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