When it comes to American politics, the Kennedy name runs deep. In pop music, it’s hard to beat the Jacksons. In Wisconsin wrestling, the biggest name is Jordan.
Several days ago, President Barack Obama appeared in an interview with CBS News and admitted that the White House has underestimated what was happening in Syria for months.
Friday, April 25 President Barack Obama landed on Osan Airbase, Republic of Korea. This event was carried out in accordance with the president’s current “Asia Trip Spring 2014” schedule. During the reception ceremony at the Blue House, President Obama presented a sapling of a magnolia tree and the Stars and Stripes to the president Park Geun-hye. Both the sapling and the flag came directly from the White House and were a gift of condolence for the Sae-wol Ferry accident which took place just one week ago in South Korea.
According to the United States Constitution, Article II, Section 3, “[The President] shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers…” This means that the president of the United States can either accept or deny the incoming ambassador of a foreign country. However, in accordance to the 1947 agreement that the United States signed, the United States is obliged to grant entry visas to representatives of United Nations member states. Thus, the United States and more specifically the president of the United States, has no right to deny a visa or entry to the country. Nor does the U.S. have the right to pass a bill that blocks entry if the individual is an incoming ambassador of the United Nations.
?Is Putin rational? Yes, just like terrorists are rational. Before 9/11, many people perceived terrorists as crazy maniacs who waived AK-47s and RPGs over their heads, justifying their seemingly irrational deeds under their god’s name. However, now it is acknowledged by most of the people around the world that terrorists are rational because they pursue their specific political or religious goals with deliberate tactics. Just like the initial perceptions of “crazy terrorists,” Putin’s maneuver of occupying Crimea with “unidentified troops” was perceived irrational or too radical. Many individuals assumed the situation would be unraveled by the Western power’s efforts and Russia’s drawback in response to that. However, the situation was carried out in favor of pro-Russian Crimeans and Russia. Just a few days ago, Putin signed the pact annexing Crimea into the Russian Federation in response to the ballot with 93 percent of Crimeans backing the annexation.
On Feb. 19th, the United Nations provided a report on inhumane atrocities taking place in North Korea. According to the report, Kim Jong-un’s regime is conducting systematic human rights abuses against its own people that are as horrible as those of Nazi Germany during World War II. The report was developed in accordance with testimonies and public hearings. Such crimes against humanity include arbitrary imprisonment, torture, deliberate starvation and execution without trials. It has been long known by South Koreans and those who care about the issue that the notorious North Korean regime is conducting such atrocities, but it is the first time the international community has officially addressed the issue.
On Feb. 10, mass media were embroiled with an intense debate. The debate was about the United States government’s possible drone strike on a U.S. citizen who lives abroad. The target is not just an ordinary U.S. citizen, but a terrorist affiliated with al-Qaeda who happens to hold a U.S. citizenship due to his original place of birth.
?Israel and Palestine at West Bank. Assad administration in Syria. What common factor can be identified in relation to international forum? A failure of collective action. To be more specific, it is a failure of the United Nations Security Council perpetrated by Veto. Disputes from both of incidents could have been condemned early with resolution and halted if a veto power was not exercised by P5 countries in the UNSC
Is terrorism rational? Can it be justified? And finally, is terrorism really a final option for oppressed people to utilize? Many would promptly say the act of terrorism is rational since terrorists exert violence in accordance with clear purpose oppression . Furthermore, despite the argument terrorism cannot be justified because it sacrifices civilians, many believe it is an inevitable consequence of marginalization and oppression exerted by superior power which cannot be challenged in conventional warfare. Then, can sacrifice of civilians be also be viewed as an inevitable result of human history? Is there any other way for terrorists to achieve their goal? In that question lies myriad numbers of assertions and thoughts about terrorism and I would like to share mine; terrorism cannot be a final option.
Read on Issuu
Solutions by The State News
