It is no secret that Hezbollah and the Syrian government have had close ties for many years. Syria, along with Iran, have armed and financed Hezbollah for decades, as they are the major group that opposes and harasses Israel, the regional enemy of the two nations. Hezbollah, while having both a political and military branch, is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and many other Western governments.

Photo by Flickr user james_gordon_losangeles

The biggest fear amongst   Western and local powers has been that the war currently raging in Syria would not remain confined to the country’s borders. Syrian government forces have attempted to goad Turkey into conflict, shooting down a Turkish fighter jet and landing the occasional shell on the Turkish side of the border. To the south in Lebanon, a country occupied by Syrian military forces from the late 1970’s up until 2006, the violence had spread in the form of sectarian clashes amongst civilians, and rebels taking shelter in the country firing across the border at government troops. Hezbollah, however, remained officially neutral in the conflict.

The Battle of Qusair has changed all of that. The city is located in a very strategic place for both the government and rebel forces. For the government, the city lies on the route between two major cities, the capital Damascus and Homs. It is also on the route from Damascus to the port city of Tartous and the coastal region of Syria, the heartland of president Bashar al-Assad’s Alawite sect and a possible place for him to take refuge should Damascus fall. For the rebels, the city lies just six miles from the Lebanese border, and controlling the city would allow a free flow of arms and personnel through the border.

When the government launched a massive offensive on the rebel held city a few weeks ago, Hezbollah initially denied involvement in the battle. Their rhetoric has gradually transformed over the course of the battle, and recently their leader, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, declared Hezbollah’s official military support for the Syrian government. Dozens of Hezbollah fighters have been reported killed in the battle for Qusair.

Hezbollah’s official involvement in the war not only makes it much more likely the conflict will spill over into Lebanon, but also puts Israel on high alert. The Israelis have already come out and said that they will do everything in their power to prevent Hezbollah from getting more advanced weapons, including sophisticated missiles and even chemical weapons, which the Syrian government is known to have. In fact, the Israeli air force is supposedly responsible for at least three air strikes inside of Syria on convoys of weapons headed for Hezbollah.

The Shia group’s involvement also highlights the underlying sectarian tensions of the conflict, which has been fueled by Bashar al-Assad in his attempt to make it seem like the various ethnic and religious minorities in Syria would be at each other’s throats if he were to fall. Hezbollah used the excuse of protecting the Shia’s in Qusair from the mostly Sunni rebel movement as a pretext for entering the conflict.

The entering of Hezbollah into the fray signifies a turning point in the war. The Syrian government now has an official foreign ally with boots on the ground backing al-Assad, another piece of leverage he now has against the rebels. As the battle for Qusair rages, the European Union has decided to lift their arms embargo against Syria in order to arm the opposition. While this does not mean they will necessarily take immediate action in arming the opposition, it sends a strong message to al-Assad. The entering of a group officially labeled as a terrorist organization on the side of the government may have had a huge effect on that decision. And there is always the chance that Israel will step in to protect their national security.

The mutual agreement consists of fair access to land and development of the rural areas of Colombia.  Also, a land bank is to be established as a means to reallocate land fairly, including areas that were seized illegally during the period of conflict.

It is important to understand, however, that this is the first agreement among many grievances to be addressed.  Peace talks will resume on June 11, to discuss how the rebel faction will participate in the Colombian political process.

Photo by Flickr user Ministerio TIC Colombia

The violent activities of the leftist-rebel group have been long undesired within the country.  What started off as a reaction to the U.S.’s imperialist foreign policies during the mid-1900s quickly became an armed struggle within the country.  At its strongest point, in the early 2000s, figures for the number of members in the FARC were estimated at a whopping 18,000 people.  However this figure in recent years has dropped to approximately 8,000 due to the efforts of past president Álvaro Uribe and interim president Juan Manuel Santos.

FARC, as an organization, has primarily been funded through means such as kidnappings for ransoms, gold mining, and the production and distribution of illegal drugs.  Another rebel group with a similar Marxist-based ideology is the ELN who have been held responsible of similar crimes and have a standing force of about 4,000.

It was the growth of such groups as FARC and the ELN that led to the funding of right-wing paramilitary groups to combat left-wing ideology in the country.  This premature decision created the ongoing armed conflict between paramilitary groups and rebel factions that surged in the ‘80s, ‘90s, and early 2000s.  Military campaigns on behalf of the Colombian government have really weakened the FARC and ELN.  Today, the paramilitary groups continue to be armed and are also responsible for numerous human rights violations.

In retrospect, the Colombian government probably thought that it was the right idea to arm paramilitaries to counter rebel groups at the time.  But the situation spiraled out of control by this action and the interim acting government must now deal with the consequences.

Negotiations with FARC may be a step in the right direction, but there are still many problems to address.  If and after negotiations are completed with the FARC how will the government address other left-wing groups such as the ELN?  How will the Colombian government approach the right-wing paramilitary groups whom they armed and funded?  Previous attempts at peace talks in Havana have dissolved between FARC and the Colombian government in past years, but hopefully this is not the case this time around.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Reuters reported earlier this week that a suspicious white powder and written threats to President Napolitano and Silvio Berlusconi were sent to the Milan headquarters of the national newspaper Corrire della Sera. Another package and threats were sent to the Milan headquarters of the daily paper Il Giornale, which is owned by the Berlusconi family, according to Reuters. Threats were signed by the “Armed Group for the Defence of the People.”

Earlier in April an anarchist group claimed responsibility for sending a defective parcel bomb to the Turin headquarters of the newspaper La Stampa.

Without a single party or coalition controlling both houses of parliament, Iawmakers could not select a prime minister or a new president immediately in February. At the beginning of this month, newly reinstated President Giorgio Napolitano asked Enrico Letta to be the Prime Minister representing a reorganized center-left coalition.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Italian citizens, who had been eager for a new government since former Prime Minister Mario Monti announced plans to resign in December 2012 after Silvio Berlusconi and the People of Freedom (PdL) called for a vote of no confidence (a very common practice invoked in Italian politics to drive out leaders), have waited anxiously as their political leaders attempted to hash out a plan for the government.

Italians’ excitement during the election season, which saw primary elections (a very new part of the Italian election process) cropping up as early as November for a national vote originally set for April, was put into overdrive after Monti’s announcement. While Monti’s technocratic government arguably saved Italy’s economy from destruction, its austerity tactics were extremely unpopular.

In the February national elections the two major coalitions, Pier Luigi Bersani’s center-left coalition called Italy Common Good (IBC) and Silvio Berlusconi’s center-right coalition headed by the PdL, were shaken up by a new political group — former comedian and now popular activist Beppe Grillo and his Five Star Movement (M5S). The left and right coalitions in Italy are bitterly divided during this time of austerity and economic instability in the Eurozone and Grillo’s populist movement capitalized on this to garner more national attention and support than many experts expected.

While Pier Luigi Bersani’s center-left coalition was able to gain a majority in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower parliamentary house, they were unable to find the same support to control the Senate. In fact, the Senate was almost equally divided among the three different political movements, making the formation of a majority coalition a long and arduous process. Bersani’s inability to negotiate a coalition with other parties to achieve a majority in the Senate damaged his coalition and led his fellow coalition members to drive him out of their top leadership post.

President Giorgio Napolitano was set to retire after the national elections as the new members of parliament were set to choose a new president, but after five ballots that produced no clear winner as parliament refused to compromise, Napolitano agreed to stand for reelection. The President harshly criticized the parliament for failing to form a cohesive government.

With a new government finally in place, Prime Minister Letta announced an 18 month program of tasks for the parliament to accomplish. Italians can only hope that the fragile newborn ruling coalition can stay together long enough to enact change in Italy and regain its stature and some power in the European Union.

Over the past few weeks in Sweden there have been many riots by young lower class immigrants in retaliation to a bad economy and a very high unemployment rate.  The most recent attack took place last week, where during riots multiple cars and a school were set ablaze. Other attacks involved various buildings and cars being set ablaze, leaving Swedish citizens very confused as to why their immigrants would commit these actions. Sweden welcomes immigrants and asylum seekers, including those fleeing violence in countries like Iraq, Somalia, and Syria. The country ranks as one of the world’s happiest places.  These attacks are not anything new, but lately have been more consistent. In 2008 and 2010 immigrants clashed with the police in Malmo, Sweden. The past week’s arson attacks in Stockholm and the spectacle of teenagers hurling stones at firefighters have left many Swedes wondering what went wrong in a society that has invested so much in helping their underprivileged.

Photo by Flickr user James & Vilija

These acts of terrorism, as many Swedish citizens are starting to consider them, have been causing mixed feelings with the nation’s efforts of helping and taking in underprivileged refuges from other countries. Many Swedes were baffled by the immigrants attack because the school they set ablaze consisted of 325 students that are all from immigrant backgrounds. Sweden’s Prime Minister, Fredrik Reinfeldt, called the riots “hooliganism,” while the Swedish Democrats have used these violent acts to push their anti-immigrant stance and for the deportation of immigrants who commit crime.  The majority of these immigrant rioters come from the suburbs of Husby and Tensta of Stockholm. In this region, the riots began May 19 after the police shot and killed a 69-year-old immigrant holding a knife.

Additionally the major spark drawing motivation for these young immigrants is the severity of the unemployment rate. The national unemployment rate is about eight percent, but the rate is at least twice as high in immigrant areas and four times as high for those under 25 years old.

The last prominent factor as to why so many young immigrants are rioting is because of discrimination and racism.  The New York Times recently quoted a young Iraqi-Swedish immigrant stating “Sweden has given me opportunities I didn’t have in Iraq,” but “I’m not treated the same as a white guy.”

An older Middle Eastern immigrant that has been living successfully in Sweden for over 20 years commented on this issue to The Times.  He mentioned how he sympathizes for these young immigrants that came here from other countries and cannot find means to make money and additionally feel discriminated against. But he says they are demanding too much for what they expected to fall in their lap upon their arrival to Sweden.

Many job seekers, particularly young men, had unrealistic demands and expected the state to find them work in their own neighborhoods. Many people aged from 20 to 22, want jobs now, but they expect to find them right down the road from their house.  This eventually becomes a government problem in not being able to find them jobs they will accept and then again when they destroy property that the Swedish government has to replace. These acts of violence committed in retaliation to the unemployment rate needs to cease. The burning of a school that educates immigrants to propel their lives is not wise.  These young immigrants need to be more grateful for the opportunities given to them by the Swedish government, and they need to remember beggars cannot be choosers.

Apartment leases are close to ending and work visa laws are holding back students from earning income. The next question is always whether or not it is economical for a student to pay for an expensive roundtrip flight that can cost up to $2,500, which is what most students expect to earn in a summer.

Although spending time with family is alluring, international students have found themselves on the search for internship opportunities in the area to save themselves from footing the steep bill necessary to travel across continents. For any student, both from the U.S. and abroad, summer internships and jobs are always a hot topic the few weeks before the spring semester closes. Since conventional jobs such as café baristas or waiting tables are often too complicated to come across on account of visa laws, resorting to unpaid internships has been the best and safest bet for international students.

“I want to go back [home], it is not financially reasonable to stay. Can you imagine sitting around for four months?” Dauda Wague, ’14 from Mali, said. “If I was allowed to have a job and work, I would stay.” Wague finds his situation influenced as well by the opportunity to work at home, especially for the experience.

“The longer you are here the more you realize you may want to go back after graduation,” reaffirmed Wague. “Most African students at Suffolk had their views changed. They wanted to come here and work and find experience. But right now, it seems like if you can find a job in Africa, it is better. You feel more at home and your money is more useful.“

This business side of the decision showed itself as particularly attractive. “The market in Africa is still wide open, free from competition. It is so much easier to get into business in Africa,“ said Wague For Wague, living and studying in America has presented the opportunity to study at a first-rate university gaining international recognition, but his long-term intent seems to be working and taking his education back to Mali.

Reema Al-Ashgar, ’16, an electrical engineering student from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, has been drawn to Suffolk for the summer via educational opportunity, but that does not mean she does not dearly miss her home country.

“I want to take two classes, English and Economy,” Al-Ashgar stated, “and I am planning to talk to my professor to see if he could give me a position to research at MIT. He needs to see passionate engineering students and the department gives the opportunity to three students to do research, but I still don’t know.”

Al-Ashgar still would rather be home and enjoying the family and culture she grew up with. “I want to go back; I miss my family; I haven’t seen them for a whole year.” She is even missing out on community events. “We have our holy month and holiday and I won’t be able to go there and it makes me feel bad,” she said. However, her sister has found the opportunity to go back because the Saudi Embassy pays a round trip ticket for students in the U.S. once each year. Al-Ashgar was more prone to take this trip during Christmas break.

Al-Ashgar commented on the summer sessions which allow students to stay on campus and study without their student visas expiring. “Most people take Summer One and then go back,” Al-Ashgar said, but it can become a hassle when traveling. Other international students have found themselves in a more convenient position for summer opportunities, but the realities with their family and friends do not always prove easy to understand.

Carol Leon, ‘15, a sophomore studying international affairs, is presented with a unique situation that brings perspective to the common conundrum international students are faced with having grown up in Mexico. As a dual citizen of Mexico and the U.S., Leon stated that she has “more opportunities than other international students. Friends of mine are going back because they cannot work here,” Leon said. Her situation was based on the conscious decision not to go back to Mexico because in the U.S. “there are more opportunities to get an internship.”

Leon saw how being a student on campus through the summer opened up potential opportunities. “A friend of mine from the Philippines who works in the undergraduate admissions office as a trustee ambassador said it was easier to stay and work than fly home” because of her job on Suffolk’s campus.

It can be “really stressful,” reiterated Leon, because “my brother was born in Mexico without U.S. citizenship and had to apply for Optional Practice Training (OPT),” which allots a one month period after graduation to find a job and stay in the U.S. for up to a year. OPT is a common theme among international students who wish to stay longer in the U.S. rather than immediately traveling and committing to a life in their home countries.

International students make up a great deal of the student population and their presence is welcomed and very much appreciated. The international diversity on campus is what sets Suffolk University apart from so many other institutions in the U.S. Unfortunately, their enrollment does not come without financial and family difficulties when making a decision to stay or go home over break. International students strive for better opportunities such as internships and work-study positions, but there are more factors for these students to consider that effect their future work and life possibilities.

Faculty and administrators of the Sawyer Business School and the College of Arts and Sciences are currently debating a potential “common” undergraduate curriculum. At the same time, Suffolk seeks to enhance its international presence and profile through a variety of programs and initiatives. It is essential at this juncture that the university reaffirm its commitment to instruction in foreign language and culture for all students. Sadly this contributor suspects that foreign language programs will fall prey to financial exigencies and “strategic” decision-making. This would be a grave error.

Suffolk considers itself an international university, and the composition of its student body reflects this outlook. While geographic diversity in the student body can certainly provide some alternative perspectives for indigenous students, it is simply not sufficient in our globalized environment. An in-depth exposure to foreign languages and cultures should be considered an imperative in curriculum development. A more parochial educational model fails students both as prospective job-seekers and as citizens of the Republic.

It is not a coincidence that European students in a variety of disciplines combine their vocational or intellectual studies with a foreign language concentration. Even though English is the current lingua franca (a phrase reflective of an earlier phase of French dominance) of global commerce and education, an increasingly multipolar world demands both perspective and expertise from beyond national borders. Even within the United States a wide variety of languages are spoken. It is hard to think of a desirable job in the future economy for which fluency or proficiency in a second (or third) language would not be of significant benefit.

In the international sphere, the old adage remains true: trade partners will happily sell products in English, but they are much more likely to buy products from those conversant in their language and culture. In a country where the trade deficit is a topic of near constant discussion (and complaint,) a commitment to furthering commerce through language and cultural interchange seems most necessary. Instead of viewing language courses as financial liabilities, the administration should see them as investments in the future success of university alumni. Conversely, students should not view the language requirement as some chore to be checked off on the program evaluation, but rather they should leap at the opportunity to study French or Spanish or Mandarin or Arabic.

While the German program to which I am personally so attached is headed towards elimination, I hold out hope that a (re)consideration of the role of language instruction within the Suffolk model may benefit the remaining elements of World Languages and Cultural Studies. Not long ago the very concept of the university was bound to the “humanistic” model of education, for which Latin was a prerequisite and Greek highly desirable. Those days are behind us. Nevertheless, a fresh perspective and exposure to other forms of thought which linguistic study entails cannot fail to produce better workers and more cosmopolitan citizens who will do their countries and their alma mater proud.

Kim Jong Un is missing. He has not made a public appearance in two weeks now, which doesn’t necessarily mean anything by itself. However, given the fact that he has been mouthing off to the western imperialists with vague nuclear suggestions, more or less everyday for the last two months, makes it somewhat suspicious; remember that Hugo Chavez disappeared for a few weeks right before he died. However, for all we know he is alive and well, relaxing over Moet & Chandon and a Woody Alan flick in a penthouse somewhere and therefore I will honor my own vague threat last week to discuss the Kony 2012 campaign.

I liked it. I admit it, this time about a year-and-a-half ago, without even thinking about it really, I just clicked the “like” button on Facebook when some casual friend I respect but don’t know well posted it. Maybe the source had to do with it, I just assumed it was another one of his political rants and liked it because I like him.

Little did I know I had become part of a fraternity of concerned Americans, millions strong, an uncompromising body with a single goal of bringing the devil reincarnate Kony to justice, and saving some African kids along the way. Did every single one of these idealists actually watch the whole 30-minute long video? Did I watch the video? Of course not. I am the product of a generation raised to absorb information in 30-second long blasts of aggressive advertising and was therefore personally offended at the suggestion that I had half an hour to spare for just one of the thousands of demands for my attention in just one day. I assume it was the same for many of my new peers.

If I had watched the video, I would have been confused. The Ugandan Overlord was the ‘subject’ of the video, per se, but the underlying current is a little more interesting. The ‘social media change’ rhetoric, the way they glorify the ‘idea’ and its movement through society, eclipses the minimal attention spent on child soldiers and the Uganda problem, which has been raging off and on since the 1960s.

The video really focuses on ‘telling your friends,’ using brief shots of kids holding cell phones and using keyboards to get you exited: you too can change the world! The underlying vibe is educational, not about Africa but how to tell your friends that they should care because you suddenly care. It was infectious, and a rousing success.

I mean, it’s a good video. It is just not about what it claims to be about. I can almost picture a couple of videographers with money and time to kill arguing about their respective social advertising skills. Dr. Seuss was bet by a friend long ago that he couldn’t write an entire book using only 50 words. The result was “Green Eggs and Ham,” a book we’ve all heard of. That’s exactly what I think happened. That poor publisher, before his infamous sexual meltdown in a parking lot in California was a truly gifted social engineer who won a bet that he couldn’t make a 30-minute long video explode around the world.

“I’m so good I even let you name the subject of the video.”

“Anything I want?”

“Sure.”

“Child Soldiers in Africa.”

“No problem.”

Twelve hours earlier, I had been hanging out in the alleys of Harvard Square before heading to the Sinclair to see the Pennsylvania-based band Pissed Jeans, a band which has consistently put on some great performances. I had been speaking to my friend Adric about Boston: I’ve been seriously thinking about moving to the west coast after visiting San Francisco with the Journal and being impressed. Oakland, in particular, had captured my imagination: what a perfect example of the type of community and solidarity between neighbors. “Planet Oakland,” as they called it, was the opposite of what Boston felt like at the time. The DIY music community was thriving, but eventually the law got in the way and forced what were once safe-spaces hosting friendly gatherings to shut down. Before Monday, this was on my mind more than anything else.

Once inside Forum, I decided to turn back around and hike up a block to Walgreens, where I purchased lens cleaner, cloth, and a pouch of pistachios. On the way back, I made quick eye contact with former Journal editor Derek Anderson, who was helping a runner’s family decide which Apple product to buy. I thought about finding him later in the afternoon, and as I walked back into the restaurant I ran into Adam XII, former-WFNX and current RadioBDC DJ. He greeted me smiling, asking how I was. I told him about the frustrations of navigating around the Marathon site, and he concurred, noting that a similar thing had happened to him a couple of years ago.

Then, I went to work. And, decided to smoke a cigarette five minutes later. Great work ethic, huh?

As we walked out the back door of the bar, I took out a Marlboro Red and raised it, touching my lips. Lighting it, I looked down both ends of Public Alley 441. It was pretty barren.

An hour before the blast, Alex Pearlman and I posed in the party booth machine.

When you take photos for an event, it can be trying getting everyone into the frame. I had asked four women if they’d like to be on RadioBDC.com, which they promptly gave positive reactions to. Sammy, the dog, was just lying in the window with her head down. Of course I got her seldom look in the photograph. I took down the four names, from left to right, and walked to the far end of the second floor, where I quickly snapped a picture of the runners on my phone from above, and tweeted it.

Seven minutes later, I stood by the front of the bar behind a table with mixing equipment on it. Alex Pearlman, also a former Journal editor and current employee for the Globe and RadioBDC, was nowhere to be seen. I peered down at my phone to lookup NBA news, as I hadn’t since the Mavericks went over .500 the night before.

A flash went off in the front of the restaurant. At least that’s what I thought; I hadn’t been the only photographer there. A second flash went off along with a huge boom.

“Get Down! There’s a gun!”

I couldn’t see, there was so much smoke. Glass blew by my face. A pretty heavy-set guy, I was the easiest target in the room. I had to get out. I couldn’t see Alex Pearlman anywhere, and in the pandemonium, I took the first chance I could to push the table forward and jolt out the back door. Those fifteen seconds or so have become a blur. I had never felt total hysteria before. Quite a sensation, it split my brain and my body, and without much processing, I felt my body move like I was jumping from one side of a mosh pit to the other, into a friend’s chest — but instead it was the side of the bar. I hadn’t even thought about the bag I left, the cherished lens I’d had since I was 16, or the ATM card I had just opened a tab with. It was survival or nothing.

Public Alley 441 was no longer the devoid strip of asphalt in dire need of repairs. Instead, it became a stream of runners without bibs, and instead with infants, fathers, partners, mothers, and just about any type of person you could think of. Thankfully, there was enough room to jolt down the street without having to crawl over another person, although I cannot say that for every other location. It was then that I realized this wasn’t a gunman — this was a widespread catastrophe in the Back Bay.

I began to shoot people running before I spotted Pearlman through my lens. Within a minute, we were racing around the corner and onto Boylston, into the action, to do the best we could at what we do, report the news.

“Something’s seriously wrong,” I thought to myself. “Your job is to find the facts, be skeptical, and do everything to not exploit the situation.” The Metro desk at the Globe picked up Pearlman’s phone call.

“What happened?” she asked, but the person on the other line could only ask her the same question. “A bomb went off at the marathon, at least one. People are running around crying, wondering where to go.” That was the first moment I realized that this was a terrorist attack. I quickly texted my mother that I was safe and turned off my phone to save battery.

The next ten minutes were spent taking as many photos of the scene as I could without getting in the way. That was the most important thing: do not, in any way, obstruct someone trying to help. The police were expanding the perimeter, and as I tried to tell them I was press, one officer told me to “F*** off, I don’t care who you’re with.” Of course, he was right — I should have never even asked. I told them that I respected what they were doing and that I’d do anything I could to be neither seen or heard while doing my job. The officer nodded and ran off to get the next barrier. This was a terrorist attack. I put the camera down and looked around. It hasn’t left my mind yet, the gruesome scene. It wouldn’t be right to try to describe other peoples’ condition in this editorial.

For the next twenty minutes, my phone was back on and became a livestream that the Globe had been actively trying to get spread, except the termination of cell services in the area had crushed it to the point of no connection, and in turn, left me with one percent battery life.

We found Chris Faraone, former staff writer for the Boston Phoenix, who I had worked with during the lead-up to the death of Andrew Breitbart a year ago. He was coming to meet us when the explosion happened. Standing on the curb with face in phone, he was tweeting like a machine, figuring out as much information as possible. One of my roommates, a pedicabber who was working down by Mass Ave, reached us to check in before heading back to the South End bike shop.

Adam XII and the rest of the RadioBDC staff were standing close to their van on Newbury Street when we finally reached them. Before long, Garrett Quinn, of Mediaite and Reason Magazine, appeared out of nowhere. Pearlman, Faraone, Quinn, and I started to walk towards Commonwealth Avenue where the marathon route had been diverted.

One older man, who had been running in the race, walked up to us. His face was blank as he explained that his wife and family had been sitting on the bleachers next to the finish line, and that he hadn’t heard from any of them since the morning. Quinn took out his phone and texted the number the man provided. His eyes were in terror for ten minutes before she texted back that he should come home, they were safe. The terror turned into tears of relief.

Lola Bar on Commonwealth Avenue had become our home for the next hour or so. Journalists seemed to pile in, as it was as close as we could get to the scene. We found few power outlets and a 4G netcard to attempt to send the Globe the photos taken. No luck. Too slow. Deval Patrick and Ed Davis spoke from a hotel on the other side of Boylston, and as we watched, shushes attempted to shut up the drunkards raging about 9/11 in the back corner.

Anxiety about getting the photos out set in, and before long Pearlman and I were on our way down the mall, up Beacon Street, and onto Temple Street, where we quickly lit cigarettes and decompressed for five minutes. We had frequently shared cigarette breaks at this spot right in front of Donahue, but this time was different.

If you had the opportunity to help, you did. Random volunteers raced down the street with wheelchairs and water. Bostonians offered up their homes, cars, and communication devices to complete strangers. Restaurants offered free food and drinks to anyone dislocated. As the Boss sings on last year’s album Wrecking Ball, “we take care of our own.” I don’t have to move all the way to the west coast to experience Oakland, because this is “Planet Boston,” when it needs to be.

Thank you to the SUPD officer who we pleaded our case to after showing our expired student IDs, for allowing us to get into our office. This office has become my absolute comfort zone in the past five years, and while my mental health was struggling to grasp what had just happened, I could relax a bit while looking around at the memorabilia collected on the walls of D537.

I entered Suffolk University during the last few months of the Bush administration. I covered the 2008 and 2012 elections. I was here during the forced resignation of President Sergeant, and virally f’d up the first issue with President McCarthy on campus. (Yea, sorry about that.) I’ve seen Seriously Bent get funnier and funnier. I’ve seen the College Republicans awesome care package drive become the most popular, successful event on campus.

It had never once crossed my mind that I would be spending my last night on the staff of the Suffolk Journal, as its editor-in-chief, after almost 100 issues, covering a terrorist attack which, if I was fifteen feet closer to the street…who knows.

I love you, Suffolk, and although I may be hot-headed at points, you’ve treated me well. You’ve given me so many opportunities and allowed me to meet so many people who I cherish. It is terrible that this happened in our city, but life will continue. Fear is meant to destroy your faith, don’t let it.

The Suffolk University International Affairs Association(SUIAA) participated in a week-long conference in New York City.  This year, 22 student delegates represented Spain in different committees facing issues in the global community.

Once the conference began last week, 193 countries with representatives in all committee groups worked together to resolve a specific issue.  Committees included a Human Rights Council, the Committee on Trade and Development, and more.  Other, more in-depth problems were also addressed, such as Israeli settlements in Palestine in terms of the economy, the infrastructure, and the agricultural sector.

In the months before the conference, student delegates were assigned three topics for discussion within their committee.  They conducted research on these topics and collaborated to effectively discuss them with representatives from all 192 other countries within their committee at the conference.  Then, groups of countries, or blocks, got together to write a resolution paper to solve one of the three assigned topics.

This group is lead by first-year President Carol León.  During a team meeting held on Tuesday April 2, delegates discussed the high and low points of the conference including ways to improve their methods for next year.

“I didn’t know how well I did at first,” said first year member Andrew Fallon.  “Initially, I was disappointed in my performance, but after thinking about it—I know what I need to do next time.”

The team also discussed ways to improve research and how to be better prepared.

“This was one of the best conferences we’ve had,” said León.  “It was definitely a life changing experience; I learned to become a better leader.  It was not only a good time, but a great learning experience.”

This seems to be a defining year for SUIAA.  All Board members agreed that even with the large percentage of new team members, everyone did an outstanding job.  Spain was prosperous in each of the committees thanks to the teamwork skills of Suffolk’s student delegates.

“We had a lot of new students this year,” said Head Delegate Kaila Millett.  “They threw themselves into the committees so I was really proud of everyone.  Overall, we’ve done the best we’ve ever done.”

The SUIAA would like to thank their sponsors for this year’s conference, Vice Provost Royo, WLCS, the Sawyer Business School, Suffolk’s SGA, Walter Caffey and the Government Department.  The group is also in the process of planning another conference to be held at Yale University in the fall.

At the end of World War II, as historians began to sift through the chaos of information that awaiting them, Japan topped this list of wartime atrocities committed against the notion of human rights. Japan did a lot of bad stuff to a lot of innocent people, and they were duly punished for it in many ways, one of which was the institution of Article 9 in their constitution, which reads as follows: “To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph (peace), land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

The preceding clause discusses the prohibition on acts of war by the Japanese military, which is somewhat tongue-in-cheek, perhaps intentionally, because the Article goes on to ban any military expenditure by the Japanese government, which in turn means no military.

Regardless of the fact that World War II and anything like it now lies firmly buried 70-odd years in the past, this Article is becoming rather problematic on two fronts. Firstly, the Japanese economy is the third largest in the world, which makes them a “power,” or depending on how you choose to define it a “super power.” As history has shown us, international “powers” as a rule need to expand to feed their hungry economies. For example, economic expansion like the American neo-imperialism we see today, or good old fashioned geographic expansionism that got Japan into the predicament it is today back in WWII.

As Japan’s tiny mainland begins to run dry, the economic pressure to expand will only increase, and there is no current solution in place to relieve that pressure, short of economic stagnation, which is of course unacceptable for any nation. Regardless of how this expansion plays out, not having a military will be a problem. Not necessarily for invading Manchuria like they did two generations ago, but for hefting power when coming to a head with other expanding powers (China/Taiwan) over resource procurement.

As the Cold War shows us, sometimes having the military heft to discourage outright conflict is enough to actually prevent military answers to problems between powerful nations. Currently, Japan’s only heft is the very, very close relationship they have with the United States, the only current real, indisputable military super power. This leads nicely into the second aspect of the Article 9 problem, the American side of it.

Imagine China and Japan actually get to the point where their disagreements over those random mineral rich islands in the South China Sea become military prone. There is a debate about what the US involvement in Japan’s military, as well as China’s economy, will come to. The majority consensus is that the United States will serve as a buffer between disagreement and actual conflict, because no one wants to piss off the Americans to the point where they’re loading weapons.

China has too much to lose, (all out debt, for instance) to sever ties with the US, and would likely downgrade from outright hostility to stalemate with Japan should the US really start flexing our muscles. But when do we flex our muscles? We owe Japan a lot of loyalty, but we owe China a lot of money. Supposing they just can’t reconcile? Who do we go in behind? How badly will our commitment to Japan hurt us? The answer is tough to put in black and white, but what’s obvious is the potential for a real issue.

So here’s what we do. We help Japan cut Article 9 out of their constitution, sell them a ton of weapons, make a lot of money out of the whole thing, and cut our downright obligation to protect them, letting them once more protect themselves. We keep it friendly of course, and still intimidate China whenever we can, if only because being friendly with Japan is still economically important, but at the same time we cut our loses a bit and step back. So we’re not quite beholden to protect a nation that, really, could happily and easily protect themselves.

Dr. Merry White, professor of anthropology at Boston University, captivated an audience in the Poetry Center Friday morning describing her journey of a growing appreciation of Japan’s coffee culture. Her knowledge of the culture surrounding enjoyment of coffee in Tokyo has been carefully refined over five decades, beginning even before the 1964 Olympics, which restaged Japan as a world-class city.

The opinion that Japanese people eat sushi, drink green tea, and practice zen would likely be quickly dismissed as a stale stereotype by Professor White. While green tea occupies a well-established place on the Japanese palate, it is savored distinctly and often alongside coffee. Green tea “is like the air they breathe, you don’t pay for it,” she describes. Coffee, on the other hand, is enjoyed all out. White recalled an experience in which she was given green tea along with the menu of coffee at one shop. “It’s not like if you drink one you won’t have room for the other,” she describes, “they are enjoyed separately.”

White highlighted Japan’s surprisingly vibrant and revolutionary coffee history. In the 1870’s, before coffee was leisurely enjoyed, it had early medicinal use and became the drink of choice among Nagasaki prostitutes. In the early 1920’s, the Japanese coffeehouse was a symbol of modernity “where people expressed political ideas and personal ideologies,” White described. The coffeehouse created an alternative place of being for the Japanese people away from the traditional teahouses and apart from the constraints of institutions and daily life.

Today, Japan is the world’s third largest importer of coffee after Germany and the US. Coffeehouse culture remains an art, and one’s proper conduct must strictly adhere to the formalities of the space. However, the coffeehouse is an area of freedom from the rigidness and expectations surrounding people in the rest of their lives. The coffeehouse is not where you go to work on a laptop – they have Starbucks for that. Conversely, these places can allow urbanites to escape the busy and loud day-to-day city life and enjoy silence and alone time. “What you’re paying for is not just a cup of coffee,” White explains “but a real estate piece to own for yourself for a while.” Consequently, these fine drinks are drunk in the space, not for take away.

There is a value piece placed on handmade items in Japan, as described by Merry White. The hand of the master doing a meticulous pour-over is valued more than a machine-made espresso. At some cafes, coffee is ordered and roasted a day ahead of your arrival. Master baristas roast and blend coffee beans by the cup, creating incomparable and unforgettable experiences for the drinker. Her vivid journey through this culture conveys the listener’s attention to another world she recalls fondly.

Dr. White will be speaking again on April 14 at the Specialty Coffee Association of America’s annual event at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center (BCEC). Her latest book Coffee Life in Japan was released last year. The Barbara and Richard M. Rosenberg Institute sponsored this lecture for East Asian Studies at Suffolk University.

Boston has always attracted students from around the world. Suffolk University, located in the heart of the city, has become a major part of that attraction. This year alone, the university is home to more than 1,300 international students.

The university invests major resources in recruiting foreign students. With an international student body representing six continents and 108 countries, the university strives to increase this number. Jonathan Darden, the assistant director of undergraduate admissions, is responsible for recruiting students from every country. “At Suffolk we have about 18 percent international students,” he said. “Right now, the countries that send us the most applications and actually enroll are Saudi Arabia, China, and Venezuela. Those are really the main countries, but the list goes on.”

The list includes major countries such as Spain, India, Russia and Australia, as well as smaller countries such as Nigeria or the small island of Curacao. “We are very fortunate to have such a diverse population here at Suffolk,” says Darden.

International students claim to enjoy this diversity. “First, when I came to America, I was not one hundred percent sure that I would stay here,” explains Vassili Stroganov, a student from Russia. “I am one hundred percent sure now that I made the right choice because here at Suffolk there is so much diversity and thanks to that I am more open-minded and I see the world from another angle.”

Suffolk officials say that the school offers great opportunities for international students, in both the classroom and the professional world and according to Darden, one of Suffolk’s privileges is its location. Located in the heart of the city, the University offers new opportunities and challenges.

“Our location is one of the things that appeals and attracts foreign students the most. Just look at the campus; there is not a campus; we are an urban institution. The moment you get out of 73 Tremont you are in the city and there is a lot of opportunity and students like that,” explains Darden.

According to Darden, another of the main reasons most international students to come to study in the US, especially those whose countries are suffering from a bad economic or social situation, is to ensure themselves a professional future. “When reading their essays, many say that they want to come here for the opportunity, gain that knowledge, get that degree that’s worth something and take that back to their country to hopefully make a change for the better,” he says.

International students like Ismael Soumare, originally from Mali, agree with this. “There are many businesses here in Boston,” he says. “Boston is known as a vibrant business center, and because of that, you can get more opportunities and internships; and that I couldn’t it in my country.”

Darden says the school focuses on building and improving their relationship with universities in other countries. And, once foreign students get to campus, the challenge is to help them adapt to the culture and the demands of classes. For this, Suffolk offers international students help through different programs and departments such as the Writing Center, the Second Language Center, and the Ballotti Learning Center for personal tutoring.

International students say that this is another of the things they appreciate about Suffolk. “Not only are the opportunities that Suffolk offers for help with internships incredible,” says Genesis Yong, a student from Ecuador, “but also the help with class work by having tutors and other helping departments; stuff like that you don’t get in Ecuador.”

Despite these types of difficulties that many foreign students encounter while studying in the US, most say their experience at Suffolk has great value. “I feel homesick, but on the other hand it’s worth it,” explains Jesus Portillo, an international student from Spain. “This experience made me grow and mature both, personally and professionally. Every day is a new challenge; it is simply great.”

Darden believes that the reason for the students’ satisfaction is the way Suffolk treats them; like adults, rather than like students. “We treat students like adults, and that’s what you are,” he says.  “As I said before, the moment you walk outside 73 Tremont, you are in the city. As a result, our students mature a lot faster based on the experience that they are living. And, I think that that is priceless. The reason simply is we want to prepare our students for success here at Suffolk.”

The world is comprised of a total of 194 countries, which means that over half (55%) of the world is represented here at Suffolk University!

•  -Asia accounts for about 57% of the International Student body, with the majority of students hailing from China (~300) and Saudi Arabia (~140).
•  -South America speaks for about 13% of the International Student population, with the majority of students from Venezuela (~85) and Colombia (~20).
• -Europe is responsible for about 13% of the International Student body, with the majority of students from Spain (~30) and Russia (~20).
•  -Africa represents about 12% International Student population, with most students from Senegal (~55) and Nigeria (~19).
• -North America claims about 5% of the International Student population, with the most amount of students from Mexico (~30), Panama (~10), and Canada (~10).

Gun violence lead to the deaths of 32,000 Americans last year, including 19,000 suicides.

Panelists Rosenthal and Charlton McIlwain, an associate professor of media, culture, and communications at NYU Steinhardt, along with moderator Edward Powell, the executive director of StreetSafe Boston, stressed that the event was not meant to start a pro- or anti-gun conversation. Instead, participants hoped to analyze how and why the media covers violence.

McIlwain believes the media portrays only the extremes of gun violence because “they don’t want to talk about moderate, safety measures because that makes bad TV.” The media’s choice to frame violence this way highlights rarer mass shootings and largely ignores the everyday issues of gun violence in cities and towns across the country.

“There is too little coverage on the deaths of inner city youth,” Powell said. At StreetSafe Boston, Powell works on reducing gang violence in neighborhoods of the city most affected by violence.

“There is a strong correlation between consuming media violence and committing violence,” McIlwain said, “Almost as strong as the link between smoking and getting lung cancer.” He quickly noted that while the media doesn’t directly tell people what to think, it can still have a significant influence on the way public discourse on issues plays out.

Rosenthal, whose non-profit organization displays provocative gun control advertisements on the billboard above the Massachusetts Turnpike just outside of Fenway Park, was more controversial in his assessment of the media’s coverage of instances of violence.

“Congress has this notion that only poor, non-white people die from guns, so why should we care? If white kids were dying at the rate black kids were dying [from guns] you’d see more coverage in the news,” Rosenthal charged, “Newtown showed that, guess what, [gun violence] might even be rich white people’s problem too.”

Both panelists also advocated for safe gun ownership practices, like locking guns in the home at all times and locking ammunition in a separate place. This safe storage principle is the law in Massachusetts but not federally. Rosenthal says this state statute has “dramatically decreased toddler and teen gun-related deaths [in the state.]”

When asked by audience members what citizens can do to help stem gun violence, Rosenthal urges all in attendance to call their congressmen and demand change. “It’s the uniquely unregulated gun industry who has bought republicans and intimidated democrats in congress” that allows so many Americans to die from gun violence, Rosenthal said, “But before we blame anyone, we have to look in the mirror. We are giving up our democracy.”

Contention has risen on the international stage since Kenyatta, who has a pending trial date set for July, was recently elected president. International opinion has suggested this position should be reconsidered and has projected Kenyatta’s role in Kenyan politics as prominently negative.

Suffolk has not been immune to this conflict of international rhetoric surrounding Kenya. One student, Catherine Kinyua of Nairobi, Kenya, commented on the role of nationalism and biased international discussion since the election of President-Elect Kenyatta.

“My family isn’t sure how it will go,” Kinyua said, “I doubt that he will step down. [He] would’ve done it before elections; [this is the] first time with a president going through this.” Regardless, Kinyua stressed that all people of Kenya “knew what was going on during [the] election.” In the case of the election, Kenyatta’s prevalence of power and support was because “he comes from a well-known family. [He was elected] for the good he has done for the country,” as Kinyua stated.

Kenyatta comes from a family in which his father was Kenya’s first president and prime minister, and has been deemed the founding father of Kenya. His family has a strong rapport and has played a pivotal role in politics in the latter half of the 21st century. A great deal of strife resonant in this year’s elections and public opinion within Kenya was because of tribal disputes and affiliations.

In an article written in Foreign Policy Magazine, the situation in Kenya was paralleled to that of post-Nazi Austria. The moral of the argument, put simply, was that Austrians were inclined to elect politicians with proven Nazi affiliations and distinct histories of abhorrent practices during the war. Nevertheless, because they represented unity, forgetting the past was justifiable for Austrians at the time, specifically under Kurt Waldheim who was elected secretary general of the United Nations and ran for the presidency in Austria. This sentiment was a product of “diplomatic isolation,” helping to ignore 

Only 22 members of the United Nations maintain official relations with Taiwan, every single one of them poverty-strike nations, mostly in Africa and South America. This number has slowly declined since 1971, when China (officially the People’s Republic of China) took over the ‘China’ seat in the United Nations, which up till then had been held by Taiwan (officially the Republic of China).

To be considered an illegitimate, de facto rouge nation by 85 percent of the world should be devastating. Even the Western Sahara, a strip of desert in Northern Africa, claims it enjoys official recognition from 84 UN member states. Not to mention Palestine, who recently enjoyed a further step towards statehood when granted permanent observer status to the UN, the final step towards sovereignty while still not being an actual state.

However, with a whopping estimated GDP at just under a trillion dollars last year, (19th highest in the world) Taiwan could probably buy Western Sahara with enough left over for a nice seaside condo somewhere in the West Bank. How they’ve managed to explode like that in spite of overt hostility from China is a complex story that highlights the importance of a friendly attitude towards the United States and careful protectionism, which sadly no longer come hand-in-hand. Regardless, Taiwan has made quite a name for itself. Its economic expansion is referred to as the Taiwan Miracle and it is the most overtly successful of the four Asian Tigers.

But what now? With a GDP like that, Taiwan normally would be a huge player in the geopolitical issues of its region. However, they have the difficult position of being sandwiched in between China and Japan, the world’s second and third largest economies respectively. So when the islands everyone has heard of recently, the Senkaku Islands, turned out to be sitting on a small fortune of rare earth metals, Taiwan faced quite the dilemma.

In one sentence, the history of the islands is as follows.  China discovered them 600 years ago, Japan invaded in 1895 and ruled them until 1945, when the United States took over for 30 years before yielding control back to Japan in the 70’s, who has legally and privately owned them ever since. So where does Taiwan come in to this? By virtue of the fact that these islands are only a hundred and fifty miles off mainland Taiwan, as opposed to several hundred miles from China and almost 600 from Japan.

Strangely enough, China actually agrees that Taiwan owns the land, more to keep Japan away than for any goodwill towards Taiwan, but when you’re Taiwan ,sometimes you take what you can get. So what happens if/when Japan and Taiwan start to actually move militaristically over Senkaku?

The United States is in a tough spot. Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution stipulates that Japan will have no military, and instead let the US fight for them. All well and good, except that Taiwan is almost as important to American interests as Japan. Furthermore, consider that Chinese-Taiwanese business transaction is worth an estimated $400 billion a year, and you have a lot of incentives for peace. So what will happen to these islands?

For now, absolutely nothing. The unfortunate Japanese businessman hoping to plunder them for their minerals are out of luck, because, far and away, the easiest solution is, like much of international relations, no solution. Keep the guns pointed at each other and just carry on. Perhaps it’s for the best; when the rest of the world becomes a concrete jungle stripped of all natural beauty, these islands will stand pristine, and untouched because of the trouble it would cause to touch them.     

“It has always been at the back of our minds,” Carolina Garcia, the director of S.O.U.L.S., said of planning a trip outside of the continental United States. For years Suffolk students have been serving communities primarily in southern states over spring break, but on Alternative Winter Break trips, Suffolk has taken students to work with Habitat for Humanity in El Salvador.

Erin Bessette, a senior S.O.U.L.S. Campus Partnership Scholar who participated in this past winter’s trip to El Salvador and previously served on two ASB trips in the U.S., was excited for the opportunity to expand her Spanish language skills and see a new culture on the Puerto Rico trip.

“My favorite moment of the trip was when I got to help a student [at a Boys and Girls club] with her homework in English. She knew only a little English and I only know a little Spanish, so it was a nice exchange,” Bessette said. On previous ASB trips, Bessette did advocacy work for LGBT issues in Detroit, Mich. and served as a trip leader on a Habitat for Humanity trip building homes in Georgetown, Del.

While she enjoyed her previous volunteer work in these fields, Bessette found the mix of non-profits she was able to work with in Puerto Rico more comprehensive. “With so many different jobs to do, you really get a sense of how community development works and the wide range of issues Puerto Rico faces,” Bessette said.

“This trip was a great way for students to learn about Puerto Rico and how it fits into the U.S.,” Garcia said, “Puerto Rico is culturally very different from the rest of the U.S. and is a very politically interesting place right now.” Garcia was referring to the question of Puerto Rico’s sovereignty—whether it will become a U.S. state, remain a U.S. territory, or become its own nation—which has been a hot topic lately.

“I asked three different Puerto Ricans about how they felt about becoming a state or becoming independent and I got three different answers,” Bessette said, “All of them were valid but it was interesting as an outsider to hear how they all have different views about what they want or need.”

Emily Brady, a junior S.O.U.L.S Communications and Development Scholar who has also served on two previous ASB trips, found the cultural aspects of the trip to be the most interesting. After serving on two Habitat for Humanity ASB trips, once as a volunteer in Wichita Falls, Texas and then as a trip leader alongside Bessette in Georgetown, Del., Brady especially enjoyed working at the Boys and Girls Clubs in Puerto Rico. “I think kids are the best insight into family life,” she said.

Brady’s hometown, Holyoke, Mass., has a large percentage of Puerto Ricans and she says there is “a big divide between people who are Puerto Rican and people who aren’t.” By serving in the food bank and at the Boys and Girls Clubs, “I brought back a bigger appreciation for their culture and lifestyle,” she said.

Brady was also inspired by one of the Puerto Rican staff members at a Boys and Girls club. “There are people who are willing to give away all their time to for a cause and that are so selfless,” she said, “That had a huge impact on me.”

Garcia said she was “so proud of all the students” who participated in the trip for embracing the culture and being so willing to learn, as many of them did not speak Spanish. “What we did in a few days [at the food bank] would’ve taken the regular staff of only three people months to do,” Garcia said.

“It was so exciting to see people coming in for food and seeing more food on the shelves,” Brady said, “There were so many emotional ups and downs working on the trip, but it was overall so positive.”

“This 5th of March, at 4:25 p.m., the commander president Hugo Chávez Frias has died. This is a historic tragedy.” Those were the exact words of Vice President Maduro announcing to the Venezuelan people on a national broadcast that Chávez passed away. After almost three months without seeing our president, the government’s news was both shocking and unexpected. The fact is that, as said before in these same pages a few weeks ago, all the evidence pointed that Chavez’s health was precarious. But regardless of what we thought about the president’s condition, the confirmation of his death shocked the country.

On the one side, those who opposed Chávez could not avoid feelings of relief when seeing this news of the man who prosecuted, incarcerated, intimidated, and epilated anyone who spoke openly against his “revolution.” On the other side, those who received any benefit (disregarding how miserable it could be,) felt stroked about his commander-in-chief leaving this world.

His followers, mainly because of the government’s constant reports stating that Chávez was getting “better” with a lack of real information, truly believed that the president was going to come back to take office. Local polls showed that nine out of ten of Chávez’s followers interviewed believed that he was coming back.

But the main shock about Chávez’s death differs from whether one is a “Chavista” or not. The country and its institutions lived the last 14 years under the overarching figure of Chavez. He was an authoritarian leader who not only prosecuted opposing leaderships, but also stopped any emerging leadership in his own party. This leaves a huge vacuum in the country. The executive power, as well as the legislative and judiciary, worked under Chávez’s rule and guidance. Thus, what comes next for the country is definitely difficult to project.

The Constitution says that elections must come if the president dies, and the National Electoral Council (CNE- the highest electoral authority in Venezuela), established the presidential election for April 14, 2013.  Both Chávez’s party and the opposition already started campaigns.  On the opposition side, former presidential candidate against Chávez and current Governor of Miranda, Henrique Capriles Radonski has been chosen to run once more in less than a year. On the Chavismo side, Vice President Maduro is running for office. It is necessary to point out that Maduro is also the Transitory President, a fact that violates the Constitution, but since the judiciary is openly politicized in favor of Maduro, he has been allowed to run.

Chávez appointed Maduro as his successor in his last TV broadcast in Dec. 8, 2012. But it is obvious that Maduro is not Chávez; in fact, he does not seem to be able to win an election. The only powerful tool Maduro has is the memory and shadow of Chávez. Since Chávez died and the campaign started, Maduro has named Chávez more than 2,500 times; showing how dependent his candidacy is on the death of the “supreme leader.”

The country will suffer no matter who wins. If Capriles overcomes immeasurable corruption in the election and reaches the presidency, he will have to rule with a parliament against him, a judiciary in favor of the Chavismo, and Armed Forces that have openly said they support Maduro and will do “anything to take him into office.”

If Maduro wins (which seems logical due to the illegal advantage he has – public funding, government money, unlimited TV and radio exposure, the CNE on his side, the Armed Forces openly declaring in favor of him, etc.,) I do not see how he can maintain the system as it is right now. He does not have the charismatic power that Chávez had, and there is not enough leadership in the Chavismo (due to Chávez not allowing anyone to grow) to successfully share the burden of the problems attacking Venezuela now.

The rumors about Chávez’s health finally came to an end with his death, but the questions about the future of the country just started. No matter which party takes office, without a figure like Chávez concentrating the powers that have been accustomed to being centralized for 14 years, the future of the country is a rocky path. Venezuela will suffer changes, and Latin America too, because the shadow of Chávez’s absorbing figure will soon be followed by a vacuum that will hopefully be filled with institutionalization and democracy, not another Chávez.

You cannot, in fact, rent a monkey in Granada. That’s what Galena was trying to tell us at intercambio, a Spanish-English conversational exchange at Café Diurno in the Chueca district of Madrid, Spain. She asked us where we’d travelled so far in Spain, and when the lot of us expressed our deep, undying passion for the Andalucian–albeit hippy—metropolis of Granada, she proceeded to tell us that you could rent a monkey there to give you tours.

I don’t think any of us questioned it, and when, a good ten minutes later, we all realized that she meant to say donkey, the better part of our leftover conversation time was just spent laughing. Though I’m certain that every traveler is issued a nice pair of rose-tinted glasses as soon as they set foot on romantic foreign soil, I still feel compelled to assert that the Spanish people are some of the kindest I have ever met (not to mention tolerant of my terrible language skills.)

There is something to be said for the New Englander, who boils your brain with his eyes if you bump into him, because his friendship is hard-earned, but that doesn’t detract from its twin pillar: the Madrilenian virtue of amiability. My host mother can relate to this cultural difference, as she was telling me at dinner the other night. She’s from the Basque country in the north of Spain, which is apparently the New England of this region.

“The people are nice where I’m from, but the attitude is different,” I told her when she asked me what the most striking difference was between Madrid and Boston. She nodded and said that it surprised her too when she moved here. “When you have a friend there, you have them for life,” she said, “but it costs more.” It seems strangely fitting that appreciation for Madrid as well as for home has come to me simultaneously.

Not to mention that the shoes here are gorgeous. If I had to dispense travel advice to anyone interested in Spain, I would put, “leave money in the budget for shoes,” right after, “live with a host family,” and “make sure to visit El Museo del Prado.”

Luckily, the latter, for Suffolk students, is free and colors the experience of Madrid in the saturated tones of Velazquez and the intricacies of Goya. In every aspect of its culture, Spain invites you in. Through the art, food, language, and lifestyle, Madrid offers a window into the country’s past and present, and, just by being here, I can see the construction of its future in ways either small or significant. As our feet pound the pavement on the sidewalks in Madrid, we walk on this culture, through it, and into it, changing and being changed as we go.

On the early hours of Monday, Feb. 18 a tweet from the Venezuelan President’s Twitter account shook the Venezuelan people. Hugo Chavez let it known that he was back in Venezuela since he left on Dec. 10, 2012 to be intervened in Cuba because of a recurrent cancer.  Nevertheless, Venezuelans have not seen Chavez since Dec. 8, 2012, when he told the country he needed to leave in a mandatory television broadcast.

So far, all Venezuelans know about their president since last December is what the government officials had said. Chavez has not appeared in public; he has not even called to the numerous parades, shows, TV events, and “cadenas” (mandatory TV broadcasts) that his government or his political party has made.  The Government expects Venezuelans to take the word of Vice-President Maduro and the Minister of Communications Villegas as a proof that Chavez is back in the country and he is governing.

But the problem is that the continuous official “report” from the government speakers have presented numerous contradictions. The most sounded one came from Vice-President Madura when he notified the country that Chavez’s health was delicate after telling on TV that the President was doing exercises less than 72-hours before.

Chavez’s situation has created protests in Venezuela. Civil society has expressed through social media, where many Twitter accounts have constantly spread rumors and information about Chavez’s health. Also, a group of students decided to chain themselves in front of the Cuban Embassy in Caracas to call for Chavez to come back.

The first reaction from the overnment to calm down the focus of protests was to release some pictures of the re-elected President, but the pictures also present problems. Many opinions have appeared through social media showing how Chavez’s pictures were photoshopped. However, the greatest incongruence with the pictures is that they do not show Chavez’s tracheotomy, a medical process that the official reports confirmed.

Disregarding the continuous contradictions that the official reports or the incongruences with the pictures, the fact is that not seeing or hearing Chavez once is not trustworthy. The fact is that in the last 14 years of Chavez’s presidency, he has never escaped the public eye for a minute. We are talking about a person that had a Sunday show broadcast on VTV, the state channel.

Moreover, he continuously forced public and private TV to broadcast him in “cadena” where he spent hours talking about his childhood, how he threw a baseball, or singing. Hence, it makes no sense that he has not appeared for over two months if he is in physical conditions to continue in power.

But his public disappearance is not the only odd fact in this story. According to official reports, Chavez arrived at 4:20 am to the country.  There is no video of his arrival, not even a picture. It is difficult to believe that none of the 13 publically owned TV stations failed to cover his arrival. Venezolana de Television (VTV), the main public channel in the country, has never missed any of Chavez’s departures or arrivals.  The question is then why no one broadcasted the “Supreme Leader’s” triumphant arrival back home. How is it possible that a President enters its own country at dark, with no one being able to show an image of it, as if he was a drug package?

The reality is that what one can only corroborate is that the government says Chavez is back and good to hold office. There is no feasible proof to confirm the President’s true condition. In fact, all the evidence proves that Chavez is getting worse everyday. Not a single event in the chronology of his intervention in Cuba matches the profile of the charismatic, arrogant, messianic, and powerful Chavez.

In his proper conditions, I can assure Chavez would have called on Dec. 16, 2012 when his party won 20 of the 23 State Governor’s elections. If Chavez was healthy, he would have at least called when in Feb. 4, 2013 there was a parade commemorating his failed coup d’état more than 20 years ago.

The days are passing and what we only have is a shady rhetoric behind Chavez’s arrival, a lack of a medical report on his true condition, and not a single picture nor video about him. The government says that he cannot talk and his breathing problem is difficult at the moment, but Maduro held a five-hour meeting last Friday in which he assures Chavez took many economic decisions communicating through writing and “other means.”

Therefore, it does not seem that Chavez is in Venezuela. But if he is, then the problem is that the facts suggest he is not in condition to rule, because it is unfeasible that a public servant with the amount of work Chavez has (even though I doubt he completes half of it) can handle six years in office with his health condition, which has left him already mute.

Ten days ago I attended an address given by Canadian academic and politician Michael Ignatieff at Harvard University. In his speech, Ignatieff advocated for a humanitarian “imperative,” arguing for the concept of a responsibility to protect. Naturally this was (or became) an argument for American intervention in the current Syrian conflict. Ignatieff is certainly not alone in supporting direct and/or indirect American intervention in Syria. I have been more than a little surprised and taken aback by the increasingly blurred line between the views of humanitarian neoliberals like Ignatieff and those neoconservatives who have so haunted US foreign policy these past 15 years.

I agree with Vali Nasr, of Johns Hopkins SAIS, that Obama has a feckless and ignorant foreign policy, devoid of global strategic vision, but I am not sure if I disagree with US neutrality in the Syrian conflict as an end per se, however domestically oriented that non-involvement may be. Parenthetically, the United States is a democracy, and the foreign policy of democracies is accountable to and constrained by public opinion, however myopic and/or imbecilic that opinion may (or may not) be.

See “American involvement in World War Two, 09/1939-12/1941” for a clear example of this. There are many aspects of American policy, both foreign and domestic, which could conceivably be improved, were an autocratic government to consider problems and construct a strategic orientation free from the troublesome interference of electoral considerations, but the fact remains that we live in a democratic order, and I don’t perceive a groundswell of support for a change. Perhaps I am mistaken on that, but I think not.

The fact also remains that the US cannot simply be against Assad. There must be some coherent entity for which American policy can stand. That coherent (and politically/morally acceptable) entity does not exist. The human loss/misery is tragic (although a whizz in the wind in relation to the Congo, about which no one seems to care,) but the current situation in the Levant brings to mind the immortal words of Prince von Bismarck: at this geostrategic juncture, it is simply not worth the bones of one (more) of the American equivalent of a Pomeranian grenadier.

We are a nation of debtors whose dysfunctional political system cannot produce a workable budget. A generation of military equipment is at the end of its lifespan and without prospect of immediate replacement. Massive healthcare costs have been incurred in the course of two major wars. Schools, bridges, and roads are all in poor repair. The educational system is financially, morally, and intellectually bankrupt. Millions at home are trapped in ignorance and poverty.

The US cannot (and ideally will not) be the fireman of the Middle East, scorned and despised but ever on call, offering up its sons and daughters (not to mention its treasure) in sacrifice — for what? The United States has tried its hand at playing God, to its great detriment. I wish Syria and the Greater Middle East all the best in a glorious and prosperous future with minimal American participation — which is what its inhabitants have wanted all along, no?

At some point in middle or high school you were likely, hopefully, made to look at a map of the world. You have probably forgotten most of it beyond the basic shape of things, (the African rhino and the massive sprawl of frozen rock that is Russia) and what, with 200 nation-states and countless territories you’ll never even meet anyone from, as well you probably should forget. But it’s interesting to look at one every now and then, to see how things are going, and depending on how long ago high school was, it may look quite different.

In the last five years the world has welcomed a few new nations, or specifically not welcomed them depending on who you ask. As you read this at least ten groups, mostly ethnic and nationalistic, are pleading, arguing, coercing, bribing and bombing their way towards the newest place on that list.

The ones you have heard of, surprisingly, are the ones farthest away from achieving actual independence. ETA, the Basque separatist group who bombed Madrid trains in the 80’s and 90’s, have more or less failed. In fact, their only lasting effect on the international community is the fact that because of them, Spain will never recognize the independence of a splinter group, for fear of encouraging their own separatists to become militant once again.

You will notice that to this day they do not acknowledge Kosovo, who otherwise has 98 supporting UN member states, or Palestine, with 131. The other one you’ve heard of is the tiny “Russian Caucuses,” most notably Georgia (itself more or less a state) and North/South Ossetia. A few years ago they made international headlines when a group of rebels stormed a Russian occupied village and filmed themselves cutting off the heads of a bunch of young Russian soldiers.

Both of these potential secessionist groups cite financial woes as part of their reasons for wanting to leave, but a main reason they’ve not succeeded is because of the ambiguity behind any potential financial benefits from such a drastic move. Indeed, some hardcore Basque nationalists argue that staying attached to Spain while the European Union showers bailout money on them is better than breaking off and trying to fend for themselves. This economic uncertainty is the main factor behind all secessionists’ difficulties, going beyond just the most militant sects.

The newest nonviolent example of these groups is Scotland, who will vote for their independence from the United Kingdom in 2014. The debate on whether to secede is heated, and has recently blown up again following the United Kingdom’s loss of an AAA credit rating from the international watchdog of sorts, Moody, a blow that raised premiums on all of the UK government’s ability to borrow money.

The campaign to prevent an independent Scotland highlighted the UK’s then excellent credit rating and raised the valid point that a fledgling nation, regardless of economic standing would have a hard time reaching such a favorable rating. However, now that the UK has fallen from the world’s most elite borrowers (of which there are only 10-15, all Northern European except for Canada and Australia) this campaign tactic has lost a lot of power. Whether or not Scotland will secede remains to be seen of course, and with polls putting the yes to independence vote at roughly 32 percent, it’s still very much up in the air.

_________________________________

Dan Olson  Journal Staff

Recently, people in regions of Spain and France, known as Catalonia, are pressing the Spanish and French governments for their own independence.  As expected, there is much controversy associated with this movement from both the citizens of Madrid, Southern France, and even citizens in the Catalan region itself.

The belief that Catalonia should be its own independent nation dates back to the early twentieth century, and since then there have been strong feelings towards sovereignty.  Last month, the new parliament of the region approved a new declaration stating that the nation is a sovereign entity, which then allows further steps towards its independence, as stated by the Huffington Post.

According to the Associated Press, “The declaration sets up a potential showdown with the central government in Madrid, which has said it will block any move toward Catalonian independence in the courts.”

With apparently so much determination and potential government backlash, it is expected that a vast majority of citizens living in the Catalan area would be supportive of the movement, especially since it has been in the air for decades; there is even a flag design created for a promising new country.  However, according to a poll by the Huffington Post, only about half of the Spanish or French citizens living within the region known as Catalonia are fully supportive of the sovereignty.

And, while it may be argued that even when America was in the process of becoming an independent nation, not everyone was fully supportive; we certainly had advantages that those in Catalonia do not have.  America occupied its own land, separated from the nation which owned it.  All of the land spread across the Catalan region is occupied by both Spain and France.  While location might not make a difference, if only half of the people living in that region want it to be its own country, living on land owned by two other countries will pose problems for Catalonian Independence activists.

With so much disagreement among governments, the Catalan region may exit the European Union as a result of their independence, which is where many Catalonian citizens are drawing the line.  And, while its independence is imminent, whether or not the regions’ parliament will decide to withdraw from the EU is unclear.  In fact, much of this controversy is unclear.  Reasoning for a sudden push for independence is hard to come by.  Could it be that because the exact reasons were established decades ago, now only the spirit and overall idea of the movement remains?

Suffolk University is lucky to welcome a new club to the ranks this year, as Theresa Stevens puts the final touches on Suffolk’s very own Human Rights Watch. We sat down with Theresa and got an outline of where she’s coming from, and what the clubs bright future looks like.

SJ: What got you into Human Rights Watch specifically, and why did you decide to bring it to Suffolk?

TS: Hm. I can’t pinpoint exactly when my interest in Human Rights started. I started writing for The Voice and realized the only articles I cared to write about were those having to do with Human Rights and issues going on overseas, for example, missing journalists in Syria.

Also, my final paper for my Freshman Seminar last semester was titled “Becoming a Human Rights Advocate: Short and Long Term Goals.” After writing this paper, I realized how passionate I was about becoming a Human Rights advocate and I decided I wanted to encourage others who had similar desires to have an outlet in which to learn about advocating and Human Rights… and that is why I decided to create SU Human Rights Watch.

Q. What sort of goals do you have for the organization’s first year and what will the meetings focus on once they start up?

A. My E-board and I have so many ideas; including: inviting guest speakers from Human Rights organizations such as Amnesty International to come to Suffolk, partnering with Boston-based NGO’s and advocacy groups for various volunteering and fundraising, creating a monthly newsletter which will promote awareness of specific and current Human Rights violations around the globe, and hosting an “Advocacy Training” where any interested student can come to learn about how they can become a successful Human Rights advocate.

Once we have a solid foundation of members, each meeting the members will be separated into their “regional committee” which could be either: the Middle East Committee, the Africa Committee, Asia, Latin America, North America, Eastern Europe and Western Europe. Each member of a committee will be a “correspondent” of their region. The purpose of the committees is to make sure equal attention is given to promoting awareness of Human Rights violations in each part of the world.

Q. In your own opinion, what areas of the world are most in need of third party rights monitoring right now? Where are you specifically interested in working/monitoring?

A. I believe that all parts of the world should be monitored at all times. When you start only paying attention to one part of the world, you can very easily miss a Human Rights violation in another part of the world.

Personally, I’ve been closely monitoring the current Human Rights issues in the Middle East, particularly the Refugee/Internally Displaced Peoples of Syria and its bordering countries. Also, something I follow very closely is the amount of journalists missing around the world, which is currently 232, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists as of December 2012.

Q. What can Suffolk students expect to get from joining? Any potential trips you’d like to organize, any future events?

A. To any and all interested in joining SU Human Rights Watch know this: We have so many great plans for this club and need passionate people who are willing to learn and get excited about advocating for Human Rights. Some future events/trips we are discussing are: A trip abroad! Possibly to Africa or Latin America, though these plans are in the very beginning stages. We also hope to be able to attend the national Human Rights conference hosted annually by Amnesty International.

We want SU Human Rights Watch to become an able network of advocates that have a presence not only in advocating for Human Rights on campus but in the Boston community as well.

Alex Hall  Managing Editor

The Chinese New Year, more formally known as the Lunar New Year, was celebrated with a diverse and engaged crowd at Suffolk‘s 73 Tremont building last Monday. The Chinese Scholar Student Association at Suffolk organized the event, drawing both students and faculty of all national and ethnic backgrounds.

It has become a pivotal part of Suffolk’s tradition to welcome cultures from across the globe with open arms. Large portions of Suffolk students are international students, allowing for a diverse and well-rounded community on campus. This effort was exhibited at this year’s Lunar New Year on Campus.

Traditional Chinese instruments were played throughout the event with authentic Chinese clothing on display as well. It was an atmosphere that made more than a few of Suffolk’s Chinese community feel at home during the holiday.

The Lunar New Year is celebrated worldwide and represents the first day of the first month of the Chinese calendar. With a long and enduring history, the New Year is actively celebrated in areas of the world with significant Chinese populations in Southeast Asian countries such as Singapore and Malaysia, but is not limited to simply regional sentiments. Making it all the way to Suffolk’s Boston campus, the New Year has given students of Chinese decent, those on exchanges or studying in the United States for the entirety of their studies, a chance to find a piece of their native culture.

The event was well received, displaying native instruments, wide-ranging cuisine, and historical attire that represent a long history established through evolving dynasties, religions, and cultural norms. Suffolk students participating in the event had a great deal to say on their role in the event as well as their feelings of being away from home on this important, cherished day in China.

“It can be hard to celebrate [while in Boston] and this helps with the homesickness,” Suffolk sophomore Xingyng Mei said while in line for Chinese food, which she was also excited for.

“I also got lots of lucky money,” she explained.

Lucky money is often given to children by their parents or relatives on the New Year in a red envelope, which symbolizes good luck and is believed to prevent evil spirits.

Mei was not alone in her excitement for the free lunch, with many waiting in line for several minutes for the wide variety of Chinese food available. After the line had died down and students began to mingle amongst themselves, fellow Suffolk students began to play music using instruments native to China.

Accounting graduate students Crnyin Fan and Yi Gao were at the booth displaying the Chinese attire and explained how they celebrate the holiday back in China and adjusting to celebrating in Boston.

“If you’re in China, everyone goes to their hometown and families get together just like Christmas,” Fan said.

As for celebrating abroad, Gao said “people here are very nice,” and she has adjusted to being in Boston for the celebration.

On the Suffolk campus, there is an active effort made to embrace the cultural norms and traditions of the wide-spread nationalities and religions that call Suffolk their home for their undergraduate degrees or even longer. From the Saudi National Day to events such as the Caribbean Student Network, traditional cuisine, clothing, and practices are displayed on campus to promote an often hard to come by understanding.

As previously stated in the Suffolk Journal, some students on campus have not been immune to this distress. Suffolk student from Mali, Dauda Wague, had family in a town that was briefly seized by the Islamist militants, but thankfully he has finally contacted his family who “are safe and happy that nothing happened. The network in the town was not repaired for a while,” Wague stated, but eventually they got in contact.

“The Islamists in my family’s town,” said Wague, “came to avoid bombing by the French. The Islamists did not fit in in the town, they just came and bought what they wanted, did not steal anything or talk to anyone.”

According to Wague, the Islamist militants have been able to hide in the north, because they are amongst populations speaking the same language and of similar appearance. In many instances, the French military has easily taken over towns in Northern Mali because the militants are covered for by their families or people associated with the cause; or they camp out just beyond the towns’ limits.

“The Islamist extremists knew the French were coming,” said Wague. Therefore, the militants either fled or dissociated with any militaristic motivation.

This is the current issue facing the city of Gao, in Northern Mali, at the moment. Fire has been exchanged for a few days now, forcing the French to come back and support the Malian army. The militants blend in and make it difficult to tell who is or is not an enemy.

Fortunately, the Islamist extremists, who were well armed with runoff from the regime backing Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, have been forced into the depths of the desert and mountains in the North. For both the Malian and French militaries, the potential of guerilla-style-fighting style has surfaced feelings nothing short of trepidation. This discreet and ruthless fighting method, which led to the unremitting and arduous demise of the U.S. campaign in Korea in 1950, could draw out a much longer and indecisive battle. 

To further complicate Mali’s already trying state of affairs, issues within the Malian military itself have surfaced. According to Reuters, paratroopers who were “loyal to deposed President Amadou Toumani Toure,” were fired upon in their home, killing and wounding citizens. This event, which occurred in Mali’s capital, Bamako, speaks to the instability and security fears the country is facing.  Toure was the president ousted via military coup in 2012 which led to the initial takeover by the Tuareg rebels in Northern Mali, according to Reuters.

Recent attacks in the Northern area of Mali have included a suicide bombing at a checkpoint, merely wounding one soldier at the station. This wide-ranging instability around Mali has the potential to digress the efforts taken by France. Cohesive policy and recognition, according to Reuters, will need to play a role in the success of a prosperous and civil Mali in the future.

Dauda Wague has expressed concerns for the future of Mali with a simple and vivid declaration. “It’s really scary,” he says. The war has not seen its end and it is very uncertain how it will play out. In terms of the French role, Wague suggested that “You cannot say that you don’t support what France is doing, but the future prove hard because without France, the terrorists will take over.”

The role France has played has been convoluted and contradictory according to Wague. It is a “tragedy,” Wague said, “that France lit the fire and are now playing the fireman.” He is speaking to the overarching theme of how France initially, under President Sarkozy’s rule, supported the Tuareg revolution in the North of Mali and eventually gave Algeria the go-ahead on allowing fighters in the rebellion against Gaddafi to cross their border freely into Mali.

Furthermore, the future is uncertain according to Wague because of the wide-ranging economic issues facing the country. Ever since the coup d ‘etat that ousted President Toule, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) initiated an embargo on Mali which forced many large investors to pull out of the country. Moreover, wartime in any country proves devastating on local business, and Wague is unsure about their ability to rebound without the flow of capital that investors previously supplied.

The atmosphere in Mali has shown signs of recovery and stabilizing with recent efforts focused only in the Northern desert area of Mali, but the lingering effects of the conflict do not promote such an optimistic view. From business volatility to insecure allegiances, Mali has a long way to go before their formerly admirable democracy shows signs of reform and progress toward a secure and developing society.

Once again Egyptians are out in the streets. Two years after Mubarak’s Egyptian regime collapse and glimpses of a democratic government were underway, current President Muhammad Morsi is decreasing hopeful expectations that had inspired and captured the hearts and visions of many, over an optimistic future of change and prosperity.

Since the elected Muslim Brotherhood party has seemingly failed to establish democratic measures and is now seeking increasingly more power, the peoples’ unanimous strive to achieve Egypt’s freedom is still vibrant and represents an escape from the country’s totalitarian past.  Thousands of people are currently protesting in the streets against the party’s intent to seek authority and lay the foundations to a regime strikingly analogous to the previous one.

Muhammad Morsi is failing in many ways to arouse the country’s uncontrolled desire to strive towards democratic political ideals. As the weekly journal The Economist reported “Mr. Morsi should present himself as president of all Egyptians, whatever they think Islam should play in public life. He should also improve the police and the courts by slowly trying to instill democratic values.”

This civil uproar seems more anarchic and vengeful than the revolution in 2011. This is mostly the case because the government has not enacted the promises that the people have waited so long for. Additionally, the riots are leading the country to further economic distress and towards a second revolution. Chances are that the people will overthrow the president and call up for new elections. Either President Muhammad Morsi embraces new diplomatic measures of openness to increase his nation’s economy or he will have to face civil outrage.

Tahir Square, the main center where the first demonstrations began, is yet again filled with protestors and demonstrators opposing the government’s decisions.

The newly drafted constitution includes a particular interpretation of Islamic law, which, according to the opposition, raises fears over totalitarian measures that the Brotherhood might want to use in order to gain control over the population.

The Brotherhood seems to be strikingly similar to the political conception of “Big Brother” described in George Orwell’s novel, 1984. A distant entity that ensures happiness and freedom yet annihilates the population’s mindfulness of independent ideas and rules. A loving government body that the population describes as a caregiver and affectionate family member, who, on the contrary, savagely brainwashes the civilians’ understanding of reality.

Egypt’s problem lies in its constitution and its increase in the government’s individual power. The constitution must be rephrased to give people experience a true democracy. As State Department official Victoria Nuland said,  “One of the aspirations of the revolution was to ensure that power would not be overly concentrated in the hands of any one person or institution.”

Additionally, in referring to the constitution, she also said that “the current constitutional vacuum in Egypt can only be resolved by the adoption of a constitution that includes checks and balances, and respects fundamental freedoms, individual rights and the rule of law consistent with Egypt’s international commitments.” Since the people are endlessly striving for individual freedom, government leaders around the world believe the nation will eventually escape this vacuum of repression and eventually endorse the just values of a democratic governance.