Not History but the Future

In a previous post, a friend and I had a largely academic debate about what to consider when evaluating whether to support growing democracies. Despite all of our back and forth and a seeming resolution, I still feel like I don't know whether the argument was over semantics and word usage or whether there was a real difference of opinion about American foreign policy. Well, there is no better way to find out than to explore real world examples. Here it goes.

I can think of four examples where supporting a democracy could be debated, as there is a case to be made about whether democracies in those places are in America's interests. You'll remember that my friend and I debated about whether we should consider "American interests" when deciding whether to support a democracy. I get the general sense that my friend is more comfortable considering that than I am - although I think we agreed that it should be considered - or at least shouldn't be ignored. The four countries that I want to consider are Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, and Venezuela.

Let's start with the last one first. Venezuela is currently a democracy. However, because of Hugo Chavez's public antagonism towards the US and their supply of oil that the US is a big consumer of (in fact, I think we are one of the few countries that can process the oil they extract), it is conceivable that a dictator there that is friendly to the US could be in America's interests.

I do understand that this example is a bit imaginary, since it is unlikely that we would actually support an overthrow there. But since it might be in our interest, should we support such a thing? I would argue no. Since the democracy that exists there, while antagonistic, is not actually harming us in any significant way, we should absolutely not interfere and deny people their rights to self-government.

Okay, that was easy. How about Egypt? This one is more real, since there is currently a dictator there that supports the US. Our current policy it seems is to tread carefully with Egypt. We do not speak out - at least not loudly - against Mubarak's regime. This is in part to maintain his cooperation, but also because we fear the Muslim Brotherhood winning in elections.

There is the possibility of instability from an Egypt that is more radical. However, and I imagine this is where my friend and I disagree, I have an abiding faith in democracy and its ability to moderate radical parties. Governments that create instability and attract the condemnation and punishment of the international community are unlikely to stay in power. I would predict a Muslim Brotherhood that is publicly aggressive in words only.

This leads me perfectly to Palestine. The Bush administration made the decision to support Palestinian elections. Many look back and think that was a mistake. I disagree - I think the mistake was in not giving Hamas the opportunity to fail. Instead, they are the de facto rulers of Gaza, but are able to blame their failures on the international community which immediately rejected the will of the people.

Finally, let's look at Saudi Arabia. This one is much harder to predict because the government is so repressive, it is impossible to know what type of government the people actually favor. Whatever government is selected, the biggest concern to America is over oil. I don't imagine they would refuse to sell us oil. However, they would likely be much less willing to increase production when prices rise, as the current government does. Here, I would be inclined to support the democracy, assuming that as that option began to present itself, we might know a little more about what it might look like. Again, I think it is my faith in democracy that leads me to think we could tolerate a democratic Saudi Arabia.

I think in all examples though, I don't see anything scary enough to justify denying a people's ability to live free. And maybe that is my overall point - that to deny someone's rights to live in a democratic society, there had better be something that is really putting American lives and safety at risk. In the past, I think we valued freedom in other countries so little, that we would deny that freedom if it gave us even a slight benefit or slight increase in stability. We should value other people's freedom far more than we have.

Before I wrap up though, there is one thing that really gives me pause and that is the possibility that by allowing a democratic election, we don't allow a democracy to grow, but instead give another group - one that is less favorable - the opportunity to become the new tyrant. There are examples of this happening (think Zimbabwe among others). And among the examples we discussed above, Hugo Chavez has certainly tried this, although unsuccessfully so far. And it is possible that the Muslim Brotherhood might also go this route. In this case though, the concern is not with an unfriendly democracy, but a democracy that does not last.

I don't quite know how to handle this. It seems overly paternalistic to tell a country they are not ready for democracy. However, we have seen how hard it is to get rid of unfriendly non-democratic leaders.

I think my only answer would be to say that I would rather air on the side of democracy. I would rather tell a country that we tried to let democracy grow but it failed than to say that I didn't think it was a good time for them - that they weren't ready - to choose their own government and live in a free society.

Not Sure What to Think

I cannot decide whether to be a little optimistic about the new Israeli government, or depressed and terrified. And my feelings change depending on the article I read. The fact that this is a right wing government (with Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister) that does not believe in a two state solution depresses me - especially since I thought Obama's even hand might actually be able to guide the region forward.

But then it seems that the right wing government wants to govern from the middle and does not want to anger the Obama administration (and thereby recognizing that Obama will be more willing to actually criticize). And although they do not believe in a two state solution, they want to see economic growth in the Palestinian territories before talk of a two-state solution.

So I guess I am in the middle - neither optimistic nor depressed. I am glad there is talk of fostering economic growth in the territories. However, I am skeptical since I do not know what kind of growth can be expected given the large scale destruction in Gaza (maybe they only mean the West Bank). We'll just have to wait and see.

More on the Gaza Seige

Summary: Roughly 120 Palestinian civilians have died in 2008 as a result of Israeli raids, including the recent attacks. These attacks resulted from thousands of Hamas rockets, which have killed 5 Israeli civilians. Who is looking out for Palestinian civilians?

I want to spend some more time analyzing the current Israeli attacks in Gaza, which now include a ground invasion. Let's look first at what has caused the invasion: Hamas rockets fired from Gaza into Israel. Hamas has launched thousands of rockets into Israel in the last few years, including 300 between December 19th and December 27th of 2008. So as you might imagine, thousands of rockets will create an unacceptable level of fear among Israeli civilians.

However, during 2008 a total of five Israeli civilians have died as a result of Hamas rockets. Before the recent Israeli attack on Gaza, 420 Gazans had been killed, at least of fifth of them civilians, by Israeli raids. So even before the invasion, the numbers seem lopsided. If we include the recent attacks, where some 300 have been killed, including between 50 - 90 civilians, it looks even more lopsided.

If five Israeli civilian deaths are enough to cause Israel to kill an estimated 120 or more Palestinian civilians, than it gives the impression that Palestinian lives are worth less than Israeli lives. Israel, and the US in other conflicts, claim that they are trying to avoid killing civilians while their enemies are in fact trying to kill civilians. But trying not to kill civilians isn't the same as actually not killing civilians. Of course, Hamas seems to care as little about the civilians that die, except in using their deaths to rally support of their cause.

In the end, I suppose that is the biggest tragedy of this ongoing situation: nobody seems to care about the Palestinian civilians that die. Israel doesn't care enough to stop bombing or to let anything more than a trickle of humanitarian aid enter Gaza. Palestine doesn't care enough to stop their rocket attacks. And the international community doesn't care enough to get more involved and find a solution, consider that the solution is likely to be hard and costly.

The problem I face though in this analysis is that a major criteria for analyzing whether the attack is justified is whether Israel exercised all other options. I, and probably many others, do not know enough to come to a firm conclusion here. Maybe Israel could have opened the borders, but this would have allowed more rockets to come in. I cannot think of a different course for Israel - while I think five deaths is not enough to launch this war, at some point the rocket attacks have to stop. Unfortunately, there are only two ways to stop them - an Israeli invasion or some sort of internationally support peace or disarmament.

The Economist has some interesting articles on the war (much of my data and background info comes from these articles), and more discussion on whether the attack is justified and proportional.

Book Report: Paris 1919

It feels like I have been reading this book forever. Overall, Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World was pretty good (although her writing and organization is a little confusing at times). I wish I had a map of Europe and the Middle East on hand as I was reading it as her descriptions of the boundary negotiations were quite detailed. And I also found I needed to brush up on my 19th Century European history as I was reading (good old Spark Notes).

It's amazing how much the World War I peace conference set up the world as we know it today - especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe - and therefore is the cause of many of the problems that we face.

One of the failings of the treaty was how it had to reconcile two different time periods. It was in some ways wedded to the past peace treaties that focused on imperialism, distributing spoils of war and punishing the losers. At the same time, it tried to also look to the idealism of Wilson's Fourteen Points of self-determination and equality (in some cases). So what we got was an imperfect treaty that often diverged from the Fourteen Points.

All of the decisions on the Middle East ignored the idea of "self-determination." The borders of the new countries of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq were based on imperialist aims, not on how best to divide up Kurdish, Persian, Arab and Turkish nations or Sunni, Shiite, Marionite Christians, Orthodox Christians, Druse, and secular religions. And the homeland for Jewish people in Palestine ignored whether Palestinians wanted an influx of European and Russian Jews.

The decision to unite Iraq was based on the British recognizing the value of oil in Mosul and its desire to protect its interests in India. It added Kurish populations to the new country just to add more territory. Lebanon was expanded to give the Marionite Christian population more land, dividing Syria and ignoring the fact that the extra land would include Muslims. At the time this book was written (2002), Syria was still occupying Lebanon.

It is also amazing to see how important personality was in the treaty discussions. Greece was often given its way because its representative was popular and charismatic, while Italy was largely spurned because its reps were tactless and unpopular. The support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine came from effective lobbying.

The bottom line is that the final treaty is obviously imperfect. It was a massive undertaking, but comes out inconsistent and sloppy in many ways. After reading this book however, I am not sure that I blame it for World War II or the conflicts in the Balkans. I do though blame it for some of the problems in the Middle East (Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel/Palestine).

On Israel and Palestine

Summary:
The governments in Israel and Palestine are weak and therefore unable to take the bold steps necessary for peace. We should realize this and while keeping the issue in the public attention know that we actually have limited influence over who is powerful and who is weak.

My mind has gone back and forth over the situation in Israel - especially how to deal with Hamas. This article in the most recent New York Review of Books on the issue clearly lays out the challenges to any progress. Here are some highlights, although I would of course recommend reading the entire article.

Whatever happens, the Palestinian movement will remain a fluid entity, as difficult to pin down as it will be to pressure or to deal with. The US and Israeli governments will be tempted to ignore the change, persisting in their attempts to isolate Hamas and deal only with non-Islamist members of the government. But it is only a matter of time before such fantasies come crashing down. One of the goals of the US and Israel may be to bolster Abbas, yet nothing has weakened the Palestinian president more than misplaced international attempts to strengthen him. If Hamas feels thwarted in its attempt to share power, it will do what it can—and it can do much—to torpedo Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. One cannot prevent the Islamists from ruling and then expect them to acquiesce in a political process from which they have been kept out.

The fact is that neither Hamas nor Fatah have any real power or authority to make decisions, nor do they know what they are willing to sacrifice for their goals. The article talks about how Fatah is still overwhelmed with corruption and patronage, while Hamas has to decide whether it wants to be a legitimate political group or an armed resistance group. There are serious problems both internally and externally for the Palestinian government, but it is unclear who holds power.

Here is a great summary of the situation in Israel:

Corruption, no longer an aberration, virtually is a way of life. Less surprised than resigned, Israelis are disillusioned with politics and government. The scarcity of charismatic leaders and the new generation of run-of-the-mill politicians is another symptom of a system in crisis.

[Edit]

Israeli governments are often short-lived, subject to the vagaries of an anachronistic political arrangement, itself the product of an electoral system which often requires coalition governments and allows smaller parties to dictate their parochial wishes to larger ones or, alternatively, to oust them from office. A peace initiative threatens to upset the delicate political equilibrium and reduce the prime minister's term in office. The stubborn gap between the public's support for an agreement with the Palestinians and the leadership's inability to accomplish it is explained in part by this feature.

The article goes on to also talk about the possibilities of a multi-party agreement that would include normalized relations between Israel and the Arab countries in the Middle East, as well as American efforts in the region.

In the end, there seems to be little hope of serious progress under the current circumstances. With a deficit of leadership in Israel (and here in the US) and a chaotic and fluid government in Palestine, it seems that nothing will happen until both countries get their own houses in order. In the meantime, maybe we should stop pressuring for it to go our way (knowing that our support for Abbas weakens him, and our isolation of Hamas strengthens them), and just make sure we keep active and let the world know we care about a just solution to the problem.