Media as a watchdog in International Politics?

The mass media, often the only form of education to some, has a very powerful influence over people's beliefs and opinions regarding everyday life issues since it keeps people updated and informed about the events that are taking place around the world. This influence could not be more evident than anaysing the relationship between the media and politics as the politics is one of the main components of our day to day living and the media is the major source of information about political affairs. On the one hand, the media has control over what we know about political system and what we never find out and because of this the media possesses a certain “hold” over the political arena such as passing judgement, approval or criticism on politicians, parties and other influencial public figures. On the other hand, the information which the media provides can mobilize the public attitudes and opinions towards political actors and events. Therefore, political parties are very cautious in their relationship with the media, quite often they attempt to keep the media on their side.

To see the vital role of media in mobilization of masses, let us have a look at the “real life” example of recent political uprising stamped as Arab Spring in the history. Interestingly, when the case of Arab Spring is mentioned, the mass media is described not as the press, TV and radio, but as social media including Twitter, Facebook, Blogs and even Phone messages.

After analysing millions of tweets, hundreds of youtube videos and thousands of blogs, new study concludes that the role of social media in shaping the political debates in the Arab Spring is central. Conversations by civilians on social media continiously instigated new major events and the stories shared by protests via social media spread across international borders.

“Our evidence suggests that social media carried a cascade of messages about freedom and democracy across North Africa and the Middle East, and helped raise expectations for the success of political uprising,” said Philip Howard, the project lead and an associate professor in communication at the University of Washington.  “People who shared interest in democracy built extensive social networks and organized political action. Social media became a critical part of the toolkit for greater freedom.”

The revolution which started in Tunisia and Egypt led individuals in other countries to pick up the conversation and debating contentious issues across the region. Howard said that despite the fact that social media did not cause the upheaval in North Africa, they definitely altered the capacity of citizens to affect domestic politics. Ironically, government attempts to crack down on social media has caused more political activism. Especially in Egypt, mostly middle-class Egyptians went out to the streets when they could no longer follow the unrest on social media...

From the recent experience, one can come to conclusion that revolutions in the 21^st century might not be televised – but surely be tweeted, blogged, texted or communication through different social media tools. In addition, the public sense of shared grievance and potential for political transformation can develop rapidly as the social media can easily be utilized to build solidarity and organize demonstrations by the fragmented political opposition members.

September 11, 2001 as an inside job?

Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy theory is, according to the Oxford Dictionay, “a belief that some covert but influencial organization is responsible for an unexplained event.” Thinking about the mentioned definition of conspiracy gives birth to multiple questions, a major one being as “Who is going to explain the events?” A government? Are any other explanations, except the governmental version of the story, considered a Conspiracy Theory?

The government of a state is undoubtedly an influencial organization, but what if the same government implements covert operations for the benefit of the few in the “club” and an “outsider” attempts to investigate it, is the result of that investigation also considered a Conspiracy Theory? Below, we are going to have a look at a relative 'incident' that have been labelled as “Conspiracy Theory”.

Semtember 11, 2001

Basically, official version of the event grants Al-Qaeda and its leader Osama bin Laden with the whole responsibility. Why was the US chosen as target state? A few explanations are highlighted including the horrible treatment of Arabs in Palestine by the US sponsored Israel; The US military presence in Saudi Arabia where two holy cities of Muslims-Mecca and Medina located and; The US sunctions on Iraq. Despite the government's version of story is dominant, for my simple mind, the conspicuous explanations seem more logical and quite entertaining. Here is why? The US has invaded Afganistan and Iraq despite the fact that two of the plane hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, and the US started pulling out its troops from Afganistan at almost when Osama bin Laden was cornered. The evidences do not put the whole blame on the US government but suggest that the government lied in its relationship with the people involved in 9/11, not for the protection of the US citizens but for their own protection. Of course, there are other dimensions advice that the US would not have been able to have “War on Iraq without 9/11. The failure of the government claims such as existence of WMD which was crucial to support War on Iraq policy prior to invasion earns noticeable credits for Conspiracy Theory that portrays the true intention of the US as plundering oil resources and supporting radical militias to gain geopolitical advantage in the region. If one critically analyse the US policy in the Middle East, the conclusion could turn what is labelled as “conspiracy theory” into something more true and convincing that the version which the US government presented.

To conclude, I am not deriding the US government as the doers of evil by sharing my humble perspective but more intended to look at the event from the different angle.

Koch Brothers Exposed (Documentary, 2012)

The documentary movie I was attached with to review is called “Koch Brothers Exposed” was produced in 2012 by American filmmaker Robert Greenwald to bring the alleged political activities of billionaire Koch Brothers into light. The documentary, from its inception, attempts to portray Charles and David Koch's negative impact on different aspects of American life. The billionaire Koch Brothers are described as “the poster boys of 1 percent” and their Koch Industries is one of the largest privately owned firms in the US with the estimated annual revenue of $100 billion. The critics argue that the extraordinary wealth and overwhelming political influence of Koch Brothers harms the environment, education, political campaign finance and labor rights.

In introductory part, the documentary claims that Koch Brothers inherited wealth was build by their father Fred Koch , a founder of John Birch Society, by working for Joseph Stalin. In a campaign video, US Senator Bernie Sanders asserts that the Koch Brothers fund think tank officials, media and politicians to promote three ideas: the need to raise the age of retirement, the notion that the social security system is going bankrupt, and the idea that social security should be privatized. Meanwhile, members of the general public compares and contrast their own lifestyle, supported by the social security system, with those of Koch brothers.

Regarding to the Koch Brothers involvement in educational aspect, the main focus is concentrated on the re-segregation of schools namely, the idea of black people should not be studying with the white ones, and having excessive control over the recruitment, syllabus design, research and publishing with the aim of exposing students exclusively to their ideology and point of view at colleges and universities.

Later in the movie, the Koch Brothers' alleged involvement in political campaign financing is underlied by accusing them on “buying the democracy...getting Republicans elected and buying their votes on public policy issues and environmental issues.'' A few interviewed say that the Koch Brothers use financial influence over politicians such as Representative Fred Upon and Governor Scott Walker to kill envronmental regulation and bust trade unions. Also, the Koch Brothers are critisized for intending to disfranchise African-American, Latino, elderly, young and disabled voters.

About the environmental part, the residents of the district nearby the Koch Industries, complain about environmental pollution and the Keystone Pipeline in particular is mentioned to be a great cause of cancer in the community of that neighbourhood.

In the end, a brief epilogue featuring news footage from anti-Koch protests around the country calls for unity in exposing the Koch brothers. Well, the film also mentions about some statistics such as how much money was “donated” to who, what, where and so on, yet I did not find them necessary to write them here.

To share my humble opinion, I do not know if the information of the documentary is absolutely reliable, but if even it were, it would have been totally “unethical” to accuse the Koch Brothers on the activities they have been committing. I am not trying to defend them in any sense, (well, if they have a bit of humanity, they shall not be acting in a way they do.), however, if the system in which they are living/functioning/doing business allows them to do so, then its not the them to blame, but the system. And my advice for those who are trying to fight the Koch Brothers, you'd better fight the system, because it's the system that is capable of designing such “professionals”. How to fight the system? Ask for my phone number on the comment and invite me for a cup of coffee!!! ;)

Scramble for the Arctic region?

The Arctic while holding 13 percent of world's undiscovered oil and about 30 percent of its untapped natural gas as well as other resources-trillions of dollars of potential profit, is becoming a hot region for intensified competition and conflicts among the Arctic region states for dominance as well as an increasing number of non-Arctic states for booming their influence during the recent decades. Meanwhile, environmental issues such as global warming along with complementary interests of competing states are serving to initiate bi/multilateral cooperations concerning the future of the region. The aim of this blog is to simplify the interests of a few largely involved states, and their possible contribution for the future well-being of the Arctic region.

The Arctic region is made up of three groups of distinct state actors: the Arctic Ocean coastal states- Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the US; the Arctic nations gathering together the five Arctic coastal states and although possessing no direct borders on the Arctic, Finland, Iceland and Sweden are usually also considered Arctic states and take part in the Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for Arctic governments and peoples; and the group of non-Arctic states. Apparently, all these three groups of distinct state actors are competing and cooperating over their complementary interests and to attain the sphere of influence in the region. For the sake of this blog, we are going to look at a few of those "active" actors.

Russia

Russia, as an Arctic coastal state, has sovereign and jurisdictional rights in the arctic region, including exploration and exploitation of natural resources, fishing, and shipping along the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The Arctic region has become a top priority of Russian foreign policy in the last decades since the development of the Russian Arctic zone- if successfully conducted- would not only enable Russia to regain its status of a great Arctic power as it was during the Soviet times, but also provide the country with considerable economic gains. Half of the Arctic resources (52%) are located in the Russian sector, and the Northern Sea Route has the potential to become „the new passage of world economics and international strategies” since, in ice-free shipping conditions, the route would reduce the distance from Rotterdam to Southeast Asia and could cut transit time by 10-15 days.

China

Since China is a non-Arctic state, its rights in the Arctic are limited through under international law. However, China has recently declared itself of being a „near Arctic state”, and expressed its will to assert ins interests in the region by becoming more active in Arctic discussions. According to Chinese view, the Arctic is a region that represents global issues, which must be addressed not only by Arctic nations but also by the entire international community. So, in short, China's interests in the Arctic can be divided into three groups: economic interests such as natural resources, transportation and logistics; geopolitical interests as military and strategic spheres; and environmental, climatic and other scientific and research interests.

US

The United States is considered an Arctic nation by way of its Alaskan coastline. During the height of the Cold War, the Arctic region was considered a geostrategic and geopolitical playground for the US and the Soviet Union. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the Arctic region significantly diminished in strategic importance to the US. Two decades later, the access to vast hydracarbon reserves, huge oil reserves and one third of world untapped natural gas reserves along with mineral deposits has increased this region's strategic significance for the US. The US also recognizes the necessity of balancing its economic and environmental interests in the Arctic. It prioritizes environmental protection of the Arctic through scientific exploration, environmentally sound oil and gas extraction methods, sustainable management of fisheries, and working with indigenous communities to mitigate the effects of climate change on their way of life.

Canada

As an Arctic state, Canada is demonstrating effective stewardship and leadership internationally, to promote stable, rules-based Arctic region where the rights of sovereign states are respected in accordance with international law and diplomacy. Additionally, Canada has long been working with its international Arctic neighbours in areas such as search and rescue, icebreaker operation, fish and wildlife conservation, transportation, research, energy and environment. The Government of Canada is taking action to unlock and encourage future exploration and development of mines and massive oil and gas reserves, tourism industry and other critical infrastructures in the region.

In conclusion, with greater accessibility to the Arctic region and its abundant resources come both new opportunities for multilateral cooperation and the potential for regional competition and dispute, particularly conflicting territorial claims and managing maritime resources. Disagreements among the Arctic states might cause an individual Arctic nation to become increasingly assertive in their resources and territorial claims, which has the potential to lead the militarization of the Arctic.