Sixty-Six Oh Eight

In a recent speech in Washington DC, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said that he hopes US President-elect Barack Obama will help rebuild the strained relations between the US and Russia by addressing what he has described as a lack of “necessary mutual trust.” It is arguable, however, that the lack of trust is due to actions on his side of the globe, rather than ours.

Former President Vladimir Putin boasted an absurdly positive approval rating throughout his two terms of service (1999-2008) largely due to the Russian economy’s bounce back from crisis, where GDP increased six-fold. But post-communist democratic freedoms were sacrificed, internal human rights and freedoms were threatened constantly, and the country remained as illiberal as ever. In recent news it has been revealed that Medvedev, who was strongly endorsed by Putin and nominated his former leader for the office of Prime Minister, intends to amend the Russian constitution in such a way that Putin would be allowed to return to the office of President for up to an additional three terms, or twelve years, of service. In light of this, it is obvious to see that Medvedev’s presidency is only a necessary step in Putin’s attempt to indefinitely retain the power that he holds in Russia, which is essentially ‘his’ country. Putin is effectively the most powerful man to rule Russia since the days of Stalin, in that whenever he wants something to happen, it happens.

Couple this development with the fact that on the morning after Barack Obama’s historic victory in America, Medvedev announced that Moscow would neutralize the possible deployment by the United States of a tracking radar in the Czech Republic and missile interceptors in Poland (both designed to guard against missile attacks by “rogue states”) by stationing short-range missiles in its western enclave of Kaliningrad, and one can understand the general attitude that Russians are taking into this newest era of world politics.

Russia (with Putin behind the wheel) intends to reassert itself on the international stage and challenge the US’s position as lone-superpower, and Barack Obama intends to pursue diplomatic solutions. Let’s hope that he’s up to the challenge.

Over the past eight years, the Bush administration has practiced a simple “attack first, talk later (if at all)” mentality. During the past election season, a great debate was sparked about one of President-elect Obama’s plans to sit down and talk with our enemies “without preconditions.” Sen. McCain seemed to think it was a terrible idea and that to talk to our enemies would be more harmful than it would beneficial. However, as the debate continued, General Patraeus said that sitting down to talk to your enemies is the key to understanding them and to accomplishing your goals in the most efficient way. In a recent CNN interview, South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak said that he would fully support any action that Pres. Obama would take to deal with North Korea. North Korea is one of the countries that Obama has said he would try to negotiate with, as their nuclear program is viewed by many as a huge threat to the world. Whether or not you agree with Pres. Obama’s policies, it is clear that his idea of using diplomacy will improve the U.S.’s standing in the world. South Korea would be most likely to be harmed in a mishandling of a situation with North Korea, and their President has endorsed the idea of using diplomacy to deal with Kim Jong-Il. He believes that Obama will effectively use “soft-power” to not only accomplish our goals, but to do it in a way that will benefit all parties involved and avoid military action. It is clear that this will help other countries to see that we are willing to sacrifice some and help other people to lose the stereotype of the ethnocentric American. This improved world standing will help to promote joining together to do what is best for the world and will help other countries to follow our leadership and promote healthier relations between countries.

California’s Proposition 8 has caused tremendous controversy nationwide. The proposition was an initiative to reestablish marriage in California as a union between one man and one woman. The controversy stems from the 2000 election when 61% of Californians voted for traditional marriage and subsequently had the vote overturned by the CA Supreme Court earlier this year. According to ProtectMarriage.com, a Pro- Prop. 8 website, the initiative is not an attack on gay couples. The Proposition affords gay couples “domestic partnerships” that theoretically should grant them all of the rights of married couples. However, the group contradicts itself. Firstly, domestic partnerships do not guarantee the same benefits as marriage. According to the Human Rights Campaign Fund, only 7,360 employers in America offer domestic partner benefits. Additionally, in all but 16 states domestic partners are not guaranteed tax benefits. Secondly, ProtectMarriage advocates that defining marriage as a union of two people instead of specifying genders undermines “…the value of marriage altogether.” So allowing adults who love each other enough to dedicate their lives to one another to call themselves “married” is diminishing the value of what Webster’s Dictionary defines as an “intimate union.” In other words, one type of love is more valuable than the other. Domestic partnerships and marriages are separate and extremely unequal. For this reason, the CA Supreme Court is completely justified in overturning the vote—just as the US Supreme Court was justified in overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. No On Prop 8. Com stated it best when they said that voting for Prop 8 is saying,” YES to bigotry, YES to discrimination, YES to second-class status for same sex couples.” If the public viewed gay marriage for what it really is, a civil rights matter, this would be a non issue. Furthermore, gay marriage is a moral issue! Since the government is not responsible for legislating morality, gay couples should be allowed to get married…not something of equal or lesser value.