"With words we govern men" – Disraeli

Since the end of World War II the world had been torn between deciding, often times quite violently, which political system is best. It has been established that dictatorial rule and monarchies were not in favor as their leadership oppresses the people and had too much control over people’s freedoms and rights. Socialism and communism were looked at as the same type of government with barely any differences. The East embraced communist and socialist ideals. The West embraced democracy. Thus, the Cold War was started and continued for the better part of the 20th century.

Since the collapse of the USSR, the United States claimed victory for democracy and that this was the best type of government for everyone, at any time. Although fitting the mentality and culture of most Western cultures, democratic institutions have proven quite ineffective in some Eastern European countries with corruption abundant and money playing the central role in the decision process. Since then, each leader in Washington has been playing the democracy card. Everything is done in the name of democracy. Everything is done for the good of democracy. Everything and everyone should be a democracy.

Now that the memory has been refreshed, let’s take a look at the US-China relations. United States has been trying to open up the Chinese to be democratic, to loosen control on the population, to allow more American businesses into the country, to increase the Western presence in the country and to bring in American ideals to the Chinese people. This is where the Chinese government is not happy. They have a system in place that may not agree with Western principals, but yet works and produces outstanding results. Results that are unmatched by anyone.

The United States jumped onto the Chinese establishment of the Special Economic Zones around Shanghai and into Hong Kong. Business thrived and still does. Demand for Western business and cheap Chinese goods went through the roof. However, the United States will never agree with the Chinese way of governing their people. Under George W. Bush the ties with the Chinese were stabilized. His administration was able not to push hot buttons with China. The Obama administration seems to be overly ambitious about spreading democracy and defending Western principals around the world.

Hillary Clinton has no right to tell the Chinese what to do with their censorship programs. The White House has the full right to condemn hacker attacks, if it has proof. However, the Chinese are not a country to bully around anymore. They have a powerful economy that is able to wreak havoc on the U.S. markets if they pull out. The Chinese government and business men own most of the United States’ debt. Simply put, the Unites States has seen its power over Southeast Asia diminish. China has become the powerhouse in the region and that is a fact that White House seems not to realize.

Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton have been trying to play the game of diplomacy the way it has been played with other communist regimes - defiance and bullying with the notion that the US is the stronger half of the fight.

This is where the White House is making a mistake. The Chinese don’t care that their currency has been devalued recently. It benefits them and they don’t care about how the US citizens are affected. The Chinese obviously recognize the rights of Iran to have nuclear facilities. The United States has been able to have Chinese cooperation on the subject. And yet, Hillary Clinton’s ambitions have gotten in the way and the whole thing came crumbling down.

Almost everyone serving in the US President’s cabinet, including President Obama himself, has too much ambition to be realistic. This really reminds some experts of Jimmy Carter. He had public support during his election. His ideas were accepted with open arms. He wanted change and he wanted to make the world a better place. And yet, his ambitious plans proved to be nothing but words. The creation of his hopes and dreams did not account for the obstacles in place both domestically and abroad. Other leaders’ agendas were and are not considered and other nations’ interests were thought of as futile to the cause that was being put forth by the White House.

Recently, the French government has drafted bills to enforce the values of the Republic that has existed there for the last few centuries. The legislation seeks to forbid the Muslim veils and head scarves that cover faces of women. This is a legislation that is heavily supported by the French population and Sarkozy’s right wing part. On most political discussion forums, the response from even American and British people seems to reflect solidarity with those that support this legislation.

In the United States, such legislation would not be able to pass, as it violates the Constitutional Amendment that allows the freedom of religion. As a student at the University of Illinois at Chicago, I see a few women that study at this university walking around with full veils that cover faces and pretty much everything. The argument that they use for choosing to wear such covers is because they do not want to be objectified.

The French legislation aims to forbid wearing such clothing in public places such as schools, hospitals, government offices, public transport, etc. It also holds a vaguely drafted clause that allows for refusal of residence cards and citizenship to anyone who displays signs of radical religious practices. This is aimed to defend the French republican principal of equality and secularism.

Although France declared separation of religion and state back in 1905, there have been a few laws passed that are sometimes argued to be in violation of this. One of which was passed in 2003, banning the wearing of religious articles in public schools by students and teachers alike. This, in fact means that no crucifixes, stars of David, yarmulkes, and other religious articles can be worn in the public school environment.

As a personal opinion, this is the correct way to approach the problem of people being divided in countries simply on religious basis. Students generally begin identifying one another by their religion or arguments arise because one religious group of students mocks another. Banning of religion specific articles in France allows students to grow up seeing people for who they are instead of massing a group of people together and stereotyping and developing prejudiced feelings.

The settlements in the West Bank and the Gaza strip are a form of population control. The Palestinians’ birth rate is much higher than that of the Jews in Israel. Thus it presents a problem in case all-out war between the two religious groups breaks out. The Israeli government has instituted the settlement program that urges anyone that has any family ties to Judaism to move in, virtually free of charge and with relocation expenses paid, into the new settlements. The settlers are then virtually left on their own to do as they please with the Israeli government’s backing. The settlers are there to protect their newly given land by any means. The Palestinians and the Arabs whose land has been taken of course protest and sometimes the clashes turn violent.

The settlers, since they have a central governing body that supplies them with food, water, and other necessities, are able to live with all conveniences in place. The Palestinians and the Arabs have to grow their own food and find their own source of water and public goods such as medicine. The settlers on numerous occasions have attacked Arab farms to diminish the food supply and income of the population, which they intend to push out of the area. The settlers generally wield weapons and use them at their own discretion as there is no formal law enforcement infrastructure in place in the settlements being built.

Many new soldiers that are conscripted into the IDF are eager to join the active combat soldiers as their personal beliefs, and beliefs engrained in them by their religious leaders, support the settlement programs. Many religious soldiers joining the military come from the centers for Jewish studies, called yeshivas. The rabbis there encourage the young people joining the IDF to protest settlement evacuation and claim that the lands in the West Bank and Gaza are inherently Jewish and belong to the Jewish people.

The government cannot tolerate this, at least on the formal level. Primarily, this is due to the fact that sometimes it is a political move to evacuate the settlements. This small gambit allows for possible larger gains in the overall process. This, however, may lead to a division within the military of those that are supportive of the settlements and those that do not want settlements there in the first place. The potential dangers of this are a social divide in the country itself.

The settlement process is highly criticized by most world leaders. The United States, under the Obama administration, has been pushing Israel to move towards a two state solution. Even if that is an option that is on the table and Israel is considering it, Tel Aviv would look to gain as much ground as possible or eliminate the distinct Arab parts completely. However, the Israeli government cannot make it formal that what they are doing is completely right. They have to indicate to the world that they condemn radicalism in their own ranks, which would indicate that the process is meant to be peaceful and well-intentioned.

The Israeli government and the IDF are willing to sacrifice a few soldiers in order to move ahead with their overall agenda of settlement expansion and increase the Jewish population in the area of the West Bank and Gaza. Putting a soldier on trial indicates to the world the intentions and that the government is not as radical as some may think. The soldiers serve a month in military prison and are then released. A slap on the wrist and whisper in the ear to ask them to keep their views on the “down low” for the time being is all that will happen. However, the official from Tel Aviv can say that they condemn radicalism in their own ranks, and that they are set on peacefully resolving the conflict between the Jews and the Muslims in the region.