whew! what a semester!

it took me a while to blog. this past semester was difficult. i took nine hours and taught two classes. i will do the same thing in the spring. but busting butt now means finishing course work by next fall. i'm anxious to get to the PhD.

for those of you who have perused my blog, it should be evident that i've been interested in kosovo. it actually became the focal point of my fall semester projects. in my development communications class, i worked on what i hope is a good start to a case study exploring how the regulatory and legislative framework promulgated by the UN mission in kosovo facilitated what has become Kosovar Albanians' opportunity to create their own media. this exploration was remarkable for many reasons. first, many of these documents - at least created by Kosovo's provisional government - are available online. second, in flipping through each of the documents, spread out across my floor by date or by agency or some other descriptor that i used in my haphazard filing system, i saw the creation of what many in the tiny province hope will be a country. i make no predictions about what will happen, only to reiterate what i put forth when i spoke with my poli sci professor. i don't think serbia will let the province go easily. and i don't think kosovo will stay easily. this tiny patch of earth should be kept in mind because it signifies an even larger tension between the united states and russia. sometimes i think following some of these events and speculating on what could happen is actually much more fun than watching television.

speaking of television: i'm almost finished with neil postman's "amusing ourselves to death." i highly recommend it.

my second project - for my international relations class - also focused on kosovo. but i took a much different angle. some have indicated that the un took steps in kosovo and east timor that it hadn't taken previously. while it had helped governments rebuild - for instance in cambodia - it didn't actually take over governance as it had in kosovo and east timor. because i think that the american news media help us organize our understanding of the world, i felt a change in un action such as this should be studied, especially how it appeared in the american news media. i struggled with the project to a certain degree. i was in a political science class, and their research methods vary from those used in media research. in the end, i came up with a framing analysis. i would divulge more, but i plan to submit the project to a symposium. i will write more about how it turns out. i am excited about the project, as i really like framing as a theoretical tool. while it isn't all-encompassing, i challenge researchers to find a theoretical tool that is. but i think it offers ways of exploring phenomena that sometimes cannot be explored in other ways.

school is about a week away, and i'm still working diligently with preparing for the courses that i will teach. i hope to contact michael wesch who teaches at kansas state university. he has used some of these web 2.0 tools in remarkable ways, and i'm interested in using these tools not only in the classroom but in my research, as well. i would be interested to hear from journalists globally about different issues, especially information flows; i hope some of these tools could facilitate that. i know few probably consider information flows a viable research consideration any more but i think it's especially pertinent now.

this semester, i'm taking a geography course that will focus on development in the third world, an international news communications course, and media globalization course. i'm really excited about what i will learn and even more excited what research questions i will discover. is anybody else wondering about how we evaluate information now? a brief vignette to illustrate a point before i close down for the evening.

my aunt, whom i love dearly, came to visit twice while i was at home - my original home is oklahoma, my diasporal home is phl - and we gathered around the kitchen table as we talked. my father, mother, aunt, cousin, and i warmly talked about the world and its state of affairs. on her second visit, because each visit she came with different cousins, she made the comment that she didn't know what had happened to the world. the value of human life everywhere seemed to be in decline. and i'm not sure if i said this aloud or only thought this, but it occurred that when she grew up she didn't have the rapid flow of violent images that she probably sees today, nor was the symbolic environment of her youth shaped the way it is today. i made the point, though i think it was lost on my more conservative elders, that we now have access to other sources of information; when i say other sources, i mean of course sources of information from other nations. i wonder how we would evaluate this information. probably, given my company, with skepticism. many studies indicate the flow of images and news content into the united states show "the other" as an exotic place, a violent, unwieldy place that exists in stark contrast to our comfortable, american lives. in other studies, political content is often painted with a nationalistic brush despite which side of the political continuum the news media may reside. what happens when we have access to news sources from beyond our national borders? how do we evaluate that information? would my aunt's world seem so violent? maybe. maybe not. i've lived in philly for the better part of a year and a half, and i have yet to see a drive-by despite the persistent news items in local media about the violence that pervades the city.

Whose freedom?

I have begun to realize how difficult it must be for many to truly understand world events. Finding information is difficult enough, but how do we assess that information? For instance, my previous post about RED completely skirted an explanation of foreign aid and investment in Africa. As some theorists have suggested, it is not possible to know everything. Nonetheless, it is difficult to understand situations without understanding the local context.

I check the news each day, completely bypassing the print and broadcast media entirely now. While I do not discount them as viable media, they simply do not allow for the navigation that I prefer. I wonder now if I’m a little ADD because of my interaction with the Internet; it is a medium that doesn’t necessarily require my complete attention at any given point. I hop around, from page to page and site to site, though this ability is not always negative. It enables me to travel through the course of a story, checking out related stories that I might not get through more traditional forms of media. One such story concerns the developments in Turkey. It was an AP headline that first peaked my attention about Turkey and Northern Iraq.

It is always interesting to me who follows what in the news. One of my colleagues said she had been following the developments in Turkey; of course, she’s one of those who reads the Sunday edition of the Times. Another friend said she had not been following, and I was relieved to know that she was like me – no clue. Interestingly, the one who was following the developments said, “What I think is interesting is how the word “insurgent” has been used.” Again, it seems like an ancillary connection, but is it? Ultimately the word depends on your perspective.

Turkey, Iran, and Kurdistan
The headline was this: “Will Turkey invade Northern Iraq?” I have to say that I was a little concerned. Isn’t Turkey our ally? What is Turkey’s problem any way? What was in Iraq that Turkey wanted? I am sure there were a number of readers out there who saw this headline and did not know what to think, especially since our military is in Iraq. And speaking of our military, why weren’t military officials worried about this? If they are, we might never know considering it’s probably been filed in the “National Security” category. This category overlaps with the American’s freedom - transparency and the right to know, to engage in knowledgeable participation. When our federal government must act toward the public good, these two categories often conflict.

It was the word invasion that worried me. No doubt that word is immediately tied to the First Gulf war and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, or further back, Russia's invasion of Poland or Germany's invasion of Russia. Typically it conjures the idea of one nation-state taking land or resource away from another nation-state. A trite analogy: in the geopolitical sandbox, it would be like a little kid expanding his or her space into a space already occupied. So I wanted answers to these questions, and it led me on a journey through several websites. And what I found pulled me into several layers of complexity that seem difficult to untangle. I shall touch on some, knowing well I am merely scratching the surface.We'll start with Turkish elections and work through the different stories that I found. Elections hindered plans to cross into Norther Iraq, according to The Turkish Daily News. Almost a week later, The Guardian reported Vice President Cheney has placed pressure on President Bush to invade Iran, which is all we need, right? We’re in Afghanistan and Iraq. We can’t manage the real estate that we have already, so expansion seems the next logical step. In addition, women are not faring well in Kurdistan, and some believe the U.S. government is actually aiding Kurds in attacks on Iran. Turkey and Iran have also found a friendship in one another; they signed an agreement – a Memorandum of Understanding – to transport natural gas, and both countries have led operations in Kurdistan. All of this seems simple, right? But wait, what the hell is Kurdistan?

The other Iraq
Kurdistan is Northern Iraq. I am not sure if it is a country, though most of the information that I have found indicates that it is. It possesses its own democratically elected Prime Minister and National Assembly. It seems like both its government and national identity should be recognized as legitimate. Perhaps some history will make things more clear?

Some history of Kurdistan
The Treaty of Sevres provided for autonomy for the Kurds; however, the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 invalidated the treaty. The League of Nations placed Kurdistan under the protection of the UK in 1925 for 25 years to ensure autonomy. In addition, the Kurdistan Democratic Party also received an agreement from Baghdad for its autonomy and political representation in 1970; however, from 1971 to 1980, the Iraqi government expelled thousands of Shia Kurds from Iraq. The Algiers Agreement between Kurdistan and Iran in 1975 settled disputes over land in exchange for Iran ending its support of the Kurdistan Democratic Party.

Kurds in Kurdistan are predominantly Sunni Muslims, but some are other faiths and religions, as well. Kurdistan has had its problems, marred by internal strife. A unification treaty, signed in January 2006, served to end disturbances and civil fighting. Problems aside, websites indicate Kurdistan is its own politically autonomous entity. Why, then, does Turkey and Iran insist on shelling the “stateless nation?”

PKK and PJAK
The Kurdistan Worker’s Party (Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan, PKK) is a Marxist separatist group seeking to create an independent Kurdish state in southeast Turkey and parts of neighboring countries; I'm up in the air about this one. Do they seek to expand the already existing Kurdistan, or do they want their own parcel of land? The group reportedly has participated in guerilla warfare and terrorism, resulting in the eventual military crackdown by Turkey. Members of the group withdrew to Northern Iraq, and is considered by the United States as a terrorist organization. Turkey, of course, regards the group as a terrorist organization, but the group has actively sought independence from Turkey, which does not recognize its Kurdish minority.
These two groups have caused a tremendous amount of trouble in Turkey and Iran.

One concern of Turkey could be the size of its Kurdish population; about 12 million Kurds live in Turkey. PKK began in 1973 and eventually moved its base of operations to Syria. The “invasion” into Kurdistan is an ongoing situation; on June 8, Turkish troops crossed into Kurdistan pursing members of PKK, and Iranian aircraft bombed the camps of the Party of Free Life in Kurdistan, or PJAK. PJAK is seen as PKK’s sister party in Iran, though some of the literature suggests that PJAK has an entirely different politcal persuasion. Interestingly, the Financial Times Deutschland suggested the organization is not helping Turkey’s entry into the European Union. While countries like Syria and Iran entertained and helped train some of the members of PKK, the tide has changed; Syria has arrested its members, and Iran has now paired with Turkey to fight the organization. Would they be considered “insurgents”?

Insurgent
You have to ask yourself, what is an insurgent? What does that mean? According to WordNet, a “lexical database” from the Cognitive Science Lab at Princeton University, insurgent has two different meanings. As a noun, it carries both a positive and negative connotation. Take a look:

1. Insurgent, insurrectionist, freedom fighter, rebel: "a rebel who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority, especially in the hope of improving conditions";
-or-
2. Guerilla, irregular, insurgent: "a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment."

I wondered how the word would be used; I guessed that it would belong to the negative category, as I recall few instances where people were fighting legitimate battles for freedom. Oh, I’m sure they exist; however, it is a matter of knowing about them. I entered the word into Google; I just wanted to see who was using the word. I ignored the stories dealing with Afghanistan and Iraq. Below are the first five stories that I found:

*More violence in Mogadishu

*Insurgents could strike in Bangkok, warns Sonthi (not a stable link)

*Insurgents make another attack as troops deploy in Northwest (Sidenote: the headline mentioned here is the teaser that came up in the search; the headline on the story is different, and the story makes no mention of the word, insurgent).

*Military clashes with Insurgents in Sri Lanka

*Three Insurgents killed in Manipur

I will let you follow the links, but the word is used in areas around the world, and it seems to have replaced the word ‘rebel.’ Regardless of its use, it indicates a relation between or among groups. Again, it depends on your perspective.

And Back to Kurdistan
What does the word insurgent have to do with Kurdistan? Some believe the United States is aiding PKK's waging attacks in Iran, while on the other hand condemning its attacks in Turkey. In fact, some regard PKK as a legitimate resistance group. But this is the same behavior from the U.S. government that has led to problems in the past. The United States helped the Mujahadeen resist the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. And according to Ned Parker’s recent article in the Los Angeles Times, the Saudi intelligence service sponsored Sunni Muslims in the 1980s to help the U.S.-backed Afghan Mujahadeen fight the Soviets. Again, the word insurgent is relational.

Parker’s article is enlightening, even if spin-off articles are less intelligent and actually somewhat offensive. Matthew Mainen’s article describes Syria as the “highest exporter of insurgents,” which belies the complexity involved. As if there’s an insurgent making factory that simply needs eradication – if it were only that simple. Parker’s article provides a great deal of context and information, and it adds a whole other level to insurgency. According to Parker, most of the insurgents in Iraq are NOT from Iraq. In fact, nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. custody are Saudi. This distinction - NOT from Iraq - adds a layer of complexity to the word insurgent; are there domestic insurgents, and if so, who are they? And these insurgents pose the "greatest short-term threat to Iraq's security," which provides a glimpse into the stability of the country. What are the long-term threats, I wonder. One official in Saudi Arabia has said its government believes it is the disbanded army in Iraq that is the source of the insurgence and "backbone of the situation there today." That's great, but it fails to explain the number of Saudi captives in U.S. custody; some speculate the Saudis are happy to slough off some of the extremists to avoid problems in their own backyard. It seems almost like religious extremism is the ship of fools of the 21st Century.

Sometimes I find it difficult to sort through the immense amount of information out there. In backtracking to find the links for this post, I found a number of more recent articles, on the unhappiness of the United States with the agreement between Iran and Turkey, of the U.S.'s stance that it has not aided PKK, of the Turkish elections. It seems, though, to simply speak about insurgents in Iraq is to sweep under the carpet the number of groups involved and the connections between the groups. Am I to believe insurgents are good when they attack Iran and bad when they attack Turkey? When we talk about insurgents in Iraq, does that include PKK in Northern Iraq, aka Kurdistan?

Personally, I would not want to be a soldier in Iraq, and I could never begin to imagine determining who is good and who is bad. It has a familiar sound, like the stories I heard from men who fought in Vietnam, trying to distinguish the Viet Cong and the civilian. The task of the active democratic participant seems less arduous, but not by much. Ultimately it could be our voice that brings our troops home, perhaps to leave a fledgling Iraqi government to fend for itself. We assume as active participants that we have access to information that aids in our decision making process. But in my searches over the past few days, I made a minute dent in the history and human connectivity of these groups. I find in my searches for information, I am paralyzed by the sheer amount of it. How do I sort? And once I have it, what do I do with it? If knowledge is power, then whose freedom do I choose when I vote by proxy?