Mediaboss Marketing

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Seventy-five years ago yesterday, on February 19th, 1942, Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, that forced more than 120,000 men, women and children of Japanese descent into internment camps. This included nearly 70,000 who were American citizens.

PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT: The United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the empire of Japan. As commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy, I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Over the weekend, Day of Remembrance events were held across the country to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the internment of Japanese Americans. Many people are asking if history can repeat itself. On the campaign trail, Donald Trump explicitly called for a Muslim registry. And as president, he has attempted to ban refugees and travelers from seven majority-Muslim nations. In an interview with ABC in 2015, Trump defended his proposal for a total and complete ban on Muslims entering the United States and compared it to the actions of FDR.

DONALD TRUMP: What Im doing is no different than what FDRFDRs solution for Germans, Italians, Japanese, you know, many years ago.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So youre for internment camps?

DONALD TRUMP: This is a president who was highly respected by all. He did the same thing. If you look at what he was doing, it was far worse. I mean, he was talking about the Germans because were at war. We are now at war.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, our next guest says one of the darkest chapters in American history has begun to repeat itself. Were joined by George Takei, the legendary actor and gay rights activist, who grew up in an internment camp. He is best known for playing Hikaru Sulu on Star Trek. Takeis Broadway show Allegiance screened in cinemas across the United States on Sunday, the Day of Remembrance. It is about the internment of Japanese Americans, inspired by the true story of Takei and his familys experience.

George Takei, welcome to Democracy Now!

GEORGE TAKEI: Good to be here.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, weve had you on the show before, but could you talk about your own familys experience and what you went through as a young child as a result of the internment policies that FDR brought into effect?

GEORGE TAKEI: Well, as a matter of fact, yesterday, which we, as you said, consider the Day of Remembrance, I remembered my childhood imprisonment at the home of the man who put us behind those barbed wire fences, Franklin Delano Roosevelts home at Hyde Park. I spoke on my memories there. And I spoke about that morning, when my parents got me up very early on that morning, together with my brother, a year younger, and my baby sister, still an infant, dressed us hurriedly. And my brother and I were told to wait in the living room while they did some packing back in the bedroom. And so, the two of us were just gazing out the front living room window, and we saw two soldiers marching up our driveway carrying rifles with shiny bayonets on them. They stomped up the front porch.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And this was where? In?

GEORGE TAKEI: This was in Los Angeles.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Los Angeles, mm-hmm.

GEORGE TAKEI: On Gardner Street, a two-bedroom house. And they began pounding at the front door with their fists. It was a terrifying sound. My father came out, answered the door. And literally at gunpoint, we were ordered out of our home. My father gave my brother and me little packages to carry, and we followed him out onto the driveway and waited for our mother to come out. And when she came out, she had our baby sister in one arm and a huge duffel bag in the other, and tears were streaming down her face. And this I told to a packed house audience at the Roosevelt Library on the thousand-plus-acre estate of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was a strange feeling.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And your family was eventually interned where?

GEORGE TAKEI: Well, we were first taken to the horse stables at Santa Anita race track. We were taken there in a truck with other families that had been rounded up. And there, they herded us over to the stable area, and each family was assigned a horse stall, still pungent with the stink of horse manure, to sleep in. For my parents, it was a degrading, humiliating experience to take their three children and arrange the cots for us to sleep in. I was a 5-year-old kid then, and for me, the perspective was totally different. I thought it was kind of fun to sleep where the horses sleep. So, my childhood experiences were quite different from my parents pain and anguish and the humiliation and the degradation and enragement that they went through for over four years.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And I seem to recall it was not only theobviously, the liberal president, Roosevelt, who backed this policy, but also wasnt Earl Warren, who was then the attorney general, the famous later Supreme Court justicehe was also very much stoking anti-Japanese phobia throughout California, wasnt he?

GEORGE TAKEI: Earl Warren was an ambitious man. He wanted to run for governor. And he saw that the single most popular political issue in California at that time was the "lock up the Japanese" movement. And Im using the long word for Japanese; it was an ugly three-letter word. And he made an astonishing statement as the attorney general, the top lawyer of the state. He said, "We have no reports of spying or sabotage or fifth column activities by Japanese Americans, and that is ominous," the fact that there was no report. He said the Japanese are "inscrutable." You cant tell what theyre thinking behind that placid face. And so it would be prudent to lock them up, before they do anything. So, for this attorney general, the absence of evidence was the evidence. And he fed into the hysteria, the war hysteria of that time, and reached all the way to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And so how long was your family interned?

GEORGE TAKEI: For over four years. We were taken from the horse stables to the swamps of Arkansas, and we were imprisoned therebarbed wire fence, sentry towers, guns pointed at usfor about a year. And then, you know, initially, after Pearl Harbor, young Japanese Americans rushed to their recruitment centers to volunteer to serve in the military. This act of patriotism was answered with a slap on the face. They were denied military service and categorized as enemy aliens. We were neither. We werent the enemy, and we werent aliens. We were born, raised, educated in the United States, mostly on the West Coast. And so, with that outrage, we were put into these barbed wired prison camps.

But a year after imprisonment, after they completely took everything away from us, they realized there is a wartime manpower shortage. And here are these young people that they categorized as enemy aliens. How to justify drafting them? So they came down with, of all things, a loyalty questionnaire. And it was put together in the most sloppy, ignorant way. The most egregious question was question 28. It was one sentence with two conflicting ideas. In essence, it asked, "Will you swear your loyalty to the United States of America and forswear your loyalty to the emperor of Japan?"

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, this issue of loyalty, obviously, is now front and center, in terms of some of the Trump administration policies. And I wantedin November, a Trump PAC spokesperson defended the proposed Muslim registry by citing the Japanese internment camps.

GEORGE TAKEI: Japanese-American, Japanese-American.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Japanese-American, yes. This is Carl Higbie of Great America PAC speaking with Fox Newss Megyn Kelly.

CARL HIGBIE: We did it during World War II with Japanese, which, you know, call it what you will

MEGYN KELLY: Come on. Youre not

CARL HIGBIE: Maybe wrong, but

MEGYN KELLY: Youre not proposing we go back to the days of internment camps, I hope.

CARL HIGBIE: No, no, no. Im not proposing that at all, Megyn.

MEGYN KELLY: You know better than to suggest that.

CARL HIGBIE: But what I am saying is that we need to protect America first.

MEGYN KELLY: I mean, thats the kind of stuff that gets people scared, Carl.

CARL HIGBIE: Right, but itsIm just saying, there is precedent for it. And Im not saying I agree with it. But in this case, I absolutely believe that a regional-based

MEGYN KELLY: You cant be citing Japanese internment camps as precedent for anything the president-elect is going to do.

CARL HIGBIE: Look, the president needs to protect America first. And if that means having people that are not protected under our Constitution have some sort of registry, so we can understanduntil we can identify the true threat and where its coming from, I support it.

JUAN GONZLEZ: That was Carl Higbie of the Great America PAC, a pro-Trump PAC. The correlation between some of thewhat happened then, and, as youre saying, this was against many Japanese Americans, andbut of whats happening now with Trump and the Muslim ban?

GEORGE TAKEI: The very fact that he brought that up to justify whatever plans that they have for Muslim people isshows that hes not learned the lesson of the internment of Japanese Americans, because if hes really learned that lesson, if he has studied that, he would know that the lesson is we must never do that again. Ronald Reagan apologized for it in 1988 and pledged a $20,000 token redress for that$20,000, which totaled up to $1.6 billion. This man, Higbie, is totally ignorant of that. We must not do it again. And the fact that he brought it up shows his ignorance.

JUAN GONZLEZ: But there werethere were some people who were targeted for internment who resisted. Could you talk about the Korematsu case and what that meant and how the courts reacted at that time?

GEORGE TAKEI: Well, they did challenge it after they were imprisoned, and not just Korematsu, but Gordon Hirabayashi and an attorney named Min Yasui. They challenged it all the way to the Supreme Court. In 1944, the middle of the war, they were denied justice. They failed. But after the war, in the '70s, they challenged it again, the finding of the Supreme Court. They went all the way up to the federal court, and the federal judge found that there was a fault in the original ruling. But they covered up those words by calling it by its Latin name, coram nobis, fault in the original ruling. And the government didn't appeal that to the Supreme Court, so it ended there. But it was a fault in the Supreme Courts original ruling, and it should never happen again.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And then it took an act of Congress later on, in terms of reparations for the Japanese Americans?

GEORGE TAKEI: Well, that was when Reagan apologized. In 1988, Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act. And there was this $20,000 token redress paid. They went in the order of the age of the recipient, and I didnt get mine until 1991. And it wasthe letter of apology was signed by George H.W. Bush, with "George H.W. Bush" on the $20,000 check.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And talk about your decisionI mean, youve been very much of an activist much of your life, but your stance now in terms of whats going on with the Trump administration and why you feel its so important to speak up now?

GEORGE TAKEI: Well, on so many issues, not just the Muslim travel ban, but issue after issue has been a failure. But this president is delusional. He just made that statement last week that his administration is operating like a finely tuned machine. He doesnt realize the disaster that his administration is, the failure of the attack in Yemen and the series of failures that heshe is a danger. You know, the real terrorist is Donald Trump. Donald Trump is the terrorist president of the United States. And his rating is going down, down, down, and he still talks about the fantastic support that hes been getting. We are going through an incredible time in American history.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, I want to thank you, George Takei, legendary actor and activist. Thank you for joining us.

And when we come back, Robert Weissman of Public Citizen on corporate Trump.

[break]

JUAN GONZLEZ: "Say It LoudIm Black and Im Proud," James Brown with Clyde Stubblefield on drums. Stubblefield passed away Saturday. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. Im Juan Gonzlez.

More:
George Takei on 75th Anniv. of Internment of Japanese Americans & Why Trump is "The Real Terrorist" - Democracy Now!

Source: 'Green Whistle', Steven Depolo, CC 2.0

Recently, National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was fired by the Trump administration after government officials leaked classified information to the press about phone communications between Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey I. Kyslyak, occurring prior to Trumps inauguration, involving (in part) the easing of sanctions on the Russians imposed by the Obama administration for their invasion of the Ukraine. In response, an outraged Trump administration focused its attention on finding and punishing the leakers for leaking classified government information to the press, but not on Flynns potentially illegal act of undermining existing government policy while still a civilian.

In the aftermath of the leak, the press has hotly debated the issue of what is more important, stopping leakers or investigating actions such as Flynns.The term whistleblowing has had a prominent place in these debates, with some parties to the debate using it to praise the leakers for their public service, while others decrying the leakers as criminals.

In thisemotionally charged contextwith potentially far-reaching consequences for national security, itcould prove helpful to seek a clearer understanding of the concepts involved, and their relationship to a democratic process. Indeed, the question of whether the actions of the leakers were justified is an ethical question, grist for the mill of analysis by moral philosophers.

In fact, the activity of whistleblowing has received considerable attention in the lastthree decadesby philosophers working in the areas of business and professional ethics. In my capacity as the editor and founder of the International Journal of Applied Philosophy, the worlds first comprehensive journal dedicated to the field, I have had an opportunity to help develop some of this literature, and have worked closely with some of the prolific writers in this area such as the late Frederick A. Elliston. So I feel a special obligation to weigh in on this matter. This blog entry is accordingly my contribution to the debate.

Blowing the whistle, as generally understood in the philosophical literature, involves disclosure by employees of businesses, public and private institutions, or government agencies, of illegal, immoral, or questionable practices occurring within those organizations. The motive of disclosure, even ifthis is to harm the perpetrator of the unacceptable practice, is irrelevant to whether an act qualifies as an act of whistleblowing. Thus, a person can blow the whistle for purely self-interested purposes, such as getting back at someone. As such, the question about the moral character of the individual making the disclosure is one matter; whether or not the individual engaged in whistle blowing, and whether or not the act is justified are logically distinct questions.

Therefore, the merit of the act of whistle blowing, as distinct from the motive of the whistleblower, needs to be assessed according to whether the weight of the wrong-doing is sufficient to justify the disclosure. So there can be very poor (morally unjustified) decisions to blow the whistle by very well intentioned whistleblowers,as when the matter could be more easily settled within the organization; but there also can be some very well founded ones, regardless of the motive, as when the danger is so serious that it needs to be brought to public light, and whistleblowing is likely to be the only way of accomplishing this goal.

Onepractical upshot is thatmedia arguments which revolve around whether the leakers in the Trump administration had nefarious motives to undermine the Trump administration are patently irrelevant to the merit of the act of whistleblowing. Indeed, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act of 2012 makes this clear in its provision that, a disclosure shall not be excluded from [protection] because....of the employees or applicants motive for making the disclosure.

With respect to the legality of disclosures, the Whistleblowers Protection Act protects disclosures by federal employees, or former employees,which theemployeesbelieve evidence "(A) a violation of any law, rule, or regulation; or `(B) gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." So, the whistleblower must have reasonable belief that a violation exists; but, the motive for disclosing whatthe employeereasonably believes to be a violation is irrelevant.So, was the disclosure made by government officialsregarding Flynn'squestionable communications legally protected?

The answer is no. The Actalso requires that the information disclosed is "not specifically prohibited by law."Since the information in question was classified, it was not protected by this Act. However, the illegality of the disclosure does not mean that it wasunethical to disclose it. It instead means that the individuals who disclosed it were not immune from being prosecutedfor the disclosure.

In this manner, the whistleblowing in questionresembles significantly an act of civil disobedience. The latter involves a citizens refusal to comply with a certain law that is arguably immoral or unjust. Civil disobedience is an important way in which necessary legal change can be affected. Indeed, in our democracy, if nobody ever challenged unjust laws, they would not likely be changed. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus to a white man in defiance of an Alabama state segregation law, and the rest is history. The law was iniquitous and needed to be challenged, and Rosa Parks (along with others) met that challenge and helped to change a law that needed to be changed.

In the case of whistleblowing, a private citizen can likewise help to affect necessary social change. Merrill Williams, a paralegal who took on the tobacco industry,violated a confidentiality agreement for the law firm he worked for in order to disclose that the Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation was, for decades, intentionally hiding evidence that cigarettes were carcinogenic and addictive. On a federal level, in thefamous Watergate scandal, Associate Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Mark Felt (AKA Deep Throat) blew the whistle on the illegal activities of the Nixon administration, which led to the resignation of President Nixon as well as incarceration of White House Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman and United States Attorney General John N. Mitchell, among others.Clearly, thereareunequivocal historical precedents demonstratingthatacts of whistleblowing canmake profoundly important contributionsto setting legal as well as moral limits on the abuse of power in protecting public welfare.

Both whistleblowing and civil disobedience alsoinvolve taking calculated personal risks in challenging illegal or immoral practices, including loss of ones job, harassment, death threats, physical injury, fines, and imprisonment. Inasmuch as the moral and/or legal gains are substantial, and the whistleblower seeks these changes for their own sake (not for self-serving reasons), individuals who engage in whistleblowing or civil disobedience exercise moral courage. This isnoteworthy because critics of whistleblowers and of the civilly disobedient sometimes uncritically charge that such individuals are necessarily traitors, criminals, or otherwise unethical or bad people. To the contrary, they may be among the most courageous, heroic, or patriotic people. Just consider Rosa Parks!She brokean Alabama statelaw,yetwe would be hard put tocall her acriminal. On the other hand, there is loyalty among thieves, but that does not make them ethical.

In a democracy, whistleblowing, as well as civil disobedience, serve a valuable function. Like the press,whistleblowers can help to expose flagrant violations of public trust by government trustees, often working cooperatively with the press, as in the Flynn case.This may be why corrupt political leaders who hate the press also tend to despisewhistleblowers. Insofar aswhistleblowers, like the press, seek transparency, they tend to be perceived as "the enemy."

Leaks of classified government information by a whistleblower, while illegal,can serve a valuable social purpose if it exposes a serious national danger. In leaking classified information, as in the case of information about the communications of Michael Flynn with the Russian Ambassador, the leak may be of monumental importance to national security. If there is an attempt to undermine national security by a foreign enemy, and those whom the people trust to protect them are colluding with this enemy, then such information arguably should be disclosed to the public as long as there is noreasonable alternative to prevent the potential harm. As in civil disobedience, we would expect that the leakers who are caught will be prosecuted. However, as members of a democratic society, we should also trust that the information that is leaked will be taken seriously and that any national security breaches that are exposed be fully investigated. This is how democracy works.

So was it morally justified for the government officials to leak the information about Flynns conversations? Flynn, it is claimed, lied to the Vice-President about the content of his conversations, denying that they involved discussions about sanctions on Russia. However, this matter could easily have been put to rest if the government officials disclosed this information to the V.P. or to their superiors, who could, in turn, inform the V.P. In fact, this actually happened when Acting Attorney General Sally Yates notified the White House of the intercepted communications. However, the potential harm was not merely that of lying to the V.P.; it was also about a potential breach of national security. Was thisurgent matter likely tobe handled effectively by the Trump administration without leaking the information to the press?

As it happened, the White House did not fire Flynn until after the information was leaked, even though it had received the information from the Acting Attorney General a few weeks prior. So, it is possible that the leakers did not perceive any other way of effectively addressing theperceived violationother than by blowing the whistle on Flynn.Doing somay have already succeeded in helping to removea"weak link" in the chain of command.However, it remains to be seen what comes next.

Link:
Whistleblowing, Civil Disobedience, and Democracy - Psychology Today (blog)

Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R) in an interview Sunday pushed back on President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpChelsea Clinton attends Muslim solidarity rally in NYC Pentagon chief: 'I dont have any issues with the press' Kasich: The media is 'an important part of democracy' MOREs criticism of the press, saying the news media is a such an important part of democracy.

Kasich said on CNN's "State of the Union" that while he doesnt always agree with the press, their role is vital and necessary to hold people accountable.

Kasich recalled a recent meeting with Ohio reporters in which he praised their work.

"I said, I applaud you for following the facts and reporting a story, even at times when it is not easy," Kasich said.

"I have great respect for the press. I was once in the press," Kasich, who dropped out of the Republican presidential race last May, said on Sunday.

Trump has regularly called the media "fake news" or even "the opposition party." In recent tweets, he has urged Americans to disregard any reports that are critical of his administration.

See the original post here:
Kasich: The media is 'an important part of democracy' - The Hill

Congressman, constituents have spirited back and forth at Allegany Co. meeting

FILLMORE In a muddy parking lot behind a barn, democracy showed its face in Allegany County, and it had a number of questions for Rep. Tom Reed.

On Saturday, Reed, a Corning Republican held a town hall meeting at Allen Town Hall in Filmore, and was greeted by between 200 and 300 constituents. Many people raised concerns about the current course of policy under the new presidential administration of Donald Trump.

For those opposed to some of Reeds views, the scene felt wholly appropriate.

A muck-raker is a person who exposes political corruption, and here we are standing in the mud, said Sissy Mahoney of Hornell.

It was was much the same at three town hall meetings earlier in Chautauqua and Cattaraugus counties.

Were always excited to have Tom out talking to folks. Its been fun, and its part of democracy, said Reeds District Director Joe Simpolinski. Weve heard concerns from all areas of national policy, and we expected a vibrant conversation.

Some commented that the event was the biggest gathering around a political issues since the Bump the Dump Campaign in the early 1990s, and some of the faces were the same too.

Participants came for many different reasons, and to hear about several different policies, but they all demanded one thing straight forward answers from their guy in the House of Representatives.

Brian Webb, of Houghton attended the meeting to deliver a message on behalf of evangelical Christians.

I really care about how our actions impact people around the world, and climate change disproportionately impacts the poorest people the most, and Im here to engage with congressman Reed on this issue on behalf of Christians and conservatives who care about issues like climate change, he said.

Mike Kuna, of Clifton Springs, made the trip to Allegany County for more details on the Republican promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

I just want a plan from him. I dont care when it happens. Something needs to be in place," Kuna said.

I want to have a conversation with you, but first and foremost, I want to listen, Reed began, speaking into a bullhorn, so the massive and rowdy crowd could hear him.

Other local organized groups also made their presence felt, including Southern Tier Action Together.

Working with different activist groups in the 23rd Congressional District, weve crafted questions we hope will create dialogue and meaningful conversation between constituents and their elected official, the groups said in a statement issued on Saturday. Were people who care deeply about our towns and the well-being of our neighbors; some of us were born here, some came for a job, some came back because of love of this special part of New York State.

Topics ranged from the presidents tax returns, to Trump's ties to Russia, to fears that a Republican controlled government will abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.

Its just not there, Reed said of the Russian issue, expressing confidence after it was reported he had direct conversations with the president reading the allegations earlier this week.

However, the meeting was largely dominated by opposition to the proposed repeal of the Affordable Care Act. Andrea Meyers of Hornell was one of the fortunate people who got to question Reed.

Im a small business owner who works two to three part time jobs to supplement my income. My husband works for the City of Hornell. I have a step-son that has Downs syndrome. My family has insurance because of the Affordable Care Act because the citys insurance is far to expensive to afford. What are you going to do for me when I lose my insurance? she asked.

Reed did not waiver in his previously stated position of being in favor of repeal.

Reed said, We need to talk to (Hornell) Mayor (Shawn) Hogan about that. He then said that tax credits would be available under the Republican plan to subsidize costly insurance. He also promoted health savings accounts.

Reed was peppered with chants of You work for us and Do Your Job throughout, as people expressed their dissatisfaction with his stance. Several supportive spectators couter-chanted USA, USA, USA."

While some left dissatisfied with the depth to which Reed was able to answer some of their questions, most credited him for showing up in the first place, including Dr. Gary Ostrower, Reeds former professor at Alfred University.

This is democracy at its best, he said. The fact that Tom Reed held this meeting at all is impressive. Many Republican congressmen have bailed out because of fear or lack of courage. Mr. Reed showed up and answered questions for well over an hour.

There was a level of anger voiced in the crowd, but it stayed peaceful.

I think we have a president who is proving himself unfit to govern a free people, he said. He expresses an absence of integrity that is corrosive to a democracy, and to the extent that Congressman Reed supports him, I wasnt surprised at some of the anger.

Several groups, including members of Indivisible Hornell, said they would extend an invitation to Reed to attend a town hall meeting in the Hornell area in the near future.

Reed will be holding another round of town hall meetings in March, however specific dates and times are yet to be decided and announced.

See the original post:
Participation in democracy - Hornell Evening Tribune

At a rally for the ruling Zanu-PF party in Zimbabwe the wife of president Robert Mugabe praised her 91-yearold husband. One day when God decides that Mugabe dies, we will have his corpse appear as a candidate, she claimed. Mugabe has ruled Zimbabwe, often with an iron fist, since Zanu-PF won elections in 1980 and he became prime minister. He joins many other long-serving leaders that dominated the 20th and early 21st century, such as Fidel Castro, Angolas Jose Eduardo Dos Santos and Equatorial Guineas Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo.

Until recently Yahya Jammeh of The Gambia was a member of the longest serving leader club, having ruled the country since a coup in 1994. Yet today Gambia has returned to democracy. The story of how that happened should be a model for the world, but unfortunately, because Gambia is a small West African state and media tends to be more obsessed with Donald Trumps Twitter feed than the goings on of billions of people in the world, we do not hear enough about this beautiful story.

Like many countries in the 20th century, the Republic of the Gambia first gained independence in the 1960s and immediately became in essence a one-party, one-man state under Dawda Jawara. From one-party rule came the inevitable coup in 1994 led by Yahya Jammeh. The Gambia is a small country whose shape follows the river of the same name. It has a population of two million people and is around the size of the US state of Connecticut. Under Jammeh democratic institutions existed and he won elections in 1996 and 2011 with around 70% of the vote. He took Gambia out of the Commonwealth in 2013, saying it would never be a member of any neo-colonial institution and declared the country to be the Islamic Republic of the Gambia in December 2015.

This was seen as an eccentric decision but it foreshadowed more authoritarianism to come. Opposition figures were jailed and when Jammeh went to elections in 2016 he expected to win. Instead Adama Barrow, a relatively unknown real estate executive, won 43% of the vote on December 1, 2016.

Initially Jammeh was conciliatory, saying If Barrow wants to work with us also, I have no problem with that. Eight days later Jammeh announced he rejected the results and was annulling the election.

IN MANY circumstances when rulers become increasingly authoritarian, the neighboring states, the United Nations and the world stands by and does nothing.

There is a drip-drip erosion of democracy and everyone shrugs. Its not for us to interfere in sovereign elections, is the wink-wink-nod-nod of states. Its why at the UN the dictatorships work together to put each other on the Human Rights Council, why the greatest abusers of womens rights somehow run the womens rights monitoring groups. Countries that supposedly support democracy work with countries like Iran without even an ounce of shame.

But West African states decided that Gambia would not be allowed to backtrack on its democracy. If he is not going, we have stand-by forces already alerted and these stand-by forces have to be able to intervene to restore the peoples wish, said Marcel Alain de Souza, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) commission president, on December 23.

Jammeh was given an ultimatum to concede the election and give up power. Colonel Abdou Ndiaye, spokesman for the Senegalese military, said on January 18 that Senegals forces are ready to intervene if needed after midnight if we cant find a diplomatic solution. As 26,000 Gambians fled the country, fearing conflict, the militaries of Nigeria and Ghana both agreed to participate in operations alongside Senegal.

The next day the ECOWAS troops went into Gambia while Barrow, who had fled the country, was sworn in as president at the Gambian embassy in Senegals capital of Dakar. Gambias 2,500-man army put up no reported resistance, some of its officers having already decided to desert Jammeh.

Within days Jammeh had fled the country, taking with him millions in cash, and Barrow returned to the capital in Banjul.

Some of his first announcements as president dealt with protecting the freedom of the press, reforming the dreaded local intelligence agency and removing Islamic from the name of the country. On January 18 he was sworn in for a second time on home soil. Regional and international leaders, such as Senegals Macky Sall and US assistant secretary of state for African affairs Linda Thomas-Greenfield and UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson sent messages of support.

The story of Gambias transition to democracy reads like a perfect script of how regional frameworks, such as ECOWAS and its military arm ECOMIG, as well as the international community can enforce the rights of people. The UN Security Council declared in late December that it strongly condemned the attempts to usurp the will of the people, and that it supported President- elect Barrow to restore the rule of law in the country and respect the will of the people. Strong words have to be backed up by strong and coordinated action. At the recent Munich Security Conference numerous voices, from Angela Merkel to UN Secretary General Antonia Guterres, used the catchphrase multilateral to discuss the challenges, such as terrorism, the world faces. But multilateralism is easier said than done.

Hundreds of millions of people in numerous countries have been sentenced to live in country-like prisons due the unwillingness to confront dictators and authoritarian regimes. The regimes of countries like Venezuela are allowed to destroy the lives of their people, jail and torture opposition figures, and do irreparable harm with little blowback. The Castros and Assads and many other feudal familial regimes are allowed to run countries as if they were their own familys slave-estates rather than have multi-party elections.

We forget what this does to countries in the long term. Mexicos problems today, from infrastructure to the drug conflict, are largely the result of the rot that set in during Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) rule from 1929 to 2000. Egypts economy stagnated under Honsi Mubaraks long tenure.

North Korea is one large prison.

We fear using military action and political isolation against tyrannical regimes under the guise of supporting dialogue and peace. There is a fantasy that sanctions will strengthen regimes, so the only real way to defeat tyranny is to reward it. But where is the evidence that dialogue and free trade with tyranny works? Iran, Algeria, Tajikistan, Eritrea, Cambodia, Cameroon long is the list of countries with leaders or parties who have been in power for decades. Are we ensuring the increased march of democracy today, or has a new tyranny taken root in many places? What peace is there when others are not free? Are they who are left under tyranny enjoying peace, or are we simply abdicating responsibility? Gambia was an inspiring example of what can happen when people demand change and their demands are supported by their neighbors. We often pretend that national borders are sacrosanct. As if by accident of birth a person living a few miles away from his neighbor deserves to live in a police state. But many borders are arbitrary; what is not arbitrary is human rights and natural rights. European colonial powers drew arbitrary borders in Africa and parts of the Middle East and because of them one person votes in elections and can read several newspapers and use Twitter, and another cannot. Regional frameworks such as ECOWAS can help ensure that the trends across borders are toward more rights, not less. It would be good if the efforts are recognized. International and state visits to these countries, a Nobel prize, financial support and media coverage might go a way toward showcasing what was achieved in Gambia.

Follow the author @Sfrantzman

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

More here:
Terra Incognita: The Gambia's defense of democracy is a lesson for us all - Jerusalem Post Israel News