A Country Killing its Own Citizens

On September 30^th 2011 Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a drone launched missile strike by the C.I.A in Yemen. Al-Awlaki was an American citizen, which provoke issues on the idea of the United States killing one of their own citizens. Many people ask is this alright for a country to kill its own people, some people say yes because he was a traitor who has devoted his life to spreading as message with intentions of harming United States Citizens, and due to this his rights as a citizen were forfeited. Yet there are others arguing that he still would have those rights as a United States Citizen. Yet when do those have a limit?

The killing of al-Awlaki has brought up an extremely volatile issue on the idea of targeted killings, and especially with the fact that al-Awlaki was an American citizen. One of the main things is a “Secret” U.S. legal memorandum, approved by the Obama Administration to kill an American citizen without a trial. This document provide the justification for the killing of al-awlaki, despite an executive order banning assassinations order (executive order 12333), the federal law against murder, protection in the bill of rights and various structures of the International Laws of War. The same memo was drawn narrowly to Mr. Awlaki’s case, and did not establish a broad case on the killing of any American citizen deemed to be a viable terrorist threat.

There are many people who defend this action saying that Mr. Awlaki gave up his rights as an American Citizen when he preached obvious intentions of harming U.S Citizens. There have been connections with him to several terrorist attacks/attempts on U.S soil, including the Fort Hood shooting. Many people alone consider this enough of a reason to launch an attack against Mr. Awlaki, looking at the fact that this man’s loyalty were definitely not with the U.S country, and was instead closer with Al Qaeda a terrorist organization which has aggressive intentions towards the United States. So could a question arises, when does a citizens rights end?

Many Citizen Right Groups have answered this question saying that this violates not only some international laws of war but also many American Laws of War. People have argued about the executive order bans executions, the Justice Department argued against it, finding out that it bans assassinations during times of peace, but not during a armed conflict. The groups also talked about the federal statute that prohibits Americans from murdering other Americans abroad, The Justice department made the same claim saying that this is war and it doesn’t apply , they on the other hand have made the argument how the CIA operative wasn’t a solider therefore no uniform and then forth a war crime and violating Yemen’s domestic laws against murder.

The main thing that got people worried was the violation of the fourth amendment, that a person cannot be seized unreasonably, and the fifth amendment that the government may not deprive a person of life without due process of law. The Government response was that Mr. Alwaki was no ordinary criminal he had joined an enemy of war, and there fore would be tried in a military court as a non-citizen would be. This has made people think about how far can the government go, when will human rights and the rights of a citizen take affect. Are these rights just temporary and can be taken away in any case, or do they have a more definite case and be guaranteed under stressful condition?

Sources

New York Times – New York Times.com

Cambridge Journals- journals.cambridge.org

CATO Institute- cato.org

pennumbra.com

The EU - To Be Liberal or Not To Be Liberal?

The European Union is often hailed as a shining example of a liberal institution. What isn’t there to love about it? Twenty-seven states (with more clamoring to join) give up a share of their passport-free travel between member states, and for seventeen of the EU states, a monetary union that eliminates exchange rates and promotes further trade. It seems like the perfect setup.

                

Then along came the Eurozone crisis. The whole world cringed as Greece’s financial system crumbled, with their debt at 182.2% in relation to their GDP. The European Union has had to authorize bailouts to Greece to prevent the country from filing bankruptcy. Other members of the Eurozone also have extremely high ratios of debt-to-GDP ratios: Italy is currently at 146.6%, Spain at 179.4%, and even Germany, Europe’s current economic powerhouse, is at 185.1%. And it only goes up from there. In fact, nearly all of the Eurozone members (and EU members and general) have higher debt-to-GDP ratios than is actually allowed by the European Union, with Ireland rounding out the group with their debt at 1,382% in relation to their GDP. Member states are supposed to keep their debt-to-GDP ratio below 60%.

       

Somewhere, something went horribly wrong. What about the EU’s clear guidelines were misunderstood? Was it simply the council’s fault for not properly keeping an eye on the member states? According to Jason Manolopoulos, an expert on the Greek financial crisis and the Eurozone, "There was shockingly weak due diligence in assessing the suitability for entry into the euro, and equally weak application of the few rules that were supposed to police its operation.” Members of the Eurozone – Germany in particular – wanted to create a currency that would have a very strong standing in the world market. By spreading the Euro to many countries, the Euro’s clout strengthened as it became applicable in more and more places. Guidelines were made lax in order to ensure that the Euro would become a world player. Countries were allowed nearly total reign over their own economic infrastructure – something Eurozone members were not to expect due to the Maastricht Treaty, which outlines the guidelines by which Eurozone members must abide.

The Euro quickly expanded to become a world power. One US dollar is worth less than one Euro – current exchange rates peg the euro at $1.00 = 0,75€. However, this value has depreciated in the past few months due to the financial crisis. Because exchange rates are determined by supply and demand, and the demand for the Euro has fallen due to lack of faith in it.

           

Leaders from EU member states are struggling to reach a conclusion as to how to “fix” the Eurozone. One current solution, which was proposed by France and Germany, is to essentially separate the Eurozone from the Union and make it its own entity, which will make financially regulating the member states easier. However, this plan is currently in limbo because the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, sees no benefit in it for the country.

           

Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, has said that it doesn’t make a difference if Britain decides to sit this one out if all of the other countries agree to create a new financial pact. However, this sorely hurts the cohesion that the European Union has built up since its creation. Liberal institutions are built upon cooperation, which is currently very difficult to attain due to different attitudes towards the economic crisis.

           

At this point, it seems clear that the members of the Eurozone must either band together more strongly and create more austere measures for fiscal policy or let the liberal institutionalism fade into the background and let the individual countries pick up the remaining pieces. Both solutions have the potential to be detrimental to everyone involved.

           

If the European Union is to prevail, it will follow the standards of liberal institutionalism and give up even more of its economic sovereignty to reach higher security standards among member states. Regulations will be set in place and every country – especially those already in jeopardy – will be very closely monitored. The only concern to doing so is that the Germans have been leading the charge on financial austerity and that the EU will slowly be taken over by solely German economic policy. This is already an issue being hotly debated, especially because any one country “taking over” the EU would make it a non-liberal institution. Instead, it would hold more of a realist’s perspective, with one country being the hegemon of the European Union. This is something no one wants to happen, even Germany, whose stance in the world is almost entirely dependent upon its ties to the EU.

As the EU is already a strong and seriously taken world player, it should continue to follow its liberal roots and take the path to financial austerity through the use of essentially Keynesian economic policy. Not only does the EU need a net to fall back on, like so many have suggested, it also needs to ensure that member states have strong economies that follow the guidelines of the Maastricht Treaty, like they were originally supposed to. Following their measures would ensure the EU economic prosperity and a world-wide influence for years to come. 

WORKS CITED

Alessi, Christopher. "The Eurozone in Crisis."Council on Foreign Relations. 02 Dec 2011: n. page. Web.

Augstein, Jakob. "The Return of the Ugly Germans Merkel Is Leading the Country into Isolation." Der Spiegel. 08 Dec 2011: n. page. Web.

Baker, Luke. "Europe pushes ahead with fiscal union, UK isolated." Reuters 11 Dec 2011, n. pag. Web. 

The Realities of Radicalization

The increasing role of the state in the life of the citizen in the name of security has been slowly tipping the scale of the state-citizen power balance for the past several decades. However, this shift in the power balance has been made the most readily apparent since the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 9, 2001. This imbalance can be seen quite clearly in micro within America’s engagement with its Muslim community, a relationship that has become increasingly fraught since the attacks. Directly after the attacks, then-President George W. Bush called for solidarity from the mourning country, including solidarity with the nation’s Muslim population. However, since then, the radical right’s demonization of the religion of Islam has destroyed any such progression. The left’s response has not been much better, however, as witnessed by the release of a new 23 page strategy on countering extremist violence that does little to repair damages done to relations with the American Muslim community.

Domestic security measures, as well as international involvements in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, have all lead to a state of heightened tension among the American populace. Moreover, the so-called “War on Terror,” campaign, started by President Bush, has provided for increased restriction on liberties, after the passage of legislation such as the Patriot Act, increasingly placing citizens at the mercy of the state. While these sorts of measures could be approved in the sense that the state is acting out of an invested duty to protect its population, this imbalance seems clearly unjust when one also views the persecution that American Muslims have faced.

This persecution is especially notable on the extreme right, as embodied by comments such as that of Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, comparing Muslims to Nazis. If the right’s rhetoric of demonizing all Muslims was bad enough, the left’s response is not much better. The Obama administration’s release of a new strategy for countering violent extremism has proven just how out of touch the US government has become with its Muslim population. The paper calls for a supposedly “color blind” approach to preempt domestic radicalization. This provides for measures such as:

1) U.S. Attorneys will be tasked with outreach and engagement to communities at risk of radicalization. For example, the US Attorney for Alabama might hold roundtables with leaders of the local white community, as the white community is, obviously, a target audience for recruitment into radical movements.

2) The Justice Department will produce brochures that explain steps white people can take if they feel they have been discriminated against.

3) White people will be engaged on issues other than white supremacist ideology, so that they don't feel that the only issues the government engages them on are those of national security.

4) The government will support efforts to communicate to the American public that not all white people are extremists and seek to discourage those who would cast suspicion on the entire white community.

It is true that Muslims have been unduly discriminated against in the name of national security. It is also true that other radical movements exist within the United States that tend to be prepossessed towards recruiting members of specific racial or ethnic communities. However, there is a reason that jihadist movements are viewed as a predominating security threat over other such movements – they have proven in the past that they are willing and able to carry out threats with massive casualties on a consistent basis, something other radical organizations, so far, have not.

That is not to say that all Muslims should experience such harsh deterrent measures. Members of the religion of Islam should no more be punished for the actions of a minority group of radicals than members of any other mass movement. Unfortunately, this is the sort of rhetoric that has emerged increasingly from the right, while the left’s new response of essentially treating American Muslims like children that need to be coddled has not provided any relief either. The Obama administration’s new strategy ignores the realities of the current state of national security. The answer to excessive discrimination is not to simply discriminate against everyone to the same degree. Rather, the best response should be a frank discussion with the nation’s Muslim population that recognizes the realities of extremism while also acknowledging the community’s role in preventing radicalization.

Failure to do so ignores the realities of the state’s contract with its citizens. While the US government has a responsibility to citizens, it does not have a right to do so to the extent that those same citizen’s rights are infringed upon. On the other hand, the Obama administration’s new strategy blatantly disregards the fact that American Muslims are aware of the realities of security today and are willing to confront them as US citizens.

Works Cited

Berger, J.M. "Monsters and Children." Foreign Policy. 09 Dec 2011: 1-2. Web. 11 Dec. 2011. .

Extra Credit Post: In The Loop

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VDc7-YH1LA

In The Loop is the funniest movie I've ever seen. It is a supreme satire. What is it satirizing? The decision making process in the bureaucracy in the UK and the US.

In the movie the US is trying to marshal support for a war against an unspecified Middle Eastern country, and the British Government is on the fence about committing to war. In comes a bumbling, well, idiot British politician, who creates an international crisis by saying the wrong thing at the wrong interview.

It relates to our course because you get to see just how garbled the information that goes to the top becomes. When bureaucrats are worried about their jobs, they become more concerned with covering up their mistakes and beating out their inter-office rivals. A government, then, is not always the smoothly oiled machine we would like to think it is. In The Loop shows this beautifully as the world hurtles towards conflict, and those in the position to stop it utterly fail to do so. This is a phenomenal film; everyone should watch it.

Also, it has the most profane scotsman I've ever seen in a movie. So it has that going for it.

The World Might Just Be Flat After All

     International Business is a term used to collectively describe topics relating to the operations of firms with interests in several countries. International trade occurs because no single country has the resources to produce everything well. Nations specialize in the production of certain goods and trade with other nations for those they do not produce. More and more companies are recognizing that pursuing opportunities in the global marketplace is the key to their present and future success. There are many advantages of going global such as, new markets, new sources of capital abroad, swifter technological advancement, and more choices for consumers, just to name a few. One of the results on the increasing success of international business ventures is Globalization. Globalization can be described as an increased connectivity among societies and their elements due to the explosive evolution of transport and communication technologies to facilitate international cultural and economic exchange. There are several countries that participate in international trade, as well as several forms of international business activities (Friedman). 

     Any company can become involved in world trade through a range of activities. Many companies first expand into international trade through importing and exporting. Importing is buying goods or services from a supplier in another country. Exporting is selling products outside the country in which they are produced. At any given time, a country may be importing more of one type of product and exporting more of another. The relationship between the value of a country’s imports and the value of its exports determines its balance of trade. The level of a country’s imports and exports forms an important part of international business economics (Yergin). When a country exports more goods than it imports, its balance of trade is favorable, creating a trade surplus. However, when a country imports more than it exports, its balance of trade is unfavorable, creating a trade deficit. The top three of the world’s major trading economies are Europe, United States, and Japan. The top ten trading economies of the world include both industrialized and developing nations (Friedman).

     Although companies may first expand globally through importing and exporting, there are other forms of international business activities. License Agreements entitle one company to produce or market another company’s product or to utilize its technology in return for a royalty or fee. Another way to expand into foreign markets is by franchising. With a franchise agreement, the franchisee obtains the rights to duplicate a specific product or service and the company selling the franchise obtains a royalty fee in exchange. Joint ventures and strategic alliances offer another approach to international business. A joint venture is a partnership in which one company cooperates with other companies or governments to develop, produce, or sell products. A strategic alliance is a long-term partnership between two or more companies aimed at helping each to establish competitive advantages. Ultimately, the most absolute form of international business is a wholly owned operation run in another country, without the financial participation of a local partner (Gannon). Many U.S firms currently do business in this way, some operations are started from scratch and others are acquired from local owners. 

     Government actions that affect trade, foreign investment, and currency values can distinguish a country’s expenses in its international economic relationships. Every country has the right to control its participation in the global marketplace. All countries practice protectionism, which are government policies aimed at shielding a country’s industries from foreign competition, in one way or another. Tariffs and non-tariff barriers are two categories that protectionism is broken into. Tariffs are taxes levied against imported goods. They raise the price of imported goods to give domestic producers a cost advantage. Non-tariff barriers include quota, which are fixed limits on the quantity of imports a nation will allow for a specific product, and subsidies, when countries prefer to subsidize domestic producers so that their prices will be substantially lower than import prices, rather than restrict imports (Gannon). The goal of subsidies are often to help build up an industry until it is strong enough to compete on its own in both domestic and foreign markets. 

     Sometimes countries engage in trade practices that are deemed unfair by the host country. To prevent trade disputes from escalating into full-blown trade wars, and to ensure that international business is conducted in a fair and orderly fashion, the countries of the world have created a number of agreements. The major trade agreements include The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), The World Trade Organization (WTO), The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (APEC), and several regional trading blocs. The GATT is a worldwide trade pact that was first established in the aftermath of World War II (Friedman). Nondiscrimination has been the guiding principle. Any trade advantage an GATT member gives to one country must be given to all GATT members, and no GATT nation can be singled out for punishment. GATT successfully reduced tariff barriers on manufactured goods. The WTO is a permanent negotiating forum for implementing and monitoring international trade procedures and for mediating trade disputes among its 123 member countries. The WTO’s goals include facilitating free trade, lowering the costs of doing business, enhancing the international investment environment, simplifying customs, and promoting technical and economic cooperation. The APEC is an organization of 18 countries that are making efforts to liberalize trade in the Pacific Rim (the land areas that surround the Pacific Ocean). The members are comprised of the United States, Japan, China, Mexico, Australia, South Korea, and Canada (Friedman). 

     One way to encourage trade is through trading blocs, which are regional groupings of countries that agree to remove trade barriers with each other. Trading blocs generally promote trade inside the region while creating uniform barriers against goods and services entering the region from nonmember countries. One of the largest trading blocs is the European Union (EU). The EU’s trading partners are France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Great Britain, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Austria, Finland, and Sweden. With combined gross domestic product of over $6.5 trillion and a population of over 367 million, the EU has become a commanding force in the world economy. In 1994 the United States, Canada, and Mexico formed a powerful trading bloc, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which incorporates 400 million people and an economic output of $8 trillion. In Asia, seven nations make up the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Together, they have formed the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) to boost regional trade. This trading bloc consists of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam (Yergin).  

     One of the major problems of international trade is that some less-developed countries are too poor to participate in the world economy to any great extent. They lack both the resources to develop their own industry potential and the finances to pay for much-needed imports. Two international organizations were founded to help in transferring funds to these nations. The IMF was founded in 1945 and is now affiliated with the United Nations. It lends money to countries that are suffering from an unfavorable balance of payments. The World Bank, officially known as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, was founded to finance reconstruction following World War II. It now provides low interest loans to developing nations for the improvement of transportation, telecommunications, health, and education (Friedman). Both the IMF and the World Bank are funded by contributions from 135 member nations. 

     Hugo Chavez and leaders of six other South American nations launched a regional development bank on December 2, 2007 that the Venezuelan leader is touting as the continent’s answer to US-influenced international lenders. Backers say the Banco Del Sur, or Bank of the South will offer Latin American countries loans with fewer strings attached than those given by the IMF and the World Bank. With $7 billion in expected startup capital, Bolivian president Evo Morales, whose country is the continent’s poorest, praised the bank as a new tool to fight poverty and ease inequality. 

     It is vital to recognize that each country has a unique way of doing business, and that each has its own local tastes and cultural customs. Most managers in foreign assignments face a period of homesickness and cultural shock from being suddenly immersed in a culture with completely different languages, foods, values, beliefs, and ways of doing things. The best way to do business with people from another culture is to study that culture in advance. One reason Japanese companies have been so successful internationally is that their culture encourages learning and adaptability. In Asia generally, teaching and learning are highly regarded. To improve international communication, one must keep an open mind and avoid stereotyping. Misunderstandings should be anticipated and guarded against in order to be sensitive to other people’s customs. 

     Supporters of free trade claim that international business increases prosperity , as well as opportunity, especially among developing nations. They believe it enhances civil liberties and leads to a more efficient allocation of resources. The amount of international business has grown in response to the removal of various international barriers. Never before have organizations been able to cross national borders so easily or so inexpensively. Many companies are recognizing that business is becoming a unified global field as trade barriers fall, communication becomes faster and cheaper, and consumer tastes in everything converges. As many markets become saturated for many companies, the only potential for significant growth lies overseas. 

     In conclusion, the combination of economic, socio-cultural, and political forces can be described as the process by which people of the world are unified into a single society. Firms not only deal with traditional business functions and values, but also must understand and work from a global perspective that adds politics, monetary variables, time, and distance to the international business equation. Many U.S firms have capitalized on opportunities in foreign countries by engaging in international business. The events of September 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked New York and Washington, confirms that isolation is impossible. The future of our businesses and our societies will be determined by global rather than local relationships.

Work Cited:

     

      Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat. Los Angeles, CA: Audio Renaissance, 2005. Print.

     Gannon, Martin J., and Rajnandini Pillai. Understanding Global Cultures: Metaphorical Journeys Through 29 Nations, Clusters of Nations, Continents, and Diversity. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, 2010. Print. 

     Yergin, Daniel, and Joseph Stanislaw. The Commanding Heights: the Battle for the World Economy. New York, NY. Free, 2008. Print.

Journalism + Activism = Nicholas Kristof

It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that the media and news have been revolutionized the way we see the world. Today we are able to access news stories from around the globe as they unfold in real time. Reporters and networks are able to instantly connect to their audiences via Twitter and Facebook as well as on news websites and breaking news emails. Organizations and campaigns have also taken advantage of the media revolution. Human rights and global activist campaigns have especially benefitted from exposure on social media outlets. The United Nations is using social media to celebrate the 63^rd anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this Saturday. The campaign called “30 Days and 30 Rights” started November 10^th with a daily posting about one specific article of the thirty Universal Declaration’s articles. The UN’s human rights office reported more than 1 million people visit the Facebook page from all around the globe. (Snow)

The United Nations is not only voice in the media on human rights; Nicholas Kristof, an opinion columnist for the New York Times has brought these issue to the table for the masses. According to Melissa Steffan of the Washington Post, “Kristof’s voice has proven to be a powerful one, leading American readers to become more active in issues of international human-rights violations”. A two-time Pultizer Prize winner and author of several books, Kristof joined the Times in 1984. Kristof has worn many hats, first covering economics for the New York Times, he was a correspondent in Los Angeles, Hong Kong, Beijing and Tokyo and later the Associate Editor of the New York Times responsible for the Sunday Editions (“Columnist”). He attended Harvard College and studied law at Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship. During his years as a student, Kristof backpacked around Africa and Asia and wrote articles to cover his expenses. Kristof has lived on four continents, reported on six and traveled to more than 140 countries; he studied Arabic in Cairo and Chinese in Taipei. His first Pulitzer Prize that he shares with his wife Sheryl WuDunn, came from their coverage of the Chinese Tiananmen Square democracy movement in 1990. According to his Columnist Biography from the New York Times, Kristof has taken a special interest in Web journalism. The first blogger on the New York Times Web site, Kristof also tweets and posts on his Facebook page weekly.

Nicholas Kristof won his second Pultizer for his commentary on the genocide in Dafur in 2006, “giving a voice to the voiceless in other parts of the world”. (“Columnist”) His columns largely focus on issues and events in the developing world such as poverty, health and gender. In 2009, Nicholas Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn published a book of their experience abroad in gender issues entitled Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity for Women Worldwide. Kristof and his wife chronicle their first-hand experiences with women in human trafficking, forced prostitution health and microfinance. The documentary Reporter best sums up Nicholas Kristof’s mission as a reporter and an activist. This film reveals “how and why real reporting is vital to our democracy, our world-awareness, and our capacity to be a force for good” (“Reporter”). Nicholas Kristof is not only an advocate of human rights and positive global change; he is a real journalist struggling to preserve the truth of reporting while exposing the hidden horrors of the world.

Note to the class: Each year Kristof holds a “win-a-trip” reporting contest to Africa and this year is exclusively open to university students. Here is the link if you are interested: http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/announcing-win-a-trip-2012/

Works Cited

Snow, Anita. "UN Marks Human Rights Day with Social Media." Associated Press via Google. Associated Press, 09 Dec. 2011. Web. 09 Dec. 2011.

Steffan, Melissa. "Nicholas Kristof: How a New York Times Columnist Rewrote Opinion Journalism." Editorial. Washington Post [Washington DC] 29 Nov. 2011. Web. 09 Dec. 2011.

Columnist Biography - Nicholas D. Kristof - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com." The New York Times. Web. 09 Dec. 2011.

http://www.reporterfilm.com/synopsis.html

The New Kids On The Block

The influx of the Ethiopian diaspora community has been forming in the metropolitan D.C. area ever since the 1970s (some may argue as early as the 1960s) However, the Ethiopian population’s extreme growth is not attributed to a random and spontaneous occurrence, but rather a series of events that would help shape and form the community known unofficially as Little Ethiopia today. As history would show, the Ethiopians were able to escape from the tyranny of their European advisories; however, that did not protect them from the danger of their own people. The rise of a new dictator, Soviet backed rise of Marxist Dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam, resulted in multiple problems within the Ethiopian state including famine, drought, refugees, and military violence. The rise of this military dictator left some without a choice but to find a new home.

In the 1980s, people like Negasi Belay would find themselves to be one of the fortunate ones to be granted immigration through the immigration lottery service. Mr Belay found himself locating to D.C. knowing that an Ethiopian community was developing and was near the Ethiopian embassy if he ever needed support, however, the relocation to a popular urban city came with costs at times. The underappreciated and rundown U Street area was full of properties that were empty and cheap, a combination Ethiopians exploited in order to develop their business. The development of these businesses helped U Street to be revitalized after its crumble.

Although the primary reasons behind a Little Ethiopia may be economic, the results have benefits that transcend Washington D.C. The interview with Mr. Belay revealed that the profits gained by Ethiopian businesses do not just stay within the city of Washington D.C. “You often have business owners here, and non-business owners as well, sending a good sum of their profit overseas to their family back home. We are a community that does not forget our roots.”

The primary adversaries to the establishment of a Little Ethiopian community are ones that one would not first assume, African Americans. The U Street has widely been known as a culture center also known as the “Harlem of D.C.” The area used to be filled with jazz emanating from various venues and theaters that fostered African-American culture. U Street, also known to many as the “Black Broadway” of D.C. houses sites such as the childhood home of Duke Ellington, the Howard Theater, and the Pearl Theater.

However, the once booming African-American center of U Street became ridden with poverty which led to high levels of drug use and prostitution. This was a result of Marin Luther King Jr’s assassination in 1968 during the height of the civil rights movement. Small businesses in the neighborhood were forced to shut down after some were burned to the ground and as the neighborhood began to gain a reputation as the “ghetto” of D.C. Ethiopians then jumped on the opportunity of landing themselves property in an area that they needed for their businesses to grow, something that D.C. native African-Americans do not hold a favorable view on to this day.

A main opponent against the establishment of a Little Ethiopia is community activist “Dee” Hunter, an African-American woman who makes the claim that the Ethopian movement is comprised of “a small group of people who are obsessed.” Ms. Hunter is not the sole one who believes this though; Myla Mass, a member of the Advisory Neighborhood Commission, believes that “just because you’re good business entrepreneur doesn’t mean you get a whole corner.” Ms. Mass believes that Ethiopians haven’t fostered a strong and true relationship with the neighboring African-American community. Although an increased partnership and friendlier relationships are possible, it is worth noting that the African-American landmarks that are so widely respected in the community are not anywhere located within the area people want designated as Little Ethiopia. African-Americans would still be able to rightfully hold on to their past roots while also allow Ethiopians to build upon their community. If anyone were to complain about having to be considered being apart of Little Ethiopia, perhaps it would be the small, but present, Eritrean population that has businesses along 9^th street.

Eritreans have a right to want to protect being generalized as being another Ethiopian business, however, they must have realized when opening stores that Ethiopians already dominated the area. Mr. Alazar admitted to me that at the time of his decision to open a business that “Yes, the street was mainly Ethiopian places…” If you take one look at Chinatown you will see a vast array of vendors that do not serve authentic Chinese or even Asian cuisine. Kinuthia Macharia, sociology professor at American University, agrees with this conclusion when saying “a special ethnic designation is more about the potential economic benefit for business owners, rather than an attempt by Ethiopians to elbow out other cultures.” This statement made by Ms. Macharia describes the Ethiopians want for a Little Ethiopia as a business venture, not an attempt to scorn the African-American and Eritrean community that surrounds the Ethiopians. The Ethiopians have nothing to gain by petitioning the designation of community to simply spite their neighbors, what they do have to gain are a few more dollars of profit everyday.

From a realist perspective, this collision between the Eritrean, Ethiopian, and African-American culture seems only natural. The African-Americans want the culture of the "Black Broadway" on U Street to carry on the legacy; the inclusion of a Little Ethiopia in the middle of it would only detract from the culture and pride many African-Americans take in with the area. Along with African-Americans, Eritreans feel that they will be misrepresented of having their stores and businesses as being labeled in an area known as Little Ethiopia. This battle of the cultures and pseudo-border wars is almost as if the small D.C. neighborhoods act as sovereign states themselves. The African-Americans, who have members on the areas council board, are able to block the sovereignty and creation of the Ethiopian neighborhood in D.C. It is as if one of the Big 5 vetoed a states membership to be recognized, for example China pressuring other states to not recognize Taiwan.

If African-Americans and Eritreans have had conflicts with Ethiopians with this in the past, as well as other conflicts that have transcended into school and personal life, than the African-American and Eritrean communities will not want the Ethiopian businesses to profit more. The neighboring African-American community also wants its businesses, such as Ben's Chili Bowl, to also flourish and not be forgotten by consumers. Any savvy businessperson would want to make sure that their competition is not getting more publicity, hype, and customers than their business. Through these points you can see how the businesses in Little Ethiopia and the argument over whether a Little Ethiopia should exist showcase realism in a way that is not conventionally explored.

Works Cited

“CNN visits Little Ethiopia in Washington DC.” Online Posting. Youtube, 15 November 2011. Web. 18 November 2011.

Firke, Teddy. ""Little Ethiopia" Revisted." BrownCondor. 21 June 2010. Web. 10 November 2011.

Schwartzman, Paul. "Shaw Shuns 'Little Ethiopia'" Washington Post. 25 July 2005. Web. 10 November 2011.

Showalter, Misty. "Inside Washington D.C.'s 'Little Ethiopia' - CNN." CNN.com. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., 22 October 2010. Web. 14 November 2011.

“Success Story: Little Ethiopia, Washington DC.” Online Posting. Youtube, 16 August 2010. Web. 19 November 2011.

Westley, Brian. "Washington: Nation's Largest Ethiopian Community Carves Niche."USATODAY.com. 17 October 2005. Web. 13 November 2011.