1. The Military Will Prep for an Arctic Incursion

Canada’s military is finally treating the Arctic like the wild frontier it is: strategically positioned, resource-rich and increasingly crowded. China is coveting the North’s vast deposits of copper, nickel, lithium and cobalt, while melting sea ice is opening new shipping lanes through the Northwest Passage, giving Chinese submarines and research vessels (a.k.a. spy ships) new routes through Canadian waters. (Russia, too, is known to deploy “ghost” ships to snoop.) Canada is gearing up with new helicopters, rapid-response navy capabilities and a joint project with Australia to build a next-gen Arctic radar system.

2. While Carney Will Invest Billions in Defense

If the last year has taught us anything, it’s that our relationship with our southern neighbor is nowhere near as friendly as we thought it was. Our false sense of security has put us way behind on our NATO-prescribed military spending. In June, Mark Carney, alongside all other NATO nations, pledged to devote at least five per cent of the national GDP to defense by 2035—and his first federal budget is a strong start, boosting military spending by $84 billion over five years, the largest line item outside of infrastructure and productivity investments. On the shopping list: new armored vehicles, drone-tech improvements and cyber defense infrastructure, along with funds for recruiting personnel and expanding Canada’s defense industry.

3. Nation-Building Will Commence

First up in Carney’s sovereignty project is a massive effort to create new infrastructure and diversify trade. Created under the Building Canada Act, the Major Projects Office will cut red tape, align regulators and coordinate some $116 billion worth of investment. In September, it announced its first slate of priority projects: doubling LNG production in Kitimat, B.C., building a small modular nuclear reactor in Darlington, Ontario, expanding Montreal’s container terminal in Contrecœur, and boosting copper output at McIlvenna Bay in Saskatchewan and Red Chris in B.C. Two months later, it added more mining, LNG and hydro projects to the mix.

4. Political Deepfakes Will Hit Your Feed

In the past year, AI-powered deepfake videos have erroneously depicted Mark Carney sharing investment tips and Justin Trudeau having affairs with members of his cabinet, all with chilling realism. Manitoba has already moved to legislate against them: its new election-misinformation bill would ban the use of altered audio or video designed to influence voters, with penalties of up to $20,000 per day for non-compliance. Beyond that, analysts warn Canada’s patchwork response is too slow, and that without a coordinated national strategy, future elections could be flooded with lies.

5. Alberta Will Ponder Secession

Last year, renegade Alberta Premier Danielle Smith lowered the threshold of signatures required to trigger a referendum on secession from 20 per cent of registered voters down to 10 per cent; around the same time, polls showed that 36 per cent of Albertans supported separation. A group called the Alberta Prosperity Project has hungrily taken up the Wexit cause, while a rival organization called Forever Canadian has already collected more than 450,000 signatures in favor of staying put.

6. The Notwithstanding Clause Will Get Its Day in Court

Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—a.k.a. the notwithstanding clause—has become a golden ticket for Canadian premiers, who have the power to invoke it whenever they want to pass laws that infringe on Charter rights. In 2026, the Supreme Court will hear two appeals protesting its use: one against the government of Saskatchewan, which is trying to ban students from changing pronouns without parental consent, and one against Quebec, which is seeking to bar public servants from wearing religious symbols. Both cases will test where Charter rights end and provincial powers begin.

7. Alberta Will Put Citizenship on Display

Starting in late 2026, Alberta will become the first Canadian province to add citizenship markers to driver’s licenses and provincial ID cards—a move Premier Danielle Smith bills as a win for convenience and security. Albertans, she argues, won’t need to juggle passports or paperwork to prove they’re Canadian, and the province says the change will streamline services and cut red tape. But tucked inside the policy is a political edge: Smith says the new marker will help safeguard elections by making it easier to verify who is eligible to vote. Critics warn it could create a visible divide between citizens and non-citizens and turn everyday identification into a proxy for immigration status.

8. Japan Will Become Our Next Big Trading Partner

Japan has almost completely cut off Russian oil and coal imports, and it’s eyeing Canada as a reliable, democratic replacement. It also wants more Canadian LNG—Mitsubishi already owns 15 per cent of LNG Canada, which began shipping to Asia in June—and is hungry for critical minerals to feed its EV battery factories. Hitachi, meanwhile, is helping Canada build its first small modular reactor. As Carney pushes to reduce Canada’s dependence on the U.S., a Pacific partnership suddenly seems inevitable.

9. The Feds Will Try to Clear the Immigration Backlog

The government may have slashed its immigration targets, but the pipeline is as full as ever: there are currently 2.2 million applications and more than 900,000 overdue. To speed things up, the feds are leaning on tech that lets officers rifle through up to a thousand cases at once, though they insist humans still make the final call. The result? Refusal letters that read like they were spat out by a bot. Lawyers have reported cases being denied due to missing documents that were in fact submitted, as well as financially secure applicants being rejected for supposedly having insufficient funds. In response, applicants will be clogging the federal court system with challenges.

10. Carney and Ford Will Face Off

Ontario Premier Doug Ford has made his name as an outspoken Trump critic, blasting his tariffs as “unjustified, unfair and frankly illegal,” threatening to cut electricity exports and calling out what he sees as trade bullying. Meanwhile, the PM is focused on calm diplomacy: quietly negotiating border agreements, coordinating with provinces on energy security and smoothing tensions over North American supply chains. Ford’s high‑octane public rebukes risk undermining Carney’s careful back-channel maneuvers. Expect fireworks as Canada balances principle and pragmatism, with each approach appealing to different voters. As for which one works better on Trump? We’re still not sure.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post Canada 2026 Predictions appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

Freedom of Speech

Freedom of speech—the right to express opinions without government restraint—is a democratic ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees free speech, though the United States, like all modern democracies, places limits on this freedom. In a series of landmark cases, the U.S. Supreme Court over the years has helped to define what types of speech are—and aren’t—protected under U.S. law.

The ancient Greeks pioneered freedom of expression as a democratic principle. The ancient Greek word “parrhesia” means “free speech,” or “to speak candidly.” The term first appeared in Greek literature around the end of the fifth century B.C.

During the classical period, parrhesia became a fundamental part of the democracy of Athens. Leaders, philosophers, playwrights and everyday Athenians were free to openly discuss politics and religion and to criticize the government in some settings.

First Amendment

In the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech.

The First Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights—the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The Bill of Rights provides constitutional protection for certain individual liberties, including freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.

The First Amendment doesn’t specify what exactly is meant by freedom of speech. Defining what types of speech should and shouldn’t be protected by law has fallen largely to the courts.

In general, the First Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas and information. On a basic level, it means that people can express an opinion (even an unpopular or unsavory one) without fear of government censorship.

It protects all forms of communication, from speeches to art and other media.

Flag Burning

While freedom of speech pertains mostly to the spoken or written word, it also protects some forms of symbolic speech. Symbolic speech is an action that expresses an idea.

Flag burning is an example of symbolic speech that is protected under the First Amendment. Gregory Lee Johnson, a youth communist, burned a flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas to protest the Reagan administration.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in 1990, reversed a Texas court’s conviction that Johnson broke the law by desecrating the flag. Texas v. Johnson invalidated statutes in Texas and 47 other states prohibiting flag burning.

When Isn’t Speech Protected?

Not all speech is protected under the First Amendment.

Forms of speech that aren’t protected include:

• Obscene material such as child pornography
• Plagiarism of copyrighted material
• Defamation (libel and slander)
• True threats

Speech inciting illegal actions or soliciting others to commit crimes aren’t protected under the First Amendment, either.

The Supreme Court decided a series of cases in 1919 that helped to define the limitations of free speech. Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917, shortly after the United States entered into World War I. The law prohibited interference in military operations or recruitment.

Socialist Party activist Charles Schenck was arrested under the Espionage Act after he distributed fliers urging young men to dodge the draft. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction by creating the “clear and present danger” standard, explaining when the government is allowed to limit free speech. In this case, they viewed draft resistant as dangerous to national security.

American labor leader and Socialist Party activist Eugene Debs also was arrested under the Espionage Act after giving a speech in 1918 encouraging others not to join the military. Debs argued that he was exercising his right to free speech and that the Espionage Act of 1917 was unconstitutional. In Debs v. United States the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Espionage Act.

Freedom of Expression

The Supreme Court has interpreted artistic freedom broadly as a form of free speech.

In most cases, freedom of expression may be restricted only if it will cause direct and imminent harm. Shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater and causing a stampede would be an example of direct and imminent harm.

In deciding cases involving artistic freedom of expression the Supreme Court leans on a principle called “content neutrality.” Content neutrality means the government can’t censor or restrict expression just because some segment of the population finds the content offensive.

Free Speech in Schools

In 1965, students at a public high school in Des Moines, Iowa, organized a silent protest against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to protest the fighting. The students were suspended from school. The principal argued that the armbands were a distraction and could possibly lead to danger for the students.

The Supreme Court didn’t bite—they ruled in favor of the students’ right to wear the armbands as a form of free speech in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District. The case set the standard for free speech in schools. However, First Amendment rights typically don’t apply in private schools.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post Freedom of Speech appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

The country of Venezuela, officially known as the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, is located on the northern coast of the South American continent.  Its territory encompasses roughly 354,000 square miles (916,445 square kilometers), on which lives the country’s estimated population of 29.1 million inhabitants.  From a natural perspective, Venezuela is considered a state with extremely high biodiversity, with habitats ranging from the Andes Mountains in the west to the Amazon Basin rainforest in the south, via extensive llanos plains and Caribbean coastline in the center and the Orinoco River Delta in the east.

Venezuela is organized as a federal presidential republic consisting of 23 states, the Capital District (covering the capital city of Caracas), and Federal Dependencies (covering Venezuela’s offshore islands). Venezuela also claims all Guyanese territory west of the Essequibo River, a 61,583 square mile tract dubbed Guayana Esequiba or the Zona en Reclamación (the “zone being reclaimed”).

Among Latin American countries, Venezuela is considered one of the most highly urbanized, as the vast majority of Venezuelans live in the cities of the north, especially in the capital, Caracas, which is also the largest city in Venezuela.  Since the discovery of oil in the early 20th century, Venezuela has been one of the world’s leading exporters of oil and has the largest oil reserves in South America. Previously an underdeveloped exporter of agricultural commodities such as coffee and cocoa, oil quickly came to dominate exports and government revenues. The 1980s oil glut led to an external debt crisis and a long-running economic crisis, which saw inflation peak at 100% in 1996 and poverty rates rise to 66% in 1995.  By 1998, the country’s per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) fell to the same level as 1963, down a third from its 1978 peak.

The fortunate recovery of oil prices after 2001 boosted the Venezuelan economy and facilitated social spending, which significantly reduced inequality and poverty, although the fallout of the 2008 global financial crisis saw a renewed economic downturn. In February 2013, Venezuela devalued its currency due to the rising shortages in the country. Shortages of items included toilet paper, milk, flour and other necessities. As of November 2013, Venezuela’s inflation had increased to 54%. This was one of the main causes of the 2014 Venezuelan protests.

History of Venezuela: Introduction

Venezuela boasts a long and storied history.  In 1522, the country was colonized by the Spanish amid resistance from the region’s indigenous people.  In 1811, the country became one of the first Spanish-American colonies to declare independence, which was not securely established until 1821, when Venezuela was included as a department of the federal republic of Gran Colombia.

Venezuela achieved full independence as a separate country in 1830.  Throughout the 19th century Venezuela suffered political turmoil and dictatorship, remaining dominated by regional caudillos (military strongmen) until the mid-20th century.

Since 1958, the country has had a series of democratic governments. Economic shocks in the 1980s and 1990s led to several political crises, including the deadly Caracazo riots of 1989, two attempted coups in 1992, and the impeachment of President Carlos Andrés Pérez for embezzlement of public funds in 1993. A collapse in confidence in the existing parties saw the 1998 election of former career officer Hugo Chávez and the launch of the Bolivarian Revolution, beginning with a 1999 Constituent Assembly to write a new Constitution of Venezuela.

Pre-History of Venezuela

Historians postulate that the first inhabitants of the Americas came from Siberia across the Bering Strait, spread over the North American continent, then moved down to Central and South America in several waves of migration. There is evidence of human habitation in what is now northwest Venezuela going back more than 15,000 years. Steady agriculture was established around the 1st millennium, leading to the first year-round settlements in the region.

Groups which were formerly nomadic began to develop into larger cultures in Venezuela, cultures that belonged to three main linguistic families: Carib, Arawak and Chibcha. By the time of the Spanish conquest at the end of the 15th century, some 300,000 to 400,000 indigenous people inhabited the region that is now Venezuela.

The warlike Carib tribes occupied the central and eastern coast of the country during this time, living off fishing and shifting agriculture. Various Arawak groups were scattered over the western plains and north up to the coast. They lived off hunting and food-gathering, and occasionally practiced farming.

The Timote-Cuica tribes, of the Chibcha linguistic family, were the most advanced of Venezuela’s pre-Hispanic societies. They lived in the Andes and developed advanced agricultural techniques, including irrigation and terracing. They were also skilled craftspeople, as we can judge by the artifacts they left behind: examples of their fine pottery are shown in museums across the country. No major architectural works have survived from the pre-colonial era, although there are some smaller sites in the Andean region that have recently been unearthed and will be opening for tourism in the next few years.

Colonial History of Venezuela

In the year 1498, on his third trip to the New World, Christopher Columbus became the first European to set foot on Venezuelan soil. Columbus anchored at the eastern tip of the Península de Paria, just opposite what is now the city of Trinidad.  He originally believed that he was on another island, but the voluminous mouth of the Río Orinoco hinted that he had stumbled onto something slightly larger.

A year after Columbus’ discovery, the Spanish explorer Alonso de Ojeda, accompanied by the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci, sailed up to the Península de la Guajira, at the western end of present-day Venezuela.  Upon entering Lago de Maracaibo, the Spaniards saw the local indigenous people living in palafitos (thatched huts on stilts above the water). They called the land “Venezuela,” literally “Little Venice,” perhaps as a sarcastic sailor joke, as these rustic reed dwellings didn’t exactly match the opulent palaces of the Italian city they knew. The name of Venezuela appeared for the first time on a map in 1500 and has remained to this day. Laguna de Sinamaica is reputedly the place where the first Spanish sailors saw the palafitos, and you can see similar huts there today.

Alonso de Ojeda sailed further west along the coast and briefly explored parts of what is now the country of Colombia. He saw local aborigines wearing gold adornments and was astonished by their wealth. Their stories about fabulous treasures inland gave birth to the myth of El Dorado (The Golden One), a mysterious land abundant in gold. Attracted by these supposed riches, the shores of Venezuela and Colombia became the target of a number of Spanish expeditions, an obsession with El Dorado driving them into the interior. Their search resulted in the rapid colonization of the land, though El Dorado was naturally never found.

The Spanish established their first settlement on Venezuelan soil around 1500, at Nueva Cádiz, on the small island of Cubagua, just south of Isla de Margarita. Pearl harvesting provided a livelihood for the settlers, and the town developed into a busy port until an earthquake and tidal wave destroyed it in 1541. The earliest Venezuelan town that is still in existence, Cumaná, on the northeast coast, dates back to 1521 and is an enjoyable place to visit, even though earthquakes ruined much of the early Spanish colonial architecture.

From an official standpoint, most of Venezuela was ruled by Spain from Santo Domingo (present-day capital of the Dominican Republic) until 1717, when it fell under the administration of the newly created viceroyalty of Nueva Granada, with its capital in Bogotá, Colombia.

The colony’s population of indigenous communities and Spanish invaders diversified with the arrival of black slaves, brought from Africa to serve as the workforce in a number of agricultural pursuits. Most of them were set to work on plantations on the Caribbean coast. By the 18th century, Africans had surpassed the indigenous population in terms of number.

Independence: History of Venezuela in the Early 19 Century

With but a few exploited gold mines, Venezuela lurked in the shadows of the Spanish Empire for its first three centuries. However, the country took a more prominent role at the beginning of the 19th century, when Venezuela gave Latin America one of its greatest heroes: a man named Simón Bolívar.

Venezuela longed to be out from under the thumb of the Spanish Empire, and in 1806 a revolutionary by the name of Francisco de Miranda lit the initial flame for that cause. However, his efforts to set up an independent administration in Caracas ended when fellow conspirators handed him over to the Spanish. He was shipped to Spain and died in jail. Bolívar then assumed leadership of the revolution. After unsuccessful initial attempts to defeat the Spaniards at home, he withdrew to Colombia, then to Jamaica, until the opportune moment came in 1817.

The Napoleonic Wars had just ended in Europe, and Bolívar’s agent in London was able to raise money and arms, and recruit a small number of British Legion veterans of the Peninsular War. With this force and an army of horsemen from Los Llanos, Bolívar marched over the Andes and defeated the Spanish at the Battle of Boyacá, bringing independence to Colombia in August of 1819. Four months later in Angostura (present-day Ciudad Bolívar), the Angostura Congress proclaimed Gran Colombia (Great Colombia), a new state unifying what are now the sovereign countries of Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador (though the last two were still under Spanish rule). The memories of the event are still alive in Ciudad Bolívar, and you can see the great mansion where the first congress debated. Venezuela’s liberation came on June 24, 1821 at Carabobo, where Bolívar’s troops defeated the Spanish royalist army.

Although Venezuela was seen as the least important of Gran Colombia’s three provinces, the country bore the brunt of the fighting. Venezuelan patriots fought not only on their own territory, but also in the armies that Bolívar led into Colombia and down the Pacific Coast. By the end of 1824, Bolívar and his assistants had liberated Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia. It’s estimated that a quarter of the Venezuelan population died in the independence wars.

Gran Colombia and the History of Venezuela in the Late 19 Century

Bolívar’s vision of a unified republic fell apart even before he died in 1830. On his deathbed, he proclaimed: “America is ungovernable. The man who serves a revolution plows the sea. This nation will fall inevitably into the hands of the unruly mob and then will pass into the hands of almost indistinguishable petty tyrants.” Sadly, he was not far off the mark with those statements. The three-province state of Gran Colombia began to collapse from the moment of its birth; the central regime was incapable of governing the immense country with its racial and regional differences. The new state existed for only a decade before splitting into three separate countries.

Following Venezuela’s separation and departure from Gran Colombia, the Venezuelan congress approved a new constitution and—quite incredibly—banned Bolívar from his own homeland.  In fact, it took the Venezuelan nation 12 long years to finally acknowledge its debt to the man to whom it owed its very freedom. In 1842, Bolívar’s remains were brought from Santa Marta, Colombia, where he died, to Caracas and entombed in the national cathedral.  In 1876 they were solemnly transferred to the Panteón Nacional in Caracas, where they now rest in a bronze sarcophagus.

The year 1830, when Venezuela achieved its full independence as a separate country, marked the beginning of the era of “indistinguishable petty tyrants.” The post-independence period in Venezuela was marked by serious governmental problems that continued for more than a century. These were times of despotism and anarchy, with the country being ruled by a series of military dictators known as caudillos.

The first of the caudillos was General José Antonio Páez, who controlled the country for 18 long years (1830–48). It was a tough rule, but it established a certain political stability and put the weak economy on its feet. The period that followed was an almost uninterrupted chain of civil wars that was only stopped by another long-lived dictator, General Antonio Guzmán Blanco (1870–88). Blanco launched a broad program of reform, including a new constitution, and assured some temporary stability, but his despotic rule triggered wide, popular opposition, and when he stepped down the country plunged again into a bloody civil war.

During the 1840s, Venezuela raised the question of its eastern border with British Guiana (present-day Guyana); claiming for its own as much as two-thirds of Guiana, up to the Río Esequibo. The issue was a subject of lengthy diplomatic negotiations and was eventually settled in 1899 by an arbitration tribunal, which gave rights over the questioned territory to Great Britain. Despite the ruling, Venezuela maintains its claim to this day. All maps produced in Venezuela have this chunk of Guyana within Venezuela’s boundaries, labeled “Zona en Reclamación.”

Yet another conflict that led to serious international tension was Venezuela’s failure to meet payments to Great Britain, Italy and Germany on loans accumulated during the government of yet another caudillo, General Cipriano Castro (1899–1908). In response, the three European countries sent their navies to blockade Venezuelan seaports in 1902.

History of Venezuela in the 20 Century

The first half of the 20th century was dominated by five successive military rulers from the Andean state of Táchira. The longest lasting and most tyrannical of these was the General Juan Vicente Gómez, who seized power in 1908 and didn’t relinquish it until his death in 1935. During his ruthless reign, Gómez phased out the parliament, squelched the opposition and monopolized power.

The discovery of oil in the 1910s helped the Gómez regime put the national economy on its feet. By the late 1920s, Venezuela was the world’s largest exporter of oil, which not only contributed to economic recovery but also enabled the government to pay off the country’s entire foreign debt. As in most oil-rich-states, almost none of the oil wealth made its way to the common citizens. The overwhelming majority of Venezuelans continued to subsist in poverty with little or no educational or health facilities, let alone reasonable housing. Fast oil money also led to the neglect of agriculture and to the development of other types of production. It was easier to just import everything from abroad, which worked for a while, but proved to be unsustainable.

Tensions in Venezuela rose treacherously during the following dictatorships, exploding in 1945 when Rómulo Betancourt, leader of the left-wing Acción Democrática (AD) party, took control of the government. A new constitution was adopted in 1947, and the noted novelist Rómulo Gallegos became president in Venezuela’s first democratic election. The inevitable coup took place only eight months after Gallegos’ election, with Colonel Marcos Pérez Jiménez emerging as the leader. Once in control, he smashed the opposition and plowed oil money into public works and built up Caracas. He superficially modernized the country but the mushrooming development did not heal the country’s economic and social disparities, nor did it quell the bitter resentment that lingered from the coup.

Pérez Jiménez was overthrown in 1958 by an alliance of civilians and navy and air-force officers. The country returned to democratic rule and Rómulo Betancourt was elected president. He enjoyed popular support and actually completed the constitutional five-year term of office – the first democratically elected Venezuelan president to do so. Since then, all changes of president have been by constitutional means, although the last decade has seen a few hiccups.

During the prescribed term of President Rafael Caldera (1969–74), the steady stream of oil money flowed into the country’s coffers keeping the economy buoyant. President Carlos Andrés Pérez (1974–79) also benefited from the oil bonanza; not only did production of oil rise but, more importantly, the price quadrupled following the Arab-Israeli war in 1973. In 1975 Pérez nationalized the iron-ore and oil industries and went on a spending spree; imported luxury goods were in large supply in the country’s crammed shops and the nation got the impression that the mythical riches of El Dorado had finally materialized.

In the late 1970s, the growing international recession and oil glut began to shake Venezuela’s economy to the core. Oil revenues declined, heightening unemployment and inflation, and once more forcing the country into foreign debt. The 1988 drop in world oil prices cut the country’s revenue in half, casting doubt on Venezuela’s ability to pay off its debt. Austerity measures introduced in 1989 by Pérez Jiménez (elected for the second time) triggered a wave of protests, culminating in the loss of more than 300 lives in three days of bloody riots known as “El Caracazo.” Further austerity measures sparked protests that often escalated into riots. Strikes and street demonstrations continued to be part of everyday life in Venezuela.

To make matters even worse, there were two attempted coups d’état that occurred in Venezuela in 1992. The first, in February of that year, was led by paratrooper Colonel Hugo Chávez.  Shooting throughout Caracas claimed more than 20 lives, but the government retained control. Chávez was sentenced to long-term imprisonment. The second attempt, in November, was led by junior air-force officers. The air battle over Caracas, with war planes flying between skyscrapers, gave the coup a cinematic, if not apocalyptic, dimension. The Palacio de Miraflores, the presidential palace, was bombed and partially destroyed. The army was called to defend the president, and this time more than 100 people died.

Corruption, bank failures and loan defaults plagued the government through the mid-1990s. In 1995, Venezuela was forced to devalue the currency by more than 70%. By the end of 1998, two-thirds of Venezuela’s 23 million inhabitants were living below the poverty line. Drug-trafficking and crime had increased and Colombian guerrillas had dramatically expanded their operations into Venezuela’s frontier areas.

Hugo Chávez and the History of Venezuela in the 21 Century

When it comes to politics, there is perhaps nothing more noteworthy than a dramatic comeback, and that’s exactly what Venezuela witnessed toward the close of the 20 century.  The 1998 presidential election in Venezuela put Hugo Chávez, the leader of the 1992 failed coup, into the presidency.  After being pardoned in 1994, Chávez embarked on an aggressive populist campaign: comparing himself to Bolívar, promising help (and handouts) to the poorest masses and positioning himself in opposition to the US-influenced free-market economy. He vowed to produce a great, if vague, “peaceful and democratic social revolution.”

After his victory in the election, however, Chávez’ “social revolution” was anything but peaceful. Shortly after taking office, Chávez set about rewriting the constitution. The new document was approved in a referendum in December 1999, granting him new and sweeping powers. The introduction of a package of new decree laws in 2001 was met with angry protests, and was followed by a massive and violent strike in April 2002. It culminated in a coup d’état run by military leaders sponsored by a business lobby, in which Chávez was forced to resign. He regained power two days later, but this only intensified the conflict.

While the popular tensions rose, in December 2002 the opposition called a general strike in an effort to oust the president. The nationwide strike paralyzed the country, including its vital oil industry and a good part of the private sector. After 63 days, the opposition finally called off the strike, which had cost the country 7.6% of its GDP and further devastated the oil-based economy. Chávez again survived and claimed victory.

National politics continued to be shaky until Chávez won a 2004 referendum and consolidated his already sweeping power. Emboldened by greater political support and his pockets engorged by high oil prices, Chávez quickly moved to expand his influence beyond the borders of Venezuela, reaching out to other Leftist leaders in Bolivia, Argentina, Cuba, Uruguay, Chile and Brazil. He had openly allied himself with Cuba’s Castro regime, supported the successful Leftist candidacy of Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Leftist candidates in Peru and Mexico who did not win office.

In 2005, shortly after Caracas hosted the 6th World Social Forum, Chávez started a highly publicized and dubiously intentioned program to provide reduced-priced heating oil for impoverished people in the United States. The program was expanded in 2006 to include four of New York City’s five boroughs, providing 25 million gallons of fuel for low-income New Yorkers at 40% off the wholesale price. While the program obviously aided hundreds of thousands of poor New Yorkers, it was used as a political jab to Chávez’s then enemy, former U.S. President George W Bush.

The end of 2006 was enveloped in the lead-up to the December 3 presidential election. Chávez’ closest challenger, Manuel Rosales, accused the president of providing impractical political favors and aid to other countries while poverty and crime increased at home, and also challenged Chávez’ government-approved land takeovers (for redistribution to the landless) and the military build-up for a hypothetical U.S. invasion. Chávez wrote Rosales off as a lackey for the United States and refused to debate him on TV. Chávez won again with the Organization of American States and the Carter Center certifying the results.

Chávez came out of the Socialist closet during his second term, further increasing public works and social programs to benefit the poor (bringing basic healthcare to the barrios, for example) and nationalizing the country’s largest telecommunication, cement and steel companies, the majority of its electricity industry and many hotels, recreational and transport facilities. He has also managed to instill the idea of inclusion in politics among the general population whereas previous governments blatantly excluded all but the highest echelons of society.

Despite contributing to Venezuela’s deep oil pockets and an improved life for the poor, Chávez’s popularity started to wane. Infrastructure upgrades, such as improved roads and bridges, shiny new subways and barrio teleféricos (cable cars) kept up appearances, but the decade ended with Venezuela struggling to combat a very serious energy and water shortage, a crisis that has struck the heart of the middle and upper classes. Widespread blackouts were commonplace throughout the country and Chávez called on all Venezuelans to limit their showers to three minutes only (a “Communist shower,” he said).

As 2010 was ushered in, so was water rationing, with Caracas temporarily taking the brunt of the blow: Up to 48 hours per week without water. Chávez supporters balked at the idea, however, and rations were suspended in Caracas, amplifying the problem elsewhere and sparking protests in Mérida. Electricity Minister Ángel Rodríguez was removed from office over the debacle, but the cabinet shakeup didn’t stop there: In January alone, the Vice-President and Defense Minister, Ramón Carrizalez, and his wife, Environment Minister Yubirí Ortega; and the Minister for Public Banking, Eugenio Vásquez Orellana, all resigned. Rumors blamed the electricity crisis on a disagreement with government policy, though all three politicians denied this. A month later, the energy crisis deteriorated to the point that Chávez issued a state of emergency.

Chávez also instilled many controversial policies to combat the country’s wild inflation and debilitating economy, including price controls on basic foodstuffs, a move that, on one hand, allows families to purchase the same amount of basic food with the same amount of money despite inflation; but sparked occasional food shortages of basics like milk and sugar on the other.  In January of 2010, Chávez announced a sharp devaluation of the currency known as the bolívar fuerte—the first since 2005—thus creating a two-tier official exchange rate in Venezuela, a move designed to boost revenue from oil exports and limit unnecessary imports.  However, the people of Venezuela, fearing widespread price increases and astronomical inflation, mobbed imported electronics stores. Chávez condemned stores that raised their prices and acted: The Venezuelan Institute for the Defense of People in Their Access to Goods and Service shut down dozens of stores for price-gouging.

Elsewhere, strict currency controls meant that Venezuelans who travel abroad were only allowed a rationing of $2,500 in credit card and $500 cash per year to spend outside the country, leaving some feeling trapped within their own borders; and car showrooms were (and continue to be) virtually empty.

Although Brazil’s controversial approval of Venezuela’s entry into Mercosur was a major victory for Chávez and bilateral trade, Chávez’s foreign relationships weren’t faring much better than his domestic economy. Bi-national relations with Colombia remained extremely fragile over the neighboring country’s accusations that Venezuela was supplying arms to FARC rebels and its decision to allow US troops to operate out of seven of its military bases. Chávez banned Colombian car imports and built up troops at the border after several suspicious, cross-border deaths on both sides. Things got personal over these bi-national issues during a private meeting of heads-of-state at the Group of Rio summit in Cancun in February 2010, when Colombian President Álvaro Uribe scoffed at Chávez: “‘Be a man…you’re brave speaking at a distance, but a coward when it comes to talking face to face.” Chávez nearly stormed out.

Some popularity surveys, including one by the group known as Datanálisis, showed that Chávez’s approval rating in 2011 had fell to 46% – the first drop below 50% since 2004.  These numbers seemed to indicate that the controversial leader was running out of gas. 

Despite his waning popularity, Chávez, even after a publicized battle with colon cancer, declared his intentions to run for a fourth six-year term in the elections of 2012.  Chavez was indeed reelected in 2012, and while he did begin his fourth term on January 10, 2013, he eventually succumbed to his illness and died less than 2 months later on March 5, 2013.

Vice President, Nicolas Maduro, took over the presidential powers and duties for the remainder of Chávez’s abbreviated term until presidential elections were held. Today, Maduro continues to serve as the president of Venezuela.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post A Brief History of Venezuela appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

In the modern world, few inventions have had such a profound impact on global security, politics, and human history as the nuclear weapon. Since its first detonation during World War II, nuclear weapons have remained a subject of intense debate, fear, and fascination. They are symbols of the immense power and potential for destruction contained within the atom. Yet, their existence raises important questions about how nations interact, how power is measured, and how the future of humanity can be shaped in an era where nuclear warfare remains a real possibility.

At their core, nuclear weapons are devices designed to release an enormous amount of energy through nuclear reactions, either by splitting atoms (fission) or combining them (fusion). This energy is capable of destroying entire cities in a single flash, instantly vaporizing people, buildings, and infrastructure. But nuclear weapons are not just physical objects; they are symbols of geopolitics, deterrence, and the delicate balance of peace and war in the modern world.

The Science Behind Nuclear Weapons

To understand the immense power of nuclear weapons, one must first understand the science behind them. At the heart of a nuclear weapon is the concept of energy release through nuclear reactions. The two most commonly used reactions in nuclear weapons are nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

Nuclear Fission: Splitting the Atom

Nuclear fission is the process that powers atomic bombs. In this reaction, the nucleus of a heavy atom, typically uranium-235 or plutonium-239, is split into two smaller nuclei, along with several neutrons and a significant amount of energy. This energy is released in the form of an explosive burst. When one atom undergoes fission, it releases neutrons that can trigger fission in nearby atoms, causing a chain reaction. If the material is in a sufficient quantity and properly arranged, this chain reaction becomes uncontrollable, leading to a massive release of energy.

The first atomic bombs, like those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, used uranium-235 and plutonium-239 for fission. The precise arrangement and mass of these materials are critical to ensure the reaction is rapid and efficient, maximizing the explosion’s energy output.

Nuclear Fusion: Combining Atoms

Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, is the process that powers hydrogen bombs, which are significantly more powerful than fission bombs. In fusion, light atomic nuclei, typically isotopes of hydrogen like deuterium and tritium, combine to form a heavier nucleus, releasing a tremendous amount of energy in the process. This is the same reaction that powers the sun. Fusion bombs, also known as thermonuclear weapons, use a fission bomb as a trigger to provide the extremely high temperatures and pressures necessary for fusion to occur.

Fusion weapons are much more powerful than fission bombs and can produce explosions with yields many times greater than those of traditional atomic bombs. The scale of destruction from a thermonuclear bomb can wipe out entire regions, causing immense loss of life and environmental damage.

The History of Nuclear Weapons

The history of nuclear weapons is deeply intertwined with the 20th century’s major geopolitical events, particularly World War II and the Cold War. Understanding this history is crucial for comprehending how nuclear weapons became a central element of global military strategy and international relations.

The Manhattan Project: Birth of the Atomic Bomb

The journey towards the development of nuclear weapons began in the 1930s, when scientists first discovered that the atom could be split to release energy. In 1938, German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann made the groundbreaking discovery of nuclear fission, and soon thereafter, physicists realized that this reaction could be used to release immense amounts of energy. It didn’t take long for military leaders around the world to see the potential of nuclear technology as a new form of warfare.

The U.S. government, concerned that Nazi Germany might be developing nuclear weapons, initiated the Manhattan Project in 1942. Under the leadership of physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, the project brought together some of the brightest scientific minds of the time to design the world’s first nuclear bomb. The project culminated in the Trinity test in July 1945, where the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert. This marked a new era in warfare.

The Atomic Age Begins: Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Just a few weeks after the Trinity test, the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on Japan—one on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and another on Nagasaki on August 9. These bombings marked the first and only use of nuclear weapons in warfare to date. The devastation caused by these bombs was unparalleled. In an instant, tens of thousands of people were killed, and many more would die later from radiation sickness, injuries, and long-term health effects.

The bombings played a significant role in Japan’s surrender and the end of World War II. However, they also sparked an intense moral and philosophical debate about the use of such destructive weapons. The world had entered the atomic age, and humanity was now faced with the realization that such power could be used to destroy entire civilizations.

The Cold War and the Arms Race

In the years following World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union entered a period of intense geopolitical rivalry known as the Cold War. Both superpowers sought to expand their influence worldwide, and this competition extended to the development of nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in 1949, starting an arms race that would last for decades.

The Cold War era saw the development of ever-more powerful nuclear weapons. The U.S. tested the first hydrogen bomb in 1952, followed by the Soviet Union in 1953. These weapons, capable of enormous destruction, fundamentally altered the nature of warfare and international relations. Both sides developed vast arsenals of nuclear weapons, and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) emerged, where both the U.S. and the USSR understood that any nuclear exchange would lead to the annihilation of both nations.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty and Global Efforts

As the nuclear arms race escalated, the international community grew increasingly concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), signed in 1968, aimed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons while promoting peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The treaty established a framework for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, with the goal of limiting the number of countries that could develop nuclear weapons.

While the NPT succeeded in limiting the number of nuclear-armed nations, it also created divisions, as several countries—including India, Pakistan, and Israel—pursued their own nuclear weapons programs outside the treaty framework. In the decades that followed, efforts to reduce global nuclear arsenals through arms control agreements, such as the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), sought to curb the growth of nuclear weapons.

The Impact of Nuclear Weapons

The power of nuclear weapons is staggering, but their effects extend far beyond the immediate destruction caused by a blast. The long-term consequences of a nuclear detonation are felt in various ways: environmental damage, health consequences, geopolitical ramifications, and the psychological trauma experienced by survivors.

Immediate Effects: Devastation on a Global Scale

The immediate effects of a nuclear explosion are catastrophic. The bomb detonates with a flash of intense light, followed by an explosion that sends shockwaves across the landscape. Buildings are flattened, fires ignite, and anyone within the blast radius is either vaporized or severely injured. The force of the blast can cause extreme destruction miles from the epicenter, while the thermal radiation causes third-degree burns and ignites fires across vast areas.

In addition to the blast and thermal effects, a nuclear explosion also releases intense ionizing radiation. This radiation can cause acute radiation sickness, with symptoms ranging from nausea and vomiting to organ failure and death. Radiation exposure also increases the risk of cancer and genetic mutations in the long term.

Fallout and the Aftermath

One of the most enduring dangers of nuclear weapons is the fallout, or radioactive particles that are carried by wind currents after an explosion. Fallout can contaminate large areas, poisoning water supplies, soil, and air. The effects of fallout can last for decades, causing long-term health issues, environmental degradation, and economic disruption.

The cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were bombed in 1945, remain a stark reminder of the long-term effects of nuclear warfare. Survivors, known as Hibakusha, endured physical and emotional scars that lasted for their entire lives. In addition to the immediate health consequences, they suffered from discrimination and social stigma, as the effects of radiation were often misunderstood.

Psychological Impact: A World Living in Fear

Perhaps one of the most insidious effects of nuclear weapons is their psychological impact. The constant threat of nuclear war during the Cold War created a climate of fear and anxiety that permeated everyday life. People lived under the shadow of mutually assured destruction, never knowing if a single miscalculation could lead to the end of civilization.

In the modern world, while the direct threat of nuclear war may have diminished, the psychological toll remains. The mere existence of nuclear weapons creates an atmosphere of instability, as countries continue to build and stockpile these weapons, and the fear of nuclear terrorism or accidents looms large.

The Future of Nuclear Weapons

As the world moves forward, the future of nuclear weapons remains uncertain. While the Cold War is over, the threat of nuclear proliferation has not disappeared. Several countries that do not possess nuclear weapons have expressed interest in developing them, and the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors or terrorists remains a major concern.

Efforts to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons continue, with many advocating for a world free of nuclear weapons. However, achieving this goal will require significant diplomatic, technological, and political efforts. The challenges are immense, but the potential for a safer, more peaceful world is worth striving for.

The future of nuclear weapons is intricately linked to global security and the decisions made by world leaders. The pursuit of disarmament, non-proliferation, and responsible stewardship of nuclear technology will determine whether humanity continues to live in the shadow of the bomb or whether we move toward a world where nuclear weapons are relegated to history’s dark past.

Conclusion

Nuclear weapons are among the most powerful and destructive forces ever created by humankind. They represent the incredible potential of science and technology, but also the darker side of human ambition. From their inception in the Manhattan Project to their role in the Cold War and their continued existence today, nuclear weapons have left an indelible mark on the course of history.

The question of whether humanity can coexist with these weapons or whether we will eventually move toward a world free from nuclear arms is still unresolved. What is certain is that the story of nuclear weapons is far from over, and their impact—both physical and psychological—will continue to shape the future of our planet for generations to come.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post The History of Nuclear Weapons appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

From the US assassination of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani to the ongoing case of the jailed mother Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, Iran has scarcely been out of the headlines in recent months. But how far back does the history of Iran stretch? Here, Professor Ali M Ansari from the University of St Andrews charts the country’s historical lineage, the emergence of Islam and Shiism, and Iran’s attempts to reconcile its traditions with the modern world.

Iran enjoys one of the richest historical lineages of any modern state stretching back several thousand years. This history can be broadly divided into three epochs: the pre-Islamic ancient period (c559 BC to 651 AD); the Islamic era (651 AD to 1800 AD); and the modern era, defined by its encounter with Western modernity from around 1800.

The pre-Islamic ancient period

‘Iranian’ history proper begins with the migration of the Iranian tribes from Central Asia onto what is now known as the Iranian plateau in the 2nd millennium BC. But organised human settlement developed much earlier and Elamite civilisation in south western Iran – southern Iraq today – emerged in the third millennium. By the 1st millennium BC, two distinct Iranian states emerged in the form of the Medes and Persians and their emphatic entrance onto the world stage began with the accession of Cyrus II in 559 BC.

The Achaemenid Persian Empire grew to become the largest contiguous land empire then known to man, impressing both friend and foe alike with its relatively benign administration drawing on religious ideas that would later be associated with Zoroastrianism, the pre-Islamic religion of Iran identified with the mantra “good words, good thoughts and good deeds”. It looms large in the Western imagination because of its failed attempts to conquer the Greek states and its subsequent defeat at the hands of Alexander the Great some 150 years later in the 330s BC. Hellenized rule under Alexander’s successors – the Seleucids – lasted a century until the arrival of a new Iranian dynasty from the east, the Parthians.

The Parthian Empire

The Parthian Empire reshaped Iranian history by importing myths and legends from the east and supplanting the Achaemenids in popular memory. This decentralised kingdom – in which the king was first among equals; a king over other kings, if you will – made up for its fractiousness with longevity (it is the longest lived of all Iranian dynasties) and proved a serious foe to the emergent Roman empire, inflicting upon it one of its greatest defeats. This was at the plains of Carrhae in 53 BC, where the Roman commander Crassus (famous for his defeat of Spartacus) was decisively defeated by a smaller Parthian force largely composed of horse archers, losing some two-thirds of his legions and several ‘eagles’ [Romans Standards]. After 500 years, in 224 AD the Parthians were in turn overthrown by another dynasty, this time from the heartlands of Persia itself, the Sasanians.

The Sasanians were undoubtedly the heirs of the Parthians but their empire was more centralised and the ‘king of kings’ was more than a first among equals. Administration was consolidated and Zoroastrianism was promoted as an official and increasingly well-defined creed. In time Sasanian kings, most notably Khusrau II, would come to symbolise all that was good about pre-Islamic Iran and its administration.

Like their predecessors, the Sasanians proved formidable opponents to the Roman and then Byzantine Empires, engaging in a cycle of conflicts which ultimately exhausted both empires and made them vulnerable to hitherto unforeseen challenges.

The Islamic era

In the 7^th century a new power emerged from the Arabian Peninsula – Islam. Defeating the Byzantines, the Muslim Arab armies eventually conquered and absorbed the Sasanian empire into the new Caliphate. The Iranian empire was too large a morsel for the Caliphate to fully digest, with the result that Iranian ideas on the nature and practice of ‘just’ government and culture began to shape the way in which the Caliphate developed.

Islam transformed the Iranian world view, but the political and religious culture of the Islamic world was in turn shaped by the profound legacy of ancient Iran and many of the leading administrative and scientific minds of the classical Islamic age including the polymath Ibn Sina (Avicenna) and the famous vizierial (ministerial) family of the Barmakids, emanated from the Iranian world.

Indeed the emphatic influence of the Iranian world was made clear with the emergence of the Abbasid Caliphate in 749 AD and the transfer of the capital from Damascus to the newly founded city of Baghdad (around 762 AD), not far from the old Sasanian capital. This Iranian turn was exemplified by the development of the ‘new’ Persian language, now empowered with the adoption of the Arabic alphabet to become the lingua franca of the eastern Islamic world, and in time one of the great literary languages of the world.

The Islamic era would witness another profound development in the history of Iran with the entrance of the Turkic peoples from central Asia from the 11th century, but most consequentially with the eruption of the Mongols (nomadic warriors from the steppes of inner Asia) in the 13th century. The Mongol conquest facilitated the migration of the Turkic tribes onto the plateau – forcing a knock-on migration of Iranians onto the Anatolian plateau – fundamentally altering the political economy of the country from one which was largely sedentary to one with a significant nomadic component, especially in the northern parts of the country.

Moreover, Mongol and Turkic words (such as ‘Khan’) feed into the Persian language adding further dimension to the vocabulary of an already rich and diverse language. In economic terms, however, the wave of nomadic invasions beginning with the Mongols and culminating in the devastation wrought by Tamerlane in the 14th century, resulted in widespread economic dislocation. It was to be many years before the economic lifeblood returned in any meaningful sense.

At the same time, taking the long view, the Mongol conquests ensured that ‘Iran’ as a distinct political entity re-emerged after centuries of seclusion within the wider Islamic world. It says something of the cultural confidence and richness of Iranian civilisation that it was able to re-form as a distinct state in its own right and by the 16th century a new dynasty was to emerge which would add further layers to this distinctiveness.

Iran had been absorbed into the Caliphate but had retained its own language and culture such that it began to influence the shape and direction of travel of the Islamic world. Even the Turkic nomads would in turn come to appreciate the cultural powerhouse that Iran and the Persian world represented, adopting and adapting many of its cultural attributes including the Persian language. With the rise of the Safavids in the 16th century this cultural confidence was given political form once again and in order to consolidate their position the Safavids imposed the minority branch of Islam, Shiism, as the new state religion from 1501.

This proved to be something of a double-edged sword. The adoption of Shiism helped distinguish the Iranian state from its Ottoman rival to the West. But it also served to hinder political ties with the Persianate world of the east. Nonetheless, over two centuries the Safavids oversaw a flourishing of Iranian civilisation, most notably under Shah Abbas I (1587–1629), the only king after the Islamic conquest to be known as ‘the Great’. Indeed, just as Iranians ascribed all pre-Islamic achievements to the reign of Khusrau I, so too was Shah Abbas credited with all and any achievements during the Islamic period.

It was during this period that the first systematic contacts were made between Iran and Europe, as European merchants came to establish commercial, and in some cases, political, ties.

Modern challenges

It is to Iran’s misfortune that the period of the most dramatic growth in European power and western civilisation in the 18th century coincided with a period of political turmoil within Iran itself. The traumatic fall of the Safavid dynasty in 1722 resulted in decades of warfare as first Iran re-emerged empowered under the leadership of Nader Shah (1736–47), only to once again descend into turmoil following his death.

As a little-known footnote in history, it was Nader Shah’s invasion and defeat of the Mughal Empire in 1739 that paradoxically opened up India to European penetration in the 18^th century. And by the time Iran emerged from its turmoil by the end of the 18^th century it faced a whole new challenge in the Russian and British empires. These were not just political threats but ideological ones with self-confident European powers who were not in awe of Iranian civilisation – on the contrary, they regarded the political economy of the Iranian state to be archaic and dependent on the authority and despotic power of its kings.

European power approached the world with new ideas about the organisation of the state, the rule of law and constitutionalism, all of which were alien to the Iranian world but which gained traction among a group of intellectuals who regarded the salvation of Iran in the adoption of these new and innovative forms of political and economic organisation. Iranians, so used to educating the world, found themselves in the reluctant position of being the student. Throughout the 19th century Iranian intellectuals and activists sought to promote reform but were faced with the objections of reactionary elements within Iran (most notably a monarchy reluctant to concede power) and with the ambivalence of imperial European powers ultimately more anxious to maintain the balance of power.

Eventually, at the turn of the 20^th century, in 1906, the first of Iran’s revolutions – the Constitutional Revolution – established a parliamentary system on the British model, complete with a constitution and separation of powers. It was a seminal moment that altered the political landscape of the country. But its ambitions were high and its promise remained unfulfilled as a new dynasty – the Pahlavis (1925–79) – sought to impose revolution from above.

With the emergence of the Pahlavis in 1925 the revolutionary impetus of 1906 was adopted with some vigour by the new monarch supported initially by many of the intellectuals of the period who were anxious to see the creation of a modern state that would enable their many reforms to education and the judicial system to be realised. Reza Shah’s rule oversaw a transformation of the country but the reforms he oversaw were only partially fulfilled, with the growth in the power of the state not being matched by a growth in civil society and civic rights.

Overthrown following an Allied occupation (1941–46) in the turmoil of the Second World War, he was succeeded by his young son Mohammad Reza Shah (1941–79) who for the first period of his reign had to contend with growing factionalism as well as the continued interference of foreign powers. The crisis over the continued Soviet occupation of Azerbaijan was resolved in 1946, but a more serious crisis over Iran’s oil industry resulted in an Anglo-American orchestrated coup to overthrow the nationalist prime minister Dr Mohammad Mosaddeq who had encouraged the Shah to reign rather than rule. As with the revolution of 1906, the coup of 1953 was to cast a long shadow over Iranian politics and the Shah struggled to emerge from it.

Royal autocracy and the ‘Islamic’ revolution

In the 1960s the Shah felt strong enough to launch a ‘White’ revolution of his own, further transforming the socio-economic landscape of the country but failing to match these dramatic changes with a measure of political reform. Indeed, far from democratising, the 1970s witnessed a retrenchment of royal autocracy. Political stagnation with social and economic change proved to be a combustible combination to which was added a religious revival centred on the figure of Ayatollah Khomeini. By 1978 the Shah, faced with opposition from nationalists, the left and the religious groups, found himself no longer master of his political domain, increasingly at a loss as to how to react to the groundswell of discontent.

He went into exile in January 1979. Two weeks later Ayatollah Khomeini returned to the adulation of the crowds (pictured above) and in short order the monarchy was replaced by an Islamic Republic. But this new ‘Islamic’ revolution proved no more successful in reconciling Iran’s traditions with the challenges of modernity. The seizure of the US Embassy in November 1979 and the start of a protracted war with Iraq in 1980, which lasted to 1988, both scarred and defined the emergent Islamic Republic. Rampant factionalism was not expunged by the violent suppression of the Left, and the Islamic Republic has been characterised by fierce debates over the nature and character of the state dividing between those who favour the republican institutions and those who seek the establishment of an Islamic government.

The dominance of the ‘Islamists’ and the growing autocracy of the ‘supreme leader’ indicate that the problems of 1906 remain unresolved and that 1979 simply witnessed the ‘crown’ being replaced by the ‘turban’.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post Iran: A Brief History appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

Kashmir – the “paradise on Earth” of Bernier, has the proud privilege of having a history in Sanskrit (Rajatarangini) giving a lucid account of events from 3000 B.C. to 1149 A.D., including the list of kings, queens, ministers, and their military expeditions to neighboring states.

Kashmiris distinguished themselves in the production of an uninterrupted series of written records of its history, reaching back beyond the medieval times Kalhana in the 12^th century A.D. testifies to the existence of at least eleven earlier compositions on the history of Kashmir which he consulted to write his immortal and outstanding book – Rajatarangini.

The early accounts of Kashmir are referred to by various sources, both indigenous as well as foreign. The only certain reference to Kashmir that classical literature has preserved is found in Ptolemy’s Geography, wherein he referred to the region as “Kaspeiria”. Herodotos, the “Father of History” has referred to Kashmir as “Kaspatyros”. Wilson was the first who distinctly attempted to connect the name of Kashpatros with Kashmir. According to Wilson, the name Kashmir was derived from Kasyappura, a name which he supposed to have been given to the country owing to its colonization by the Raja Kashyapa.

Earlier Buddhist pilgrims from China on their way to the sacred locations of the Indian plains visited Kashmir and chose it as a resting place. According to M.A. Stein, the first clear reference to Kashmir is contained in a record dating from 541 A.D. given by an Indian envoy who reached China during the early part of the reign of the Tang Dynasty. Hiuen Tsang was the first Chinese traveler who visited Kashmir and resided here as an honored guest for two years. The records of this great Chinese pilgrim contain the fullest and most accurate description of Kashmir.

The next Chinese notice of Kashmir, with considerable historical interest, is contained in the Annals of the “Tang Dynasty”. Another Chinese pilgrim Ou-King also visited Kashmir. He reached Kashmir in the year 759 A.D. from Gandhara, by the same route as followed by Hieun Tsang. He stayed for 4 years to visit holy sites and study Sanskrit.

Muhammad bin Al-Qasim was the first Muslim (Arabian) commander who established the Arab hegemony in Sindh, Punjab, and Multan in India during 711-712 A.D. through Indus Valley, Muslim forces reached close enough to the confines of Kashmir. The Arabic literature provides enough, accurate and valuable information about ancient Kashmir. The credit goes to Alberuni – a great Muslim scholar who during his long stay at Ghazna and Punjab (1017 – 30 A.D.) had utilized every opportunity to collect information on Kashmir.

Kalhana’s immortal work Rajatarangini, composed in the year 1148 – 49 A.D. is our oldest record of the various kings and their dynasties. Kalhana, during his research, has consulted some of the compositions on the history of Kashmir i.e.; Kshemendra’s Nrapavali which chronicles Nilmatpurana. According to Kalhana, Padmamihira had obtained the information about earlier kings from Helaraja who had composed a “list of kings” (Parthivavali) Kalhana’s Rajatarangini is the only work in Indian literature that may be regarded as a historical text.

King Zain-ul-Abidin, of Kashmir, has the credit of translating Kalhana’s Rajatarangini’ into Persian during the 15^th century. Abu Fazl, the great writer during the Mughal period incorporated long abstracts of Rajatarangini in his famous book Ain-i-Akbari, under the orders of the Mughal king – Akbar. Bernier (1665 A.D.) an authority on Kashmir studies makes a mention of it in his lectures. Motorcraft during his visit to Kashmir in 1823 A.D., obtained a copy of Rajatarangini and got it translated into French by M. Troyer., Dr. Buhler and Dr. Stein were the pioneers in providing the monumental translation of the chronicles published in 1900. R.S. Pandit in 1935 A.D. translated Rajatarangini into English, highlighting its poetic and literary standards.

Parihaspura is believed to be the birthplace of Kalhana, who was a Brahmin by descent and a Saiva by faith. Kalhana’s father, Compaka, was a minister in King Harsa’s reign (1089-1101 A.D.) who remained loyal to the king until his last. Kalhana as a historian has consulted every available source, besides studying coins and inspecting old monumental structures. He is a master of accurate topography of ancient Kashmir. Sanskrit was the official and sole literary language of Kashmir, not only in Kalhana’s own time but also in those earlier periods from which the records used by him may have dated. Kalhana’s work was continued by Jonaraja, who brought the chronicle down to the reign of Sultan Zain-ul-Abidin (1420-70 A.D.). The greater part of his chronicle deals with the reign of Hindu rulers from Jayasimha to Queen Kota. His pupil Srivara, recorded historical events dating from 1459 to 1486 A.D., The 4^th chronicle titled Rajavalipataka by Prajyabhatta was completed by his pupil Shuka some years after the annexation of Kashmir by Akbar (1586 A.D.).

After the advent of Muslim rule in Kashmir, Sanskrit continued to be the official language.  With the increasing patronage of the Persian language and literature by the Muslim rulers, there are rich Persian records of the history of Kashmir by eminent Kashmiri scholars. Mulla Ahmad, Kashmiri, translated Kalhana’s Rajatarangini into Persian under the orders of King Zain-ul-Abidin. Malik Haider Chadura wrote a history of Kashmir from the earliest times to his times in Persian during 1617 A.D. during the reign of Jehangir. Haider Malik was both a historian and an architect. He designed the architectural structures of Jamia Masjid Srinagar after it was consumed by fire. The Khanqah of Mir Sham-ud-Din Iraqi was also designed by him. Another Kashmiri scholar of the Persian language and poet Narayan Koul Aijaz, in his book “Twarikh-i-Kashmir” (1710 A.D.) assesses the reigns of the Sultans and early Mughals. Khawaja Mohammad Azam Kaul of Didamar (Srinagar) wrote a historical account of Kashmir titled “Waquat-i-Kashmir” in 1735-46 A.D. Khawaja history of Kashmir. During Maharaja Ranjit Singh’s rule Pandit Birbal Kachru, wrote “History of Kashmir” in 1836 A.D. Moulvi Ghulam Hassan’s “Twarikh-i-Kashmir”, in three volumes deals with Geography, Political History, and the Arts and Crafts of Kashmir. He was an authority on Kashmir and its past. It was Moulvi Hassan of Bandipora who was the main source of providing historical and statistical information to Sir. W. Lawrence, the settlement commissioner of Kashmir.

During the middle of the 19^th century, when Urdu and English were the court languages in the state, there were valuable contributions to the history of Kashmir by Kashmiri scholars, i.e… Pandit Anand Koul (Geography of Jammu and Kashmir in 1910 A.D.); and Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Sofi (Kashir in 1949) deserve mention. Mohammad Din Fauq, a Kashmiri who settled in Lahore, wrote about the History, Geography, folklore, and origin of communities in Kashmir. He wrote in the Urdu language.

A detailed account of Kashmir, its people, agriculture, religion, architecture, arts and crafts is recorded by Mirza Haider Dughlat, a cousin of Mughal king Babar, in his Tarikh-e-Rashidi. He invaded Kashmir twice, once from Kashgar in 1533 A.D. and again from Lahore in 1540 A.D. when he ruled the valley for ten years in the name of puppet king Nazuk Shah.

The Tabaqat-i-Akbari by Nizam-ud-Din refers to the history of Kashmir from the earliest times to the conquest of the valley by Akbar, in one of its sections. “Tarikh-i-Farishta” by Mohammad Qasim Farishta contains a chapter on Kashmir. Very useful information about Akbar’s relations with Chak rulers of Kashmir is contained in A.Q. Badayunis’ “Muntakhab-ut-Tawarikh”. Abu Fazal’s “Akbar Nama” and “Ain-i-Akbari” and Jehangiri’s “Tuzk” provide rich information about the land and people of Kashmir.

Father Gerome Xavier and Benoist de Gois were the first Europeans to visit Kashmir, accompanying Akbar. They were followed by famous scholars i.e., Francis Bernier (1665 A.D.) who accompanied Aurangzeb; George Forester, Vigne (1835 A.D.); Moorcraft; Fredrick Drew; Lawrence and Lord Cunningham whose works form the bedrock of the study of Kashmir and its people.

The archaeological studies of the early sites in Kashmir supplement the old chronicles and texts. Sir W. Lawrence in his memorable work “The Valley of Kashmir” says, “Kashmir is the holy land of the Hindus and I Have rarely been in any village which cannot show old Kashmir temples, huge stone seats of Mahadeo, Phallic emblems, innumerable carved images heaped in grotesque confusion by some clear spring have met me at every turn. I have seen curious mosques built in a style, unlike the presence of wooden beams with stones between. Chance excavations, for irrigation and other works, reveal curious sculptures and interesting relics of ancient history.

It was Goerge Buhler’s remarkable visit to Kashmir in 1875 A.D., which resulted in the discovery of valuable material for a systematic study of the history of Kashmir. Dr. M.A. Stein followed the methodology of his teacher, Goerge Buhler, and thanks to his sustained labors for presenting a comprehensive knowledge of the antiquities of the valley. His memoir on the ancient geography of Kashmir is a monumental work that shows the close link that most of these ruins form in the chain of data for a study of the history of this ancient land and its people.

The study of Kashmir coins by some scholars has resulted in useful data being collected on the chronology of the Sultans and other Muslim kings from the 14^th to 17^th centuries. Such studies by C.J. Rogers, Sir Aurel Stein, and R. B. Whitehead have made considerable contributions to the ancient history of Kashmir through a study of old coins.

The Kashmiri people are perhaps the most important source of Kashmir history. Kashmiri art, culture, traditions, customs, manners, folklore, language, dress food, and other related habits, which they held since ancient times present an open book of history. The Kashmiris are a living race with a magnificent past, full of both joy and sorrow, hope and fear, who are changing along with the times, leaving their cowardice and bonds of slavery to shape and design their future.

According to Dr. Stein, Kashmir can claim to have the distinction of being the only region of India that possesses an uninterrupted series of written records of its history, going back beyond the period of Muslim rule and deserving the name of real chronicles.

Kashmir History – After Independence

After a long period of struggle for independent states, the Indians were declared independent, by the British, who before leaving the land, partitioned it into two states, i.e., India and Pakistan, on the midnight of 14^th August 1947 A.D.

With the departure of Maharaja Hari Singh, the last Dogra King on the 26^th of January 1947 A.D. from Kashmir to Jammu the state was in a chaotic situation, and there was an acute shortage of all essential commodities of life in the valley especially, salt, sugar, cloth, kerosene, and petrol, etc.

The emergency administration, with Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah’s National Conference as the torchbearer, made every effort to normalize the situation and on the request of Sheikh, the central government prevailed upon the Maharaja to appoint Mohan Chand Mahajan as Prime Minister on the 5^th of March 1948 A.D., the emergency administration was converted into a regular council of ministers with Sheikh Abdullah as Prime Minister.

The “New Kashmir” plan, as envisaged and Sheikh’s popular government implemented social and agrarian reforms. In April 1949 A.D., a land reforms committee was appointed to prepare a plan for the abolition of the zamindari system and transfer of land to the tiller. The Chakdari system came to an end.

To change the Educational system, the mother tongue was adopted as the medium of instruction in primary classes. Schools and colleges were set up throughout the J&K State. The J&K University was established on 1^st Nov. 1948 A.D., with its campus at Hazratbal, Srinagar.

In May 1951, the Yuvaraj, Dr. Karan Singh in the capacity of the Regent, issued a proclamation convoking a constituent Assembly based on free adult franchise. Elections to the assembly were held and it met in October 1951 A.D. for the first time. All the 75 seats of the assembly were won by the National Conference. The constituent assembly in its meeting decided that the titular head i.e., Maharaja be called Sadar-e-Riyasat to be elected by the Legislative Assembly for a term of five years.

The position of the state of Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian Union was settled in an agreement popularly known as the “Delhi Agreement” of 1952 A.D., in which India agreed to accord a special statute and position to J&K State in the constitution, whereby complete internal autonomy was assured to the state.

Due to the disturbing political and economic situation in the state during the early months of 1953 A.D., there was dissension in the cabinet. On the 8^th of August 1953 A.D., the Sadar-e-Riyasat with the support of the central government dismissed Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah as Prime Minister, and on the 9^th of August 1953 A.D., invited Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, (the trusted Lieutenant of Sheikh as well as center) to form a new government. Sheikh was arrested on the 9^th of August 1953 A.D. and kept in detention.

Bakshi announced various programs to ameliorate the economic crisis. The Levee was abolished forthwith; cottage industries were developed. The Educational freedom from school to university level was abolished. Efforts were made to develop the regional languages i.e. Kashmir, Dogri, and Ladakhi. The permit system for the tourists was abolished.

It was during Bakshi’s regime that the constituent Assembly confirmed the state’s accession to India on 6^th February 1954 A.D.

The drafting committee presented the draft of the new constitution to the Assembly on 10t Oct 1956 A.D., which was unanimously adopted on 17 November 1956 A.D., and came into effect from 26 January 1957 A.D. in 1959 A.D., The state Assembly unanimously decided to seek amendment of the state’s constitution to provide for the extension of the jurisdiction of the election commission of India and the supreme court over the state of Jammu and Kashmir.

Elections to the new legislative assembly were held in March 1957 A.D., and the national conference headed by Bakshi won 68; Praja Parishad 05, Harijan Mandal 1, and independent 1 out of 75 seats. The second election was held in 1962 A.D., under the control of the Election Commission of India. Bakshi was forced to resign under the “Kamraj Plan” in August 1963 A.D. He was succeeded by Khawja Shamus-ud-deen, a compromise candidate as prime minister.

It was on December 27, 1963, A.D. that the Holy Relic of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) at Hazratbal Shrine was stolen, which caused widespread anger and anguish among the Kashmiris. This event was responsible for the loss of the Sham-ud-Deen ministry. With the help of the central government, the national conference legislatures elected Ghulam Mohammad Sadiq as their leader in February 1964 A.D. With every change in government and by the planting of blue-eyed boys by the Delhi Government, the state in one way or the other, came nearer to the center. It was during Sadiq’s regime, that the head of state was to be designated as “Governor” and the Prime Minister as “Chief Minister”, on the pattern of the Indian Constitution.

Mr. Sadiq decided to withdraw all the charges of conspiracy against Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah and others, who were in detention from August 1953 A.D. to April 1964 A.D., with a brief spell of freedom from January to April 1958 A.D. after his release in April 1964 A.D., he was received very warmly by the people and was invited by Pandit Nehru to visit Delhi, after Delhi, he visited Pakistan. He cut short his tour due to the death of Pandit Nehru on 27^th May 1964 A.D.

In August 1965 A.D., there was a 22-day Indo-Pak war. During the Arab – the Israel war in 1967 A.D., there were widespread riots in Srinagar. In September 1967 A.D., Kashmiri Pandits led a massive agitation against the marriage of a Pandit girl, named Prameshwari to a Muslim boy.

During G.M. Sadiq’s regime, many NC members like Mohammad Shafi Qureshi, and Syed Mir Qasim were active in establishing the Indian National Congress Party in the state. With the demise of Mr. Sadiq on December 12, 1971 A.D., Syed Mir Qasim, the congress stalwart in the state was called upon to assume office as Chief Minister.

In December 1971 A.D., there were 14 days of war between India and Pakistan, which led to the creation of “Bangladesh”, as a sovereign state.

The Shimla Agreement between Mrs. Indira Gandhi and Mr. Z.A. Bhuttoo was signed on July 3, 1972, A.D., in which 90,000 soldiers of Pakistan captured by the Indian Army and Mukti Bhani of Bangladesh, were allowed to return to Pakistan. The ceasefire line in Kashmir was renamed as “Line of Actual Control”.

The fourth elections to the State Legislative Assembly were held in March 1972 A.D., which returned the INC to power. All political parties took part in these elections for the 74 seats; Congress won 57, the Jamat-i-Islami 05, the Jana Sangh 03, and Independent 09.

It was during Mir Qasim’s rule, that Sheikh Abdullah and his trusted Lieutenant Mirza Afzal Afzal Beigh, who were in prison, were released. Over time, there were exchanges of views for the restoration of power to Sheikh Abdullah, between Mirza Afzal Beigh and G. Parthasarathy, (Mrs. Gandhi’s Ambassador). An accord called “Indira – Abdullah Accord” was negotiated in 1975 A.D., by which Sheikh Abdullah was offered the Chief Ministership of the state and Syed Qasim was asked to step down by the high command in Delhi. In his second period as the ruler of the state, Sheikh Mohammad Abdullah was accused of having sold his conscience for the lure of power through the masses as the majority of Kashmiris considered secession from India the only panacea for their ills. The tall and towering personality of Sheikh Abdullah who dominated the political scene of Kashmir for about half a century came to an end after his demise in 1982 A.D. After his death his son Dr. Farooq Abdullah was administered the oath of office as Chief Minister of Kashmir.

Dr. Farooq’s rule of 02 years came to an end due to a split in the National Conference and he was replaced by his brother-in-law Ghulam Mohammad Shah at the behest of Govt. of India. But he hailed to restore the law and order situation. There was hardly a day when curfew was not imposed in one part of the other in the valley Shah was therefore referred to as curfew chief minister. He was dismissed in March 1986 A.D. and the governor’s rule was imposed throughout the state. After six months Dr. Farooq with the blessings of Rajiv Gandhi was reinstalled as chief minister on November 7, 1986 A.D., Dr. Farooq’s great achievement on the political front was the reunion of two factions, led by Dr. Farooq and Mirwaiz Moulvi Farooq after 40 long years.

During Dr. Farooq’s second stint as Chief Minister, there was a complete breakdown of the state administration. The entire socio-economic setup crumbled and the political scenario had assumed a ferocious look. The entire system was dominated by militancy – the propounders of NIzam-e-Mustafa and Azadi for Kashmiris.

During 1988 and 1989 A.D., the conditions were totally out of control. There was a writ of militants in every domain of social, political, and economic affairs. There were frequent bandhs, processions, and marching to the UN observer’s office in Srinagar. The people were in a do-or-die situation to achieve freedom.

Governor Jagmohan was replaced by K.V. Krishna Rao, as the new incumbent on 11^th July 1989. When the conditions were just out of control, the central government replaced Governor K.V. Krishan Rao and in his place, Jagmohan was installed as the new governor on January 17, 1990 A.D. The appointment of the new Governor irked Dr. Farooq who resigned as Chief Minister, during Jagmohan’s term of office the Kashmiri Pandits were encouraged by the majority of the Muslim population to be annihilated. Silent protestors and processions were gunned down and the security forces left no stone unturned to harass, harm, and kill the innocent Kashmiris, who fought for their rights.

Mirwaiz Farooq was killed by unidentified gunmen and his funeral procession was fired, in which 15 mourners lost their lives and 60 were injured during Jagmohan’s rule.

Jagmohan after his second term was replaced by a retired intelligence officer, namely Girish Saxena, on 20^th May 1990 A.D. As there was no improvement in the chaotic conditions during Saxena’s Governorship, he was replaced by K.V. Krishna Rao.

Elections to the Legislative Assembly were held in the months of September-October 1996 A.D., under the barrel gun and the participation of the electorate in these elections was negligible which gave a mandate to Dr. Farooq’s national conference who assumed power as chief minister on October 09, 1996 A.D. Dr. Farooq again ruled Kashmir from 1996 to 2002 A.D. for six years. In the elections, again held under tight security in October 2002, none of the political parties gained a majority to form the government. So, a coalition government between Congress and the People’s Democratic Party was formed with Mufti Mohammad Syed as Chief Minister for a term of the first three years as per the agreement. After the expiry of his term of office, he was replaced by Mr. Ghulam Nabi Azad, a Congress candidate from Jammu (Doda district) region, who assumed office on November 2, 2005 A.D. The coalition government formed by Congress and PDP came to an end when differences between the two parties surfaced on certain issues, resulting in fresh elections during 2008 A.D. The coalition government had a tough time dealing with the public outcry on “Azadi” and “Amarnath” issues. After the election in 2008 A.D., a coalition government was formed between the National Conference and the Congress party, with young Omar Abdullah, as the Chief Minister and the President of the National Conference Dr. Farooq Abdullah was inducted into the Union Cabinet as Minister of Renewable Energy.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post Kashmir: A Brief History appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

The Panama Canal is one of the most significant engineering feats in history, providing a critical maritime shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Spanning 50 miles (80 kilometers) across the Isthmus of Panama, the canal greatly reduces the travel distance for ships, allowing them to avoid the long and perilous journey around the southern tip of South America via Cape Horn. Its history is marked by political intrigue, monumental construction challenges, and immense international impact.

Early Interest and Exploration
The idea of a canal across the Isthmus of Panama dates back centuries. Early explorers recognized the strategic and economic advantages of creating a shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific.

Spanish Exploration (16th Century): As early as 1513, after Vasco Núñez de Balboa crossed the isthmus and became the first European to see the Pacific Ocean from the New World, Spanish explorers envisioned the construction of a canal. However, the technological limitations and the immense geographic challenges made this dream impossible at the time.

18th and 19th Centuries: Various powers, including Spain and France, considered canal routes across Central America, including Panama and Nicaragua. Panama, with its narrow landmass, was always seen as a potential site. By the 19th century, European and American governments were actively discussing the possibilities.

The French Attempt (1881–1894)
The first serious attempt to construct the Panama Canal was undertaken by France, led by Ferdinand de Lesseps, the famous engineer who had successfully overseen the construction of the Suez Canal (1869). However, the project proved far more difficult than expected.

Lesseps’ Leadership: After his triumph with the Suez Canal, de Lesseps assumed the Panama Canal would be similarly straightforward. In 1881, the Compagnie Universelle du Canal Interocéanique began construction under his direction. He initially planned for a sea-level canal, similar to the Suez, but Panama’s geography and tropical environment posed far greater challenges.

Challenges and Failures: The French effort was plagued by numerous obstacles:
The tropical rain forest environment, heavy rains, and landslides made excavation difficult.
The workers, many from the Caribbean and Europe, suffered from diseases like malaria and yellow fever. These diseases killed tens of thousands of workers.
The project’s funding ran out due to escalating costs, mismanagement, and corruption (in what became known as the Panama Canal Scandal).

Collapse of the French Effort: By 1889, the French company was bankrupt, and construction was halted. A new company, Compagnie Nouvelle du Canal de Panama, made some progress, but ultimately, the French effort was abandoned by 1894, with only about 40% of the project completed.

The American Involvement (1904–1914)
The United States saw great strategic and economic value in a canal across Panama and stepped in after the French failure.

U.S. Interest in the Canal: By the late 19th century, the U.S. was emerging as a global power, and an isthmian canal was seen as critical to its naval and commercial interests. A canal would drastically reduce travel time for U.S. warships and merchant vessels between the east and west coasts. Initially, the U.S. considered a route through Nicaragua but ultimately decided on Panama.

Panama’s Independence: At the time, Panama was part of Colombia, and negotiations between the U.S. and Colombia to acquire rights for canal construction broke down. In 1903, with American encouragement, Panamanian nationalists declared independence from Colombia. The U.S. quickly recognized Panama’s independence and signed the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty, which gave the U.S. control over the Canal Zone, a 10-mile-wide strip of land across Panama, in exchange for financial compensation and guarantees of Panama’s sovereignty.

Construction by the U.S.: In 1904, the United States took over the French infrastructure and began construction under the leadership of President Theodore Roosevelt.

Chief Engineer John F. Stevens focused first on improving the living and working conditions for the labor force. This included constructing hospitals, housing, and proper sanitation systems.
The appointment of Dr. William Gorgas, who had studied tropical diseases, was crucial in eradicating yellow fever and controlling malaria in the Canal Zone, vastly improving worker health and safety.
Technical Challenges: One of the most difficult engineering challenges was cutting through the Culebra Cut, a section of the Continental Divide. Landslides frequently hampered progress, but steady work and new excavation techniques allowed the project to proceed.

Locks System: Unlike the original French vision of a sea-level canal, the U.S. designed the canal with a system of locks that would raise ships 85 feet above sea level to cross the isthmus and then lower them back to sea level on the other side. The Gatun Dam created an artificial lake (Gatun Lake), which became a key part of the canal system.

Completion: After a decade of work and enormous financial and human investment, the canal was completed. On August 15, 1914, the SS Ancon became the first official ship to transit the Panama Canal. The U.S. spent around $375 million on the project, including the cost of the original French effort, making it one of the most expensive construction projects of its time.

Strategic and Economic Importance
The Panama Canal had a profound impact on global shipping and geopolitics:

Military and Strategic Use: For the U.S., the canal was a critical asset, especially for its Navy, as it allowed for rapid deployment of military forces between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. It became an essential part of U.S. defense strategy, particularly during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War.

Global Trade: The canal drastically reduced the time and cost of shipping goods. A voyage from New York to San Francisco, for example, was shortened by about 8,000 miles, making it much more efficient and economically viable.

Panama Canal under U.S. Control
From its opening in 1914 until the late 20th century, the Panama Canal was operated by the United States. While the canal brought significant economic benefits, U.S. control over the Canal Zone became a source of tension between the U.S. and Panama.

Tensions with Panama: Panamanians resented the presence of U.S. troops and the economic and political control that the U.S. exerted over the Canal Zone. This tension occasionally erupted into protests and violence, particularly in the 1960s, when Panamanian students and citizens demonstrated for sovereignty over the canal.

The Panama Canal Treaties and Transfer (1977–1999)
In 1977, U.S. President Jimmy Carter and Panamanian leader Omar Torrijos signed the Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which provided for the gradual transfer of the canal from U.S. control to Panama. Under these agreements:

Panama was to gain full control of the canal on December 31, 1999.
The canal was to remain neutral and open to vessels of all nations, even in times of war.
On December 31, 1999, the Panama Canal was officially handed over to Panama, ending nearly a century of U.S. control. Since then, the canal has been managed by the Panama Canal Authority, a Panamanian government agency.

Modern Developments and Expansion
Expansion Project: To accommodate modern shipping demands, particularly the rise of super-sized cargo ships, Panama began work on a major expansion project in the 21st century. Known as the Panama Canal Expansion (Third Set of Locks), it was completed in 2016.

This project added a new set of locks and widened the existing channels, allowing for the transit of much larger ships, known as New Panamax vessels, which are nearly double the size of the ships that the original canal could accommodate.
Economic and Global Importance: The canal continues to play a critical role in global shipping and trade, facilitating the passage of thousands of vessels each year. It remains a vital artery for world commerce, particularly between Asia and the Americas.

Environmental and Geopolitical Concerns
The Panama Canal has had environmental impacts, including deforestation, water management issues, and ecological disruption. Additionally, climate change and fluctuating rainfall patterns pose challenges for maintaining water levels in Gatun Lake, which is critical for the canal’s operation.

Geopolitically, the canal remains a strategically important asset. Its neutrality and openness are crucial for global trade, and any disruption would have significant economic and political ramifications.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post The Panama Canal appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

Greenland is a located between the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, and although it is technically a part of the North American continent, historically it has been linked with European countries like Denmark and Norway. Today, Greenland is considered an independent territory within the Kingdom of Denmark, and as such, Greenland is dependent on Denmark for the majority of its gross domestic product.

By area, Greenland is distinctive in that it is the world’s largest island, with an area of 836,330 square miles (2,166,086 square kilometers). It is not a continent, but due to its large area and the relatively small population of less than 60,000 people, Greenland is also the most sparsely populated country in the world.

Greenland’s largest city, Nuuk, also serves as its capital. It’s one of the world’s smallest capital cities, with a population of only 17,984 as of 2019. All of Greenland’s cities are built along the 27,394-mile coastline because it is the only area in the country that is ice-free. Most of these cities are also along Greenland’s west coast because the northeastern side is comprised of the Northeast Greenland National Park.

History of Greenland

Greenland is thought to have been inhabited since prehistoric times by various Paleo-Eskimo groups; however, specific archaeological research does show the Inuit entering Greenland around 2500 BCE, and it wasn’t until 986 CE that European settlement and exploration started, with Norwegians and Icelanders settling on Greenland’s west coast.

These first settlers were eventually known as the Norse Greenlanders, though it wasn’t until the 13th century that Norway took them over, and subsequently entered into a union with Denmark.

In 1946, the United States offered to buy Greenland from Denmark but the country refused to sell the island. In 1953, Greenland officially became a part of the Kingdom of Denmark and in 1979, Denmark’s Parliament gave the country powers of home rule. In 2008, a referendum for greater independence on Greenland’s part was approved, and in 2009 Greenland took over the responsibility of its own government, laws, and natural resources. In addition, Greenland’s citizens were recognized as a separate culture of people, even though Denmark still controls Greenland’s defense and foreign affairs.

Greenland’s current head of state is Denmark’s queen, Margrethe II, but the Prime Minister of Greenland is Kim Kielsen, who serves as the head of the country’s autonomous government.

Geography, Climate, and Topography

Because of its very high latitude, Greenland has an arctic to a subarctic climate with cool summers and very cold winters. For example its capital, Nuuk, has an average January low temperature of 14 degrees (-10 C) and an average July high of just 50 degrees (9.9 C); because of this, its citizens can practice very little agriculture and most of its products are forage crops, greenhouse vegetables, sheep, reindeer, and fish. Greenland mostly relies on imports from other countries.

Greenland’s topography is mainly flat but there is a narrow mountainous coast, with the highest point on the island’s tallest mountain, Bunnbjørn Fjeld, which towers over the island nation at 12,139 feet. Additionally, most of Greenland’s land area is covered by an ice sheet and two-thirds of the country is subject to permafrost.

This massive ice sheet found in Greenland is important to climate change and has made the region popular among scientists who have worked to drill ice cores in order to understand how the Earth’s climate has changed over time; also, because the island is covered with so much ice, it has the potential to significantly raise sea levels if the ice were to melt with global warming.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post Greenland: A Brief History appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

A specter is haunting the United States—the specter of drone warfare.

Since the middle of November, unidentified unmanned aerial vehicles have lit up the skies above New Jersey, startling residents and baffling military and government officials. The US Army’s Picatinny Arsenal research and manufacturing facility in the state’s Morris County reported 11 confirmed instances of mysterious drones illegally entering its airspace since the middle of the month, while a dozen drones were spotted hovering over US Naval Weapons Station Earle in Monmouth County in early December. Similar sightings were reported in at least six other counties throughout the state; according to the Coast Guard, a group of drones even followed one of the service’s vessels “in close pursuit” near a state park.

The spate of drone sightings in the skies above New Jersey have caused alarm among state lawmakers, prompting one to call for a “limited state of emergency … until the public receives an explanation” regarding the source of the unidentified drones. One Republican US congressman even claimed the drones were originating from an Iranian “mothership” lurking off of the state’s coastline, an assertion the US Defense Department quickly batted down.

“As you know, Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst possess [sic] capabilities to identify and take down unauthorized unmanned aerial systems and have utilized this capability to address overflights of the installation,” New Jersey representative Chris Smith told Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in a December 10 letter. “I urgently request all capabilities possessed by the Department of Defense, especially those in use by JBMDL to be immediately deployed to identify and address the potential threats posed by [drones] over the state of New Jersey.”

Despite the growing chorus of concern from New Jersey lawmakers, the US military appears relatively unimpressed with the sudden incursions. In a December 11 statement, US Northern Command (NORTHCOM) revealed that the command had “conducted a deliberate analysis of the events, in consultation with other military organizations and interagency partners, and at this time we have not been requested to assist with these events.” The following day, White House national security communications adviser John Kirby stated that many of the alleged drone sightings that had alarmed civilian observers on the ground in recent weeks were, in fact, conventional manned aircraft. The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security echoed this assessment in a statement on Thursday, saying, “it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft, operating lawfully. There are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted air space.”

“At this time, we have no evidence that these activities are coming from a foreign entity or the work of an adversary. We’re going to continue to monitor what is happening,” deputy Pentagon press secretary Sabrina Singh told reporters on Wednesday. “At no point were our installations threatened when this activity was occurring.” (In an interesting confluence of events, the US Department of Justice that same day announced the arrest of a Chinese citizen for flying a drone over and taking photos of Vandenberg Space Force Base in California.)

The alarm over the sudden drone incursions over New Jersey, neighboring New York and Pennsylvania, and near sensitive US government sites in particular, even if overblown, isn’t completely unwarranted: Officials at North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)—the joint US-Canadian military organization tasked with overseeing air sovereignty on the continent—revealed in October that they had received reports of nearly 600 incursions above domestic US military installations since 2022.

The issue is, US law severely limits how the US military can respond to these mysterious drones—even if the number of incidents has been growing for years.

Indeed, for several months earlier this year, unidentified drones repeatedly circled Plant 42 in California, the Edwards Air Force Base installation where defense contractor Northrop Grumman has been working on the Air Force’s vaunted new B-21 Raider stealth bombers. In December 2023, Langley Air Force Base in Virginia was targeted by a wave of mysterious drone overflights, prompting the Pentagon to relocate a contingent of F-22 Raptor fighter jets stationed there to another base. And the New Jersey incidents come on the heels of a mid-November series of drone incursions near RAF Lakenheath in the United Kingdom, which, while not a US domestic installation, hosts a strategically-important contingent of American fighter jets, among other capabilities.

It appears that Pentagon assets in the continental United States have been subject to such drone activity as far back as 2019, when a fleet of US Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers was shadowed by a swarm of drones for several days during maneuvers at a training range off the coast of southern California. Later that year, a series of mysterious drone sightings in eastern Colorado and western Nebraska and Kansas confounded not just local law enforcement and federal agencies, but alarmed Air Force officers at nearby F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, home to one of the Pentagon’s many Minuteman III ICBM fields.

These incidents aren’t limited to US military facilities. In October 2023, several drones were detected in the airspace above the US Energy Department’s Nevada National Security Site, which is used for nuclear research and development, the Wall Street Journal recently reported. And back in 2019, the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station in Arizona—the most powerful nuclear power plant in the United States—was subject to a series of mass drone incursions that Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials would later characterize as a “drone-a-palooza,” albeit with grave concern over the potential vulnerability exposed by the incursion, according to email correspondence obtained by The War Zone in 2020.

“I would point out that restricted airspace will do nothing to stop an adversarial attack and even the detection systems identified earlier in this email chain have limited success rates, and there is even lower likelihood that law enforcement will arrive quickly enough to actually engage with the pilots,” one senior NRC security official at Palo Verde wrote in an email regarding the incident. “We should be focusing our attention on getting Federal regulations and laws changed to allow sites to be defended and to identify engineering fixes that would mitigate an adversarial attack before there our [sic] licensed facilities become vulnerable.”

While unmanned aerial vehicles have been in military use for generations for surveillance and reconnaissance, the US military is largely responsible for transforming modern drones into vehicles of precision violence during the early years of the Global War on Terrorism, a policy especially expanded under US president Barack Obama. In more recent years, the rise of cheap, commercially-available unmanned platforms like those used by hobbyists has turned the small drone into the weapon of choice for both nation states and irregular forces abroad, from militant groups like ISIS In Iraq and Syria and the Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen to the Russian and Ukrainian militaries. With a potential conflict with China over Taiwan looming on the horizon amid the US military’s pivot to “great power competition,” the Pentagon is itself in the midst of a major surge in both unmanned capabilities and technology to defend against weaponized drones belonging to foreign adversaries.

The US military has been slowly but surely adjusting to the sudden spike in mysterious drone incursions near sensitive sites across the United States with an expanded counter-drone strategy. In early December, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin signed the Pentagon’s new Strategy for Countering Unmanned Systems, which seeks to unify disparate DoD efforts to address the rise of drone threats both at home and abroad into a single coherent framework, one that implicitly acknowledges the potential for the rising tide of domestic drone threats to grow from intrusive surveillance risks to something more damaging.

“From the Middle East to Ukraine and across the globe—including in the US homeland—unmanned systems are reshaping tactics, techniques, and procedures; challenging established operational principles; and condensing military innovation cycles,” the unclassified fact sheet on the new Pentagon strategy states. “The relatively low-cost, widely available nature of these systems has, in effect, democratized precision strike.”

The Pentagon has been working overtime to field fresh counter-drone capabilities to US forces deployed overseas in recent years, including traditional firearms outfitted with computerized optics and remotely operated vehicle-mounted heavy weapons turrets, laser-guided rocket and missile systems, AI-assisted kinetic interceptors, radio frequency- and Global Positioning System-jamming electronic warfare suites, and even exotic directed energy weapons like high-energy lasers and high-powered microwaves, among others. As recently as late October, NORTHCOM was working in conjunction with the Federal Aviation Administration to demo fresh counter-drone tech as part of its Falcon Peak 2025 experiment at Fort Carson in Colorado.

“By all indications, [small unmanned aerial systems] will present a safety and security risk to military installations and other critical infrastructure for the foreseeable future,” NORTHCOM boss Air Force general Gregory Guillot told reporters at the time. “Mitigating those risks requires a dedicated effort across all federal departments and agencies, state, local, tribal and territorial communities, and Congress to further develop the capabilities, coordination and legal authorities necessary for detecting, tracking and addressing potential sUAS threats in the homeland.”

But US military officials also indicated to reporters that the types of counter-drone capabilities the Pentagon may be able to bring to bear for domestic defense may be limited to non-kinetic “soft kill” means like RF and GPS signal jamming and other relatively low-tech interception techniques like nets and “string streamers” due to legal constraints on the US military’s ability to engage with drones over American soil.

“The threat, and the need to counter these threats, is growing faster than the policies and procedures that [are] in place can keep up with,” as Guillot told reporters during the counter-drone experiment. “A lot of the tasks we have in the homeland, it’s a very sophisticated environment in that it’s complicated from a regulatory perspective. It’s a very civilianized environment. It’s not a war zone.”

Defense officials echoed this sentiment during the unveiling of the Pentagon’s new counter-drone strategy in early December.

“The homeland is a very different environment in that we have a lot of hobbyist drones here that are no threat at all, that are sort of congesting the environment,” a senior US official told reporters at the time. “At the same time, we have, from a statutory perspective and from an intelligence perspective, quite rightly, [a] more constrained environment in terms of our ability to act.”

The statute in question, according to defense officials, is a specific subsection of Title 10 of the US Code, which governs the US armed forces. The section, known as 130(i), encompasses military authorities regarding the “protection of certain facilities and assets from unmanned aircraft.” It gives US forces the authority to take “action” to defend against drones, including with measures to “disrupt control of the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft, without prior consent, including by disabling the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft by intercepting, interfering, or causing interference with wire, oral, electronic, or radio communications used to control the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft” and to “use reasonable force to disable, damage, or destroy the unmanned aircraft system or unmanned aircraft.”

As The War Zone points out, 130i limits when and where the US military can actually deploy counter-drone assets outside of immediate self-defense in the face of an imminent threat. Notably, it requires the defense secretary to “coordinate” with both the US transportation secretary and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) administrator regarding any counter-drone implementation that “might affect aviation safety, civilian aviation and aerospace operations, aircraft airworthiness, or the use of airspace.” Not only that, but 130i authority is only applicable to a specific list of installations, mainly those dealing with nuclear deterrence and missile defense functions of the US national security apparatus.

This, in turn, limits what kinds of counter-drone systems the US military can actually employ domestically. Service members may be up to their eyes in fresh counter-drone tech overseas, but the regulatory environment at home is rigid enough that “hard kill” solutions like missiles, guns, and other kinetic interceptors aren’t even considered potential options because there’s simply too much risk that they might end up inflicting collateral damage on innocent, unsuspecting civilians in nearby neighborhoods. Even “soft kill” solutions like RF and GPS jamming require coordination with the FAA and other federal agencies to prevent potential harm to civilian air travel, approvals that could slow down the reaction time among base security forces amid a potential drone incursion.

“Given the impact of GPS denial, just across infrastructure and all that stuff, it is a very, very difficult capability to get permissions to utilize,” as one official told The War Zone at Falcon Peak.

While the Pentagon’s broad new counter-drone strategy is a step in the right direction when it comes to bolstering domestic drone defenses, Congress is taking action as well. In the compromise version of the annual National Defense Authorization Act defense budget legislation unveiled in December, lawmakers included language calling upon the Pentagon to not just conduct an assessment of the counter-drone technology landscape at large, but generate recommendations on how policy changes could reduce the amount of burdensome bureaucratic coordination between federal agencies required to address the growing number of drone incursions—and, in an ideal world, allow the US military to move quickly and decisively to counter intrusive drones at sensitive installations before they become dangerous.

“We agree that US troops have the inherent right of self-defense, including from [drone] attacks, wherever they may be,” the explanatory statement accompanying the compromise NDAA says.

At the moment, the Pentagon seems unconvinced that the Northeast drone sightings and earlier incursions are connected to a foreign adversary. But with lawmakers increasingly concerned with the potential threat to sensitive installations and critical infrastructure in their states, the US military’s renewed approach to counter-drone defense can’t come soon enough.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post Drone Technology appeared first on Precision Background Screening.

The many cultures of the Middle East

Culture, a shared set of traditions, belief systems, and behaviors, is shaped by history, religion, ethnic identity, language, and nationality, among other factors. The Middle East consists of approximately 20 countries, with many different religions and a variety of ethnic and linguistic groups. Given this diversity, we should not be surprised to find a multitude of different cultures coexisting in the region.

Stereotypes about the Middle East

During the 19th century, translations of the Arabian Nights and archaeological discoveries in Egypt dominated the imaginations of people in the West who had never visited the Middle East. These armchair explorers conjured up competing images of a desert region populated by nomads and camels and, of course, pyramids, but also brimming with all manner of sweet and savory treats in bustling urban bazaars. During the 20th century, stories about the Middle East have tended to focus on oil wealth, territorial wars, and religious conflicts. All of these do exist, but there is much more to life in this area.

Daily life in the region is too complex to be summarized on a Web page; we can only begin to suggest the multiple variables involved in the lives of people there. A common thread that runs through many lives is the importance of family and the values that derive from having a strong extended family: respect, honor, and loyalty.

Religion in the cultures of the Middle East

The Middle East is the birthplace of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, all monotheistic religions that grew from the same tradition. Each religion used the texts from earlier groups, and so they share many rules and beliefs. For example, Islam and Judaism observe the same dietary rules and have a similar focus on religion as a foundation for civil law. All three share a tradition of prophets, from Adam and Abraham to Solomon and Joseph. Jesus is significant for both Christianity and Islam, and Muslims in addition follow the teachings of Muhammad.

Religion plays a large part in the rhythm of daily life, not only through prayer and study, but also in determining the end of the work week. Shops in different neighborhoods close down on Fridays for the Muslim holy day, Saturdays for the Jewish Sabbath, and Sundays for the Christian day of rest. Religious festivals and remembrances, like Id al-Fitr (the Festival of Fast-Breaking, celebrated at the end of Ramadan), or the Jewish Passover holiday, or Easter Sunday as determined by the Roman or Eastern Orthodox Christian churches, are all recognized as national holidays in different countries.

An awareness of God (Arabic: Allah) is exhibited in common Arabic expressions that are used throughout the region — even in Turkey and Iran, where Arabic is not the local language. A common response to “How are you?” is “Ilhamdillah!” — “Praise be to God.” When expressing hope for a future event, one might say “Inshallah” — “God willing.” The exclamation “Mashallah” — “What God wills!” — is often heard as an expression of delight, at the sight of a new baby, for example. While there are those for whom these phrases reflect the divine, others use them the way many English speakers use “Good-bye” (literally, “God be with ye”).

Religion plays a role in national and international politics as well. Turkey has a Muslim majority, but is officially a secular nation. Other countries in the region identify themselves with a specific religion, mostly Islam. Lebanon’s constitution attempted to provide for power sharing among 18 officially recognized religions, including Maronite and Orthodox Christians, Sunni and Shii Muslims, and Druze. But because the populations of the various groups grew at different rates, this system eventually became less representative of the nation as a whole and civil war broke out.

The poor relations between Israel and most of its Arab neighbors are sometimes described in terms of a perpetual religious conflict between Jews and Muslims. This reading, however, is too simplistic. Although control over important historical sites of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is a factor in the disagreements, many of the details that stall negotiations have to do with control of land and access to water resources. Furthermore, many Palestinians who demand restitution for their property are Christian, not Muslim, and Egypt’s historic treaty with Israel provides a model for how Muslim and Jewish neighbors can live peaceably.

Ethnic diversity at the crossroads of civilizations

Situated between Africa, Asia, and Europe, the Middle East has been a crossroads for traders, travelers, and empire builders for thousands of years. Africans, Central Asians, and Celts have all added to the ethnic mix. Major ethnic groups in the Middle East today include Arabs, Iranians (also known as Persians), Turks, Jews, Kurds, Berbers, Armenians, Nubians, Azeris, and Greeks.

Most of the countries in this region are multiethnic. But even as diversity enhances the cultural richness of a society, it unfortunately may also lead to political conflict. The Kurds, for example, do not have their own nation-state, but are instead spread across Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria. Their political and military attempts to create an autonomous Kurdistan have been strongly resisted by those states.

Many languages, three families

The multiplicity of languages spoken in the Middle East reflects its ethnic diversity. Most of these languages come from three major language “families”:

• Semitic (including Arabic, Hebrew, and Aramaic)
• Indo-European (Kurdish, Persian, Armenian)
• Turkic (Turkish, Azeri)

These language families reflect the successive migrations of different peoples into the region. A quick examination of these languages reveals the influence they have had on each other. Persian, for example, is written in Arabic script, while Turkish incorporates vocabulary words from Persian and Arabic. Arabic itself is spoken in regional dialectics that are not always mutually understood. Some ethnic and religious communities have preserved “native” languages for religious use, such as Coptic and Greek.

Culture: Family, city, and the globe

The family is an important part of culture in the Middle East, as is evident in the Arabic honorific names that are often used in preference to given names. A man may be called Ibn (“son of”) followed by his father’s name or Abu (“father of”) followed by his child’s name.

In traditional Arab societies the family unit is an extended family — cousins, grandparents, second cousins, cousins-in-law, nieces, nephews, and more — all living together. This remains true in rural areas particularly. Migration to the cities has broken up some of these extended families, and the number of people living only with their nuclear family in urban areas is increasing.

The difference between life in the village and life in the city sometimes seems to be as great or greater than the difference between living in the Middle East and living in America. Two men in Egypt, for example, may share the same language (Arabic), religion (Islam), and nationality (Egyptian), but one may live in an air-conditioned apartment building with his wife and two children and wear a suit to his government job, while the other may live in a naturally cool mud-brick house surrounded by three generations of relatives and wear a traditional robe, called a galabiya, to work a plot of land.

These differences are eroding, however, with the introduction of inexpensive cellular phone service and the ubiquity of television. Even some mud-brick houses are now equipped with satellite dishes that bring news, entertainment, and fashions not only from the capital city, but from around the world as well.

The Middle East in a globalized world

Over the past 200 years, and increasingly in the contemporary age of globalization, more and more Western goods — everything from clothing to food to computers — have appeared in Middle Eastern markets. Not only goods, but culture as well, have been imported from the West. Western books and movies are popular, especially (but not exclusively) among the urban elite.

In fashion, Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, banished the fez and other aspects of Ottoman dress in favor of European three-piece suits. Today, one might see young people clad in jeans and T-shirts that advertise their fondness for Britney Spears or Titanic walking down the same street as their peers who are wearing traditional hijab or galibiyas.

There is an active debate in most Middle Eastern communities about how much Western culture and technology can and should be adopted before such influences begin to compromise their culture, traditions, and identity. This discussion will require defining that identity to some degree. Will they characterize themselves as Egyptian? Muslim? Arab? a resident of a particular village? a member of a particular tribe? Most importantly, in what order would they prioritize these qualities? These are not easy questions, but the encroachment of Western influences requires some answers.

If you found this information useful, please check out our blog for more articles like this.

If you need to run background checks and would like a free quote click here and let us know how we can help you.

The post Cultures of the Middle East appeared first on Precision Background Screening.