President Obama's Agenda in Riyadh, Berlin, and London

The President visited Saudi Arabia, the UK, and Germany. These meetings highlight the challenges that the US created when becoming involved in Middle Eastern affairs. Syria and Iran are two countries that the United States and its allies want to either invade or undermine. However,, there is a realignment in strategic partnerships. The Obama administration has become increasingly frustrated with Israel's failure to make peace with the Palestinians. What also adds to the tension is that Israel continues to build more settlements and Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that the Golan Heights will remain a part of Israel. President Obama believes in going back to the pre-1967 borders. Secretary of State John Kerry has made attempts at initiating talks; all have failed. The United States has other options. It would seem as if the United States is tilting more toward Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies as more reliable allies. Israel will become more isolated as the United States favors Arab nations. The reason is not altruistic, but a means of advancing an agenda. The United States wants to either damage or remove Russia from the Middle East. Syria and Iran are becoming even more close to Russia given the situation of intense conflict. The Obama administration wants the removal of President Assad, but does not want a long term military engagement. This has caused a level of anger with Saudi Arabia, which wants more US support against both Iran and Syria. The war against ISIS continues to escalate with more US  military advisors entering Iraq. This meant that President Obama had to consult both his British and German counterparts. The increase in refugees and the violence they face on the European continent has to be on of the worse human rights disasters of the 21st century. The agenda is now clear. The United States wants to go ahead with a regional war, buttress its Gulf allies, and make Europe even more economically dependent.
       The President wanted to reach a consensus with his Gulf Arab allies. Riyadh and Washington are growing apart in a diplomatic sense. The military objectives are similar, but there are obvious differences in desired outcomes. The United States has attempted regime change and Syria, which was stopped by Russian military intervention. The Saudi government wants Assad deposed directly through ground invasion, but they will not do this without American assistance. Saudi Arabia has shown that it can be formidable when invading Yemen. It has also stopped democratic movements in Bahrain through military force. A new since of national pride has emerged and the kingdom wants to show it is a powerful regional country. There are two countries that are blocking it. Iran and Israel are two regional powers that Saudi Arabia realizes are competitors. The only reason it appears that Saudi Arabia cooperates with Israel is because both have support from the United States. The Obama administration seems to be moving more toward Saudi Arabia rather than Israel. The country has caused problems for the United States. The attack on Gaza, West bank settlement expansion, and efforts to sabotage the Iran nuclear deal have vexed the US president. President Obama did not even bother to visit Israel while he was in the Middle East. This was done not only to shun Prime Minister Netanyahu, but to demonstrate a more Arab tilting foreign policy. The reason is the Gulf nations are better equipped to fight ISIS than Israel, because the country is more focused on harassing its Palestinian population. The United States always favors a country that is militarily strong and can enforce its objectives. Israel is weakening from isolation and international attention to a deteriorating human rights situation. President Obama wants the GCC states to do ground combat against ISIS, while supporting the weak government of Iraq. The United States will then send more military advisors. Air strikes will continue until ISIS is destroyed. This plan has major flaws, which the President was attempting to convince GCC leaders to follow.

There is too much tension over Iran and Syria. Oman does not have a hostile attitude to either Syria or Iran and would most likely not become involved in a collective conflict. The United States still wishes for the removal of Bashar Al-Assad, but sees a military option is not possible as long as Russia is a factor. The US continues to arm what it refers to as "moderate opposition." The United States now it wants a "democratic transition,"  which essentially means leaders that are approved by the United States to rule Syria. Saudi Arabia wants Assad removed under no conditions and a Sunni ruled state with the Kingdom's favor being top priority. The reason Saudi Arabia will not engage ISIS fully is that it has funded extremists in Iraq and Syria. Their goal is to remove Syria there by creating a strike at Iran. President Obama obviously wants a mass regional war, but with Arabs doing most of the fighting. The United States would then rearrange the post-war Middle East to its preferred design.Saudi Arabia is conscious of this and would rather fight with other GCC countries so it gets the most out of war. President Obama's final visit to Saudi Arabia was more than a discussion of ISIS :it is a design for partition of the region. This will have dangerous consequences if it is successful. At the moment, there is too much disagreement among allies to get a mass war started.  

       The President's agenda was also economic. If he wants to wage a larger war the UK, Saudi Arabia, and Germany must be economically stable. Low oil prices have caused issues in the Saudi Kingdom. Iranian oil being reintroduced into the market, free from sanctions has caused problems. OPEC countries have not agreed to cut back production. High oil prices means high revenue for the state. Iran and Saudi Arabia could go to war on the accusation that both are waging economic warfare against one another. This loss of revenue will mean a cut to social services, if noting is done. Europe has been on the decline due to a debt crisis. The UK has even question why bother to remain in the European Union. UK citizens will eventually vote  in referendum either to remain or exit.Unemployment and increasing poverty have been constant challenges to the UK during the European debt crisis. Fiscal austerity has not worked to end economic decline. It merely punishes the average citizen to fix what a wealthy  fancier   class caused. Germany appears to be the economic power house, but there is more beneath the surface. If China does not improve the situation with its slow down, then this will effect Germany. China is a major trading partner with Germany and at the moment is the economic strength of the Eurozone. Germany has been working with Greece on bailout plans over the past three years. President Obama wants a unified and strong European economy. It will be necessary if the US wants to pursue the mass regional war in the Middle East. The obstacle is that Germany does not believe in breaking economic ties with Russia. The US has imposed sanctions over the political crisis in Ukraine. Unlike the UK or France, Germany has attempted negotiation. Imposing sanctions on Russia only harms the world economy, because it stops international corporations from opening markets there. Germany could seize on this change and make its self more powerful. The United States and UK would probably not want a more powerful Germany. President Obama then presented the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This as he claimed would get rid of meddlesome regulations, allow for closer trade ties, and protect workers rights. This is not true. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership operates similar to NAFTA or TPP. The establishment of neoliberal capitalism, privatization, and globalization will result in a country economically dependent. Unemployment, cuts to social services, and upheaval will be the result of failed economic policy. 

There were protests during and before President Obama's visit. This was not give attention or analysis by mainstream media outlets. The reason is that this trade deal is suppose to be a success or a new hope for a crumbling European economy. This could have not been pushed through at anytime. It had to be at a point in which Angela Merkel was most vulnerable politically. The United States and the UK want a stable Germany for the sake of the EU, but not a Germany that could surpass both countries economically. Germany has become what Japan has in the East: a former militarist nation rebuilding itself not through force, but industry and business. The recent trade deal could reverse the gains made after reunification. This provides an advantage to the United States having one of Europe's most powerful economies become reliant. 

       The Obama administration also attempted to repair ties with the UK. The tension lies with the intervention in Libya. President Obama had previously stated that it was the UK's fault for the disastrous outcome. This had to have angered David Cameron, who realized that the US had a decades long ant-Qaddafi policy. President Obama continues to not take responsibility for the crisis that was created by an act of aggressive war by the NATO alliance. Hillary Clinton and William Hague were two foreign policy officials actively promoting aggressive war to the public as a humanitarian service. Now that militias, paramilitary groups, and terrorist organizations are partitioning the country the President acts as if there was never US involvement. His visit to London was not only to prevent Britain from leaving the EU, but to solidify a weakened Anglo-American axis .  He praised the country for being a "stable force." The President describe the US-UK relationship as something special. Prime Minister Cameron is critical to US ambitions in Syria. He was an enthusiastic supporter for a military strike against Bashar Al-Assad. Parliament had blocked his efforts at regime change. Most of the discussion involved what to do about a crumbling Libya. There are two rival governments fighting for control. The UN brokered agreement will not last and Libya has become a failed state. President Obama after blaming Britain, later said that the Libya intervention was a mistake. 

 

It seems as if the President is trying to salvage a legacy that has already been tarnished. These feeble attempts demonstrate that the moral authority the US claims to have is a myth. The Arab spring was not a revolution, but a series of regime changes that the West capitalized on. The US hoped on the band wagon with the UK and France to attack nations that were no threat. The aftermath has caused a weakening of the EU. Britain's exit could cause other nations to do the same.President Obama wants a united Europe to be directed at Russia. Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, the Russian Federation is still powerful. The United States wants to have a monopoly on geopolitical power. Russia and China are effectively stopping the United States from doing whatever it wants. Seeing as the UK has been considered the leading power in Europe, ties are critical. If the US is to pursue an anti-Russian policy the UK must remain in the EU. The turn against Russia is a diplomatic mistake, but the United States wants the whole of Europe to follow it. Prime Minister Cameron needs an existential  threat to deflect the public's attention from the Panama Papers and the economic decline. Political vulnerability is a perfect time to cement better ties. President Obama wants the UK in the EU so that the two countries can make attacks on Syria, Iraq, or even Russia. 

        President Obama wants to make Germany more active in his interventionist foreign policy. Germany has become overrun with migrants from Africa and the Middle East. There are challenges in regards to integration, resources, and a backlash of far right extremism. Germany refused to become involved in the NATO war in Libya. However, it has been taking more refugees from that war than any other European nation. President Obama when in Berlin urged tolerance for the refugees . This was contradictory, because the United States has taken less refugees than Europe as a whole. Condemning Germany is hypocritical considering there is more intense racism and Isamophobia  in the United States under an African American presidents watch. Ideally, President Obama wants Germany to engage in war in the Middle East, take as many refugees as possible, and turn against Russia. Germany does not favor intense sanctions against Russia, because of business ties it has. The possibility of expanding trade deals there is something Germany does not want to let go. Chancellor Angela Merkel has faced the biggest challenge to her rule with the migrant crisis.It is clear that President Obama wants a stable Germany, but not too strong. The UK  and France traditionally were opposed to a potent Germany. The US feels it has found a way to balance these fears and old rivalries through trade deals. If Germany is financially dependent on the US, then it will keep it in check. Germany pursuing an independent policy in regards to Russia and Syria could stop US objectives. All the Western European nations and a few Eastern European nations the US wants to be allied in a general anti-Russian Federation coalition. 

This attempt may not be successful. Chancellor Merkel realizes that her political influence could be slipping and a move closer to the United States could damage it further. The situation could get worse with the Iraqi government collapsing. That means more migrants and refugees heading to Germany.The United States by not contributing to the assistance to Germany in the refugee crisis adds pressure. Germany could manipulated into military action as a method to stop the flow of migrant traffic. The United States could make the argument that if Germany follows others into war with Syria, it will end the mass migration. If the US is successful in doing this it will have German economic power on its side.  

        The President's visit to Riyadh, Berlin, and London had multiple objectives. First it was to ensure that Europe as a continent would remained united in the context of EU policy. Saudi Arabia has become a greater regional power in West Asia. This seems to be the ally the US wants to fight ISIS along with other GCC states. Israel has become more of a liability and it seems this administration is moving further away from it. Gulf monarchies are being favored over Netanyahu's government. His policies drove the US and Israel further apart by encouraging anti-Arab racism and rapid expansion of settlements. There was a reason President Obama did not visit Israel. It would be of very little help in the fight against ISIS or efforts to build an Arab coalition. The President by sending military advisors has signaled that this is going to be a long term involvement. Syria now faces a partition from major world powers, terrorist organizations, and the Gulf monarchies. Simultaneously both Iraq and Syria are having a civil war combined with balkanization . President' Obama's general agenda  is to have Arab and European nations fight ISIS with a low level of US assistance, while benefiting economically. This is an intricate web of imperialism, but it will have negative repercussions. Iraq's government has weakened so that it could descend into an even larger war. The increase of refugees has created the worse human rights disaster to date . Racism and religious persecution are becoming socially acceptable in European nations. Anti-Arab and anti-African right-wing parties are making parliamentary gains across the continent. Combined with high unemployment and economic collapse refugees are a easy scapegoat. These challenges are the direct result of NATO action in Libya. President Obama still promotes regime change and nation building as US foreign policy. The difference is that he wants allies to contribute to it, rather than have America do it unilaterally. What effect his actions have on future US policy will not be known for years to come.     

      

    

         

                  

Britain's Modern Slave Trade - Explainer - Al Jazeera Investigates

Modern mass migration has created a new form of slave trade. People smugglers are enriching themselves from the Far East moving people through China, Central Asia, and Russia. From Africa Libya is a major transit point, but the journey across the Mediterranean poses more hazards. What is known as the "grass hoping process" involves migrants hiding on trucks. The danger is that people can fall into the hands of human traffickers. Migrants could be enslaved in the sex trade, car washes, or cannabis farms in the UK. The enslaved could even work on commercial farms, coffee shops and construction sites.Modern slavery is the product of imperialism, military intervention, and the avarice of the neoliberal capitalist system. Europe which now presents a myth of being a champion of humanitarianism is now changing its immigration policies. A new wave of racial hate is being directed at they very people who's homelands were destroyed as a result of war.  

Aung San Suu Kyi : Liberator, Puppet, or Rightful Ruler of Myanmar

Aung San Suu Kyi is the leader of the National League for Democracy. She has been the international face of resistance to the military regime in Burma.There are many who see her as a Nelson Mandela like  figure fighting for social justice. Critics view her as a British and US supported instigator working on behalf  of their geopolitical agenda. It was in 1990 that the NDL won control, but the military refused to hand over power. The NDL has now won elections and there has not been a violent reaction. If one were to argue from a legal basis, Suu Kyi has technically been ruler since the military refusal to hand over power. It was a legitimate government that was removed by extralegal means. She has been under house arrest numerous times. Upon her release and now the return of the National League for Democracy she told supporters to be cautious. It is not clear what the future holds for Myanmar, but for now it appears Suu Kyi will be a part of it. The question remains is she fighting for the Asian nation or the interest of Western countries.
      Aung San Suu Kyi's background makes it seem as if it was inevitable that she would become involved in politics, She is the daughter of  Aung San the leader of the national independence movement. She was only two years old when her father was assassinated in 1947. Her mother was the ambassador to India and Suu Kyi spent time in that country. Suu Kyi  attended Oxford University in 1964 studying philosophy, politics, and economics. During this period she met her husband Micheal Aris. He was a British historian who studied Bhutanese and Tibetan history. Suu Kyi spent most of the 1970s and early 1980s out of Myanmar. Suu Kyi  was based between Japan and Bhutan for certain periods of time. There are theories to why she remained away from the country. The Ne Win regime was extremely oppressive and she could have possibly been arrested or faced torture. Suu Kyi most likely became accustomed to a Western and international style of living in which Myanmar was only a minor thought. Aung San Suu Kyi's only reason to return to Myanmar was to care for her mother. Daw Khin Kyi was ill . As Suu Kyi was caring for her mother the country was in full scale rebellion. The Ne Win regime was being challenged in 1988 by students, monks, and office workers. They wanted an end to Ne Win's rule and democratic reforms, which they had not seen since 1962. These protests encouraged Suu Kyi to become active in Burmese politics. Aung San Suu Kyi began to organize rallies and agitate for the cause of free elections and the formation of a democratic system.

The army then took control after the fall of Ne Win. Aung San Suu Kyi was then placed under house arrest for her political activities. 

     Aung San Suu Kyi's life took a major turn in 1990. The National League for Democracy won a landslide victory. Her party took 392 seats of the 485 contested. The military did not expect this outcome.Fears that this would lead to a larger rebellion and criminal prosecution of abusive military figures spread throughout the country. Suu Kyi was put under house arrest once more. Gradually, her international profile was raised.  She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts. The military had to change their image, because international pressure was increasing. The State Law and Order Restoration Council was the official name of the military government and was then changed to the State Peace and Development Council. Than Shwe would come to power in the council ruling from 1992 to 2011. Myanmar continued to deal with poverty, oppression, and ethnic strife. The West noticed the struggle in Myanmar and began to support Suu Kyi's cause. This was not for altruistic reasons. The US and UK wanted a compliant government installed in the country. Suu Kyi's movement was an opportunity to move the country out of a Chinese alignment. Suu Kyi now had support from a number of countries like Australia and most EU countries. The problem with this is that certain nations are attempting to create a puppet to serve their interests. The United States imposed more strict sanctions on Myanmar in 1997. The 1997 sanctions mainly targeted trade, which prohibited private investment in Myanmar.  

Sanctions normally hurt the people more so than the rulers. Aung San Suu Kyi supported them even though it could do damage to the nation as a whole. Suu Kyi was building a popular image internationally. It was an image of liberator who would save Myanmar from the military government. This happens with particular public figures in which many of their flaws or mistakes are ignored.Seeing as she is related to a hero of the independence movement it gives her some political advantage. There has been a cult of personality built up over two decades by the opposition for Suu Kyi. A problem arises from these activities. It could blind followers to issues that need to be addressed. Leaders must be held accountable by their supporters, but this cannot happen if they are so enamored with the figure to openly criticize them. Myanmar has reached a new phase and since 2010 there have been political reforms. The negative consequence of a reformed system is that the opposition has become more divided. Some observers note that she has almost elevated herself to a demigod like status among her supporters. The Thien Sien presidency was a short one compared to other former Burmese leaders. The military had handed power to a civilian government, but it still was in firm control of the country. Suu Kyi's survival was based on certain factors. Executing her could have induced another insurgency  or wider civil war. The government continues to fight a small scale war with Shan and Karen rebel groups. Creating more enemies would only draw more international attention to particular abuses in Myanmar. Another opportunity presented itself and the National League for Democracy was able to take to use the new reforms to their advantage. 

The NLD's victory in recent elections was celebrated, but many realize the struggle is just beginning. Power transition has its complications in countries that do not have a history of a democratic process.There are also disturbing revelations about what Suu Kyi's role will be in the government. 

       The nature of the new government is peculiar. Suu Kyi cannot be president herself, due to a particular stipulation of the constitution. This could change, however it may not be possible given the delicate situation. Suu Kyi had said that in this government framework "she would rule above the president." That type of system is not democratic if she has not been elected to an office.The new president Htin Kyaw has been a longtime associate of Suu Kyi. The significance is that she will rule by proxy. It is not apparent now, but it will become more pronounced. The dream of a democratic society is slowly being replaced by a path to power. These developments lead to more disturbing actions in regards to certain groups. It has been alleged that Suu Kyi supporters were involved in the persecution of the Rohingya. Suu Kyi was silent when the worst acts of violence against this ethnic group occurred.Buddhist attacks grew in number and viciousness. The result was that Rohingyas became refugees and fled to Bangladesh. Aung San Suu Kyi being an icon of human rights or a least as she is presented did not make peace part of the agenda. Ethnic conflict still continues, but seems to be of little importance to the new government. 

It appears as if supporters are either acting on their own or doing it under the direction of Suu Kyi herself. There have also been allegations that the National League of democracy has been jailing people opposed to certain policies or measures. These individuals are not military associated or people attempting to stage a coup, but peace activists on the behalf of the Rohingya. The new government is faced with a conundrum. It either has to keep the nation together by force, developing a more just society, or amassing as much power as it can so that conflict will not spread. If this continues it means that Suu Kyi's liberator image will be destroyed and the democratic experiment a failure. There are also reports that millions of Rohingya were disenfranchised prior to the election. Suu Kyi has fallen into the trap of the political culture of violence and corruption. Her connections to the US and UK do not favor the desire to see the people to live in a stable society. Western investment means that there will be demands to cut social services to satisfy corporations entering the country. 

       The situation for Myanmar becomes more complicated when considering foreign policy. Tension in the South China Sea, North Korea, and the US pivot to Asia put Myanmar in unfavorable scenarios. Asia is being divided by nations aligned with the US or China. The United States sees China as a threat to its global hegemony and is seeing indirect conflict by arming Asian nations.Myanmar's location is essential to US goals and it is clear interest will be growing. Myanmar under Ne Win had poor relations with China. After his overthrow, there were some adjustments in attitudes.The nation's relations did not become contentious with the US until the 1988 crack down.President Obama took another approach by opening high level dialogue with Myanmar in 2009 . Sanctions were still in place, but the United States desired to discuss North Korean arms sales and cooperation in regards to international security issues. Around 2011 the US said that it would no longer block aid from the IMF and World Bank to Myanmar.Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with both Thein Sien and Aung San Suu Kyi. The following year USAID began a mission there and bans on financial investment were slowly being eased. President Obama then met with President Thien Sien in November of 2012. The United States will ignore the constant human rights violations as long as Myanmar moves further away from Beijing. China has become Myanmar's biggest investor . This investment is mostly in infrastructure. The United States wants to push out Chinese business from Myanmar in favor of American companies. It is inevitable that Aung San Suu Kyi will either have to choose between a more assertive China and a conquering US. There is an alternative. It is possible that Suu Kyi and the NLD could play both powers off against one another to benefit Myanmar. This has been done in Asia before. Nepal has done this tactic when dealing with China and India. So far, Myanmar has maintained its non-aligned stance. Aung San Suu Kyi  will make adjustments give the geopolitical circumstances. Internal politics also are a factor. The military still has an abnormal amount of influence in the government and would react to a sudden shift to the West . Suu Kyi is mindful of this. Myanmar will most likely distance itself from North Korea under Suu Kyi. The reason would be to get other sanctions lifted, because certain ones are for arms trade with the DPRK.Suu Kyi may not reject China entirely, because of the economic potential it has. The end of the Thein Sein presidency has given China a clean slate to work from. Suu Kyi now be looking to bring the country out isolation by establishing diplomatic relations with nations outside of Asia. 

Before that happens, relations with Myanmar's neighbors must be stable. Ethnic conflict has the ability to spread across borders and increase hostility. Discrimination and racism directed at Myanmar's ethnic minorities could result in a large exodus of refugees. Thailand, which has political problems of its own would not be able to handle refugees. Laos and Vietnam are struggling economically. Bangladesh has already taken fleeing Rohingya. India and China would reject allowing mass migration. The key to securing regional peace is to end ethnic conflict. If Suu Kyi wants a functioning state this should be one of the top priorities. 

        There still remains an important question. Does Aung San Suu Kyi have the right to rule? Just being the daughter of the national liberation hero does not. Her passion and enthusiasm gives her credibility. However it cannot be ignored that she associates with the nation that was the former colonizer.British rule was both brutal and exploitative . This should not be forgotten and it makes no sense to get assistance from a country that is capable of that type of abuse. Suu Kyi obviously does not have the support of the majority of the population. If she is serious about the democratic experiment decisions should come from consent, not one person. That is why appointing a president seems to be contradictory. For decades the Burmese have not been able to select their leaders.Suu Kyi 's arbitrary pick defeats the purpose of democratic system. There is a level of dishonesty that is being exposed. It appears that the new system mirrors the old one in a different form. Suu Kyi's rule by proxy is just as problematic as the military's influence over government. Suu Kyi's legitimacy can be disputed. Based on these particular patterns of behavior her right and legitimacy to  can be questioned .  The constitution it can be argued should be changed to be fair to every citizen. Saying that a government official is above the law sets a precedent for authoritarianism. There is a possibility Aung San Suu Kyi could become the very entity she was fighting against. Although thirty million voters casts their ballots, a large number of people were prevented from voting. Muslim candidates were restricted from running or being on ballots. Ignoring the Muslim- Buddhist conflict, which has become more pronounced makes Suu Kyi appear hypocritical. If the economic situation gets worse hatred will grow. Poverty has caused much misery for the population. Healthcare is of low quality and unemployment has increased. Years of military government corruption has created this. Suu Kyi must address and reverse this before any new  private investment. Aung San Suu Kyi has much more to do. It still remains unclear if she is a puppet of Western interests or seeking an alternate agenda. Her legacy will continue to be mixed in terms of Burmese history.  

Further Reading 

Mason, Colin. A Short History of Asia. New York : St.Martin's Press, 2000.

  "Profile: Aung San Suu Kyi - BBC News." BBC News. N.p., 9 Nov. 2015. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-11685977>.

 Xu, Beina. "Understanding Myanmar." Council on Foreign Relations. N.p., 25 Mar. 2016. Web. 16 Apr. 2016. <http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/understanding-myanmar/p14385>.     

Cartalucci, Tony. "Myanmar’s Political Transition: Aung San Suu Kyi “Non-Democratic Democracy”." Global Research. N.p., 16 Apr. 2016. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <http://www.globalresearch.ca/myanmars-political-transition-aung-san-suu-kyi-non-democratic-democracy/5520382>.

           

The Greatest American Humanitarian

Martin Luther King dared to challenge the racism that is a quintessential part of American society. The Vietnam War he opposed on the grounds of its violence and hatred, when many refused to acknowledge the truth. The United States was spreading its hate and oppression around the globe under the cover of "fighting communism" or "protecting democracy." The American mainstream has attempted to whitewash his legacy by ignoring his disdain for poverty and all other forms of social injustice. Martin Luther King was a martyr for racial equality, peace, and freedom. Although he believed in integration of society, he realized that it had its limits. When seeing mass rebellions and riots breakout in major US cities in 1967 King stated " I'm afraid we have integrated into a burning house." The US today will not produce such individuals. There is the same level of  anti-black racism prevalent, combined with economic turmoil, and a new wave of xenophobia. War is seen as normal and a necessity; constantly promoted by the mass media and US leaders to advance a political or economic agenda.Martin Luther King wanted the United States to be that land of justice and liberty, which has continued to be an everlasting myth. He marched and organized in the South and North facing the Ku Klux Klan, police, the American Nazi Party, the FBI, and the white supremacist power structure. Martin Luther King's courage and activism continues to inspire and motivate many around the world.