Recognizing the Armenian Genocide: Where is 2008 Obama?

April 24^th marked the 100^th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. It also marked the 7^th year in a row that Obama has broken his promise to use the “g” word to describe the 1915 massacre. Obama stands alone among a number of other major leaders, including France, Germany, Russia, and Austria, who have recently stepped up to describe the atrocity as genocide. The disappointment among scholars, the Armenian-American community, and really anyone who cares about this issue has been overwhelming. In my opinion, President Obama has been a good leader. However, he is not the energized leader declaring “change” that we hoped and thought we were electing in 2008. His failure to recognize the genocide gives us another disappointing example of Obama’s inability to fulfill promises of “hope” and “yes we can” that the American public yearned for.

Turkey repeatedly denies that the “events of 1915” could be considered genocide, but scholars say otherwise. David Simon, professor of political science and co-director of the Genocide Studies Program at Yale, says, “There is a near consensus that the Armenian genocide was a genocide, or that genocide is the right word. The deportations and massacres amounted to a crime we now know is genocide. In 1915 there was no such word.”

There wouldn’t be a debate about this issue, if it weren’t for Turkey’s denial of the genocide and the strategic importance of Turkey to us. As a NATO ally, rising economic power, and important Middle East partner, Turkey is much more important to us than Armenia, a comparatively impoverished, small state.

As a Senator and presidential candidate Obama repeatedly referred to the atrocity as genocide, and in 2008 pledged that as president he would recognize the genocide. Academic and author Samantha Power has championed this cause, and even recorded a five-minute video insisting that the Armenian-American community give Obama their vote because he would keep his promise on this issue. He sure got the vote, but where is the follow-through? 

It is imperative that we recognize genocide, no matter how long ago it may have occurred, in order to ensure that history does not repeat itself. If we fail to do this and allow nations to overlook past atrocities, we leave room for actions to repeat again. Recognizing the past is just as important for the Armenian loss as it is for Turkey to come to terms with their history, something that is important for a democratic way of life.

Political alliances are real and important to global governance, but President Obama can endure the brief blowback from Turkey. We are a more important alliance for Turkey than they are for us. Though other countries have stepped up, the U.S. is needed to isolate Turkey on this issue. I hope that President Obama can remember the candidate he was in 2008, and in his final years in office really change the status quo.

Hillary Clinton's Hormones?

Ending years of speculation and coy denials of presidential ambitions, Hillary Clinton officially announced her 2016 Presidential bid on April 12^th.  Clinton had garnered a major support base long before her announcement. According to a CBS News Poll 81% of Democrats said they would consider voting for her. So far none of Clinton’s potential Democrat rivals, including Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Virginia Senator Jim Webb, even come close to touching her.

With few challengers, and few strong Republican candidates on the horizon, and no shortage of what we know political campaigns really come down to (money), Clinton has a strong shot at the presidency. Even as a female. What is concerning is not her ability to be elected with respect to her gender, but rather the incessant rhetoric surrounding her gender.

I already feel eyes rolling – another feminist scolding the media for focusing on Clinton’s gender instead of her ideas and qualifications. Yes, this point has been belabored, but because it has to be belabored. Because the media still doesn’t get it.

As expected from the far right, many outlandish comments have been made surrounding Clinton’s ability to lead as a woman, including marketing CEO Cheryl Rios who told CNN, “With all the hormones we have there is no way we should be able to start a war.”

If it stopped with comments like this I’d be willing to brush off the right-wing crazies. But perhaps even more off-putting are articles like Time Magazine’s which argues that Clinton, as a postmenopausal woman, is at a perfect age and is “biologically primed” to lead.

The long phase of perimenopause is marked by seismic spikes and troughs of estrogen levels, which can last for more than a decade in many women. But afterward, there is a hormonal ebbing that creates a moment of great possibility. As a psychiatrist, I will tell you the most interesting thing about menopause is what happens after. A woman emerging from the transition of perimenopause blossoms. It is a time for redefining and refining what it is she wants to accomplish in her third act. And it happens to be excellent timing for the job Clinton is likely to seek. Biologically speaking, postmenopausal women are ideal candidates for leadership. They are primed to handle stress well, and there is, of course, no more stressful job than the presidency.

Are we really going to legitimize the discussion of Hillary Clinton’s hormones and menopausal status? Psychiatrist Dr. Julie Holland probably thinks she is doing a service by defending Clinton’s much-discussed gender and age through scientific jargon. Instead it implies that tying a woman’s competence to her hormones is a valid construct. An article would never be published concerning the testosterone levels of any male politician, despite that men experience a cycle of hormonal fluctuations as well. Forget about Clinton’s experience as a former first lady, senator, and secretary of state, her hormones are why you should vote for her.

Times are changing and white-male centric society is beginning to be challenged. In 2008 the nation was mostly energized by the idea of electing a black man to the presidency. While there was a segment of right-extremist bigots who fixated on Barack “Hussein” Obama, the majority of America saw right through radical Islamist conspiracy theories. For those consciously and subconsciously off-put by the color of his skin, he acted “white enough” for most.

But Hillary Clinton is a female – no way of easing into it. Outright prejudice won’t be the most dangerous in this election. What is more dangerous is the mainstream media validating our comfort in a male-dominated society through legitimizing discussions of irrelevant subjects such as gender biological differences.

If hormone talk is what we have to look forward to this election, our state of politics in the U.S. needs major repair. Let’s keep wisdom and gender separate, all I care about is Hillary Clinton’s wisdom and I challenge the mainstream media to do the same. But the sad truth is that if Clinton is elected to the presidency, we can probably look forward to years of hullabaloo over her outfits and how she is wearing her hair.

House of Putin

“You don’t understand Russia, Mr. President,” House of Cards’ fictional Russian President Viktor Petrov explains to U.S. President Francis Underwood, “If people don’t like the job you’re doing, they vote you out of office. If they don’t like the job I’m doing, they topple statues. Blood is spilled. Chaos takes over.” Viktor Petrov’s similarities to real-life President Vladimir Putin are uncanny. Aside from the identical initials, he is a former KGB agent with a flare for posing shirtless photos and jailing dissidents. House of Cards is fiction of course, but this lethally addictive Netflix-original series engrosses the viewer into Frank Underwood’s empire by drawing off of real-life contexts.

One of Russia’s last remaining opposition leaders and most vocal activists against Russia’s involvement in Ukraine, Boris Nemtsov, was mysteriously assassinated on February 27^th. President Putin quickly launched an “official” investigation, which pinned the murder on a group of five Muslim Chechen rebels, a conveniently controversial minority in Russia. One of them, a certain Zaur Dadayev, even confessed under questioning. Perfect. But not so fast – this tale began to unravel in following weeks, when a journalist visiting Dadeyev in a detention center reported that he had been beaten, threatened with a bag over his head for two days, and forced to confess.

Vladimir Putin has created an undemocratic political system that makes his leadership virtually impossible to replace, and as Petrov expresses, the only way his autocracy might be overthrown would be through violent revolution. He therefore quashes dissent before it propagates. The importance of stability overrides democratic rights.  

With numerous incarcerations, exiles, and assassinations of his top opposition, Putin is not fooling anyone in the Nemtsov case. Tens of thousands marched in Moscow to honor Nemtsov, yet the crowd’s chants of “Russia without Putin” were suffocated by police helicopters and sirens.  Nemtsov’s murder will continue to be under speculation, and there will never be certainty as to who ordered the assassination. Yet it doesn’t really matter because the evidence speaks for itself: if you challenge Putin too loudly there are three options, jail, exile, or death. Mikhail Khodorkovsky is one of the most prominent examples of this, whose vast wealth and democratic inclinations posed a threat to Putin, and spent years in a brutal jail/labor camp hybrid. 

Many argue that Russia has particular historical conditions that have indicated a need for strong leadership. This is partially true, and Petrov appropriately alludes to the West’s misunderstanding of Russian political culture. Russia is enormously vast and ethnically diverse, and autocracy has been necessary for unity and has dominated Russian history. A strong leader was needed to pick up the pieces from the fall of the Soviet Union, and subsequent economic reform failures that left Russia in a miserable depression. Internationally, Putin has restored some of Soviet Russia’s former glory through his refusal to cower to Western demands.

Yet Russia’s history of autocracy should not destine Russia a one-man rule forever. Just because the Russian people have experienced few democratic rights historically does not mean that they are unsuited for democracy. Russia’s brutal history demonstrates a merry-go-round trend of violent uprisings in response to violent, unjust governments. Sustainable reform is the only way to ensure Russia’s centuries of bloodshed under the Tsar and the communist regimes are not repeated.

Putin’s construction of an autocratic state created the risk of revolution; since the Russian people have no voice in the ballot box, their dissatisfaction can only be heard through revolt. Of course, it is unlikely that the Russian people will “topple statues” in mutiny tomorrow. Support for Vladimir Putin – at least as reported in Russia – has been above 80% for the last year. But with Russia’s reported slip into recession, risk of increasing poverty, and isolation in Europe, may jeopardize the stability Putin promises. Eliminating dissidents one by one is only sustainable for so long.

For now, Boris Nemtsov remains another name on the list of eliminated challengers to the Kremlin’s authority. How many more there will be is up to the Russian people to decide.

Coercion: The Last Remaining Tool for the CCP

Reports emerged today of ten taxi drivers in Beijing drinking pesticide in protest of poor treatment by their taxi companies, but will the government listen? The men protested outside of a popular Beijing shopping center, drawing crowds as many keeled over and frothed at the mouth due to the pesticide. Videos of the protest quickly went viral on Chinese social media sites. The men aimed to kill themselves – thankfully all survived.

This is just one example in a series of labor protests that have recently surged across China. Strikes and labor protests doubled in 2014 to more than 1300 and have tripled in the last quarter, particularly by factory workers, teachers, and taxi drivers demanding better treatment. Rising tensions are likely a result of China’s slowing economy, as labor-intensive manufacturing is exported outside of China in search of cheaper labor. But the ruling Chinese Communist Party has failed to address these concerns, and instead have met protests with heavy-handedness. Even peaceful petitioners are often detained, many beaten, threatened, and sometimes even tossed into mental hospitals and silenced.

Independent unions are, of course, illegal in China. All labor organizations are state-run, registered and affiliated with the All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), who reportedly often ultimately side with management. Meng Han, a hospital security guard jailed for nine-months for protesting in demand of higher wages, says, “China’s unions do not belong to the workers.” The fact that the word “union” is even commonplace in the Chinese vocabulary – let alone formalized in the state – shows that China has come a long way in recent years. However, if ACFTU continues to stifle the voices of the workers, the number and intensity of protests and strikes will only continue to grow, threatening the stability of China.

An authoritarian state hinges upon three tools to dominate society: “coercion,” in the form of violent and non-violent repression, surveillance, and large police forces; “remuneration,” by buying off key interest groups and keeping general welfare rising; and “thought-work” or symbol-manipulation to manufacture legitimacy and cultivate nationalism. As one of these tools begins to weaken, the state must increasingly make use of the other two remaining tools to compensate. Although the Chinese economy is still very strong, as its growth slows, many lose their jobs, and workers demand more, we see that the state’s tool of “remuneration” is beginning to suffer.  “Thought-work” is also less successful than it used to be, with widespread access to international media and social media outlets even despite national bans. Chinese youth are especially more enlightened than ever before.

This leaves “coercion” as the last remaining tool for use by China’s ruling Communist Party. It is no surprise then that both mass incidents of civil unrest, as well as government spending on internal security have soared over recent years. Mass incidents increased from 8700 in 1993 to 90,000 in 2010, and these numbers are according to “official” Chinese government data, indicating that the number is likely much higher. The government has not released official data on numbers for more recent years. China’s spending on domestic security – including police, militia, and other domestic security arms – has exceeded its defense spending for the last three years. In 2012, the government increased its domestic security by 11.5% and in 2013 by 8.7%. In 2014 the government withheld their domestic-security spending figure.

If the Chinese Communist Party hopes to ensure their long-term rule and economic prosperity, concerns of citizens must be addressed. Desperate attempts of suicide like the taxi drivers’ protest in Beijing represents an unsatisfied labor force that is boiling over. History has shown us time and time again that intimidation, coercion, and the suppression of domestic unrest are not sustainable ways to govern, and sooner or later will erupt. Will the Chinese government recognize the warning signs?