World Affairs

If you're interested in staying aware of the current international happenings of our world, this is definitely the issue for you. We've got all sorts of events that you may want to be aware of, whether out of concern or genuine interest. First, Call me Adam Stupid presents a rather analytical article, which also contains his own personal experiences, regarding the internet group known (or not so known) as Anonymous. Following that is an article written by R Anderson about the small nation of Bhutan, which recently held its first series of democratic elections in over 100 years! And finally, Arianna has given us an investigation of Myanmar, which could very well be standing at a pivotal moment in its history, with the proposition of a brand new Constitution. Once again, that sums up the World Affairs section for this issue. So be sure to brush up on your "current history," because it's in the making today!

-Kyle

Anonymous - By: Call Me Adam Stupid

Anonymous: Hackers on Steroids or Activists defending Free Speech?

Anonymous is known to have over 9000 members and rocketed global stardom for their protests that were widely known throughout the realms of the internet. I would not describe them as a ‘vigilante group’ because that would imply they did bad things. In my eyes ‘Activists’ would be the correct term. I personally watched from the sidelines as Anonymous abandoned the DDOS (Distributed Denial Of Service) attacks against the CoS websites. According to members that I spoke to they were stopped “because they were becoming ineffective, and because Mark Bunker (of xenutv.com) pointed out that the Church's wild and crazy websites were better for ‘us’ up, than down.

DDos (Distributed Denial of Service attacks) are illegal but that was a different ‘Anonymous’ and they have changed and grown with a massive influx of new people like myself. All the fresh people I encountered were all committed to lawful and peaceful actions I'm not a lawyer/judge, so I couldn't comment as to legality or otherwise. I agree with Mark Bunker (a.k.a Wise Beard Man) that they were counterproductive.

Anonymous grew up from the ‘image board’ websites that appear on the internet where discussion is mainly focused on the pictures users post (it is considered déclassé to post the names publicly), and those websites to not require user registration to post, you can give an assumed name to be associated with your message, or if you leave it blank then the post will be attributed to “Anonymous” This is the supposed origins of the group name “anonymous”.

However, most of these conversations would be considered edgy (or worse) by a “mainstream” audience but these boards have traditions of being free speech boards, And their mocking of the famous leaked Tom Cruise video launched a massive copyright claim against you tube and other video- sharing websites. From there, "Anonymous" shifted and expanded into a very different sort of thing - lots of people found IRC channels, found various wikis (wikipedia pages) and websites.

And this generally resulted in a much broader spectrum of members that “Anonymous” had been composed just a couple of months ago. Personally, I learnt the dark truths about the "Church" of Scientology a few years ago, but felt pretty much powerless to protest or oppose them in any way, so when this all kicked off, I was very keen at the chance to participate in this manner - with the risks to my privacy and quiet personal life greatly reduced by being part of such a big crowd.

Scientology has many faults and as a corporation they have been convicted of numerous crimes in many countries. Whether that means the entire organisation is criminally liable, or a "criminal organisation", would be for the courts to decide. They spent many many years playing corporate "shell games" in the USA, trying to avoid paying up a settlement they'd initially agreed to as a result of one of their previous lawsuits.

I have nothing against the followers of Scientology but I have it against the supposed church. My personal opinions about the faith beliefs of the individuals aren't what I'm protesting . The 10th February was chosen because it coincided with the death of a female scientologist who died in their care due to their neglect and mistreatment, no one actually ‘called’ it. I've heard rumours that the CoS are moving their birthday celebrations to another date, but Anonymous will be protest-celebrating L. Ron Hubbard's birthday on the 15th of March as has been announced.

Anonymous gained media attention for the first time when FOX News broadcasted and aired a video on the group calling them “They are hackers on steroids, treating the web like a real life video game. Sacking websites, invading MySpace accounts and disrupting innocent people's lives. They plastered his profile with gay sex pictures. His girlfriend left him. Truly epic LULZ come from raids and invasions.” But that Fox news coverage refers to events prior to "the big change" (i.e. when anonymous was largely made up of members of the aforementioned image-boards).

To the people wishing to get involved there's no application process. Because there's no "leadership", all you need to do is "turn up" online (or in person at one of the upcoming protests). "Lurk" for a little while to get the feel for how we do things, and contribute when you have an idea or opinion. From what I can see nobody's "in charge" of Anonymous, there are no clear lines of communication to know who originally said something. Ideas get kicked around and thrive/vanish on their merits.

To people who want to leave the claws of Scientology, To anyone who is in, and thinking of getting out... In the "outside world", you really are free to disagree with people, without being told you're a bad person for doing so. A really good link for people who are considering leaving is at "http://leavescientology.blogspot.com/"][/ (it's a "safe" site, containing no "secret church material" that the church's indoctrinated members are very worried about accidentally being exposed to). It’s not my site, but it's the best single resource I know of for people who want to make a bid for true personal freedom.

At best, I'm "an individual who joined Anonymous when their first robot-voice video was released on Youtube"

[ Back to top ]

Bhutan Elections - By: R Anderson

Bhutan Elections

The Kingdom of Bhutan is a small nation, sandwiched between India and China. However, it made international news when it held democratic elections after being an absolute monarchy for over 100 years. The first general elections were held in December 2007 for the upper house and March 2008 for the lower house.

History of Bhutan

The country of Bhutan as it is known today was started in the early 1600’s when Shabdrung Namgyal united the series of minor fiefdoms that had occupied the area up until this point. Bhutan prospered for a time but following Namgyal’s death in 1651 the country fell in to civil war. It was reunited in order to defend against an invading Tibetan army in 1710.

Then in 1772 Bhutan invaded a small kingdom called Cooch Behar. Cooch Behar appealed to India, which was then controlled by the British, to come to their defense. India then drove Bhutan out of Cooch Behar and started attacking Bhutan itself. The attack was successful and a peace treaty was signed with Bhutan losing all of the land it had gained by invading Cooch Behar. Over the next 100 years Bhutan and the British would constantly be fighting, but the situation didn’t escalate into a full grown war until 1864. The war lasted 5 months with Bhutan being defeated handily by the British, after Bhutan was defeated they lost parts of their territory and had to loan 3 territories to the British in return for 50,000 rupees a year.

In 1907 Bhutan became a monarchy when a king was named by a commission of Buddhist monks. In 1952 Jigme Wangchuck became the third king of Bhutan. During his time as king Jigme would end slavery and encourage the use of wheeled vehicles. During the 1980’s there was conflict between the government and the Nepali population in the south. The government saw these people as illegal settlers but when they tried to remove them there was a violent backlash. The government then sent an army into the south causing many of the Nepali settlers to flee the country or take refuge in UN refugee camps. This problem was never solved and the US is currently working to resettle many of the Nepali refugees in its territory. In 1998 Bhutan underwent large political changes including more power being shifted away from the king and towards a new legislator called the Council of Cabinet Ministers. A year later in 1999, Bhutan lifted the ban on television and the internet.

The Democratic System and the Elections

Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the king of Bhutan, in 2005 decreed that Bhutan would become a democracy with the first elections being held in 2007/2008. He then abdicated his throne letting his son rule until the elections. This was a complete shock to nearly everybody in Bhutan. The people of Bhutan disliked the idea of democracy and liked the monarchy system very much. Also the country as a whole had been doing very well. The average income is twice the amount of India and almost everybody has access to schools and hospitals. However as it was a royal decree that demanded that Bhutan became a democracy the transition has been remarkably clean and peaceful. The upper house or National Council consists of 25 members, 20 of which are elected and the remaining 5 are selected by the king. Those running for the National Council are not allowed to affiliate themselves with any political party. The lower house or National Assembly consists of 47 members all of which are elected and are all affiliated with a political party.

The elections proceeded smoothly with a 79% voter turnout. In the National Assembly the Peace and Prosperity Party won 45 out of the 47 available seats. In the upper house or the National Council it’s much more difficult to know what the group of people will be like as they aren’t allowed to be connected with a political party.

These elections in Bhutan were a success. Voter turnout was high, the votes were counted fairly, and the mudslinging stayed at a minimum. However it will be interesting to see how Bhutan will fare over a long period of time as the population gets used to having more freedom and power. Many of the people in Bhutan are worried that by becoming a democracy they will follow the path of Pakistan with huge riots and unrest. All the signs so far show this to be unlikely, with the campaigns very clean be most countries standards. The attacks on other candidates got no worse than accusing the other of vote buying by paying their campaign’s employees.

[ Back to top ]

Myanmar At A Turning Point...or Not? - By: Arianna

Myanmar's military junta, which has ruled the country since 1962, has published its proposed new Constitution to the people, who will have to vote to approve or reject it on May 10.

This proposal has sparked considerable debate among those who follow the events in Myanmar: for some, this might lead to a new era for the former British colony, with multiparty elections and no more dictator-like control over the whole life of the people; for others, though, it is no more than a facade put in place to appease international opinion.

For one, the text of the proposal isn't freely available as it should be - it is, instead, sold at governmental bookstores at a price equivalent to 1 US dollar. It might not seem much, but Myanmar has 32.7% of its population (officially) below the poverty line, and therefore obtaining a copy might be very difficult for them.

The proposal also includes clauses that aren't well-welcomed by most regime critics, such as parliament seats reserved for the military (25% of the seats in both houses). Among the disputed clauses lies also the one which bars any person who has been married to a foreign national from holding any kind of political office: this seems to be particularly tailored on the major opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, who has been married with Dr. Michael Aris, a British national.

Additionally, there have been multi-party elections in 1990 too, but their results were completely ineffective since the military junta never allowed the winning party, Ms. Suu Kyi's NLD, to form a government.

Democracy forces in Myanmar have started a "Vote NO" campaign, which is being screened closely by the government, which explains the police mobilization with "terrorism concerns."

France, USA and Britain, within the UN Security Council, have already voiced their worries about the vote being fair, without intimidation from the police.

Is Myanmar finally at a turning point, or is it just the last of a series of decoys to please international opinion?

[ Back to top ]