Contemporary Articles Trimester One and Two

Articles will be updated weekly. Scroll down until you find the desired article:

Article One
Do questions 1, 2, 3, and 7

Al Qaeda
Al Qaeda is an international fundamentalist Islamic terrorist network. In Arabic the phrase means “the base.” Al Qaeda has several goals. First is to drive Americans and other Westerners out of Muslim nations. Second is to destroy the nation of Israel. Third is to overthrow Muslim governments “corrupted” by Western influences. And fourth is to unite all Muslims in a single Islamic nation.
Al Qaeda was formed in 1988 by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi-born millionaire. It began as an organization to recruit and train Muslims to fight against the Soviet occupation (1979-89) of Afghanistan. In the mid-1990’s, after the Soviets had been driven out, a fundamentalist Islamic group in Afghanistan called the Taliban seized power. The Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to maintain its base of operations and terrorist training camps there.
Al Qaeda terrorists were responsible for the attacks that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001. Within a month’s time, the United States and a coalition of allied forces invaded Afghanistan. They attacked and ousted the Taliban, which had harbored the terrorists. They forced bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders (including second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri) to go into hiding. In the years that followed, thousands of Al Qaeda members were killed or arrested. Chief among those caught was Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He was killed in a U.S. air strike in 2006.
Today Al Qaeda is estimated to have several thousand members. They work in small operational units (called cells) in as many as sixty countries. Allied terrorist organizations also exist in Egypt, Yemen, Uzbekistan, Sudan, and elsewhere.
Al Qaeda has been responsible for many additional attacks worldwide. Among them were the 1993 World Trade Center bombing in New York City and the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Al Qaeda is also believed to be responsible for the 2000 attack on the Navy destroyer the USS Cole in Yemen and the March 11, 2004, bombings in Madrid, Spain.

Elaine Landau

The New Book of Knowledge 2007
Grolier Online
http://nbk.grolier.com/cgi-bin/article?assetid=a2041694-h

Article Two (Questions 1, 2, 3, & 4)
MSNBC.com
Indonesia’s Orangutans Squeezed By Biofuel Boom
Indonesia, conservationists have different views of palm oil plantations
By Chris Brummitt
The Associated Press
Updated: 12:49 p.m. ET Sept 4, 2007
TUMBANG KULING, Indonesia -
Naingolan shunts the excavator into high gear and tears into a patch of smoldering forest on Borneo island, clearing the way for yet another palm oil plantation that Indonesia hopes will tap into a surge in global demand for biofuels.
Despite government claims pristine jungles are escaping the effects of the “green solution� to the energy crunch, the boom is threatening the survival of animals like the endangered orangutan and turning the country into a major global warming contributor, environmentalists say.
The fruits of Naingolan’s labor in one corner of Borneo are plain to see: a wasteland of churned up peat and trees stretching to the horizon with freshly dug-in palm plants dotting every meter. Behind him, smoke from illegal scrub-clearing fires clouds the sky.
Palm oil plantations have long been a staple of the economies of tropical Indonesia and neighboring Malaysia. Oil made from the red, spiky apple-sized fruit is used to make a vast range of products, from soap to chocolate to lipstick.
But concern over pollution from the burning of fossil fuels in Europe and the United States has led to a new use for the oil — mixing it with diesel to make a cleaner burning and cheaper fuel to put in cars.
The EU parliament this year announced a renewed push to meet sustainable energy targets, including mandating using biofuels to supply at least 10 percent of transport fuel needs by 2020.

Tax breaks
Encouraged by government tax breaks, many of Indonesia’s largest conglomerates as well as foreign companies are investing millions in expanding plantations and refining facilities on Borneo, which has one of the richest ecosystems in the world and is one of the only remaining homes of the orangutans.
Conservationists working to preserve the 20,000 great apes say palm oil poses the biggest threat. Rehabilitation centers are overflowing with the animals rescued from plantations, many with wounds inflicted by workers, they say.
“Scientifically, I think the population is doomed, but emotionally I want to feel like there is still hope,� said Raffaella Commitante, a primatologist at a center in east Kalimantan. “Orangutans spend 80 to 90 percent of their time in trees. If you take away the trees, they cannot move.�
Deforestation in tropical countries accounts for roughly 20 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, according to the World Bank, because trees release carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas, when they are destroyed.
Indonesia is the third-highest emitter of carbon dioxide behind China and the United States, largely because much of the palm oil on Borneo is planted on carbon-rich peat land that must be drained first, releasing millions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
Demand for biofuel “could prove to be the final nail in the coffin for our remaining forests,� said Greenpeace Southeast Asia campaigner Hapsoro. “Trying to solve one environmental problem by wiping out Indonesian forests is senseless.�

Promises and reality
The government insists that palm oil is only being planted on land that was fully or partially deforested long ago, so called “degraded� land. They said local authorities were now getting tough on illegal loggers after years of working hand-in-hand with them.
“There were will be no trees cut down for the sake of palm oil,� said Environment Minister Rachmat Witoelar. “We have 18 million hectares of plantable area on land designated on degraded land. We are not going to sacrifice any natural forest, much less the rain forest, for planting palm oil.�
Environmentalists dispute that, claiming that developers prefer to chop down virgin forest because they can sell the logs to invest in palm oil plants, which take around five years to reach maturity.

They allege permits changing the status of land from protected to degraded can be bought.
An Associated Press team spent several days touring Borneo’s palm oil heartland in central Kalimantan province, visiting areas where workers were opening up thick jungle land to extend existing plantations or create new ones.
The status of the land was not clear, but massive trees were among those being cut, in some cases workers had piled up the valuable timber by the side of the road, presumably awaiting transport to sell them.
At one plantation owned by a subsidiary of Singapore-based Wilmar International Ltd. police had taped off several large logs, suggesting they were being used as part of an investigation.
The company, which has been accused by Friends of the Earth of bad environmental practice on Borneo, said it does not clear “high value rain forests� for development but will sometimes clear trees on degraded land.
Naingolan, the excavator driver who has spent the last three months clearing land to make way for more palm oil plants, says he realizes he is now part of the problem, but that he needs money for his family.
“I have seen countless gibbons and heard the cries of orangutans,� he said as he finished up work for the day. “But there is no work for me in my village.�

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20478277/

MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2007 MSNBC.com

Article Three

Questions 2, 6, 7, 8

Time for Kids
26 September, 2007
Pro-democracy Protests Grow in Burma
Buddhist monks lead the demonstrations
On Wednesday, riot police and demonstrators clashed in Rangoon, the capital of Burma (also know as Myanmar). The security forces charged into a crowd of hundreds of Buddhist monks, students and other citizens who were marching toward a pagoda. For the past few weeks, the orange-robed monks have led pro-democracy demonstrations in cities across the Southeast Asian country.
The protests began after the government sharply raised oil prices in August. But the seeds of unhappiness go back many years. The military has ruled Burma with an iron grip for more than 40 years. Dissent is not tolerated. In 1988, the military reacted brutally to pro-democracy protests. Troops fired into crowds, killing thousands.
Opposition leaders won an election in 1990, but were not allowed to take power. The main leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, has been under house arrest for much of the past 18 years. Suu Kyi, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, has become a symbol of Burma’s pro-democracy movement.
”We Must Be Brave”
At first, Burma’s military government seemed hesitant to crack down on the protesters, especially after the country’s religious community took over leadership of the demonstrations. Monks and nuns are highly respected in the predominantly Buddhist country. But with the rallies growing–up to 100,000 people marched on Monday–the battle of wills exploded in violence on Wednesday.
Foreign reporters have been barred from Burma. But protesters are using the Internet and witnesses to get their story told. “If the (monks) are brave, we must be brave,” said one student at a march. “They risk their lives for us.”
The World Is Watching
Since 1997, the United States has imposed economic punishments on Burma. Last week, speaking at the United Nations, in New York City, President George W. Bush said that Americans were “outraged by the situation in Burma.” He told world leaders that the U.S. planned to tighten economic sanctions and called on other nations to use their economic influence to “help the Burmese people reclaim their freedom.”
Britain’s Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, urged the Burmese government to deal peacefully with the unrest. “The whole world is now watching,” he said.

Nellie Gonzalez Cutler
http://www.timeforkids.com/TFK/kids/news/story/0,28277,1665783,00.html

Contemporary Article Four

Time for Kids
World Report: March 10, 2000
Trouble on the Table
By David Bjerklie
What do you get when you cross a chicken with an apple? A daffodil with rice? A flounder with a tomato? These aren’t jokes waiting for a punch line. Believe it or not, combinations like these may make their way to your dinner table. There’s a brave new world of agriculture that has some people excited about new superfoods. Others are very nervous.
For thousands of years, farmers improved their crops by patiently crossbreeding plants that have good traits. They would take pollen from the sweetest melon plants and add it to the flowers of plants that produced the biggest melons to create new plants with melons that are both sweet and big. But crossbreeding doesn’t always work. Even when it does, it can take decades to get good results.
Now, thanks to advances in gene science, there are amazing shortcuts. Genes are the instructions inside cells that help determine what a living thing looks like: its size, its shape and countless other traits. Using the new tools of genetic engineering, scientists can take a gene from one living thing and put it directly into another plant or animal. That way, says John Mount, professor of agriculture at the University of Tennessee, “you can make changes more precisely in a much shorter period of time.”
Here’s how it works. First, scientists identify a gene that controls a desirable trait–for example, a protein in an Arctic flounder that helps the fish thrive in frigid waters. The scientists then use chemicals to cut and paste the flounder gene into the genes of tomato cells in a test tube. The cells grow into a tomato plant. Then the plant is tested to see if the fish gene still works. Do its tomatoes resist the cold? Yes, they do!
Scientists believe the new techniques can create crops that are pest-proof, disease resistant and more nutritious. Researchers are working on rice that has an extra boost of vitamin A from a daffodil gene. The rice could help prevent blindness, even death, for millions of kids who don’t get enough vitamin A in their diet.
Are we making monster food?
Not everybody is convinced that pumping up our food with foreign genes is a good idea. Many people say these genetically modified, or GM, foods may end up harming the environment and humans. They fear that plants with new genes forced into them will accidentally crossbreed with wild plants and create pesticide-resistant superweeds. They also say GM foods could carry genes that trigger allergies or other side effects. Already, there’s evidence that some GM corn crops may be harmful to the caterpillars that turn into monarch butterflies.
“We are rushing headlong into a new technology,” warns Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association. “We are courting disaster if we don’t look before we leap.”
Nearly half the U.S. corn and soybean crops are now genetically modified. Health concerns are growing. Many groups are demanding that GM foods be labeled. Last year public worry forced the Gerber and Heinz companies to stop using GM ingredients in baby foods. Just last month Frito Lay announced that its snacks would be free of GM ingredients. Companies are seeing that GM foods can be bad for business, even if they haven’t been proved to be bad for health.
So far, GM foods haven’t harmed anyone. Most genetic researchers believe that if troubles do crop up, they will be manageable. “We’re not talking killer tomatoes here,” says Norm Ellstrand, a University of California geneticist.
As the battles go on, will we continue to see GM food on our tables? “I hope so,” answers Allison Snow, an ecologist at Ohio State University. “Even though I have concerns, I think it would be silly not to use this technology. We just have to use it wisely.”

Answer questions 1, 2, 3, and 5

Article Five
MSNBC.com
Warming research suppressed?
Senator: Two inspectors general investigating ‘censorship and suppression’
The Associated Press Nov 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - Two federal agencies are investigating whether the Bush administration tried to block government scientists from speaking freely about global warming and censor their research, a senator said Wednesday.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., said he was informed that the inspectors general for the Commerce Department and NASA had begun “coordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration’s censorship and suppression� of federal research into global warming.
“These investigations are critical because the Republicans in Congress have ignored this serious problem,� Lautenberg said.
He said the investigations “will uncover internal documents and agency correspondence that may expose widespread misconduct.� He added, “Taxpayers do not fund scientific research so the Bush White House can alter it.�
Messages left Wednesday at the offices of the inspectors general, which serve as the agencies’ internal watchdogs, were not immediately returned.
Kristen Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House Council for Environmental Quality, said Wednesday night that the administration has supported the scientific process in its approach to studying climate change.

“We have in place the most transparent system of science reporting, and claims that the administration interfered with scientists are false,� Hellmer said. “Our focus is on taking action and making real progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The nearly $2 billion worth of climate science we publish annually leads the world and speaks for itself.�
Carbon dioxide and other gases primarily from fossil fuel-burning that scientists say trap heat in the atmosphere have warmed the Earth’s surface an average 1 degree over the past century. The White House has committed to reducing the “intensity� of U.S. carbon pollution, a measure of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic growth.
But the total U.S. emissions, now more than 7 billion tons a year, are projected to rise 14 percent from 2002 to 2012.
In February, House Science Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., and other congressional leaders asked NASA to guarantee scientific openness. They complained that a public affairs officer changed or filtered information on global warming and the Big Bang.
The officer, George Deutsch, a political appointee, had resigned after being accused of trying to limit reporters’ access to James Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist, and insisting that a Web designer insert the word “theory� with any mention of the Big Bang.
A report last month in the scientific journal Nature claimed administrators at the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration blocked the release of a report that linked hurricane strength and frequency to global warming. Hansen had said in February that NOAA has tried to prevent researchers working on global climate change from speaking freely about their work.
NOAA has denied the allegations, saying its work is not politically motivated.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/
Article from online service or database.
Do questions 1, 2, 4, 8
Use the political cartoon to help you out…

Article Six and Seven
Do questions 1, 2, 3, 8

Scholastic News
1967: The Six-Day War
Much of today’s conflict between Israel and the Palestinians stems from a war 40 years ago that lasted less than a week.
By Sam Roberts

Even by Middle East standards, the spring of 1967 was a tense time. Israel was periodically being attacked by Palestinian guerrillas in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, territories controlled by Egypt and Jordan respectively, and Syrian troops were lobbing artillery fire from the Golan Heights.
In April, Israel retaliated by downing six of Syria’s Soviet-made fighter planes. After the Soviet Union spread rumors that Israel was planning to attack Syria, the Egyptian army mobilized 100,000 troops and 1,000 tanks in the Sinai Peninsula. The following month, Egypt’s President, Gamel Abdel Nasser, whose stated goal was the destruction of Israel, ordered United Nations observers to leave the area. He also blockaded the Strait of Tiran, cutting off Israel’s access to the Red Sea, a vital shipping route.
With war appearing inevitable, Israel decided to strike first. On the morning of June 5—while most Egyptian pilots were eating breakfast and their commanders were stuck in rush-hour traffic—the Israeli Air Force destroyed more than 300 of Egypt’s 340 combat planes, most before they had a chance to leave the ground. Israeli troops then swept into Gaza and Sinai, as Jordan, with backup from Iraq, began shelling the Israeli sector of Jerusalem. Syria then attacked from the north.
New Map
By June 7, Israel had captured the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the Old City, home to many sacred sites in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. By the fourth day, June 8, with the Egyptians in retreat, Israeli forces had reached the Suez Canal. Two days later, after Israel captured the Golan Heights, Israel and Syria declared a cease-fire.
In six days—actually, a little less—Israel more than tripled the amount of land under its control, rewriting the map of the Middle East.
While the war demonstrated Israel’s military superiority in the region, it settled nothing: Even in the face of a humiliating defeat, Arab leaders remained committed to Israel’s destruction. And Israel’s occupation of areas with a Palestinian population at the time of about three-quarters of a million led to new woes on both sides, most of which remain unresolved 40 years later.
Arafat & The P.L.O.
Indeed, even before the war ended, as the Israeli government debated trying to capture the West Bank town of Hebron, another city with a rich biblical history, Israel’s Prime Minister asked his colleagues: “Have you already thought about how we can live with so many Arabs?”
The answer would soon become clear enough. A few months after the war ended, a West Bank revolt led by Palestinian guerrilla leader Yasir Arafat failed, but would nonetheless have a lasting impact. According to Yezid Sayigh, a historian at King’s College in London, the revolt “catapulted the general Palestinian public into the arms of the guerrillas because they’d seen that the people they’d hinged their hopes on—the Arab leaders and the armies they’d believed in—had been swept aside in a matter of days.”
Two years after the war, Arafat’s Fatah (largest and most important of the organizations that make up the PLO) movement took control of the Palestine Liberation Organization (P.L.O.), a group founded by Arab leaders to represent Palestinian interests. With Arafat as chairman, the P.L.O. waged a decades-long guerrilla war against Israel.
In the last four decades, attempts to bring peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors have in some cases succeeded, but hope has often given way to more violence.
In November 1967, the U.N. endorsed Resolution 242, a “land for peace” formula that has so far been only partly fulfilled: Israel would withdraw from the territories it captured in return for diplomatic recognition from its Arab neighbors and secure borders.
Yom Kippur War
Six years later, in 1973, Egypt and Syria launched surprise attacks on Israel on the Jewish holiday of Yom Kippur, pushing into Sinai and the Golan Heights. By the time the three-week-long conflict was over, Israel had largely repelled the attacks, though with the U.S. mediating after the war, Israel agreed to return part of the Sinai and the Golan Heights to Egypt and Syria.
Overall, the war restored some of the Arab pride that had been so badly wounded in 1967, arguably enabling some of the peace efforts in the decades that followed.
In 1977, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat astonished the world by announcing that he was ready to go to Jerusalem and meet with Israel’s leaders. A year after Sadat’s trip to Israel, U.S. President Jimmy Carter brought Sadat and Israel’s Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland, where the three men broke a 30-year stalemate in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Egypt & Jordan
The Camp David Accords led to a formal peace treaty in 1979 between Israel and Egypt: Israel returned the rest of the Sinai, and Egypt became the first Arab state to recognize Israel. (Other Arab states denounced the treaty, and Sadat was assassinated in Cairo in 1981, as he reviewed a parade commemorating the 1973 war.)
Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994, but Israel and the Palestinians have remained, in essence, at war. Thousands have died on both sides in two Palestinian uprisings, or intifadas (Civil Uprising; Arabic: ‘shaking off’), in Israeli military campaigns in the occupied territories, and in suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis.
Israel wants the Palestinians to renounce terrorism and genuinely accept its existence, while the Palestinians seek statehood, a capital in Jerusalem, and the right of Palestinian refugees displaced by the 1948 war to return to Israel.
“Each people believes that justice is totally on its own side,” David Shaham, executive director of the International Center for Peace in the Middle East, wrote in The Times some years ago. “Each nurtures its own sufferings and grievances and remains almost completely oblivious to that of the other.”
In 2000 at Camp David, President Bill Clinton brought the two sides to the brink of an agreement: Israel would return to its pre-1967 borders, with adjustments, and the Palestinians would get an independent state with a capital in East Jerusalem, in return for the Palestinians’ destroying all terrorist groups. But Arafat, to the consternation of Clinton and even Arafat’s Arab allies, walked away from the negotiations.
According to Leslie Gelb, a former State Department official, Camp David’s failure demonstrates the difficulties of bringing the two sides together.
“Israelis said if the Palestinians won’t buy this great deal, they don’t want peace,” Gelb says. “The Palestinians said this was an Israeli trick. The result is what we’ve seen all these years.”
Within months of the collapse of the Camp David talks, a second, more violent intifada began. Militants carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Israel, and Israel responded with a harsh military crackdown.
The U.S. Role
In the last few years, Israel has been trying to unilaterally “disengage” from the Palestinians. It began construction of a controversial security barrier to keep suicide bombers from entering Israel, and in 2005, shuttered its settlements in Gaza and withdrew its forces, leaving all of Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority. In the West Bank, different areas remain under Israeli, Palestinian, or joint control.
In 2006, Hamas, a radical fundamentalist group that calls for Israel’s destruction, won a majority in the Palestinian parliament, leading the U.S. and other nations to cut off most aid to the Palestinians and refuse to deal with Hamas members of the government.
Most Middle East experts believe that Israel and the Palestinians will eventually reach agreement, but only when moderates on both sides have gained the upper hand over extremists.
Gelb predicts that a final settlement “will be close to the Camp David terms on almost all issues.”
Until then, “it’s important for the U.S. to keep the negotiating flame lit, and for the moderates on each side to keep connections and avoid despair.
“But conservatively,” Gelb says, “it will be years before the two sides are in a position to make a final settlement.”

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/

Bibliography: Online service or database

Article Eight
Protests in Pakistan
Police and demonstrators clash over emergency rule
Do questions 2, 3, 8
Also, answer the following:
*American citizens have the right to protest and demonstrate against their government. What gives Americans that right? Why are the Pakistanis not being granted the same right?
Scholastic News
Karen Fanning | November 7 , 2007

Political unrest in Pakistan intensified on Wednesday as demonstrators and police clashed on the streets of the capital city of Islamabad. For the third straight day, supporters of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto have marched outside Parliament to protest President Pervez Musharraf’s decision to impose military rule.
Police used tear gas and resorted to violence to control the crowds. But that didn’t stop demonstrators from making their voices heard, as they shouted, “Benazir, Benazir!” and “Down with the emergency!”
Musharraf declared a state of emergency and suspended the country’s constitution on Saturday. Since then, he has forced out several top judges, silenced the media, and arrested thousands of people.
Musharraf insisted that he suspended the country’s constitution because the courts have interfered with Pakistan’s ability to fight terrorism. Musharraf’s opponents, however, charge that his actions are simply a political maneuver to stay in power. He ousted several top judges just before the Supreme Court in Pakistan was set to rule whether Musharraf was eligible to serve a third term as President.
Bhutto Speaks Out
Prior to the recent violence, Musharraf had met with Bhutto, who is seeking to return to power as Prime Minister after eight years of self-imposed exile. There had been speculation that the two would share power after parliamentary elections, which may happen in January. But now, Bhutto has vowed to cut off talks with Musharraf unless the political situation in Pakistan changes.
“I think we should all come down as strongly as we can for the restoration of democracy,” she said. “And if General Musharraf wants to find a way out, well, the ball is in his court.”
With the timing of parliamentary elections uncertain, Bhutto has summoned the people of Pakistan to take action. She has urged them to ignore a ban on rallies by demonstrating near Parliament and participating in a massive rally in the city of Rawalpindi on Friday.
The United States, the United Kingdom, and other countries are pushing for Musharraf to end the state of emergency and restore Pakistan’s constitutional government. American and British officials are considering a withdrawal of financial aid from Pakistan, but so far no action has been taken.

Do questions 2, 3, 8
Also, answer the following:
*American citizens have the right to protest and demonstrate against their government. What gives Americans that right? Why are the Pakistanis not being granted the same right?

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3748369&FullBreadCrumb=%3Ca+href%3D%22%2Fbrowse%2Fsearch.jsp%3Fquery%3Dpakistan%26c1%3DCONTENT30%26c17%3D0%26c2%3Dfalse%22%3EAll+Results+%3C%2Fa%3E

Bibliography: Online service or database

Contemporary Article Nine and Ten Due 12/10/07
Sam Roberts
Jan 15, 2007
New York Times Upfront

How the Middle East got that way: the seeds of much of the conflict in the Mideast today were planted by Britain and its Allies after World War I, when they carved up the remains of the Ottoman Empire.

“Car Bomb Kills 56 in Baghdad”
“Israel Hits Gaza After Palestinian Rocket Attacks”
“Lebanese Official Critical of Syria Is Assassinated”

This small sampling of recent headlines about turmoil in the Middle East–and countless others in the last century–raises the question: Why is that part of the world such a mess?

It’s complicated, of course, but the fact is that many of the current conflicts can be traced to decisions made after World War I by the victorious Allies (largely Britain and France) who divided up the territory of what had been the Ottoman Empire.

In drawing the boundaries of what would become today’s Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, and Lebanon, they paid little attention to the ancient tribal, ethnic, and religious differences that are at the root of much of the bloodshed in the region 90 years later.

The result, according to historian David Fromkin, was the creation of a group of neighboring “countries that have not become nations even today.”

Beginning in 1914, the war in Europe pitted Britain, France, Russia, and eventually the United States, against Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire.

Ruled since 1299 by Muslim sultans in Constantinople (now Istanbul, Turkey’s biggest city), the Ottoman Empire spanned southeastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East.

After the Allies victory in 1918, peace talks took place in Versailles, outside Paris. But there and in follow-up negotiations, the Allies disagreed about what the postwar world should look like: They argued not only about how severely to punish Germany, but also about what should happen to the Ottoman territories, which were home to many ethnic and religious groups, including Turks, Arabs, Kurds, Muslims, Christians, and Jews.

Nationalism was a growing force in “the early 20th century and President Woodrow Wilson advocated self-determination. In his Fourteen Points, Wilson urged that all nationalities within the former Ottoman Empire be assured “an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.”

But the Europeans were more intent on preserving, and even expanding, their colonial empires, and they wanted access to oil, which was starting to be discovered in large quantities in the Mideast.

The Europeans also wanted to loosen Islam’s hold on the region by promoting secular government. But, as Fromkin writes, foreign powers trying to impose their own order would not be welcomed in places “whose inhabitants for more than a thousand years have avowed faith in a holy law that governs all life, including government and politics.”

Further complicating matters, the British had made a number of conflicting commitments during the war: They had promised Arabs independence in return for taking up arms against their Turkish Ottoman rulers. In 1917, in what became known as the Balfour Declaration, Britain announced its support for a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. Finally, they made a secret agreement with their French allies to divvy up large chunks of Ottoman territory between them.

By the end of all the peace conferences in 1922, Britain and France had received “mandates” from the newly formed League of Nations to oversee much of the former Ottoman Empire, where they created several new states and installed figurehead rulers.

But even then, Colonel Edward House, Wilson’s confidant, gloomily predicted that the lines drawn in the desert sand by European diplomats were “making a breeding place for future war.”

Here’s how events unfolded:

IRAQ “In 1919,” the historian Margaret MacMillan recalls, “there was no Iraqi people; history, religion, geography pulled the people apart, not together.”

The Shiite and Sunni sects of Islam had split centuries earlier over who would succeed Muhammad as Islam’s leader.

But in creating the new nation of Iraq in ancient Mesopotamia, Britain cobbled together the Ottoman provinces of Baghdad (mostly Sunni), Basra (mostly Shiite), and Mosul (mostly Kurdish).

What kept Iraq together for more than 80 years was the autocratic rule of kings and dictators. In 1921, the British installed as king an outsider named Feisal, the son of the ruler of the holy city of Mecca (in present-day Saudi Arabia), who was a British ally during the war.

The monarchy was overthrown in 1958. After several military coups, the socialist Baath Party seized control in 1968 and brought to power Saddam Hussein, who was toppled by the U.S.-led coalition in 2003.

Since then, without a strongman holding Iraq together, rising sectarian violence has brought the country to the brink of civil war.

PALESTINE/JORDAN/ISRAEL The British mandate for Palestine included present-day Israel, Jordan, and the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 1921, on the land east of the Jordan River, Britain carved out Transjordan and placed Feisal’s brother Abdullah on the throne. Jordan was granted independence in 1946, and Abdullah was assassinated in 1951. The current King, Abdullah H, is his great-grandson.

West of the Jordan River, the issue of a Jewish homeland played out over the next two decades. Most Arab leaders opposed the creation of a new Jewish state in Palestine, where the population was largely Arab. Supporters of Zionism (the nationalist movement for a Jewish homeland in Palestine) argued that additional Jewish settlement would benefit the entire region economically, and that Jews had a right to a state in the land of ancient Israel. The murder of 6 million Jews in the Holocaust during World War II increased world pressure for a Jewish homeland.

In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the narrow slice of land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea into Jewish and Palestinian states. While Jewish leaders accepted the U.N. plan, the Arab states rejected it and attacked the newly declared state of Israel when the British left in May 1948.

Other Arab-Israeli wars followed. The Six-Day War in 1967 left Israel in control of the Sinai Peninsula (later returned to Egypt), along with the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights, and all of Jerusalem.

In 1993, an agreement between Israel and Palestinian leaders granted Palestinians limited control of the West Bank and Gaza, in anticipation of a future Palestinian state. Little progress was made toward that goal in the years that followed. The Victory in last year’s Palestinian elections of the militant group Hamas, which advocates the destruction of Israel, virtually froze peace efforts.

SYRIA/LEBANON In 1920, Syria became a protectorate of France, which claimed a special responsibility for safeguarding Christian enclaves in the Ottoman Empire. France carved out Syria’s coastal region into the separate state of Lebanon, whose legitimacy the Syrians still don’t recognize. Lebanon gained independence in 1943. Strife between Christians and Muslims developed, by 1975, into a 15-year civil war. The Lebanese invited Syria to intervene, but Syrian troops remained until 2005. They left after Syria was accused of ordering the assassination of a former Lebanese Prime Minister.

KUWAIT Under the Ottomans, Kuwait was at one time a district of Basra and was later overseen by Britain, until independence was granted in 1961. In 1990, Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, citing its historical connection to Iraq, and touched off the first Gulf War. A U.N.-sanctioned coalition, led by the U.S., liberated Kuwait early in 1991.

Today, three generations after the end of World War I, it seems that President Wilson’s aide, Colonel House, was right in his dire prediction for the Middle East. The question is, will the I conflicts there ever cease?

Professor Fromkin recalls that after the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe struggled for 1,500 years over what form of Christianity to follow and: whether Europeans should be ruled by popes or kings. He wonders why the Arabs should be any different. “The continuing crisis in the Middle

East in our time may prove to be : nowhere near so profound or so long-lasting,” he writes. “But its issue is the same: how diverse peoples are to regroup to create new political identifies for themselves after the collapse of an ages-old imperial order.”

BACKGROUND

Much of the conflict in today’s Middle East can be traced to decisions made by Britain and its allies after World War I, when they carved up the remains of the Ottoman Empire into new countries. In doing so, they often ignored age-old ethnic and religious differences that are stilt at the root of much of the bloodshed in the region.

Must do (new) questions 1, 3, 4 and critical thinking question one:

* Consider the Europeans’ quest to expand their colonial empires. (After World War I, Britain controlled the largest empire in history, with a quarter of the world’s population under its rule.)

* Did the British and French victory in World War I give them the right to create colonies in the Middle East?

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+the+Middle+East+got+that+way:+the+seeds+of+much+of+the+conflict…-a0157946237

Bibliography: Online service or database

Article Eleven due 12/18/07

New York Times Upfront
The Perfect Weapon
Thousands of child soldiers have been forced into battle in some of Africa’s most violent conflicts.
By Jeffrey Gettleman in Nairobi, Kenya

When he was 13 years old, Ishmael Beah was given an AK-47, drugged up, and taught to kill.
It was 1993, and his native country, Sierra Leone, was in the midst of a civil war. Rebel soldiers had attacked his village and Beah was separated from his parents. After spending months fleeing danger and wandering through his war-torn country, he was forcibly recruited into the Sierra Leone army.

“I shot at everything that moved,” Beah recalls of the two years he spent fighting rebel forces.

Now 26 and living in New York City, Beah is one of the lucky few to have escaped.

At 15, he was rescued by UNICEF workers and sent to a rehabilitation clinic in Freetown, Sierra Leone’s capital. Two years later, after a difficult recovery from drug addiction and trauma, he came to the United States, went to the United Nations International School in New York, and then graduated in 2004 from Oberlin College in Ohio.

Now, he’s the best-selling author of A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier, a chilling first-person account of his life as a child soldier.

Easily Manipulated

All around the world, from Sri Lanka and Colombia to Afghanistan and Uganda, children like Beah are being swept into armed conflict, robbed of their childhoods, and used to fight for greed and power.

To rebel commanders, children are the perfect weapon: easily manipulated, intensely loyal, fearless, and, most important, in endless supply.

Today, according to human rights groups, there are some 300,000 child soldiers (defined as under 1 worldwide. Experts say the problem is deepening as the nature of conflict itself changes, especially in Africa.

Africa didn’t invent the modern underage soldier. The Germans drafted adolescents when they got desperate during World War II. So did Iran, which used boys as young as 12 to clear minefields during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. Young people have fought in religion-driven or nationalistic conflicts in Kosovo (a largely Albanian breakaway province of Serbia), Afghanistan, and the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza, where children have been sent into Israel as suicide bombers.

Greed & Power

In Africa, however, the problem is especially severe: In one country after another, conflicts have morphed from cause-driven struggles—like ending colonial rule—to criminal drives led by warlords whose goals are plunder, greed, and power.

“There might have been a little rhetoric at the beginning,” says Beah. “But very quickly the ideology gets lost, and then it just becomes a bloodbath … a war of madness.”

The typical rebel leader, operating from deep in the bush, doesn’t care about winning the hearts and minds of his soldiers or gaining the support of the public.

“These are brutally thuggy people who don’t want to rule politically and have no strategy for winning a war,” says Neil Boothby, a professor at Columbia University in New York who has worked with child soldiers around the world.

Few adults want to have anything to do with these rebel commanders, and so manipulating and abducting children becomes the best way to sustain the organized banditry.

As this kind of lawlessness spreads through parts of Africa, armed movements that rely on children as young as 9 are flourishing. Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Uganda are examples.

In Somalia, thousands have been killed in Mogadishu, the capital, in a complex civil war involving armies of teenagers. The war traces back to 1991, when the central government was brought down by clans fighting over old grievances. But soon it became a contest among warlords for control of airports, seaports, and access to international aid. (American efforts to restore order failed during the infamous 1993 battle depicted in the movie Black Hawk Down.) Today, 16 years later, they’re still blasting away.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire), a civil war that started a decade ago to oust the longtime dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, is now a bloodbath of rebel groups fighting for control of timber, copper, gold, diamonds, and other resources. All sides rely on child soldiers.

Guns & Magic

In Uganda, peace talks are under way in an effort to end a reign of terror in rural areas by a rebel group known as the Lord’s Resistance Army, which has deteriorated into a drugged-out gang living in the jungle with military-grade weaponry and 13-year-old brides. Its ranks are filled with boys who have been brainwashed to burn down huts and pound newborn babies to death.

Children are often drawn into these movements, and kept there, with magic and superstition. They are taught that life and death depend on spirits, which are conjured up by their commander and distilled in oils and amulets. And leaders of these rebel groups use magic to demand supernatural respect.

“The commanders would wear certain pearls and said that guns wouldn’t hurt us,” says Beah. “And we believed it.”

By the time child soldiers in Congo were being told that eating their victims made them stronger in the late 1990s, the world had started paying attention.

World Reaction

The United Nations has since taken up the child soldier issue and passed protocols calling for the age of combatants to be at least 18. (The United States, which allows voluntary enlistment with parental consent at 17, and the United Kingdom, which sets the minimum age at 16, are among the countries that have not signed.)

But renegade armed groups continue to be a stumbling block.And as lawlessness spreads through parts of Africa, armed movements are spreading from the bush to urban-area slums.

“It’s ridiculous to appeal to human rights with these groups because they are so far on the criminal end of the spectrum,” says Victoria Forbes Adam, director of the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers in London.

Beah and other child-rights advocates are trying to draw attention to the plight of children in warfare—and are asking the world to intervene.

“No one is born violent,” Beah said during a conference in Paris on child soldiers earlier this year. “No child in Africa, Latin America, or Asia wants to be part of war.”

Do questions: 1, 2, 3 & Take a look at the map (link) below. Many of the countries where child soldiers exist today are countries that are in, or have been, in a state of civil war. Why do you think child soldiers are coming from these war torn countries that are dealing with civil war?
Check out the map online:
http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/features/index.asp?article=f090307_African_Soldiers

Article Twelve

The Nation
Nicholas von Hoffman

Subprime Mortgage Blues

March 5, 2007
Anybody who knew anything shook their heads while the politicians and the bankers and home builders boasted. The boast was that almost three-quarters of American households were homeowners.
Anybody who knew anything knew the reason was all you had to do to get a mortgage was to show the loan officer that your body was warm. Can’t afford a down payment? Don’t worry about it. You’ve got an abominable credit rating? So who’s looking? You don’t have a dime in the bank? We don’t ask embarrassing questions. We just hand out loans.
This is what they call the subprime mortgage market, where in the last few years 6 million bad risks have gotten the financing they needed to buy a house. No banker in his right mind would make such a mortgage, but for the last few years the sane bankers have been hiding under their desks or have left for the grocery business.
As long as housing prices were jumping higher almost by the hour, the subprime mortgage holders pretty much managed their monthly payments, although there are stories out there in real estate land of people missing their first payment on a no-down-payment mortgage. People who ran into trouble could refinance the house and cover their payments that way, something that ceased to be possible when house prices went flat and began to move downward.
Other subprimers ran into trouble when the period of the introductory teaser interest rates expired and their monthly payments jumped by hundreds of dollars, which they did not have. Official figures do not exist, but it appears that somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of subprime mortgages are behind in their payments. That works out to a lot of people, a lot of families and a lot of money.
Between subprime mortgages and prime mortgages, which are those with the lowest interest rates and the best terms, there is an intermediate category of loans. These are known as Alt-A loans. Alt-A borrowers may have good credit ratings but may have bought a second house to flip as a speculation. They also are facing increases in their monthly payments and as a result a still small but rising number of these people have fallen into arrears on their payments.
The situation is complicated by the suspicion of a significant amount of fraud in the feverish real estate market of the last few years. The fraud would have taken the form of overvaluation in property appraisals, leading to owners borrowing more money than the property is worth. If it is true, it would not be the first time.
If hundreds of thousands or even millions of buyers welsh on their mortgages, what happens? The sensible next step is to modify the terms of the mortgage with the mortgage holder. To the extent that some banks hold the mortgages they make, that can be done, but most institutions that originate mortgages sell them to others, who bundle them and convert them into bonds. Who owns the bonds? Who knows? It could be pension funds, universities, hedge funds, a Chinese bank. They are all over the place and, to make matters more confusing, they are not all the same.
Some bonds must be repurchased by their issuers if things go south; others have some kind of rainy-day fund to cover defaults of the underlying mortgages. Some of these bonds are made up of only the best, most reliable mortgages; some are a mix.
The long and short of it is that we are in uncharted territory. The setup today is unlike the arrangements at the time of the last real estate flop twenty-five years ago. From homeowner to investor, we do not know who is going to be injured or how badly. Maybe a lot of people take a small hit and everybody wiggles out of this mess. Or maybe it gets messier and we have to face some people being tossed out of their homes.
And just think, it was only a few years ago that those smart men and women they released from the think tanks to lecture us were explaining that the days of uncertainty and worry were all in the past.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070319/howl

Do questions 1, 2, 4 and:
How could have the subprime mortgage crisis been avoided?

Contemporary Article Thirteen
Scholatic News
Do Questions 1, 2, 3 and Critical Thinking Question:
Do you think the U.S. should continue to take an active role in helping to develop democratic governments in other countries like Pakistan? Why or why not?

Tragedy in Pakistan
Former Prime Minister’s return from exile sparks violent attack

By Karen Fanning | October 19 , 2007

It was supposed to be a happy homecoming for former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Instead, two explosions erupted near Bhutto’s motorcade Thursday night, killing 134 people and injuring at least 450 others.

The windshield of Bhutto’s car was shattered, and the vehicle directly behind her was completely scorched. But Bhutto and her companions, who were riding in bulletproof vehicles, escaped the blasts and arrived safely at her family home. Several policemen who were riding next to Bhutto’s vehicle died.

“We did try to provide the maximum security that was possible and, in fact, that’s why the majority of casualties are among the police and security forces,” said Pakistani information minister Tariq Azim Khan. “But with a very large crowd, obviously, there is no such thing as foolproof security.”

Early reports indicate that the blasts may have been the work of a suicide bomber. Officials also reported that at least one bomb had been planted inside a car on the street, where throngs of Bhutto’s supporters gathered to welcome her home.

A Controversial Return Home

Bhutto returned to her native country on Thursday after eight years of self-imposed exile. She had agreed to come back only after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf permitted her to seek re-election as Prime Minister. Many Pakistanis objected to the bargain struck between Bhutto and Musharraf.

Bhutto’s public image took another hit after recent comments she made about teaming up with the United States to fight terrorism and the Taliban. Her remarks, viewed as pro-American, angered many Pakistanis. Bhutto received death threats. Concerned for her safety, officials in Pakistan urged Bhutto to postpone her return to Pakistan. However, she did not listen to their warnings.

The United States responded immediately, denouncing the acts of violence.

“Those responsible seek only to foster fear and limit freedom,” said State Department spokesman Tom Casey. “The United States stands with the people of Pakistan to eliminate terrorist threats, and to build a more open, democratic, and peaceful society.”

A Political Pioneer

Benazir Bhutto was first elected Prime Minister of Pakistan in 1988. She was just 35 years old. But 20 months later, Bhutto was removed from office by then-president Ghulam Ishaq Khan on corruption charges. She denied the charges and was never tried. She was re-elected in 1993 but was once again ousted on similar charges in 1996.

Bhutto had been living in exile in Dubai since 1999. When she touched down at Karachi Airport Thursday afternoon, she broke into tears.

“I believe in miracles,” said the 54-year-old. “My return home is a miracle. I dreamt about this moment for so long. I hope I can live up to the expectations of the people of Pakistan.”

Bhutto told reporters in Dubai that she was returning to Pakistan to serve its people. She vowed to replace Pakistan’s military government with a democratic one.

“I am going home with a message of change and hope for a better future for democracy, and I hope that this moment for democracy succeeds,” she said.

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3748268&FullBreadCrumb=%3Ca+href%3D%22%2Fbrowse%2Fsearch.jsp%3Fquery%3Dtragedy+in+Pakistan%26c1%3DCONTENT30%26c17%3D0%26c2%3Dfalse%22%3EAll+Results+%3C%2Fa%3E

Article Fourteen
Do Questions 1, 2, 4 and:
Would you rather have a democracy run by ineffective leaders, or a dictatorship run by effective leaders?

New York Times Upfront
Scholastic News

Democracy Lite
If Vladimir Putin gives up the presidency but holds on to power, is Russia really a democracy?

By Clifford J. Levy in Moscow

In two months, Russian President Vladimir V. Putin is leaving office, and no one is sure who will be running the country—the world’s largest—after that.
Under Russian law, Putin cannot run for another term as President. While he’s said he’ll step down, it’s less clear that he’ll actually give up power: On December 10, Putin announced his support for Dmitri A. Medvedev as his successor, virtually guaranteeing him a victory in this March’s presidential election. The next day, Medvedev said that he would name Putin Prime Minister, the second most powerful position in the government, and not surprisingly, Putin accepted the offer.
If Putin continues to control Russia, it raises a critical question: Can a nation run by someone who is no longer the elected head of state call itself a democracy?
Michael McFaul, a Russia expert at Stanford University, doesn’t think so: “If you want a really simple definition, it’s this: Democracy is when incumbents lose elections. That is not the case in Russia today.”
Autocratic Past
Western-style democracy is not a natural fit for Russia. For 350 years, Russia was ruled by powerful czars, and the Soviet Union—America’s main adversary during the Cold War—was a Communist dictatorship for most of the 20th century.
The years after the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 were marked by chaos and economic collapse. When Putin succeeded President Boris Yeltsin in 1999, most Russians were relieved to have a strong President who wanted to put Russia’s house in order and restore its position as a world power.
Russia’s economy has thrived under Putin. Foreign investment and the stock market have soared, and high oil prices have provided a boost since Russia is the second-largest crude oil exporter. Consumer goods long denied to most Russians under Communist rule are widely available, and millions more Russians, part of a growing middle class, are able to afford them.
But at the same time, Putin—a former K.G.B. agent—has concentrated power in his hands. He approved laws that restrict freedom of expression and shut down independent TV stations. Rivals have been jailed, and the government is alleged to have been involved in killing opponents, in Russia and abroad.
December’s parliamentary elections (which Putin’s party, United Russia, won in a landslide) were plagued by accusations of unfairness. Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion, and other opposition leaders say they were harassed, and government workers say they were told to vote for United Russia.
This has stirred fears that Medvedev and Putin might push through laws to give the Prime Minister more power, or that Medvedev might resign with Putin returning to the presidency.
Grigory A. Yavlinsky, an opposition leader, says Putin is in a bind because he wants to retain power but doesn’t want to be seen as illegitimate.
“Now the time has come to make a transfer of power,” Yavlinsky says, “and he really, really has no idea how to do that. And nobody else has any idea.”
In naming Putin “Person of the Year” for 2007, Time magazine wrote: “At significant cost to the principles and ideas that free nations prize, he has performed an extraordinary feat of leadership in imposing stability on a nation that has rarely known it and brought Russia back to the world table.”
But, Time says, “Whether he proves to be a reformer or an autocrat who takes Russia back to an era of repression…we will only know over the next decade.” By Clifford J. Levy in Moscow

http://teacher.scholastic.com/scholasticnews/indepth/upfront/features/index.asp?article=f011408_Russia

Article Fifteen
Do questions: 2, 3, 4 and:
How could have this conflict in Kenya been avoided?

Kenya in Conflict
Violence over election dispute continues in once-peaceful African nation

By Karen Fanning | January 24 , 2008
Scholastic News

The African nation of Kenya was once considered a beacon of democracy. But after a presidential election that many claim was rigged, the country has plunged into chaos.

“This country has come a long way,” said Koki Muli, an election observer. “And now we have been set back many miles.”

On December 31, violence erupted just minutes after Kenya’s President, Mwai Kibaki, was pronounced the winner of the national election. His challenger, Raila Odinga, claimed that he was cheated out of the presidency, insisting the election had been fixed to keep Kibaki’s government in power.

Young men flooded the streets, wielding sticks, throwing stones, and burning down houses. Angry mobs directed their fury at the Kikuyus, the ethnic group of which President Kibaki is a member. After three days of bloodshed, more than 300 people were killed, and tens of thousands of Kikuyus fled their homes, fearing for their lives.

A Controversial Election

On December 27, record numbers of Kenyans turned up at the polls. Some waited in lines that stretched for miles.

Since first being elected president in 2002, Kibaki has come under fire from opponents who claim that he favors the Kikuyu over Kenya’s numerous other ethnic groups, including the Luo, of which opposition leader Odinga is a member. Many of the government’s top officials are Kikuyus.

A wealthy businessman, Odinga promised to help the poor if elected. During his campaign, he gained popularity by forming a coalition of many ethnic groups.

Although the election was expected to be close, suspicions were raised even before all the votes had been counted. Early returns appeared to indicate a landslide victory for Odinga. But his lead quickly disappeared, and by December 30, the race was a dead heat.

When the votes were finally tallied a day later, Kibaki won by a narrow margin—46 percent to 44 percent. Election observers said they witnessed suspicious vote-counting practices, including thousands of ballots invalidated and dozens of tally sheets unsigned.

Despite pleas from U.S. officials and other Western diplomats for a vote recount, the election commission has refused to do so. In fact, almost immediately after Kibaki was declared the winner, he was sworn into office. He stands by the results.

“We have demonstrated to the world, we are politically mature,” he said. “[The vote] was honest, orderly, and credible.”

Meeting of Hope?

Kibaki and Odinga have continued to claim victory, and up until today, had refused to meet. Former United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan has managed to persuade the two sides to sit down and talk about a resolution. Although the goals of their meeting today are not clear, many are hopeful this first discussion between the President and the leader of the opposition will encourage an end to the violence.

“This is what we’ve been calling for,” said George Wachira, a member of a group called Concerned Citizens for Peace. “It’s a good beginning. Symbolically, it sends the right message. If people feel this is going to be resolved at a political level, [they] will realize there is no need to keep fighting in the streets.”

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3748834

Political Article 16
Do quesions two, three, four and:
Why do you think these individuals attack the US Embassy? Is there anger legitimate?

U.S. Embassy Attacked
Protesters set Belgrade compound on fire after mass demonstrations
By Laura Leigh Davidson | February 22 , 2008
Scholastic News Online
Protesters outside the U.S. embassy in Belgrade, Serbia,
February 21, 2008.

Angry rioters attacked the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, Serbia, on Thursday. Belgrade is the capital of Serbia, a country located on the Balkan Peninsula in southeastern Europe.

Masked men broke into one of the compound’s buildings and set fire to an office. The flames spread up the side of the building as rioters outside burned American flags in protest. One person, believed to be a rioter, was found dead in the U.S. office building after the fire had been extinguished.

The violence came at the end of a day of mass demonstrations against a declaration of independence by Kosovo, the southernmost province of Serbia. Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian majority wants to create its own state, and made that desire official on February 17 by seceding (formally separating) from Serbia.

Serbs consider Kosovo the ancient heartland of their culture and are angry at the countries that have recognized Kosovo’s declaration of independence. The United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Turkey, Italy, and Australia are a few of the major countries which have expressed support for the province that wants to be Europe’s newest sovereign nation.

The same group of protesters who attacked the U.S. Embassy also targeted the Croatian Embassy nearby. Smaller groups assaulted police posts outside the Turkish and British embassies in another part of the city but were stopped before they could do much damage.

Rioters spread the destruction throughout Belgrade, demolishing a McDonald’s restaurant and breaking into surrounding shops. People were seen carrying off running shoes, tracksuits, and other sporting goods from a department store.

International Reaction

White House spokesperson Dana Perino responded to the situation swiftly, saying the embassy “was attacked by thugs” and that Serb police didn’t do enough to stop it. The last time a mob broke into a U.S. embassy was in 1979, when Iranians seized the embassy in Tehran and took American staff there hostage for an extended period of time.

The United Nations (UN) Security Council condemned “in the strongest terms the mob attacks,” saying host governments like Belgrade must honor their obligation to protect diplomatic premises.

Today’s surge in rioting is the culmination of smaller outbursts of violence in Belgrade and Kosovo earlier this week. The rioting is evidence that Serbia will not give up rule over Kosovo easily, although the Serbian government has said it won’t resort to military force.

Serbia has some powerful allies in its bid to keep control of Kosovo: Russia and China. The two countries have not recognized Kosovo as an independent state. As members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, Russia and China can and likely will prevent formal recognition of Kosovo’s independence by the UN anytime soon.

Serbian President Boris Tadic, who was visiting Romania Thursday, appealed for calm and urged protesters to get off the streets. He said the violence was “damaging” Serbia’s efforts to defend its claim to Kosovo.

Uncharted Territory

Kosovo’s declaration of independence is the latest episode in a historic saga of political change on the Balkan Peninsula. Once part of a larger federation of states known as Yugoslavia, Kosovo is a very poor landlocked territory of 2 million inhabitants. The region has been a United Nations protectorate (a relationship of protection and partial control assumed by a superior power over a dependent country or region) since 1999, and is policed by 16,000 NATO troops. Its unemployment rate is about 60 percent, and the average monthly wage is about $250.

Electricity is so undependable that lights go out in the capital city of Pristina several times a day. But a lack of modern resources didn’t stop the Kosovo celebration on February 17. Despite freezing temperatures and heavy snow, Ethnic Albanians from as far away as the United States poured into Kosovo to celebrate “independence day.”

Beating drums, waving Albanian flags, and throwing firecrackers, the crowds chanted: “Independence! Independence! We are free at last!”

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3749037&print=1