Sarah Palin: What will 2011 Bring?

In a year when she wasn't even running for office, Sarah Palin managed to keep things interesting and alive in 2010. From a successful book to Tea Party endorsements, not to mention a reality TV show, Palin proved she is a force to be reckoned with no matter what side of the aisle your politics fall. Many of the candidates endorsed by Palin went on to win major seats in Congress and helped regain control of the House for Republicans.

It is no secret that the mainstream media, news outlets, TV personalities and liberal journalists have it out for Palin. This assertion is based off the observation of months of a grueling vice-presidential campaign (where the public witnessed massive amounts of unprecedented attacks hurled on Palin and her family). However, even after the 2008 political season, the criticism and dislike for Palin has actually managed to grow amongst those least fond of Palin. Why?

As the old saying goes, “You’re not anybody ‘til somebody hates you.” In the flicker of time which has been Sarah Palin’s ascension into the political spotlight, a militia of critics has begun aggressive strikes against the potential threat to Obama and her criticism of his “fundamental change” of America. Surely there are other voices in the GOP that have well-articulated the dissatisfaction from the Right with the current administration and the direction of the country - people like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, to name a couple - but what scares the full-time critics on the Left the most is that Palin may actually have the conservative message sticking with mainstream America.

What exposes liberals’ fear the most is the assumption they have that Sarah Palin wants to run for President. There is widespread panic amongst the Left that she will run for president, win, crush Obama, and become the first female to hold the office…that is quite a scenario that even conservative supporters haven’t thought much about. It’s unclear if Palin has even thought that far ahead (even though 2012 isn’t too far away at all); but with her resignation as Governor, her outspokenness in the media, and her care-free lifestyle post-Governor, it appears that Sarah Palin isn’t playing by the rule book. If she really wanted all the things liberals fear, Palin would be conducting herself much differently...perhaps more like a typical politician. However, this firestorm of opposition may have actually ignited something within the Right. As Newton's Law states, "every action is accompanied by a reaction of equal magnitude." In this case, the reaction may be Palin herself.

It was just more than two years ago that Sarah Palin splashed onto the national stage and took hold of the GOP in a conservative “renaissance” – the term may sound a bit exaggerated, but there is something to be said for a serious female Republican candidate in the 21^st century taking charge of her party and stirring up new found excitement within the base. If there is anything to take away from all the criticism Palin faces and that we, the public, must endure, it is that one things is clear (even if Palin’s political ambitions are not): the Left has something to fear; rather than fear it yourself, investigate what that “something” is and make your own opinion.

The American System

The American system of government is one of the strongest in the world. It has survived over 200 years in part because of the people, but largely because of the careful way it is set up. Complete with three equal branches of government (the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial), the United States’ approach to government ensures control over the three branches through the system of checks and balances. While each branch is given its own specific constitutional authority over the other and unto itself, there are times when a certain branch of government may overstep its power. With over two centuries of consistent growth, the Executive Branch has expanded its authority the most and its’ powers have most often been found to be overreaching. In contrast, the Judicial Branch has been most effective at maintaining its limited power over the other branches and has most visibly upheld its limited constitutional authority throughout the course of the past two centuries.

            The Executive Branch of government, outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution, has very limited powers; these powers, obtained by the President, include (1) the position of Commander-in-Chief of the military, (2) the power to make foreign treaties (3) appoint cabinet members and federal judges and (4) give a State of the Union address to Congress. These limited powers have grown vastly - even within the last decade. This ever-growing problem started to gain momentum in the 1930s with President Roosevelt. With FDR’s New Deal came huge amounts of government programs and an increase in executive agencies and authorities. This problem escalated into the 1960s when the term “The Imperial Presidency” was coined by historian, Arthur Schlesinger, and his observation of the modern presidency up until Richard Nixon. Perhaps it was this awareness of the increasing size of the Executive Branch which initiated the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This resolution sought to clarify the War Powers Act of 1941 which blatantly gave the President vast authority and the means to execute World War II. Since this time and into the 21^st century, we’ve seen the passage of the Patriot Act of 2001 which has given the Executive Branch the power and capability to use secret surveillance techniques, amongst other enhanced improved intelligence devices, in order to intercept terrorists’ plots. In more recent years, President Obama has not only continued to use the power of Executive Privilege in an effort to maintain secrecy within the branch, but he has increased the amount of government Czars and appointments, all of whom are not subject to congressional approval. By the structure of the Constitution, it seems that the Founding Fathers never intended the executive branch to be this vast and powerful. In fact, the position of “President” wasn’t developed until the final days of the Constitutional Convention of 1787. This ever-growing branch of government has proven to be the biggest offender of constitutional violations and has most visibly overreached its’ authority consistently throughout history.

            Dealing most intimately with interpreting the constitution, and the stringency that is required to do so, has allowed the Judicial Branch to uphold its constitutional authority the best. The Judicial Branch of the United States, comprised of nine Supreme Court justices, has most strictly maintained its’ constitutional authority stated in the Constitution while remaining completely functional and greatly influential. With the power of Judicial Review, this branch of government is constantly on watch and thoroughly knows the boundaries of the Constitution. Perhaps it is because of the Supreme Court’s ill-incentive to act under political pressure that it has been able to accomplish so much while maintaining the integrity of the institution. While it can be argued that the Supreme Court has the ability to “legislates from the bench,” this concept is paradoxical in that the Supreme Court inevitably “legislates from the bench” when it strikes down laws and declares bills to be unconstitutional. While it doesn’t physically write down laws like Congress, the act of rejection does amount to something of influence. However, throughout the course of two centuries, the Supreme Court has never increased in size and it still remains the smallest branch of government.

            It is important that our government remains closely bound to the limits of the Constitution. We’ve seen the powers of the President and the Executive Branch increase profoundly over the last two centuries. It seems that a new executive or governmental agency is born every day while the powers of the President become increasingly greyer. On the other hand, the Judicial Branch of our government, acting in strict coherence to the powers given to it by the Constitution, has remained an important element in maintaining the checks and balances of our federal system.

           

Track Two: The Grassroots of America

The American system of government is unique in that it lends itself to track two entities. These entities, which include interest groups, lobbyists, the media, think tanks and public opinion, offer a counter-balance to the powerful and almighty government which constantly checks in with track two activities. While these entities don’t hold any specific or legal power, they do influence decision makers and, ultimately, make government more effective and responsive to what citizens want. Because, by nature, track two entities represent public sentiment on various topics, it is ensured that the vast majority of all major (and even minor) issues have a voice in the government. Such advocacy gives a sense of direction for legislators and public officials while bringing the power back to the people.

            It would be quite a task for every citizen of the United States to be a watchdog of the government or even to keep up with its’ activity, for this reason, track two entities have evolved into major players in the U.S. system. Because of individuals who commit their life work to being lobbyists or workers for special interest groups, we have concerned people in Washington, D.C. knocking on legislators’ doors demanding action on important and often overlooked issues. Consider the AARP which seeks to voice concerns for retired people, the NRA which has sought to preserve the Second Amendment or the Planned Parenthood Federation which has committed itself to reproductive health issues – all these entities represent large amounts of citizens whose voices may not be heard without some sort of formal organization fighting for them in the nation’s capitol.

            The beauty of track two entities is the balance it maintains within its own boundaries. For every conservative-based interest group, there is a liberal-based interest group; where there is a liberal-based think tank, there is a conservative-based think tank. This natural equilibrium ensures stability and keeps each entity from becoming too powerful or influential. By organizing common thought and developing ideas in track two, our government officials are given a more tangible device from which to act. Without such organized groups targeting specific issues, our elected officials would be hearing a periphery of white noise and would lack any accountability for their actions.

            The most important feature of track two entities is that they are completely separate from government and a direct result from the private sector. The private sector is where most Americans find themselves working and habituating in, so it is important that our government hears from this unofficial majority. This privatization is most clearly seen in the media where personal opinions and verbal attacks can be made in public declaration. While these media-based track two entities like Fox News or CNN have their own bias, they are in harmony with each other by holding public officials accountable and carefully watching the legislation coming out of Congress.

            Track two entities offer the American people peace of mind knowing that somewhere there is an official organization with diplomats working for a vital cause. While these track two entities don’t represent the views and beliefs of every citizen, the numbers are all relative and without such groups working on our behalf, it would be questionable what our government’s pursuits would be.

Our Civil Liberties: The 1st Amendment

Strong civil liberties are what have defined the United States for over two centuries. It is this independence from the government that allows security for the citizens and protects basic human freedoms. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly are all First Amendment rights that Americans value. The respect for these basic freedoms comes from the country’s history that has evolved just as greatly as the people in it. The U.S. has become the model of democracy around the world and has continually put its people before itself. As challenges to these core principles have made their way into the political and social landscape of the country, it has only strengthened the First Amendment. Congress and the courts in the United States have most certainly gotten better in abiding by all aspects of the First Amendment. We have gone from a nation controlled by white, land-owning men, to a nation where its’ own President, in retrospect, wouldn’t have been allowed to ride in the front of a city bus just fifty years prior.

            A most basic freedom we have as Americans is ‘freedom of speech.’ Where this freedom usually gets skewed is with regards to government and protest. However, the freedom of speech means just that – freedom to express oneself without worriment of backlash by one’s own government. With the 1990 Supreme Court case, U.S. v Eichman, the act of ‘flag burning’ became constitutionally acceptable. Prior to this ruling, the 1989 Flag Protection Act prevented flag desecration because of the statement it made about the government. While flag desecration is widely accepted as disrespectful, Americans have the basic freedom to make any statement they want about any institution.

            With regards to freedom of religion, Americans share in the luxury of being able to follow any religion they choose, if they so choose, no matter the core beliefs of the religion itself . In the 1940 case of Cantwell v Connecticut, two Jehovah’s Witnesses were publically sharing their anti-Catholic views in a vastly Catholic area. While the remarks made by the two were offensive to Catholics and displayed their own religion as intolerant of the Catholic faith, they were protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendment which gives all Americans the right to believe and preach any views they’d like.

            Freedom of the press is another First Amendment right that has given way to many challenges. In Near v Minnesota, the issue of malicious and scandalous depictions of individuals in public newspapers came under fire. However, with the ruling of 1931 by the Supreme Court, protection for newspapers and the content published in them was upheld. The fact that this case was within the last century makes it notable that these freedoms we take for granted every day are constantly being challenged.

            The right of Americans to organize peacefully and convene about any topic, no matter how obscure or offensive it may be, is another basic First Amendment right – the freedom of assembly. In 1963, with the Edwards v South Carolina Supreme Court case, it was decided that 187 black protestors were in their right to march outside a South Carolina State House. While the formal organization of these people was to protest and challenge the state government’s segregation laws, the state had no right to deny the group’s right to protest despite the direct threat the group posed towards the government. The group’s actions were supported by the Supreme Court and their interpretation of the First Amendment making this case a clear example of the government’s inability to get in the way of any assembly no matter how ideologically threatening it may be.

            With all of these cases, the common thread is the underlying First Amendment issues that are at stake. Even more concerning is that these cases are all from the 20^th century which makes the First Amendment a living, breathing Amendment consistently being challenged and called into question. It is reassuring that, despite extremes in content of speech, that all Americans have the right to say what they believe and live according to that.     

Russia: A March to the 21st Century

INTRODUCTION

            Russian politics and economics have long been structured around the environmental composition of the country – in essence, the abundance of natural energy. Throughout its relatively brief history, subsequent to the 1917 revolution, the Soviet Union experienced an array of political leadership. With each new leader came a slightly new direction for the country. Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev each made their own distinctive imprint in the country’s history while carrying out policies that ultimately served state interests first. With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 came certain anticipations as to what the face of the new state would look like. After years of collectivization, socialized agriculture, and the nationalization of industries, practices first implemented in the Stalin Era as the means to achieve economic power, the USSR eventually fell. This collapse of the largest and longest lasting communist regime allowed the forthcoming of “new” ideas on government. However, as new Russian history is unfolding, we are seeing not a shift towards new ideas but rather a return to old ones.

USSR AS A SUPERPOWER

           “Beginning in 1921, Lenin's Soviet government made industrial modernization a priority. But it was under Stalin that the system of central planning was fully developed and the industrialization of the Russian Republic reached its peak. Throughout the Stalin period, investment resources were directed into heavy manufacturing at the expense of consumer or light industry” (RussiansAbroad).

During the Cold War, the USSR enjoyed years of strong control on the state’s commerce and a tightening of domestic investment of business. It was during this time that Soviets sought to discourage and ultimately restrict foreign investment. Every move during this time was characterized by unwavering loyalty to the state. There was no such thing as personal improvement. Improvement efforts were to be dedicated solely to the Soviet state. All “energies” were focused on sustaining the USSR’s superpower status. Soviet militaristic goals were also achieved during this time. Though the USSR could now assert itself with the only other world player of the time, the United States, influence on smaller entities, like Chechnia, was still questionable.

RETURN OF A SUPERPOWER

            When the USSR finally collapsed in 1991, the future of the state was undoubtedly uncertain. However by realizing Russia’s energy potential, the country quickly grew the economy into a people’s economy full of private investment and ownership. These economic freedoms, which were otherwise unknown during the Soviet-era, contributed to the boost in morale and hope for the baby-country. While the USSR experienced some of the best possible militaristic achievements, Russia post-1991 struggled to assert itself on a global stage. That would soon come to an end though.

Perhaps it was nostalgia for previous times of power and, ultimately, a voice that pushed President Vladimir Putin to kick the country into high-gear and demand the return of Russia to superpower status. To achieve such a goal would be preposterous – after all, prior to Putin coming into power, Russia had just experience an economic melt-down in 1998 that for sure sent the state into frenzy. It was his vision and swift and thought-out policy plans that would transform the country practically overnight.

With the control of Russia practically all his, Putin emphasized the need for business to be nationalized. He feared that private owners of business don’t always act in the best interest of the state. In his view, “if left on their own, private owners become too absorbed in pursuing their own interest and are more interested in damaging their competitors than helping the state” (Goldman, 98). It was this firm stance on government control that would be an ever-reoccurring theme throughout his rule. With business seized by the state, Russia could now use companies like Gazprom as a vessel to carry out national interests and policy. By using the major energy producing company as a bargaining tool, it put Russia back on the map and reasserted itself in a much broader financial arena. The utter dependency of Russian GDP on oil production accounted for Putin’s 100% devotion to such political and economic policy. Realizing internal struggles with tax evasion and corruption, Putin introduced a flat tax of 13% as the means to lessen the incentive to cheat, a practice that had long been performed. With his focus on economic growth, Putin also sought to remove the bureaucratic mess that ultimately slowed down business and discouraged entrepreneurs (Goldman, 96).

With all this focus on the economy, it could be argued that militaristic goals went unnoticed and unrealized. Perhaps this is true as today we still have yet to see Russia reassert itself militarily. However, with only a month into being Prime Minister, Putin ordered Russian troops to invade Chechnia as a way of reasserting Russia’s authority there (Goldman, 94). Though this was a small endeavor in the big scope of things, it does say something about Putin’s piercing vision for the country – to regain the immense and fearsome control it had during the Soviet-era. As Marx would say though – Does the end justify the means?

CONCLUSION

            There is no doubt Russia has rebounded after swiftly taking over control of, and nationalizing, gas and oil. The state, in its infant stages, went from times of doubt and uncertainty, to a place of clear vision and relative prosper. What happened though to the freedoms gained with the collapse of the USSR? With business once again being nationalized and more restrictions on foreign investment being made, Putin, in ways, pushed Russia in a 180 degree rotation back to the ways Soviets used to run things. By putting politics and business on the same page, Putin effectively launched the country’s idealistic vision for the future practically by himself. This practice reeks of a return to authoritarianism and has ultimately made Russia less transparent in its efforts to reassert itself in the world. With threats of cutting off gas to reliant countries and having the life line to the rest of Europe, Russia has strategically put itself in a win-win position - having the voice of a superpower and the wealth needed to sustain it. It is noted that Putin has been extremely popular amongst the Russian people. This is a man who practically transformed a blooming country while returning it to its previous status: a ferocious world player – most certainly not afraid to play dirty.

WORKS CITED

Goldman, Marshall I. Petrostate: Putin, power and the new Russia.

Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 2008.

"Russia: Manufacturing.” History Russians Abroad. RussiansAbroad.

17 Mar. 2009 < http://www.russiansabroad.com/russian_history_226.html>.

The 14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution has become a fundamental pillar of our modern democracy. From this vital amendment, which guarantees equal protection for all citizens under the law, the United States has been able to progress and fortify the rights of its people through an array of legal issues and moral circumstances. Because of the establishment of this amendment, the civil rights of all people have been guaranteed; this notion has gained powerful legal status and is the basis of many Supreme Court cases concerning civil rights. However, the amendment itself means nothing without the application by the people of whom it was written. While this amendment provides equal protection under the law for all people, it does not guarantee that state laws or initiatives will always abide by it first. In the case of Loving v Virginia and in the 2008 California Proposition 8 vote, the spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment is evident. While the Loving v Virginia case prevailed in the Supreme Court under the elements of ‘equal protection under the law,’ Proposition 8 has yet to be decided in the Supreme Court despite sharing very similar components as the case from nearly 50 years prior. Both of these cases pioneer a new wave of social awareness for minority groups seeking to gain equal legal protection under the law in the pursuit of happiness.

            In Loving v Virginia, an interracial couple fought for their marriage to gain legal recognition despite the law of Virginia stating that, at that time, interracial marriage was illegal. Because the law fell under the “Racial Integrity Act of 1924,” passed by the Virginia State Legislature, there was no meaningful Civil Rights legislation at the time to protect the state’s people from this blatantly discriminate piece of legislation. It wasn’t until 1967, with this case, that the Fourteenth Amendment was used in a court of law to defend the couple and similar couples nation-wide. Because the Fourteenth Amendment was written out of the Reconstruction Era, it dealt primarily with the protection of racial minorities. ‘Equal protection under the law’ includes all races and, thus, an interracial couple’s marriage is just as valid as any other couples’. This case dealt with the law protecting everyone’s basic freedom to live in the pursuit of happiness; however nearly fifty years later in 2008, there continues to be challenges to this basic principle.

            In 2008, California held a vote on Proposition 8 which sought to bring equality to the gay community of the state in the realm of marriage. The result of the vote was unsuccessful for the gay marriage movement; yet, the principles of the case are strikingly similar to Loving v Virginia in respect to two individuals unable to commit to each other because of discriminatory measures of the state prohibiting marriage. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the people of California (regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and in every other state are guaranteed equal protection under the law. If heterosexuals are able to marry, from a legal standpoint, homosexuals should be too. Equal protection under the law knows no boundaries; in the 1960s, the Loving case wiped out an outdated state law based on the Fourteenth Amendment and its application to marriage. In 2010, this standard has every right to be applied again. After nearly 50 years of Civil Rights legislation being enacted on behalf of a racial minority, it is completely plausible that the Fourteenth Amendment can be used to justify the rights of other minorities as well.

            The two cases of Loving v Virginia and Proposition 8 both demonstrate a fundamental right of all citizens to pursue happiness and marry a person of their choosing. With Loving, discriminatory legislation on the basis of race was the barrier for the couple. With the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court struck down the law of Virginia and guaranteed the rights of the people of Virginia with regard to marriage. In California, the issue of marriage continues to be a battle with the gay community who is fighting to get equal protection under the law. With application of the Fourteenth Amendment the gay community of California may be able to solidify their rights for marriage in the Supreme Court on the basis of ‘equal protection under the law.’ Whether it be a racial factor or the issue of sexual orientation, the institution of marriage remains a tradition that, legally, should be accessible to all people.

           

International Relations (IR): Three Levels of Analysis

Because of the anarchic global arena that we live in, the study of International Relations (IR) is constantly forced to consider and examine how best to approach such a complex and abstract concept as worldwide interface. J. David Singer attempts to explain the global political structure with respect and accreditation to Kenneth Waltz’s original concept of “Levels of Analysis,” in his writing, International Conflict: Three Levels of Analysis. Though his [Singer] findings are inconclusive in terms of favoring one level of analysis over another when considering how best to approach IR, the arrangement and classification conceived by Waltz can conceptualize the numerous political theorists’ models and offer a more keen understanding of foreign actors and their place in the international system. While each of the levels of analysis (Individual, National, and Systemic) offer their own unique approach to understanding the international system, IR can best be explained and understood at the “Systemic Level.” At this high level of analysis, describing, explaining and predicting events in IR is most effective because of (1) the wide scope that is used to view broad issues, (2) the disregard for cultural/individual factors that could contentiously play into the system, and (3) the attention paid to identifying the dominant forces in the field and, consequently, finding patterns in the larger picture.

            To properly assess the efficacy of the Systemic Level in the study of IR, we must first consider the Levels of Analysis as a whole and what each level suggests. Beginning with the “First-Image” examination, the Individual Level of analysis takes in to account the specific psyche of human beings and their natural state of being whether it be an optimistic or pessimistic view. For an optimist, man can and should be changed for the better while a pessimist would argue the reverse – man is selfish and greedy and the only thing stopping him is a larger political and social system.¹ Examining distinctive qualities of humans as well as culture and religion, a First Level analysis of IR lacks meaning in terms of creating a clear picture of the international system as a functioning entity especially in a post- Peace of Westphalia-world where many different nation-states make up the majority of “official” foreign affairs. The inherit danger in drawing on the Individual Level for meaning in a global realm is the tendency for First-Image analyses to get too philosophical relying on assumptions and theories as to explain the true state of mankind which in itself is debatable . From such a weak foundation as this, accurate predictions are unlikely to be had given the massive amount of assumptions that need to be made first. Considering individuals and their place in the international system is undoubtedly useful in IR, however this level of analysis does not allow for a broader understanding of global politics and the forces in play.

            Shifting to the National/State Level of analysis, we see a better grasp of the elements in play, but perhaps lack a complete understanding of their place in the broader system. The Second-Image analysis is concerned with the internal structure of states, sifting out good and bad states, and (ideally) trying to change them for the better.² With such an approach to IR as this, one concerns themselves with specific functions and faults of a state rather than the state as a whole and how it fits in to the international structure. When conducting foreign relations, one must consider how the state fits in to the larger system regardless of whether or not they are a mirror image of the “perfectly democratic” United States. By judging individual states based on their own unique political/social makeup, we are left with a better image of what that state represents by itself, but as far as how the state fares in a larger arena, we can’t be totally sure.

            Taking in to account the two lower levels of analysis, the Systemic Level of analysis doesn’t concern itself with cultural or even particular state-specific political distinctions; the purpose of Third-Image analysis is to find stability in an anarchic world. With so many international actors, the Systemic read on foreign affairs is practical in approach and realistic in practice. In this level of analysis, one looks at the dominant forces in the field that cause war and their weight in the system as a whole.³ The unique factor of a Systemic Level of analysis approach to IR is its ability to encompass the two lower levels of analysis, Individual and National /State Level analyses. With these First and Second-Image analyses considered, a Third-Image analysis can better assess and predict future events. The main purpose of IR is to gain the most accurate picture of the international system and the most influential/significant actors in it; in a Systemic Level of analysis, the framework is built to start the process of examining where best to shift national energies.

            With the “Three Levels of Analysis” approach to IR conceived by Kenneth Waltz and further articulated by J. David Singer, we are given an organized structure in our political school of thought to better help us understand and predict events in an international system. Since it is a system, the Third-Image analysis or Systemic Level of analysis serves most effective in best explaining and understanding IR. This approach to grasping the broad picture of IR forces one to channel thought through a wider spectrum considering larger factors in play in an anarchic world. The Systemic Level’s more common success in predicting foreign affairs does not come from its attention to fickle details of a state but rather its awareness of the international system as a functioning whole.

Comparative Politics: A Look at Cuba

INTRODUCTION

What makes a sovereign country truly independent is its ability to face economic and political challenges head on. This direct approach to tackling societal problems instills a certain integrity and loyalty from a government to its people. Whether it be political and economic involvement from the United States or the specific aid sent from the Soviet Union, Cuba has struggled to express its complete sovereignty following the Spanish-American War. The inability of the nation to break free from foreign dominion revolves around the premise of financial insecurity and the aspiration of Cuba to be a world player. However, with financial insecurity comes both political and militaristic instability as well. Thus, due to the relatively young nature of the country along with its desire to be recognized in a global arena throughout the 20^th century, Cuba has long been forced to accept political and economic conditions from other political powers that have restricted their facility to have a voice.

THE PRICE OF INDEPENDENCE

            By the end of the 19^th century, Cuba had struggled for its independence from Spain multiple times. It wasn’t until the Spanish-American War in 1898 that Cuba would become free from Spanish control. With the militaristic aid of the United States, Cuba was able to come out a free nation and by 1902 gained formal independence. The assistance from the United States didn’t come for free though. The years following the Spanish-American War would be dominated by U.S. involvement both politically and economically. The mantra of ‘U.S. interests first and Cuba’s second,’ would resonate in American politics until the mid-20^th century beginning with the rule of Fidel Castro.

U.S. INVOLVEMENT

            As Cuba emerged a free nation, it needed support, both economically and politically, to get started. Since the U.S. had so generously defended its neighbor to the south at the end of the 19^th century, American involvement was unavoidable.

“Social disarticulation marked the early republic. The planter class had little choice but to relinquish economic reconstruction to foreign capital and bind its well-being to U.S. investments. The consolidation and expansion of Spanish interests also limited Cuban opportunities in commerce, industry, and the professions.” (Perez-Stable, 37)

The United States knew very well its intentions in Cuba - to expand its sphere of influence and acquire an economic base to the south. Of the first political moves the U.S. took towards Cuba, was the Platt Amendment. The amendment was an addition to the Cuban Constitution stating that the United States had the right to "intervene in Cuba in order to protect U.S. economic and political interests and to protect the life of U.S. citizens in Cuba." The amendment, passed in 1899, would ensure political and economic relations with Cuba for the next 50 years. Of the many conditions that came with the Platt Amendment was the right of the United States to establish a military presence on the island. Cuba would be forced to sell or lease any party of the island for the establishment of American naval bases. This idea soon came to fruition with the creation of the American Naval Base, Guantanamo Bay, in 1903. With a physical presence on the island, the U.S. could better manage its southern “playground.”

            As far as economic affairs are concerned, the reliance on Cuban sugar by the United States proved to be the grounds for American economic involvement on the island. With the 1903 reciprocity trade treaty came a 20% tariff reduction in the U.S. and a 20%-40% tariff reduction on American products in Cuba. The total reliance on sugar production in Cuba proved to be the driving force of the economy. As a result, when sugar production suffered, so did the Cuban economy. There was also little motivation to create new industry because of the overreliance on sugar. All the while, the United States was sitting back and enjoying the economic and political luxuries that this tiny island was producing for it. However, with the emergence of Fidel Castro as a political leader in the mid-20^th century and growing tension between the two countries due to American hostility to Castro’s socialist plans, the United States eventually broke relations with Cuba and placed countless embargos on Cuban relations. Out of all this came a new protector for Cuba, the Soviet Union.

SOVIET INVOLVEMENT

            With the United States out of Cuba, alternative foreign relations needed to be made quickly if Cuba wanted to regain its grip both politically and economically. It seemed only logical that the other global superpower of the time (and adversary of the United States) would step in. The Soviet Union soon replaced the U.S.’s position in Cuba and quickly made its mark in the political and economic landscape of the small country. Since American demand for Cuban sugar was no longer, the Soviets filled the spot and, in exchange, provided the island with cheaper oil. By 1972, Cuba joined the Soviet-formed CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) which sought to unite communist states on economic grounds. This major step economically tightened the grip the Soviet Union had on Cuba while reassuring the island financial stability for a time.

            Soviet political influence in Cuba came almost immediately after the United States’ withdraw from the country. In 1962, the first major political step taken by the Soviets towards the Cubans was facilitating the military artillery used during, what came to be known as, the “Missile Crisis.”  In an effort to portray Cuba as a nation that wouldn’t budge to the United States, Khrushchev effectively equipped Cuba with armory that made the U.S. rethink harsh treatment towards the small country. When the issue finally got resolved, it wasn’t Cuba who negotiated with the U.S., it was the Soviet Union. This motion instilled the grudge that the U.S. still had towards Cuba while making it clear that the Soviet Union would call the shots as far as Cuban foreign policy was concerned. The control that the Soviet Union had on Cuba wasn’t anything they weren’t used to. Similar control was most definitely seen during the years of U.S. occupation in Cuba.

CONCLUSION

            With as far as Cuba has come over the past couple of centuries, it is hard to say whether or not they were ever completely “independent.” Whether it was U.S. involvement in the early 20^th century or Soviet influence in the latter part of the 20^th century, Cuba never got the chance to fully express its own agenda on a global scale. Furthermore, neither the U.S. nor the Soviet Union helped Cuba in the long run. Whereas both countries helped consume the major Cuban export of sugar, it pigeonholed the economy and made it completely reliant on a single crop. On a political basis, the U.S. tried to impose its own traditions and government on foreign soil (which we know has all too often resulted poorly) while Cuba tried harder and harder to resist. This resistance was relieved with Soviet political influence which sought to promote communist ideals; however, in the long run it was these ideals that have further exemplified Cuba’s inability to sustain a common peace amongst the citizens. The artillery that was briefly seen in the early 1960’s from the Soviets to Cuba was short-lived and artificially inflated the political power of Cuba towards the United States. Neither country’s involvement in Cuba truly benefited Cuban desires to become “independent;” the country instead rode on the coat tails of foreign interest. The key lesson to be learned is for a developing nation to learn its boundaries and be careful of getting ahead of its time. Cuba is a perfect example of a government trying to rapidly emerge its birthing nation into a global arena too soon. By leaching on to the two biggest superpowers of the time, Cuba’s fate (both politically and economically) rested in the hands of others. The inability for Cuba to resist the pressures of foreign involvement and the reliance on foreign involvement can accurately characterize 20^th century Cuba.


WORKS CITED

1. Perez-Stable, Marifeli. The Cuban Revolution: Origins, Course, and Legacy.
          New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.

A Modern Shia Revival

INTRODUCTION

            The Middle East has long been home to an age-old conflict that, at its core, deals with the division of two major Muslim factions in the region. From these two groups, we see a divided history that dates back to 632 C.E. and the rightful successor of the prophet, Muhammad. Subsequent to his death, the Islamic faith began to take on two distinct identities that were conceived by (1) followers of the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, Ali, and (2) followers of the prophet’s close friend and father-in-law, Abu Bakr. The first group, calling themselves “Shia,” is the minority today and make up only about 10% of Muslims worldwide; the latter group, representing the majority, are dubbed as “Sunnis” and have, in recent years, had most of the political control in the Middle East. The two Muslim sects have their religious roots deeply embedded in everyday life – affecting their traditions, lifestyle and, ultimately, politics. However, following the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Shia gained a significant voice in Middle Eastern politics. Today, the Shia continue their march toward equality and wider representation in the region despite Sunni opposition. Investigating the history of the Islamic faith and the quarrel between its two religious groups can only create a clearer picture of the Muslim community at large and the events that shape Middle Eastern politics today.

PHILOSPHICAL DIFFERENCES

            The Islamic faith came to origin in the seventh century with the prophet, Muhammad. After his death, disputes over the rightful leader of the faith divided the religion’s followers into two groups, the Shia and the Sunnis. The Shia organized around Muhammad’s blood-relative and cousin, Ali, while Sunnis chose to have Abu Bakr, Muhammad’s close friend and father-in-law, as their religious leader. However, following the assassination of Ali by Muawiya, Shia resentment towards the opposing Sunni took on a new odium. The Shia people “evolved as moral and religious resistance to Sunni authority” and thus, “to survive…grew insular;” today, their people continue to “challenge the political authority of the caliphs” and have found security within Iranian and, quite recently, Iraqi borders.

The Shia have remained a fairly small community within the Islamic faith while the Sunnis, on the other hand, amount to nearly 90% of all Muslims. According to Sunni doctrine, they are the orthodox branch of Islam and represent a traditional approach to the religion. The basis for their teachings revolves solely on the Quran and includes the acceptance of two types of leaders – a religious leader and a political leader. Whereas the Shia recognize one religious and political figure, Sunnis have more of a separation between church and state. They don’t believe that it is a religious figure’s birthright to lead the religion, nor do they accept the opinion of their political figure to be absolute.      Despite their division, “the two communities share fundamental beliefs - the "oneness" of Allah, that Muhammad was the last prophet, prayer, fasting and the pilgrimage to Mecca for example” (BBC News). Nevertheless, the fact remains that the two groups remain much divided. The treatment of one another depends on the leadership of the given community – for Sunni in Iran, gaining a significant voice has proved very difficult.

POLITICAL DIFFERENCES

            Within the Islamic faith, religion and politics are acutely connected. This relationship stems from the original disagreement concerning the rightful leader of the religion. Ergo, Muslims sharing similar theological beliefs pertaining to the foundations of the Islamic faith tend to convene together in similar political realms as well. Shia, for the most part, represent the poorest of inhabitants in countries like Lebanon and are widely seen as unsophisticated and low class citizens. It’s this discrimination that has divided the Muslim community into two opposing sects and continues the two contrasting notions concerning leadership. According to Shia doctrine, political and religious leadership should be intertwined and come from the same source whereas Sunnis maintain the idea that there is a clear division between political and religious figures. This opposition has manifested itself through the creation of Shia-controlled Iran and the unique “Islamic Republic” style of government in place.

SHIA DISCRIMINATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST

Because the Shia-Sunni quarrel dates back centuries, discrimination of the minority is deeply embedded in the roots of Middle Eastern history. The Shia have widely been persecuted due to the posing threat they have had on the Sunni over time:

“Militarily established and holding control over the Umayyad government, many Sunni rulers perceived the Shia as a threat – both to their political and religious authority…the Sunni rulers under the Umayyads sought to marginalize the Shia minority and later the Abbasids turned on their Shia allies and further imprisoned, persecuted, and killed Shias” (Nasr 52).

In recent years, the gaining support for the Shia people, especially post-Iranian Revolution, has propelled this trepidation further. The Shia are widely seen as simple and low class people who need to be controlled throughout the Middle East. Discrimination extends from most corners of the Arab-speaking world and threatens the livelihood of the faith.  

THE RISE OF IRAN

            By 1979, growing hatred for the Iranian Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, reached a tipping point. The growing neglect the Shah developed towards the Shia religious clergy over disputed issues like modernization and his ostracized authoritarian rule, proved to be fatal. The Iranian people were also not pleased by the way their country had become a puppet for the United States. Following the revolution, they brought back Ayatollah Khomeini to lead, ultimately showing their regained strength as a Shia nation. With Khomeini in power, changes were made to bring back the Shia clerical presence in the government that had been lacking with the Shah. With the return of a combined religious and political state, Iran could now more effectively launch its anti-American agenda and become a stronger, but insolated, country. Today, Iran continues to refer to the United States as “The Great Satan” because of our dark past which includes putting the Shah in power for our own interests. Despite the Shah’s ability to modernize Iran and bring about some good change, the country is seen in this era as stronger because of the regrouping and restorations it’s made within its borders.

CONCLUSION

The Iran that we see today is in many ways different from the Iran of the mid-twentieth century led by the Shah. Since the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 and most certainly since the election of Ali Khamenei in 1989, Iran has seen the formation of a true Shia state; by taking on such a title, Iran accepts the terms of the religion which may or may not be suitable to the interests of many Westerners – perhaps even some native Iranians, thus opening up the possibility for revolution. The Shah’s Iran sought to bring about modernization, education reform and a clear step towards a secular nation. By directly merging the Shia religion with Iranian politics, the country has in affect strengthened its power and put its citizens under complete government control. Using the Islamic faith as a political tool, Iran is taking advantage of its people - such a way of life doesn’t sound like the definition of “freedom” as it is known in the United States. By continuing flawed policy such as the condemning of homosexuals and the limited rights of women, Iran cannot plausibly exude characteristics of a free nation.

            With such defective domestic policy, it is hard to imagine Iran being a threat in a global arena. Nevertheless, anti-U.S. sentiment combined with growing military strength has made it clear that Iran is demanding a voice. It has been uncertain over the years whether or not Iran has financially supported terrorism - certainly the country is not willing to admit such a claim. However, with the unique makeup of the government along with clear opposing views on issues like Israel’s right to exist, Iranian and American leaders are being forced to communicate; by achieving such a right, Iran has proven its growing political status. The threat the country poses to the West is visible through its interest in developing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the inability of the U.S. to reach negotiations with Iran has propelled this struggle and has allowed Iran to rule with fear both domestically and abroad.


WORKS CITED

1. “The Shia Revival: Class Notes” Borzutzky, Silvia: Comparative Politics.

2. "BBC NEWS". British Broadcasting Corporation. April 30, 2009
           <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6213248.stm>.

3. Nasr, Vali. The Shia Revival. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2006.