Syria resolved through U.S.-Russia collaboration

Events over the past week signify that the Syrian chemical weapons issue is nearly resolved.

On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry met with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Geneva to discuss a possible resolution about Syria. Kerry described the meeting as positive, and a date should be set for a second meeting in Geneva later this month.

Advertisement

The United Nations released their report and found that sarin had been used. However they did not assign blame to the Assad regime

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad agreed to hand over its chemical weapons cache to international control. He told Russian television station Rossiya 24 on September 12 the only reason that Syria agreed to the resolution was Russia’s involvement.

“Syria is transferring its chemical weapons to international control because of Russia,” Assad said in the interview. “The threats of the United States had no influence on the decision to put the weapons under (international) control.”

The media has criticized President Barack Obama, saying he “lost” by reaching an agreement and not attacking. Farhat Haq, a professor at Monmouth College teaching international relations, disagreed, saying that Russia and the United States working together is a significant advancement.

“I think there’s a lot of silly commentary going on making this a contest between Obama and Putin,” Haq said. “That’s really insignificant in the longer trend of how things have been moving. Even if Russia gets some or all of the credit for resolving this issue, who cares? I don’t think this will take away from the United States effectiveness or legitimacy in the long run.”

Haq said the international community will likely look at this incident as a great advancement in American foreign policy.

“I think that American prestige will be enhanced in the international community with this diplomatic maneuver,” Haq said. “The international community is not impressed with the fact that we get militarily engaged in so many different places. I think it will help, not hurt the U.S. image.”

Advertisement*

Haq also said that the recent events do not diminish our military or diplomatic influence throughout the world.

“Everyone knows we have the biggest baddest military,” she said. “We’ve proven that. What many people don’t know is that we are also true to our ideal of creating peace and stability through diplomatic maneuvers.”

Verizon challenges FCC over net neutrality

Verizon has launched a lawsuit over a 2010 ruling by the Federal Communications Commission for an “Open Internet.”

The 2010 ruling said that internet service providers can not block or diminish internet service to specific websites or services. Verizon has challenged that ruling, saying it violates their First Amendment rights.

If Verizon got their way, they would be able to diminish services like Netflix or Vonage that compete with similar services provided by Verizon. This gives Verizon services a distinct advantage, making their use far more likely.

According to Paul Torre, a professor at Northern Iowa University teaching media law and media business, said the “open internet” rule does not just pertain to business. He said its imperative to our democracy that the internet stays free so that the flow of information remains uninterrupted.

“(An open internet) is essential to our democracy nowadays because it is a pipeline for people to get information about any number of issues facing their country, their state, or their community,” he said.

He continued to say that these rules were essential for obtaining information and news as well.

“If these rules are not allowed to go forward, Verizon would be able to potentially block or sensor content that they disagree with,” he said. “Or they would be setting up a system where if you wanted to find out news from their news source, it would run smoothly, whereas if you wanted to go to an independent news site, the content wouldn’t be as smooth.”

Daley drops out of Democratic primary

for governor

Bill Daley announced Wednesday that he was withdrawing from the Democratic primary for governor.

He cited an inability to commit to a full term as governor if he had won. Daley remained critical of current governor Pat Quinn.

This leaves Governor Quinn essentially unchallenged in the primary. There is only one other person who has made himself available as a candidate: Tio Hardiman, an anti-violence activist and former head of the Chicago-based group CeaseFire has announced his candidacy. Hardiman has not filed paperwork and has not reached the $5,000 spending threshold necessary to run for governor.

David Yepsen, director of the Paul Simon Public Policy Institute, said it was unlikely that anyone challenges Quinn in the primary.

“It’s getting late to put together a campaign and particularly the money you need to make a serious effort,” he said.

Yepsen said that Daley dropping out was good for Quinn because it allowed him to save his resources for the general election. However, the governor still faces many challenges in the next year.

“Pat Quinn got a break here, but he’s still got a tough road ahead,” Yepsen said. “His job approval is one of the worst of any governors in the country. He’s got to feel good, but he’s still got his work cut out for him.”

According to Yepsen, the Republicans have to ensure they do not run a divisive primary. He said they have a real chance of beating Quinn in the general election, due to possible voter apathy by Democrats.

Illinois voters might benefit from Quinn not having opposition in the primary. Democrats have been fighting in the past year over issues, but they may need to work together now more than ever to solve the state’s problems to appeal to voters.

“Democrats have no reason to be fighting among themselves now,” Yepsen said. “They have to set aside their personal differences. We don’t care that they don’t like each other, we care that they solve problems. It’s the old saying ‘If you don’t hang together in politics, you’ll hang separately.’ The worst thing that can happen to Democratic congressional candidates who are in close election races is to have poor voter turnout.”