariah Carey,and Usher had performed for one of Gaddafi son's ultra exclusive party in the Caribbean island of St. Bart's for upwards of $1 million dollars for each show. The media largely focused on that part of the story, hailing the singers as irresponsible and lack moral judgement. How ridiculous? Now it is true, Beyonce and the rest , should have been more careful about who they are getting their money from, especially since they are very well known public figures.
But the international press coverage of the story is very distorting and shocking. The press has managed to frame public opinion and make a big story out of these American entertainers accepting money for their performances at one of Gaddhafi son's party. The press has failed to be a credible and reliable source. Where was the international media outrage when Gaddhafi's oppressive Libyan regime was removed off the list of countries who were sponsor of terrorism by former President George W. Bush after Libya promise to end its nuclear ambitions? Where is the evidence of that they even did this?This is a man who has committed numerous genocides against his own people, once talked about assassinating then President Ronald Reagan and was responsible for the 1986 terrorist bombing of a night club in West Berlin. Oh, still not convince? Let's see, oh that's right, I almost forgot. Where was the international press outrage or that matter, superior coverage of when U.S lobbyist firms got big contracts to represent Libya in Congress or when major oil companies with the help of high level senior authorities in both the British and American governments secured major oil deals with Libya? That's right, there was NO outpour of media criticism because the media was either not paying attention to these issues or simply not doing their job. The media has failed to serve as the beacon of change, to uphold the government to act fair and accordingly at all times. The media is becoming less and less credible, and it is time the American people stand up and start doing their own investigations. Think about it, Why is it that a story about American singers performing for members of Gadhaffi family gain more national recognition in the U.S and international prominence than any story about the major oil companies conducting business with a terrorist regime? Simply stated, the press had overlooked these connections between the U.S and British companies desire for lucrative oil deals and the backpedaling of long time sanctions against Libya. The press did no follow up story to see whether or not the Libyan government as part of the deal to be reinstated in the international community actually stopped their backroom dealings with terrorist organizations. The press has failed to act as a mutual and respectable structure to illicit the truth and force the U.S to rethink ending its sanctions against Libya, a country with a long record of terrorist opportunities.
But like the government, the press saw an opportunity to gain viewership in this laissez faire market economy. The media companies banked on the fact that these well know American entertainers so called affiliations with members of the Gadhafi family would illicit interest and viewership to their cable networks or newspaper company. They put profit over reporting, a sure sign of how times have change and how the old media giants are struggling to retain viewership.And that is why they failed to do their jobs. Shame on the press, for monopolizing on theses stories to gain money and readers, than attacking the real issues at hand. It is obvious now, the rise of citizen journalists is needed more than ever, to keep the government honest and accountable, and direct the American people's attention to the real problems we face with corrupt and terrorist affiliated countries like Libya.
Sources
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/mariah-beyonce-usher-face-calls-to-donate-qaddafi-money-to-charity-20110228
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/23/world/africa/23cables.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Gadhafi%20and%20Beyonce&st=cse
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/02/28/libya.protests/index.html?hpt=T2
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41833115/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
