.: The Red Brick – Dubai College's Student Newspaper :.

The biggest anti Wall Street demonstration since the US was hit by an economic crisis. Originating from Canada, the editors of the Vancouver-based anti-consumerist magazine Adubsters called for a Tahrir Square “moment” on Sept. 17 in lower Manhattan. They came to protest what they called the disproportionate power of the U.S. corporate elite.

So who were the first responders?

A collection of punks, anarchists, liberals, hackers and artists who spent a night in Zuccotti park; the area of greenery near Ground Zero, the New York Stock Exchange and the New York Federal reserve. Latterly, and repeatedly, with the influence of social media acting as the catalyst; the swell of crowds began to form which included a larger array of people such as cameramen, celebrities and general activists.

Robert Segal, a wine salesman states why he joined in the protests: “What brought me here? I used to work on Wall Street. I came down to validate their fears.”

Do they all want the same thing?

The answers vary in the crowds. Some strive to achieve “collective liberation” whilst others fight for specific economic changes. They want to impose new taxes on financial transactions especially to those wealthiest of the country and also argue the fundamental problem that corporations have too much influence in Washington.

The president’s efforts?

President Obama’s efforts have not been too consequential. He struggled to get America’s attention during his September pivot to call for the wealthy to pay their “fair share” in taxes to fund a new $447 billion jobs bills. Unfortunately, neither the President’s plan nor the efforts of the Senate Democrats have stirred the nation, and both ideas have been voted down.

…His reaction to the protests?

The White House went out of its way to praise the protestors and present them as mainstream. Obama cited: “what I think that the American people understand that not everybody’s been following the rules.” Obama explained this in a press conference on the same day protestors marched by the White House chanting, “We got sold out.” Moreover, Vice President Joe Biden, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi have offered words of sympathy towards the protestors. “The conversations you’re seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens across America,” said David Plouffe, the President’s top strategist.

More importantly, the protests in lower Manhattan are still holding strong whereby the White House will still need to further investigate in the matter to solve the continuous problems with corporate greed that seem to consume our era.

Two consecutive vetoes, first against a Palestinian statehood and then against a Syrian resolution, have left the international community shamefaced as the fundamentally flawed United Nations Security Council fails the world again.

As Syria pushes into its eighth month of anti-government protests, the violence that grips the country still shows no sign of lessening. With each passing day, fresh deaths litter the newspapers, and with each death the burning flame of anger against President Bashar al-Assad is stoked a little more. At the start of the month, the world turned to the United Nations, that terrific mediator of all conflicts, to support the struggle of the Syrian people. Then, even after a resolution against al-Assad was drafted, international justice was once again denied by one of the biggest diplomatic obstacles of our time – the veto.  

Born out of the insecurity of the post World War II era, the veto, or a negative vote by a permanent member of the UN, prevents the adoption of a proposal by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), regardless of the support in favour of it. Consequently, the ability to veto is a shield that ensures the founding members of the United Nations will never have their beautiful creation turned against them. In short, the veto power makes permanent members wonderfully democratic dictators.

In the case of the Syrian resolution, Russia and China had to veto in order to protect their military and oil interests in their mutual ally Syria. It’s a perfectly valid reason if you ignore their moral obligation to intervene in the wake of thousands of deaths. But how did they manage to pull of such a farce? The official word was that the draft was based on a ‘philosophy of confrontation’. Perhaps they failed to recognize that the heavily diluted resolution had no military allusions whatsoever.

But this is not the first time that the veto has come in the way of international justice. History is littered with past incidents, notably the inability of the UN to confront Israel throughout the 60s and 70s on its expansionist policies. Even last month, the United States were able to fend of widespread international pressure for the recognition of Palestinian statehood, simply by vetoing the concept. Maybe with presidential elections just around the corner, Obama needs to muster all the support he can get, especially from Jewish American voters. But is he willing to do so at the expense of the entire Palestinian nation? When the national interests of one government outweigh international justice, something is seriously wrong. And the veto has allowed for this to take place.

Ever heard of Mohamed Bouazizi? This Tunisian streetvendor set himself on fire in protest against the confiscation of his wares and subsequent humiliation by a municipal officer. He was one of the catalysts of the Arab Spring, a revolution that proved that the people will govern the world in the near future. But in order to live in a truly democratic world the power to veto must seriously be reformed. We must not carry this baggage from the past and allow it to shape international relations. You wouldn’t try to make fire by rubbing two twigs together, would you?

In the past few days, the People’s Republic of China has been trying to find its softer side again after recent incidents highlighted the tragic state of society. The people of the Republic were shocked and have been preoccupied with a hit and run accident that caused the death of a two year old girl. ‘Moral soft power’ as described by one Chinese newspaper is apparently to blame for her death and the stone cold heartedness of those passerby’s. Over 300 of the Chinese Communist Party’s highest ranking leaders met in Beijing and discussed ways of boosting the nations ‘cultural soft power’.

For those of you who haven’t heard the story of Little Yue Yue – nicknamed by the Chinese media from the original Wang Yue- who died on the 21st of October as a result of the accident eight days earlier in the southern city of Foshan,it has been anything but a winning one. It has revealed a widespread callousness fostered by an amoral pursuit of wealth. A video of the accident was found where a van proceeds to run over the child, then pauses, and then runs over her again with a rear wheel. Some time afterwards, another lorry rolls over her body. In seven minutes, over 18 people walk bye, but nobody ever looks back.

Since then, the incident has had a domino effect and triggered widespread soul-searching. Even the state run media has been nervously biting its nails over the state of Chinese society. The question on everyone’s lips at this point of time is ‘Is this the way people are by nature? or have they only fallen to this state as a result of prolonged damage to their public morals?’. The answer, although debatable seems likely to be down to China’s political culture. While people’s rights have been suppressed, people’s sense and ideals of righteousness and justice have also been suppressed. All the while, Chinese society has never looked back.

The party held its meeting from the 15th to the 18th of October where it’s agenda was to look for society’s heart again. The resolution it came to spoke of a dire need to build up ‘Cultural soft power’. Joseph Nye, the American scholar tried to tell people about this 20 years ago when he stated it as a key component of national strength. A country with soft power is one which can bend others to its will without force or payment, said Nye. “Success depends not only on whose army wins, but also on whose story wins” was Nye’s thinking.

Recent days have brought with them new developments which, while no less embarrassing to the Communist party, still show a different point of view to civic consciousness. Attention has been drawn to the plight of Chen Guangcheng, a blind activist in the Shangdong province via online campaigns. Mr Chen and his family have been under house arrest since he was released from prison  one year ago. Thugs are deployed to keep supporters of Mr Chen and journalists away. In what has been named as a ‘rare wave of civil disobedience’, admirers have been making their way to his village to see him. Guards turned them away and ignored their pleas to pass. They never looked back.

On this issue, some Chinese newspapers have broken ranks with the party. They said how blocking information and hoping the inquiries go away will only lead to worse consequences. Perhaps amidst its economic boom, China has begun to forget about its People. If it would ease up on all its dissidents, its soft power would stand a far better chance of growing.

All the while, China has never looked back but now, perhaps it is time for them to re-trace their steps and learn where they went wrong, since when the people stopped caring. The People’s Republic of China needs to focus on just that – its people.

Hedonistic. Corrupt. Distasteful. These are all the common, likely, and rather disappointing words that come to mind when we are reminded of sexual political scandals. Unfortunately, the former International Monetary Fund chairman and contender to become France’s next President, Dominique Strauss-Khan, has succeeded in succumbing to his own scandal.

Strauss-Khan: this politician’s particular scandal has involved him being hauled from a Paris-bound plane on charges of sexually assaulting a hotel maid. On the 15th of May Strauss-Kahn was arrested and charged with a criminal sexual act, attempted rape and unlawful imprisonment. His wife proclaimed his innocence to the media and his lawyer, Brafman, stated he would plead not guilty. The next day, Strauss-Kahn spent the night at the Manhattan Criminal Court building detention center, also known as “The Tombs”, where his mug shot was taken. Three days later, Strauss-Kahn was released from prison and sent to a temporary home in Lower Manhattan. On the 6th of June Strauss-Kahn was prosecuted at Manhattan Criminal Court.

He pleaded ‘not guilty’ to the seven charges levelled against him.

On the 1st of July Strauss-Kahn returned to court amid speculations that he was the victim of a political set-up.

All this been said, Strauss-Khan has been under controversial speculation throughout his political time. Not only have his friends referred to his personal behaviour as an “unbearable lightness of being,” but insiders of France’s political left would say he was “too hedonistic.” Those closest to him would see the indications of overconfidence in his own intelligence, a particular free spirit, a taste for material wealth and a frenzied desire to seduce women. Even when he was appearing to reach the top of his political path, he- due to accusations on corruption- was forced out of office after being named French Finance Minister in the late 1990s.

Moreover, incidents at a bar of the Lutetia Hotel, suggest he was, unwisely, too pushy with young women. His adviser, Gilles Finchelstein, his most trusted friend, had drawn up a list of faults that line up across his political trail: his notorious flaunted frivolity, and an attachment to a bourgeois lifestyle.

However, yes, there is a however. Others have decried this whole case, scandal, incident- whatever you want to name it- as a rush to judgment. Amid the serious questions about the accuser’s credibility, a judge threw out the charges on August 23rd. Lost amid the press scrums and protests was the admitted infidelity of the man who still might lead a great nation- a detail that never found the spotlight.

Have we been too quick to judge this man for being involved in another political scandal, because, it is another scandal? Or are we just at a time, historically, where we are overly frustrated in a world consumed with its fight against political corruption? Whether it is chronic corruption in India, corruption through Arab dictators or public outrage at the Murdoch ‘News of the World’ scandal in Britain; corruption does seem to be a fundamental world problem that causes the people’s bloods to boil.

A look ahead at Palestine’s application to the UN to be recognized as an official country;

Slowly,the Palestinians are getting closer to becoming a recognized state. Their application to the UN Security Council (which was set to be sent by the 23^rdof September) looks like it will be rebuffed by a US veto. It is more and more likely however that they will then go to the UN General Assembly, in which theodds are that the Palestinians will win by a huge majority.

They look to receive an ‘observer’ status, which would be the same as the position given to the Vatican. This is the one stage shortly before full membership (which can only be received if the Security Council – comprising of the UK, US,Russia, China and France – agree).

In the real scheme of things, it doesn’t seem like it would make an overwhelming difference to the Palestinians, but it would send them on their way to becoming a truly diplomatic state. Why then, is it not being encouraged?

The principle of things seems to be obvious; the Palestinians deserve a state.  It is hard to see why any country trying to act as a peacemaker – all eyes on Barak Obama –should veto a proposal which edges Palestine closer to statehood.

The procedure of the UN politics is tricky and unless the last minute talks show something dramatic, the points in favour of securing an ‘observer’ status certainly outweigh the negatives. Israel’s government suggests that Palestinian statehood is premature and instead of going to the UN, the Palestinians should go back to square one and back to the negotiating table. Obama, who is more than eager to assert his pro-Israel views before the US general elections next year, seems likely to veto even the ‘observer’ status option.

This argument that Palestine should go back to the drawing board with Israel to talk about their land demarcations seems ludicrous. Why in the world should a change in a status with the UN stop themstill meeting and negotiating a deal?

Should the Palestinians appeal for full UN membership be blocked,  Mr Abbas’  best option would be to rapidly change to ask
for an ‘observer’ status. His actions henceforth should be to agree to refrain from trying to get Israel into the International Criminal Court for its past doings. It is helping neither country and causing more harm than good – it seems time now, for him to let go of the past and help to shape the future of his nation.

I firmly believe that the Palestinians deserve a state of their own. Their beliefs and those of their Israelite neighbors are entirely compatible if someone can make them work in harmony. Through his intransigence, Mr. Netanyahu (Israel’s prime minister) has played into the hands of those who could destroy Israel. However, in trying to veto the Palestinian appeal at the UN, American is helping extremists on both sides.

Mr. Abbas, after this appeal to the UN, has one final job. That is to tell the people of his country that the refugees are never likely to return to Israel. Ultimately, that is the price of partition.

The time now has come for both sides to acknowledge the other, and for this bloodshed and animosity to be laid to rest. Hopefully one day, the time will come when the price of hope to secure votes for an election, won’t be paid by a country that are only looking to belong.

Yes, I’m looking at you Mr. Obama.

Aarya Mishra