The Idea Of Self-Determination

College of Political Knowledge

Self-determination denotes the legal right of people to decide their own destiny in the international order.  Self-determination is a core principle of international law, arising from customary international law, but also recognized as a general principle of law, and enshrined in a number of international treaties.  For instance, self-determination is protected in the United Nations Charter and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a right of “all peoples.” 

The scope and purpose of the principle of self-determination has evolved significantly in the 20th century.  In the early 1900’s, international support grew for the right of all people to self-determination.  This led to successful secessionist movements during and after WWI, WWII and laid the groundwork for decolonization in the 1960s. 

Contemporary notions of self-determination usually distinguish between “internal” and “external” self-determination, suggesting that “self-determination” exists on a spectrum.  Internal self-determination may refer to various political and social rights; by contrast, external self-determination refers to full legal independence/secession for the given ‘people’ from the larger politico-legal state.

Now that the much used term has been defined….let’s look at what the UN has to say on this front…..

Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own political status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence through to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people’s choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice. In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self-determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to independence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right to self-determination is recognized in international law as a right of process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments.

The preferred outcome of an exercise of the right to self-determination varies greatly among the members of UNPO. For some of our members, the only acceptable outcome is full political independence. This is particularly true of occupied or colonized nations. For others, the goal is a degree of political, cultural and economic autonomy, sometimes in the form of a federal relationship. For others yet, the right to live on and manage a people’s traditional lands free of external interference and incursion is the essential aim of a struggle for self-determination. Other members, such as Taiwan and Somaliland, have already achieved a high-level or full self-determination, but are yet to be recognized as independent states by the international community.

I thought is that if a people in a majority vote want to determine their own future than they should be given the right….but sadly in this world the power does no longer belong to the people but rather to money and those that control it.

An interested look at Self-determination from a post-graduate student…..

Now that we have looked at ‘the right of self-determination’ I would appreciate your thoughts on this….

amicus populi

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“Lego ergo scribo”


The term will be defined shortly…but first…

Since Tulsi Gabbard has left the campaign trail I have been in search of a candidate to support…..Biden ain’t it…….he is the proof of what you get when you settle for what is offered.

I went to a familiar party from my past…the Green Party now that Stein is not on their agenda…..

After reading over their platform and policy support I found something that would scratch them off my list of possibles…..

Here is their stand…..

Our Green values oblige us to support popular movements for peace and demilitarization in Israel-Palestine, especially those that reach across the lines of conflict to engage both Palestinians and Israelis of good will.

We support the implementation of boycott and divestment initiatives against Israel similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era, which includes pressuring our government to impose embargoes and sanctions against Israel; and we support maintaining these nonviolent punitive measures until Israel meets its obligation to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable right to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by

  • Ending its occupation and colonization of all Palestinian lands and dismantling the Wall in the West Bank
  • Recognizing the fundamental rights of Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality; and
  • Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.

We support a U.S. foreign policy that promotes the creation of one secular, democratic state for Palestinians and Israelis on the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the River Jordan as the national home of both peoples, with Jerusalem as its capital.

One nation…secular and equal……This idea is an idea put forth by Qaddafi……you remember him right?

From 2002…..

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi on Tuesday said Israel should be replaced by a democracy called “Isratine” where unarmed Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace.

“If the Jews want peace they should accept to live in peace and drop arms with their Palestinian brethren,” Gaddafi said in a televised interview with al-Jazeera satellite television.

Gaddafi, who has rejected a Saudi Middle East peace bid, said it was “impossible” to create an independent Palestinian state along with Israel because “the Israelis would not accept to live within (the range) of Palestinian guns”.

Gaddafi put forward his own Middle East peace plan at an Arab summit last year. It included demands for dismantling weapons of mass destruction in the region and the return of seven million Palestinian refugees.

“The initiatives that have been imposed on Arabs… resulted in the blood that is being shed,” said Gaddafi, referring to the 18-month-old Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation.

The Saudi initiative, the top issue on the agenda of the upcoming Arab summit, envisages Arab normalisation with the Jewish state in return for full Israeli withdrawal from Arab land occupied during the 1967 Middle East war.

Gaddafi said Israel should also dismantle its mass destruction weapons and withdraw from occupied Syrian land if it wanted peace with non-Palestinian Arabs.

Even the Palestine Authority has sided with the possibility of a one state solution……

Palestinian negotiators are more frequently threatening to abandon the goal of a two-state solution in their conflict with Israel and are pushing for a one-state option instead.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) is very well aware that a one-state solution constitutes a threat to Israel, and has used the threat during half a dozen meetings documented in The Palestine Papers.

The two-state solution remains the conceptual basis for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. However, as it has failed to accomplish a final agreement, Palestinian interest in a one-state solution has seemingly grown.

The one-state solution is generally presented as a nightmare scenario for Israel. The likelihood that Palestinians might one day constitute an electoral majority in a bi-national state – which is seen as inevitable – is viewed by many Israeli Jews as a threat to the ‘Jewish character’ of the country.

I am against the idea as well…..time for their to be two states in this regions…..Palestine being defined by the treaty of 1967…a treaty that Israel has seldom upheld their agreement to the provisions

I gave my thoughts with this post…..

The plan to annex West Bank territory is against international law and now that have Trump in their pocket they will violate the law as they, Israel, did in 1947…..

Some further thoughts on this proposal ofm One state solution…….

This new phase may play out over a generation. But it is already clear that the central dividing line will be the fight against apartheid and the demand for equal rights for Palestinians within a binational state.

In such a scenario Israelis will face an almost impossible choice from their perspective: either enforcing apartheid through military rule to safeguard Israel’s Jewish characteristics or promote democracy through the extension of full rights to all Palestinians, including those in Gaza.

Arguably, the shift towards a one-state paradigm has been underway for some time. The senior Palestinian PLO leadership remains wedded to the concept of two states. But many other Palestinians – particularly amongst younger generations – have long ago reached the conclusion that a viable and truly sovereign Palestinian state has slipped through their grasp.

All, however, agree that Israel’s unrelenting drive to settle the occupied West Bank, combined with international timidity, has led to the unravelling of the two-state project over the past years.

Since its inception Israel has NEVER obeyed the laws of humanity…..and the world overlooked because of the suffering that was foisted upon them during WW2….that was 75 years ago….all debts have been paid…..Israel needs to act like the civilized nation they pretend to be.

Why should Palestinians be satisfied with being part of a nation that stole their land with the good wishes of the Western world?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

What Is It About The Middle East?

My area of interest is the Middle East…I was schooled in its history, culture and situation… I worked in the region for many years and learned to love the customs and the people.

But over the years and the US foreign policy of the Middle East has come full circle…..

“We are opening a Pandora’s Box,” Dwight Eisenhower warned when he ordered the first U.S. combat mission in the region. Little did he know how right he would be.

In 1958, U.S. leaders stood at the threshold of an American era in the Middle East, conflicted about whether it was worth the trouble to usher in.

A year earlier, in the context of the emergent Cold War and fading British and French power in the region, Dwight Eisenhower had articulated and received congressional approval for what became known as the Eisenhower doctrine. The United States had for the first time staked out national interests in the Middle East—oil, U.S. bases and allies, Soviet containment—and declared that it was prepared to defend them with military force.

Sixty-two years before President Donald Trump dispatched a drone to Baghdad to kill Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, this is how American combat missions in the post–World War II Middle East began.

Our Middle East policies of today were born in World War 2 and Operation Torch……

In a radical rethinking of the origins of U.S. Middle East policy, Robert Satloff suggests that two key ideas guiding Washington’s actions in the region for the past three-quarters of a century were born in the bargain U.S. leaders made with Vichy French officers after Allied troops landed in North Africa during World War II.

This was Operation Torch, America’s first offensive operation in the European theater of war and, until Operation Overlord’s Normandy landings, the greatest amphibious attack in history. Today, it is all but forgotten. And yet, aside from rivaling Overlord in terms of its enormity, complexity, and peril, Torch was also vastly consequential, for it helped to determine the future course and ultimately successful conclusion of the war. If that weren’t significant enough, Torch also deserves to be remembered for the critical role it played in setting the terms of America’s long-term relationship with the rulers and peoples of the Middle East.

Even with a raging pandemic the Middle East is as dangerous as it ever was…..or will be…..

The Middle East is, arguably, in as dangerous a condition as it has been in its modern history. A single incident could spark an escalation, which – uncontrolled – could set off a chain reaction of violent confrontations, involving local, regional and extra-regional powers. Established mechanisms for bringing individual conflicts, such as the wars in Syria and Yemen, to a peaceful resolution are making only halting, if any, progress. When a crisis of this magnitude crests, but before it erupts into full-blown war, the attention it attracts can create new opportunities for preventive action. The notion of a collective and inclusive security dialogue that aims to diminish tensions has been around for many years, focused on the Gulf sub-region. The time to launch one is overdue. The first step is to produce concrete ideas and international support for such a dialogue, which can open new channels of communication. To maximise chances of success, the effort should start modestly, possibly initiated by smaller Gulf states with the active diplomatic backing of a group of European and other governments.

The UN has called for an international ceasefire during the pandemic…..and yet NO major power has signed on….apparently using ordinance is more important than fighting the disease.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A New Foreign Policy

This country needs a new foreign policy…..the old Cold War mentality does not translate well in the 21st century…..this country should be the prime cheerleader of a peaceful world….instead we spend more on our endless wars that about 15 countries combined.

But most people ask…how can negotiations bring about peace?

How Can Negotiations Bring Wars to an End?

There are attempts….and all should be pursued as doggedly as we pursue war.

Global Peacebuilding Act: Authorizes a transfer of $5 billion from the Pentagon’s Overseas Contingency Operations budget to the State Department to create a new, multi-lateral Global Peacebuilding Fund.

Stop Arming Human Rights Abusers Act: Establishes red lines based on internationally recognized gross violations of international human rights and international humanitarian law. Once a country crosses those lines, it automatically triggers a prohibition on security aid of any kind, arms sales including those controlled by the Commerce Dept. (tear gas, etc.), and exchanges with U.S. law enforcement. Read the billPDF iconhere.

Global Migration Agreement Act: Instructs the State Department and U.S. Ambassador to the UN to take the lead on creating a binding international agreement on global migration. Read the billPDF iconhere.

Congressional Oversight of Sanctions Act: Requires a joint resolution of Congress to approve sanctions issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) within 60 days of being back in session after the sanctions are announced, and requires Congressional approval to renew existing sanctions. Read the bill PDF iconhere.

YouthBuild International Act: Replicates the highly successful domestic YouthBuild program – which helps disadvantaged youth obtain the education and employment skills they need to achieve economic self-sufficiency. Read the billPDF iconhere.

Resolution on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child: The United States is the only country in the world not to have ratified the UNCRC. Protecting the rights of children is fundamental, and we should be a world leader on this issue, which we can’t be unless we’re a state party to the Convention. Read the bill here.

Resolution on the Rome Statute, and the International Criminal Court: The United States has been a leader on international criminal justice since Nuremberg, and our hostility towards the ICC has always been at odds with our commitment to the rule of law, accountability, and to the principle that no one is above the law. we need to send a strong message in support of international criminal justice. Read the billPDF iconhere.

You can read more on the Pathway to PEACEPDF iconhere.

Yes I am an antiwar wonk and would do all I can to bring the topic to the forefront….

It is probably too late to search for peace……why?  Profits!

Peace will be possible when peace is as profit making as armed conflict……and those days are a ways off sadly.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Americans And War

American students are seldom taught about the war as they are being fought…..only ones that can teach a historic perspective…..we need to teach about conflict as our citizens are fighting and dying…..

“I don’t know…I mean I want to be one of those people…you know who do things, who create change I guess…this was inspiring…it made me want to create change…but I guess I don’t know how.” Three students and I were sitting in a small room gathered near a round table in the corner of the social studies office. The students had just completed a three-week instructional unit focused on two essential questions: What is a just war? How do we end war? Their teacher and I had co-created the unit both interested in whether focusing on critique of and resistance to war would bulster students’ sense of agency, help them develop a more critical perspective of war and help students understand that war can be stopped by active and engaged citizens. By the end of the unit, the students weren’t so sure.

“I’m always surprised by how schools in America teach. I mean there’s wars all around us and the teachers here act like they don’t exist and then don’t directly teach the wars they do teach.” The other students in the discussion agreed. “Yeah, it’s like they teach that war is bad…but we already know that…we never teach in depth. I mean I know 1939 and Eisenhower and all that…I got an A but I feel like I know it skin deep. We never really talk about anything.” Another student agreed providing an example of when they did go in depth. “When we studied the Atomic Bombs being dropped on Japan we had a two-day seminar examining documents but it wasn’t really anything different from what was in our textbooks. I mean we all know that atomic bombs are bad, but didn’t anyone speak out against them besides like Einstein? I didn’t know there was like an anti-war movement for like always until this unit.”

After almost two decades and only a few bloggers/journalists are questioning the wars we fight……[after Hollywood gets finished with the subject we then have become war addicts…..

My first question is simple enough: After 18-plus years of our forever wars, where are all the questions?

Almost two decades of failing American wars across a startlingly large part of the planet and I’d like to know, for instance, who’s been fired for them? Who’s been impeached? Who’s even paying attention?

I mean, if another great power had been so fruitlessly fighting a largely undeclared set of conflicts under the label of “the war on terror” for so long, if it had wasted trillions of taxpayer dollars with no end in sight and next to no one in that land was spending much time debating or discussing the matter, what would you think? If nothing else, you’d have a few questions about that, right?

War Addicts, Inc.

In other words this nation has become conditioned to the reality of war………..

As tensions escalated with Iran last week, it seemed bewildering to many that the United States could once again be on the brink of war. We like to think of ourselves as a peaceful people and our country as a benevolent force in the world—so why is military conflict a constant presence in American life?

Despite our self-image, we have been conditioned for war all of our lives. Through a combination of cultural forces, some overt and others subtle, Americans are taught from a young age to accept their country’s militarism without question. This conditioning has numerous ingredients. Themes of nationalism and militarism are frequently injected into public life through the media and other institutions, for example, as is a sense of righteousness, a rarely challenged belief that the country is almost always a force for good.

It is time to find candidates that do not want war or the ones we are fighting to continue…..but sadly the media will make sure that the foreign policy especially our war footing ever sees the light of day.

Look at all the Dem debates….very little foreign policy or conflict management has made the stage… is as if all are afraid to voice an opinion on war without being labelled a traitor or naive or any other insult they can think of…..

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!


I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

What Happened To Foreign Policy?

I am a foreign policy wonk and spend a lot of time on international issues when not writing about the most broken political system this country has seen in a very long time.

It is not secret that I am not a fan of Trump’s foreign policy….to be honest there were some decisions he made that I agreed with but then he would walk back that decision and he lost me again.

So it leads me to ask….what has happened to our foreign policy?

President Trump campaigned and was elected on an anti-neocon platform: he promised to reduce direct US involvement in areas where, he believed, America had no vital strategic interest, including in Ukraine. He also promised a new détente (“cooperation”) with Moscow.

And yet, as we have learned from their recent congressional testimony, key members of his own National Security Council did not share his views and indeed were opposed to them. Certainly, this was true of Fiona Hill and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman. Both of them seemed prepared for a highly risky confrontation with Russia over Ukraine, though whether retroactively because of Moscow’s 2014 annexation of Crimea or for more general reasons was not entirely clear.

How did this unusual and dysfunctional situation come about? One possibility is that it was the doing and legacy of the neocon John Bolton, briefly Trump’s national security adviser. But this doesn’t explain why the president would accept or long tolerate such appointees.

Part of the problem, other than the president’s temperament, is the country is losing many lifetime diplomats and DoD members…people that put our foreign policy to work…..

This month, December, we will lose 5 of the top people at DoD….

Since Dec. 5, the following officials have tendered their resignations:

  • Tina Kaidanow, senior advisor for international cooperation.
  • Kari Bingen, principal deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence.
  • Randall Schriver, assistant defense secretary for Indo-Pacific security affairs.
  • Jimmy Stewart, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness.
  • Steven Walker, director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

Separately, Defense Secretary Mark Esper fired then-Navy Secretary Richard Spencer on Nov. 24. Esper later told reporters he was “flabbergasted” to learn that Spencer went behind his back to try to negotiate a deal to allow Navy SEAL Chief Eddie Gallagher retire with his trident.

Brookings is  tracking the losses from the Trump admin……

The rate of turnover among senior level advisers to President Trump has generated a great deal of attention. Below, we offer four resources to help measure and contextualize this turnover. The first set of resources tracks turnover among senior-ranking advisers in the executive office of the president (which does not include Cabinet secretaries), whereas the second set of resources tracks turnover in the Cabinet.

Tracking turnover in the Trump administration

Finally. the Trump admin has NOT lost the last of the top advisers in State or DoD…..

2020 will be very telling on the direction this country will travel in the next decade….our foreign policy is no longer a stable instrument for international situations….chaos has replaced stability.

Will we continue to be the joke at international cocktail parties?

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Remembering The Nuremburg Trials

The Second World War has ended and the Allies are putting the remaining Nazis to trial….those that did not take the easy way out by committing suicide.

The trials were show trials for the world…the spin it was to help the world heal from the war but in reality it was nothing short of retaliation and revenge.

So now I ask…was justice served?

Do not get me wrong I am not saying that these people are guiltless….but rather that the trials were not carried out in an democratic and unbiased way.

Yes these accused were bastards and barbaric bunch….but I think the trials should have been handled in another way to prove that democracy and the rule of law prevailed.

For instance the judges were from Allied countries….UK, USA, USSR and France….4 judges and 4 alternates……the victors if you will.  A case could be made the the judges were biased.

This was just a low key Versailles Treaty….it is designed to inflict revenge on a defeated people…just as the WW1 treaty did to the German people.

“If in the end there is a generally accepted view that Nuremberg was an example of high politics masquerading as law, then the trial instead of promoting may retard the coming of the day of world law.”

Was the trials as fair as they were billed to be?

The Nuremberg War Trial has a strong claim to be considered the most significant as well as the most debatable event since the conclusion of hostilities. To those who support the trial it promises the first effective recognition of a world law for the punishment of malefactors who start wars or conduct them in bestial fashion. To the adverse critics the trial appears in many aspects a negation of principles which they regard as the heart of any system of justice under law.

This sharp division of opinion has not been fully aired largely because it relates to an issue of foreign policy upon which this nation has already acted and on which debate may seem useless or, worse, merely to impair this country’s prestige and power abroad. Moreover, to the casual newspaper reader the long-range implications of the trial are not obvious. He sees most clearly that there are in the dock a score of widely known men who plainly deserve punishment. And he is pleased to note that four victorious nations, who have not been unanimous on all post-war questions, have, by a miracle of administrative skill, united in a proceeding that is overcoming the obstacles of varied languages, professional habits, and legal traditions. But the more profound observer is aware that the foundations of the Nuremberg trial may mark a watershed of modern law.

Further Information:

Before some person decides to attack let me say….I do believe there should have been trials but that the judges should have been from Neutral countries during the war like Switzerland or Sweden…..

Any thoughts?

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Must It Be Endless?

I have made it a lifetime endeavor to study conflict (war) and analyzing cause and effect…..and since 9/11 it seems that the US is in a cycle of endless wars……most of which had little to do with the actual attacks on 9/11…….and those that defend the endless nature of conflict…..

A continuous and repetitive thread in the commentary on the decade since 9/11—one might almost call it an endless and open-ended theme—was the plaintive observation that the struggle against al-Qaida and its surrogates is somehow a “war without end.” (This is variously rendered as “perpetual war” or “endless war,” just as anti-war articles about the commitment to Iraq used to relentlessly stress the idea that there was “no end in sight.”)

I find it rather hard to see the force of this objection, or indeed this description. Was there ever a time when we involved ourselves in combat, or found ourselves involved, with any certain advance knowledge about the timeline and duration of hostilities? Are there two kinds of war, one of them term-limited? A bit like that other tempting but misleading separation of categories—between “wars of choice” and “wars of necessity”—this proves upon closer scrutiny to be a distinction without much difference.

Personally observation…..endless wars benefit NO one but those that supply the implements of war….it is about the profits not the reason for the war.

We can make peace profitable if we truly wanted to….there is the rub….there is NO WILL!

It’s Russia

All the hoopla when Our Dear Leader met with Vlad the Putin in Helsinki awhile ago just made me smile.


As an old radical I would from time to time try and let the people in my area know what was going on in Russia, USSR then, as far as social issues were…well I was attacked on multiple sides for saying anything positive about Russia….the old “Love it or Leave it” crowd.

By the way that crowd is the very same crowd that see nothing bad about Russia or its messing with our election…..the very same crowd….did you get that?  The very same people that condemned me for positive writing about Russia are the very same people that are condemning me for saying anything bad about them now.

Before Russia were godless commies…now they are a country of god fearing white people….is that the difference?  Are the Russians now acceptable because they have found religion and are mostly white?  If so, think about this….most of those running the country are the leftovers from the old Soviet system…..they may be white but for the most part they are just as anti-American as they were in the old days of the Cold War.

The thing I try to remember is that Russia is NOT the Soviet Union…….as a child of the Cold War it is hard to envision Russian any other way than an adversary…….

he American public and U.S. policymakers both have an unfortunate tendency to conflate Russia with the Soviet Union. That habit emerged again with the media and political reaction to the Helsinki summit between President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump’s critics accused him of appeasing Putin and even of committing treason for not doing enough to defend American interests and for being far too solicitous to the Russian leader. They regarded that as an unforgivable offense because Russia supposedly poses a dire threat to the United States. Hostile pundits and politicians charged that Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. elections constituted an attack on America akin to Pearl Harbor and 9-11 .

Trump’s supplicant behavior, opponents contended, stood in shameful contrast to the behavior of previous presidents toward tyrants, especially toward the Kremlin’s threats to America and the West. They trotted out Ronald Reagan’s “evil empire” speech and his later demand that Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall as examples of how Trump should have acted.

I will admit there were certain parts of a Soviet society that was appealing… care, education, employment, etc……again these were  social issues not ideology (you see I can separate the two something most Americans found difficult)

My point is that it is a hard habit to break…….I do not think that the Dems are trying too hard to make Russia the foe here and with the help of MSM.  I have no doubt that Russia did some hacking and that is a shame but it is no different than the techniques we have used against other nations…..

So the question remains….Is Russia the foe the media and the Dems want them to be?


This is the post where I bring all this history together……the 4 parts of this post can be read here if the reader needs to get caught up…….

In today’s world war is an ever day occurrence ….and as usual these conflicts create  massive refugee problems and since the world, most of the world, tries desperately to ignore the problem that it helped create……..the people congregate in camps with little resources and even less aid the people turn to what has been called the “world’s oldest profession”….prostitution.

Now as the conflicts rage across the Middle East many refugees have made it to safety in Europe in countries like Germany and once there they find that all is not as they hoped for in the beginning and they have to try and make ends meet…..

Migrant women are being forced to become €10-a-time prostitutes in German refugee camps, it has been reported.

The country – which is braced for around one million asylum seekers this year – has seen a spike in violence at registration centres in recent weeks as conditions deteriorate and tempers boil over.

Sex attacks are now said to be an ‘everyday event’ while in one state alone there are understood to have been 100 cases of violence in just the last three months.

Keep in mind the term “forced”…….

The conflict in Burma (Myanmar) between the state and the Muslim population have caused a humanitarian crisis….the Rohingya Muslim female population have been driven into prostitution to buy survival supplies like food…….

As Rohingya women struggle to access even the very basics such as food and water in Bangladesh’s overcrowded camps, a flourishing sex trade offers cash in times of desperation.

Four women entered the clean-swept mud hut, took off their black shawls and sat cross-legged on the floor. When asked if they sold sex, the women stirred uncomfortably and were silent.

Later, after cups of tea, the question came up again. The women caught each other’s eyes. Slowly one of them walked across the room to shut the door, another blocked the window. Darkness fell in the small, humid hut and voices turned to whispers.

“If anyone finds out what we do, they will kill us,” murmured 26-year-old Romida.

Then we turn to the civil war raging in Syria that has created about a million plus refugees many on the borders of the country like in Jordan……..

Walk among the plastic tents in one corner of this sprawling, dust-swept desert camp packed with Syrian refugees, and a young woman in a white headscarf signals.

“Come in, you’ll have a good time,” suggests Nada, 19, who escaped from the southern border town of Daraa into Jordan several months ago. Her father, sporting a salt-and-pepper beard and a ……..traditional red-checkered headscarf, sits outside under the scorching sun, watching silently.

My point in all that I have written is that no matter where these charities go or where the peacekeeper go there are those that are driven to prostitution to make ends meet….then why not use these women to satisfy any carnal desires these men may have……once again this is what I posted about a report of sexual abuse by MSF

Doctors Without Borders

My look into the military and prostitution was a bit of an eye opener…..again I am not advocating the use of force in ny way shape or form…..but it there is a solution to the amount of reported attacks on women by soldiers and/or peacekeepers……this is NOT a perfect world and there is NO perfect solution to the problems I have described.

As always I try to give a solution to problems instead of just bitching about them……those “solutions” are not always popular.

Side Note:  There has been a debate raging for decades on whether to legalize prostitution or not…..for those interested I have posted a link to that debate… interesting debate and a debate that needs to be had at the highest levels…….there are many aspects to the subject and most have been debated on referenced site…….read what has been said and let me know you thoughts……..

Thanx for bearing with me on this trip through history…….chuq