Terrorism should be condemned no matter the cause. Do you agree?

Since the turn of the century, the postmodern world has seen increasing levels of political, cultural, military and socio-economic tumult, much of this due to a series of terrorist attacks on American soil and the resultant waging of Washington’s “War on Terror”. Consequently, the nature of terrorism has come under intense media focus and is subject to immense debate, especially on its justification. Before engaging in such a debate one must first identify terrorism as an act of widespread violence, whether on the part of a state or individual, against another state or society, with the ultimate goal of forcing the latter party to cede to the demands of the former – be they political or socio-economic. With such a definition in place we find that terrorism is indeed unacceptable in a vast majority of occurrences. But we cannot be entirely certain that that is the case for a few but highly controversial situations. In its entirety, though I would tend to agree with the statement I must also state that it is too complex to be offered a clear-cut response.

From the perspective of a humanitarian, terrorism is completely abhorrent and totally unacceptable no matter the opinion of the terrorists themselves. All areas of terrorism in recent years have been manifested in the form of the taking of innocent lives – lives that had little to do with the terrorist’s main cause. From the attacks on New York City in 2001 to the spate of car bombings in Moscow to the insurrections of the Southern Philippines, almost all terror attacks have caused the death of thousands of innocent bystanders, wanton destruction of private property, and incredible distress and pressure brought upon those who had the misfortune of seeing their loved ones being threatened with decapitation on news channels. It is through this argument that we as a “moral” global people condemn terrorism and its perpetrators no matter what their cause is. They as human beings are simply barred by the laws of humanity from inflicting such atrocities upon the lives of those who had nothing to do with their past hurts and grievances.

Indeed, terrorism is essentially a magnification of previous injustice. While terrorists such as the impoverished minions of Al Qaeda or Abu Sayaff feel that their lives have been cheated by the big American Satan, what they do to take the lives of civilians elsewhere is, in fact, even more, satanic than the policymakers in the White House refusing to end economic aid to developing countries.

Apart from criticizing terrorism by measuring it according to the standard of universal human values of justice, we as a community of nations must also condemn it according to international law. State-sponsored terrorism is no different from the terrorism of a fanatical private individual and hence must also be stopped. And this is extremely important because state-sponsored terrorism is easier to identify and curb, it also makes the nation-perpetrator extremely illegitimate because it violates international law in the most despicable of manners, the show’s the leaders of their nation as callous brutes, and thus degrades the international reputation of that country. For example, Muammar Gaddafi’s sanctioning of civilian aeroplane bombings over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1986 gave him the international image of a madman and turned Libya into a pariah nation even until today. For the sake of protecting national dignity, each and every member of the international community must never see terrorism as acceptable.

Finally, terrorism as a solution to one party’s problems must be rejected because it is extremely ineffective in the long run. Though seemingly inhumane for its lack of human rights consideration, this argument is built on unshakable logic and is exemplified by recent events. Palestinians regularly don bomb-jackets and detonate themselves in Israeli cafes and buses in order to secure a future for their Palestinian homeland. What they have succeeded in achieving to date is an ever-increasing rate of Israeli military incursions into refugee camps, helicopter muscle strikes on their key leaders such as the Yassin assassination earlier this year, and increasing international unwillingness to broker a peace deal that may well guarantee the very Palestinian security which they died for in the first place. In short, violence only begets more violence, nothing else, hence making terror totally unreliable as a means to an end.

But, as with all controversies, the issue of terrorism has spawned a large number of devil’s advocates, and hence a member of arguments that terror is “acceptable” because it is “a natural consequence” of the actions of one nation upon others. Though highly repugnant to the humanitarians, these arguments do make for a convincing, if controversial, case.

Terror must be accepted as the inevitable outcome of the damning legacy of colonialism that the First World has left on the Third, which was further exacerbated by Cold War machinations and power plans. Since the last century, the vast majority of African, Arab, and Asian states have suffered under periods of debilitating colonial rule, and we find that the majority of terrorists have come from such impoverished nations. But their plight was forged into a cause for violence because of the First world ‘s action In the Cold War. When we examine the methodology, tactics and weaponry of the international terror organizations, we find that they in fact had their origins in the First world! American and Soviet Cold War-era weapons are the mainstays of Al Qaeda’s and Abu Sayaff’s arsenals, and CIA training doctrines in Afghanistan have had a massive impact in shaping the methods of infiltration carried out by Al-Qaeda’s cells. But more importantly, it was the actions of the United States in leaving Afghanistan to languish in poverty in 1987 after the Soviet Union withdrew that brought an incredible sense of bitterness and resentment upon many a mujaheddin fighter, most notably a certain Osama bin Laden. By taking the macro point of view we find that the terrorism of today is but a natural consequence of the plans that were set in motion a couple of decades ago by the world’s most powerful countries.

In addition, we must accept terror even though we do not condone it because it is also a natural outcome of severe desperation and bitterness of the world’s impoverished majority. By examining the root causes of terror in the terrorists’ own homelands, we find that their suffering in poverty and that their perceptions of the “unfairness” and moral decadence of Western capitalism have resulted in terror because they have no other room to make their opinions heard. All the Arab states save one or two exceptions are run by autocracies without the slightest hint of free media. This has given rise to entire societies that have no room to voice their opposition to American policy in Israel or Russian occupations of Chechnya. And this is not limited to Arabian monarchies or theocracies. In Southern Thailand, the Muslim peoples became increasingly bitter about their situation because of the lack of national focus on their plight. When two such powerful forces, one of government repression and the other of a people’s bitterness and envy and need to be seen and heard, collide, the resultant outcome can only be violence in the form of terrorism. One has only to look at the societies from which Al Qaeda’s operatives, Abu Sayaff’s guerillas, Palestinian suicide-bombers, and even the Spanish Basque Separatists come from to see the ongoing trend of desperation and need to be heard being put down by government repression and international indifference. Terror must be an acceptable outcome if we do not give ear to the needs of the poor.

Finally, we cannot immediately condemn all violent actions in society as a form of terror. Terror to one is not a terror to another; this is clearly seen in the split of world opinion over the mounting Israeli-Palestinian crisis. The American government, heavily pressured by a powerful Zionist lobby, sees the Palestinian suicide bombers as callous terrorists whilst the Muslim world, as evidenced by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Doctor Mahathir’s speeches, views them in the light of martyrs, sacrificing themselves for Allah and Palestine. In such a situation it is virtually impossible to objectively define what constitutes a terrorist and what does not. And even if we do say with conviction that such suicide bombers are terrorists, who are we to say they are unjustified in fighting they only way they know? The weight of suffering and mistreatment of the Palestinians by the Tel Aviv coalitions has grown almost unbearable over recent years. If the immense injustice the Palestinians have borne is not just enough for their taking of innocent Israeli lives, then surely we can argue that the USA ‘s refusal to listen with unbiased hearing to their cause is. It is plausible that the Palestinian suicide bomber does what he does because violence is the only thing that would make the rich Jewish businessmen in America sit up and take note of CNN’s coverage of the burdens the Palestinians have to bear because of the biased American support of Israel or whoever’s in power. In this scenario, the case for terror is stronger than the case against.

In summary, I would not condone terror nor deem it acceptable under any circumstances. But I also have sympathy for the societies in which these terrorists are born and raised for it is the sense of injustice that they feel there that causes even more injustice around the world. As much as I condemn terror as an act of taking innocent lives, I sympathize with the demands of terrorists because that which drives a human to take the lives of others must be an unbearable force indeed. In the final analysis, a clear-cut response to the scourge as terror is illusory and cannot be found.

‘Being a politician today is more difficult than ever.’ Do You Agree

T/S: Those who say that a being modern politician is the same as being a political figure in the past argue that the key factor of being a leader is an eternal constant; politicians portray themselves as compassionate yet powerful figures, capable of leading their nations to greater heights.

EG: Stalin and Putin of Russia both portrayed themselves as compassionate yet awe-inducing father-figures. Stalin often took photos of himself holding up young children with a wide smile, while Putin takes photos of himself spending time with animals like baby tigers or riding horses. Additionally, Putin often releases stories of himself accomplishing amazing feats such as discovering ancient Greek pottery during a recreational dive or successfully hunting down a large bear. Trump, a political outsider, blustered his way into the White House thanks to his effort in portraying himself as a strongman leader who could fight for “fair deals” with the Chinese “bullies”. Bernie Sanders was lambasted for being the oldest candidate and thus the most likely to die in the office should he be elected.

L/B: The main factor that decides the success of a politician is the portrayal of themselves as capable father-figures who are able to convince citizens that they can commandeer their motherlands and drive them to success.

T/S: However, the dynamic modern world with its interconnected global issues means that politicians must grapple with a new set of challenges while still satisfying the demands of local constituents that make their job more difficult than it was in the past.

EG: The British Exit (Brexit) from the EU was a very surprising and shocking event of which its impacts rippled across the globe. The British voted to leave in order to gain better control of their borders while the EU lamented the loss of the large British market. Ex-Prime Minister Teresa May and her successor Boris Johnson both got their positions mostly due to their claims that they would be able to reconcile the differing goals. However, May has failed, resigning in disgrace while Johnson seems to be treading down the same path. To be fair, they are facing a monumental task, the scale of which rivals the challenge Churchill faced during World War II.

 L/B: The complex relations that come with an interconnected world make it difficult for politicians to deal with both internal and external problems simultaneously, especially when those goals are in direct opposition of each other.

T/S: Additionally, the genesis of new media has led to the rise of various movements that challenge the decisions of politicians, making it harder to enact such decisions.

EG: The Hong Kong riots originated when Carrie Lam’s government implemented an extradition bill that would allow people in Hong Kong to be deported to China and be judged by Chinese law. While born out of good intentions when a murderer could not be judged while on Hong Kong soil, the prevalent fear was of China abusing this power to deport dissenters and judge them for speaking out against the Chinese government, causing massive riots to break out across the country. While police were deployed to stop them, protesters organized themselves using encrypted chat services such as Whatsapp and Telegram to plan where to strike as well as the locations to avoid. Additionally, the protests have gained the support of the Western world. Social media sites, like Twitter, have posters incessantly voice their support for the protests, garnering international attention and putting more pressure on Lam’s government. She eventually relented and dropped the bill, but the protests have yet to end, with the demands of the protestors yet to be fully fulfilled.

L/B: The rise of the 5th Estate that has almost no barriers to entry has allowed for the rise of the public consciousness that has the ability to refute government decisions, making it more difficult for politicians to do their jobs.

T/S: Voters are changing and are looking for a different set of values in their politicians, causing established figures to be unable to keep up and not be elected.

EG: In recent years, the low skilled have felt the strain of globalization with cheaper foreign labour taking their jobs, creating a disgruntled citizenry that desires nationalistic leaders who can protect their interests. Additionally, the rise of successful terrorist attacks close to home has entrenched Islamophobia in their society. This has led to the wave of nationalism that has swept the Western world. Donald Trump, Marie Le Penn, Jair Bolsonaro are just some of the examples of the innumerable nationalist leaders in the world.

L/B: The rise of nationalism has caused political extremists to be chosen in major elections and make the lives of established politicians more difficult.

To what extent does the migration of people have a positive effect?

While this is a good essay, by today’s standards, the introduction and conclusion are excessively long.

Migration of people has become a collective norm, such that it is an ascendant characteristic of the contemporary society thus regulating international and cross-provincial migration is a prime concern on the policy agendas of developed and Third World states. The term “migration of people” refers to the movement of individuals such as refugees and economic migrants. This phenomenon is chiefly pertinent at present, taking into account the projection of unceasing global and regional migration animated by ageing of First World populations, mounting labour shortages in numerous developed states and urban provinces, as well as chronic disparities in income and standard of living across industrialized and developing civilizations. The modern unparalleled degree of migration incites substantial demographic, ethnical and socio-cultural reforms in many communities. Camps are divided on a myriad of issues and the aftermaths of resettlement. Consequently, there is an emerging consensus that migration of people, supposing appropriate policy measures are implemented, may engender crucial merits for expatriates, host nations and motherlands. However, given that immigration can be perceived as a double-edged sword, it does not emphatically imply propitious outcomes. Hence, migration of people has a positive effect to a large extent.

In a gradually more diverse world, where migration is repeatedly discerned as a menace to national and provincial identities in addition to social cohesion, it is fundamental to stress the positive stimulus migration initiates in host states and regions, with regard to workforce, creation of affluence, ubiquitous poverty decline, innovation and fecundity. On one hand, there is proliferating belief that immigration precipitates growth. Migration tends to boost employment in host societies, draw an influx of foreign capital and investment, beget a cosmopolis, and heighten the capacity for modernism. Several economists claim that the import of cheap labour has trifling bearing on incomes and trade openings for domestic workers since migrant workers are frequently employed in low-wage unskilled practices for which there is a lack of local supply of manpower. Therefore, the migration of people is beneficial for the receipt states and districts. 

On the other hand, sceptics assert that immigration would intensify public welfare strain as well as hostility between the migrant population and the locals in host communities. One Centre of Immigration Studies (CIS) repudiated the advantages of immigration, stating the case of Mexican migrants in the United States. The study alleged that Mexican immigrants have spawned a five percent regression in wages for the poorest ten percent of the American households. Furthermore, impecunious immigrants exploit social services at twice the rate of native Americans. Thus the detractors argue that migration is detrimental. Despite the element of legitimacy in their approach of analysis, I consider their deduction to be too sweepingly pessimistic. The Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) elucidated findings such as the majority of immigration trends illustrated modest or zero influence on employment and earnings of residents. Although economic theory suggests that in the short run, and on the assumption that the skill composition of the immigrant inflow diverges from that of locals, migration may be adverse, the net effects of migration are generally positive over the protracted period.

Concurrently, Third World countries and rural provinces may experience the “brain drain” phenomenon which describes the loss of trained and educated individuals to emigration. According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), there are more African scientists and engineers in practice in the United States than in their homeland. The United Nations Population Fund, 2010 State of the World Population report determined that Africa merely retains 1.3 percent of the globe’s health care practitioners despite having over a quarter of tuberculosis cases worldwide. Moreover, Chinese farms are observing a scarcity of labour as rural-urban immigration level rise to a prodigious high. With escalating reliance on agricultural imports, China’s food security is increasingly threatened. Nevertheless, source states also reap benefits through remittances, both cash and societal, in the form of declines in fertility, child mortality rates, higher school enrolment rates and the empowerment of women. The exodus of highly skilled workers should be reflected as a symptom instead of a rationale behind failing public systems in those regions. Therefore, migration is advantageous on the whole, for the sending societies.

It is temerarious to form elementary assessments about the benefits of migrant flows from developing to developed states, and from rural to urban provinces. For poverty-stricken countries, the migration of a sizeable fraction of their talents imperils those remaining behind. The underlying reality is that communities necessitate human capital to ensure progress, assemble institutions as well as implement guiding principles which are the strategic pillars of sustained development. The central factors of intercontinental and domestic migration lie in the inequalities which exist in stages of development. Since the significant magnitude, doggedness and flagrancy of the gaps are likely to reinforce the pressures for migration in the imminent future, this migration trend is probable to increase. Given the considerable and multifaceted aftermaths of migration, the global community should seek a more impartial recruitment of less skilled, greater emphasis on provisional employment with incentives to return, and accent on remedying the institutional malfunctions which motivate talents to leave. With these rudiments in place, migration would be more advantageous for development.

Dominance of Asia is inevitable. Discuss.

A ten year old essay that still reads fresh!

Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew gave a piece of his advice to the US administration when he was there to receive the Lifetime Achievement Award in Washington. He opined that if the US does not recognize that the Asia-Pacific is where the economic center is going to be, US would lose its influence worldwide in decades to come.  Once considered a poor continent from the devastations of the World Wars with little or no influence (with the exception for Japan) on the global economy, Asia is now seen as playing a leading role on the global stage.  The dominance of Asia in decades to come will be more defined as a shift in new economic global order sets in.

Intrinsic integration of economies has opened up markets in Asia which has widely benefitted it. Compared to the developed continents of Europe and North America, Asia is largely still a developing continent which strangely is working in her favour. The opening of emerging economies like Thailand, Vietnam and the two economic superpowers India and China has seen low wages being offered partly due to an abundant supply of labour and partly due to lower skills of these workers. As a result, these had led to many multinational corporations to outsource production of their goods in Asia to take advantage of the low-cost of production so as to be able to retain global competitiveness. China known as the world’s largest manufacturer has seen surge in demand for its labour that led to its economy to be overheated.  India too is known to export IT services to countries due to her level of competency in that field, many Indian expatriates have been working in Silicon Valley, making up 30 per cent of the workforce. Due to greater demand from corporations it too allowed Asia to grow at an accelerating for the world to straighten up and recognize the rising dominance of Asia due to her economic prowess. 

A downside to this though is that as Asia expands at an accelerating pace internal problems have become more poignant. In large parts of Asia, rural developments still persist. People in these areas tend to be illiterate and still engage in the cradle to grave employment – farming. They do not benefit from economic growth that other sectors do arising to the microeconomic problem of widening income inequality. China’s Gini coefficient is relatively high which signifies that if Asian government do not address the bipolarity in developments within its boundaries, the dominance of Asia may just become a passing fad. 

On the entertainment area, Asian movies have been making its mark globally.  Mention Bollywood and immediately one would conjure up an image of constant song and dance that revolves around a tree.  Several Asian movies have received international awards such as Mother from South Korea, My Magic from Singapore;  the Japanese movie The Departures won an Oscar award for best foreign film. Cross-border collaborations are rising as well. Westerners see Asia rich in culture and its diversity appealing as more Hollywood movies direct their movies in Asia.  Even remakes of Asian films such as “My Sassy Girl” and “Departed” illustrate the growing influence of the Asian entertainment industry. 

The myriad of traditions able to blend together in a melting point allows many Asian films to the created derived from the cross-cultural experiences in Asia which is its triumph card in the international market. Models too known for their “exotic looks” are making waves on in the fashion industry. Its dominance yet is not obvious but in decades to come, its rippling of waves would turn to full tides.

Education – a vital, necessary tool to equip are with the necessary knowledge to be able to command a higher wage for skills learnt to provide a comfortable life for one has seen Asian university rankings rise in the annual QS list. The desire to be taken seriously by their competitors have witnessed an immense hunger in Asia to strive for the best or so to speak. Asian education system is known for its rigours and is clearly evident in the number of international maths and science Olympiads Asians win. Compared to the US education system, where school days follow the 19th century agarian calendar which has become irrelevant in today’s world, pale in comparison to the Asian school system, Japan has 242 school days, South Korea 220 and Singapore 200. This has provided Asians a competitive edge in consistent production of highly skilled workers.  This, coupled with low-cost labour, creates an ideal investment environment. Academics aside, athletes too are becoming serious competitors in international competitions. It is no wonder then that Asia will lead with an army of well educated scholars that can shape policy and industry.

However, a crucial limiting reagent that can potentially undermine the dominance of Asia is that it is the most vulnerable continent to climate changes that can adversely impede the growth of Asia. The Java coastline of Indonesia has the world’s most fault lines, making it most exposed to earthquakes. To recent surge of fury of mother nature all occurred in Asia.  From typhoons rampant in Philippines to Taiwan to Japan, it creates havoc, destroys buildings and more importantly creates casualties. The economic aid into reconstruction from the damage is huge. As Asia constantly experiences such calamities, resources have to be diverted to aid devastated neighbours. This would hinder the capacity Asia has to grow. It is of utmost importance and only circumspect that Asia weaves a social fabric to truly become a domineering force. Lack of aid in times of need would result in a fallout as a whole.  Increasing dominance will be diminishing in decades to come instead.

Boasting multi-ethnic groups, multi-talented individuals and large domestic market, Asia is a force to be reckoned with. Its buzzing nightlife and rising social entrepreneurs has sent a message to the world. It is said to be the makeshift of new economic world order. These are transparent signs of rising dominance but to see it turn to actuality, only time will tell.