All Signs Lead to Secession in Southern Sudan

While the Sudan has suffered from civil war and bitter division for many decades, the latest political action almost guarantees an absolute divide in the form of secession. Indeed, a week-long referendum poll that ended on Saturday, January 15th, indicated that around 95 percent of the Southern Sudanese population, both domestic and abroad, favored becoming a separate country, according to a recent New York Times article. While tallying votes began last week, the results are not expected to be formally announced until early to mid-February 2011.

Moreover, if secession from the North is the final outcome of the referendum, Southern independence would not take place until the expiration of the "Comprehensive Peace Agreement" on July 9th of this year. The 2005 American-influenced agreement marked the end of the 22-year Second Sudanese Civil War between Northern Arab political leadership, and Animists and Christian populations in the South. Yet, secession will not end strife between the North and the South, and the more complicated schisms regarding religion, ethnicity, and oil. While votes were being cast in the South, rallies were active in the North, with groups shouting anti-government slogans and expressing disillusion over whether fair elections were possible. In addition, as Al Jazeera reports, a secession means that nearly nine million Southern Sudanese would "take with them some 80 per cent of Sudan's oil reserves--leaving the north's 32 million people to go it alone" without the economic security that oil can bring.

To learn more about the current situation in the Sudan, come to the University of Massachusetts, Amherst on February 10th, to hear Dr. Andrew Natsios of Georgetown give a talk entitled: "The Future of the Sudan."

To read more:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/01/201111513594958973.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/world/africa/17sudan.html?scp=2&sq=sudan&st=cse

Self-Immolation, Social Media, and Tunisian Strife

The recent riots throughout Tunisia were provoked by many things, such as the self-indulgent behaviors of President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, socio-economic discontent, and old-fashioned corruption. The ultimate trigger, however, was the suicide of a desperate 26 year-old man, Mohammed Bouazizi, who set himself on fire because his fruit stand had been confiscated by the local police. His act of self-immolation unleashed the anger of middle-class, and college-educated Tunisians, who face rampant unemployment, while the now-former President Ben Ali enjoyed a ultra lavish life-style.

For almost a month now, Tunisia has been flooded by rioters in rural areas and in the streets of Tunis, who are calling for political reform and accountability. Riots were organized via various social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, and Tunisian bloggers. In addition, many of the protests are being documented by videos posted online, prompting more action and unrest. At least 78 Tunisians have died, and 100 have been wounded in the protest, often due to police violence. The demonstrations, however, have been effective in toppling the regime: Ben Ali has fled to Saudi Arabia, more than five ministers from makeshift unity government stepped down, and there are calls for Prime Minister Mohammed Ghannouchi to resign.

While Tunisia is the current powder keg, there is a single flame uniting these protests in Tunisia with the the rest of the Arab World: the target of political despotism. Indeed, protesters from Jordan to Sudan have been activated by the demonstrations in Tunisia, though often in self-destructive ways. As of January 17th, five more North African men have set themselves ablaze, two in front of their respective parliament buildings. These self-immolations have taken place in Egypt, Algeria, Mauritania,Tunisia, and the common thread is the brief and fleeting relationships these countries have had with democracy. According to an Al-Jazeera article, "Tunisians, many other Arabs are frustrated by soaring prices, poverty, high unemployment and systems of rule that ignore their voices." Indeed, an Egyptian group is organizing a protest via Facebook for January 25th, to fight against "torture, poverty, corruption and unemployment."

Click here for the latest news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/19/world/africa/19tunis.html?pagewanted=1&hp

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/01/20111179413130528.html

The Future of the Sudan

On Thursday, February 10th, Dr. Andrew Natsios will visit UMASS Amherst to give a talk entitled: "The Future of the Sudan." Dr. Natsios is a Distinguished Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Dr. Natsios is a graduate of Georgetown University and Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government. From 1993 to 1998, he was vice president of World Vision U.S., the largest faith-based NGOs in the world. Natsios was a member of the US Army Reserves for 23 years, served in the Gulf War in 1991 on active duty and was a Lt. Colonel when he retired in the 1990’s. He has served as Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development from 2001 to January 2006. In addition to teaching, he served as President Bush’s Special Envoy to Sudan from October 2006 to December 2007. Dr. Natsios is the author of two books, U.S. Foreign Policy and the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (1997) and The Great North Korean Famine (2001), collaborated on eight other books, and numerous articles. His book Sudan and Darfur: What Everyone Needs to Know is forthcoming.

Here is a comprehensive article about the Sudan by Dr.Natsios:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/64904/andrew-natsios/waltz-with-bashir

Also, heck out this video on the upcoming Sudanese referendum, featuring Dr. Natsios:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2010/12/30/VI2010123002164.html?referrer=emaillink

Negotiating New Immigration Standards in New York

Yesterday, New York Governor David Paterson reached an agreement with federal officials in an effort to fortify immigration enforcement in the state. Paterson has historically been a proponent of protecting illegal immigrant rights, and on December 25th, he pardoned 24 immigrants with prior criminal history as to prevent their deportation. After the pardon, Paterson stated that federal immigration laws can “excessively harsh and in need of modernization.” The Secure Communities pact reached with the federal government, however, makes little change in the existing law, used primarily to detain and deport immigrants who are considered a threat to public safety and national security.

Paterson did not achieve a legislative modernization to protect illegal immigrants from unlawful detainment. Instead, the program dictates that fingerprints of everyone booked into a local or county jail be sent to the Homeland Security Department and compared with prints in the agency’s databases. Also, the new pact does not prevent officials from deporting immigrants without a criminal history. Therefore, questions of how to balance civil liberties with homeland security escalating in New York immigration politics, just as Paterson leaves office.

To read more, click below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/31/nyregion/31secure.html?ref=politics

"The End of Don't Ask Don't Tell: A Few More Steps Left" -- A Time Magazine Article

The Senate successfully repealed the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” law, prohibiting openly gay and lesbian men and women from serving in the American military. “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was enacted on the belief that allowing homosexuals to serve would jeopardize the cohesion of those serving, ultimately weakening America’s defenses. Many opponents of the law believe this to be untrue, and have adamantly pushed for its repeal, including President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and chairman of the Joint Chief, Mike Mullen.
While the Senate has voted to repeal it, allowing equality in the military, it has not been fully repealed yet, requiring a letter from Obama, Gates, and Mullen confirming that the military is prepared to for its gays and lesbians to come out. Once this letter has been received by both the House and Senate, it will take an additional sixty days.
In the meantime, many service men and women are waiting to officially come out. However, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” has not been enforced since October of this year, due to the ruling of U.S. District Court judge, Virginia Phillips stating that it “irreparably injures service members by infringing on their fundamental rights”.
To read more about “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell”, its repeal and the reactions of servicemen men and women and U.S. Congress members, click here: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2037943,00.html.

"Long Road for Lawyer Defending the Healthcare Law"

The New York Times article, “Long Road for Defending the Healthcare Law” illuminates Ian Gershengorn’s argument in defense of the Health Care Law. Gershengorn’s legal argument rests on the precedent that Congress is allowed to regulate “activities that substantially affect interstate commerce”, which he believes, insurance does. To read more about Gershengorn and his approach to this case, click here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/health/policy/10lawyer.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss.

The Healthcare Debate Forges On

On Monday, December 13th, Virginia federal judge Henry E. Hudson ruled that the central provision in Obama’s Healthcare law is not constitutional, making him the first judge to formally invalidate a part of the law. The ruling calls into the question the provision of mandatory health insurance for most Americans, and Judge Hudson posits that rendering healthcare a compulsory expense for Americans gives Congress undue authority under the Commerce Clause, and is thus, unconstitutional. In other words, making Americans buy health insurance exceeds the regulatory authority granted to Congress, according to this case.

This specific suit was filed by Virginia’s Republican attorney general, Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II on March 23^rd—the same day that President Obama ratified the health care bill. Well-known for his conservative stances on gay rights, Cuccinelli claims that the case is not about health insurance, but “about liberty.” This sentiment is indeed echoed on his website, where he refers to the suit as “the 21st Century version of the ‘shot heard 'round the world.’”

Thus far, all but one of the 20 attorneys general and governors who filed a similar case in Pensacola, Fla., are Republicans. Cuccinelli chose to file independently in his home state. These legal actions fall keenly along party lines, and reinforce the idea that the lawsuits are as much a political assault as a constitutional one, as the White House contends.

To read more, click below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=2&ref=policy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/02/AR2010080205019.html