UNSC: Middle East Emergency: Israel and Palestine 

5/15

By Patrick Liu and Lizzie Mcgowan

On May 14, the United States opened its embassy in Jerusalem and recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Its actions violated international law, and has been cited as a cause for the ensuing escalated violence in Gaza.

Soon after the embassy opening, Palestinian demonstrators faced Israel’s lethal violence - over 60 Palestinians were killed in this skirmish. Subsequently, Kuwait, the only Arab state on the UN Security Council (UNSC), requested the UNSC to issue a press release;however, the United States blocked the UNSC from issuing it.

Due to the U.S’s ill-advised decision to move its embassy to Israel that precipitated the violent clashes between Palestinians and Israeli forces Kuwait requested an emergency meet to discuss the security situation.

I. Intro

A. Briefing on Gaza Violence from Nickolay Mladenov, UN special coordinator

Mladenov briefed the UNSC on the Gaza “tragedy”, adding that “there is no justification for the killing.” Although Mladenov acknowledged that Israel can protect its borders, he asserted that they must respond proportionally to any demonstrations. He called on the UNSC to listen to the plight of those in Gaza. These Palestinians have endured so much. For example, they have been plagued by both intrastate turmoil amongst Palestinian leaders, as well as interstate conflicts between Palestine and Israel.  He further criticized arguments by various Israeli officials, who have suggested that the recent Palestinian protests were designed to instigate Israeli forces and spark a violent reaction.

II. Statement from Kuwait, the only Arab State on the UNSC

A. Statement from Kuwait

Kuwait began the statement session by stating Kuwait’s mission to find and hold those accountable to the recent escalation of events in the Middle East. Kuwait asserted its strong support to the plight of the  Palestinian people. Specifically, Kuwait expressed support for all legal Palestinian attempts to enhance sovereignty, by demanding Israel’s withdrawal from all Palestinian territory. Kuwait appealed to the UNSC on behalf of Palestinian goals of international security and peace.

III. Statements from the P-5

A. Statement from the United States

The United States, focused its comments’ on Iran’s “aggressive” actions against Israel and the double standard used in the Middle Eastern regional violence. Haley pointed out that Iran, as the primary instigator, has also launched missiles into Israel and Saudi Arabia. According to the US, Iran has been funding Hamas, its terrorist proxy agent and providing it with arms in order to destabilize Lebanon. The U.S. further alleged that Iran has been supporting proxy agents in Syria in order to destabilize the state.  Finally, the U.S. concluded that Iran’s hostile acts are the primary reason for instability in the region.

With regards to Israel’s use of force against the Palestinians, the U.S. emphasized  that Israel’s actions were justified because it was defending itself from terrorists. In essence, she explained that Israel used force in order to maintain order along its borders.

The U.S. additionally made distinctions between the recent actions of the US Embassy opening in Jerusalem, and the violence in the Gaza region. specified that violence in the area is not from the controversial opening of the US Embassy, but from Israel’s and Palestine’s long-standing history. She also reiterated the US’s sovereign right to choose the location of its embassy.

B. Statement from the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom called for “calm and restraint” in order to avoid the destruction of peace efforts in the region. Moreover, in order to quell the conflict and maintain regional security, the UK stressed the need for the UN to conduct an independent investigation to examine the recent violations of international law.

The UK also advised the Two-state system as a possible solution to ending conflicts and tensions of the region. Overall, the UK advocated for the international community to step up its efforts toward maintaining peace, and regional and international security.

C. Statement from France

France analyzed the reality of Gaza violence as a byproduct of decades of Israel’s blockade. In the absence of political prospects for progress, this situation escalated into violence. “This ongoing violence has neared the breach of no return”, according to the French Ambassador. Because of the violence, France has called for a detailed investigation into the recent violence. Furthermore, France advocated for peace on both sides - the exclusion of lethal light weapons, as well as the restraint of violence from protestors.

France urged the UNSC to take a stance and stop the violent escalation. “The silence of the council is incomprehensible” continued the French ambassador. In order to reach a solution, France suggested that the two parties considered the 2-state solution with a shared Jerusalem.

D. Statements from Russia and China

The Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China held similar viewpoints with regards to the Middle East crisis and the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Both states strongly advocated for a “direct dialogue” between Palestine and Israel. The 2-state formula, creating two independent, separate, and sovereign states was also repeatedly offered as a solution for the escalation.

Despite this, the two states did have different perspectives on the issue. China focused more on maintaining peace in the area through increased international assistance and peaceful negotiations. Russia however, used the case of Palestine violence to make a statement of the misguided direction of the world. Despite some players “and their grandiose projects”, Russia asserted that the world is not becoming a safer and more secure place.

IV. Statements from Non-Permanent members

A. Sweden

Sweden emphasized that “every loss of life is a tragedy”. Yet given Israel’s right to protect itself, Sweden urged that Israel, as the occupying power, also has a “special responsibility” to protect the Palestinian civilians. Lethal force should only be used a last resort, with restraints of force on unarmed civilians and children. An investigation should be conducted to determine the roles of each party involved in the conflict.

Sweden also lamented the failure of the UNSC (and the US) to adopt the public statement from Kuwait regarding the violence. As a solution, Sweden insisted for a shared Jerusalem amongst the two states, regretting the decision by the US to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (fix sentence structure). Despite these failures, Sweden hopes to re-launch the peace process.

B. (Latin America (Bolivia, Peru)

Bolivia strongly aligned with Palestine, by repeatedly asking for forgiveness for the UNSC’s failure to protect the Palestinian people. Bolivia called out Israel’s illegal occupation of territory, and their lethal use of force. This illegal occupation by Israel is the “real problem”. Bolivia stresses that resolving this issue must take precedence to other. Separately, Bolivia alluded to the US, which supports Israel, as part of the problem.

Peru made similar appeals for an investigation to assess Israel’s use of lethal force. Peru cites “minimum standards of coexistence” that are being regularly violated in and around Gaza. Peru also reminded the UNSC that the final status of Jerusalem must be negotiated with Israel and Palestine.

C. African States (Ethiopia, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea)

Ethiopia stated the African Union’s position that they “believe it is a final status issue that must be resolved between the two parties”. Ethiopia urged that they must find a solution through the two-state formula to stop the escalation before the primary players reaches the point of no return.

Guinea and Cote d'Ivoire echoed similar views.

D. Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan supported the Palestinian peaceful demonstrations yet calls on both sides to exercise restraint on violent actions. Appealing to international law, Kazakhstan indicated that Israel violated international law through their “unilateral action in changing Jerusalem”.

E. Netherlands

The Netherlands stated that there is a need for an immediate structural solution in Gaza as violence escalates. Restraint on both sides, as well as an investigation into the violence are necessary.. Lastly, the Netherlands cited “incompatible actions and rhetoric” by both sides that must be rejected if de-escalation is to occur. As part of the peace process, the Netherlands believes that diffusing tensions, and a 2-state solution will lead to peace in the region. Poland further called on the UNSC and members of the quartet to take action to fix the problem.

F. Poland (president)

Poland shared the calls for an investigation into the Gaza violence states that it is “imperative to protect civilians and respect international humanitarian law”. To ensure security, Poland recommended a 2-state system.

V. Statements from Israel and Palestine

A. Palestine

Palestine provided scathing remarks about the hypocrisy and false narratives of the United States and Israeli government. He asserted Israel’s use of force was excessive and unwarranted given that Palestinian protesters were not armed or dangerous. He then called on the assistance of the security council to provide protection to the Palestinian people to stop Israeli aggression. Additionally, he called for an investigation into the deaths of the 60 Palestinians, acknowledging that Palestine would accept the results of the investigation.

Following this, he chastised the UNSC for not taking the necessary precautions to protect the Palestinian people, despite his past warnings. Palestine further questioned the council about their paralysis in the face of clear violations of international law. By allowing one nation to block the Council’s investigation, Palestine asserted that they are “looking away” as the Israelis continue their illegal occupation.

Palestine emphatically accused the occupying power, Israel, for ignoring its obligation to protect the Palestinian people under international law. In addition to the deaths of the innocent Palestinians in the recent conflict, Israel has also cut off access to basic necessities such as food, medicine, and water to those wounded in the protests. Consequently, Palestine urged  the international community to take action against Israel’s blatant violations of international law.

To counter the U.S position that moving the embassy was not the source of violence, Palestine recognized that the United States has been ignoring what has been happening on the ground in Gaza. It is clear that the Palestinian people have always been diametrically opposed to the Israelis establishing Jerusalem as their capital and the relocation of the U.S.embassy. Furthermore, Palestine noted  that the U.S> decision is at variance with the international community.

Palestine concluded by imploring the UNSC to take action and respect Palestine’s requests and rights. In order to ensure accountability and justice, Palestine immediate steps must be taken (what are the immediate steps: spell them out). Palestine Left the UNSC Council as soon as Israel took the floor.

B.Israel

Israel defended its position to use force against the Palestinians by claiming that Hamas was the aggressor in the protests. Israel also underscored that the international community should trust Hamas because it is an internationally recognized terrorist organization,are committed to the infiltrating Israel, and implementing acts of violence against Israel.

Israel went on a diatribe about the manipulation techniques that the Palestinians used in the media, to depict the Israelis as guilty. Israel warned that the UNSC should not to be fooled by the images shown in the media during the violent skirmishes in the protests. Furthermore, Israel accused the Palestinians of lying and being a liason to the Hamas agenda of manipulating the world to sympathize with terrorists.

Israel also defended the Jewish people’s historical claim to Jerusalem. Therefore, it is their religious right to claim it as their capital. From Israel’s perspective, Hamas will never want peace as it will always be the aggressor against the peaceful Israeli’s. Lastly, the Israeli representative accused Palestine  of continuously choosing violence when given an option for peace. He recounted Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and the ensuing violence incited by the Palestinians. Israel urged the UNSC to neither give in to the fallacy of the Palestinian’s story nor contribute to the cycle of death.

Week 2 of the NPT PrepCom

Throughout the NPT PrepCom, states voiced their growing concerns about the lack of implementation by the NWS on the commitments to Article VI of the NPT, the centerpiece of the grand bargain between both the non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS) and the nuclear weapon states (BWS). These tensions reached their zenith when states reviewed the Chair’s deeply flawed “factual summary.”

Upon examination of the Chair’s summary, it is evident that the Chair did not fairly reflect the current dire situation with respect to the NWS’ nuclear disarmament commitments.

Paragraph 12

As specified in paragraph 12, the Chair indicated:

States parties reaffirmed their commitment to the full and effective implementation of article VI, and that such implementation was essential to the Treaty. They recalled the unequivocal undertaking made by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals, taking into account the special responsibility of States possessing the largest nuclear arsenals. They reaffirmed the responsibility of all States parties to fully implement their obligations under Article VI and to ensure tangible progress in nuclear disarmament.

Unfortunately, as raised by the New Agenda Coalition and several other states, paragraph 12 does not fully reflect the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament Instead, the reference about the NWS’ obligations has been reframed to take into account the special responsibility of States possessing the largest nuclear arsenals.” Subsequently, the NAC noted that the Chair should have mentioned the “unequivocal undertaking, given at 2000 NPT Review Conference, and reaffirmed at the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

Paragraph 19

Additionally, as outlined in paragraph 19, the Chair noted that “only some of the NWS’ nuclear weapons modernization programs are not consistent with commitments made under the NPT.”

The NAC contended that his aforementioned reference implied “that there are some nuclear weapon modernization programs that are consistent with NPT undertakings and the object and purpose of the Treaty. Any such view is contested by many States Parties here.”

Paragraph 40 and Paragraph 41: The Two Paragraphs on the TPNW

The most egregious issue was how the Chair reflected the discussions on the Treaty to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons (TPNW.   In regards to paragraph 40, the Chair stated:

The conclusion of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on 7 July 2017 was noted. A number of States parties informed about the ratification process and status of this treaty. It was asserted that the TPNW represented an effective measure under Article VI of the NPT by creating a legally-binding prohibition on nuclear weapons. It was stressed that the TPNW complemented the NPT and was designed to strengthen existing disarmament and nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

If one did not attend the NPT PrepCom and merely read the summary, they would assume that the vast majority of states merely noted the TPNW. As explained by the NAC, Austria, Brazil, South Africa, Costa Rica, Ireland, and other states, paragraph 40 does not welcome the TPNW. The chair further failed to mention that the number of States Parties provide information about their ratification process and status.

In contrast to paragraph 40, the Chair stipulated:

Other States parties expressed their opposition to the TPNW, emphasizing the crucial link between progress on disarmament and the international security environment. It was asserted that the TPNW would not contribute to the reduction or limitation of nuclear weapons. These states noted that the TPNW does not reflect customary international law and thus could bind only its signatories. Concerns were expressed that the TPNW could create an alternative and contrary standard to the NPT.

This aforementioned paragraph provides a detailed account about the positon amongst a group of states against the TPNW. However, the Chair does not reflect that only a few states parties expressed their opposition to the treaty. Therefore, if one did not attend the NPT PrepCom, one would assume that a substantive number of states opposed the treaty.

The NAC, Austria, Brazil, South Africa, Costa Rica, and Ireland criticized the lack of balance in the language referencing to the TPNW. Additionally, Brazil expressed its concerns on how the Chair reflected the discussions between the TPNW and the Group of Eminent Persons for Substantive Advancement of Nuclear Disarmament.

In comparison to the reference about the TPNW, the Chair noted that the states parties welcomed the Group of Eminent Persons’ Report. However, the Group of Eminent Persons’ report is a flawed report because it acknowledges that “in an extreme situation in which the survival of the state is at a risk, a state “may either threaten another with nuclear weapons or use nuclear weapons against state.” This is a dangerous conclusion and should not be welcomed in the Chair’s factual summary. It is also unfortunate that the Chair contended that the vast majority of the states parties welcomed the aforementioned report, instead of the TPNW.

We wish to highlight the great work by Reaching Critical Will. RCW provided substantive reports about key discussions at the NPT PrepCom.

Check out RCW's reports:

NPT News in Review 2018

Some amazing newsletters:

NPT News in Review, Vol. 15, No. 1

NPT News in Review, Vol. 15, No. 2

NPT New in Review, Vol. 15, No. 3

NPT New in Review, Vol. 15, No. 4

NPT New in Review, Vol. 15, No. 5

NPT News in Review, Vol. 15, No. 6

Exciting times at the Prepcom. Young people issued a progressive Youth Appeal to delegates at the NPT PrepCom and shared their views at our  side event, Panel Discussion on the nexus between the Ban Treaty and Article VI of the NPT.

Youth Appeal

On Wednesday morning, Ms. Myrna Nakhla  of PEAC and Ms. Fieke van der Bas of PAX delivered the youth appeal.

Representatives from Abolition 2000 Youth Network, Amplify, INESAP, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) Nagasaki Youth Delegation, PAX, and PEAC Institute co-drafted and endorsed the statement. The youth appeal called for states to acknowledge:

Once and for all, that nuclear weapons are a risk to humanity itself. How many more near misses, accidents, political miscalculations and technical missteps can we afford? In a time in which hate speech and fake news increasingly influence and distort our perceptions, we cannot rely on the judgement of a small number of countries to  decide the future--or the end--of our planet. It is thus imperative that leaders come together to create solid regulatory mechanisms, which effectively commit states to “the elimination of all nuclear materials and technology.” This is exactly what the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons can achieve; and this is why it is of the utmost importance for states to promptly sign and ratify the Treaty.

They concluded the youth appeal with a powerful message to states:

We do not want to sit in your seat ten years from now, realising that nothing has changed.  We need you, distinguished diplomats, to not only talk about visions of a world without nuclear weapons, but to actually achieve it. We are looking forward to being your partners in our shared mission of immediately achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

It is high time for states to act and sign and ratify the Ban Treaty. We must all work together to get eliminate nuclear weapons NOW; and not sometime in the future.

Youth MESSAGE:  Disarm now, we look forward to working with you.

PEAC/PAX/Amplify/NAPF Side event: Panel Discussion on the nexus between the Ban Treaty and Article VI

At our packed side event, the speakers covered an array of subjects, including the normative framework of Article VI, how the Ban Treaty fulfills Article VI, an assessment of the Ban Treaty, and the roles of young people in both promoting nuclear disarmament and the ban treaty.  Significantly, Selma van Oostward of PAX/Amplify explained "the youth should challenge the current way of thinking about nuclear weapons.”

Click here for a report about our side event!

This event was very timely as there has been an ongoing discussions amongst states on the relationship between the Ban Treaty and Article VI.  Progressive states recognize that  the Ban Treaty unequivocally provides a means for states to prohibit, stigmatize, and eliminate nuclear weapons. 

The first day at the United Nations in Geneva was an unbelievable experience. I never imagined being in this space, amongst diplomats, intellectuals, and politicians. This was a great start to the week and I cannot wait to see what else will occur during the remainder of our time here.

Click to watch! https://youtu.be/d8wqsyB8T_A 

Watch the video to find out what we did on the 1st day of the 2018 NPT PrepCom!

The start of NPT PrepCom conference today in Geneva ensued with a sense of urgency as many NPT members vocalized the need to promote coherent and collaborative initiatives that will lead to disarmament. Furthermore, a common sentiment seemed apparent with regards to today's growing uncertain and complicated security climate and a general consensus that the actions of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are unacceptable as the international community feels a strong need to maintain high pressure on the DPRK since its actions have been deemed to be completely incompatible with the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Today marked the first day of the 2018 NPT PrepCom. Representatives from the Holy See, Thailand, New Zealand, Austria, and Costa Rica, amongst others reaffirmed the importance of the Ban Treaty. They underscored how the Ban Treaty strengthens the NPT, in particularly Article VI. Notably, Ambassador Dell Higgie of New Zealand explained that "Last year, as part of our support for a rules-based international order and consistent with our long-standing commitment to nuclear disarmament, New Zealand lent its support to efforts to put in place a further international agreement in this field - the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in order to supplement efforts within the NPT community to give reality to the obligation regarding nuclear disarmament under Article Vl of the NPT. Such new obligations do not - and cannot as a matter of international law - in any way displace the full span of obligations we already owe to all States Parties under the NPT. New Zealand will continue, as we have for nigh-on 50 years, to fully abide by these (at the same time as we maintain our legitimate expectation that all other Parties will meet theirs, including with respect to Article Vl)." Clearly, it is an exciting time in which states should embrace the ban treaty, a powerful instrument that fulfills the promise set forth in the Article VI.

Sadly, the U.S. continued to argue that "ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament can only feasibly be addressed as a real-world policy problem in the context of the overall security environment. Unfortunately, deteriorating security conditions have made near-term prospects for progress on disarmament bleak." How long must we wait? When we will have a security environment that is conducive to engage in discussions on nuclear disarmament. We cannot wait for some time in the unforeseen future.  States must sign and ratify the Ban Treaty!

If we were to wait longer for the NWS to feel comfortable about disarming its weapons, we will be here forever.  Even worse, trillions of dollars will be spent on modernizing nuclear weapons. Already, as specified by the Holy See, "the arms race, the modernization and development of nuclear arsenals, infrastructure and delivery systems, deny the poor and disadvantaged of the resources needed to reduce poverty and to foster integral human development. Imagine if all the resources that have been squandered and that are being poured into the modernization and maintenance of nuclear weapons could be invested in addressing poverty, inequality, injustice, education, health and environmental degradation!"

As I reflect about the first day of negotiations, I realize that we must take action! We need to encourage states to embrace the ban treaty and move forward instead of simply waiting for the correct environment for the NWS to disarm their weapons.

That's all for now!

Looking forward to day 2 of the NPT PrepCom!

Interesting first day watching the opening session and general debates!

Finally met with the entire PEAC team today! Shortly after our meeting, we headed out into the city where we ate Lebanese food, got onto a boat and explored the parks around the Jet d'Eau. Geneva is a beautiful city surrounded by picturesque snow peak mountains and I cannot wait to explore more with my friends.

Looking over some of our past events at the UN as we prepare to go to Geneva. We're so excited to bring 15 students with us! They will participate in creating the 2018 Youth Appeal to be presented during the NGO session. We have students and team members from all over the world joining us. The first team member takes off on Tuesday and we all meet, some of us for the first time, Friday, April 20th.

Check back - we'll have updates from all the participants right here!

Not All Opportunity Can Be Found On the Streets of NYC?  Is that just me or an ideology?

            Growing up in a family that started with nothing, it is easy to see that life is hard and that strife is something that geared my family, more specifically, my grandfather, to be something greater. As a young adult, my grandfather grew up without a family and no one to help him better his education.  He refused to take out loans; he feared the very idea of debt especially at such a young age.  He attempted a four-year degree but quickly realized that there is more to life than just sitting behind a desk crunching numbers—that’s what everyone was going for.  My grandfather decided to go towards the unorthodox route and make himself successful in a realm that was viewed as less than middle class; he decided to become a tradesman, a good one at that.  Roberson Scrap is the establishment my grandfather created from the pennies he had in his pocket and the notion that opportunity would guide him into the best economic state.  Scrapping metal isn’t a career that kids dream about.  Kids dream to become the President of the United States, to become astronauts, or to become famous architects.  Instead, my grandfather decided to chase an opportunity rather than a dream, an opportunity that set himself apart from many in his age group.  Could it be that viewing some work as insignificant could deter young people from a genuine opportunity?

This youth expedition consisted of 12 individuals age 18-25. The participants were from the U.S, Japan, and the European states.  The program ran from 20 April 2018 to 25 April 2018. 

Here is a 3 AM editorial about a topic that got under my skin. This topic hits everyone close to home, and I say that with the most dogmatic tone possible, for reason.  The purpose of The Thorn will forever be evolving, but I’ll offer long-winded editorials here and there, research topics sprinkled in...no set theme.  The theme is being loose, outside any box.

My thought for the day: Everyone has a weakness— what's yours? 

Rebecca Whyte Decides to Change the World

Rebecca Whyte is black. Not just black, beautiful. Not just beautiful, irresistible. She’s not just proud Ethiopian features with a smile that radiates such compassion and love, she glows. She’s light itself. She can take the dark out of the nighttime, but never turns the daytime black. She’s as warm and brilliant as the sun, as subtly illuminating as a full moon. Several decades from now, as Rebecca lies on her deathbed surrounded by friends and family and TV cameras from every continent broadcasting her every labored breath to an audience in the billions, Gaia says, “Maybe you shouldn’t have made her quite so attractive.”

Rebecca Changes Her College

 It’s probably hard for young people in 2016 to imagine, but in the early 1980s when Rebecca is in college, many institutions of higher learning still protect their female students with a policy known as house closing. 

At Rebecca’s school, girls have to be in their dorms by 11:00pm on weeknights, 12:00 midnight on Friday and 1:00am on Saturday (Sunday morning). A lot of girls don’t mind this. They don’t want to stay out later than that anyway, and it’s a good way to get rid of guys before the witching hour. But in the 80s what nearly all girls cannot handle at all is the fact that the boys’ dorms never close. Boys can stay out all night. It’s only girls who have to be in at a certain time. 

Rebecca Changes Anytown Part 1

By the time she graduates, Rebecca has welded her college classmates into a solid body of student activists. The school eliminates house closing, increases wages for employees, including students on work scholarships, and changes the name of the humanities building, which had been named after Andrew Jackson, well-known slave-owner and Indian killer. On graduation day, as she walks across the stage to receive her diploma, an enormous cheer goes up, and much of the crowd burst into tears. In the yearbook, she is “most likely to succeed.” Everyone knows she’ll be impossible to replace, but she’s groomed several underclassmen and women to keep her college in motion.

Rebecca Changes Anytown Part 2

Rebecca is campaigning for mayor of Anytown. It’s June 1990, the election is in November. The campaign is going great. Her volunteers now number nearly 500. They have wonderful campaign literature designed by Chandra Milbino and her crew. The volunteers are handing it out door to door, talking to everyone who’ll let them talk. 

   The most persuasive piece of literature is, as Rebecca predicted, her bankbook. When the campaigners tell folks about her vows of poverty and openness, then display her bankbook, the stiff atmosphere softens. 

   “Really? She’s doing that?” 

Resolutionary Government in Anytown

Rebecca is mayor. City bureaucrats are in shock. Instead of writing up plans and proposals, they attend meetings with camcorders. More than 2,000 people showed up for the meeting about privatizing three public schools, so the meeting was rescheduled and held in a high school stadium.

   Everyone who had anything to say on the subject was welcome to speak. The company expecting to take over the schools made a presentation. Then another company rose to explain why they would be better. Then the crowd heard from teachers, administrators, students. The meeting lasted from 10am to 10pm, with a few breaks. Ever on the alert for opportunities, the stadium refreshment stands opened and started selling hot dogs and popcorn (but no beer). At the end, nearly everyone was still there, and an enormous audience was watching on their TVs at home.

Loyal Opposition

 Josh comes into the office looking tense. “Can I talk to you? I’ll need some time, and I’d rather the conversation not be recorded.”

   “Sure, Josh, what’s up?”

   “Mr. Bradley and a few others are badmouthing you because of the cameras. You know I am and always will be on your side, but sometimes I think they have a point. They say it’s unnatural to be on film all the time. It’s like a big-brother-is-watching-you kind of thing. Everyone has secrets, even if they’re not doing anything bad or illegal. We all do some things we don’t want others to see. Like this conversation right now. I don’t think I’m doing anything wrong, but I wouldn’t want Mr. Bradley or anyone else in my department to know I’m in here talking like this. You know what I mean?”