Political Writing - U.S. Shutdown impacts the Global Economy and Syrian Conflict

Approximately seven days have passed since the United States Congress has enacted a government shutdown. All pressing matters pertaining to American and international operations have been pushed aside until Democratic Senate and Republican House members can reach an agreement about spending priorities for 2014. Fox News reports that the slimdown that kicked in October 1 has also resulted in Congress delaying work on other, pressing matters because members have had to slash their staff, which organizes hearings and helps draft legislation.

Each side blames the other for their unwillingness to negotiate these matters while citizens are penalized by issues revolving the shutdown. Some American workers are on furlough, not receiving paychecks timely, and wondering about the long-term effects that the shutdown will have on domestic soil as well as international affairs.

The United States is one of the world’s primary economic powers, and CNN states that when similar issues emerged in 2011, UK Business Secretary Vince Cable lamented that a bunch of "right-wing nutters" was holding the American government and the world economy to ransom by refusing to agree the usually routine increase in America's legal debt limit. World leaders might avoid the blunt description used by Cable but their thoughts are probably very similar. The U.S. is, once again, having another political gunfight over public funding and debt issues.

In addition to the impact on the global economy, Homeland Security remains to be questioned. So how does the shutdown impact potential threats and acts of war? Our financial security? Our chemical inspection facilities?

Facts:

• Hundreds of thousands of Federal employees including many charged with protecting us from terrorist threats, defending our borders, inspecting our food, and keeping our skies safe will work without pay until the shutdown ends.

• During a federal funding hiatus, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must be able to cease its government operations in an orderly fashion. Certain functions and activities that will be permitted to continue are “exempt” from work restrictions specified in the Anti-Deficiency Act.  The Department has developed the procedures outlined in this contingency plan that all DHS components must adhere to in the case of a funding hiatus.

• Work to protect consumers, ranging from child product safety to financial security to the safety of hazardous waste facilities, will cease. The EPA will halt non-essential inspections of chemical facilities and drinking water systems.

ABC News says: The Department of Homeland Security, meanwhile, is maintaining most of its security functions, such as border patrol, cybersecurity, Travel Security Agency travel screenings, TSA air marshals, Coast Guard maritime security, and port security, according to its shutdown plan–pretty much everything you’d think to worry about, in terms of security-related federal employees. Agencies have exempted from furlough employees whose jobs relate to the safety of life and property. The White House did not publish shutdown plans for CIA and NSA. But Treasury’s offices responsible for combating terrorist finances and financial crimes have been scaled back by the shutdown, too, the official said.

These statements essentially mean that Americans are left wide open for any type of attack – financial, terrorists, and other forms of assaults – due to our limited human resources because of the government shutdown. The Syrian conflict has been circulating reporting platforms in both traditional and new media arenas, particularly over the previous few months. With the government shutdown and the threat of chemical warfare from Syria, it is no wonder why Americans are on edge about the recent turn of events.

Additional reading and articles of interest

Reuters: U.S. Shutdown hurts enforcement of Iran, Syria sanctions

ABC News: Shutdown hinders Iran, Syria Sanctions Enforcement, Treasury Official Says

Political Writing - Must the U.S. Congress Approve International Attacks?

According to CNN and Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to allow U.N. teams to access chemical weapons sites. The civilian attack near Damascus on August 21 prompted the urgency for the investigation, and since then, tensions have increased across the U.S. concerning our prospective role in the conflict. President Obama has sought authorization from Congress to initiate international military action in the name of foreign policy.

As I follow media reports regarding the Syrian conflict and U.S. intervention, I continuously read posts from commenters asking: “Does the President need to gain Congress approval to launch an international attack?” In response, the public is divided. Some American citizens believe that President Obama must have Congress approval, while other disagree but feel that Congress approval will be helpful.

The media has perpetuated the idea that President Obama does not have the authority, nor the backing by government officials, to involve U.S. troops in conflicts abroad. For example, headliners across reporting agencies include CBC News: Syria attack illegal without Security Council approval, UN warns; MSNBC: UN suggests American attack on Syria would be illegal; and Aljazeera: Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and dangerous contradict other headliners such as RT: Obama asserts right to strike Syria without congressional approval; New American: Ex-Defense Chiefs Say Obama Can Strike Syria Without OK from Congress; and Fox News: Like it or not, Constitution allows Obama to strike Syria without Congressional approval.

Such reporting platforms have misled the public by demonstrating varying understandings of U.S. regulations pertaining to international threat and potential war. The purpose of this week's blog is to clarify facts from misconceptions of foreign affairs and the President's authority to call for U.S. intervention in Syria. Although the President needs Congress approval to declare war, history has also shown that the government can misuse the term “war” to fulfill an agenda.

Below is a video excerpt of Former President Bill Clinton's retort on the matter.

Facts:

Clinton, himself, initiated a strike December 1998 along with Great Britain, against Saddam Hussein in response to chemical weapons stockpiles. He did not go to Congress for authorization or approval to commence Operation Desert Fox. Clinton further elaborates in the video that there has been an international pact (Geneva Protocol) against chemical weapons dating back from World War I, nearly a hundred years ago. Therefore, President Obama is not required to gain Congress approval, although their authorization for intervention would serve as support for the President.

Geneva Protocol Brief Overview:

• Prohibits the use of chemical weapons in warfare
• Prohibits the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons
• Provides for the elimination of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction under universally applied international control
• Ensures a credible, transparent regime to verify the destruction of chemical weapons; to prevent their re-emergence in any member State; to provide protection and assistance against chemical weapons; to encourage international cooperation in the peaceful uses of chemistry
• Calls for cooperation between the United Nations and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and is regulated by the relationship agreement between both organizations adopted by the General Assembly in September 2001

Related Readings

CNN

CBS News

Fox News Insider

Articles of Interest

CNN – The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.

Political Writing - U.S. Questions Red Line for Syria

In August 2012, President Obama made a nationally observed speech regarding the U.S. tolerance for, or lack thereof, chemical weapons use in Syria. CNN, Fox News, and other news mediums broadcasted that the President had set a red line for Syria if chemical weapons begin to move or be utilized in Syria. Both mediums explained that to Congress, U.S. Officials, and Americans this meant the U.S. military would intervene once authorized by the Senate.

Earlier this week, the President was interviewed again about his intentions on enforcing that red line. His response left some Americans to question his stance and his credibility.  But did the President actually set a red line? If so, is he turning a blind eye to the Syrian conflict and there use of chemical warfare by retracting what was “speculated” by the public after his 2012 speech?

Facts:

Obama, August 20, 2012: I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

… We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that’s a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly.

Obama, September 4: First of all, I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons are abhorrent and passed a treaty forbidding their use even when countries are engaged in war.

Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that — in a piece of legislation titled the Syria Accountability Act — that some of the horrendous things that are happening on the ground there need to be answered for.

And so when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what’s happening in Syria would be altered by the use of the chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn’t something I just kind of made up. I didn’t pluck it out of thin air. There’s a reason for it.

***

Although the President did not specifically say We or I Have Set a Red Line..., his 2012 speech indicated that U.S. military action would ensue if there was threat of chemical weapons use in Syria. The President's carefully dictated words lead to assumptions made by officials and the American people. Moreover, those words and lack of action have caused citizens and international enemies to devalue his credibility and the United States' authority as a superpower. 

In previous posts, I wrote about the media portraying biases in reporting practices, misrepresenting information, and inappropriately persuading the public with one-sided facts in accordance to their own agendas. However, the situation here is a prime example of what occurs when the informational source, in turn, distract the media and the public through word play and demeanor. It seems that we, the public, must continuously question every facet of reporting, including statements that come straight from the horse’s mouth.

Political Writing - Is the U.S. supporting Al-Qaeda in Syria?

President Obama has received support and opposition from all sides - Republicans, Democrats, Americans, and international officials and citizens - since announcing his stance on the United States' potential role in the Syrian conflict. Many question his objective for interference as well as the impact on American lives. The media, particularly Fox News and CNN, permitted representatives to speak either for or against the President's position, as depicted in the videos below.

Fox News

Senator Rand Paul (R), believes that if the U.S. goes into Syria on the side of rebels, we, in fact would be supporting Al-Qaeda. He had even been cited to consider delay voting on the matter by implementing a filibuster. 

Senator Paul states that he believe the President has attempted to prove he can go beyond the law and take matters into his own hands, outside the realms of what the Constitution allows. This video depicts the President, his position on U.S. interference in Syria, and international authority as hazardous to Americans. 

Chris Wallace of Fox News seems to be in agreement, asking few questions to deter from Senator Paul's summation. They both allude to all rebels being members of Al-Qaeda.

CNN

Secretary of State John Kerry (D) and Former National Security Adviser Stephan Hadley believes that not all rebels are part of Al-Qaeda and supports U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict on some levels. There are many core groups that are Democrat-linked and the U.S. can and should be working with them during the conflict, according to Hadley. 

Again, John Berman of ABC News did not press Hadley on his perspective, similarly to the Fox News interview conducted by Chris Wallace. Berman and Hadley illustrated the President's decision as being a sound one; however, they did possess an underlying tone of not agreeing with sending troops in Syria and U.S. involvement should be more diplomatic. 

***

The agenda on behalf of Fox News and CNN is to only rely particular information to the public in support of their own initiatives. Fox News portray the President as incompetent overall, as well as his position on the level of U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict as a push to exhibit powering beyond his intended scope. Yet, CNN backs the President's political measures rather than his methods, per se, and upholds his level of authority. Amid their differences, both reporting mediums agree the fact remains that President Obama and Congress will execute military or diplomatic action. They also concur that some rebel groups are part of Al-Qaeda.

Either way in my opinion, both agendas must be scrutinized by the public. We must conduct a comparative analysis to weed through facts and assumptions to make more informed verdicts on international affairs affecting American politics and our communities. 

Please comment on this post and respond to the related poll below (the poll closes 10/27/2013 and will be deleted once votes are tallied).

Political Writing - Congress Divided: Syrian Plan in Question

After more than two years of fighting, Syrians have turned their conflict toward one another during the quest for territory and power. Civil war has erupted, and citizens are experiencing high unemployment rates, significantly declining currency values, decreasing human rights, detriment to the health care infrastructure, and impending vehement backlash from its government, which has led to over 100,000 deaths.

Foreign forces stand on high-alert, for the Syrian violence is spilling into neighboring lands. International administrations have been carefully monitoring Syria and even cautioned their populace on the dangers of traveling there. Western nations, among others, are considering intervening in the crisis due to its impact on innocent Syrians and potential effects on international affairs. Syrian officials responded to this notion with threats of chemical weapons attack.   

The U.S. notes that the Syrian government has already initiated a chemical assault in the Damascus suburbs, killing more than 1,429 people, including 426 children August 21. Additionally, Doctors Without Borders treated 3,600 patients with “neurotoxic symptoms” shortly after the attack. This strike further demonstrates the Syrian regime’s merciless intentions.

The Pakistani Taliban (TTP) plans to establish a command and control center in Syria, and August 31, President Obama announced that he will seek Congress approval to send in U.S. military forces as a preemptive measure for war. Thus far, plan supporters of the President’s plan believes it will send a message to Syria that chemical attacks will not be tolerated. Opponents feel more diplomatic methods should be set in motion to avoid further oversees conflict. Either way, trouble lies ahead.

Informational Map and related articles

***

Fox News versus CNN Politics (political ticker) and Fourwinds10

Fox News states, “The president and his aides are sending out conflicting messages.” On the one hand, CNN Politics (political ticker) reports that President Obama indicates that he would not strike until Congress approves. However, Fourwinds10 writes about multiple signs indicating President Obama has already taken a stance on the matter.

Four U.S. warships with ballistic missiles are already moving into position in the eastern Mediterranean Sea in order to bring Tomahawk cruise missiles down inside Syria, if necessary. F-16 fighter jets were also placed in but not removed out of Jordan, per request of Jordanian government officials, earlier this year, with claims that this action was due largely to facilitate military exercises. (See Fourwinds10's 5 Signs That Obama has Already Made the Decision to go to War with Syria.) 

It appears U.S. citizens are receiving conflicting information from our government regarding the military's level of involvement, as well as overall intent. American citizens, such as myself, would likely rather be informed on the government's truthful status in the Syrian civil war, along with corresponding information from the news segments, to remain aware of potential effects on the enlisted, our economic affairs, resources and so forth. In this instance, TRUST is of high importance concerning the United State's position and media reporting to ensure citizens are educated appropriately on matters impacting our communities and our nation.

Please comment on this post and include insight on how U.S. interference may affect our nation as well as our communities. Also, please view the video on Obama's seeks military action in Syria and respond to the related poll below (the poll closes 09/12/2013 and will be deleted once votes are tallied).

 

Poll results are in:

 

Should the U.S. interfere with the Syrian conflict?

Yes = 33%

No = 33%

Undecided = 33%

Political Writing - From the Center to the World's Margins

Most American scholars are taught at an early age about the keys of reporting and writing by examining main ideas, as well as focusing on the Who, When, Where, What, and How. Often such students are required to present newspaper articles covering current events across geographical regions – domestically and abroad. They analyze behaviors, ideas, and actions and reactions of tragedies and achievements. They investigate struggles, policies, and relationships of interests groups. Students then must make inferences and draw connections to determine measures in which their individual environments are affected by each situation through logical reasoning.

Over the next six weeks, I plan to take a similar approach of evaluating events and activities around the globe, particularly the United States' involvement in the Syrian conflict, while building upon those basic reporting concepts. My goal is to justify the significance of political reformation in ways that affect my state of consciousness, community, and beyond – from my center to the margins of the world.

***

Throughout American history, the U.S. has actively intervened in foreign conflicts for one reason or another. Such conditions for interference includes, but of course are not limited to, constraining the spread of Communism, defending democracy, acquiring financial power and territorial control, preventing biological and (in the case of Syria today) chemical warfare. However, is the U.S. presence and participation in abroad conflicts worth the risks to American resources? Is this action conducted in the best interest of national citizens? How had media coverage of these historical events shaped our knowledge and acceptance of America’s foreign intermediation?

Fox News versus CNN Politics (political ticker)

It is often recited within the public spectrum that Fox News takes a more conservative approach, while CNN practices a liberal reporting methodology. They are the most widely used news resources, especially in consideration of domestic and international political affairs. Each medium serves its own agenda, circulating bias, skewed information while censoring imperative facts from audiences.

Reporting accuracy is essential. I believe credibility, subject matter authority, and reputation hold significant ethical value, and audiences must be able to rely on news delivered objectively. Weekly, I will examine information conveyed by U.S. government officials, Fox News, and CNN concerning the Syrian conflict and our nation's involvement to separate fact from fiction, bias and impartiality, as proper reporting mandates.