With Clement Lai, Assistant Professor in the City and Regional Department and the Asian American Studies at Cornell University,
When: Mar. 3rd (next Wednesday); 6 to 7:00pm
Where: Af- Am House, 211 Park Street
On February 23, 2010, the Muslim Students Association and the International Students Organization cosponsored a panel on U.S. counter-terrorism politics, featuring Professor Charles Hill, Yale’s diplomat-in-residence, and Alejandro Beutel, the government liaison of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. The discussion panel focused on the U.S. heightened air travel security policies after the Christmas Day bombings.
Beutel's Views
Beutel believes that the latest policy of the TSA, which involves heightened security screenings of nationals from fourteen designated countries, is not effective. In his view, Al-Qaeda is a transnational organization and therefore is not merely composed of individuals of a specific country or region. There is no reliable terrorist profile. This security measure does not prevent terrorists from going through other countries and only displaces the problem, while telling terrorists our strategy.
Beutel’s alternative is to create multiple layers of defenses and security measures, while fixing bureaucratic problems. He states that bureaucratic inefficiencies had contributed to preventing the sharing of information that could have precluded several terrorist incidents. These inefficiencies include techniques such as data mining that inundate the system with useless information. However, he remains strongly in support of strong legal defenses for all individuals.
Professor Hill's Views
Professor Hill states that it is hard to analyze the effectiveness of the policies because they deal with complex issues. However, he is in support of the current strategy, because it is a responsible step to take, based upon other states’ abilities to control security. There are realities of patterns of conduct and authorities should take action against known behavior. He added that the current list is not a closed list, and new states may be added as new developments occur.
Without this strategy, Professor Hill believes that the only other alternative would be to subject everyone to heightened security like the Israeli system, which would shut down the economy. He argues that the current system is not broken but “has done remarkably well.” Regarding civil liberties, he states that people who choose to travel by air should have to be subject to heightened screenings. He is not in favor of “intrusion” but says “we have to deal with it.” Air travel is such a unique and dangerous situation, and he comments, “We’re all in this together.”
I was disappointed in the performance of Professor Hill. He seemed to not put too much effort into the debate by being vague and apathetic. Instead, he relied on his ethos and reputation to carry him through. On the other hand, Beutel was extremely prepared and armed with facts, studies, and detailed statistics. It was an interesting contrast to see Beutel argue earnestly and intensely, while Professor Hill spoke in lackadaisical and half-hearted way. Therefore, it was unfortunate that I was convinced by Beutel’s argument so easily because I’m sure there are concrete reasons for the new policy.
The above image is courtesy of http://gis.nwcg.gov/.
His father was a banker and his mother was of the landlord class. In 1949, the Communist Party caused a purging of the entire landlord and bourgeoisie classes. At this time, Mr. Wu was still a young student and was not entirely aware of the situation. However, he became aware of the human rights violations committed during the Hundred Flowers/Anti-Rightist Movement, in which the government cracked down on over 1.2 million intellectuals.
In 1960 Mr. Wu was arrested and was labeled as a counter-revolutionary rightist. He spent 19 years in 12 different labor camps, called laogai, including a coal mine and a brick factory. During his time in these camps, he almost died from the work, abuse, and lack of food. After the revolutionary leader Mao Zedong died, the political atmosphere lightened and Mr. Wu was released in 1979. He came to the U.S. as a visiting scholar at UC Berkeley and tried to forget his past nightmare. “Close old chapter, open new chapter” was his slogan.
In 1990 he was called upon to testify in the U.S. Senate about his experiences. After this he again became political active, establishing the Laogai Research Foundation, which seeks information about how many prisoners are in laogai and spreads awareness of rights violations in China. This led to him being blacklisted again by the PRC and arrested, only to be deported to the U.S, where he currently resides.
His Views
Mr. Wu holds strong views about spreading the knowledge of laogai and human rights violations in general. According to him, more people died in laogai than in Soviet gulags, yet not many people know of laogai. He wishes for the U.S. government to condemn Chinese violations of rights, including population control, lack of religious freedom, and prison labor and organ transplants from executed prisoners.
It was extremely inspiring and moving to hear of Mr. Wu’s struggles and triumphs and we are honored that he came to speak to us. “I am not a hero,” he states humbly. However, I believe he is a hero to those who have died and who still labor in laogai by continuing their fight for recognition and rights. To learn more about his work and his foundation, visit http://laogai.org/
This image is courtesy of http://www.isu.edu/.
DATE: Wednesday, February 24th, 2010
TIME: 5:00PM – 6:30PM
PLACE: WLH 207
***FREE PAPA JOHN’S PIZZA AND DRINKS!***
RSVP to jenny.mei@yale.edu
We’ve all talked about our cultural identities, torn between the two worlds of Asia and America. But what about our political one? How do we, as Asian-Americans, deal with political tensions between our native country in Asia and the United States? Do you feel caught between defending your home country and your Western political ideals?
Come talk about your political identity at the Politics Over Pizza Discussion Panel, featuring the following upperclassmen as discussion leaders:
-Carl Kubler – TC ‘10
-Rich Tao – SM ‘10
-Ray Wang – BR ‘10
-James Kim – DC ‘11
-Susan Liu – MC ‘10
-Faizaan Kisat – BR ‘12
The event is an open forum and everyone can participate! So come and express your opinion on this pressing issue that is becoming increasingly prominent in our lives.
Flyer from MSA Meet & Greet, the kickoff event for Islamic Awareness Month at YaleMeet and Greet
This month the Muslim Student’s Association of Yale is hosting a series of events as part of Islamic Awareness Month. Their first event was the kick-off meet and greet. So many people showed up that by the time I arrived a lot of the (TURKISH!) food was gone. But no worries because they still had a chocolate fountain.
Over 100 people attended the conference.
There was a noticeable buzz when I arrived in the Dwight Hall Chapel. Students from Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, and even Brandies had traveled to Yale for the first ever Ivy Muslim Conference. Inclement weather had forced several schools’ delegations and two key speakers from DC to cancel last minute, but the conference was still well underway. Though I couldn’t grasp the meaning of the introductory prayer read from the Qur’an, I was still astounded by the audience. Among the 50 or so seated people and the dozen or more standing around there was much more ethnic diversity than I had expected. Of course I had met Caucasian Muslims before and had a Chinese Muslim friend in high school but I went into the conference without remembering that Islam transcends race. This small insight got me thinking a lot; this would be a running theme throughout the day.
Last week was a very busy one in politics. On Wednesday, President Obama gave his first State of the Union Address. Given the tough political climate, it was clearly an important speech, and the president and his team were well prepared, shifting the focus to jobs and the economy. Health care reform wasn’t even mentioned until after the first half hour, but Obama still urged Congress not to give up on it yet. He made a lot of swings at the Republicans and took some jabs at his own party as well, challenging both parties to lead the country. He surprisingly made a direct mention of the Supreme Court and its decision on federal election spending, which usually does not happen in political speeches. (Not to be outdone, Justice Alito reacted visibly, which was not supposed to happen as well.) Obama also spent a lot of time talking about the culture of Washington and what it needs to clean up: the permanent election, playing politics with Senate confirmation of public officials, zero-sum game mentality, and the general cynicism and disillusionment these problems create.
One could sense that President Obama was frustrated with Congress, and perhaps that’s not a bad thing given that he’s often criticized for not showing enough emotion or fight. If his critics wanted more, President Obama gave a speech to the Republican party at their retreat in Maryland and offered a question-and-answer time. “President’s Question Time” as it’s been called is similar to a practice in British Parliament in which the Prime Minister takes questions from the opposition party, basically a weekly debate between the parties. Obama has generated a lot of buzz with his visit to the Republicans, as pundits generally agree that the President nailed it, proving his knowledge on a many crucial issues and presenting his position very well on everything the 100+ Republican members of Congress threw at him.
