Bloody Results After a Peaceful Protest

We know that in many places of the world, “freedom of expression” is nothing more than a myth. Just yesterday, Guinea presented an awful proof of the repression that governments tend to have over its people, especially in countries where democracy is an ideal more than something practiced by the nation.

Soldiers attacked a group of pro-democracy citizens at a peaceful rally, which were led by opposite parties concerned about the possible participation of Camara (current president of Guinea) in the next elections. Fire was open, civilians were shot, some others were injured and stabbed; some women were stripped and sexually assaulted. What a shameful assault to human rights that is! If I could only express my disgust with every adjective, of every language and dialect in Earth, I would certainly do it, really! And as people shivers at the pure thought of the savage incident, the Guinean government claims the civilians were the ones who acted violently and that most of the registered deaths were caused by suffocation in the crowd, not because of the troops’ movements.

Institutions and organizations’ eyes instantly posed on the cruel event and they didn’t hesitate to demonstrate their disapproval by condemning the political decision of the Guinean government. It was obviously a very impulsive, unwise action that both ended up harming and injecting fear into its population, as well as damaging the country’s international relationships. Human Rights Watch, the African Union, as well as the European Union deeply criticized the tragedy. France decided to suspend their military ties with its ex-colony and asked Camara to stand aside from the elections. There will soon be a meeting (perhaps tomorrow) at a European Union level, to discuss what other processes should be initiated regarding Guinea’s attitude.

Democracy may not be clear in sight and it will never come to be realized if there is no real dialogue between the government and the people. The country certainly needs to instil respect in both sides in addition to mutual commitment for development that will hopefully and finally lead to a more stable future.

Information:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/09/29/guinea.protest.deaths/

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jQywgWN9zGdcetoy3lieT2LxnYEA

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1926659,00.html

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,4741000,00.html?maca=en-en_nr-1893-xml-atom

Read More......

Afghan Elections

As Mexicans who were born in the 90s, we regard democracy as our unchangeable type of government. I even dare say that the idea of eliminating democracy in Mexico is unconceivable for so many of us--if not all. That's why it is for us so weird to read about a nation as old as Afghanistan who's only held democratic elections twice (one in 2001 and the other one in 2009) in its whole time as a sovereign country.
Despite this being a highly anticipated event, the Afghan elections brought disappointment and fear to a great amount of its population. This was due to a lack of security from Taliban attacks, as well as rightful accusations about fraud.

Apparently, members of the well-known political and religious organisation, Taliban, were known to be threatening citizens into voting for a specific candidate or not voting at all. Besides, the current president of Afghanistan who is rerunning for its post has been repeatedly accused of conducting fraud himself. According to Mr Abdullah--an opposite--, thousands of violations were most likely held during the Election Day and throughout the counting process.
Citizens selling and buying votes, under-age voting, and more than one vote per person, are just few of the actions that led to such a ‘deceiving’ image in the preliminary results.
The final results won't be released but for several more weeks. I just hope that democracy and transparency prevails, as difficult as it may sound.
Afghan elections are an interesting topic that I furtherly discussed during our team's last week project, and it is worth keeping track of. For all those interested, I include a link to BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8216809.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8221709.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/south_asia/2009/if_i_were_president/default.stm

*In picture: Abdullah Abdullah is the only one of the main candidates who is not contesting as an independent candidate. He is representing the main United National Front opposition alliance.

Read More......

The Beginning of the American Policy of Containment

The rise of the Soviet Union and the dominance that it acquired after the Second World War were reasons enough to create certain “paranoia” in the United States, a fear of communism spreading worldwide. Though we could also say it was not an unfounded alarm, but a reality likely to happen. To defend democracy from the threat awaken by growing communism, the United States adopted its famous policy of containment (as we saw in class).
In 1947, president Truman said that it was the United States’ duty to help any country vulnerable to fall to communism. Out from this idea, the United States began to take various actions. One of them was the Truman Doctrine, the “beginning” of American war against communism.
After World War II, the United Kingdom supplied some countries, such as Greece and Turkey, with financial aid. However, the UK reached a point where it was unable to carry on with the help, so they asked America for a plan B. The reason why it was important to continue contributing with these two countries was that Greece was going through a civil war and Turkey was still on a process of recovering and modernization, which made them susceptible to adopt communism one day or another.
American support resulted in the defeat of the Greek Communist Party. But this was not the only consequence. The importance of Truman Doctrine and the policy of containment, established within American minds, led later to “bigger” things, such as the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam and Korean war.

Was it all worth it?
Was it really America's responsibility to maintain communism aside?
Was it the right way to stop communism?

For more information:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Truman_Doctrine
http://www.johndclare.net/cold_war8_TrumanDoctrine.htm
http://books.google.com.mx/books?id=qXeRALIwozgC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=greece+communism+us+truman+doctrine&source=bl&ots=hymjFEMYBa&sig=Suh2WYEmasrAIEJXGF12y2xdsqU&hl=es&ei=oHqbSoeMEY_-tQOsm_iUDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1780.html

Read More......