Av Xavier Ladu

By Mohamad Zakaria

Radicalism has been a problem facing the world peace and the cooperation among nations. In every nation, one may find radical nationalists, religious fanatics, and people with extreme political ideologies. Criminal gangs who deliberately kill their own fellow innocent citizens are indeed also radicals.

The recent killing and violence that happened in Toulouse in France, where three French Soldiers having North African Muslim origin who served in Afghanistan, and the four Jewish that were killed in separate incidents, are an example of the consequences of radical religious views. As an example of the consequences of radical nationalism are the atrocities committed by Anders Behring Breivik against his own fellow citizens belonging to another political party during the summer 2011 in Norway. Moreover, the US soldier that killed and injured dozens of Afghan civilians is also an act of terrorism as consequence of radical views and revenge. Therefore, radicalism has no nationality, religion, or identity.

Terrorism cannot and should not be justified. Those benefiting from any terror act committed by a Muslim are mainly the radical right wing politician in the West. They use such events to further market their ideologies of hate against the Muslims living within their societies. At a time of general elections, such as nowadays in France, the recent violence will only benefit the radical politicians of France and their political parties in the forthcoming presidential elections.  One may raise questions not only about the motives behind the recent violence in Toulouse and the way it was dealt with, but also on the timing of such events and who is actually the brain behind it.

Muslims are too frequently singled out as “terrorists” or potential terrorists. If one Muslim with radical beliefs who has been brainwashed commits a crime in the West, all the Muslim immigrants in the Western countries become monitored as potential terrorists. This is unfair and very dangerous for the social peace within the societies. The reaction of radical right wing parties in France and other Western countries after the latest violence in Toulouse and their open hate speeches against the Muslims residing in Europe is destructive and may create further division in the society among various religious groups. Radical and unwise reaction may also hinder the integration policies of immigrants in those countries and thus create a base for radicalisation of more people.

Terrorism cannot and should not be justified.  As a Palestinian myself, I can openly say that using the Palestinian cause to kill innocent people in any country in the West does not positively contribute   to solving the Palestinian problems in any way. On the contrary, such violence in the name of Palestinians has very negative impacts on the Palestinian cause. Moreover, the individual acts of terrorism committed by radical Muslims in the West have very negative impacts on the image of Islam as a religion and also badly affect the reputation and image of the majority of Muslims living peacefully in the Western countries. Additional to that, those individuals committing such crimes destroy years of constructive efforts done by the Muslim communities living in the West to show they play a positive role in the well-being of the Western societies they are living in.

Nevertheless, the political, financial and military support of some countries in the West to the unelected regimes in the Muslim world has reinforced the radicalisation of some Islamic movements, increasing the number of their followers. Moreover, some Western countries continuous support of the Israeli government covering up its atrocities and injustice actions against the Palestinians including ignoring the rejection to follow some basic rules of international law, have also played directly into the hands of the radical organizations. Therefore, governments in the West are partially blamed for the phenomena of Islamic extremism. If the governments in the West would  sincerely be willing to correct their ways of dealing with the Muslim world in a more positive and constructive way only then efforts might succeed to minimize the hatred and radicalism behind the ideology that do not only cause terror in the West but also harm the Muslim world itself.

The conservative and extreme right wing organizations in the West are lawfully operating, unjustly spreading the hate against Islam and the Muslims. Leaders of some powerful states in the West have used their radical ideologies and their fanatic religious beliefs as motives to make wrong decisions and acting incorrectly which have threatened the international peace, leading to conflicts and wars. George W. Bush and Tony Blair additional to many of their advisors are some examples of such influential political leaders. Hence, it is unfair, unjust, and wrong to say that Islam as a religion and all Muslims are potentially terrorists.

On the contrary, the vast majority of the Muslims are moderate and tolerant to other religious groups and fellow human being, and do not support the radical Al-Qaida ideology. Those who have visited Middle Eastern countries may agree with this. Islam itself as a religion calls for peace, dialogue and cooperation among nations for the good of the humanity. However, the media in the West has managed to portray Islam as a religion of terror and Muslims as terrorists that should be kept in isolation and for the world to be afraid of. This has led to the sad fact that even Western plane-passengers sometimes get afraid of other passengers flying the same flight that may have the ethnic appearance resembling someone from the Middle East. Some major media channels have been used as tools for spreading hate amongst nations. Therefore, media has both the moral and global responsibility to be positive actors facilitating the dialogue among religions and nations and not to be used as tools to further hatred.

Let’s contribute with the efforts to reduce the hatred amongst nations. The more moderate and thoughtful political leaders we  have, the better the environment that creates mutual respect and dialogue amongst and within nations will be to avoid the further spreading of radicalism.

Photo: Creative Commons license, Bird Eye (Title: Muslims in Mumbai protest against terrorism)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)

By Mohamad Zakaria

It’s not unusual that countries that have gone through a popular revolution afterwards face a period of instability. Post-revolution instability and insecurity was common throughout history in all the countries where revolutions succeeded. It took time for stability and prosperity to follow. The post-revolution period of instability and insecurity in the Arab world are no exceptions to that. The major international political powers’ competitions for more influence in the region, and their wish to continue to protect their interests, are contributing to prolong the post-revolution period of instability.

In this article, I attempt to discuss some of the consequences of the power struggles among the major global powers (USA, Russia, and China) in the Middle East on the post-revolutions’ success and on the ongoing revolutions’ success in the region.

Tunisia

Tunisia had few months of instability after the Tunisian uprising in 2011. However, the political parties managed to control the situation relatively fast after Tunisia had its first free and fair parliamentary election in its recent history since its independence from France in 1956.

The fact that most Tunisian people are well-educated and that their current political parties are being led by moderate leaders, have been instrumental in creating the environment for swift political compromises that  created the base for political stability in a relatively short post-revolution time. The political and economic indicators in Tunisia show that it is on correct path towards economic and political stability. However, such progress may only be sustainable if the major regional and international political players won’t further accelerate their competition in Tunisia.

Such scenario may very well happen. This is especially true after the Islamists have won the majority of votes in the parliament in the recent parliamentary elections and, as consequences, are leading, in coalition with a couple of  other major political parties, in the current transitional government in Tunisia. Neither France nor the USA or even the neighbouring countries are happy to see a government that is dominated by Islamists ruling Tunisia. Therefore, they may use their economic power to destabilise the economic situation and to try to make the investors abstain from investing in Tunisia. By this, they will make this government fail to improve the Tunisian people’s quality of life and decrease unemployment, the main reasons why the revolution in Tunisia started a year ago.

Egypt

Egypt was ruled by the same person for over 30 years where Mubarak, the former Egyptian president, and his loyalists were controlling the key positions in the country. Even though the former president himself was forced to step down on 11 February 2011, many of his loyalists are still in control of many key positions in the country.

Additional to that, some of the key international political powers that are afraid of any potential consequences of a strong and democratic Egypt, due to Egypt’s strategic location and due to its political influence in the Arab World, on their geopolitical interests in the region may also contribute to Egypt’s insecurity.

These days, whilst most people in Egypt are celebrating the first anniversary of toppling the Egypt former president Hosni Mubarak and his regime, others are demonstrating further because they believe the revolution hasn’t yet achieved all its goals.

The Egyptian parliament, after the successful parliamentary elections, is preparing to write a new constitution for Egypt that will clearly separate and guide the legislative and executive powers of the parliament, the government, and the president in Egypt. The new constitution will set a limit for the future president’s influence on the political decision-making, his term in office, and will also put a mechanism that enhances the role and influence of the parliament in the political decision-making in the country. Writing a modern and sustainable constitution that satisfies the needs of the people require some time and also a period of political stability, among many other things.

Therefore, the demands from political parties and some NGOs for immediate presidential elections that would replace the governing military council before any new constitution are successfully finalised, whether conscious or unconscious, are threatening to the democratic future of Egypt.

One of the reasons is that the elected president may not abide by any new constitution since he will be elected according to the current constitution that gives the president ultimate powers and doesn’t limit his time in office. This has been one of the demands of the Egyptian revolution against Hosni Mubarak.

Syria

The Syrian revolution started about 11 months ago and more than 8000 civilians in Syria have by now been killed by the Assad army and Assad’s loyalist militias (known as Shabiha) who are using excessive military power to crack down on the largely peaceful demonstrations. The Assad Family and their loyalists have been, for decades, governing Syria against the will of the citizens of Syrian by using security and military forces to eliminate any serious political opposition threat. As all the nations in the world that have the right for democratic political system where the people can freely choose their political leaders through fair and free elections, the Syrian people also have that right to choose their leadership that represent and govern them by democratic means.

Inspired by the revolutions in the neighbouring Arab countries, they have also been trying to demand political and economic reforms and they are doing so by demonstrating after the regime rejected and ignored all calls for political dialogue with the Syrians whether it’s with the exiled opposition  or with the opposition  inside Syria.

Being scared of having the same fate as Mubarak of Egypt and Bin Ali of Tunisia, the Assad and his loyalists have decided not to have peace with the majority of the Syrian people and to take serious steps to make political and economic reforms, but decided to silent the demonstrators by using excessive military power. However, the Assad’s army and security brutal use of force have led to more demonstrations in almost everywhere in Syria against his regime and also to soldiers’ defection from the national army, which re-grouped and formed what is now known as the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The international community, including the Arab countries, have been extremely slow in their response to try to effectively protect the Syrian demonstrators from the brutality of the regime. Additional to that, the fact that Russia and China are protecting the current Syrian regime by blocking any potentially effective resolution at the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) that condemns the Assad regime is indeed giving the Assad regime more time to crack down on the people of Syria.

Russia and China may think they are protecting their geopolitical and economical interests in the region by continuing to support the Assad, their major political ally in the region, politically, economically, and also militarily, against the people of Syria. Indeed, such diplomacy may show Russia’s and China’s lack of serious long-term political vision in the region and a balanced strategy that may protect their interests in general, and also in Syria, particularly in the middle and long-run. Russia, until recently, was considered by many Arab states and people, including the Syrian people, as a friend of the Arabs. However, this attitude has dramatically changed since Russia vetoed the resolution to condemn the Assad regime’s use of brutal force in the UNSC. Even if the Syrian revolution may take a longer time to successfully achieve its goals and to eliminate the Assad regime, they will eventually succeed.

The Cold War’s mentality among the major international political players and their attempts to strengthen their influence in the Middle East region continue while disregarding the wishes and the needs of the Middle Eastern people. The USA has used its veto power in the UNSC several times and will, no doubt, continue doing so against any proposed resolutions in the UNSC that attempt to condemn the atrocities done the Israeli government against the Palestinian people or seriously force it to abide by the international law. For several days and since the use of veto by the Russia and China’s representatives in the UNSC against the resolution to condemn the Assad regime, the USA has been using the situation by trying to portray itself as the guardian of democracy in the world and by pretending that it is the main supporter of the people of the Middle East in their struggle for democracy and for the much needed political and economic reforms.

This is yet another proof of the hypocritical and opportunistic politics run by the USA government, in order to gain more geopolitical power and to regain some of the people’s support of the region that it has lost due to years of pro Israeli policies in the region which have made the USA government probably the most hated country among the people of the Middle East after Israel. The USA has supported the Arab dictators for decades and continues to support the tyrants that are still in power in the Middle East against the will of the citizens of these countries.

While the leaders of the revolutions in the Middle East will continue to actively and wisely engage themselves in international diplomacy to protect the gains of the revolutions and succeed in creating the environment that accelerates the post-revolutions’ stability, they will do so by putting the long-term interests of the people they are leading over the interests of the major international political powers.

If they fail to protect the interest of their nations and end up becoming tools in the hand of the major political power in the region, time will soon come when the people in the region will demonstrate against and topple them too.

Photo: Creative Commons license, openDemocracy (Title: Middle_East_Map)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)

By Elena Krivovyaz

The recent success of Russia in its gas activities remains one of the main stumbling-stones not only for the economical, but also political relationship between Russia and the EU. While Gazprom intensifies its key projects, Nord Stream and South Stream, the fear of Russian political expansion continue growing in Europe. However, the experts insist that this notion misses another important problem within the gas dispute.

Chessboard of energy market

As it is widely known, Russia remains the largest external gas supplier for EU, which imports about 60 percent of natural gas. Since the 1970s when the first gas contracts between Soviet Union and the Western countries – Austria, France and Italy, were signed, Russia’s share of EU gas import has gradually declined from 80 percent to 40 percent. This significant decrease became a result after Europe’s attempts to diversify its supply system. Whereas about 40 percent of natural gas is produced within Europe, UK, Netherlands, Denmark and Germany, the rest is imported from Russia, Norway and Algeria. These three countries almost cover about 80 percent of whole import in Europe, while the rest flows through the pipelines from Nigeria, Libya, Egypt and Qatar.

However, the level of gas imports is not identical to its actual use. EU’s present consumption of Russian gas accounts are about 25 percent of its total record while the import of Russian gas roughly doesn’t exceed 40 percent. If we compare this figure to the level of primary energy supply, the data shows that EU relies only on 6, 5 percent of Russian resources, which means that more than 90 percent of the energy demand in Europe, is satisfied by other countries.

Nevertheless, even if one consider the scale of EU’s gas consumption in total, the situation is far from Europe being sentenced to overdependence on Russia, assures Per Noel, an expert on energy policy. While Norway, Algeria and some African gas suppliers increase their energy export to EU, this hopeless scenario is unlikely to become true, he continues. Thus, in case if anything all of a sudden goes wrong in EU-Russian energy bilateral agreements or if domestic gas reserves ever reach exhaustion point, Europe will find alternative ways to recoup its losses of the Russian gas. But if suspected energy reliance on Russia is not that critical for Europe, then what all this ballyhoo is about, one might ask.

Powder keg syndrome

The problem is not about possible energy dependence on the Russian gas, as we might assume, but it has much more to do with the political implications for EU, as many Western politicians and experts assert. Russian gas is not only a source of energy, but an important political tool for Russia to accommodate its ambitions in European region, they assume. It was probably in 1997 that Brussels fairly realized for the first time that the relationship with Russia regarding the energy market would hardly become easygoing. That was the year when Russia refused to ratify The Energy Charter Treaty, a document which aimed to integrate energy sectors of EU and simultaneously limit Russia’s influence on it. Not to mention “gas wars” between Gazprom and Ukraine in 2006, 2008 and 2009 which European countries also felt on their conscience.

Military operations in Georgia became another conspicuous affirmation of Russia’s unwillingness to compromise on fundamental issues with the European parliament. And even if this threat of direct political intervention remains rather potential than actual, Russia’s influence on the EU energy policy makes many European countries feel like living on a powder keg.

Even though later on, after Ukrainian-Russian gas conflicts it was adjudicated by the court that Ukraine practiced sabotage over the Russian gas in 2006-2009, this fact couldn’t mitigate EU’s suffering under reiterated gas supply stoppage. It was also remarkable that in May, 2006, during Russia-EU summit held in Sochi, when European Union representatives suggested Putin’s administration to consider a program designed to depoliticize Russian gas supply in Europe, but it explicitly refused to do so.

In this case, the political aspect of energy supply relations between both sides points out to another major problem: the features of EU’s gas market, which lacks integrity and consistence and therefore, makes it almost impossible for EU to speak to Russia in one voice. Moreover, EU’s energy market is a vivid example of unequal power distribution, as only a minority of its states that fully takes advantage of unlimited gas supply and distribution, while Eastern and Central Europe are subjected to severe dependency on the Russian gas import. The latter feature is especially characteristic for a dozen of member states like Latvia, Slovakia, Estonia, Bulgaria and some others. That’s why many experts in energy policy share the opinion that Russia’s political strategy turns out to be rather divisive for European Union when it comes to gas. The Iron Curtain still divides Europe in two polar parts: West and East, states Per Noel in his document named: “Beyond the Dependence: How to Deal With Russian Gas?”.

The taps are on

There are even more extreme opinions regarding the EU and Russian gas relationship, like the one of Radoslaw Sikorski, former defense minister of Poland, who qualified Russia’s Nord Stream project similar to Molotov-Ribbentrope pact, which implied division of Europe into Western and Eastern parts and their direct subordination to Germany and Soviet Union respectively. Though this parallel lacks validation, it expressively indicates to the redundant level of mutuality between Russia and Germany together with Italy regarding energy projects. Nonetheless both parties enjoy their advantages. – Russia maintains its importance for the EU market and gains political and economical benefits, and Germany and Italy acquire a number of other privileges together with financial profit. In order to be fair, we might argue that there is, probably, no evil in the dominance of Germany and some other gas-beneficiaries in EU, but the gain of less privileged Member States, therefore, turns out to be rather indirect and in some way doubtful in a long-term political prospective.

Inasmuch Russia’s political and economical course remain the raw-material oriented and while stronger Western states delay with energy market integration, the gaseous -political games are on, unfortunately for other countries that might feel as pawns in a chess-game.

Photo: Creative Commons license, nist6ss (Title: Gas- Tamanna)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)

By Mohamad Zakaria

This year is expected to have some major political events worldwide that may shape the world years to come. Such examples are the management of the ongoing economic crisis in the USA and Europe, the outcome of the presidential elections in almost half of the permanent members of the Security Council (SC), the consequences of the ongoing “Arab Spring”, and the extent of the tension between Iran and the other major powers.

This article aims to give an overview of the impacts of the outcome of the presidential elections in the United States of America (USA), The Russian Federation (Russia), and the French Republic (France), and on the  international relations and global peace in the coming few years.

USA Presidential elections

Even though the USA foreign policy is not set by the President Obama himself, it’s highly designed and influenced by his administration and highly influenced by the lobbies in Washington, but Obama’s personal traits and charisma still make a difference on how he is perceived internationally. In November 2012, a president will be elected by the citizens of the USA. During his first term as President, Obama and his administration have, to some extent, succeeded in the health policy reforms, in international diplomacy, as well as withdrawing from Iraq according to schedule. However, President Obama’s first term in office has been difficult as the consequences of the 2008 economic recession continued to over-shadow his success.

USA’s citizens and also many people around the world have had overly-high expectations from President Obama. By not fulfilling many of his promises during his presidential campaign, his popularity as a leader has now declined, mostly from inside of the United States of America, but also to a lesser extent from outside the USA.

Some examples of Obama’s unaccomplished promises are: the failure to close Guantanamo Bay detention camp, to make a significant success in improving the life-quality of African Americans, not succeeding in easing the utterly strict immigration policies of relatives to the USA with Mexican origin, and to bring peace to the Middle East.

The 2010 USA mid-term elections results have made the Senate dominated by the Republican Party. This may have made it more difficult for President Obama to go ahead in fulfilling his presidential campaign promises. Moreover, the recent economic difficulties in Europe have also contributed to slowing down economic performance of the USA.

During the 2012, USA presidential campaign, President Obama will be challenged by a Republican Party candidate. From the declared agendas that show radical religious views of the current nominees for the Republican Party presidential candidate, anyone with sincere wishes for fewer conflicts in the world would wish that President Obama will get re-elected as president of the USA for a second term despite of his shortcomings during his first term. The fear is that some members of the USA Democratic Party and also party- independent voters would boycott elections because of their disappointment of President Obama’s first-term performance in office. However, the Republican Party’s supporters are expected to participate very actively in voting for their candidate in the presidential elections. Due to that, there is a risk that President Obama won’t be re-elected to a second-term in office unless his campaign successfully convinces people to vote.

The presidential elections in Russia

Another presidential election will take place in The Russian Federation in March 2012. Despite the recent demonstrations in Russia, particularly in Moscow, against the parliamentary elections procedures and results, as well as the disappointment related to the deal on exchange of role between President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, it is widely expected that Putin will be elected as a president from first round.

He is still a popular figure in Russia and none of the Russian political opposition parties’ leaders in Russia is a viable challenger. Putin is promising to fight the corruption in governmental institutions in Russia, to improve efficiency in public institutions, and to encourage much needed reforms which will strengthen Russia’s economic, political, and social stand, both nationally and internationally. Russia is a major international power and its role in the world peace is therefore vital. A strong, stable, and democratic Russia that is willing to play a positive role in global politics may become a major player in world peace.

The president of Russia has great power and influence in Russia’s foreign policy and in its decision-making process. Therefore, The Western countries have not been happy since Putin declared his willing to run for office again. In any case, the world powers will have to respect the Russians’ choice and work with Putin’s administration.  If Putin and Obama both have another term as presidents and provided they will have good working relations between them and also with the rest of the world, there might be hope for less major international conflicts in the world during the next five years.

The presidential elections in France

The current President of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, will also seek another term in office in April 2012. During his current presidential term, Sarkozy has been very active at the European political arena and, to some extent, at the international one. However, his popularity in France seems to be low due to high unemployment rate (10%) and his personal traits.

To add to his troubles, in January 2012, Standard & Poor’s credit-rating agency, has downgraded France from AAA to AA+, which means France has a less capacity to meet its financial commitments in terms of their debt. This makes President Sarkozy’s prospects for re-election even more difficult since he was always claiming to be the guardian of a strong economic position in France. Sarkozy’s strong cooperation with Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, has been central in the efforts to find adequate mechanisms and strategies to stabilize the economic situation in Europe. It is highly unlikely that Mrs Merkel will have such a close cooperation and mutual understanding with France’s Socialist Party presidential candidate François Hollande if Sarkozy loses re-election. If France and Germany won’t be able to effectively cooperate, then the economic crisis in Europe might further deteriorate leading to real threat to the EU existence as a global economic and political power.

The world economy will likely face very turbulent economic situation during the year 2012. Economic crisis usually lead to less political stability and future conflicts. However, international cooperation among the countries’ leaders may bring solutions to world troubles. Therefore, there is international interest in the outcome of the presidential elections of these three major global political powers.

Photo: Creative Commons license, Sterneck (Title: Party and Politics)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)

By Elena Krivovyaz

Late in October an ordinary official meeting of Russian president Dmitry Medvedev with students at MSU turned into a wide-scale scandal. Though national and state-related media mostly ignored the event, the debates regarding the issue on the internet and on the Russian blogosphere were still on.

The faculty of journalism of MSU, the Moscow State Lomonosov University; one of the major Russian state universities, is located right in front of the Kremlin. This was one of the reasons, according to the president’s spokes-person Natalia Timakova, why the meeting was planned to be held there. Though the students of the faculty were not informed about it in advance, the morning before the meeting, on the 20of October, everyone in the building could notice that something special was going on.  The cleaners were polishing the marble stairs and floors, while the auditorium was being renovated and furnished with carpets. The military cordons took the entrances under control one hour before the meeting planned – at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and started checking visitors’ documents more thoroughly and didn’t let many of the students and teachers to come in.

-         Yes, I understand that our president wants to visit the faculty of journalism. But why are we denied entering the building, even though we have our student cards with us and our clothes are in the wardrobe, says one of the students who were affected by the entrance restrictions, in a reported clip posted on Youtube.

“The president is asked only two types of questions: the ones he’s been asked ten times before and the ones he expects to be asked”

The main surprise was still ahead. Several journalism students, who got to know by occasion about Medvedev’s visit the night before, decided to attend it and ask the president some questions.

-         We were aware, that the questions we wanted to ask would probably be left without any answer, but we felt it was necessary to at least raise them, says Olga Kuzmenko, a second-year journalism student.

-         The president is asked only two types of questions; the ones he’s been asked ten times before and the ones he expected to be asked. So we printed posters with the questions as we were not sure that we will be given a chance to ask them at the meeting; otherwise we could just lift up the posters so that Medvedev would be able to see them.

-         The questions we wanted to ask were, for instance, why Medvedev is sitting on Twitter, while Khodorkovsky is sitting in jail, she continues.

The plan of the three journalism students, Olga, Vera and Katya didn’t work, and they were not let inside the faculty by the federal guards, who had already blocked the entrances. Though, many of the students were not allowed to enter their university, there were many young people standing in front of the building. They turned out to be members of the youth branch of “the United Russia” state party, brought by the organizers of the visit.

-         Well, we are just here for the meeting, some of members replied.

Medvedev, as many Russian media suggest, was not likely to be aware that he was meeting, not the students of the faculty, but the young members of his party mainly, called for the event from all over Russia.

“No classes for you today. You know why“

-         One of the security guards was even stricter and he didn’t let us in though we showed him our credentials, tells Vera Kichanova, a four-year student journalist at the Novaya Gazeta, Novaya Gazeta is an oppositional newspaper which is known for investigative political articles, and for one of its staff, Anna Politkovdkaya, who was killed 2006.

-         When he left for a while, we tried to slip to the doors again. But when we were already inside, he came back after us and said: “No classes for you today and you know why”, Vera Kichanova continues.

The three students later decided, to meet the president in front of the faculty with the posters.  They were however immediately tied by the guardians and firstly taken to the police bus and thereafter to the police station. According to what the three girls, they only spent a couple of hours at the police station. The policemen, as Olga and Vera assumed, were also confused and didn’t know what to do with the “arrestants”, so they searched on the internet for news about their accident and said: “Well, they should at least have written, what we were arrested for”. After a while they returned the confiscated documents and the phones to the girls and let them go. The actions of the students were evaluated by the officials as “provocative and aimed to self-PR of the students involved”.

The day after visiting alumni, the students and the staff of the faculty decided to clean out the faculty as a protest against “that shame”, as many of them claimed. About 1700 of staff members and students wrote a petition to the administration of the faculty, stating that they were ashamed by the accident and asked for an official apology. The administration, on the other hand, assumed that both parties were not completely right. The presidents’ spokes-person Natalia Timakova made an official statement where she pointed out that “Medvedev will definitely come back to the faculty to answer the questions of the students”.

Because of the upcoming parliament and presidential elections, the confusing accident that occurred at MSU, is not the main focus of those in power right now, though the “rebellious” faculty is still across the road.

Photo: Creative Commons license, World Economic Forum (Title: Dmitry Medvedev – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2007)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)

By Meenakshi Malik

Society has increasingly become xenophobic, and in an atmosphere of both war and monetary difficulties, it has almost become a habit to blame most of the troubles on “illegal aliens” or “terrorists”. They are apparently destroying this western society through no fault of the society itself.

Sweden’s recent condemnation from Amnesty International on its policy to forcibly return many Iraqi refugees, and Americas (republican) tendencies to blame the “illegal aliens”, UK’s recent sudden hike in prices for education to threefold, and  constriction of visas to any foreign person and the overall stern and unreasonable immigration policies of Europe, along with those in USA and Australia have somehow become acceptable.

Most notable is the increase in reactionary language in media and growing support for xenophobic parties in the above-mentioned parts of the world. A recent trigger, and perhaps the piece of news that this article is a retort to is the recent death of Anuj Bidve, an Indian student who was visiting the UK. An intimidating attitude of ‘as long as they are not our citizens, why should we care less?’ is approaching and suffocating the political attitude of most notably northern Europe and USA.  Although Anuj Bidve’s family was compensated due to extensive media coverage and public opinion, what about the (not so sporadic) instances of racism?

A certain amount of xenophobia and resentment for increased crime have, no doubt, simmered under the surface in this globalising society, mostly due to statistics binding increased immigration with crime in media i.e. showing crimes with alien perpetrators.  So then what causes this sudden boiling over of this simmering pot? A couple of just the right ingredients suffice- the recent discourse from politics and media regarding the ‘War on Terror’ combined with the Economic recession (which caused many to lose their jobs) with a pinch of the revival of the post-colonial aspect of “us versus them” resentment, and voila, you have yourself a perfectly intolerant government, with a reasonable support from this society.

What irks most is that such an attitude almost cyclically emerges at a time of economic decent, or at the event of a war, both situations which are not at all connected to those it is blamed on. Instead of siding with reforms, long term, intelligently thought out and lasting plans we revert to war. Instead of abiding by established moral ideas of tolerance, freedom and mutual respect we revert to bigotry.

Economic recession and war seem to be instigated by the short-sighted decisions of those who we allow to make these decisions. So then who should we actually be angry at? Is it us, or them?

Photo: Creative Commons license, aymanfadel (Title: Aby Gayth Family – Iraqi Refugees in Jordan)

(The opinions presented in this article represent those of the author and are not intended to represent the views of UF in any way, nor are they intended to represent the views of any organisation or company which the author represents. UF is a politically and religiously independent organisation.)