Bad Science

Political Scientists often get a bad rap from the “hard” sciences of the physical world – chemists, physicists, geologists, or what have you – who deal in sciences where measurements and units of analysis are fairly consistent and well defined.  They say there is nothing scientific about what we do because we deal primarily in seemingly unscientific variables which are heavily value-based and inconsistent.  Whereas something like the mineral compounds of a certain rock or metal will always be objective and constant, something like the approval ratings of a president or what to do over a hot topic like abortion will always be subjective, conflicting and value-laden.  In this light, why would we even call political science a science at all?

Though political science is certainly incompatible with the natural sciences in many ways, the truth is that political science is an incredibly useful tool for understanding the most unpredictable variable we as a species have yet encountered – ourselves.  Political science gives us a means to qualify and quantify a myriad of issues that concern the day-to-day lives of a great deal of people.  It helps us find the policies that work and don’t work.  It helps us identify the core problems in our communities.  It helps us prescribe, rather than simply describe, means to build strong institutions, fight corruption, and provide for stable governance.  And, believe it or not, political science even has its own “scientific method” when dealing with issues that are prescriptive in nature.

The problem with political science, then, lies not in the science itself.  Rather, the problem with political science lies in the “Bad Science” approaches many would-be political scientists take.  It is important to note that, when I mention political scientists in this instance, I am not restricting my view only to professional political scientists and politicians.  Instead, I am referring to any individual who is involved in a political system, which may very well include every person in the world.  The reason I refer to political scientists in this way is by virtue of the sheer pervasiveness of the field of political science.  Even individuals who have never voted, never intend to vote, and know literally nothing about their own government and political system are indeed actors in their respective political spheres, and ergo can be considered political scientists of sorts (albeit horrible ones).

These “bad scientists,” which I fear may constitute a very large number, are those who have made very little or no effort at all to examining their political beliefs and what they entail.  These individuals, trapped in a strange and esoteric view of the world, subscribe to an extremely narrow-minded view of the political climate around them and indeed may only be concerned with things such as their day-to-day dealings and well being.  When confronted with a political issue, they tend to follow an extremely faulty scientific method.  They have their pre-conceived notion of what they see as correct, and then try to find data, whether quantitative or anecdotal, to support their conclusion.

As any “hard” scientist would tell you, this is a completely backward way of solving a problem.  While I will admit that personal biases are virtually impossible to do away with entirely in this field, the fact remains that, when trying to solve a problem, every effort should be made to see to it that the end result in itself is not biased.  Proceeding in such a matter is not only possible in political science, but is actually fairly easy.  One example would be the Student Ethics Committee I am a part of at Weber State University.  This group is currently attempting to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform in the State of Utah.  This is an extremely sensitive topic, but we have developed a basic route to understanding the problem.  We will be studying lobbyists, representatives to the legislature, the amount of funding in campaigns, and a number of other topics.  Once we have gathered this data, we will piece it together and compare it with other data from other models which are perceived as working well.  After this comparison, we will generate our recommendations for the State of Utah.

Notice that the recommendations are the very last part of the report – not the first.  Though we have an idea of where our research might lead, we have not yet created any recommendations, as we don’t know exactly where the data will point us.  Though when our recommendations are created there is certainly the possibility that our results will be disputed, the fact remains that we will have followed an empirical research model and will have produced information that is useful and for the most part free of bias.

But even in the hard sciences results are often disputed.  Part of being a good scientist is realizing that your work may not have been without flaw.  You must detail your method and leave it open to replication by other parties, who may or may not get the same results as you did.  Accepting that you may be wrong is, again, part of being a good scientist.  Letting yourself subscribe merely to dogma is antithetical to good political science and is antithetical to the development of strong communities and political systems.

I encourage you, then, to instead be good political scientists.  Starting this process is not at all difficult, and can begin by doing something as simple as reading a newspaper or comparing views online.  Many websites are available, in fact, that can help streamline this process for you.  Two I would suggest are www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com.  These sites can help you sort through the dogma and find the heart of the issues most important to you.

Reflections on September 11

Ten years ago on this now infamous day, I myself was ten years old, a sixth grader at Whitesides Elementary school.  I remember walking to the entrance of the school and hearing my friend Andrew tell me that “Terrorists blew up the World Trade Center.”  I had no idea what he was talking about.  The words “terrorists” and “World Trade Center” were new to me, so I gave a rather nonchalant reply, saying something like “Oh yeah?  Wow.  That’s crazy.”

In the classroom, however, I finally began to grasp exactly what was going on.  It turned out that these terrorists were people who were angry with the United States for some reason, and that this World Trade Center was a large complex of buildings in New York.  A small television screen, normally reserved for educational films or children’s shows, became our gateway to hell on earth.  Broken hearts and burning cities flashed in front of our eyes, and those of us who hadn’t yet met death and tragedy had our innocence tarnished.

Ten years later, I wonder what lessons we best learned from that day.  Most of us who were so small had to learn the details of the attacks secondhand through our parents or other adults.  Given that even most of the adults didn’t understand the specific details, it seems that the picture of the tragedy itself was further tarnished by a failure to grasp the intricacies of a conflict that may very well define our generation.  Instead of attempting to understand this strange and specific enemy, we instead accepted a broad generalization, one which encompassed the entirety of Islam as enemies of the United States.  A faith which produced the light and love of poets like Hafiz and Rumi, and the incredible scholarship of academics like Averroes and Avicenna, overnight became our nemesis, and the face of Islam in the United States came not from its prophet or one of its many renowned children, but from Islam’s greatest thief, Osama Bin Laden.

As these years have passed, I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to learn the truth about Islam and its adherents, and to have learned much more about myself along the way.  I have learned that the messages worth holding on to are those which come from love, and those which were made to build upon that love.  Branding a faith with more than a billion adherents as an enemy of the world isn’t only wrong in a logical sense, but is also wrong morally, as it demonizes brothers and sisters and perpetuates a violent circle between them.

I believe the United States and its people as well as the world’s Muslims are, for the most part, on the right track in building bridges between our not-so-different cultures.  I can’t say for certain which lessons even my own friends and family have chosen, the path of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation, or the path of revenge which fortifies a circle of death, but I do hope that my own story might help others find what is best in them, and what is best in the people around them.  But for me at least, the lessons of these past ten years are best summed up by the words of Hafiz Shirazi:

Plant the tree of friendship for it brings boundless joy,
uproot the sapling of enmity, for it breeds countless sorrows.

The Missing Silhouette

The Missing Silhouette

Walking alone,
I noticed a couple walking
Hand in hand at dusk.
I caught the woman’s eye, and
glanced down, not wanting
to corrupt their moment
with my presence.

A streetlight over my shoulder
projected my shadow on
the pavement, illuminating
the missing silhouette,
casting a reminder of
the shadow I spent my own
loving moments with.

Casting a reminder of you.
You, who made mere summer
nights become poetry in motion.
You, who simultaneously
fill my heart to bursting
and leave me as lonesome
as a dove.

I’m not saddened or angry because
of this reminder, and I don’t
feel used or betrayed.
No, this reminder is a kind much too
heavy, this reminder is the kind
that makes my heart heave
and sigh.

-Zachary Stickney

The Problems of Lasting Peace

A few days ago, while wandering in Weber State's library, I managed to stumble on an awesome book.  I was in the library for no particular reason, trying to kill time before a meeting of some kind, and somehow I walked right into the peace studies section of our library.

There, in one of those old, ragged book covers, slightly covered in dust and smelling like all old books do, was a book entitled "The Problems of Lasting Peace" by former President Herbert Hoover and his aide, Hugh Gibson.

The book was written in the midst of the second World War.  The allies had begun pushing Hitler's Germany back in the European theater, and countless epic naval battles were no doubt taking place in the Pacific.  In the midst of all this combat and chaos, Hoover and Gibson noticed a pattern; endless cycles of violence in war, followed by brief periods of peace and development, followed again by violence.  This was true even in the case of World War I, the "war to end all wars," which, within 20 years, collapsed into yet another global bloodshed. 

Hoover and Gibson identify 7 "Dynamic Forces" which contribute to war and peace, listed as follows:

1.  Ideologies
2.  Economic Pressures
3.  Nationalism
4.  Militarism
5.  Imperialism
6.  The complexes of fear, hate, and revenge
7.  The will to peace

These forces are not arranged in order of importance, but they all have some varying degree of importance depending on which war is being examined.  It is important to note, however, that the first 6 forces typically act against the 7th; that is to say, the will to peace is broken when the emotions and actions prompted by the first 6 overpower it.

One of my favorite quotes from the book, paraphrased, is "Nations can blunder into war, but they cannot blunder into peace."  This, I think, is a key point which isn't given enough thought much of the time.  We tend to view things in black and white: a friend of mine recently said, "all the world's problems could easily be solved if everyone would just be good."  At face value, this is perhaps true.  But issues arise when the phrase is examined further.  Depending on your culture, your socioeconomic status, your race, your religion, your geographic location, your government, your education, and a myriad of other features, what would you define as "the world's problems?"  More important, what would you define as "good?"

Viewing the world through such a black and white, almost esoteric lens is what causes individuals, families, tribes, and finally nations to blunder out of peace.  Narrow definitions which fail to take into account the literally billions of possible viewpoints are destined to collapse.  They allow no structure or instrumentality for reconciliation, for the promotion of peace, or fundamental problem-solving.

This, in effect, is the key problem to lasting peace: a feeling that expedience, that black and white, are more effective than a structured method of peacemaking.  Expedience destroyed loose-knit peaces like the League of Nations and Kellogg-Briand, and expedience continues to threaten global peace today.

Global problems, however defined, are not so black and white as to be solved immediately.  Consensus must be achieved through arduous and often painstaking dialogue, taking into account a vast array of voices and concerns.  As such, lasting peace can only be achieved through the development of mechanisms capable of almost constant change, reinventing the status quo to meet new demands and changing environments.  The development of - and adherence to - global liberal institutions is, thus far, the greatest success the world has had in this experiment.

This, I feel, is a good enough afternoon rant.  That said, I would strongly recommend this book to any student of international law, or, better yet, any citizen of the world.

DRUGS!

Now that I have your attention, a recent report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy says that the global "War on Drugs" has backfired, driving usage rates of drugs up and forcing the creation of an underground drug trade similar to the alcohol black market which developed in the United States during prohibition.

The results of the report suggest that a dramatic rethinking of drug policy needs to take place, and that measures such as the legalization of cannabis (marijuana) should be considered, and that states should even look into measures such as treating drug use as a public health concern rather than a crime, as nations like Portugal have attempted.

What do you think of this report?  Has the War on Drugs failed, or is something else to blame for the increase in drug usage and cartel-related violence?  What can countries like the United States do to decrease drug use, or is the problem itself overblown and should just be ignored?

Let's hear it!

Follow @zstickney

Upward Bound American History Test

I recently finished working as a History teacher for the Upward Bound Pre-college program at Weber State University. Part of my job was to test the students' knowledge on American history and government institutions. My partner and I created a test which we thought would be fairly challenging, but not too difficult to pass. Most of the questions make up what should be general knowledge of American history and institutions and are not overly detailed.

The pre-test results weren't particularly great. Granted, these students are 9th-12th grade and have had very different experiences with history at their respective schools, so overall they did fine.

Pre-test average: 15/35 or about 42%

After the 5 week program, the students did a lot better overall and there were a few significant score increases among the students. In the last few days of the class we had discussions about the Supreme Court and a review day, and their comments were well thought out and insightful, and it appeared that they had learned a lot during the few weeks they were there. And they did: the results were quite a difference:

Post-test average: 23/35 or about 66%

This still isn't spectacular or anything, but considering the short time we spent and that many of these kids haven't had a government-focused course yet, I feel we built a solid foundation for them to expand on when they get back to school in the fall.

In the meantime, however, I would like to know what YOU would get if you took the same test I gave these students. There are 30 open-ended questions and a short 5 point essay at the end, so the test should take you a maximum of 10-15 minutes and probably less. Think you're up for the challenge?

Remember, don't cheat! These students didn't use notes, so you certainly can't use google. Simply answer to the best of your ability and show me what you know!

***UPDATE***  In the original test I failed to have a name/e-mail field so I can get in touch with you.  Sorry about that!  The new test now has a name and e-mail field.  Enjoy!  Also, here are the results for the first 6 nameless forms I received:

1.  27/35, an excellent score!
2.  17/35, pretty close to the average of my students on their pre-tests.
3.  22/35, a decent score, but nothing to write Jefferson about.
4.  20/35, see above.
5.  28/35, another excellent score!
6.  Belinda: 29/35, the high score so far, but not better than my top bounders.
7.  Nick: 29/35, which is especially good considering he didn't do the 5-point essay.
8.  Chad: 32/35, awesome!
9.  Sarah: 31/35, excellente!
10.  Lorrie:  24/35, pretty close to the post-test average for my bounders.
11.  Sarah (another one):  28/35, a solid score.
12.  Wendy:  29/35, well played!
13.  Alexa:  28/35, these averages are quite good!
14.  Zach (but not me):  29/35, very well done good sir!

Keep em' coming!

Understanding War in Afghanistan

I'm a huge fan of National Defense University.  Every so often their affiliate, NDU press, releases extremely interesting and timely material online for absolutely free.

The latest such release is a book entitled Understanding War in Afghanistan by Joseph J. Collins.  Since I just learned about this I haven't had a chance to read it, but I plan on making time for it shortly.  The book appears to cover a full range of topics, including Afghan history, key events and timelines in America's involvement in the country, and an assessment of the current situation and future projections.  Basically, if you're interested in learning about Afghanistan or understanding America's involvement in recent years, this book appears to be a must-read.

If you like what you see here, I would also recommend signing up for Prism, a quarterly publication on everything you could possibly want to know about defense strategies and military planning around the globe.  The best part?  Prism is also free, and you can have a physical copy delivered to your home at no charge.

You're welcome, geeks.

Follow @zstickney

American Civic Knowledge Survey

Special thanks to my Mum who provided the link to today's blog!  This quick quiz (only 10 questions) is a Civic-literacy exam created by the intercollegiate studies institute.  I'm not sure if what was written in the e-mail is accurate, but according to the e-mail the average American will score somewhere around 50% on this exam, and college professors typically don't get much higher.

The first time I took it I got a 90%, but I won't tell you which one I missed.  No cheating!  Take the quiz and see how you measure up!

Follow @zstickney

Bill of Rights Rap

  Behold world!  I wrote this song during my work as a History teacher/counselor for Weber State University's Upward Bound summer program.  We were learning about the Bill of Rights in History class, and I just wanted to try and make it fun for the kids.  I apologize that the sound quality isn't the best, but hopefully you'll enjoy it regardless!  Please see the youtube page for the full lyrics if you're interested.

Follow @zstickney

New Report Ranks Iran Last in the World on Fundamental Rights

A recent report from the World Justice Project ranked Iran last in the world on fundamental rights.  The report measured whether the government and its officials were held accountable under the law, whether laws were clear, publicized, stable and fair, and whether they protected the security of persons and their property.  It also measured the process by which laws were enacted, administered, and enforced, and whether access to justice was competent, independent, and free from interference.

Some of the key findings of the report in regards to Iran were as follows:

• Iran’s law enforcement is fairly strong and effective, but is often used as an instrument to commit abuses
• Iran suffers from a lack of government accountability
• Government corruption is prevalent in Iran
• Courts are efficient, but lack independence and are subject to corruption and interference
• Iranians lack access to fundamental rights such as the right to assemble and petition, freedom of opinion and religion, and basic privacy

Unfortunately, much of this news isn't all that surprising.  This report simply validates further what the world witnessed following Iran's June 2009 elections and the subsequent abuses up to the present day.

If you would like to read more, see page 68 of the report to view Iran's scores.


Follow @zstickney

U.S. Must Work to Solve its Middle Eastern Crisis of Legitimacy

Note:  This is something I wrote a few weeks ago but decided not to do anything with.  It was an attempt at an Op-Ed, so the content is anything but exhaustive, as anyone who has ever attempted to write an Op-Ed should know.  If you have any questions, please post them and I'd be happy to discuss.

President Obama has received a lot criticism for his recent statement that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both sides.”  Both Israeli leadership and U.S. Congressmen alike have decried the statement, saying that it is “inconceivable” that Israel could possibly return to such “indefensible” borders.  Despite this criticism, Obama’s call for constructive dialogue may be Israel’s — and the United States’ — last chance to choose between taking the initiative or becoming a pariah on the issue of Middle East peace.

Earlier this year, the Palestinian Authority announced that it would seek United Nations membership if a peace treaty with Israel couldn’t be reached by September.  This may not seem particularly dire due to the fact that the United States holds permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council, a body which holds veto power over membership requests.  But the fact is that the legal basis for denying Palestinian statehood is actually quite weak.  According to the Montevideo Convention, the article of international law which defines statehood, the state of Palestine meets the requirements already.  Palestine has a permanent population, territory (currently defined as “occupied Palestinian territory”), a government, and recognition by other states.  Palestine is currently recognized by over 130 nations, a solid two-thirds majority of the 192 nations represented in the U.N.

Despite this, it’s highly likely that the United States will nonetheless veto the request should it come to a vote.  If it does so, the decision will solidify the United States’ Middle East policy as merely Israeli-centric.  This serves well for our relationship with Israel, true, but it simultaneously crumbles the much more broad American interests in the Middle East and beyond, exacerbating an already severe U.S. crisis of legitimacy among those nations.  Many Muslim nations will seek to diminish their ties with the United States or even perhaps find a counterbalance to American power.  Without a true regional power to fill the void, most nations will turn instead to a rising power in world politics — the People’s Republic of China.

Examples of this shift to an Eastern orientation can already be seen.  Iran, already an international pariah and the target of multilateral sanctions, has been able to circumvent punishment to a high degree by shifting its trade contracts to China.  In recent years, trade between the two nations has been as high as $30 billion annually.  There has even been evidence that China supplied crowd control weapons and vehicles to Iran during its 2009 protests — a precursor to the Arab Spring — and that China is possibly supporting Iran’s nuclear program behind the scenes.  More recently, China was represented by 144 companies at Iran’s annual Oil Show this April, despite the “crippling” sanctions the United States and its allies hoped to employ.

China has also been at work elsewhere in the Muslim world.  Earlier this week, an article in the Financial Times reported that Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar has asked the Chinese to build a naval base at the port city of Gwadar.  If built, the naval base would allow China to have a permanent military presence near the Strait of Hormuz, achieving overnight what Russia was denied throughout the Cold War.  Though China doesn’t appear to be directly challenging the United States in either of these instances, these actions nonetheless illustrate an attempt to counterbalance U.S. interests.  Any loss of U.S. legitimacy among Middle Eastern nations will drastically increase the likelihood of conflict in the region, costing an unknown amount of American lives and treasure.

The United States must move beyond an Israeli-centric Middle East policy and instead embrace its broader interests in the region.  This does not mean abandoning Israel.  It means getting Israel back to the negotiating table and convincing the Palestinians that pursuing statehood without Israeli consent is against their interests and will undermine prospects for a lasting peace.  The stakes are high, and the status quo is unsustainable.  A change is necessary, and the future of Israeli security and American leadership depends on it.

Follow @zstickney

2 Year Anniversary of Iranian Protests

This Sunday, June 12, marks the 2-year anniversary of Iran’s fraudulent 2009 elections — a precursor to the current wave of protests known collectively as the Arab Spring. Though the 2009 protests didn’t lead to any substantive change in government in Iran, they nonetheless gave the world its first glimpse at a Middle Eastern energy source far more important than oil: a nascent people power asking only for dignity and solidarity among the fraternity of nations. The movements in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere have proven that Islam and democracy are not at all incompatible, as some would suggest.

Though the struggle for justice in the Middle East is far from over, these protests nevertheless signify a watershed moment for the future of U.S. policy with the Muslim world. In the past, political expedience for the sake of energy security allowed the United States to side with dictators and demagogues instead of democrats. The tides have clearly begun to turn, and the United States must turn with them. The new U.S. policy toward the Middle East must place principled leadership over expediency regardless of the short-term cost.

UPDATE:  This letter to the editor was published in Ogden's Standard Examiner

Follow @zstickney

The Political Compass

Being a political science major has made me realize a rather interesting fact:

People typically have no idea where they stand politically.

If you ask them their feelings on a handful of key issues, they can usually answer with something fairly straightforward.  They may even be able to talk at length on a few of them.  But by and large, when it comes to defining a specific and consistent ideology they don't really seem to know what they're talking about.

Well now, THEY CAN!

Introducing "The Political Compass."

The political compass is a quick and free test which asks a few questions regarding typical political issues, both social and economic.  When finished, the test then gives you a visual representation of your political beliefs, placed on a quadrant according to your answers.  You can even compare your own answers to where famous political figures ended up, from more modern political figures like Barack Obama and Angela Merkel to people like Adolf Hitler and Gandhi.

So where did you land?  Were you surprised by what you found?

Follow @zstickney

North Korea: Apparently a Great Place to Live

This week, North Korea's state run Chosun Central Television organization released a "global happiness index" that reported some not-so-surprising results.  The report allegedly polled citizens worldwide in a survey to measure their feelings toward their nation and standard of living.  This in spite of the fact that anyone who knows anything about the regime in Pyongyang knows that it is easily one of the most isolationist and repressive regimes in the history of the world.

But hey, why not humor the Dear Leader?  Here's some of the results from the survey:

1.  China (100 happiness points)
2.  North Korea (98 happiness points)
3.  Cuba  (93 happiness points)
4.  Iran  (88 happiness points)
5.  Venezuela  (85 happiness points)
203.  The American Empire  (2 happiness points)

That's right, "The American Empire."

Frankly I've enjoyed living in this awful place, being able to freely post blogs without fear of being arrested, being able to vote for my leaders, and being able to protest or advocate the causes I please without being arrested, beaten or killed.

So friends, what's your favorite part of living in the dreadful American Empire?  Do you wish you could move to North Korea?

Follow @zstickney

Letter of Support for Conflict Free Initiative

Below is my letter of support for Weber State University's conflict-free initiative.  Learn more at their blog at: http://wsucongo.blogspot.com

To the Administrators and Board Members of Weber State University

My name is Zachary Stickney.  I am a senior political science major and presidential scholar at Weber State University and have long been an active and engaged member of the campus community.  I have served as President of Weber State STAND,   President and Student Area Coordinator of Utah for Amnesty International, and have been active in varying capacities in Weber State’s Young Democrats chapter, Pi Sigma Alpha, the Richard Richard’s institute for politics, decency, and ethical conduct, and have participated in Model United Nations of the Far West, an organization for which I am currently serving a one-year Board of Directors position.

As a student of international law and human rights activist, I am deeply troubled by the ongoing atrocities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).  Worse still, I am troubled by the possibility that, as consumers of electronic devices, we may be inadvertently involved.   Weber State University and its supporters are not to blame for the crisis in the Congo.  However, I do believe that, as major consumers of electronic devices, we have a major opportunity and responsibility to use our leverage to help ensure our products are conflict free.  

As you may be aware, this conflict-free initiative has already had a number of successes nationwide.  Highly respected universities, including Stanford University and Cornell University, have already passed resolutions similar to the one we are proposing for Weber State University.  In addition, the Enough Project and other human rights organizations have proposed legislation in the United States congress calling for increased regulation and transparency in the trade of conflict minerals.  This is truly a nation-wide and historic movement.

Increased transparency in the trade of these minerals will not solve the many problems the DRC faces alone, but it will help ensure that the rebel groups facilitating the conflict will become increasingly financially isolated and unable to fund their activities.  It will also help relieve the burden of the international peacekeeping presence currently stationed in the DRC.  With our help, lives can be saved, violence can be prevented, and order and hope can begin to be restored to the hopeless.

I strongly encourage you to vote in favor of a resolution calling for increased transparency from Weber State University’s electronics suppliers.  In addition, I would like to request a symbolic resolution calling for solidarity with the people of the Congo and for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.

Kind regards,

Zachary J. Stickney
Student
Weber State University

WSU Conflict Free Initiative Petition

To:  Administration and Board Members of Weber State University
 
We, the undersigned, representing students, alumni, and faculty of Weber State University, as well as concerned citizens of the Weber State community, would like to express our deep concern for the ongoing crisis in the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The DRC is home to one of the world's longest lasting and most deadly conflicts. Nearly 6 million people have been killed from the consequences of violence, making this conflict the deadliest since World War II.

Though this conflict may seem unrelated to the students, alumni, faculty, or community members of Weber State, in truth there is at least one deep and terrible connection. The DRC, particularly the eastern provinces of North and South Kivu, is a major world supplier of tin, tungsten, tantalum, and gold. These minerals are extremely valuable and are used in the production of many electronic devices, including cell phones, computers, MP3 players, video game consoles, and so on.

Unfortunately, one of the side effects of the ongoing crisis in the DRC has been the takeover of Congolese mines by violent rebel groups. These groups capture these highly profitable mines, enslave the local population to excavate them, and use the money to further fund this vicious cycle. In addition to physical slavery in the mines, there have also been hundreds of thousands of cases of sexual slavery and rape throughout the region, leading human rights organizations such as the Enough Project and Human Rights Watch to label the DRC as the "worst place in the world to be a woman." These rebel groups use rape as a weapon of war to defeat their enemies by tearing at the social fabric of their communities.

Weber State University, its students, alumni, faculty, and members of the local community are not responsible for these atrocities. However, as major buyers of electronic equipment, we have considerable leverage to help end the crisis and ensure that our products are created from minerals gathered from legitimate sources. We, the undersigned, would specifically encourage Weber State University to:

• Use its leverage as a consumer of electronics equipment to pressure electronics companies into tracking their supplies and ensuring that the minerals used in their products are purchased from ethical sources;
• Pass a symbolic resolution in solidarity with the people of the Congo and encourage other universities or institutions of learning to do the same;
• Encourage students, alumni, faculty, and the greater Weber State community to learn more about the conflict in the DRC and be active in seeking a peaceful resolution.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


Click Here to sign the petition online!

Walking Like an Egyptian: Why Obama Should Remain Firm on Mubarak’s Departure

The Obama administration has been taking a lot of criticism lately due to its recent call for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to step down “now.”  The chief concern of these critics is that, should Mubarak be removed from power, a vacuum will emerge in which radical elements — notably the Muslim Brotherhood — might take control of Egypt, replacing a long-time friend with a regime that might be at odds with the United States and Israel.  Because of this, these critics instead advocate for Mubarak to remain at the helm of Egypt’s “republic” until this fall.  These suggestions endorse a short-sighted and ill-advised policy that will halt the incredible momentum of Egypt’s opposition and damage American interests in the Middle East.

Though Mubarak has indeed been a long-time ally of the US, our relationship has been anything but ideal. Mubarak’s presidency, now in its thirtieth year, began in 1981 after the assassination of Anwar Sadat.  Indeed, the romance between the United States and Mubarak began with Sadat’s decision, in 1979, to make peace with Israel following the Camp David Accords.  This was a huge victory for both the United States and Israel, and Egypt was awarded in kind: regaining control of the Sinai peninsula from the Israelis and receiving billions of dollars in economic and military aid from the United States.  To this day, Egypt receives more foreign aid from the United States than any other country except Israel. 

Though peace between Egypt and Israel certainly served the interests of the United States, even then, US officials made it clear that Egypt would have to change.  Sadat, and later Mubarak, retained what was essentially a dictatorial regime.  In response to this, much of the aid sent to in Egypt was geared towards programs that would decrease government control, including privatization of businesses, expanded funding and openness in basic and higher education, and decentralization of authority through the expansion of local structures, both governmental and non-governmental.  Yet, after 30 years and some $50 billion in cumulative aid, Egypt under Mubarak has made little progress in any of these areas.  These figures make it painfully clear that, as New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has written, “Mr. Mubarak is not the remedy for the instability in Egypt; he is the cause.” 

But what of the alternatives?  As mentioned, many in the United States and elsewhere fear the possibility of an Egypt run by radical Islamists.  They cite the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist opposition movement found in many Arab nations and currently banned in Egypt, as the most likely group to take power should Mubarak step down.  The Brotherhood itself is a fairly contentious topic within policy circles; some claim it is extremely radical, others describe it as fairly moderate.  These disparate characterizations of the Brotherhood show that it is anything but a monolith.  The Muslim Brotherhood is frayed by clashing personalities and varying interpretations of Islamic governance.  The Muslim Brotherhood will certainly play a role in a transitional Egypt, but that role will be a muted one, rather than one of uncontested power and Egyptian obeisance.

As for the final concern, that Egypt does not yet have the institutions or structure necessary to begin a democracy immediately, I concur.  President Mubarak and his rigid bureaucracy have failed to develop a meaningful civil society in Egypt.  This is precisely why he must step down.  Egypt will need to install a temporary transitional government to prepare for free and fair elections, but Mubarak is not the person to lead Egypt through this stage.  He has failed his people for 30 years, and they no longer fear him.  Mass demonstrations will continue until Mubarak steps down and a transitional strategy is clearly defined to the Egyptian people.

The Obama administration should step away from the Mubarak-centered policy of the past and instead adopt one that keeps the interests of the Egyptian people at heart.  Obama must remain firm in his call for Mubarak to step aside and be ready to offer a hand of friendship to the fledgling democracy that will emerge.  The loss of a 30-year ally in Mubarak will initially be difficult for the United States to accept, but his downfall is inevitable.  In the long run a democratic Egypt will serve the best interests of the American, and Egyptian, people.