Sept. 11, 2001.

The day sent shockwaves across the United States. It will be remembered as one of those “where were you?” moments, along with the Space Shuttle Challenger tragedy, JFK’s assassination, the Pearl Harbor attack.

The event held different meanings for various generations. It will be learned about in the classrooms for Gen Zers. Many Millennials may distantly remember the tragedy. The Sept. 11 attacks compelled many Gen Xers into military service. For Baby Boomers, Silent Generation and the Greatest Generation, it echoed previous chapters in American history.

The attacks reverberated around the globe. The fatalities weren’t Americans alone — 40 countries lost citizens in the attack. 

9/11 reshaped U.S. counterterrorism and transformed the relationship between law enforcement and intelligence communities. Both were prohibited from sharing information and/or collaborating via a legal and procedural mechanism called “The Wall” prior to the event. The post-9/11 USA Patriot Act removed the data sharing-cooperation barriers.

The tragedy also resulted in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, further refining America’s counterterrorism approach. A strong possibility exists the scale of the 9/11 attacks might have been significantly reduced if the FBI, NSA, CIA and other agencies with knowledge of the various attackers had been allowed to freely exchange information.

We will never know if a hypothetical sharing would have identified the entire plot. It will not surprise me if the country doesn’t learn of various disrupted Al Qaeda and other militant Islamist groups operations directed at U.S. territory at some point in the next several decades.

The attack had additional domestic effects. It unified Americans in a manner not seen in decades. It also witnessed the emergence of the country’s Islamic community onto America’s political scene.

The tragedy unified the country for a brief period. There is a not a single time within the past several decades, except World War II, when Americans set aside their differences and focused on the country’s betterment. 

A sadness permeated the period, a sadness emanating from the realization that many of the country’s socio-economic-political issues could easily be resolved if we exercised the same type of unity toward those various controversies as what followed the 9/11. 

Instead? We are now a nation beset by polarization. It’s as if the post 9/11 unity is but an echo, and that’s a shame.

A third effect is the emergence of the American Islamic community as a political force.  The country’s Muslims came under intense scrutiny following the attack. The event brought to light key aspects of the Islamic faith into the U.S. political lexicon — such as “jihad” and “Sharia law,” for instance.  These terms’ true meanings were distorted by a tiny fraction of Islamist zealots.   

Muslims are gradually starting to have a similar experience as other ethnic-religious groups that have immigrated to the United States over the decades. Their beliefs are misunderstood and ridiculed at first, but accepted over time. 

Those same groups ascend into the American political, economic, and social ranks over time. We are witnessing the pattern now. Several key policymakers have surfaced within the group’s ranks, including Zohran Mamdani, Rashida Tlaib, Illhan Omar.

The 9/11 attacks instigated several key international events. The most notable entailed the activation of NATO’s Article 5, the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, along with a global dragnet against Al Qaeda, its affiliates and other militant Islamist groups. The event resulted in the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The Afghanistan conflict’s immediate objective was the elimination of Al Qaeda’s training camps and the Taliban’s removal as the country’s caretakers. The conflict ended after a hasty American/NATO withdrawal left the same government Washington had overthrown the Taliban. 

The Iraq War was based on false claims of a connection between the 9/11 attacks and Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, plus the existence of an alleged weapons of mass destruction program. American forces withdrew years after toppling the Hussein regime. The operation resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 solders, Marines, and other servicemen. It also witnessed an insurgency emerging from the collapse of the Iraqi government. The same insurgency led to the creation of ISIS and a Syrian-based Al Qaeda offshoot still in existence.

Sept. 11 is now a day most Americans moatly carry on as usual. A meeting will happen, lunches planned, a vacation squeezed in someplace. For those who remember the occasion — especially the relatives of nearly 3,000 Americans and others across the globe who lost a loved one — 9/11 will remain a day of pause, reflection and remembrance for the remainder of their lives.

Matthew Kennedy is a doctoral candidate in politics and international studies at the University of Warwick in Great Britain.

The post How 9/11 will linger through the generations appeared first on Park Record.

“The crew of Artemis II now bound for the moon. Humanity’s next great voyage begins.”

NASA’s Mission Control echoed with words April 1 that not been heard in a long time. Those and related words were iconic the last time an American manned space program existed, words ending with the final Space Shuttle launch in the early 2010s.

The Artemis II mission instigated a new era for NASA, the United States and humanity. 

Several questions need asking. What was Artemis II’s significance? What are the mission’s implications beyond the Artemis program’s objective of establishing a long-term permanent presence on the moon?

• Artemis II tested the operational viability of the Orion capsule.
• The mission witnessed many firsts.
• It illustrated an international collaboration unseen in NASA’s previous missions.

The Artemis II primary mission involved testing the operational fortitude of the Orion capsule, or Integrity as the crew — Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch and Jeremy Hansen — named it. 

The astronauts’ principal responsibility entailed analyzing electronic equipment, habitation facilities, and other aspects necessary for the capsule’s future operational use. The primary downfalls related to the capsule’s heat shield, and its toilet. The results exceeded NASA’s expectations otherwise.

Artemis II witnessed many firsts.

Integrity surpassed Apollo 13’s 1970 distance record for manned space travel. It was the first time humans directly viewed the moon’s far side. It was the first time a woman had flown beyond Earth’s orbit. It was also the first time a non-American had participated in a NASA mission. 

The Canadian Space Agency’s Jeremy Hanson established a precedent for other countries’ astronauts in future missions. His involvement strengthened the NASA-CSA collaboration. It is also possible Hansen’s participation ameliorated the American-Canadian relationship. Several key events strained the affiliation shortly after January 21, 2025.

The Artemis II mission illustrated the benefits of international collaboration. It witnessed the involvement of three international organizations. The European Space Agency represented 10 countries in the pursuit, including Germany and Italy, both of which made the most significant contributions. 

Berlin and Rome furnished Integrity’s electrical power systems, propulsion and habitat modules, plus radiation detectors. 

The Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency provided the capsule’s environmental control and life support system, thermal control system functions and cameras. 

The United Arab Emirates’ Mohammed Bin Rashid Space Center will furnish crew and science airlock technology in future Artemis missions. 

A high probability is other countries and space organizations will augment their roles in the Artemis program.

There was a subtle mention of the elephant in the room throughout the Artemis II coverage: China. The United States and Chine are in an unacknowledged race to return the moon. 

The Artemis program’s space exploration, scientific discovery and societal advancements could be expedited and enhanced if Washington and Beijing consolidated their efforts. A combined NASA and China National Space Administration lunar and deep space pursuit could achieve results presently unimaginable. 

The collaboration is unlikely in the current international climate. U.S. law enforcement authorities charged Chinese nationals with attempting to steal various NASA secrets over the past decade. American policymakers prohibit the agency from interacting with their Chinese counterparts for those and other reasons. A primary concern is China will morph any NASA shared technology into military purposes. 

There are other apprehensions about cooperating with China. Any arrangement between NASA and the CNSA would entail contracts. The Americans and Chinese view contracts differently. U.S. citizens contend an agreement’s final form is compulsory and non-negotiable. The Chinese view a document’s concluding shape as a starting point to address each party’s future unanticipated needs and interests. 

Other contentious points include accountability and transparency. Chinese companies and government officials lack a propensity for either. A NASA-CNSA venture would require each party to be completely open over each issue. 

It’s difficult to foresee the Chinese providing complete accountability or transparency until the Communist Party vacates power. As for the future? It is in both nations’ interest to keep the back channels open to address and maybe overcome these issues.

The Artemis program’s potential is phenomenal. It is demonstrating a capacity for discovery and international collaboration. A high probability exists that more countries and organizations will become involved in the Artemis program in future years. The Artemis’ program’s potential scientific discoveries and resulting societal advancements are events we have yet to witness. 

The question is how will Artemis’ medical, electronic, and other findings impact our daily lives? It’s a process Artemis II instigated that will unfold in years to come.

Matthew Kennedy is a doctoral candidate in politics and international studies at the University of Warwick in Great Britain.

The post Impact of Artemis II promising in collaborative moonshot appeared first on Park Record.

Stunning. Shocking. (Still.)

I haven’t encountered any American who didn’t experience one of those sentiments upon learning a U.S. citizen became the next pope. The event sent a shock wave across the U.S. Catholic community and the country.   

The reaction is understandable.

An underlying belief existed among U.S. and overseas Vatican watchers that an American would never occupy the papacy. The concern was that an American pope would augment Washington’s broad cultural, economic and diplomatic international influence. A BBC analyst contended U.S cardinals were automatically discounted for papal consideration. 

Enter Cardinal Robert Prevost/Pope Leo XIV.

The real reason behind Pope Leo XIV’s ascension may never be known. The Catholic Church prohibits Cardinals from discussing internal deliberations once the papal selection process — Conclave — starts.

But the pope’s background may shed light into his attractiveness:

• He spent 20 years in Peru.
• He belongs to the Augustinian Order.
• He held various positions in the Vatican.
• He was a close associate of the late Pope Francis.

And:

• Pope Leo is viewed as a moderate while leaning toward Francis’ teachings.

A London-based bishop, Ariel Beramendi, argued that the Conclave’s cardinals were divided into three groups: one that believed the church needed to return to Catholicism’s roots; a second, supported Pope Francis’ views; and a third that favored reconciling the differences between both parties. Cardinal Prevost’ ascension suggests he is affiliated with the last group, while supporting the second. 

A key point in Leo’s favor was his Peru connection. The future pope spent 20 years in the South American country. He ultimately became an archbishop in one of the nation’s cities. His Peruvian link allowed him to relate with a sizeable number of the Conclave’s participants, many of whom represented global southern countries which, until Pope Francis, had never partaken in a papal election. A potential connection existed between those individuals and Cardinal Prevost subsequently. 

Another element in the Cardinal’s favor is his directorship of the Augustinian Order. The order focuses on the poor. Cardinal Prevost served in different Vatican posts, including as director of the office responsible for selecting bishops.

A final factor in Cardinal Prevost’s favor was his connection with Pope Francis. Many Vatican analysts contend the future pope supported continuing Pope Francis’ policies. 

The elephant in the room relates to Pope Leo’s American citizenship. My sense is the previous attributes probably negated his U.S. status. The Conclave’s participants probably didn’t consider his American connection in their vote, or it was a secondary or third issue. 

The timing of Pope Leo XIV’s rise is interesting, internationally, for the Catholic Church, and for Americans. Pope Leo XIV needs to address several questions:

• What type of foreign policy will the Catholic Church pursue?
• Will the common man and women be allowed to participate in the church’s decision-making process?
• When and how will the Catholic Church challenge the Trump administration over various issues?

The global community is experiencing an organizational change, a change driven by the United States. Washington is focusing more on its national interests than abetting the international community via participation in various entities such as the World Health Organization and International Criminal Court for instance. American foreign policy is now transactional, instead of focusing on security concerns and/or human rights.  

What role will the Catholic Church play in the current climate is the question. Will it augment and enhance its role as an international mediator? Will it seek to shape the global community’s agenda by focusing on specific issues such as climate change and migration? 

These are some of the subjects Pope Leo will examine in the upcoming future.

A second subject relates to social issues. This is particularly the case surrounding the common man and women’s role in the church’s decision-making process, plus the church’s relations with LGBTQ community.  

Women’s positions were augmented under Pope Francis. The common man’s participation was expanded during the late pontiff’s tenure. The church also made inroads toward accepting LGBTQ individuals. 

How those issues will be addressed under Pope Leo’s auspices is unknown. What is definite is Cardinal Prevost shares many of Pope Francis’ views on many of those topics. It will be surprising if Pope Leo doesn’t continue the late pope’s pursuits along a similar trajectory.

A last issue surrounds Pope Leo’s relations with the United States and the Trump administration. Cardinal Prevost was born, raised and partially educated in Chicago.  He understands the American political environment. A key unknown is how he will address the U.S. political climate with Catholic doctrine. 

Cardinal Prevost had disputes with President Trump and Vice President Vance over various subjects. The administration is currently engaged in policies and activities contrary to the church’s practices.

Will the pope directly challenge the administration over those and other topics? Or will he work with the administration to address, lessen or alleviate the administration’s pursuits while adhering to the churches’ teachings? 

It will be interesting to see how Pope Leo influences the American political arena. It will happen undoubtably. How it will unfold and to what extent is the question. What will be interesting is following the administration’s response. 

My suspicion is the White House will attempt at some point to blemish, create falsehoods, or slander the pope. This will probably occur if (or when) a collision ensues between the Vatican and Washington. It will surprise me if many voices within the American Catholic community do not directly challenge the administration, should the proceeding ensue. 

Many of those same voices may include many Republican Catholic representatives and senators. 

Pope Leo’s ascendency was welcome across the international community, and surprised many Americans. His rise may serve as a watershed moment in the country’s politics. The pope’s tenure may instigate an unanticipated evolution — a shift in the U.S. political landscape in future years in some way, shape or form. It assuredly won’t remain the same.

Matthew Kennedy is a doctoral candidate in politics and international studies at the University of Warwick in Great Britain.

The post First American pope will change U.S. in some way, TBD appeared first on Park Record.

Humility. Inclusion. Spunk. The people’s pope.

Those are some of the words describing the late Pope Francis. 

Francis’ passing following Easter Sunday surprised many across the globe. The pope seemed frail during an Easter appearance at the St. Peter’s Basilica’s balcony. He refused to allow his health from greeting parishioners around St. Peter’s Square via the “Popemobile.” As it turned out, the experience allowed him a final opportunity to be with a people he loved before entering the Lord’s house on April 21. The archbishop of New York remarked the timing of his death was perfectly “choregraphed.” 

Pope Francis’ exemplified several characteristics:

• An embrace of the lower, middle classes, and the marginalized.
• A focus on commonalities instead of differences between religious and social groups.
• Inclusiveness.
• An evolutionary approach towards the church’s reforms.

And

• A genuine love of people.

Francis advocated for the poor and marginalized. He not only preached it, but lived it. He worked among Buenos Aires slums as a priest and archbishop before becoming pope. He shunned the papacy’s trappings. He resided in a Vatican guest house called the Casa Santa Marta instead of the pope’s traditional residence in the Apostolic Palace. He used a smaller car when traveling rather than the more luxurious vehicle popes traditionally use. 

It would have been understandable if he took advantage of those amenities. He chose against it, apparently uncomfortable in those environments. He preferred a lifestyle similar to those he served.

Another notable aspect of Francis’ life was his reconciliation effort with other faiths. Francis advocated interfaith dialogue. He once remarked that “all religions are paths to God.” He visited Islamic and Jewish holy sites in Iraq and Jerusalem. Francis understood the world’s major religions shared more theological commonalities than differences.

Francis’ inclusivity can not be understated. He appointed cardinals from countries lacking such a Catholic official previously. These included Haiti, Laos and Rwanda, for instance. He also traveled to areas which had not received a papal visit before, such as Mongolia, North Macedonia, South Sudan, Iraq, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Myanmar. 

He was highly popular among Catholics worldwide. Two notable examples are in the Philippines and Brazil. At least 8 million parishioners participated in those events.  Francis was also the only pope to give an address before a joint-session of the U.S. Congress in 2015.

One of the pope’s pursuits entailed reforming the Vatican’s bureaucracy, or Curia. The effort achieved partial success. Francis no doubt realized it is a long-term process. 

The pope held ambiguous views regarding women. He elevated women to 20 key leadership positions within the Vatican hierarchy. But he opposed ordaining women as deacons and priests. 

He reached out to the LGBTQ community. One of Francis’ most notable quotes is, “If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them?” It spoke volumes for the direction Francis aspired for the church.

Francis’ love of people is witnessed via various instances. He occasionally extended visits with audiences. A German friend of mine experienced this trait. She and her colleagues had a papal audience and as the meeting’s conclusion approached, an aide informed him lunch was next. He postponed it. The pope remained with my friend and her colleagues to finish their conversation. Similar examples have been reported.

He also had no objections about participating in others’ cultural activities. If it was wearing a red clown nose at a charity event, a sombrero in Mexico, or donning a Japanese anime jacket he was given, Francis had an authentic affection and interest in people and cultures. 

The question now, of course, is what next? 

The cardinals charged with electing the next pope will meet in the Vatican’s Sistine Chapel for Conclave, the papal election. Several factors will influence the event. 

Africa, Asia, and Central and South America have replaced Europe as Catholicism’s demographic center of gravity. Pope Francis selected 80% of the cardinals who will vote in the Conclave. Popes Benedict and John Paul II chose the other 20%.

The next pontiff will need to address a variety of issues. These include the church’s unresolved sexual abuse scandals; the status of women and the common man within the Vatican’s decision-making apparatus; the church’s relationship with the LGBTQ community; and the extent the Holy See will continue pursuing interfaith dialogue with other religious communities, most notably Muslims, Jews and the Eastern Orthodox Churches. 

The 267^th pope will also need to determine how the Vatican will be involved in international affairs and to what extent. 

All of these factors will influence the cardinals’ vote during Conclave. The next Pope will probably surprise many Catholics, church analysts and the international community. There is a possibility the upcoming Conclave will produce a Pontiff from the same mold as Pope Francis — an unknown, unanticipated and/or overlooked cardinal from outside Europe. (I cannot see an American pope emerging for at least two or three generations). He will also probably share many of Francis’ views.

Whoever is elected pope will have some very big shoes to fill. Pope Francis’ left a legacy that will permeate the Sistine Chapel during the Conclave’s deliberations. The next pope certainly will have a daunting challenge ahead for the church and for the international community at large.

Matthew Kennedy is a doctoral candidate in politics and international studies at the University of Warwick in Great Britain.

The post The ‘people’s pope’ changed the church, and the world appeared first on Park Record.