Is Tillerson Next?

by with One Comment FeaturedGen ZPolitics

Rex might be on the way out. On October 9, 2017, we published an article detailing his troubles with the State Department. Since then, rumors of his feud with Donald Trump have continued. Our initial article below might include some of the reasons for what seems to be his inevitable departure.

[Rex Tillerson’s War Against the State Department]

Rex Tillerson has had a less-than-illustrious tenure as Secretary of State so far. Perhaps it’s because he seems to be more focused on reorganizing the department than on, you know, diplomacy. His striking lack of success has lead many to call for his resignation and for him to be called the “most ineffectual secretary of state since 1898,” by respected Foreign Policy columnist Max Boot. 

The Trump administration has made it exceedingly clear that it does not consider diplomacy a priority. According to some metrics compiled by the New York Times, under Tillerson’s leadership, the department has had its lowest profile in nearly half a century. Democracy promotion has been erased from the State Department’s mission statement and the Trump Administration has made every effort to cut key foreign aid programs. 

Part of the reason the department has been so ineffective is because the administration has failed to fill an inexcusable amount of key positions. Only one Assistant Secretary of State has been confirmed and the vast majority do not even have nominees. (Here’s a list compiled by The Washington Post of unfilled positions.) To put this in perspective the United States is currently facing a nuclear standoff in North Korea without an Undersecretary (or Assistant Secretary for that matter) for Arms control. While the federal government’s hiring freeze has been rescinded it remains in effect at the State Department. Until recently, state department officials were not allowed to serve on the National Security Council omitting an essential perspective from national security decisions. 

Tillerson’s mismanagement of the State Department has caused many senior diplomats to leave, further weakening State’s ability to conduct diplomacy. At the same time, Tillerson has suspended the prestigious fellowship programs that allow bright young minds to enter the department. Some of these fellows have their salaries paid by outside institutions, so Tillerson is essentially rejecting free labor. On top of all these other issues, there is growing evidence that the Secretary of State is on the outs with his boss. According to several sources, Donald Trump has become increasingly frustrated with Secretary Tillerson.

Just like pretty much everybody else in the government, lawmakers on Capitol Hill also seem to be fed up with the Secretary. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed a bill that completely upended the administration’s plans to make significant cuts to foreign aid and diplomacy initiatives – providing $11 billion more than requested. Not only did they allocate more funds than Tillerson wanted, they also included management amendments in the bill that severely limit the Secretary’s ability to reorganize the department. For example, the bill limits the size of the Policy Planning Staff – something that Tillerson had been expanding and that career State Department officials felt was undermining their ability to influence policy.

Now to be sure not everything Secretary Tillerson does is awful. His willingness to distance himself from Donald Trump’s remarks on Charlottesville is admirable and some of his reorganization initiatives do make a lot of sense. But the State Department still needs to serve its primary function – namely advancing US diplomatic interests – something it has not been able to do effectively under Rex Tillerson’s leadership. The decline of America’s diplomatic arm can only lead to an increased reliance on hard (military) power. A Senate report sums up this issue pretty nicely: “The lessons learned since September 11, 2001, include the reality that defense alone does not provide for American strength and resolve abroad. Battlefield technology and firepower cannot replace diplomacy and development.” 

This article was originally published on 9 October 2017.

Al-Aqsa Crisis… Israeli Palestinian Fighting Continues

by with No Comment FeaturedGen ZGlobalInternational

On July 14th the Israeli government made the decision to shut down Al Aqsa Mosque, the 3rd holiest site in Islam, after a clash that left three Palestinians and two Israeli officers dead. For the first time in nearly 50 years, the Friday prayers were canceled. The Israeli government then proceeded to install security cameras and metal detectors at the mosque before reopening it. Palestinians rejected these measures as violations of their rights and of the status quo, and refused to pray in the mosque, opting to pray in the streets instead.

Amid continued protests, the Israeli government continued to add restrictions – preventing men under the age of 50 from entering the compound. Palestinians organized demonstrations in “a day of anger” and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas froze contact with his Israeli counterparts. The Israelis were worried about an escalating security situation and elected to install new security cameras to replace the metal detectors – a measure also rejected by the Palestinians as a move that expanded Israeli control over the holy site.

As of July 27th, Israel removed all the security measures and Palestinians planned to resume prayer in the mosque. The conflict seemed to have temporarily subsided – until minutes after worshippers returned to the mosque Israeli police wounded dozens with stun grenades and rubber bullets. The official Israeli reports states that they were attacked with stones but Amnesty International reports that Israeli actions were unprovoked. Palestinian Muslims have now returned to the mosque and services have resumed as usual but tensions are still simmering.

To Palestinians, this is about much more than just metal detectors and security cameras. This is a system that devalues Palestinians and enforces a systemic repression of a people who have been denied even the fundamental right to have a state. They are fighting to retain a status quo that disadvantages them to begin with because they fear what would happen to them if the status quo was done away with entirely. The Palestinians already face a lack of sovereignty and they see this as a further undermining of their identities. In case you think all this status quos talk is ridiculous, consider this fact: there is a ladder in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem that has not been moved in centuries because to move it would be to undermine the status quo, and that would cause a conflict between the different churches that reside there.

It’s not as if the response was strange or unexpected by the Israelis. It’s a known fact that any interference with Al Aqsa inflames tensions and escalates the conflict. The second intifada (the second Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation) was in part spurred by Ariel Sharon’s visit to the compound after the failure of peace negotiations and is called the Al-Aqsa intifada for that very reason. Jerusalem has always been and continues to be the line in the sand that cannot be crossed without inciting a violent reaction on both sides.

One important takeaway: Palestinian leadership had very little to do with the mass mobilization of the last two weeks. In fact, Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority struggled to make themselves relevant regarding this tense situation. This is in part because the Palestinian citizens of East Jerusalem are relatively isolated from the Palestinian Authority, separated by an Israeli checkpoint from the West Bank. This may, however, also be a sign of Mahmoud Abbas’s shrinking support, and the resulting weakness of the Palestinian Authority, with two-thirds of Palestinians calling for the octogenarian leader to resign. Abbas’s decision to cut off ties with Israeli government pending resolution of the conflict seemed reactionary and an attempt to satisfy his quickly shrinking base.

Long term, this further underscores the importance and the tensions surrounding Jerusalem and final status negotiations. Both sides claim the city as their capital, although the majority of the international community officially recognizes neither. The Palestinian capital, East Jerusalem, is under Israeli occupation and effectively cut off from the Palestinian Authority, and the Israeli government will not allow them to fund projects within the city. If there is to be any hope of a final settlement to the conflict, Jerusalem must be addressed and the status of its religious institutions, holy to the worlds three Abrahamic faiths, must be taken into account.

Diversity in Recruiting, Pt. I

by with No Comment Uncategorized

Last June, an article was published by The Root naming Black women the most educated group in the US. That’s something to celebrate, right? Well, yes. Except the article then went on to say that in a recent study, black women were found to make up only 8% of private sector jobs and less than 2% of leadership roles. How is it possible that black women are proving to be highly educated, but are still having trouble with representation in Corporate America? Is this an issue that is only affecting black women? I think it’s fair to say that there are many educated black men as well as other minorities and even veterans who can relate to the job market hustle.

Applying for a job is no easy task. You have to research the company in order to write a decent, personalized cover letter, check all your LinkedIn connections to see if anyone has a connection to help you get a foot in the door, make sure your resume or CV reflects the needs of the company, etc. After all of that, you send your application in hoping to at least receive confirmation that it was received. Then, you have to start all over and do the same thing for the next company. It can be really draining. Imagine doing that for weeks or months on end with no hope of even getting a job interview.

Meanwhile, on the other side, a hiring manager sends out a job description to their network of colleagues and associates who then recommends candidates from their own network. Many times, those networks are built from college and professional organizations. If the college or professional organization is not diverse, you’re essentially going to get a carbon copy of what you already have.

Ideas are born from the combination of your education and experience. If everyone has the same educational background and similar life experiences, how can new and innovative ideas be formed? It takes bringing people from different backgrounds and different walks of life, aka diversity, to make businesses thrive.

How can an organization foster diversity? By breaking out into new worlds unexplored. There are so many professional organizations that are geared towards minority groups. Find them. There are many universities that have Black student associations. Establish a relationship. Howard University, Spelman College, Morehouse, etc. are producing some of the top college graduates in the country. Go there and recruit. It takes effort.

We’ve all been told that hard work pays off. That’s one of those quotes that I believe to be true. Putting in the work to diversify your work environment is definitely one of the jobs worth the effort. Not only does hiring more diversely drive innovation and creativity, but you’re also likely to capture more market share. Having a diverse staff means your company knows how to communicate and connect with different cultures, and eventually convert them into customers. By increasing diversity, you could essentially be increasing your company’s financial performance.

It is now 2017 and it’s time that we stop talking about making things more diverse and just do it. Systematic differences, which negatively impact minorities, have been in place since the dawn of this country, but it’s clear that many of us are excelling regardless. Will the hard work of those individuals pay off? I definitely hope so, but it’s hard to achieve success without opportunity. The time for sharing those opportunities is now.

“Attack ISIS, Not Linda Sarsour”

by with No Comment FeaturedGen Z

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0tr0CFik2k&feature=youtu.be

Over the weekend, Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian Muslim-American organizer of the women’s march, gave a speech in which she used the word ‘Jihad’. And the Internet exploded.

Right-wing media outlets seized the opportunity to make it seem as if her speech was proof of Muslim-Americans attempting to foment ‘Jihad’ against the US and Donald Trump. Even prominent liberal figures attempted to distance themselves from Linda. However, anyone who took the time to actually read the text or listen to her speech could clearly see that her use of the word ‘Jihad’ was being completely and sometimes purposely misconstrued. It is clear that what she was talking about had nothing to do with the use of violence. She was giving a speech about speaking truth to power.

This type of reaction to the simple use of a word is absolutely ridiculous and blatantly Islamophobia. Such a reaction is essentially saying that Muslims cannot use a certain term in their religion because it makes people uncomfortable. Some pundits defended Sarsour; yet, they still criticized her word choice.

There are two important points that need to be made. First, she was quoting a hadith- a prophetic saying. So those asking her to “think about her word choice” are essentially asking her to change the wording of her religion to suit the needs of others. Second, Western analysts are continuously saying that moderate Muslims should “take back Islam” from extremists. I’m not even sure what that means, because when a moderate Muslim who is an outspoken civil rights activist like Linda uses the word ‘Jihad’, those same analysts turn against her.

Saying Muslims should stay away from words like ‘Jihad’ is to suggest that Muslims should stay away from all controversial topics. The word ‘Jihad’ means to struggle and is most often used to denote an internal moral struggle. It’s a word that has been appropriated by extremists and bigots. It’s also important to note that the only group that interprets the word ‘Jihad’ to exclusively mean terrorism is ISIS and their affiliates. That does not mean its meaning has changed nor does it mean that Muslims should shy away from using the word. Any argument to the contrary plays right into the hands of bigots and extremists, and further perpetuates Islamophobia.

 

Ideas Make This Country Great

by with 2 Comments Diversity & InclusionFeaturedGen Z

As a Muslim-American, I spend a decent amount of time thinking about patriotism. This has become increasingly so as some far right politicians and “conservative media outlets” seem to be intent on suggesting that my citizenship and my religion are incompatible. So what does it mean to be a patriot? Does it mean blind support of everything the United States does? Does it mean that anything the government does, especially anything it does abroad, I have to support? Does not doing so make me unpatriotic?

My answer to all the above is no. American patriotism extends far past borders, political affiliations, and current administrations. It has nothing to do with any specific policy objective, and it has even less to do with politics. It is not nationalism. It is idealism.

Ideas make this country great. Concepts like diversity and pluralism. Values like freedom and liberty. The rights guaranteed to us in the constitution. Being a patriot means standing by these values; no matter the circumstance, no matter the time period, and regardless of what may be politically expedient.

Patriotism has nothing to do with unconditional support of the government. In fact, I would argue that unconditional support of anything is toxic, and unconditional support of the government is almost certainly unpatriotic. When the NSA violates the constitutional right to privacy and the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches by conducting warrantless domestic surveillance it is unpatriotic to be unopposed. Thinly veiled attempts at retroactive justification by appealing to issues of National Security aren’t patriotic. They’re hypocritical and contrary to the ideals that this country was founded on. As Benjamin Franklin famously wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

To make this more contemporaneous, when Donald Trump proposes a completely un-American Muslim Ban we can’t allow silence to take the guise of patriotism. Silence is not patriotism. Unconditional support is not patriotism. Standing up for American values is patriotism, regardless of who is in office and what their policies entail.

“Patriotism Is A Dirty Word”

by with One Comment CultureFeatured

When I was asked to define my patriotism, I initially laughed. I honestly can’t tell you the reason I laughed other than realizing the word patriotism makes me feel uncomfortable, but I couldn’t really explain why. Then I thought about it, and I remember when I officially broke up with patriotism.

Back in August 2016, NFL Quarterback Colin Kaepernick made headlines for kneeling during the national anthem before a game. Social media was going nuts, and I remember seeing a post on my timeline about Kaepernick being a coward and a disgrace. The post went on to say that Kaepernick’s actions were basically a spit in the face to true patriots like Pat Tillman. To refresh your memory, Pat Tillman was the military vet who turned down an NFL contract to enlist in the military after 9/11.

Please don’t get me wrong. I have so much respect for the women and men of the military. Anyone who is willing to take the chance and sacrifice their life and the life of their family to defend others deserves our utmost respect. They put their own wellbeing in the hands of a government they individually may or may not agree with; yet, they follow orders to protect our lives. That’s amazing.

However, I also think it’s amazing that someone like Colin Kaepernick is willing to put his own well-being on the line for a cause that was sensationalized, and then ignored. The Black Lives Matter movement was like a pawn to the media. They used it for clicks and views and then when the story died down, they moved on to the next. Kaepernick was using his platform to bring awareness in the simplest way and now he’s not only out of a job, but they called him names and belittled his character. All because he didn’t stand for a song that is itself racist! (Reference to Francis Scott Key and the third stanza of the Star-Spangled Banner.)

I don’t think patriotism is an inclusive word. Patriotism in my mind is the nemesis of progress. I recently heard someone call Mitch McConnell a patriot, and that honestly made me laugh out loud. Is this the same Mitch McConnell who was considered an obstructionist during the Obama administration? If you ask me, he should be the face of patriotism.

Now I know why my face twists up when I hear the word patriotism. It’s because the examples I’ve seen of patriotism are always used to belittle someone who’s trying to make progress. It’s kind of like a dirty word. I could also just be one of those millennials. You know… the ones who don’t like to be labeled or put into a box. It’s not that I hate the word; I’m just ambivalent about it. Instead of celebrating the Patriots, I’ll celebrate the humanitarians, the people who put others first. That seems more American to me.  

Similar Read: American Democracy: A Paradox