Foreign Lands Roundup

I mean, I've only missed like two weeks now. Meh. It's been a pretty busy two weeks for me. And it's been a pretty busy two weeks for the international community, so let's talk about the thing that's been on everyone's mind: WIKILEAKS!

::cue dramatic music::

I have, as you were probably desperately hoping, Some Thoughts on this whole Wikileaks business.First, though, some background: As we've been aware for some time, a while back, Pfc Bradley Manning managed to obtain and then release confidential information that included details about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as a series of about 250,000 diplomatic cables from members of the US Foreign Service. The contents of the cables varies, but most are fairly frank assessments of personalities and situations abroad (which make them of particular interest to me).

Here's one of the most fun things about these cables: as of yet, none of them have been particularly revelatory. Anyone with half a brain could have deduced from afar the "batman and robin relationship" between Putin and Medvedev, or the fact that Silvio Berlusconi is generally disgusting. That China would welcome a unified Korean peninsula and that many arab states are concerned about Iran came as a mild surprise (if only to have those things confirmed), but really are more damaging to those states' abilities to contain the Iranian and North Korean regimes (which were tenuous at best to begin with).

Many people are understandably upset about this. They (including the heads of state and foreign secretaries of many nations such as the US) have come out and condemned Julian Assange and his Shadowy Organization, S.P.E.C.T.R.E Wikileaks as giving aid and comfort to America's enemies or whatever. On the polar opposite end of the spectrum, many are heralding Assange as a freedom fighter, persevering for the cause of truth and transparency in government.

Both of these reactions are pretty much bullshit. Wikileaks will cause serious problems for US diplomats abroad, yes, though the extent to which lives are greatly endangered is unclear. What's most problematic is the leaks (and the subsequent hurrahs for freedom of information) fails to understand a key facet of diplomacy: tact. Here's the thing. Berlusconi, Sarkozy, Ahmedinejad, Putin and EVERY OTHER WORLD LEADER are not complete idiots. You don't run a country by being a total moron who doesn't have some idea of how you're perceived by the outside world. Berlusconi not only knows he's seen as a manwhore, he REVELS in it. Same goes for most of the other leaders - they really do know just what we think of them. But the thing about diplomacy is, if you go around telling everybody exactly what you think about them, you're not going to get anywhere.

But I guess that's why some people are Anonymous. Real Connections with Real People are just too impossible for the tactless.

Just as they're not some torpedo in the side of US foreign policy, neither are the leaks some great victory of free speech and transparency. Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves: what is gained by the release of these cables? The answer is: absolutely nothing, other than a re-confirmation that the United States Government is very much run by the people. Diplomats: they're just like us! What do we lose? Well ultimately it's a little harder in the short term for the diplomats to do what they need  to do...so really it's kind of a wash. It seems to me that Mr. Assange and his organization decided to release a bunch of cables that are mostly needling annoyances in the side of the US, because they...I dunno? They just like doing things to be obnoxious? Which, really, is the worst, stupidest reason to do anything. "I'm bored. OH I KNOW WHAT I CAN DO! I'll be obnoxious!" It's basically tantamount to revealing the end of a Nicholas Sparks NovelMovie starring Rachel McMoore-Hathaway and Some Hot Dude With Abs - any idiot with half a brain could have seen it coming, but if you were looking forward to enjoying the movie (which I guess some people do?), it's kind of annoying to know what's coming before the opening credits rule.

So here's the deal, Assange: find us some information of real consequence that's been hidden from us and then we can talk about you as a free speech champion. But until then, you're just a high school philosopher, bothering everyone with his pseudo-intellectual crusades. BYE.

And now some other things that happened last week:

Laurent Gbagbo, who did not win. Despite what he'll tell you.

• In the Ivory Coast, a once lovely and stable country in West Africa (like back in the 90s), there was an election between the incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and Alassane Ouattara. Voting fell mostly along the division lines of the civil war (which ended a few years back), to the surprise of absolutely no one. What was shocking, to the Gbagbo camp at least, was the end result: it seemed that Ouattara had won the runoff vote by about 9 points. "Not so!" claimed the Constitutional Council, who can apparently do these things. The Constitutional Council then decided that Gbagbo would get to serve as president some more, for funsies or whatever. Now everyone is all upset, and the African Union doesn't recognize Gbagbo as president, and no one really does and now people are like "umm dude you should probs leave or whatever, k? great." and Gbagbo is all like "STFU haters!" Now the US, the EU, and the UN are like "dude you are illegit!" And it's all messed up. Poor Ivory Coast...great job, French Colonialism! [France24]

I can't believe they let Camilla ride in this.

• The British students are revolting! I mean, have you ever eaten with them?? HA HA I AM JUST KIDDING BRITISH STUDENTS ARE OFTEN VERY PLEASANT HUMANS (well, insofar as college students can be pleasant humans). No but seriously, the Parliament decided last week to raise tuition fees for British university students (doing so in a way that would be met with cries of SOCIALST NAZI ISLAMOFACISTS from the current GOP in the US). The students, who had likely been planning on paying a significantly smaller amount of money for university, got rull upset and decided the best person on whom to take this would would be the powerless figurehead Prince Charles and his skanky companion, Camilla. Or more specifically, on their car. Prince Charles seemed nervous, but then he always seems nervous. Camilla continued to emit stank lines from her person. So...10 points to Ravenclaw? [BBC News]

Lisbeth Salander did not do this. Because she is fictional. Probably.

• Sweden has been feeling left out lately, guys! With their continued low rankings on the governmental corruption lists, high standards of living, relative unharm in the recent global economic crisis, and complete lack of terrorism, Sweden lately has been feeling like a wallflower at a junior high dance. But not anymore! Why, just this weekend, Sweden managed to get their efficient, stylish, DIY hands on some of that sweet sweet terrorisms the western countries just love love love so much. Finally! Sweden was rocked as two blasts hit Stockholm (that's the capital of Sweden, nerds) and were apparently unconnected to Lisbeth Salander. But hooray! Now Sweden can have their very own Terrorisms Histeria! Congrats, guys! [Reuters]

Politics, she is a harsh mistress

I haven't really done much actual political speaking on this blog. Sure I've got the foreign lands round-up, and from that you probably should have guessed that I'm fairly left-leaning in my own personal politics. So when I woke up this morning and turned on my computer, it was with the heavy sense of dread that had been looming over me for the last several weeks. Glued to my computer screen throughout the day today, I watched with sadness as a whole host of politicians I admire - and a few I didn't - lost their races for re-election. There was the whole host of midwestern politicians, from Earl Pomeroy and Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin of the Dakotas to, well basically the whole Ohio delegation. Add to that, the surprise (and surprisingly painful) losses in a couple Virginia races, as well as a few important politicians in the Southwest (I say important because their input would have been invaluable on any immigration reform legislation). Though there are still a few outstanding races to be called, it was an unambiguously bad night to be a Democrat.

But sitting here in my classroom in Osan, South Korea, I take heart in a couple of things. First, American politics is, as it always has been, a regression towards the mean. This cycle, the pendulum swung - hard - to the right, but I truly do not believe that it will stay there. The economy will perk back up, people will become happier with their lives, and it will be far harder to tap into the fear and anger that I believe drove (at least in part) the dynamics of this election. Hopefully (for supporters of the Democratic party), this election will serve as a wake-up call to the party, reminding us that the optics of the situation matter just as much as the actual facts - sometimes, the message does indeed get lost in the medium, and we would be very wise to wake up to the media.

Second, while things will be tough for Democrats in the House, the fact is they still control the Presidency and the Senate. What's more, when you look at the Republicans who have won Democratic seats - guys like Mark Kirk of Illinois and John Hoeven of North Dakota (yes there's a lot of Midwestern politician love, deal with it) - these are not the fringe candidates we've seen in the media. These are intelligent, moderate gentlemen with good heads on their shoulders and an actual ability and desire to work across the aisle.

Third, I look at my peers, the members of my generation, and specifically my group of friends. I grew up a liberal in the state of Texas, living in one of the reddest of congressional districts - I quickly and instinctively developed an ability talk with, work with, laugh with, and most  importantly understand people with differing political ideologies. I developed an ability to articulate my beliefs and an ability to accept opposing viewpoints in others. What's more is that when I look at my closest friends, I see the same thing. We are not all liberals, or conservatives, or libertarians, or Neo-Nazis or Pagans or Socialists or Islamofacists or Gun Nuts or White Supremacists. In fact, I would argue that NONE of us are any of those things (excluding the political ideologies)...it's all just too extreme for us. We - this generation as a whole - are a group of people who oppose extremism, who look for the middle of the road, but who are willing to stand our ground when it comes to our beliefs. We talk with each other, we compromise, we are diverse, and we do not let that stop us from having personal relationships and what's more, we eschew those people would try to push us to one extreme ideology or the other. And that is the future. That is where America is heading and it is my generation who is going to lead us there.

A final note: I am a political junkie. I readily admit this. I LOVE elections more than I care to admit in polite conversation, and I look forward to my next opportunity to work on one. But politics is a harsh mistress. Because you go through nights like this, or '08 for my Republican friends, and you feel hurt. You feel like you've been punched in the gut or hit in the face with a brick. The thing is, it hurts so good. You can't get enough of it because you know that the high of winning is a high like none other. You crave the long hours and sleepless nights, and you can't understand the concept of "free time in October". Politics - elections in particular - beats you down. And you keep coming back for more.

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

See you all in '12.




[EDIT: 4:11pm] Sorry, I feel like a terrible jerk to all my friends out there: I did, in fact, intend to add a mention of congratulations to all my friends whose blood, sweat, and tears poured into these campaigns made them a success. Enjoy your evening, and get ready for the hard part.

No, not the governing, the waiting until the next election season...

Obligatory World Cup Post

Being an American living in a Foreign Land where soccer (or "football" as some people call it for indiscernible reasons) is a big deal, it is mandatory that one writes a post on the World Cup, should it happen while you are in town. The reason for this is, I think, that we as Americans really only have limited reference for just how big a deal this is in other countries. It's sort of like ((Super Bowl - commercials)(Olympics + poor people))^3.

And I'm not even sure you can really equate it. It's like trying to convert apples to oranges, or kilograms to pounds. You just can't do it! Also, I'm pretty skittish around "math" so you're going to have to cut me some slack here.

Anyway, since it IS World Cup time, you should probably know that, yes, I will be watching at least one of the games in a crowded area filled with crazed South Koreans shouting "Daehan Minguk!" And I will post pictures once this happens. I have my Red Devils shirt all ready to go and everything!

One of the other things that inevitably happens anytime Americans get even remotely involved in soccer is that certain wingnuts tend to write intellectually void articles proclaimint soccer to be "fundamentally un-American" or "something Real AmericansTM could never get behind" or even "socialist." Yes, this last one somehow happens. I won't link to the articles themselves (because really all they are is link bait to generate traffic to their respective sites), but if you want read through the Gawker article. The links are there, and they check out.

Perhaps the most "coherent" of the Rube Goldberg arguments I have heard came from author Chuck Klosterman, who claimed that soccer, at its heart, was fundamentally a team sport, while beloved American pastimes such as baseball and football were far more individualist - and therefore, in line with the American mode of thought. His reasoning goes, you can envision a single player winning a baseball or football game, but this is somehow not possible in soccer. I can't even begin to tell you where that goes wrong...is it his willful ignorance of the cooperation amongst players in baseball in football? Or the fact that a single person could win a soccer match in the exact same way that someone could win a football game on his own (which, by the way, would be INFINITELY easier than one person winning a baseball game)? Suffice it to say, his intellectual train jumped the track several stops back.

(PS for my non-American readers, should any of you be actual, live humans, football here refers to American football. Not soccer, or Aussie rules, or whatever else you might have)

Look, ultimately these articles that get written every four years are only put out there so the author can generate some name traffic - even if people are talking about how ridiculous it is, they are still talking. But still. These days, when it's fashionable to call every bogeyman a socialist (a term which has lost all political meaning, thanks TEA PARTY), it's worth expending just the tiniest bit of critical thought to understand just how ridiculous those claims are.

And anyway, I hope that wherever you are, be it America, South Korea, or the Socialist Colony of Moon, you will join the other 7 billion humans on the planet and I in participating in this most socialist of events, the FIFA World Cup. Let's Go Reds!