Mediaboss Marketing

More than 1,400 people have been killed by Myanmars military in the past eleven months. After ousting a democratically elected government in February 2021, the military employed widespread violence and brutal counterinsurgency tactics against local populations. Soldiers have run over protesters with military vehicles, burned civilians alive, and tortured prisoners in interrogation centers. The United States has consistently condemned this violence and called for a restoration of democracy in Myanmar. To put pressure on the military government, the Biden administration has imposed several rounds of sanctions on military leaders, their businesses, and their associates. However, experts debate the effectiveness of these sanctions, which have thus far resulted in few tangible gains.

As the one-year anniversary of the coup approaches, the United States needs to revise its approach to Myanmar. Recent U.S. legislation called for policymakers to support and legitimize [] entities promoting democracy in Burma, while simultaneously denying legitimacy and resources to the [sic] Myanmars military junta. This goal will be difficult to achieve if the United States continues to ignore some of the strongest and most important actors in post-coup Myanmar: ethnic armed organizations.

About 20 ethnic armed organizations are currently active in Myanmar. While these groups are part of a decades-long insurgency, they also maintain political wings, hold territory, and provide health care, education, and other administrative and social services. Several are oriented against the current military government, and some have supported dissidents and democratic activists. The United States has been understandably wary of providing any of these groups with financial or military support. However, other forms of engagement, including public recognition and relationship-building, could help the United States support a more sustainable democratic solution in Myanmar. Not all ethnic armed organizations are viable partners, but some could be useful allies.

U.S. policymakers should start building public ties with select ethnic armed organizations in Myanmar for three reasons. First, any democratic transition in Myanmar will undoubtedly involve these groups. They are too embedded in the countrys politics to be ignored. Second, the ongoing efforts by the exiled National Unity Government to outline a democratic framework for Myanmar will only be sustainable and inclusive if the ethnic armed organizations participate in negotiations. U.S. policymakers could encourage this cooperation. Finally, working with the ethnic armed organizations can potentially alleviate a growing humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. These groups have the capabilities to deliver much-needed aid to vulnerable populations in conflict-affected areas.

Myanmars Civil War and Ethnic Armed Organizations

The democratic crisis in Myanmar has developed in parallel with the countrys civil war. Myanmar enjoyed a parliamentary democracy after gaining independence in 1948, but its democratic trajectory soon reversed when the military took control of the government in 1962. Grievances among minority ethnic groups living in the countrys periphery helped fuel growing instability. Members of several of these ethnic minorities took up arms in pursuit of greater political independence, clashing with state forces.

In the 1960s and 1970s, Myanmar developed into a closed state under strict military rule. Internal threats multiplied as ethnic armed organizations splintered and new factions joined the conflict. As the war progressed, some ethnic armed organizations revised their demands for independence into calls for a federal democracy. In 1984, an alliance of ethnic armed organizations known as the National Democratic Front publicly demanded the country adopt a federal democratic framework with autonomous ethnic states. However, the military government refused to concede any of its centralized authority. It banned the word federal from any negotiations with ethnic armed organizations: Simply using the term could reportedly lead to imprisonment. A series of bilateral ceasefires between 1989 and 2010 aimed to stabilize the country, but these agreements did not address underlying political grievances held by many ethnic armed organizations.

In 2011, the military ceded some of its power to a civilian administration, which quickly initiated a peace process with several of the active ethnic armed organizations.The negotiations produced the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, which called for all parties to establish a union based on the principles of democracy and federalism. The agreement set out a framework for an ongoing political dialogue between the government and the ethnic armed organizations, which was used to negotiate the specifics of a federal democratic system. Eight groups signed the agreement in 2015, and two more joined in 2018.

When the Myanmar military ousted the civilian government in the February 2021 coup, this political dialogue ceased. The bloc of ethnic armed organizations negotiating with the government fractured, and the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement effectively died. A new wave of violence, initiated by the military government to root out internal dissent and consolidate its control, shook the country.

The ethnic armed organizations are now some of the most influential players in post-coup Myanmar. These groups are stronger and more organized than the loosely controlled forces of the exiled National Unity Government. For example, the strongest of the ethnic armed organization, the United Wa State Army, operates near the Myanmar-China border with 20,000-30,000 soldiers, heavy artillery, and armored vehicles. Along the border with Thailand, the Karen National Union controls territory and governs approximately 800,000 people. The group is highly organized, holds regular elections and internal congresses, and maintains separate political and military hierarchies.

The Ethnic Armed Organizations as Potential U.S. Partners

While the United States has met with the exiled National Unity Government, it has avoided forging relations with the ethnic armed organizations. Policymakers may see these groups as a potential liability for the United States. Some like the United Wa State Army and the Myanmar National Democratic Alliance Army maintain ties to China, while others including the Arakan Army and Shan State Army-North have allegedly engaged in the illicit drug trade or have forcibly recruited civilians.

Other ethnic armed organizations, however, have more robust records of advocating for human rights and democracy. This includes many of the ten signatory groups to the Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement. After the coup, these groups affirmed their support for the exiled civilian government and its efforts to establish federal union through the struggle for democracy. Additionally, groups like the Chin National Front and the Karen National Union have made public commitments to protect children in armed conflict, prohibit sexual violence, and include women in decision-making processes.

Critics may argue that this commitment to democracy and human rights is performative, aimed to attract the support of international audiences. But it is, at least, longstanding. The time-consuming peace process of the past decade revealed that these groups are willing to exert significant effort to support the development of a durable democratic system. They have also devoted considerable resources to maintaining relationships with local populations and providing important community services. For example, the Karen National Union organized its own Karen Education and Culture Department to administer, standardize, and fund local schools. The Karen National Union also, along with other groups like the New Mon State Party, created health organizations to provide health care to ethnic communities.

Ultimately, U.S. policymakers need to recognize that not all ethnic armed organizations in Myanmar are alike. The United States should rightfully steer clear of relations with groups that abuse civilians, support the military government, or profit from illicit drug trade. However, the United States could benefit from allying with organizations that do not engage in these activities and that have a track record for supporting democratic negotiations and aiding local communities.

The Way Forward

To secure a successful transition to democracy, U.S. policymakers should publicly engage with ethnic armed organizations. First, policymakers should support the ongoing efforts of the National Unity Government to outline the details of Myanmars future democratic system in conjunction with ethnic stakeholders. As of November 2021, eight ethnic armed organizations were participating in the National Unity Governments negotiations. However, if previous negotiations are any hint, disagreements among the negotiating parties may create obstacles to reaching a consensus.

U.S. policymakers can help sustain this cooperation. The public support of the United States would give the ongoing dialogue legitimacy and could attract new organizations to the negotiating table. If U.S. policymakers wanted to go further, the United States could offer ethnic armed organizations non-lethal, non-pecuniary aid, such as intelligence on the militarys positions, in exchange for their continued partnership with the National Unity Government.

A working relationship with the ethnic armed organizations will also help the United States address Myanmars impending humanitarian crisis. Since the coup, more than 280,000 people have been displaced by violence and insecurity. The average household has reported a 23 percent drop in income, and low COVID vaccination rates could lead to a lethal fourth wave of cases. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stressed that better access to vulnerable populations was critical for the urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance.

As well-established local actors with the ability to enter conflict zones, ethnic armed organizations are good candidates for delivering necessary humanitarian aid. Many ethnic armed organizations have long histories of providing services and public goods to local communities. Through their health organizations, these groups could help distribute clean water, medical supplies, and COVID vaccines to vulnerable and hard-to-reach populations. Working with these organizations to deliver aid would also help the United States avoid giving humanitarian assistance directly to the military government, which risks enhancing the militarys legitimacy. The United States should coordinate withinternational nongovernmental organizations and local civil society organizations to determine what type of assistance is most needed and how best to distribute it.

The current U.S. policy to impose top-down sanctions on military officials will do little on its own to achieve a lasting democratic solution and avert a humanitarian crisis in Myanmar. These objectives require the cooperation and support of local actors. As the first anniversary of the coup approaches, the United States needs to engage more directly with ethnic armed organizations, some of Myanmars longest standing and most influential political actors.

Kaitlyn Robinson is a Ph.D. candidate in political science at Stanford University. Her research examines patterns in the emergence, evolution, and behavior of non-state armed groups, including those operating in Myanmar.

Image: Xinhua (Photo by U Aung)

See more here:
To Support Democracy in Myanmar, Engage with Ethnic Armed Organizations - War on the Rocks

(Wikimedia Images/TapTheForwardAssist)

On Jan. 6, 2021, an armed mob, fueled by former President Donald Trumps false claims of electoral fraud, launched an attack on Capitol Hill which left five people dead and our democracy on a knifes edge.

Many corporate and industry political action committees (PACs) such as Toyota, Cigna and AT&T publicly pledged to stop donating to elected GOP officials supporting Trumps election fraud claims. Yet, these corporate PACs reneged on their commitments in only six months, a reflection of pay-to-play politics in the U.S, where companies help fund the campaigns of elected officials for preferential treatment. By backing the campaigns of seditious GOP politicians, corporations demonstrate their willingness to chase their bottom lines, even at the cost of our democracy. Such a relationship leaves the American public feeling unheard and resentful. To weaken the sway of corporations over elected officials, states should adopt a democracy voucher program.

The pay-to-play nature of our politics undermines democracy by warping the relationship of politicians with their constituents, policy and broader U.S. ideals. Politicians should serve the people who elected them, and corporations should compete in the marketplace. In reality, companies and special interest groups intercede. Under the highly controversial Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, the Supreme court found that the government cannot cap independent campaign expenditures by corporations. This led to the creation of super PACs, which can receive unlimited funding from corporations, labor unions or individuals for independent political activity.

Before Citizens United, the government actively prevented collusion by prohibiting corporations and unions from donating or advocating for candidates. Now, outside interest groups use the opportunity to accrue unprecedented political influence. Despite the requirement that super PACs disclose their donors, many donors come from dark money groups that mask the funds origins and leave voters unaware about donors with ulterior motives of prioritizing corporations.

Both at the state and federal level, we should implement a new tool known as democracy vouchers to weaken the influence of companies over elections. Democracy vouchers were first implemented in Seattle to encourage people to participate in the democratic process in state elections such as legislators, officers and even federal offices such as the House and Senate. Through this program, voters are permitted to set aside funds to donate to their preferred candidates. In taking such a step, states could counter corporate political influence by raising voters confidence in our democracy and giving them an opportunity to directly support their preferred candidates, rather than ceding all power to corporations.

Donations from companies leave candidates beholden to their donors after taking office, influencing campaign platforms and political careers. Inequality in this country is not just increasing in financial terms. Thanks to PACs and super PACs, the wealthy and corporations hold a significant sway in politics and undermine our democracy. While limiting expenditures of super PACs is unfeasible and would violate the Citizens United decision, democracy vouchers publicize all funds received by each candidate and allow citizens to take back some degree of control in the politicians that eventually hold office.

If we want to live up to our democratic ideals, federal and state governments should implement democracy voucher programs and trust-building campaigns to match. The profit incentives of corporations often contravene the public interest, so we must return political power in this country to where it belongs: in the hands of the American people.

The above editorial represents the majority opinion of the Wheels Editorial Board. The Editorial Board is composed of Rachel Broun, Kyle Chan-Shue, Sophia Ling, Demetrios Mammas, Daniel Matin, Daniela Parra del Riego Valencia, Sara Perez, Sophia Peyser, Ben Thomas, Chaya Tong and Leah Woldai.

Read more:
Fight corporations sway over elections with democracy dollars - The Emory Wheel

The anniversary of Jan. 6 was a grim reminder of our democracy in crisis. Instead of hoping that the upcoming midterm elections will be a period of convergence on kitchen-table constituent priorities, we have ample reason to fear greater division.Recent election cycles have escalated polarization and mistrust.

Our dollars are adding fuel to the fire. We have too much money in politics and not nearly enough money in democracy.

The 2020 election cost over$14 billion, the most expensive on record.Already, nonprofits like OpenSecrets and other campaign spending watchdogspredict that 2022 will set new spending records. At the same time, Americas multiracial democratic experiment, following five decades of declining public trust in government, stands at a crossroads. Organizations likeInternational Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance have labeled the U.S. a backsliding democracy, andThe Institute of Politics at the Harvard Kennedy School released anational poll of Americas 18- to 29-year-oldsin December that indicates a majority of young Americans believe our democracy is in trouble or failing.

Many people who care about improving their communities choose to donate to political elections as their primary strategy to advance preferred policies. That is logical, of course, but insufficient.

A healthy democracy itself is essential for our system of self-government to function and rise to the challenge of tackling major challenges like public health, economic security, and education. It requires an engaged citizenry with civic knowledge, mutual trust, and a sense of community responsibility regardless of political affiliation.

Donors need to rebalance their portfolio for short-term investments in elections together with long-term investments in our democracy.

If we cant trust our elected representatives to express the will of their constituents, it wont be solved by one more election. It requires strengthening through bottom-up investments in our local civil society and democracy, with an eye towards early intervention in our civic infrastructure.

Young people, who will inherit our democracy, know this well. I had the opportunity to speak with a young woman from Rhode Island recently, who told me When you take a group of young people and talk to them about what is possible in their community, they start to believe they are capable of creating long-lasting and necessary adjustments for the betterment of society in all spaces.

Investing in real-world democracy education for our nation's young people is the high-impact, long-term investment our democracy needs now.

For a fraction of what is spent in a few months for an election, civics education organizations deliver high quality, project-based civics lessons to tens of thousands of students each year.The future of our institutions and systems belongs to millions of young Americans who see our collective challenges and are wondering if they might suffer them or solve them. We know that when young people are not just spectators to civic chaos, but active change makersit benefits them and sets us on a better path forward.

Starting at the school and neighborhood level, students can identify issues that matter to them and engage in deliberation, participatory research and community problem solving. This makes them agents of change, not just spectators of political bloodsport.

At Generation Citizen, a national civics education nonprofit, weve seen positive civic learning exemplified through nonpartisan, student-led projects that build on U.S. History classes. A class of 8th grade students from Fall River, Mass., was interested in protecting marine wildlife from plastics pollution, and wanted to beautify their city so that young people like themselves could take pride in their community and want to build their lives there. Students deftly grabbed local media attention and testified before the city councils ordinance committee, successfully advocating for the reconsideration of a plastic bag ban.

Our communities and our students need these initiatives, which unlock a sense of agency in young people and a sense of hope in ones community. Today,the investment helping young people get on the first rung of democracys ladder is too small, and the investment in hyperpolarized elections is too large.

Elizabeth Clay Roy is CEO ofGeneration Citizen, an organization working to transform civics education through working with thousands of young people every year.

Read more from the original source:
Too much money in politics, and not enough in democracy | TheHill - The Hill

FILE - In this Aug. 28, 2020 file photo, Priscilla Duerrero from Boston, currently living in Washington, D.C., attends the March on Washington, at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, on the 57th anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech. (Julio Cortez / Associated Press archive 2020)

In his famous address at the 1963 March on Washington, Martin Luther King Jr. drew a direct line between the struggle for racial equality and the nations efforts to realize democracy. When the architects of our Republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir, King declared. However, King emphasized, the nation had betrayed that promise to Black people: It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. King warned that this failure meant the nations promise that all men are created equal remained a dream that was yet to be realized.

Nearly 60 years later, the Black Lives Matter movement has highlighted continuing racial disparities in policing, education, employment, health care and voting rights, again underscoring the yawning gap between the nations democratic ideals and its lived reality. Even so, our research shows that Americans remain divided over whether racial inequality is a problem. Although a majority of Americans recognize that white people enjoy racial advantages and are angry about racism in U.S. society, a substantial fraction disagrees.

These disagreements animate the very real, and very perilous, struggle over the survival of U.S. democracy today. People who deny white racial advantages and the prevalence of racial inequities also doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election, express more positive attitudes toward the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and absolve former president Donald Trump of blame for the riot.

These patterns suggest that the desire to maintain white advantages the impulse that King identified as largely responsible for the nations democratic failures continues to threaten the well-being of U.S. democracy.

How we did our research

Since Trumps election to office in 2016, scholars have carefully documented the relationship between racial attitudes and support for the former president. They have provided strong evidence that negative attitudes toward people of color and hostility toward immigrants are closely associated with support for Trump.

Given that Trumps false allegations that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him relied heavily on racist claims about voter fraud and election manipulation, we suspected that racial attitudes would shape perceptions of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

In a survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,000 American adults fielded Dec. 14 to 20, we asked respondents about their views on racism in American society specifically, whether they agreed that white people enjoy advantages based on skin color or that racial problems were isolated situations, and whether they were angry that racism exists (items from the FIRE scale, which stands for fear, institutionalized racism, and empathy). We also asked about their perceptions of the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election and their views on the events of Jan. 6.

What we found

The patterns we found were revealing. For example, although 58% of Americans agree that White people have advantages, 15% said they were neutral, and 26% disagreed. (Among white people, 55% acknowledge white advantages and 30% disagree.) Twenty-five percent of Americans believe racial problems are just rare, isolated situations, while another 15% express a neutral view of this matter, compared with 60% who say that racial problems are more common. We highlight the neutrals as well as those who explicitly downplay racial inequities because King famously warned against lukewarm or moderate responses to racial injustice.

These divisions over racial equality were closely related to perceptions of the 2020 presidential election and the Capitol attack. For example, among those who agreed that white people in the United States have advantages based on the color of their skin, 87% believed that Joe Bidens victory was legitimate; among neutrals, 44% believed it was legitimate; and among those who disagreed, only 21% believed it was legitimate. Seventy percent of people who agreed that white people enjoy advantages considered the events of Jan. 6 to be an insurrection; 26% of neutrals described it that way; and only 10% who disagreed did so, while 80% of this last group called it a protest. And while 70% of those who agreed that white people enjoy advantages blamed Trump for the events of Jan. 6, only 34% of neutrals did, and a mere 9% of those who disagreed did.

Similarly, 81% of people who recognized that racial problems were more than just rare, isolated situations believed that Bidens election was legitimate, compared with 39% of neutrals and 32% of those who thought that racial problems were rare. And 66% of those who agreed that racial problems were more than rare situations blamed Trump for the events of Jan. 6, compared with just 35% of neutrals and 13% of those who thought racial problems were rare.

Racial attitudes matter among both Democrats and Republicans. For example, among Republicans who agree that white people enjoy advantages, 37% believe Bidens election was legitimate, but among those who dont, only 14% do. Meanwhile, among Democrats who agree that white people enjoy advantages, 96% believe Biden was legitimately elected, but among Democrats who disagree, only 76% do. For independents, 89% of those who believe white people have advantages think Bidens election was legitimate, but only 20% of independents who dont think white people have advantages do.

Divisions over racial equality and the struggle for democracy

These patterns reveal that the wounds that King identified exist still. A majority of Americans acknowledge the reality of racial inequality in U.S. society today. However, as King would have predicted, those who deny the existence of racial inequality are also those who are most willing to reject the legitimacy of a democratic election and condone serious violations of democratic norms. For this reason, and as King argued, advancing racial equality and renewing U.S. democracy go hand in hand.

Jesse H. Rhodes is professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, associate director of the UMass Poll, and co-author (with Brian F. Schaffner and Raymond J. La Raja) of Hometown Inequality: Race, Class, and Representation in Americas Local Politics.

Raymond J. La Raja is professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, associate director of the UMass Poll, and co-author (with Brian F. Schaffner) of Campaign Finance and Political Polarization: When Purists Prevail.

Tatishe M. Nteta is associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and director of the UMass Poll.

Alexander Theodoridis is an associate professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and associate director of the UMass Poll.

The views expressed here are the writers and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to letters@adn.com or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.

Visit link:
Martin Luther King Jr. was right. Racism and opposition to democracy are linked, our research finds. - Anchorage Daily News

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Original post:
Facing choice between democracy, autocracy | Letters to the Editor | hjnews.com - The Herald Journal