|
#
|
Title of Article
|
Date of Issue
|
Focal Country/
Countries
|
Focus of Article
(politics, economy, social, etc.)
|
Brief Synopsis of article (one paragraph)
|
Of all the things you learned after reading this article, what one thing stands out the most? Why?
(Explain your thought process; paragraph form)
|
What is the most probing question you have about what you learned? Follow-on questions are good.
(Explain your thought process; paragraph form)
|
|
1
|
The Leaders of Kosovo and Serbia Talk About Swapping Land
|
August 30th, 2018
|
Serbia, Kosovo
|
Political
|
20 years after the Yugoslav wars, thousands of people reside in a state that they do not call their own. In an attempt to relocate these individuals, Kosovo and Serbia are looking into swap the northern portion of Kosovo for the Presevo Valley in Serbia. On an international stage, several countries, including the United States, have warmed to the idea of this trade. However, some analysts believe that this trade proposal is a façade for a different trade between the two countries; Kosovo’s autonomy in exchange for Serbian recognition on a global stage.
|
My knowledge of this part of the world is negligible. Until today, I was unaware of the Yugoslav wars. However, the part of this article that resonated most with me was the idea of land swapping being a veil for the true deal; Kosovo’s autonomy in exchange for Serbian global recognition. There are two parts of this exchange that intrigued me: international politicians having to decipher one another’s intent of dealing without outright expressing their desires and the need for Serbia to gain recognition within the region.
American cultural norms contend that we have a low power distance between us and our peers. We tend to get to be concise about what it is we are requesting other people to do. However, other countries, such as Kosovo and Serbia, appear to have a much higher power distance. Of course, when talking with other world leaders, tact is a very useful skill, but going as far as creating a faux deal to mask their real intentions is seems tiresome. This kind of negotiation adds a whole new layer to an already complex issue.
The other thing that stood out to me was Serbia’s desire to gain recognition on the world stage. As an American, I am very used to America being included in world negotiations. It seldom crosses my mind that other countries need to actively seek out global recognition. This is obvious negligence towards international affairs, but it was something that stood out to me nonetheless.
|
The biggest question I had after reading this article was whether an international debate, such as this, would cause a continued invitation to the international negotiation tables or if Serbia would have to keep making deals to be asked back to the table. In my mind, I would assume that this would not be enough for a country to gain continued international recognition, but then I was wondering how smaller countries would ever earn a seat. Unless a small country continually causes conflict, the larger nations appear more than happy to ignore them. On the contrary, countries that are continually problematic are also infrequently asked to the table. For example, North Korea is a constant global threat and other major superpowers tend to negotiate without them. In all, this made it seem that small countries have no power to control to whether they are a part of the global discussion.
The other question that I had was the socio-political backlash of making a deal like this. Because Serbia recognizes Kosovo as a part of Serbia, it seems unlikely that the Serbian people would be keen to acknowledge Kosovo as autonomous. As such, Serbian politicians are likely not eager to jeopardize their position of power over a matter like this. It makes me wonder how deeply the politicians want to be a part of the European Union compared to the citizens of Serbia. Alternatively, this could be a political stunt made to look either side appear at fault. It is possible that Serbia is not interested in any negotiations that could result in political backlash.
Many issues surround this deal, and there are many outcomes. As such, many of these questions are speculative. However, they are worth consideration in such a diverse political climate.
|
|
2
|
Falun Gong still worries China, despite efforts to crush the sect
|
Aug. 30, 2018
|
China
|
Politics
|
China has been run by the communist party for many years. However, there has been opposition brewing, primarily from an anti-communist party known as the Falun Gong. The Falun Gong has weakened in numbers since the 1990’s because of oppression from the leading communist party. The communist party regularly makes public arrests of followers to dissuade others from supporting the party. Despite these veiled threats, the party still has many active followers. One of which being the Shun Yun performance group, who created a show based in anti-communist ideology. The communist party has worked to halt these shows, but they have had little success.
|
For me, the thing that stands out most is the active oppression that the Falun Gong is experiencing. In a country that elected their president to hold the position indefinitely, it should not come as a surprise that the leading party is looking to stay in control. However, it is easy for me to forget that other countries do not hold the same values of speech that we do. Going one layer deeper, it is very interesting that the communist party is fearful of these anti-communist displays. In large part, they have had success eradicating the Falun Gong. However, they still feel the need to continue making public displays to dissuade new followers. The communist party lives under constant paranoia of negative public perception. Meanwhile, the anti-communist parties live under fear of unfair persecution. In a system so saturated by one party, one would think that party would not fear others. This power paranoia is what I found most interesting about this article.
|
The biggest question that I had while reading this was the actual belief system of the Falun Gong. The article states that the party was not initially anti-communist, but upon being oppressed, that is the direction that the party headed. The malleability of their belief system calls into question the validity of their party. For instance, if the Falun Gong did find their way into power, would their platform be dismantling communism, or would it be more complex than this. If the party rose to power, how would they deal with censorship? Would they continue as is, or overhaul the entire country’s laws? My point being, if the party did rise to power, would they have the formal infrastructure within their party to enact meaningful change? Finally, how would the Falun Gong go about ousting the corruption that has rooted itself within the political system? The article does not describe their ideology, only saying that they are “anti-communist”.
While the odds are unlikely that the communist party will be overthrown by the Falun Gong, it is helpful to know the party’s stances in order to create a strong opinion on the subject.
|