Kosovo's Woes Continue

CNN reported that eggs and stones at Kosovo's prime minister in response to the upcoming elections in the former Serbian province. This will be Kosovo's first elections since declaring independence. The bit of unrest, though mild, has been an unfortunate departure from the largely peaceful lead-up to the elections. These ethnic tension's surfacing is not altogether surprising when considering Kosovo's road to independence, which was really nothing short of groundbreaking. The nation essentially created new definitions of sovereignty when it declared independence the day in 2008 after electing a moderate leader, and deciding that they had met all of the "standards before status" conditions set out in the UN's Resolution 1244. Immediately afterward a handful of EU countries and the U.S. recognized them as a sovereign nation, while the rest of the world refused. Though many other nations came on the Kosovo bandwagon slowly but surely, this way of going about declaring statehood truly changed the traditional process. New definitions of what makes a state a state were tested for the first time, as in the early days 44 out of 150 nations. So inevitably this shaky beginning is adding fuel to the resentment fire of ethnic Serb's currently living in the province. Only time will tell whether the testy Balkans which once ignited World War I have really simmered down.

Surprisingly Similar

Controversy in Brazil over a student wearing a short red dress to her college class echoed the recent controversy in France surrounding France's parliament's reluctance to allow women to wear the Burqa. Though at face value, these incidents couldn't seem more opposite (the extremely modest Burqa versus the red dress that managed to scandalize the nation with nude beaches) actually share almost everything important in common. They both push people's buttons, albeit opposite buttons in people who hold opposite viewpoints. The Burqa was opposed in France on the grounds that it prevented women's free expression, and served as a symbol of subordination. The red dress greatly offended the Catholic majority in Brazil who hold traditional viewpoints on student's dress in college, which is still extremely modest. However, the overriding question is: why, exactly, do legislators and university administrator's feel that what student's wear in private universities is in their sphere of influence? When did the lines blur between private high schools with a dress code (seems reasonable) to public schools which prohibit certain revealing items and gang attire (seems a bit murkier) to universities (seems outrageous)? This seems to to be edging closer and closer to dangerous ground, with restrictions of individual freedom being infringed upon in what have traditionally been seen as nations supporting public freedom.

Fort Hood Tragedy: 'Horrifying' Indeed

The events at Fort Hood are extremely upsetting, and it seems the entire country took in a collective gasp of shock and horror as details about the largest shooting at a U.S. army base are revealed. What are we to make of this? The shy psychiatrist suddenly snaps after hearing horror stories from soldiers based in Iraq and Afghanistan and finding out he is being deployed? A religious extremist suddenly shows his true colors? There is much speculation, and little answers at this time. Muslim groups fear backlash that evokes memories of post 9/11 trauma.We hope that U.S. citizens will understand that the actions of one cannot be used to generalize the behavior of an entire religion of people, and CNN made a disappointing and unnecessary reference in one of their headlines describing the suspect's demeanor as "cool, calm and religious." The idea of our own soldiers being unsafe on a U.S. base is disturbing in the utmost, and some are questioning if the military missed key signs that would have tipped them off about Hasan. Obama gave a characteristically thoughtful address, and referred to the attacks as horrifying. Horrifying it is.

Is War with Afghanistan the Best Approach?

The first question is: can we win? The evidence seems to suggest that we won't. The FATA (the mountainous border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan) are largely ungovernable, and answer not to Kabul or Islamabad but only to their local warlords. Historically and currently, this area has been a haven for members of both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. These areas contain the largest illegal arms market in the world, and are inhabited by the men who have been living by tribal customs for centuries, who can make guns with their bare hands in caves. These areas are barren, and some of the poorest in the world in terms of both money and natural resources. It is questionable whether or not the U.S. and Pakistani forces being sent in to combat them are up to the task. The Soviets learned the hard war back in the 1980s that it is virtually impossible to beat them, and we may make the same mistake. It seems that the main thing that can change in this area is our response to it, not the area itself. It seems wiser to work with them, not against them. Negotiations with local tribal leaders will probably be more effective than outright war and bombing with the entire nation. Though the U.S. did achieve some success in ousting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, it seems they have simply migrated into Pakistan, where they are regrouping and becoming stronger than ever. The Pakistani army is having some success in combating them, but there is still disturbing evidence of the Taliban taking over more and more chunks of Pakistani territory, and inching ever closer to Islamabad. As A.Q. Kahn nuclearized the Pakistani central government, it is truly terrifying to consider the consequences of Pakistan's falling to the Taliban. A "nuclear Jihad" would be likely. Also, the U.S. would have no base/support from which to attack Afghanistan: only a small base in Uzbekistan. We need a policy that takes all of this into account: simply bombing large chunks of Afghanistan is not gonna cut it. We need a comprehensive policy that includes Pakistan, and India as well as Afghanistan that emphasizes negotiation as opposed to combat. It is essential to keep in mind that Al Qaeda and the other terrorist groups (Taliban included) are not loyal to any state: they operate as stateless networks, and they answer to no one. They cross borders with ease, as evidenced by the Pakistan situation. If our goal is to eliminate the Taliban, then we must think about the issue in this way. War with Afghanistan may weaken the Taliban, but it is not a permanent solution. We need to work with other nations, not against them, and come together with multilateral action if we have any hope of success.