Day: December 22, 2023
Reflecting on Life Through the Liturgy: Prayers from an Adopted Son of Armenia The Armenian Mirror-Spectator
Many Americans today worry that our nation is losing its national identity.
Some claim loudly that the core of that identity requires better policing of our borders.
Others worry that white Christian America is being replaced by other races, religions, and ethnicities.
But neither our border nor our dominant race, religion, and ethnicity defines America.
We’re defined by the ideals we share, the good we hold in common.
That common good is a set of shared commitments. To the rule of law. To democracy. To tolerance of our differences. To equal rights and equal opportunities for everyone. To upholding the truth.
We cannot have a functioning society without these shared commitments. Absent a common good, there can be no “we” to begin with.
If we’re losing our national identity, it is because we are losing our sense of the common good. This is what must be restored.
Some of you may feel such a quest to be hopeless. Well, I disagree.
The moral fiber of our society has been weakened, but it has not been destroyed.
Almost every day, I witness or hear of the compassion and generosity of ordinary Americans. Their actions rarely make headlines, but they constitute much of our daily life together.
We can recover the rule of law and preserve our democratic institutions by taking a more active role in our democracy.
We can strengthen the bonds that connect us to one another by fighting against all forms of bigotry.
We can protect the truth by using facts and logic to combat lies.
Together, we can rebuild a public morality that strengthens our democracy, makes our economy work for everyone, and revives trust in the institutions of the nation.
America is not made great by whom we exclude but by the ideals we uphold together.
We’ve never been a perfect union. Our finest moments have been when we have sought to live up to those shared ideals.
My wish for you and for all of us — in 2024 and beyond — is that we once again seek to live up to these ideals.
I want to thank you for joining me in these daily letters. Your support and enthusiasm for this modest effort are heartening. Thank you for your words of kindness and encouragement. Thank you for your comments and your civility.
Mostly, thank you for carrying forward the fight for the common good.
My heartfelt wishes to you and your family and loved ones for a safe, restful, and happy holiday.
The internet age has ushered in a transformational era of political communication, allowing unprecedented worldwide access to information. However, technological advancement has also resulted in the weaponization of information, a situation that poses a significant threat to the integrity of electoral processes.
This essay digs into the concept of information weaponization and investigates its negative effects on electoral systems, based on observations from the 2018 Brazilian elections and the 2016 US elections.
Defining Information Weaponization
Smith (2019) defines information weaponization as the deliberate exploitation of information to manipulate public opinion, influence decision-making processes, and achieve political goals. This strategy includes strategically disseminating misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda using multiple media channels such as social media platforms, news sources, and online forums. To achieve its goals, information weaponization exploits cognitive biases, preys on emotions, and magnifies existing societal divisions.
Impact on Electoral Processes: Brazilian Elections of 2018
The 2018 Brazilian elections provide a dramatic example of how information weaponization can undermine the democratic process (Carvalho, 2020). During this election, a rise in the transmission of false information via social media platforms was critical in altering popular attitudes. False information about candidates, political parties, and election processes flooded the internet, influencing voter opinions and ultimately influencing the election outcome.
One major case involves the spread of bogus news about the Workers’ Party candidate, Fernando Haddad. False claims that Haddad supported problematic policies and engaged in corrupt practices went widespread, contributing to voters’ poor opinion of the candidate (Silva, 2019). According to the researchers, the deliberate propagation of such misinformation attempted to persuade votes away from Haddad, impacting the election outcomes in favor of the opposing candidate, Jair Bolsonaro.
The ramifications of information weaponization in the Brazilian elections went beyond the immediate electoral outcome. The deterioration of public trust in the democratic process, exacerbated by information manipulation, eroded the legitimacy of the elected government. The election’s aftermath saw increased polarization and social unrest, emphasizing the long-term impact of information warfare on the fabric of democratic countries.
Expanding on the Impact: Psychological Warfare and Societal Divisions
To fully appreciate the scope of information weaponization’s influence, it is necessary to investigate the psychological warfare it wags on society. Misinformation not only skews electoral outcomes, but it also impacts public opinions, resulting in a fractured and politicized population. Individuals’ ideas and attitudes become polarized as they are subjected to biased or misleading information, contributing to an environment of distrust and enmity (Jones, 2021).
Furthermore, information weaponization frequently exploits pre-existing societal fault lines, widening gaps and intensifying grievances. In the Brazilian context, information manipulation intensified social, economic, and political tensions, creating an atmosphere conducive to exploitation. This deliberate nurturing of societal differences not only undermines the democratic process, but also has a long-term impact on the social fabric of the country.
Impact on Electoral Processes: US Elections of 2016
The 2016 US elections were a watershed point in the debate over information weaponization, particularly through the prism of foreign influence. According to intelligence agencies, Russian operatives interfered by orchestrating the dissemination of disinformation on social media platforms with the goal of creating dissension and influencing voter behavior (Mueller, 2019).
The use of social media to propagate controversial content, leveraging existing fault lines in American culture, was a prime example. Russian-backed groups developed and disseminated content aimed at deepening political polarization, focusing on divisive subjects including race, immigration, and gun control (House Intelligence Committee, 2018). This intentional media manipulation aimed to intensify existing societal divides, ultimately influencing voter feelings and election dynamics.
Beyond the spread of false narratives, the impact of information weaponization on US elections was significant. It prompted serious concerns about the fragility of democratic processes in the digital age. The discovery of foreign meddling triggered a rethinking of cybersecurity measures, the role of social media platforms, and the necessity for international coordination to ensure the integrity of future elections.
Addressing the Challenges: A Multifaceted Approach
A comprehensive and varied approach is required to properly confront the difficulties posed by information weaponization. Strengthening cybersecurity safeguards is critical to preventing outside meddling in electoral processes (Nye, 2021). Improving media literacy among voters is vital for empowering people to critically evaluate information and distinguish fact from fiction. Social media platforms must be held accountable for their involvement in disinformation transmission, which necessitates improved transparency and responsible content management.
Furthermore, multinational cooperation is critical in dealing with the transnational aspect of information warfare. Collaborative efforts to develop norms and regulations governing information warfare can aid in mitigating its impact on democratic processes around the world. Nations may enhance the foundations of democratic government by developing a united effort against information weaponization. The weaponization of information poses a major threat to the democratic fabric of societies around the world, as demonstrated by the 2018 Brazilian elections and the 2016 US elections.
Misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda are deliberately pushed to undermine the fundamental principles of free and fair elections, eroding public trust and increasing societal divisions. The effects transcend beyond electoral outcomes, undermining the legitimacy of elected governments and creating a distrustful climate. To address the issues posed by information weaponization, a diversified approach is required. This involves strengthening cybersecurity measures, improving media literacy, holding social media platforms accountable, and encouraging international collaboration to combat the cross-border aspect of information warfare (Nye, 2021). As democracies cope with the developing dynamics of the digital age, preserving the integrity of democratic government becomes an important responsibility.
References
- Carvalho, R. (2020). Information warfare in the 2018 Brazilian election. Washington, DC: The Wilson Center.
- House Intelligence Committee. (2018). Report on Russian active measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Jones, E. (2021). The Psychology of Information Warfare. Journal of Political Psychology, 42(3), 463–478.
- Mueller, R. S. (2019). Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
- Nye, J. S. (2021). The Cybersecurity Dilemma: Hacking, Trust, and Fear Between Nations. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Silva, P. (2019). The Impact of Fake News on the 2018 Brazilian Presidential Election. Journal of Information Warfare, 18(4), 46-56.
- Smith, A. N. (2019). The Weaponization of Information: The Need for Cognitive Security. International Affairs Review, 28(2), 56-78.
In the lead-up to Bangladesh’s eagerly anticipated national election on January 7th, 2024, the political landscape is marked by tension and uncertainty. Central to the unfolding drama is the Bangladesh Nationalist Party’s (BNP) strategy of resisting the electoral process, casting a shadow over the democratic exercise. However, a nascent movement known as the Ballot Revolution has emerged, vowing to dismantle the BNP’s master plan and pave the way for a free and fair election.
The BNP’s decision to resist the upcoming election is grounded in a complex web of grievances, including the imprisonment of its leader, Khaleda Zia, and allegations of a biased electoral environment. The party has opted for a multi-pronged approach to express its discontent, ranging from boycotting the election to alleging widespread rigging and voter suppression.
The BNP has signaled its intention to boycott the election, viewing it as a potent tool to delegitimize the electoral process. The party contends that the existing conditions are not conducive to a fair competition and that participation would be an endorsement of what it considers an undemocratic system.
Rigging and voter suppression allegations feature prominently in the BNP’s resistance strategy. The party claims that the ruling party has manipulated the electoral framework to its advantage, limiting the BNP’s ability to campaign freely and eroding the principles of a fair and transparent election.
Recognizing the global implications of its resistance, the BNP has sought international support to highlight what it perceives as democratic violations. Diplomatic efforts aim to draw attention to challenges faced by opposition parties in Bangladesh, hoping for external pressure to influence the electoral dynamics.
In counteraction to the BNP’s election resistance master plan, the ruling Awami League has adopted a political strategy, initiating the ballot revolution. This involves permitting rebel candidates to participate in the election as independents, anticipating a substantial voter turnout. The movement is fueled by a collective dedication to safeguarding the integrity of the democratic process and ensuring the resonance of every citizen’s voice.
According to the ruling party’s viewpoint, elections stand as the singular avenue through which a political entity can secure and maintain power. They vehemently argue that a fair and just electoral system is not just a procedural necessity but the very foundation upon which the principles of democracy rest. In their narrative, elections serve as the linchpin of democratic governance, ensuring that the will of the people is accurately and authentically represented in the outcomes.
Despite the opposition’s steadfast declaration to resist the upcoming election, their efforts have so far proved ineffective in influencing the government to reconsider its decision. Initiatives such as calling hartals, implementing blockades, and even resorting to arson attacks on vehicles, rather than garnering public sympathy, have led to a decline in support among the general populace. These actions, initially intended to convey dissatisfaction and rally public support, have, instead, resulted in the opposition becoming increasingly unpopular.
In the face of these setbacks, the opposition has shifted its strategy, calling for a non-cooperation movement across the country. This approach urges citizens and administrative officials alike to withhold cooperation from the government, with the aim of generating widespread dissent that would prompt a reevaluation of electoral decisions.
However, this recalibration in strategy has yet to yield the expected results. Despite the opposition’s determination, the non-cooperation movement appears to lack the resonance needed to sway public sentiment or prompt a reconsideration by the ruling party. Thus far, the opposition’s endeavors have not translated into the positive outcomes they had hoped for, leaving them facing the challenge of revitalizing their public image and redefining their approach as the election date draws near
As Bangladesh approaches the pivotal date of January 7th, 2024, the nation stands at a crossroads. The clash between the BNP’s election resistance master plan and the burgeoning ballot revolution underscores the high stakes involved. The international community, too, watches with bated breath as the future of Bangladesh’s democracy hangs in the balance.
The success of the ballot revolution in breaking the BNP’s master plan will depend on the resilience of ruling party, the support of the citizenry, and the ability to articulate a compelling vision for a democratic Bangladesh. Regardless of the outcome, these unfolding events will undoubtedly shape the nation’s political trajectory for years to come, leaving an indelible mark on the pages of Bangladesh’s democratic history.
The protracted electoral boycott by the BNP had initially fostered a sense of apathy among voters. However, a noteworthy shift in the political landscape emerged when a substantial percentage of voters exercised their electoral rights during the city corporation election a few months ago. With the advent of the parliamentary election journey, a palpable wave of enthusiasm has swept across the country. The entry of rebel candidates from the ruling party into the electoral fray has added an intriguing dimension to the electoral ambiance.
Remarkably, the ruling party has articulated a clear position on the matter, affirming that they will not expel the rebel candidates. Their rationale is rooted in a commitment to fostering a participatory election, emphasizing the importance of diverse voices in the democratic process. Additionally, the Election Commission (EC) has steadfastly asserted its dedication to ensuring an election that is not only free and fair but also truly participatory.
Given these evolving dynamics, there is a growing anticipation that the ballot revolution may effectively dismantle the BNP’s election resistance master plan on the 7th of January. The renewed voter engagement witnessed during recent elections, coupled with the ruling party’s openness to internal dissent and the EC’s commitment to democratic principles, collectively signal a potential turning point in Bangladesh’s electoral landscape. As the nation approaches this crucial date, the interplay of these factors creates an atmosphere of anticipation, with the hope that the democratic process will prevail over impediments and resonate with the collective will of the people.
The French Minister of Culture, Rima Abdul Malak, has officially approved the decree conferring the esteemed title of “Officer of Arts and Letters” upon the celebrated poet from Kosovo, Lulzim Tafa. This distinction, the highest accolade in the realm of arts and literature bestowed by the French government, marks a historic moment as the most prestigious recognition ever granted by France to an artist or writer from Kosovo. The award underscores France’s tradition of honoring outstanding figures, both French and international, for their noteworthy contributions to the arts and literature.
Ambassador of France to Kosovo Mr. Olivier Guérot presented the decoration to Poet Tafa on behalf of the French President, Emmanuel Macron.
Lulzim Tafa, a globally acclaimed poet from Kosovo, has achieved widespread recognition with his works translated into approximately thirty languages. Renowned by literary critics worldwide, he is hailed as a leading postmodernist poet in Europe. His literary footprint extends to France, where readers are familiar with his impactful body of work.
Beyond his literary prowess, Lulzim Tafa has recently gained prominence for his commitment to promoting peace through art. His notable poem, “Speak with Russian Poets,” garnered attention even before the outbreak of the Ukraine war. Tafa’s efforts to communicate with Russian artists and writers through heartfelt letters, urging them to influence policies to avert conflict, have not gone unnoticed.
In recognition of his anti-war initiatives conveyed through poetry, Lulzim Tafa has been honored by various cultural and educational institutions in Ukraine. Additionally, the Patriarch of Ukraine, Patriarch Filaret, bestowed upon him the esteemed “Order of Saint Yuri the Victorious” as a testament to his dedication to peace.
In the complex tapestry of international relations, bloc politics has historically played a pivotal role in shaping global dynamics. For Pakistan, a country carved out in the tumultuous era post-World War II and thrust into the bipolar world order of the Cold War, navigating these waters has been a journey marked by pragmatism, strategic alliances, and a cautious distance from rigid ideological blocs. It’s important to delve into how Pakistan, despite initial leanings, charted its course through various global pressures and regional tumults, shaping a foreign policy often characterized by its balancing acts rather than firm bloc affiliations.
At the dawn of independence in 1947, Pakistan found itself in a world rapidly being divided by the Cold War’s ideological rift. The young nation’s initial foreign policy leaned towards the Western bloc, primarily influenced by security concerns and the quest for economic and military support. Early decisions such as joining the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) and the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO) were pragmatic, driven more by the geopolitical realities of the time than by a firm belief in the bloc’s ideological tenets. As the Cold War progressed, Pakistan’s foreign policy reflected the era’s fluid dynamics. Its alliances, though often leaning West, were circumstantial, molded by immediate strategic needs rather than a steadfast commitment to a bloc. This period saw Pakistan navigating through the Indo-Pak wars, the Soviet-Afghan conflict, and evolving relations with neighboring China – each event reshaping its foreign policy approach.
In the backdrop of these global shifts, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged, championing a path of neutrality and independence from the Cold War’s polarizing alliances. While many newly independent states found resonance with NAM, Pakistan’s engagement with the movement was measured. It observed and occasionally aligned with NAM’s principles but stopped short of fully committing to its ideology. This cautious approach was in part a balancing act, as Pakistan sought to maintain its strategic ties, particularly with the United States, which had become a key military and economic ally.
Throughout its post-independence history, Pakistan’s alliances have been diverse and dynamic. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship, while significant, has been characterized by a series of strategic ups and downs. During various periods, especially concerning Afghanistan and India, this relationship has fluctuated, reflecting changing U.S. policies and Pakistan’s own strategic recalibrations. Parallelly, Pakistan’s bond with China has grown stronger, anchored in consistent mutual support and strategic cooperation. The development of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is a testament to this partnership’s depth, showcasing a commitment that transcends the transactional nature often seen in bloc politics.
Regionally, Pakistan’s foreign policy has been heavily influenced by its relationship with India. The enduring Kashmir dispute and the history of conflict have significantly shaped Islamabad’s regional approach. Additionally, Pakistan’s policies towards Afghanistan and Iran have been framed by security considerations, economic interests, and the broader regional power play, rather than adherence to a specific bloc’s ideology. In regional forums like the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), Pakistan’s role further exemplifies its efforts to balance regional cooperation with its national interests. The dynamics within SAARC often mirror the broader regional tensions, with Pakistan navigating these complexities in pursuit of its regional goals.
In the contemporary geopolitical landscape, Pakistan’s foreign policy exhibits a blend of realism and pragmatism. The nation strives to maintain a balanced rapport with major global powers, adeptly navigating a world where traditional blocs have given way to more fluid and multipolar alignments. This stance is evident in its diplomatic maneuvers to maintain ties with the United States, deepen its partnership with China, engage with emerging powers like Russia, and foster relations within the Islamic world. Each of these relationships presents a unique set of interests and challenges. For instance, while the U.S. remains a key player in Pakistan’s foreign policy considerations, especially in terms of economic aid and security cooperation, the growing closeness with China through initiatives like CPEC underscores a strategic pivot. Similarly, Pakistan’s engagement with Russia, though historically minimal, has seen a gradual uptick, reflecting Islamabad’s desire to diversify its foreign relations. In the Muslim world, Pakistan has sought to play a constructive role, often mediating conflicts and fostering unity. This approach has been part of its broader strategy to position itself as a key player in the Islamic world while balancing its relations with non-Muslim majority states.
Pakistan’s non-bloc stance, while offering a degree of autonomy, also presents unique challenges. The primary challenge lies in navigating the expectations and pressures from major powers without compromising its national interests. For instance, balancing its relationships with the U.S. and China, two global giants often at odds, requires diplomatic finesse and strategic foresight. However, this approach also opens up opportunities. It allows Pakistan the flexibility to engage with multiple partners, leveraging these relationships for economic, military, and diplomatic gains. Additionally, it enables Pakistan to play a more independent role in regional and global affairs, potentially mediating conflicts and contributing to stability in South Asia and beyond. As the world moves further into the 21st century, the landscape of international relations continues to evolve. For Pakistan, the future lies in maintaining its strategic autonomy while fostering partnerships that support its national development and security goals. The balance between engaging with global powers and not being drawn into their rivalries will remain a key aspect of its foreign policy.
Finally, Pakistan’s journey through the labyrinth of global politics has been marked by a pragmatic approach to bloc politics. While initially leaning towards certain alliances, Pakistan has increasingly sought a balanced and multi-aligned foreign policy. This approach, though fraught with challenges, has also provided opportunities, allowing Pakistan to navigate the complexities of international relations with a degree of independence and flexibility. As global dynamics continue to shift, Pakistan’s ability to adapt and maintain this balance will be crucial in shaping its role on the world stage.
Russia’s Defence Ministry shares latest map of its peacekeeping operations in now Azerbaijan-controlled Nagorno Karabakh, 17 observation posts noted, but no confirmation on whether they continue to man these outposts as no civilian population left in the territory. pic.twitter.com/CSv2D2CM18
— Nagorno Karabakh Observer (@NKobserver) December 23, 2023