U.S. & Turkey vs. Syria & Isis, Can a Compromise be Reached?

The United States and Turkey have never agreed on how to deal with the Syrian crisis.  Turkish representatives feel that Americans are too focused on ISIS stating "The United States is single-mindedly focused on ISIS" which is described by Turkey as "an outgrowth of the [Assad] regime's continued violence against the opposition".  In contrast, The United States believes that Turkey should recognize ISIS as a threat, but also say that the Turkish should equip Syrian rebels with better weapons and offer more financial aid.  

Turkish diplomats are relatively peeved at the lack of progress that the two NATO allies have made towards solving this problem, and has criticized the U.S. for "not willing to bear the burden of removing [Assad] or take any responsibility for the aftermath".  

This concern about the future is not uncalled for, as Turkey's borders are already filled with refugees with no home and the number is growing everyday.  The most widely accepted proposal so far is to establish a "No Fly Zone" over Syria which would hinder bombings as well as curb refugee intake.  Another proposal is a compromise that would involve a controlled "Safe-Zone" in Northern Syria in exchange for U.S. access to Turkish airbases.  Neither proposal has been approved.

The author of the article states his meaning quite well, "If the mutual desire of both countries is to put an end to the crisis in Syria, fighting Assad and ISIS at the same time is essential. However, both administrations need to compromise in order to decide on an effective and agreeable plan of action. Modifications need to be made in Washington's policy on Syria to focus more on fighting the Assad regime, while Turkey must commit its efforts to defeating ISIS." -Abdulrahman Al-Masri


If the United States  still followed the Monroe doctrine of the early 19th century, the crisis would not be as complicated, and this is mainly because it would exist at all.  The old policies establish 3 lasting principles:

1. Separate spheres of influence (you stay in your region, I'll 
stay in mine)
2.  Non­colonization (no dominating/ruling other  countries)
3.  Non­intervention (unless it affects us directly)

Following the first tenet, the US would never become involved with either Turkey or Syria because neither one lies in the Western Hemisphere and neither one is newly independent.

The Second Tenet would be more of a gray area because of Russia's ties with Syria and America's belief in independence, but once again the US is on the opposite side of the world, so following the Monroe doctrine we would never intervene.

Finally the nonintervention without effect on the US would also involve us not getting involved because Syria is not threatening the United States' independence, nor is Russia, or Turkey, so the US would intervene.  If we were still following the Monroe doctrine all we would care about is ISIS.

Al-Masri 0, Abdulrahman. "Is There a Possible Deal on Syria between the US and Turkey?" Middle East Monitor. N.p., 04 Dec. 2014. Web. 08 Dec. 2014.

Race and Revolution in Latin America

 

Latin America has been a powerhouse of revolution since it was first conquered by European powers.  The first of these revolutions took place on a small French island named Saint Domingue.  The revolution on this tiny sugar island of Haiti lit the spark of every other major Revolution in the Western Hemisphere.  The main reason that the Haitian Revolution began, and also its reason for success was do to perception of race. 

Haiti was an island of slaves.  Its main exports, sugar and coffee accounted for the majority of European intake of such luxuries, and almost all work was done by slaves.  The "Grand Blancs" or "Big Whites" were the wealthy French landowners that owned the workers, and their abusive nature and refusal to give the slaves basic rights is what caused the rebellion of the oppressed.

The key to the success of the slave rebellion were the races of the parties involved.  Because the Grand Blancs were visibly French, the Haitians new exactly who to kill, and because of their reputation as beasts of Africa, the slaves were highly underestimated.

The Iberian racial system was even more apparent.  After their conquest of the Americas was complete, the Spanish implemented as system known as Las Castas that separated all members of society by race, and which dealt with the individuals parents being the sole deciding factor.

When the Mexican rebellions first broke out, the Mestizos (Half Native, Half European) and Mulattoes (Half African, Half European) fought against the rich Spanish-born rulers of Mexico, also known as Peninsulaires.  The Mexican Revolution was only successful when the Creoles (whites who had been born in the colonies) revolted as well.

In the end, Race in Latin America was both a tool and a weapon, and wielded in the right hands it could be used for or against anyone, and this racial manipulation continues to be used in our world today.  Hopefully however, we don't have an entire Hemisphere rebelling against us.

Las Castas

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CastaSystemVirreinato.JPG