Multiculturalism and Progressive Dilemma in Canada

Author Keith G. Banting from Queen's University compared Canada's multicultural policy which was implemented in 1971 by former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau with European nations. The author claims in European nations multiculturalism has become a source of conflict between newcomers and native born people about who has the right to use welfare state programs. As a result, those individuals would cast their votes for parties that support welfare state programs. Now, those individuals shifted their voting belief for conservative party which has more cautious policy toward immigrants.¹ In addition, the author focuses on concept of progressive dilemma that newcomers are not integrating in main stream society, and remain in their own group.² However, Canadians are experiencing immigration in a different rate than their European counterpart. It appears that Canada is not experiencing progressive dilemma.³ The aim of this paper is same as author's quest to understand impact of progressive dilemma in Canada as Mr. Banting touches three areas of multiculturalism and welfare state programs in Canada. This paper is exploring different approaches to the welfare state in Canada compare to other Western nations,⁴ supporting evidence on the relationship between diversity and public support for redistribution in Canada,⁵ and discussing Canadian policy regime, its implication for a progressive's dilemma in Canada.⁶

This portion of the paper is exploring different approaches to the welfare state in Canada compare to other Western nations. There is a public support for the welfare state programs.⁷ These welfare state programs are institutionalized in Canada and created a set of mind frames for people that these institutions are part of their social, economic and political well being.⁸ It would be a very difficult task to provide alternative way of thinking about these institutions which are providing social programs.⁹ The author begins to argue that in European nations adopted multicultural policy to accommodate newcomers in their new countries.¹⁰ This multicultural policy has triggered a tension between those native born and the newcomers about degree of using social programs.¹¹ The finger of blame can be pointed to natural instinct of human self-interest,¹² it is a primary natural instinct in human not want to share limited resources with others, it makes human less altruistic.¹³ To make the matter worst, these newcomers would form their own groups and never explore the outside world because each group trust in their own group.¹⁴ The alternative policy to multiculturalism is policy of melting pot. Robert Putnam argues that melting pot is a good policy. It allows different ethnic groups to have social interaction with one another and trust each other.¹⁵ It is eroding social identity. These newcomers are becoming self-sufficient and do not rely on government for handouts.¹⁶ However, there was one problem that people may gain employment by engaging in illegal activities.¹⁷ T.H. Marshall provides alternative idea with regard to bonding people together. It is nationalism.¹⁸ Once again there was no consensus among intellectual how to create cultural glue. The idea of nationalism has a negative history, and it may be fused as a force to discriminate against monitory groups.¹⁹ Paul Pierson argues for establishment of a new institution in order to improve the level of maturity of welfare states.²⁰ These institutions would not provide a blanket welfare state programs, but these institutions would be established by receiving feedback from constituencies, and responding to their needs.²¹ There are two weakness and one strength with regard to the above strategy. One, the above policy may not receive warm welcome from public.²² Two, it may become a source of attention for one ethnic group compare to other ethnic groups.²³ There was one strength point for Mr. Pierson's vision that the blanket program would create unification among all constituencies.²⁴ Miriam Smith suggests that “instead of treating diversity as an independent variable that affects the welfare state, we can invert the question to ask how the welfare state shapes diversity.”²⁵

This portion of the paper is supporting evidence on the relationship between diversity and public support for redistribution in Canada. There is a wide spread sentiment in Canada about immigrants that they are contributing to vibrant economy of Canada.²⁶ These newcomers are not contributing to deviant behavior in Canada.²⁷ Interest, in Canada there is less tension between ethnic diversity and support for social programs.²⁸ The author claims that Canadians are supportive for newcomers to use welfare system,²⁹ and Canadians are more critical about the welfare system itself for redistributing the wealth among Canadians.³⁰ Rothstein argues that there is a high degree of trust in government and support for health care and pension plans.³¹ Interestingly, Canadians are nationalist, but Canadians are unlike Europeans, Canadians welcome newcomers.³² Therefore, Canada has been immune from anti-welfare sentiment. It means that Canada avoided progressive dilemma.³³

This portion of the paper is discussing Canadian policy regime, its implication for a progressive's dilemma in Canada. The Canadian immigration policy is a point system which is allowing skilled workers come to Canada and not to rely on welfare system.³⁴ In case of refugee claimants, the immigration office would issue temporary work permit for them so that they can find jobs and support themselves.³⁵ In 1993, it came to light that 14% of sponsorship agreements were using the welfare system.³⁶ The sponsors did not fulfill their promise to take care of their families. It cost taxpayers $700 million each year.³⁷ Since, Canada has federal system which is managing affair of immigration and did not have jurisdiction in provincial area.³⁸ The federal government could not enforce immigration laws against individuals who did not support their families. Consequently, the family class admission dropped from 51% to 30%.³⁹ Despite, the above situation, immigrants are less likely to rely on income transfers which is a primary reason for native born Canadians to welcome immigrants.⁴⁰ Recent, newcomers to Canada are more educated than previous wave of immigrants,⁴¹ and they enter the workforce at much low income level.⁴² These immigrants are underemployed.⁴³ Consequently, these newcomers need social assistance to support themselves.⁴⁴

Canada has a different experience than European nations with regard to integration policy. Canada does support multicultural welfare state, and it does not experience progressive dilemma.⁴⁵ The European nations are disappointed about the outcome of the multiculturalism. It is contributing to social segregation, learning new language very slowly, and lack of enthusiasm for economic integration,⁴⁶ and when welfare state is added in the equation of multiculturalism, it creates welfare dependency.⁴⁷ However, Canada does not share same experience as European nations do. Canadians knew that multicultural policy is not static. It needs to change and adopt itself to current time. This policy moved from monoethnic organizations to multiethnic ones.⁴⁸

The author argues that Canadian system is more compassionate toward newcomers compare to other European nations to receive welfare. Immigrants who obtained permanent residency, they have access to social programs.⁴⁹ The system allows immigrants to have access to social programs because of employment-focus nature of immigration policy.⁵⁰ Canada's social program is providing lower benefit and short benefit duration.⁵¹ There is less on income transfer like unemployment benefits and family benefits.⁵² However, “A careful comparison of Australian and Canadian programs indicates that Australia relies more heavily on residency requirements largely because its core social programs are means-tested”⁵³

In conclusion, author Keith G. Banting from Queen's University compared Canada's multicultural policy which was implemented in 1971 by former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau with European nations. The author brilliantly dissected his thesis in three key areas. He explores different approaches to the welfare state in Canada compare to other Western nations, supporting evidence on the relationship between diversity and public support for redistribution in Canada, and discussing Canadian policy regime, its implication for a progressive's dilemma in Canada. The author compares Canada's multicultural policy with European nations. Mr. Banting's research indicates that newcomers are welcome to Canada because native born Canadians welcome them. Most importantly, the welfare state is not a source of conflict between newcomers and native born Canadians because newcomers are not relying on welfare state programs. The success story behind Canada's multiculturalism is that this policy moved from monoethnic organizations to multiethnic ones. There is one more reason for European model to be failure compare to Canada that in Europe the key point to be eligible to receive welfare, it requires residency. In Canada, it is easy to receive welfare as long as a person obtains a permanent residency. As a result, ethnic individuals are integrating in the main stream society at faster pace than European nations, and it creates national solidarity among different ethnic groups. Consequently, Canada does not face progressive dilemma. Obviously, the European nations to change their models to Canadian version in order to have a unified nation.

1Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 799

2Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 797

3Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 803

4Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 799

5Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 799

6Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 799

7Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

8Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

9Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

10Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

11Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

12Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

13Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

14Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 800

15Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 801

16Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 801

17Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 801

18Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 801

19Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 802

20Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 802

21Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 802

22Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 802

23Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 802

24Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 802

25Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 802

26Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 803

27Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 803

28Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 804

29Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 804

30Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 804

31Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 804

32Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 804

33Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 805

34Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 806

35Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 806

36Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 807

37Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 807

38Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 807

39Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 807

40Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 808

41Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 808

42Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 808

43Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 808

44Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 808

45Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 809

46Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 809

47Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 809

48Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 810

49Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 810

50Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 811

51Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 812

52Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 812

53Banting, Hurdle . “Is there a Progressive's Dilemma in Canada? Immigration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State.” Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, Montreal June 2 2010: 812

“SNC dodged donations laws, probe told”

On March 15^th, 2013 Daniel Leblanc and Greg Mcarthur are journalists from The Globe and Mail and report about multinational corporate “SNC – Lavalin deliberately circumvented Quebec's political financing rules in the past decade, culminating in a flurry of donations to the governing Quebec Liberal Party in 2009 … SNC – Lavalin staff gave a total of $1 – million to the Quebec Liberal Party and the Parti Quebecois between 1998 and 2009.”¹ There is restriction in amount of money donated to the political parties. This restriction of camping donation is in place to create fairness in political system. The text book states that “the rich, for example, have advantage in all political games.”² In 2006, Prime Minister of Canada Harper passed the Federal Accountability Act bill C2 that it placed restriction in spending of $1000.00 CDN for a third party and groups or individuals must register and not spending $500.00 CDN.³

1The Globe and Mail. 15 March 2013 <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/snc-dodged-donation-laws-probe-told/article9808499/> 15 March 2013

2Jackson, Robert and Doreen Jackson. Canadian Government in Transition. Fifth Edition. T.O, ON: Pearson Canada, 2010. Pg 3

3Jackson, Robert and Doreen Jackson. Canadian Government in Transition. Fifth Edition. T.O, ON: Pearson Canada, 2010. Pg 238

Globalization in Light of Developing Nations

There is a common belief among some diverse communities that God created earth in seven days. On the other hand, there is one uniform belief among scientists that earth was created by big-bang theory. The primary intention of the theory is to deny the very existence of God as a creator. Consequently, the very simplest form of existence of humanity on planet earth has created two distinct schools of thoughts. There are those who have blind faith in God and follow their scriptures wholeheartedly while there are others who have their own way of understanding about creation of earth, and use science to justify their rationality against faithful. The above conflicting of ideas can be incorporated at any given moment of human history or unfolding current events. Today's current event is about force of globalization which has its root in humankind history. It goes back to seventeenth century, when European nations initiated Peace of Westphalia and developed system of international relations among themselves, and establishing secular states. Religion no longer was a key ingredient in decision-making process of a state. The religious establishments transformed their identities as political rulers to a social gathering; such as, Sunday worship, wedding or funeral matters. Religion was no longer an instrumental element to shape politics. This window of opportunity opened a new prospective for Hugo Grotius to think about international relations among European nations, and became optimistic about future of humanity. He believed in good nature of humanity minus evil characteristic of humanity. He assumed human were forming key components of states. Thereby, it would be conclusive that nature of states would be good and wanted to build a mutual relationship with other nations for their own self-interest. It appeared that Dark Age of Europe was coming to a final end. Hugo Grotius did not share same value as political philosopher Thomas Hobbs, who deemed nature of a state to be corrupt and barbaric, and human life to be short lived due to violence, and was entangled in spider web of ongoing brute force of aggressor. Indeed, today's world is divided between Hugo Grotius and Thomas Hobbs vision of humanity, and nature of a state. Today, there are scholars who are cherishing Hugo Grotius optimistic view of building consensual international relations among nations, and avoiding war which can be reinforced by wide spread of Multinational Corporations around the world, as well as, sub-regional entities like European Nations would be prime example how Europe nations were leading the world and rest of the world were lagging behind Europe. However, there was another dark side in today's humanity and failure of proper international relations among Africa nations, as well as, Middle Eastern nations. They were lamenting Thomas Hobbs vision of harsh reality of humanity. These precious lives are short lived by a sudden and unexpected violence at hands of their rulers who are puppets of the West. Once, the Western nations relinquished their support for these tyrant rulers. These victims do not accept their current living conditions and are forming their own militia groups to save their lives from daily degradation of their rulers. Once, these Iron Fist tyrants are removed as head of states, it creates a power vacuum. Now, it is blessing moment for corrupt men to fill the vacuum, and exploit every moment for their own advantage and place others in disadvantage position. Once again, a nation paid high price for democratization of its political apparatus; it failed to become a democratic nation, and falls into category of oligarchy state. The aim of this paper is to examining international relation theories and key players of global governance have deep impact in this global village, exploring the US foreign policy of 'Regime Change' in Iran back in 1979 unleashed rein of terror to rest of the world, and discussing how formation of 'Transnational Civil-Society' having impact on the theocratic regime in Iran.

This portion of the paper is examining international relation theories and key players of global governance have deep impact in this global village. The world that is populated today is not same as the one economist John Hobson experienced in 1902. Hobson asserted how European nations exploited weaker nations due to economic reason as business leaders had surplus, and it was not generating profit. These business leaders in field of finance, investors, shippers, and exporters persuaded political leaders to expand geographically to exploit labors, as well as, raw materials. In this moment, European nations began to expand themselves on map. Even, Belgium took part in exploiting African nations, and acquired Congo. The United States used corporate to exploit unskilled workers in developing nations, and exploiting raw materials in developing nations like in South America. Eventually, the Western nations decided to divide lands arbitrary, which is the reason to see straight line on map. As a result, tribes that had nothing in common with other tribes and may had long history of conflict with each other. Now they were forced to live in one nation. It would be impossible to create a stable central state. It caused a nation always remain at state of conflict and never see a light of peace. In addition, Immanuel Wallerstein (1974-1979) claimed since sixteenth century a 'World System' has been developing and interwoven nations to each other on premise of economic and political ties. Wallerstein divided nations in four groups. Group one were 'Core Nations' that they were first capitalist like Britain, France, Holland and Germany. Group two were 'Semi-Periphery' nations around the Mediterranean, and their economies would depend cumbersome to trade with core nations. Group three were 'Periphery Nations', these were eastern European nations that they were selling cash crops to core nations. Last group was 'External Area' nations that they were left out of capitalist economic system in Africa and Asia. According to Wallerstein capitalist economy system was on pursue of expansion and resulted in capitalist world economy. The 'Dependency Theory' would support Wallerstein claim that developing nations were not able to become developed nations due to lack of industrialization and constantly being subject to exploitation by core nations. John Kenneth Galbraith (1979) a social economist would argue developing nations were en-routed to 'Culture of Poverty' since there was little room for risk, and remained in notion of tried-and-true. If there was an error, it would lead to their demise. Plus, religion reinforced concept of fatalism. The combination of above circumstances made the developing nations remain as developing nations. On other side of the spectrum, there was Japan which had fatalism and after World War Two, Japan lost its colonies. However, today Japan is a success story which beat all the odds. Thus, dependency theory cannot be deeming as a final light to illuminate darkness of the developing nations. It would provide partial explanation for misfortune of developing nations.

Looking at a glass half full from window of Hugo Grotius that states were rational and law-abiding. Grotius could see light at end of the tunnel that Europe would live in peace and harmony. In addition, Immanuel Kant asserted democracy and peace were essential ingredients for European nations to co-exist with another and not to pose themselves to danger of war. In early twentieth century, Woodrow Wilson stamped hallmark of idealism that human nature was good, and social progress was possible. Moreover, Wilson was pioneer of 'League of Nations' to lead the world in peace. Ironically, World War Two, Holocaust, and the Cold War occurred and defeat purpose of League of Nations. The concept of idealism transformed in liberalism which is focused on spread of universal value; such as, peace, welfare and justice which can be done by allowing formation of 'Global Governance' to flourish itself. The Global Governance is composed of individuals and institutions to interact with one another to manage their common affairs. There are key player in the Global Governance system; such as, States, Intergovernmental Organization (IGO), Nongovernmental Organization (NGO), Experts, Multinational Corporations (MNC) which are governed by international laws and rules. The IGO, NGO, and MNC would undermine sovereignty of a nation by making decision for a nation base on legitimacy issue. The above entities were not elected by people and did not have consent of people to act on their behalf. The above entities would provide expertise and knowledge in a certain areas. In most cases, it can be claimed that those areas of expertise would benefit them and may not be beneficial for others. In case of Multinational Corporations that they set-up plants in developing nations, and exploited workers in developing nations. The MNC would avoid labor laws, and would pay extremely low wages to workers and would sell their products at high price in the West. The MNC would not require following any kind of rules, as long as, it would satisfy the host country that it was creating job and reducing unemployment rate in that country. The host country would protect the MNC. One more time, the West is able to hold on developing nations and not allowing them to make progress.

There was theory of functionalism which would be similar to liberalism. Functionalism explains that governance would be natural to emerge since there was basic element of needs between state and people. Jean Monnet “father of Europe” believed nationalism would become less relevant in Europe and making war against one another would become unthinkable. The above thought would explain why the European Union exists. This theory had many fallacies in area of economic and national security. Still, nations are interested on their own economic well being. In area of national security, nations would not share information with one another. It is true that there is Interpol which is acting as a global police. Still, Interpol requires information from local law enforcers to act on behalf of that local authority.

This portion of the paper is exploring the US foreign policy of regime change in Iran back in 1979 unleashed rein of terror to rest of the world. The US may claim that it would like to export its democratic values to other nations. It was 1978 when former democrat US president Jimmy Carter besmirched King of Kings Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for violation of Human Rights. The King in his book “Answer to History” stated that He allowed International Red Cross to come to Iran to investigate Human Rights violation. The International Red Cross came to Iran and investigated plight of political prisoners in Iran, and made some recommendations with regard to conditions of prisoners. His Majesty followed those recommendations to improve quality of prisoners. However, Carter was not satisfy with the outcome, and pressed hard on Human Rights issue. In addition, these political prisoners were terrorists that they engaged in bank robberies, assassination of foreign dignitaries. They were by no means peaceful. In Guadeloupe summit, France, Britain, and the US came to a mutual agreement to topple the King/Shah, and replace Him with Khomeini. The BBC provided platform for Khomeini to foment a revolution in Iran, and the US Medias bashed the King at every opportune moment for false charges which did not have merit. In January 1979 the King decided to live Iran to stop the bloodshed. As His Majesty was living Iran, He said Iran will become a cemetery. In February of 1979 Khomeini returned to Iran after 15 years of living in exile, and when a reported asked him in plane how do you feel coming back to Iran after 15 years? Khomeini said nothing. He had no feeling for coming back to Iran after 15 years of exile. He was puppet of the US. According to author Mike Evans “Jimmy Carter the Liberal Left and World Chaos” Carter spent $150 million for Khomeini in order to topple the Pahlavi Dynasty in Iran. From the time, the King left Iran, Russia invaded Afghanistan, and continuous unrest in the Middle East. The Western nations are living in fear of terrorism. Perhaps, the US is so keen about Human Rights and democracy as Benjamin R. Barber stated in “Jihad vs McWorld” the US should “Fed Ex the Bill of Rights to Sir Lanka”. Why should the US stop at Sir Lanka, the US should make an immediate demand from certain nations to implement this Bill of Rights in their constitutions and if they fail to do so, there would be a serious consequences by night fall as NATO airforce and infantry would delivery them the Bill of Rights and would hand over their countries to fanatic Muslims which happened in Libya and Egypt.

This portion of the paper is discussing how formation of 'Transnational Civil-Society' having impact on the theocratic regime in Ian's domestic affair. The Transnational Civil-Society means that all organization and associations exist outside of the state and market. The regime in Iran is not immune from outside force. As a matter of fact, it has been proven several times, Iranian diaspora to interfere with Iran's domestic affairs and prevented death sentence. There were cases of Nazanin Afshin-Jam and Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo. In 2005, Ms. Afshin-Jam became aware of a girl who was living in Iran and was subject to death sentence by stoning. Ms. Afshin-Jam is an affluent person, she won Ms. Canada title, and was well known person in media. She was able to get attention of public, and drafted an online petition and asked public to sign it. In addition, there were politicians from Liberal Party, as well as, Conservative Party decided to support her cause. Eventually, the regime in Iran commuted the death sentence to no punishment whatsoever. In the final case, it was Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo who was writing about civil-disobedience to topple tyrannical regimes. When he was in Iran, the authority apprehended him under criminal charge of sedition. In this moment, one petition appeared online, and people some the petition and asked for release of Dr. Jahanbegloo from prison. The regime in Iran was facing pressure from outside world to release Jahanbegloo. Subsequently, the regime cracked under outside forced and released him. Currently, he is at the York University and is teaching political science.

Ending this paper by summarizing three main body of this essay on area of international relation theories and key players of global governance have deep impact in this global village, exploring the US foreign policy of 'Regime Change' in Iran back in 1979 unleashed rein of terror to rest of the world, and discussing how formation of 'Transnational Civil-Society' having impact on the theocratic regime in Iran. There is no one theory which can explain current affairs of international relations. However, there is one thing certain that the Western nations apply Liberalism or Functionalism principles, when time comes to engage with core nations. When core nations engage with periphery, semi-periphery and external-area nations. The dynamic of relationship becomes dependency theory. Keeping the above groups in disadvantage point, and having hegemonic stability on those three groups. In 1979, the US foreign policy of regime change in Iran brought rein of terror to the world because it is one way to keep Middle East weak. This planet is becoming a global village due advancement of communication. Thus, it is no longer a civil-society, but transnational civil-society.

Regionalism as a Driving Force in World Politics

Regionalism as a driving force in world politics would go back to dawn of history. There were ambitious men who were feudal lord for a small land, and expand their land to a point that sun never sat. These ambitious men looked at the world from their own window like Napoleon, who would be a good candidate to exploring the idea of regionalism in Europe briefly. Napoleon rose to power, when France was going through French Revolution, and he was just an artillery officer. He made high reputation during war, and fortune lady (Machiavelli's concept) was on his side as he ascended to the throne of emperor of France. He too wanted to united Europe. However, the balance of power in Europe was not divided among other nations like England. Automatically, there were resistance forces against vision of Napoleon and ultimately fortune lady walked away from Napoleon as he descended from the throne of France. Napoleon was not sole dreamer of unity of Europe, World War I and World War II were visions of having one Europe. The above wars were rejected by European nations because there was no balance of power among heterogeneous European nations.

To amalgamate all European nations in one Europe was a good idea to avoid war with one another in order to have vibrant economy which was beneficial for all European nations. There was no more causality of human life and destruction of properties which were having detrimental impact on economy. There emerged idea of League of Nations to unify Europe. However, the League of Nations failed to fulfill the idealistic of peace for Europe. In 1945, the League of Nations vaporized from scene of politics as United Nations building erected in New York. It was a lofty idea to bring all different races, and languages in one place and asking them to collaborate with one another over issues which may have been 'fault line' as Samuel Huntington discussed in his book “The Clash of Civilization and the Remaking of World Order”. The United Nations Chapter 8 provided a window of opportunity for nations to form security alliances with one another. The United Nations did not provide a ground for nations to form economic or social alliances. It also did not prevent nations from forming economic or social alliances with one another. The primary objective of regional organizations are to promote peace security, and economic prosperity. The European Union, African Union, NAFTA, and ASEAN entities would be prime example how they promote economic growth at the same time it is an excellent source of reducing equation of war among nations. The economic growth can happen, when there is political stability among nations.

The European Union is an ideal model for other union like African Union and ASEAN to follow. However, there was a key issue of sharing power between states and the African Union ingredients and ASEAN key role players. The European Union is an independent body which is self-governing itself and does not rely on states. It has own legal, social, and economic jurisdictions. Thereby, the sovereignty of European nations diminished by the European Union. The African states would not share their political powers with NGOs or private sectors. There is partially culture tone into it. African nations have traditional views about concept of 'private property' which is different than European way of understanding private property. Moreover, there is a long tradition of political hierarchy within each state in Africa which can be understood by African nations. The Asian countries too have complex political hierarchy, and cannot follow European Union model. In Asia, there is a long tradition of following leaders, and there is less chance of becoming a leader. Thus, there would not be a window of opportunity to have judicial, social, economic jurisdiction for ASEAN key players which would undermine sovereignty of Asian nations. The aim of this paper is define the concept of regionalism and some key challenges that Turkey face to join European Union, examining key factors for the European Union as an ideal model for rest of the world, and discussing NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization as emerging source of conflict between East and West which is weakening the role of the United Nations on world politics.

This portion of the paper is defining the concept of regionalism and some key challenges that Turkey face to join European Union. The concept of regionalism may appear that when several nations are located side by side, they share certain common elements which would unified them; such as, political culture that they may have in common. Turkey has been trying to join European Union since 1959. The European Nations declined Turkey's application due to fault line. In 1915, Turkey massacred Armenians which has become a bad blood between Christian Europe and Turkey. Even, Attaturk (Atta father, Turk, Turk, Father of Turk) changed Arabic alphabet to English alphabet, as well as, established a secular state, and confronted Islamic religious clerics face to face so Turkey would be transformed from ruined of Ottoman empire in a new nation-state which deemed everyone as Turk, and everyone must forget their ethnic background. Plus, small territorial part of Turkey is in Europe. Still, Turkey cannot be part of European Union. The European nations are pointing their fingers at human rights violation of minority groups in Turkey. The chances for Turkey to join the European Union is slipping away as Turkey is walking away from secularism to an Islamic theology state. The European Union would not tolerate a religious state to participate in its union. Particularly, a Muslim state to be part of the union.

In 1955, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and England signed Baghdad Pact to prevent communism to spread in their nations. The US was behind the formation of the Baghdad Pact, but due to technical reason could not join the pact. In 1958, Abdul Karim staged a coup in Iraq, and became head of state of Iraq, and aligned Iraq's foreign policy with former Soviet Union. Subsequently, the members altered the name from Baghdad Pact to the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO). In 1965, there was a war between Pakistan and India. Pakistan requested for assistance from the CENTO members to confront Indian military force. However, the CENTO members did not provide assistance to Pakistan to confront Indian force. As a result, the dynamic of relationship between members became weaker. In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus which claimed to be part of Turkey and not Greece. Iran provided military equipments to Turkey. However, England withdraw its support to the CENTO. In 1979, revolution took place and His Majesty, King of Kings Mohammad Reza Pahlavi I left Iran, which caused the CENTO Pact to dissolve. It provided a window of opportunity for Russia to invade Afghanistan with vision of fulfilling Peter the Great's vision of capturing Persian Gulf, as well as, spreading communism to rest of the world. The CENTO pact illustrated how England did not share geographical location in the Middle East, and was able to join the pact due to their common ideology. It should not be forgotten that alliance among nations may carry an expiry date which is unspoken at the time of inauguration.

In 1967, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Philippine formed the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to developed strong economic ties by promoting regional security. This idea of mini-dragon nations to join to one another to determine their own destiny was important for the region. At the time, there was the US and China proxy war in Vietnam which was causing the region to be unrest, and it was causing potential investors to be reluctant to invest in mini-dragon nations. In 1975, the Vietnam war came to an end, and the US withdraw from Vietnam. In 1976, these mini-dragon nations began to see economic growth in the region until 1997-1998 economic melt down of the mini-dragon nations. The ASEAN like any other organization recognized its weakness, and regained its confidence among other developed nations. As of 2005, the ASEAN approved membership for Australia, and New Zealand (unlike Turkey that never will have a chance to join the EU). The ASEAN is able to maneuver itself through different venues and participate in global economy and it is moving out of regional organization to a global system.

This portion of the examining key factors for the European Union as an ideal model for rest of the world. The political culture of Europe is different than rest of the world. The layers of history in Europe would unit them as they experience Enlightenment movement, and two bloodiest wars that they shared with each other. In 1957, Treaty of Rome was creating European Community with a good intention of bringing European nations closer than ever. Eventually, it became European Union (EU). It had agendas on premise of Common Foreign and Security Policy, as well as, Justice and Home Affairs. The ideas are always flexible and do not remain as is. As time passes by and current and past events would shape the EU. It is like a tree which has a body with many different branches as each branch would serve a purpose for overall well being of the tree. In 1974, the EU formed the European Council which was providing opportunities for head of states, as well as, governments to meet regularly to discuss the issues that matter for them to resolve their differences. Currently, the European Council may alter its electoral and jurisdiction format once the Lisbon Treaty is approved. There is European Commission which plays larger role than European Council. The European Commission plays role of law enforcer. There are times, when a state may fail to follow rules, the European Commission would issue warning to that state. The European Commission may take legal measure to take legal action against a state and resolving that dispute in the European Court of Justice. There is also need for a parliament as a body to govern Europe. There is the European Parliament which is base on electoral process and it has 785 members (MEPs), each member can remain in her/his office for duration of five years with an opportunity to renew her/his office term. The members of the parliament do not represent their own country but a political faction. Thus, this parliament is divided between socialist, Christian Democrat and extreme right factions. The European Court of Justice is the judicial, as well as, executive bodies of the Europe which has a responsibilities to interpret the law and execute the law in Europe. The EU is about economic growth, and it would essential to create a system which is reducing trade barres, and it is encouraging economic growth. The European Court of Justice would be able to legislate laws which is for common good. The European Nations take great pride in their social policy, and would take measure to reduce economic inequalities among European nations. It is clear for an outsider that European nations are sharing one common currency which is united different nations in Europe in one country.

As a result, the Europe Union was able to reduce political friction among European nations and economic growth was able to pull together these nations, and create one Europe.

This portion of the paper is discussing NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an emerging source of conflict between East and West which is weakening the role of the United Nations on world politics. It was after World War II, when the US and former Soviet Union formed balance of power on global scale. The US wanted to promote capitalist economic system around the world. The former Soviet Union also wanted to promote communist economic system around the world. There is only one world to rule by one ruler. The world was not enough for two opposing economic views. The US was providing assistance to European nations under Organization for European Economic Cooperation (OEEC) to promote the capitalist economic system as an ideal system for a nation. In 1949, the European nations decided to form a military alliance with one another with help of the US under treaty of NATO. The former Soviet Union too formed its military alliance under treaty of Warsaw Pact. In 1991, the communist economic system failed in Russia, and Russia disintegrated as a country, and Eastern European nations no longer followed Russia. Ultimately, the Warsaw Pact dissolved. The main objective of the NATO was to defend Western nations against aggression of former Soviet Union. Today, the NATO's role has become a global constable to promote peace, security, democracy, and liberties around the world. There are times that it appears it is assisting the United Nations article 51 to act in good faith to emancipate people from hands of destruction and tyrants. The NATO has Article 5 which is authorizing to use of force against aggressors. However, the NATO have indicated to be a useful military instrument for the US to confront states that the US seems undesirable. In 2003, the US made one unilateral decision in Iraq that Iraq had weapon of mass destruction and was supporting terrorism. Despite the fact that the Security Council rejected the US to use physical force against Iraq. The US ignored the Security Council's recommendation and confronted Iraq.

In 1994, The NATO formed Partnership for Peace (PFP) with twenty five countries in Central Europe and Central Asia, and in 1997, the NATO approved application for Poland and Czech Republic and Hungry. In 2004, the NATO admitted Croatia and Albania. However, Russia is not interested to join NATO.

In 1991, the former Soviet Union collapsed and there was a vacuum for three evil elements of eastern nations to become active, one terrorist, two extremist and last separatist. Naturally, Russia, China and other Central Asian countries formed the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. This organization was able to promote peace, security, and economic development among eastern nations. However, the Western nations do not share same sentiment as their counter part and have accused the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as another form of Warsaw Pact. Since Russia, China and other members are not liberal, and there was on-going human rights violation in their countries. The West also can speak loudly, when Chinese government began to engage in Cyber-war with Canada. Therefore, the United Nations which is a body of universal value to resolve differences among nations. Regionalism is giving permission for nations to come together, and continue to have conflict with one another.

All in all, this paper had three main bodies, one it tried to define the concept of regionalism examining key factors for the European Union as an ideal model, and discussing NATO and Shanghai Cooperation Organization as a source of conflict between East and West which is weakening the UN role on world politics. Today, there are no prince or princess in kingdoms as their union would bring peace among nations. Now, it is regional union which is bring peace in the region. There is peace because of economic growth. China and Japan may not like each other issue of Island, but they need to work with other for sake of money. The West and East still have many issues to resolve.

Defining al Qaeda

By Scott Stewart
The Obama administration's efforts to counter the threat posed by al Qaeda and the wider jihadist movement have been a contentious topic in the U.S. presidential race. Political rhetoric abounds on both sides; administration officials claim that al Qaeda has been seriously crippled, while some critics of the administration allege that the group is stronger than ever. As with most political rhetoric, both claims bear elements of truth, but the truth depends largely on how al Qaeda and jihadism are defined. Unfortunately, politicians and the media tend to define al Qaeda loosely and incorrectly.
The jihadist threat will persist regardless of who is elected president, so understanding the actors involved is critical. But a true understanding of those actors requires taxonomical acuity. It seems worthwhile, then, to revisit Stratfor's definitions of al Qaeda and the wider jihadist movement.

A Network of Networks

Al Qaeda, the group established by Osama bin Laden and his colleagues, was never very large -- there were never more than a few hundred actual members. We often refer to this group, now led by Ayman al-Zawahiri, as the al Qaeda core or al Qaeda prime. While the group's founders trained tens of thousands of men at their camps in Afghanistan and Sudan, they initially viewed themselves as a vanguard organization working with kindred groups to facilitate the jihad they believed was necessary to establish a global Islamic caliphate. Most of the men trained at al Qaeda camps were members of other organizations or were grassroots jihadists. The majority of them received basic paramilitary training, and only a select few were invited to receive additional training in terrorist tradecraft skills such as surveillance, document forgery and bombmaking. Of this select group, only a few men were invited to join the al Qaeda core organization.
Bin Laden envisioned another purpose for al Qaeda: leading the charge against corrupt rulers in the Muslim world and against the United States, which he believed supported corrupt Muslim rulers. Al Qaeda sought to excise the United States from the Muslim world in much the same way that Hezbollah drove U.S. forces out of Lebanon and Somalia forced the U.S. withdrawal from Mogadishu.
Al Qaeda became a network of networks -- a trait demonstrated not only by its training methods but also in bin Laden's rhetoric. For example, bin Laden's 1998 "World Islamic Front" statement, which declared jihad against Jews and Crusaders, was signed by al-Zawahiri (who at the time was leading the Egyptian Islamic Jihad) and leaders of other groups, including the Egyptian Islamic Group, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan and the Jihad Movement of Bangladesh.
Following the 9/11 attacks, the United States applied against the al Qaeda core the full pressure of its five counterterrorism levers: intelligence, military, law enforcement, diplomacy and financial sanctions. As a result, many al Qaeda members, eventually including bin Laden, were captured or killed and their assets were frozen. Such measures have ensured that the group remains small for operational security concerns. The remaining members of the group mostly are lying low in Pakistan near the Afghan border, and their isolation there has severely degraded their ability to conduct attacks. The al Qaeda core is now relegated to producing propaganda for guidance and inspiration for other jihadist elements. Despite the disproportionate amount of media attention given to statements from al-Zawahiri and Adam Gadahn, the al Qaeda core constitutes only a very small part of the larger jihadist movement. In fact, it has not conducted a successful terrorist attack in years.
However, the core group has not been destroyed. It could regenerate if the United States eased its pressure, but we believe that will be difficult given the loss of the charismatic bin Laden and his replacement by the irascible al-Zawahiri.
In any case, the jihadist movement transcends the al Qaeda core. In fact, Stratfor for years published an annual forecast of al Qaeda, but beginning in 2009, we intentionally changed the title of the forecast to reflect the isolation and marginalization of the al Qaeda core and the ascendance of other jihadist actors. We believed our analysis needed to focus less on the al Qaeda core and more on the truly active and significant elements of the jihadist movement, including regional groups that have adopted the al Qaeda name and the array of grassroots jihadists.

Franchises and Grassroots

An element of the jihadist movement that is often loosely referred to as al Qaeda is the worldwide network of local or regional militant groups that have assumed al Qaeda's name or ideology. In many cases, the relationships between the leadership of these groups and the al Qaeda core began in the 1980s and 1990s.
Some groups have publicly claimed allegiance to the al Qaeda core, becoming what we refer to as franchise groups. These groups include al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Even though these franchises bear the al Qaeda name, they are locally owned and operated. This means that the local commanders have significant latitude in how closely they follow the guidance and philosophy of the al Qaeda core.
Some franchise group leaders, such as AQAP's Nasir al-Wahayshi, maintain strong relationships with the al Qaeda core and are very closely aligned with the core's philosophy. Other leaders, such as Abu Musab Abd al-Wadoud of AQIM, are more distanced. In fact, AQIM has seen severe internal fighting over these doctrinal issues, and several former leaders of Algeria's Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat left the group because of this conflict. Further, it is widely believed that the death of Somali al Qaeda leader Fazul Abdullah Mohammed was arranged by leaders of Somali jihadist group al Shabaab, which he had criticized sharply.
The last and broadest element of the global jihadist movement often referred to as al Qaeda is what Stratfor refers to as grassroots jihadists. These are individuals or small cells of individuals that are inspired by the al Qaeda core -- or increasingly, by its franchise groups -- but that may have little or no actual connection to these groups. Some grassroots jihadists travel to places such as Pakistan or Yemen to receive training from the franchise groups. Other grassroots militants have no direct contact with other jihadist elements.
The core, the franchises and the grassroots jihadists are often interchangeably referred to as al Qaeda, but there are important differences among these actors that need to be recognized.

Important Distinctions

There are some other important distinctions that inform our terminology and our analysis. Not all jihadists are linked to al Qaeda, and not all militant Islamists are jihadists. Islamists are those who believe society is best governed by Islamic law, or Sharia. Militant Islamists are those who advocate the use of force to establish Sharia. Militant Islamists are found in both Islamic sects. Al Qaeda is a Sunni militant Islamist group, but Hezbollah is a Shiite militant Islamist group. Moreover, not all militant Muslims are Islamists. Some take up arms for tribal, territorial, ethnic or nationalistic reasons, or for a combination of reasons.
In places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and northern Mali, several militant groups are fighting foreign forces, their government or each other -- and sometimes all of the above. Some of these groups are jihadists, some are tribal militias, some are brigands and smugglers, and others are nationalists. Identifying, sorting and classifying these groups can be very difficult, and sometimes alliances shift or overlap. For example, Yemen's southern separatists will sometimes work with tribal militias or AQAP to fight against the government; other times, they fight against these would-be allies. We have seen similar dynamics in northern Mali among groups such as AQIM, Ansar Dine, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa, various Tuareg groups and other tribal militias in the region.
Taxonomy becomes even more difficult when a group uses multiple names, or when multiple groups share a name. Groups adopt different names for discretion, confusion or public relations purposes. AQAP called itself Ansar al-Shariah during its fight to take over cities in southern Yemen and to govern the territory. But radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri, who was arrested in the United Kingdom in 2004 and extradited to the United States in 2012, has long led a movement likewise called Ansar al-Shariah. Even the Libyan jihadist militia that attacked the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi uses the same name. But just because these groups share a name, and just because members or leaders of the groups know each other, does not necessarily mean that they are chapters of the same group or network of groups, or that they even subscribe to the same ideology.
As we mentioned long before Moammar Gadhafi was ousted in Libya, jihadists and other militants thrive in power vacuums. This assertion has proved true in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, and more recently in Libya, northern Mali and now Syria. Weapons flooding into such regions only compound the problem.
Militant Islamists have seized the opportunity to grow in influence in such places, as have the subset of militant Islamists we call jihadists. So in this context, while the al Qaeda core has been crippled, other portions of the jihadist movement are thriving. This is especially so among those that aspire to mount local insurgencies rather than those more concerned with planning transnational attacks. The nuances are important because as the composition and objectives of jihadist groups change, so do their methods of attack.

---

Print 78 44 187 57

Reprinting or republication of this report on websites is authorized by prominently displaying the following sentence, including the hyperlink to Stratfor, at the beginning or end of the report.

"Defining al Qaeda is republished with permission of Stratfor."

Read more: Defining al Qaeda | Stratfor

"Defining al Qaeda is republished with permission of Stratfor."

SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

This paper seeks to illustrate key findings regarding the position taken by the Eastern European group toward the benefits of Security Council reform. A brief history of how the United Nations was established and the foundations of the Security Council are touched upon as well as the criticisms concerning its functions. The main objective and key arguments of the Eastern European group regarding its position for reform are analysed to demonstrate a better understanding and reasoning behind the group’s position concerning reform.

The United Nations is an international organization that aims to aid support in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and to ultimately achieve world peace. The United Nations was established in 1945 after World War II. The purpose of the UN was to replace the League of Nations to stop wars between countries and provide platform for discussion. The League of Nations was founded in 1919, during the First World War and promoted peace, security and international cooperation. However, the United Nations came about because the League of Nations failed to prevent the Second World War (History of the United Nations, 2012). The United Nations currently has 193 member states and consists of six principle organs being, the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat, the International Court of Justice and the United Nations Trustee Council (History of the United Nations, 2012). Under the United Nations Charter the Security Council has the primary responsibility of maintaining international peace and security (Charter of the United Nations, 2012).

The Security Council has 15 members, 5 of which are permanent and hold veto power and 10 of which are elected members. The 5 permanent members include China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US). Currently the 10 elected members include Azerbaijan, Columbia, Germany, Guatemala, India, Morocco, Pakistan, Portugal, South Africa and Togo (United Nations Security Council, 2012). When there is a complaint from any member state concerning a threat to peace the Security Council’s first step is to recommend a peaceful resolution. However, once that threat leads to fighting the Security Council’s first objective is to bring it to end by various means such as issuing cease-fire directives, deciding on enforcement measures, sending United Nations peace-keeping forces, economic sanctions such as trade, military action against a UN member state or the suspension of membership or dismissal from the General Assembly of a UN member state (United Nations Security Council, 2012). However, it has been recommended to reform the Security Council regarding its members.

It has been criticized that the five permanent members of the Security Council are primarily concerned with their strategic interests and political motives. China, France, Russia, the UK and the US are all nuclear powers and through their self-interests have been alleged to have created their own “nuclear club” and since 80% of the permanent members are for the most part white western nations, they can be seen to be functioning on a global apartheid (Titus Alexander). Another criticism of concern involving the Security Council is their power to “veto”. The power to veto was established after world war II and gives the five permanent members of the security council the power to strike down any proposal by a single “no” vote. The veto power has allowed these nations to strike down any measures that may oppose to their distinct national interests (Council on Foreign Relations, 2012). Permanent members of the council have used this veto power sparingly when it concerns their own interests and this poses as a problem because it allows for their nation to always be on a hierarchy of priority which does not establish equality amongst all nations (Council on Foreign Relations, 2006). The recommendation to reform the Security Council concerns itself with reforming the membership. Its proposal includes increasing the amount of permanent members in the council (Council of Foreign Relations, 2012). The most popular demand for an increase in permanent members has been from Brazil, India, Germany, Japan, one African nation and one nation from the Arab league. Although some of these members are the largest funders of the UN and have the most UN peace keeping troops, their proposals for reform have been reluctantly supported as well as some firmly opposed by the current five permanent members of the Security Council.

As mentioned above, the United Nations has 193 member states. All 193 are together all unofficially divided into five geopolitical regional groups. The five groups include the African group, the Asia-Pacific group, the Eastern European group, the Latin American and Caribbean group and the Western European and Other group. The Eastern European Group (EEG) consists of countries from Eastern Europe and Caucasus, composing of 23 state actors. The EEG has only one seat in the General Assembly (one of the principle organs in which all members are supposed to have equal representation) while other regions have two or more seats which enable them to have more clout in issues pertaining to international relations. The Eastern European group has had a long history of conflict with Western European nations concerning differences in ideology which makes it difficult for the EEG to seek consensus with the Western European group over some issues which deems to be of importance due to the close geographical proximities between the two groups. The Eastern European nations are not wealthy, and are prone to falling behind on their UN membership payments. Since the Warsaw Pact no longer exists it also makes it difficult for the EEG to have strong military presence for peacekeeping efforts and reliance on allies. All these issues added to the result of weakness within the group.

However, in 1946 there was a change in the status quo; the Eastern European seat was included in the permanent members under the “gentlemen’s agreement” (Security Council Report, 2012). The agreement did not sit well with the Soviet Union and the West and for twenty years they contested and strived to place their preferred candidates in this seat. It also became a fiercely contested seat among new member states that did not have a clear regional grouping (Security Council Report, 2012).

The EEG not being a member of the five permanent members of the Security Council do not hold veto power which remains an obstacle to reform the Security Council as these five members would not want to relinquish their right to veto (The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2012). All state actors would act on premise of raisons d’état, to promote and gain their own interest (The Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2012).

As previously discussed, the Security Council’s primary function is to make binding decisions in order to maintain international peace and security. Therefore it would lead one to believe that equal and proportional representation should be achieved by the members of the UN. The last Security Council enlargement was in 1965, though it added 4 new non-permanent seats, it still is controlled by the 5 global powers after WWII and since then new world powers have come forward (Center for UN Reform Education, 2007).

As previously mentioned, Russia (formerly the USSR), is a member of the Eastern European group (EEG) and also a permanent member of the Security Council. So it could be argued that the eastern European group currently has large enough representation and a veto on the Security Council. However most of the other 22 member states of the EEG were formerly under Russian control and have since split off from Russia. So therefore it can be asked does Russia actually have the best interest of these member states in mind when it makes Security Council decisions. The EEG is the smallest of the regional groups but has seen the most growth in recent years, which could be attributed primarily to member states gaining their independence from Russia.

The EEG members would like to see Security Council reform, expansion, and more transparency. Romania for example has pointed out that it has been decades since the last expansion of the Security Council and how it is going to be decades since they (UN) started discussing this issue (“Statement By H.E. Mr. Mihnea Motoc”, 2007). Slovenia has pointed out that Security Council reform has been needed since the cold war both in its methods and composition. There needs to be more permanent member’s added, as well as more frequent rotation of the non-permanent members (Slovenian Statement on Security Council Reform, 2009). Bulgaria takes a similar stance to Slovenia, but it also points out that since the EEG has grown the most, membership wise, in recent years the EEG should receive another non-permanent seat on the Security Council (Bulgaria Statement at the General Assembly Debate on Security Council Reform, 2007). During the same general assembly debate in 2007, Estonia supports Bulgaria in the sense that the EEG needs another non-permanent seat, and permanent seats need to be added as well in order to achieve equitable geographical representation (Estonia Statement at the General Assembly Debate on Security Council Reform, 2007).

In conclusion, the Eastern European group has seen rapid membership expansion in recent years due to many states gaining independence from Russia. Therefore it can be argued that Russia should no longer be making the decisions on behalf of the entire EEG and that the current one non-permanent EEG seat is not sufficient due to their geographical size and membership. The addition of another non-permanent seat on the Security Council would help provide better representation as well as regional equitability. The United Nations has been discussing the issue of Security Council reform for almost a decade now and we have yet to see any major alterations to the balance of power which was created during the cold war era.

References

History of the United Nations. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/1941-1950.shtml

Charter of the United Nations. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/

United Nations Security Council. (2012). Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/

Council on Foreign Relations. (2006). Retrieved from
http://www.cfr.org/un/effectiveness-un-security-council/p11520

Center for UN Reform Education. (2007). The United Nations Security Council: Reforms concerning its membership - An Overview. Retrieved from www.centerforunreform.org/system/files/Overview+(2007).pdf

“Statement By H.E. Mr. Mihnea Motoc”. (2007, November 13). Retrieved from

http://www.reformtheun.org/index.php?option=com_docman&gid=15&category=10&orderby=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC&Itemid=248&limitstart=180

Slovenian Statement on Security Council Reform. (2009, March 4). Retrieved from http://www.reformtheun.org/index.php?option=com_docman&gid=15&category=10&orderby=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC&Itemid=248&limitstart=120

Bulgaria Statement at the General Assembly Debate on Security Council Reform. (2007, November 13). Retrieved from http://www.reformtheun.org/index.php?option=com_docman&gid=15&category=10&orderby=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC&Itemid=248&limitstart=180

Estonia Statement at the General Assembly Debate on Security Council Reform. (2007, November 13). Retrieved from http://www.reformtheun.org/index.php?option=com_docman&gid=15&category=10&orderby=dmdate_published&ascdesc=DESC&Itemid=248&limitstart=180

Security Council Report. (23 September 2012) Retrieved from http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/special-research-report/lookup-c-glKWLeMTIsG-b

The Center for Strategic and International Studies. (23 September 2012). Retrieved from http://csis.org/files/publication/twq03autumnweiss.pdf

Former SAVAK Agent Parviz SABETI

Mr. Parviz SABETI was a former SAVAK agent during times of Pahlavi Reign. Mr. SABETI hold high position in the SAVAK who was responsible, as well as, accountable for national sovereignty of Iran against domestic and foreign enemies.

There were elements in Iran who publicly in YouTube were saying that they were involved in assassination of prominent individuals. Their primary intention were sedition of the Pahlavi Reign. Thereby, their act would be deemed as criminal which was duty of the Pahlavi Regime to enforce social order in Iran and to prevent social chaos in Iran.

Ask yourself as a rational person and not as a person who wants to reject or just praise someone. What should SAVAK do when these elements were engaging in act of social disorder? What should Mr. SABETI do when these elements were committing criminal offences against law?

Obviously, SAVAK and Mr. SABETI had sworn to up-hold the law, and protect and defend Iran's national sovereignty. If Mr. SABETI was in some other country, leaders would deem him as an honorable man and would give hih a medal.

The above statement is valid as long as there is no evidence that he was working with the regime in Iran and so on...

Israel vs the rouge state in Iran

Israel decided to halt its preemptive military strike on the nuclear sites in Iran, and hoping the economic sanctions would deter the regime in Iran to continue its nuclear proliferation. In addition, currently, Iran's currency has lost its value. Right now, Iran's currency is just a piece of paper with countless zero on it.

When Western Politicians Work With Terrorists

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8R3BD7yjcEE&feature=relmfu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mp4a03aBig&feature=player_embedded

Thou Shalt not Steal

There is one Christian Commandment which is against stealing from people, it is thou shall not steal. It is a grand idea that someone needs to remember it. 

When North African countries were going through regime change, Canadian government was freezing assets of  head of states of the North African countries, and would label them as a dictator. There was a question that if these head of states were dictators. Than, why did you let them have assets in Canada?  And now who possess those assets? 

Currently, there is no evidence which proves any assets is being transferred to people. There is a natural conclusion that these assets are owned by elite members of Canada, and there was a good Christian doctrine thou shall not steal.

The West is Bullying Muslims over Muhammad

The Western nations know that Muslim people are sensitive about Prophet Muhammad, and the Wester nations are using freedom of speech as scapegoat to insult Prophet Muhammad. The Muslim people begin by reacting with burning, and killing non-Muslims.

Than, there is the fake surprise face of the Western people that Muslims are uncivilized and there is no freedom of speech in the Muslim nations. Now, looking at other side of the coin, Muslim people do not disrespect Jesus or making any comment to Jesus which may offend Christian community. Yes, Muslims do attack at Christian communities, when Christians in the West start disrespecting their faith. The real question is why these Western nations are making cartoon and movies which are depicting Muhammad as a pervert or a bi/homosexual man? If someone in a movie theater begins to shout fire would authority apprehend her/him for an offence of mischief? Will authority in an airport apprehend a person who says bomb?

As a result, the social order of a society is more important than freedom of speech. Particularly, the Muslim nations are not doing anything against Jesus, it is the West which is agitating the Muslim community and it is acting as a bully against Muslims.

Let think independently, let not become pawn of politicians for their own bloodbath desire. Let live in peace with one another.

Military Strike On Nuclear Sites is Not An Option

The international community is disappointed with regard to the regime's nuclear program. There are some countries that they are contemplating to launch military strike on the nuclear sites in Iran. These countries are not violating any law. As a matter of fact, these countries are acting within United Nations Article 51 “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”¹ There are some other countries like Germany that it would like to impose more economic sanction against the regime in Iran and to resolve this nuclear issue base on dialogue of nations. It is following Peace Treaty of Westphalia.

Assuming one country like Israel to follow Article 51 of the United Nations, and launch a preemptive strike on nuclear sites of Iran. The above action would not secure existing of Israel and it would endanger existing of Israel. The regime in Iran would mobilize itself within several years and would launch terrorist strike on Israel and US interest around the world to ensure its security. If the nuclear blast would be a bad news for the world, the terrorist attacks against Israel and US would be way worst than the nuclear blast.

As a result, a preemptive military strike on the nuclear site in Iran would be fruitless. However, there is an alternative in ending in nuclear saga of Iran. Massive military deployment in Iran to topple the regime in Iran, as it happened in 2003, when US launched a military assault on Saddam Huyssien, and ended Saddam's regime. Last part, it would be the same tactic which is using now. Assisting dissidents within Iran to demolish the Islamic Republic of Iran.

1United Nations <http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter7.shtml> 21 Sept 2012

Pandora Box of Iran's Nuclear Proliferation

On July 01^st, 1968 the former establishment of Iran which was a monarchy system and head of state was Shah Mohammad Reza PAHLAVI signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Recently, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has brought it to the light that the regime in Iran's nuclear proliferation was in violation of the NPT.¹ Iran's nuclear energy head Mr. Fereydoun ABBASI-DAVANI (Douani) فریدون عباسی دوانی refuted the IAEA's claim, and charged the above agency being infiltrated by terrorist and saboteurs.²

 

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin NETANYAHU expressed serious concern with regard to the Iran's nuclear proliferation because it has direct impact on the state of Israel's survival in the region. Mr. Netanyahu has been persistent to use of military strike on Iran.³ However, German Chancellor Angela Merkel does not share same philosophy as Netanyahu, and believes in a political solution over the nuclear programs in Iran.⁴

The regime in Iran will not stop its nuclear proliferation, and learned a valuable lesson from former Libya president Qaddafi that by giving-up on nuclear proliferation, there was great possibility in this political realism to be overthrowing by foreign states. The regime in Iran has been very candid about its involvement in Syria. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corp General Mohammad Ali JAFARI who suppress uprising back in 2009 in Iran, he was assigned to provide advise to the regime in Syria to suppress the political unrest in the Syria.⁵

The bottom line, the nuclear programs in Iran is a means of survival, and any attack on the nuclear programs in Iran, it will be translated in a massive terrorist attack around the world against interest of the NATO or US and Israel Allies. The regime in Iran needs Shia state in Syria as an instrument to dominate the region, and would not allow the Syrian state to be overthrowing by the Western nations. Thus,  the political climate in the Middle East is moving toward political realism each day, and the region is becoming less stable for any peaceful means to create political liberalism in the region.

1National Post <http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/iaea-ignores-iranian-claim-it-has-been-infiltrated-by-terrorists-presses-islamic-republic-on-alleged-bomb-research/> 18 Sept 2012

2National Post <http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/09/18/iaea-ignores-iranian-claim-it-has-been-infiltrated-by-terrorists-presses-islamic-republic-on-alleged-bomb-research/> 18 Sept 2012

3The Gazette <http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Irans+nuke+chief+speak+155nation+atomic+agency+meet+Tehrans+atomic/7252131/story.html> 18 Sept 2012

4The Gazette <http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Irans+nuke+chief+speak+155nation+atomic+agency+meet+Tehrans+atomic/7252131/story.html> 18 Sept 2012

5The Wall Street <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443720204578000482831419570.html?mod=googlenews_wsj> 18 Sept 2012

Muhammad full movie - Innocence of Muslims

From Tehran to Cairo / از تهران تا قاهره

White Revolution or Socialism of King Mohammad Reza PAHLAVI

In 1963, His Imperial Majesty, King of Kings Mohammad Reza PAHLAVI executed White Revolution in Iran. He was planning to modernize Iran, and key elements of His Revolution were lean toward socialism. For example, factories were sharing profit with workers was a revolutionary idea. Karl Marx deemed profit as unpaid labor, and now owner of means of production was sharing profit with proletarians. Or taking lands from feudal lords and distrubting the lands among serfs and His Majesty transformed serf into land owners.

It is not about past, but understanding the new Iran, needs new thinking, and new path to emancipate Iran from hands of burtality of Islamic Republic of Iran.

کودتای نوژه: سی و دو سال بعد/ Nojeh, or Nozheh Coup

After watching the above video clip, still, I could not believe that there are indviduals that they think the West and the East were staging a coup to overthrow the regime in Iran. In fact, the regime in Iran is puppet and slave of the West.

A coup is not a party so everyone would be involve in it. It is secret, it is an act of sedition which carries a death sentence regardless which country a group of people would engage mutiny.

It was also questionable Dr. MILANI was associating word democrat with democracy. If anyone wants to know meaning of democracy, s/he need to read Thomas Hobbs and other political thinkers to understand what what democracy means.

Dr. MILANI is not sole person that needs our disregard, just going to the bottom of this petite pit of misery of Iran would be some low life person like Shirin NESHAT who is a chef and is a political leader and does not know what politics means. Just by scoping in her life, it is obvious that she is trying to benefit herself.

Today, there is a claim that the Nozheh Coup was rooted in the US, Saddam Hussein, or East so people would distrust Iran's Army.

The bottom line, there are no friends among us, we are sorround by enemies, even there are enemies within us. Let's burn the past, and not following anyone but to lead forward like a sharp sword, and only relying within us and to breath life of warrior in us so that one day Iran will be emancipated from hands of tyrannt.

هرگز نخواب کوروشCyrus do not sleep/2500 Celebration of Monarchy in Iran

This is one example that how Iranians ruined their own chance for glorfying Iran so that today they would not be stranded in a strange nations.

What really go down? Was it foriegn elements that they plant seeds of hate against head of state? Or was it that we were naive?

We were naive for believing in others, and thinking for a moment that they were our allied. We need to understand that we have no friends and we are left to our own devices to emanicipate Iran from hands of tyrannt.

The Immortals Persian

Accurate and detailed information about the Persian Immortals of the Achaemenid Persian Empire and the Sassanian Immortals known as the Savaran Heavy Cataphracts. This will be an ongoing project to develop proper information and historical account of the Pre-Islamic Persian World.
http://www.radpour.com/home