What Have We Learned?

On the blog for the Human Rights Committee that I am a part of, I talked a little about the situation in Pakistan where General Musharraf has declared emergency rule and imprisoned 500 people from the opposition party. What I want to talk about here though is the broader foreign policy involved.

Throughout our history, we have used our power to judge and influence foreign governments. Countries we support get financial aid, and those we don't can be ignored, sanctioned or sometimes overthrown. What I want to talk about is when and why we support certain governments.

Our main criteria for support include economy (socialist of market), friendliness to US and US businesses, and democracy. Since it is obvious that a country with a market economy, functioning democracy, and friendly relations with US and our businesses would warrant our support, and a lack of all three would not, I will not bother discussing them. What is more interesting to me are the countries in the middle.

In many situations, we have countries that, if democratic would choose either socialism or to spurn the US (I am lumping both of these together because I think they are similar in that by being either socialist or not supporting our interests, a country runs contrary to our interests) and if not democratic would support a market economy and welcome American businesses. The question is, which of these alternatives should the US push for.

To date, we have obviously chosen the later; we are willing to support (if not create) governments that are not democratic - and can in fact be very brutal - so long as they are pro-US and have market economies. I think that if we look to history it is clear that not only is it better for our reputation to support democracies even when they oppose us (like Venezuela), but it is in our interest. Iran is of course the glaring example of this, but we could also look to Cuba, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. In fact, the argument could be made that Chavez's anti-American rhetoric is so popular because of our history in South America (Chile, for example).

Unfortunately, our leaders are much better at working for short-term gains instead of focusing on the long term. A leader like Musharraf will pay immediate dividends as a supporter of the GWOT (supposedly) and as always there is less risk in dealing with someone you know as opposed to someone you don't. But in the long term, our reputation and our security will be much better served with a population in Pakistan that remembers that we supported their democracy instead of allowing a military dictator to continue.

I want to finish though by noting that this issue extends beyond Pakistan. Political parties affiliated with strong Islamic groups are making grounds in countries like Palestine and Egypt. I think that we would do better to support the governments that get elected rather than supporting democracy only when it leads to the outcome we favor.

No Bipartisan Revolt?

A friend and I discussed the history of the strong executive in an email exchange last week. It is no secret that the Bush administration has been expanding presidential powers since they took office - mostly through the effort of VP Cheney. As I have thought about this, I often wondered if I would object as much if it were a Democrat seeking greater powers. In fact, my friend got us started on the debate by referencing Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals. After reading that book, I was glad Lincoln was firmly in charge instead of Congress.

Granted, to some degree that was during a war, where most people would support a much stronger president. Now, Bush claims that there is a Global War on Terrorism, one that is everlasting therefore allowing his expanded powers to be everlasting. Before I start an argument over semantics, lets avoid discussing whether the GWOT is a useful title for our current situation. In fact, for simplicity sake, let's just agree that it is a war (after all, we still use the term cold war - so obviously the word war can apply to diverse situations). Even if we allow it to be labeled a war, we should ask whether it is a war that requires expanded presidential powers.

My personal feeling is that a strong executive, one that is not responsive to Congress, is only necessary under grave threat and for as short a time as possible. Although threats are serious, I don't think it is enough that we should allow a President to choose not to follow Congressional laws. If I am intellectually consistent though, I have to agree that I would say the same thing if a Democrat were in office, which is the question I asked a few paragraphs ago. And I believe that I would argue the same points then. The fact is, Democrat or Republican, no president should issue signing statements that declare they don't really have to follow the law that was just passed (as Bush did with the torture law for example).

What I truly don't understand though is why it hasn't become a bipartisan issue. Why haven't Republicans in Congress bristled at a President that rules without them? I can't fathom how a Republican would allow a president in the same party to make them effectively irrelevant, just because they generally agree (on the torture signing statement, maybe they thought he was doing them a favor - they could support an overwhelmingly popular bill that they didn't agree with while their buddy the President would make it clear he wasn't really going to follow it). But in general he has taken power away from Congress, and Republicans have done little about it. This I find truly baffling.

Elect Rudy, Get 4 More Years of Bush

I actually think my headline is a bit of an understatement. Recent quotes from Rudy suggest that many of his foreign policy positions are more hard-lined, and therefore at this point worse for our country, than President Bush's policies. First, Guliani thinks water boarding might not be torture depending on how it is carried out (apparently he doesn't realize that it is a specific procedure carried out in a specific way). Thankfully, McCain responded and set him straight. Also, Rudy has made it clear that he supports Israel completely and considers Palestine to be nothing but terrorists. And he says that history will judge the Iraq War as the right decision. Finally, his rhetoric on Iran has been more belligerent than Bush, if you can believe that.

All of this is terrible policy. Aggressive interrogation practices don't necessarily yield better information and on top of that, it further hurts our image abroad. A hard-lined support for Israel does the same thing. In fact, if one wanted to increase anti-Americanism and increase the number of people willing to do us harm, they would be hard-pressed to think of two better ways of doing it. Bush, thanks to Secretary Rice, has finally realized that our total support for Israel is one of the main rallying points of anti-Americanism in the Middle East.

Rudy believing that invading Iraq was the right decision means he would likely make a similar decision if he is president. Which brings us to Iran, where the harsh rhetoric only strengthens their president by allowing him to talk about America instead of Iran's rapidly declining economy at least, and at most could lead us to a war with them (a war that would cost us).

My guess is that since Rudy knows he won't win the primary by talking about his views on gun control, gay rights, or abortion, he figures the best thing he can do is reinforce his credentials as the President of 9/11 - namely showing how tough he is. It depresses me how much I see this happening during the primaries. The problem is that I think he probably believes what he is saying. And the last thing we need is four years of foreign policy that is more aggressive than Bush's - especially when he doesn't seem to have learned any lessons from Bush.

Can't Manage

If we are going to be honest we need to admit that the Democrats have been such a letdown in Congress. And I don't mean this from a policy perspective. Most of the things they have fought for I agree with (increased funding for some social welfare priorities for example). But from an effectiveness perspective they have been useless. On Iraq they have done very little that is meaningful and even their comments are vapid and useless.

Even worse though has been their handling of the budget. Part of the reason Democrats were swept into power in Congress is because Republicans, who are supposed to be fiscally responsible, were seen as wasteful. But now, because Democrats can't agree on a budget and can't decide how to proceed in the face of Bush's veto threats, Republicans are once again able to cast themselves as protectors of restrained spending and Democrats are once again given the label "tax and spend". The 2006 elections were a gift, and the current leadership of the party is letting that gift spoil.

My New Venture

Although I haven't been posting here nearly as much as I want to, I will be posting even less here in the future. I have joined a human rights advocacy committee - part of the Young Professionals for International Cooperation - and I started a blog for that committee. Anything I write about human rights will be posted there. I hope you will check it out. I will continue to post some things here related to domestic policy and parts of foreign policy that don't quite fit under human rights.

To Rebel?

There was an article in the NY Times yesterday where a reporter was sitting in on debates between officers in the US Army. The debates were about the Iraq War and whether generals should have said more in the lead-up to the war about troop levels. The main argument in the debate seems to fall around when you are supposed to follow orders and when you should speak out in hopes of changing policy. I have been thinking about their arguments recently, because it both is meaningful in terms of having civilian control of the military but also because it applies to my work as a public administrator.

For many liberals, this issue doesn't seem hard at first. The generals should have spoken out and prevented the war from happening (or calling for many more troops, which would have had the same effect). One of the officers in the article though mentioned that if the military prevented any policy it disagreed with by fighting it in the press, the civilian leaders would no longer be in control of the military. Imagine a different scenario where a president wants to get involved to end a genocide but his or her military leadership drums up opposition to prevent it. This is unfathomable; Colin Powell was opposed to intervening in Bosnia.

This issue plays itself out in settings outside the military as well. I was trained in public administration, and one of the issues we talked about was when you are supposed to go along with an administration you don't agree with, and when you should resist or resign / quit. As civil servants, this is a big issue. Of course in class we watched a video about the Japanese Ambassador to Germany who signed papers allowing many Jews to leave Germany. This is a grand example, and although it was tremendously brave, doesn't help with the less obvious examples. Many of us might think Iraq is an obvious example, but we can think about working for EPA for example under President Bush. Liberals working there might want to fight his policies that are ruining our environment, but if everyone followed that lead, president's would be powerless and civil servants would run government. At some point, people have to be willing to work for a leader even if they don't agree with him or her.

The point of this rambling post is that we need to be careful what we wish for. A more outspoken military leadership might prevent meaningful interventions (or otherwise stand in the way of good policy).

Myanmar

The most recent article I read about Myanmar turned my anger into depression. It seems that the military is a big part of the culture, and decreasing its role seems unlikely. At the same time though, it shouldn't be impossible to give it a role similar to ours. The need for a strong US military is rarely questioned in mainstream America. But it doesn't rule the country or violently crack down on protests (although the police does sometimes).

What's worse is that it seems like sanctions won't do a thing, and there is little hope that any UN or American peacekeeping force would be tolerated. So, with the help of China, we'll probably get some concessions from the military junta that makes it look like it is opening up, and then soon enough things will go back to normal - where normal means monks get beaten and arrested when they call for democracy.

UPDATE:
You have to love The Onion, and not just for its crude but random humor. It's political satire is so often spot on. Take this one for example:

First Lady Laura Bush said Tuesday that the White House was ready to slap sanctions on the Burmese military government if it did not move toward democracy. What do you think?

Ian Brannon,
High School Administrator
"I didn't care about Darfur. Good luck getting me to give a shit about Burma."

So true - and so depressing. Although the fact that Laura Bush is talking about it suggests that the American public is likely to be more sympathetic towards monks in Burma than Africans in Sudan.

Our New Best Friend

Many conservatives were supportive of Bush's "go-it-alone" approach to foreign policy. Unfortunately, it looks like the result was that we traded partners like France, Germany, and the UN for China. I wonder if that was part of the plan.

Granted, part of the reason they are a partner is they have the leverage we need in dealing with countries like North Korea, Iran, and Myanmar; leverage that we wouldn't have going through the UN. Still, this (along with the Iraq War) shows the limits of "Cowboy diplomacy".

I would say that it is comforting to see China being so active, but in the end, they are doing it because it is in their interest.

No Hope in Congo

Summary:
There has been an epidemic of rapes recently in the Congo. The Rwandan genocide of 1994 may be one of the causes.

I wonder if President Clinton realizes the long term consequences of our acceptance of the genocide in Rwanda. Sure, he has apologized for it, and maybe he thinks he really meant it. But if he thinks the situation is behind him - and behind the world - he is wrong.

In Congo, there is a serious epidemic of rape (an odd phrase since one rape is too many, and two might be enough for me to consider it an epidemic). Here is the NY Times on the story: According to the United Nations, 27,000 sexual assaults were reported in 2006 in South Kivu Province alone, and that may be just a fraction of the total number across the country. We know that women have been victims during conflict; rapes were a part of the genocide in Rwanda and are a major concern in Darfur and refugee camps for those feeling the violence in Darfur. But the sheer numbers in the Congo, particularly the Eastern region is horrifying.

The reason I link this to the genocide in Rwanda is that one of the groups carrying out the rapes were members of the Hutu militias responsible for the genocide. Since then they have apparently fled Rwanda into Congo. The NY Times article suggests that the psychological damage from the genocide might be playing a part in the particular savageness of these crimes.

To me, the bigger reason is the lawlessness in the region. The largest UN peacekeeping mission is in Congo(17,000 troops), but it isn't nearly big enough. Until the world gets seriously invested in protecting the victims of conflict and post-conflict situations, we will continue to hear horrifying stories like this.

Not Interested

I've got to say, I don't really understand all the attention we give to President Ahmadinejad of Iran. He is far weaker in his own government than we make him out to be. So why do we pay so much attention to him, when all it does is make him more popular and make him look strong? It isn't smart strategy. If I were the Bush administration, I would make sure to say things like, "We are disappointed that the President of Iran is saying this, but in the end, we listen to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei for information about the policy direction of Iran." It also makes us look dumb to care so much about what he says because it makes us look like we don't know that he is mostly powerless.

Yup, I Like Vouchers

Summary:
Guess what? I now support vouchers. Two studies are showing that some voucher programs are demonstrating early positive results. And I can no longer find reasons to defend why low income students should be kept out of private schools when their public schools are failing.

The New York Sun published an article about new research that shows vouchers improved public schools in Milwaukee. The research was done by Federal Reserve Economist Rajashri Chakrabarti, and is available here. Further, RAND Corporation released a study that also investigates effects of school vouchers. Their conclusion is that it is too early to judge for sure whether these programs have or have not worked, but some programs have shown promising results, and program design is very important to the success of the school choice program.

I have two comments about these studies. One is that when more research like this comes out, liberals need to trust its findings and change their opinions just like they expect conservatives to do when studies show evidence that contradicts their beliefs. I don't actually expect either side to do this, but I feel the need to say this anyway. The fact is, liberals (including myself) yell and scream when conservatives say that people on welfare are just lazy, despite overwhelming evidence that most want to work but face significant obstacles (need for childcare, no jobs nearby, no easy way to get to jobs that are far away, etc). So if our goal is to improve education opportunities (as opposed to just trying to preserve funding for public schools regardless of results), and if it seems some voucher programs do improve achievement, than we need to adjust our thinking and support them.

My second point though is on the philosophy of school choice. I am finding it harder and harder to defend the opinion that we need to force people who can't afford private schools to remain in traditional public schools. The current argument seems to be that public schools are sacred institutions and we need to preserve them at all costs. It is hard to see public schools this way when so many schools are failing so many people.

There is often debate about whether education is valued in some of the communities where performance is worse. It doesn't seem hard to understand though why people would stop believing in education if they were in a place where the public schools were terrible and there were no other options available. Many of the studies I have seen show high parental satisfaction rates with charter schools and voucher programs - even when performance isn't improving. So obviously parents want options.

So after reading the results of these two studies, I am ready to support vouchers (I already support charter schools) in low income areas with low performing schools. The program should be specifically targeted to those in the failing schools, and should be direct subsidies instead of income credits. Anyway, I suggest everyone reads at least the press release of the two studies - or if you have to choose one, read the RAND press release.

It's About Time

So who else is excited that the NY Times finally ended TimesSelect? See, now when you read my posts, you can actually read the Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman columns that I link to. You're excited aren't you?

I would link to a column now to celebrate, except Kristof in on book leave, and Friedman's recent columns haven't been great.

I'm with Bremer

Summary: I don't think Bremer's decision to disband the Iraqi army was necessarily a bad one. And the problem in Iraq isn't this issue, the problem is that we didn't go in with enough troops and didn't plan for the occupation.

I have so much I want to write about, I don't quite know where to start. I guess I will begin with something quick. Recently, L. Paul Bremer 3 has been defending his decision to disband the Iraqi army and move forward with de-Baathification. In hindsight, both decisions seem to have been very poor choices. But I don't know if this was obvious as they were being carried out. Before I get into it though, I want to be clear that I think these failed strategies point to the bigger problem that the Bush administration clearly didn't plan for what to do with Iraq after they ousted Saddam.

I have to say, I think it would have been hard to keep the Iraqi army together after our initial run to Baghdad. The army was a symbol of Saddam's brutal oppression, especially to Shiites. And the group whose support we needed from the beginning was the Shiites. They are the majority in the country, and they have reason not to trust us. After the first Gulf War, we encouraged them to rise up, and then refused to intervene when Saddam crushed them. Leaving the army in place would have sent a very bad sign, and might have caused an even stronger Shiite resistance than we see now.

In the end, the reason this failed isn't so much a few policies that didn't work. It failed because we went in without enough troops and without much thought planning about how to handle the country once Saddam was gone. We need to focus on that, and not get lost arguing about some of these smaller issues - especially one like this where neither option is a very good option.

Rousseau and Hobbes (Nope, No Calvin)

Summary:
An article in the NY Times magazine puts a new spin on religious extremism in the Middle East by comparing it to the West's religious history. The author suggests that our move towards secular liberal democracy might be unique and we cannot expect the Middle East to jump on board. If so, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate?

I am getting caught up on my back issues of NY Times Sunday Magazine and finally finished this article. It puts religious extremism in the Middle East in the context of the West's own religious history. The author's main point seems to be that our own history is similar to what the Middle East is going through, but our conversion to secular liberal democracy is unique. We therefore can't expect the Middle East to follow that path, especially at so fast a pace.

In showing how similar the current situation in the Middle East is to our own history, the author tries to make us recognize that religious extremism is a natural human impulse. He talks about how we use terms like fascism to describe the extremism we are witnessing, and we blame it on the economic and political systems that lead people to messianic views of religion. This point is compelling, except that it ignores Hobbes' description of why religion took hold in the Middle Ages; life was chaotic (solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short...) and religion gave people comfort. Similarly, people in the Middle East are turning towards a form of religion that is empowering. So I don't think we can discount how overall life conditions affect the strength of religious devotion and the lengths to which believers will go in its name.

The author's conclusion is that we can't expect secular liberal democracy to develop and we will have to accept non-secular governments in the Middle East, even some who base their laws on Sharia. The author sites Muslim writers like Tariq Ramadan (who was prevented from taking a teaching position at Notre Dame by the US government) who are pushing for more modern interpretations of Islam but are not suggesting that Muslims disavow Islamic law. This is a very different position from people like Thomas Friedman who say that liberal democracy is the only hope for the Middle East.

This article seems to illuminate two really difficult issues. One is whether or not other countries / cultures have to follow the West's development path. If so, the next question is whether they have to follow all our steps or can we help them jump ahead to our stage. This is an obvious issue in development, but I see it here too. Can we help the world achieve secular liberal democracy, or do we need to step back and let them figure it out?

The other broad issue is the tension between relativism and universalism. While we think about whether cultures will follow our path, we should also think about whether they have to? We believe secular liberal democracy is the best form of government - but should we impose it on everyone else (even if try methods less violent than Iraq)? If not, what kind of governments are we willing to tolerate? The author of this article suggests we might have to accept governments based on Sharia, but with more modern interpretations of the Koran. I don't believe that you have to be either be a universalist or a relativist. There is a middle ground - no matter what adjunct professors at graduate school say. There are some things we cannot accept, like rules that completely subjugate women.

I think both of these issues lie at the crux of our foreign policy (that is, if we care about having a thoughtful and consistent foreign policy). What do we accept, and what should we do to move governments towards what we find acceptable?

Overthrow: A Synopsis

Summary:
Stephen Kinzer lays out all of the situations when the American government has overthrown a foreign government. It is indeed a long list: Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Chile, South Vietnam, Guatemala, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan. In most of the situations, our reasons seem incredibly unjust. Unfortunately, the book is far too superficial to feel completely confident in all of its conclusions. Either way though, in the end our actions rarely resulted with us achieving our aims in the long run and in many of the situations we should feel ashamed for what we did.

The idea of the book is brilliant. It means to show how badly America has been at regime change and how many times our reasons for intervening were both bunk and unjust. Unfortunately, the book lacks solid detail and analysis, and gives the feeling that the author wanted to rush through the book so he could fit everything in. Overall it makes a good point, but for the individual cases, I feel that I would need to do more research to draw any real conclusions. (This is of course the exact opposite feeling you get from Samantha Power's book - you don't feel like she left anything out.)

The author notes that he has left Indonesia, Brazil, the Congo, Mexico, Haiti and the Dominican Republic off the list because for the first three the US didn't play the decisive role in the overthrow and in the last three the US invaded but did not overthrow the governments. Kinzer also does a good job of giving us a list of villains, including John Foster Dulles, Henry Kissinger, and everyone in the George W. Bush administration.

Kinzer breaks the book into three sections based on the types of intervention. The first section describes overthrows that were based largely on imperialistic grounds. This isn't how it was justified to the public, but based on the evidence Kinzer gives us, there is little doubt the reasons were to expand our power and protect American business. The following countries fall into this list: Hawaii (now a state), Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Nicaragua, and Honduras. Of these countries, Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua and Honduras have had a tumultuous history since our intervention and were much more peaceful beforehand.

The second part shows covert action against supposed leaders leaning towards communism. Countries included in this section are Iran, Chile, South Vietnam and Guatemala. In each of these countries though, threat of communism was either misinterpreted or a veil to disguise imperialist reasons.

Presidents and others had no doubt the Soviets were manipulating Mossadegh [Iran], Arbenz [Guatemala], and Allende [Chile]. That turned out to have been wrong. The three leaders had differing views of Marxism - Mossadegh detested it, Arbenz sympathized with it, Allende embraced it - but they were nationalists above all.

In Guatemala and Chile, various American business interests (United Fruit, telephone, railroad, and others) would have been hurt by the popular socialist / nationalist governments. And in Iran, Mossadegh, their popular leader, wanted to take back control of the country's oil wealth from foreign companies. Our current poor relations with Iran can be traced back to the moment we overthrew Mossadegh. And our history in Chile, where we overthrew a popularly elected president and supported a violent far-right government, is something we should forever be ashamed of. Vietnam was of course unlike the other three in that we were overthrowing a leader while we were aiding that country in war - we hoped to get a leader who would be better in the war against North Vietnam.

The third section focuses on actual invasions. Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq all fall into this section. We know much about the later two; I think most would say that our invasion of Afghanistan was just, but we turned our attention to Iraq far too soon, and Iraq was neither just nor has it been managed well. The first two also might be argued as somewhat legit (Noriega and the New Jewel leaders were ruining their countries), but again, poorly managed and unstable following our intervention (the looting in Panama is all too similar to Iraq).

What we see throughout the book, and still present today, is American aggression towards countries that attempt to exercise independence and empowerment. On the flip side, America exhibits tolerance for oppression and violence by leaders of countries that support us and give free reign to our businesses. Our role in Iran has had disastrous effects on our foreign policy, we are still paying for preventing elections in Cuba, and we should be seriously ashamed by what we tolerated in Chile and elsewhere in the name of propping up governments that would be anti-communist and pro-American (but not democratic). We should have learned our lesson before Iraq, and we should mind it when we deal with someone like Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan.

Red Scared

Summary:
Communism v. Capitalism is really equality (fairness) v. efficiency. In gov't, want more fairness. In business you want more efficiency so you can have a higher overall standard of living. But market failures lead to necessity of gov't intervention to fix some inequities.

A coworker and good friend of mine likes to make a show of her support for communism around me. I think in part she plays it up because it gets me all agitated - apparently people get a kick out of seeing me in an excited state. Each time she brings it up I make it clear that I think communism is unrealistic - that the theory obviously doesn't understand human nature. The point being that communism can never work without being propped up by authoritarian government.

What I really should point out though is that even if communism was implemented democratically, it would still be bad policy. In my mind, free market and communism represent opposite extremes of efficiency versus equity / fairness. I believe that government should be much closer to the extreme of equity and fairness, which is why I firmly believe in a government of collective decision-making (democracy).

In the business world though, I lean more towards efficiency because with more efficiency, you can have a higher overall standard of living. Communism has never been able to achieve the level of comfort and average wealth that free markets have. This is the case in part because in a free market you have a select group of people managing the assets and making decisions. The basic idea of communism is the opposite - collective ownership of the means of production. In this scenario, all workers make all decisions collectively and share the risk and reward. While collectives and co-ops can be successful, on the whole I think they are far less efficient. On a bigger scale where profit motives disappear, efficiency decreases.

I will acknowledge that I am oversimplifying economic theory significantly in places, but I think the overall point still stands. And I know I am not breaking any new ground necessarily, but if I were I would likely be in a Econ PhD program.

Now, one more point before I conclude. While I clearly celebrate the virtues of free market capitalism, we must also acknowledge what a lot of the strict free marketeers won't: Markets aren't perfect. There exist glaring market failures that government has a role in correcting. One obvious example of this is the environment. While our economy puts a price on land, it doesn't put a price on air. Without government intervention, businesses would not have worked to decrease their environmental impact in the 80s and 90s (we still have a long way to go). And without further intervention, businesses will not decrease their green house gas emissions.

Another example of a market failure is unemployment. While a certain amount of employment is necessary for a stable and efficient economy (theory holds that "Natural Unemployment" protects against wage inflation), any decent sense of fairness requires that government intervene to take of those that are left out. This is why social welfare programs are necessary.

There will always be a trade-off between fairness and efficiency. And like a good moderate, I believe that the only way to be successful is to keep both in mind. An efficient system allows us all to have the best life we can - to enjoy both comforts and necessities. And a fair system helps us take care of people and problems that the market doesn't value.

Punch Someone in the Face

So I finally finished A Problem From Hell. I don't think I need to say too much about it, since I posted about it when I first started reading, and ever since it has obviously had a huge impact on my beliefs and writings. In fact, I think I will let a good friend of mine sum it up:

Everytime I look at that book on my shelf it makes me angry to think about. I think about how much of a parallel situation Sudan is with Rwanda or the Balkans and how we're absolutely doomed to repeat ourselves. Its amazing that this country has fallen into exactly the same pattern. A few vocal individuals supporting action, lip service by the higher ups, and not nearly enough outrage by the general public. I mean, how can this not be a topic of debate for the upcoming election? It makes me want to punch someone in the face!

Seriously, that sums up everything I have been thinking about that book. It is the most enraging book I have ever read. It makes me disgusted at almost everyone - from politicians I thought I respected (Colin Powell, Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, etc.) to family and friends who aren't as outraged as I am.

And yet I feel quixotic when I try to convince people how important this issue is. People tell me that the world doesn't care about genocide and this fact will never change. Samantha Power in her book shows how the few people who did speak out were thought naive, that they didn't understand the world. With her final paragraph, she inspires me to continue talking about this.

George Bernard Shaw once wrote, "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." After a century of doing so little to prevent, suppress, and punish genocide, Americans must join and thereby legitimate the ranks of the unreasonable.

If you want to know the two books that have most changed my political life, it is of course this one and From Beirut to Jerusalem. The later was my introduction to international events and gave me nightmares when I was in the middle of it.

Dobbs and the All-American Team

So I have been trying to get caught up with my NY Times Sunday Magazine articles, and I just finished this one about immigration debates in local governments. I have to say, I have a hard time seeing the urgency in this whole debate. Why is illegal immigration all of a sudden a big issue? Granted, part of the answer is that Karl Rove has pushed it hoping to help the Republican party attract Hispanic voters and create a permanent Republican majority. But this doesn't explain why the rest of the country is invested.

As best as I can tell, this hasn't been playing out as a security issue. None (or very little) of the debate seems to be about preventing terrorists from crossing the border from Mexico. If we think that the town in the Times Magazine article is representative, it seems that a big part of the debate revolves around culture. One of the pieces of legislation the town council tries to pass is one recognizing English as the main language of the town. What becomes clear pretty quick is that people supporting this kind of legislation seem to be using "illegal immigrant" and "Hispanic" interchangeably.

I am often amazed at how arguments don't really evolve over time, but merely repeat themselves. Arguments by people like Lou Dobbs sound very similar to Nativist arguments at the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th Century. Each time a new group becomes conspicuous in our country, people make allegations that the group isn't trying to become American. If that is a concern, one should know that second and third generation Hispanic immigrants do speak English at home, in the same way that previous immigrant groups did.

But even that fear I don't understand. I can't wrap my mind around the fact that some people don't want this melting pot to include certain ingredients. As if all of a sudden, there now is an American culture that shouldn't be changed - that everyone else should have to change into instead of allowing new people to influence it.

I have only ever heard one good argument form people who vocally oppose illegal immigration for why the status quo needs to be changed. The husband of a former co-worker of mine worked in landscaping and he was having trouble competing with other landscapers because they were hiring illegal workers and he was not. But my response then is that we need easier immigration rules so that business owners who want to hire new immigrants can do so without a major bureaucratic headache.

Look, I don't mind debating immigration, so long as it isn't about issues like making English the only language and other efforts that make it clear that Hispanics in general are the targets. And I get the feeling from people like Lou Dobbs and the All-American Team of council members in the Times article, that their goal is to make Hispanics feel unwelcome.

Boy Soldier

In a similar vein, but different in mood, from my previous post, the news from Sierra Leone is particularly interesting after having read A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier by Ishmael Beah. The book is amazing, but very haunting. The violence that the author saw regularly and then had to deal with is incredible. The article in the NY Times today says that elections there seem to be going well. Good news.

The Hyena's Belly

It is amazing how a personal narrative can change how you see things. I think the last time I posted about Somalia, I was mostly concerned with whether or not an extremist Islamist government would remain in power. But after reading Notes from the Hyena's Belly: An Ethiopian Boyhood by Nega Mezlekia, I find myself more despondent than anything else. His memoir, beautifully written, describes what it was like to be one of the otherwise faceless people suffering during Ethiopia's famine and civil wars.

Having a picture of this person in my mind, I see the war so much differently. Based on Somali culture and history, the country isn't likely to rally behind a central government (or any government). Instead, the Islamist extremists are likely to continue the fight indefinitely, backed by foreign Muslim groups. And the Ethiopian army will continue the fight backed by Western money. And both sides will act with complete disregard towards the civilians caught in the middle.

The truth is, we have a long history in this region, backing Ethiopia, then Somalia, then Ethiopia again, again and again. Unfortunately, this region continuously finds itself in the middle of battles it doesn't seem to start. First it was the West against totalitarian Communism - now it is the West against Islamic terrorism and extremism. Our response is always the same - we send in arms to whoever seems to be on our side at the time, but immediately turn our back when our interests are no longer in danger.

But the fact is, we should care about this. We should be invested and concerned about the lives of the people who are continuously caught in the middle of the violence that stems, at least in part, from the weapons we have supplied to the region. It is because of us and the USSR that these armies and para-armies have the ability to kill so many people so quickly.

For the Kurds

Summary:
This article in the NY Review of Books really has me thinking about Iraq. Basically it says that the benchmarks are bunk, there won't be much more violence than there is now, and there is a better option than Biden's three-way partition.

I haven't read a more convincing article about Iraq than this one in the New York Review of Books. It basically slaps down most of my arguments and concerns. First, it says that Iraq will not really fall apart after we leave.

But there will be no Saigon moment in Iraq. Iraq's Shiite-led government is in no danger of losing the civil war to al-Qaeda, or a more inclusive Sunni front. Iraq's Shiites are three times as numerous as Iraq's Sunni Arabs; they dominate Iraq's military and police and have a powerful ally in neighboring Iran. The Arab states that might support the Sunnis are small, far away (vast deserts separate the inhabited parts of Jordan and Saudi Arabia from the main Iraqi population centers), and can only provide money, something the insurgency has in great amounts already.

Iraq after an American defeat will look very much like Iraq today—a land divided along ethnic lines into Arab and Kurdish states with a civil war being fought within its Arab part. Defeat is defined by America's failure to accomplish its objective of a self-sustaining, democratic, and unified Iraq. And that failure has already taken place, along with the increase of Iranian power in the region.

It also says there is really no chance for success through American troops and the benchmarks that Congress is so fond of.

But even if Iraq's politicians could agree to the benchmarks, this wouldn't end the insurgency or the civil war. Sunni insurgents object to Iraq being run by Shiite religious parties, which they see as installed by the Americans, loyal to Iran, and wanting to define Iraq in a way that excludes the Sunnis. Sunni fundamentalists consider the Shiites apostates who deserve death, not power. The Shiites believe that their democratic majority and their historical suffering under the Baathist dictatorship entitle them to rule. They are not inclined to compromise with Sunnis, whom they see as their longstanding oppressors, especially when they believe most Iraqi Sunnis are sympathetic to the suicide bombers that have killed thousands of ordinary Shiites. The differences are fundamental and cannot be papered over by sharing oil revenues, reemploying ex-Baathists, or revising the constitution. The war is not about those things.

The author also makes really good points about how Iraqi politicians aren't able to achieve any of the benchmarks anyway; the political coalitions are weak and divided, and the leaders have learned how to move slow and avoid action. So what is to be done about this?

Iraq's Kurdish leaders and Iraq's dwindling band of secular Arab democrats fear that a complete US withdrawal will leave all of Iraq under Iranian influence. Senator Hillary Clinton, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, and former UN Ambassador Richard Holbrooke are among the prominent Democrats who have called for the US to protect Kurdistan militarily should there be a withdrawal from Iraq. The argument for so doing is straightforward: it secures the one part of Iraq that has emerged as stable, democratic, and pro-Western; it discharges a moral debt to our Kurdish allies; it deters both Turkish intervention and a potentially destabilizing Turkish– Kurdish war; it provides US forces a secure base that can be used to strike at al-Qaeda in adjacent Sunni territories; and it limits Iran's gains.

For the longest time I have been convinced that a regional war would erupt if we left. This article did a good job of making me reconsider that. But as convincing as this all is, I still think violence internally would increase. Without American troops, Sadr's militia would have no one holding them back at all and Sunni attacks could conceivably increase even more.

What I really like though is the idea that we would stay to protect the Kurds (and prevent Turkey from invading). This plan is far more reasonable than Biden's proposal to partition the country into three (although as well as things are going, I suppose that should be left on the table). And I like that while it talks about American withdrawal, it is mindful of the country we are leaving behind. I never got the impression that people like Richardson (or Vilsack) were too concerned with Iraqis at this point.

Pork - It's What's For Dinner

Summary:
Guess what? Remember how Democrats said they were going to bring transparency and responsibility to pork spending? Well, they are doing the opposite. Surprised? Seriously though, check out the NY Times graphic - it sums it all up.

I am going to let you all in on a major lesson I just learned. Maybe you are all smarter than me and already knew this. But in case you didn't know it, here it goes: Whichever party is in control in Congress will abuse pork spending. This holds despite campaign promises of reform (by Democrats) or fiscal responsibility (by Republicans). In fact, not only will they abuse pork spending, but they will refuse options for transparency.

The NY Times has a truly absurd example from the bill to increase health coverage for children.

Despite promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects, the House of Representatives has quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers under a bill passed this month to help low-income children.

Instead of naming the hospitals, the bill describes them in cryptic terms, so that identifying a beneficiary is like solving a riddle. Most of the provisions were added to the bill at the request of Democratic lawmakers.

One hospital, Bay Area Medical Center, sits on Green Bay, straddling the border between Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, more than 200 miles north of Chicago. The bill would increase Medicare payments to the hospital by instructing federal officials to assume that it was in Chicago, where Medicare rates are set to cover substantially higher wages for hospital workers.

Lawmakers did not identify the hospital by name. For the purpose of Medicare, the bill said, “any hospital that is co-located in Marinette, Wis., and Menominee, Mich., is deemed to be located in Chicago.” Bay Area Medical Center is the only hospital fitting that description.

For more charming examples like this one, check out this graphic. I feel the need to point this out for two reasons. One, it really pisses me off that the Democrats campaigned loudly that they would come into office and end these practices and instead they just use their power to get the pork for themselves. The sad thing is that the Democrats did the same thing when it came to ethics reform - they made a lot of big speeches to humiliate Republicans, then didn't do anything significant.

But more importantly, I think it illustrates a valuable point. Neither party is actually more moral or responsible than the other party. People tend to forget this - purposefully or not. They yell loudly when the opposite party does it, but explain it away when their party is caught. Instead, it should be the opposite. You should yell the loudest when it is your party giving away money. But I suppose that expecting people to actually look at these issues objectively is naive.

Lessons Learned

Summary:
After finishing Overthrow and coming to the end of A Problem From Hell, I have learned two things. First, we need to accept that America has made many mistakes in our past. Second, America needs a consistent foreign policy.

The two books I am finishing now have a common theme: American foreign policy is full of examples where our decisions have not lived up to our projected better nature. Both books show this from two very different angles; Overthrow contends that our actions have pushed many countries into chaos while A Problem From Hell shows how our inaction allowed millions of people to fall to genocide.

It is armed with knowledge like this that people like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky earn converts. (Also, one of Jimmy Carter's weaknesses as a President was his acknowledgment of these flaws.) Where I disagree with Zinn and Chomsky is not their view of history, but in how it affects our policies. Chomsky opposed our invasion of Afghanistan because we lacked the moral standing to call anyone terrorists. It seems to me that his goal in pointing to Americas flaws is to call for inaction, instead of calling for better action in the form of more moral policies.

My goal is the latter. We need to understand where we failed the world to understand where we can do better. With Overthrow, we learn that in the past we have used military force to change democratic governments that are not friendly to the US (and US businesses) - but in some situations not dangerous - into oppressive but US-friendly governments. Policies like this hurt our international standing; we can't claim to support democracy if we only support pro-US democracies.

On the flip side, the US has refused to intervene in every genocide of the 20th century. In fact, Samantha Power shows that we didn't even speak out against them. The lesson we still haven't learned is that we have a moral obligation to do what we can to stop mass murder. Each time we say never again, but each time we ignore the next one. If Samantha Power had waited a few years, she could have included a chapter on Darfur.

This leads me to my second point - that we need a consistent foreign policy. The interesting thing is that these two books can lead to opposite cautions in foreign policy. Overthrow warns of intervention, and A Problem From Hell calls for it. But the two can be part of the same foreign policy plan. An administration can choose to do all it can to stop genocide, while also recognizing that it shouldn't intervene in situations like Bush's Iraq War, or Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua, or Panama. (I think Afghanistan was the right decision and had Bush kept his eye on the ball, there would have been a far better outcome.)

Every once in a while - or all the time - we need to look at our past decisions and ask if they live up to our moral standards. And we need to do this objectively. There is nothing wrong with criticizing our flawed policies, as long as it is meant to improve our decision-making in the future.

Wow, They Have Feelings

It is amazing how often it turns out that the right thing is also the more efficient policy option. Sometimes it seems so obvious, it's hard to imagine that people don't see it ahead of time. For example, it turns out that killing civilians by mistake when trying to bomb insurgents, turns local civilians against your cause. Imagine that. So if we were smart, we could avoid civilian deaths, actually engage insurgents, and we would be more successful. Of course this won't happen, because people are a little slow at catching up to anti-insurgent tactics.

With Friends Like These

Just so you know - our foreign policy is full of hypocrisies. The most clear example of this is of course Saudi Arabia. They have an unelected and extremely oppressive government, women there have few rights, and they are mostly responsible for the spread of violent Sunni Islam throughout the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Northern Africa. But yet they are considered one of our best allies.

In this article, Shiite Muslim British citizens accuse the Saudi secret police of torturing them. I wonder how many people in the Bush administration will say anything. Probably none. But Saddam - he was really bad, except there is no connection between him and Al Qaeda.

Lots Going On

It seems that everyone is talking about Iraq again. I don't know if I have the energy to recap everything. Suffice it to say, it has got me thinking a lot. As you know, I am a fan of Nicholas Kristof. His recent column has me reconsidering (a little) my position that our troops are doing more good being in the country.

Basically, Kristof cites a poll that shows a large majority of Iraqis think the presence of US troops is hurting the country and they want us to leave.

First, a poll this spring of Iraqis — who know their country much better than we do — shows that only 21 percent think that the U.S. troop presence improves security in Iraq, while 69 percent think it is making security worse.

Granted, the danger with any poll is that it can be misleading depending on how it is administered - who is asked to participate and how the questions are worded.

If we assume for now though that the survey is an adequate representation of the feelings of the Iraqi people, then maybe I have not assessed the situation correctly (which means maybe I owe Gov. Richardson an apology). I still have trouble accepting this given the level of violence and the fact that it is not so much directed at us but at each other as each group fights for power and revenge.

On the other hand, this argument was used in Vietnam to keep us there, and if my understanding of history is correct, there wasn't too much violence after we pulled out. I don't think Iraq and Vietnam are the same war (the violence in Iraq is between the main ethnic groups, not a nationalistic uprising), but there are some similarities, especially in the rhetoric that is used.

Kristof also does a good job of articulating the frustration of watching our commander in chief talk about "progress" for three years. We all know nothing of the sort has happened at any time he has used the word, but he continues to try to sell the country on it. It is seriously enraging to hear it and I wonder that he has any supporters left.

Progress in North Korea

Summary:
Nuclear inspectors have been let back into North Korea. This is good news and a rare victory for the Bush administration. But how different is this from Clinton's deal with North Korea?

The good news continues in North Korea. Nuclear inspectors will check the main nuclear reactor in North Korea. While I think this is a victory for the Bush administration, there is still a lot more that needs to be negotiated, especially accounting for any nuclear weapons and weapon capabilities the government has.

Some are saying that this agreement is similar to the deal the Clinton administration had with North Korea. It also seems that it is not the direction VP Cheney wanted to go in. It is becoming clear that Bush is finally realizing his Veep doesn't have the right answers. Hoping for the Kim Jong Il government to crash probably isn't a good policy anyway, considering the amazing damage that would result in a hard landing.

The one thing I am unclear on is whether this deal came from the five-nation talks the Bush administration was requiring, or whether there were secret two-party talks. This is pretty important, considering it was the cornerstone of Bush's policy in dealing with North Korea.

Same Old Talk

Summary:
We claim to support democracy, but our actions show that isn't always true. In Pakistan we are supporting the military government of General Musharraf, even though there is ample evidence that a popularly elected government would not support Muslim extremists.

It is amazing how often history repeats itself. During the Cold War, we supported fascist governments over left-leaning, popularly elected governments. Sometimes, those governments might have been moving towards communism, but many times they weren't. (Iran is a perfect example of this, as are Guatemala and Nicaragua.) So basically, we only support democracy when the popularly elected government is one we agree with.

General Pervez Musharraf's military government in Pakistan is a perfect example of this. We support his regime at every turn while he suppresses reforms towards democracy. Our reason for doing this is Musharraf's cooperation in the War on Terror, as well as his ability to make Bush believe that if Pakistan were not ruled with an iron fist, and if democracy were allowed to flourish, the country (a nuclear power) would be ruled by religious extremists.

The reality in Pakistan doesn't seem to support Musharraf's claim though. There appears to be very little popular support for Muslim religious extremists in the country. Granted, recent violence in the country, including the government storming of a mosque occupied by extremists and suicide bombings in response, might appear to support Musharraf's argument. But if there isn't widespread support for the extremists then there isn't any reason why a popularly elected government couldn't deal with recent events.

One day, I hope our rhetoric actually matches our actions. I wouldn't expect Bush to ever accomplish this - but the problem isn't just with Bush, is it?

No No-Fly Zone?

There is a really thoughtful opinion piece on Darfur in the NY Times. The author takes Hillary Clinton and others that support a no-fly zone over Darfur to task. I should admit that I have written posts in support of no-fly zones over Darfur. The fact that this might ground humanitarian aid, which is unsurprisingly dependent on the use of airplanes, is something I had not thought of. It certainly makes me reconsider supporting this strategy.

On the other hand, the author also argues against threats of coercive military action. While I can see how a military strike could give Khartoum justification to crack down even more or send humanitarian aid away, I also think that without any coercion, the government in Sudan will continue to delay until the Darfur region is repopulated and rid of black Africans*. I don't know what the right amount of pressure is, but I have to guess that they need more than we are giving right now, not less.

The timing of this opinion is good, because I have been thinking about Darfur alot recently. The truth is that I haven't posted much about Darfur in the past year or more, and I haven't done much in the way of advocating for action outside of the blog either. What I realize is that I have basically given up. In reading Samantha Power's book Problem from Hell (which I still haven't managed to finish - it is too enraging), there is a Congressman who gives a speech everyday until America acts on genocide. It is noble to read about someone like that, but I haven't been able to muster that kind of commitment.

I saw that the international community wasn't going to give Darfur the attention it needed for a real resolution, and so I felt powerless and I gave up. I feel like a hypocrite for turning my back to the crisis, but I can't bring myself to write the same posts day after day. The situation isn't changing; people are still being attacked and displaced, and the world is still ignoring the problem. With nothing new to write, I decide to write nothing. We'll see if I can bring myself to check in on this issue more often; in the meantime, remember this: We will be apologizing for Darfur just like we did for Rwanda.


*From a recent Nicholas Kristof column: One of the most troubling signs is that Sudan has been encouraging Arabs from Chad, Niger and other countries to settle in Darfur. More than 30,000 of them have moved into areas depopulated after African tribes were driven out.

Refugee Numbers

Last year there were nearly 14 million refugees worldwide, according to a US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants report. Ponder that for a moment. That means 14 million people could not be in their home area (for any number of reasons - famine, war, forced relocation, etc). If you are having trouble wrapping your mind around that, join the club. The population of New York City is only 8 million.

Last year's number was an increase of 2 million from the year before, driven by Iraq as well as registration in Pakistan that revealed an extra one million Afghani refugees. In total, there were 3.3 million refugees from Afghanistan (which has been one of the largest sources of refugees long before the US invasion), 3.0 million from the Palestinian territories and over 1.7 million from Iraq. The article doesn't say where the other refugees come from, so when I get a chance I'll check the report.

Sunni Against Sunni - Our Only Hope

Here is a recent headline in the NY Times:

G.I.’s Forge Sunni Tie in Bid to Squeeze Militants

This definitely isn't the first time we have seen reporting on US military attempts to turn Iraqi Sunnis - including nationalistic Sunni insurgents - against Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia (the main Al Qaeda group in Iraq). And each time I see reports of this, a new hope grows in me. It is one of the only strategies that could actually work in Iraq.

I don't really buy into the talk that Iraq is just made up of different ethnic groups that can't live together. Our problem is that we haven't been able to provide security. And the main reason we haven't been able to provide security is our inability to pacify Sunni insurgents.

There is a lot of talk in Congress about political reconciliation and forcing the Iraqi parliament to make compromises. But that is all meaningless until Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is shown the door. We have proven incapable of doing that with the troop levels we have - even with the surge. So we need Iraqis to help us with this. Bush may be an idiot, but his military commanders are not. They have been trying to get Sunni nationalists to turn against Al Qaeda for a long time. Let's hope it really starts working.

Fawlty Logic

Summary:
President Bush's logic on commuting Libby's prison sentence is bunk. But Bill Clinton is the last person who should be criticizing him.

I have to say, what I am most upset about with Bush's commuting of Libby's prison term is that his logic is complete crap. First of all, Bush says that Libby's reputation is tarnished and the stiff fine ($250,000) and probation are strong enough. That is nonsense; any minute now a firm with ties to the far right will hire Libby because they are proud of what he did. And with the salary they will surely give him, he'll be able to pay off the fine in no time.

Worse than that though, is Bush's claim (here is his statement) that the sentence was too tough. He is either being dishonest, or doesn't actually know his administration's stance. As the NY Times points out, the Bush administration favors tough sentencing generally and has rejected these very same arguments (about first time offense and prior public service) when used by federal defendants. And all the evidence suggests that Libby's jail sentence was in line with similar cases.

It will be great if the article is right and defense attorneys start using Bush's reasoning in sentencing briefs before federal judges. I bet the Justice Department will soon issue a brief that says they still support tough sentencing and don't think prior public service should be considered during sentencing.

The point is, I would much rather Bush had just come forward and told the truth. All he has to say is that Cheney told him to do it - and since he takes orders from his VP, he had no choice. Or he could have just said that he lied when he said he would take the Valerie Plame leak seriously, and actually should have said that he would protect anyone involved in that because politics is more important than justice and consistent policy.

At the same time though, Bill Clinton has no right to criticize Bush on this. His Marc Rich pardon was never justified to the public as far as I know.

Perish the Thought

This is a hilarious Opinion piece. Basically, it talks about how countries like China and Venezuela are providing aid to developing countries with only their interests in mind. Perish the thought.

Because the goal of these donors is not to help other countries develop. Rather, they seek to further their own national interests, advance an ideological agenda or even line their own pockets. Rogue aid providers couldn’t care less about the long-term well-being of the population of the countries they aid.

Sound a little hypocritical? That accurately describes the history of our foreign policy. While I understand that we are promoting democracy and transparency (sometimes), as compared to autocratic governments, we still continue to operate to benefit our interests. After all, why would fight to protect Kuwait, but not lift a finger in any disputes in Africa?

Sorry, More Friedman

This is an interesting column ($). I am not sure I completely agree, but it might end up being our only option. Friedman suggests that since the surge isn't working, our only other option is to move our troops into the Kurdish north. This would allow us to prevent the inevitable civil war from spreading outside the country, while using a democratic and peaceful "Kurdistan" as a model for the rest of the Middle East.

First of all, I am not sure Turkey would be as willing to go along as Friedman suggests. At the very least we would have to end the practice of Kurdish terrorist groups using Iraqi Kurdistan as a based to launch attacks against Turkey. I also wonder whether peaceful and democratic societies have any impact on the countries around them. I used to think they would, but I am growing skeptical.

Worse though is the decision to abandon the Shiite and Sunni regions of Iraq. I know we might have to do that at some point in the near future. But I feel that the extent of the violence would pull us back in. Friedman also assumes that if we did pull out we would be able to prevent the violence from spreading outside the borders, which I don't think I agree with.

Friedman is spot on when he says that the Shiites and Sunnis both want to dominate the country. Neither really wants a pluralistic society right now (nor do the Kurds). So maybe I have to accept that there are no other options. At some point soon, we may have to leave the Sunnis and Shiites to their fate. God forgive us.

Another Mentor of Mine

So there are two people who have had a large impact on the development of my international perspective. You have already heard about Thomas Friedman; the other is Nicholas Kristof. In this column ($), he talks about civil conflict and instability as the greatest killer in Africa.

Mr. Collier [author of The Bottom Billion - a book I want to read as soon as the NYPL gets a copy], a former research director of the World Bank, notes that when the G-8 countries talk about helping Africa, they overwhelmingly focus just on foreign aid. Sure, aid has a role to play, but it’s pointless to build clinics when rebel groups are running around burning towns and shooting doctors.

One essential kind of help that the West can provide — but one that is rarely talked about — is Western military assistance in squashing rebellions, genocides and civil wars, or in protecting good governments from insurrections. The average civil war costs $64 billion, yet could often be suppressed in its early stages for very modest sums. The British military intervention in Sierra Leone easily ended a savage war and was enthusiastically welcomed by local people — and, as a financial investment, achieved benefits worth 30 times the cost.

Sometimes I feel like the reason good governance and foreign aid are emphasized is because military intervention is much less popular. So we console ourselves by talking about how much money we send to developing countries. I think promoting good governance ($) is a joke when you are talking about somewhere like Congo (or Iraq) - stability is a definite prerequisite. But that won't happen until this country and its leaders make a serious decision to actually protect all the victims in war torn regions.

I Hate Agribusiness - and Congress too

Here is another example of what is wrong with our agriculture subsidies. Not only do they give us an unfair advantage in global trade (effectively keeping developing countries from actually developing), but they don't even go to the farmers that really need them. It is shameful to see how often Congress gets it wrong - how often they send money to powerful interests while cloaking it in language of helping those in need.

Hypocrisy

I love it when life circumstances show the hypocrisy in someone. Here, we see that Robert Bork, conservative judge with strong tort reform views, is now a tort plaintiff. Actually, instead of him being a hypocrite, this seems to support my hypothesis that often times conservatives are merely good people lacking imagination or empathy. In the past, Bork might have been unable to understand why someone would need to use the legal system to seek compensation for some wrong committed. Maybe now he understands. If only it would make him reconsider the rest of his conservative judicial philosophy.

Dear Bill

Bill Richardson for President
111 Lomas Blvd., NW, Suite 200
Albuquerque, NM 87102

Dear Governor Richardson,

Recently, I donated to your campaign for president. It was a small donation, but it was the first time I had given money to someone seeking political office. I didn’t do this lightly, but I was excited by the prospect of someone with your experience as an executive as well as your proven foreign policy credentials becoming president. Unfortunately, because of your stance on the Iraq War, I will no longer be able to donate to your campaign, and more importantly, you no longer have my support.

In the early stages of your campaign, I was thrilled to see you talking about Iran, North Korea, and most importantly, Darfur. Your positions were well thought-out and very reasonable. This is why I have been so surprised to see you calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. The situation there is dire, and I believe that any informed person will realize that without a significant US troop presence, the violence will grow far beyond what we have seen so far. The fact is that the violence right now is no longer directed at US troops, but instead is between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds. Recent mosque bombings, as well as killings and threats to homogenize neighborhoods is evidence of this. Articles in the New York Times indicate that despite rhetoric from Shiite leaders like Moktada al-Sadr, they don’t actually want us to leave.

What particularly weighs on my conscience is the fact that we are responsible for what is happening in Iraq. I know everybody wants to blame Bush, and he deserves his share, but the truth is that our invasion of Iraq was done legally according to our laws, and as a democracy we all share in the responsibility of our actions. It is my strong opinion that the only moral choice right now is to stay in Iraq. Our presence is doing much more good than harm, and we have an obligation to do as much good as we can for the Iraqi people.

It is in light of all this that I am particularly disappointed to have seen your current position. I want to believe that your beliefs are the same as mine, and that your position is actually the one that is more compassionate and well-reasoned. But right now I can’t see it, and to be honest, the skeptic in me thinks it is a political decision meant to separate you from the rest of the pack. I truly hope that is not the case. But either way, I will have to find someone else to vote for when the Democratic Primary comes to New York State. If you would like to respond, I would be glad to hear you out, so long as you don’t simply recycle your current talking points.

Sincerely,

Chainz

[I actually sent this letter. But I actually signed my real name. We'll see if I hear back. If I do, I'll be sure to post the response.]

Just My Ramblings

It's another one of those posts where I examine our role in international affairs. Since I am in the middle of a number of articles and books (Overthrow by Stephen Kinzer, Notes from the Hyenas' Belly - a memoir from Ethiopia, and this article in the NY Review of Books about Bush's presidency), it might be better to wait until I have finished. But I figure since the mood struck me now, then now I shall post.

I look through our history of involvement, and I see mostly chaos. Between us and the USSR, we ruined Ethiopia, Somalia, and Eritrea. Iran is all our fault. And of course there is Iraq. And I have barely started Overthrow, which will talk about Hawaii, Panama and others). So while I will never be an isolationist, I have to accept that even when our intentions are good (which is pretty rare) we still don't do a good job. I feel that this is leading me in the direction of supporting only humanitarian interventions, supported by the military when necessary in cases like Rwanda, Serbia, Darfur and maybe even Palestine.

This may not sound too radical, but I think I even mean pulling back on much of our World Bank and IMF projects. We have tried using outside pressure to create systems that are accountable. It hasn't worked. So maybe we should step way back and let them figure it out. (I love Zambia, but since it is peaceful, I think they might solve their problems faster once everyone realizes we aren't going to be there to throw money at every problem.)

My problem is always that I am neither fully universalist nor relativist. I see some merit in both. For example, I think all people should have a role in choosing their government. But the more I read about Africa (from the perspective of black Africans), I see tribal systems headed by unelected chiefs as legitimate and a natural part of their culture and history. Where I start to go cross-eyed is when I think about how much damage we have already done and how impossible it would be to undo it - this includes everything from colonialism in Africa to the way we drew the maps and created countries and forced the idea of nation-states on people. There might be no way back.

I can tell that I am rambling. The point is that I used to understand where neo-conservatives were coming from. The desire to spread democracy the world over is well intentioned. Unfortunately, I think it is too idealistic even for me. I think I am leaning towards a broader tolerance of cultural differences even if it means accepting non-democratic governments (excluding of course strictly iron fist governments like Saddam Hussein).

My Mentor, Only He Doesn't Know it

When I read Thomas Friedman's columns, I see the same frustration in him that I have. I think we both have an underlying optimism and faith in humanity. But so often the news stories from the Middle East (and elsewhere too) knock us down, unable to catch our breath for a while. We soon recover soon after by latching on to a piece of good news as proof that progress is coming. At least, I get the impression that he feels this way too.

Freedman has probably had the most influence on the development of my foreign policy perspective. And while I think our underlying philosophies are similar, and our emotional reactions to the news run parallel, he is different in one major way. He always manages to describe the problem as one that the Middle East needs to solve. Since I have grown up in the age where America is the world's sole superpower, I naturally start from the position that we need to solve all the problems. And while I will always think we have a role in it (for example, we could start by not creating problems, ie installing the Shah in Iran, destabilizing Iraq, turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, giving Israel and blank check), Friedman is good at bringing me back to reality. We aren't going to solve the Middle East's problems. They will have to do it themselves; Friedman says they need to find a fourth way ($).

Screaming from the Minarets

This picture broke my heart. It is two pictures of the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, Iraq. On the left is before two separate bombings a year apart. It is agonizing to know that everything beautiful is being destroyed in Iraq. Although I know that is part of war - so much beauty in the world has been lost due to past wars - I think this affects me so much because I feel that we are partly responsible for this. Although I know it is the nihilists who actually bombed the dome one year ago, and the minarets recently, we are still at fault for allowing it to happen. We (not just Bush - all of us) started a war without thinking about how to finish it. We went in unprepared to deal with insurgents. We ignored mounting evidence that more troops were needed.

What makes this even worse is knowing that the bombing of the mosque's dome started the civil war that Iraq has been in the middle of now for over a year. And every new bombing like this makes it more clear that things are not improving and may not improve. I don't mean to give the impression that I really thought the troop surge would create security, but I did hope for it. And each story like this makes me lose more hope, after thinking I have no more to lose.

My Trip to Zambia

Summary:
There is craziness in Lebanon every time I leave the country. After visiting Zambia, I have new thoughts on development. It is going to be a long road. Maybe what we should offer are the basics, and allow them to figure out the rest.

So it has been a really long time since I last blogged. I can explain. I spent two weeks in Zambia, and then have spent two weeks catching up on things and traveling more on weekends. Now that I have some time, I have a lot I want to say. First of all, why is it that every time I leave the country, violence erupts in Lebanon? Granted, I have only left the country twice. Last summer I went to Ireland with my girlfriend, and while we were there, Israel was bombing Lebanon. This time, I go to Africa, and while I am there, the Lebanese army is attacking a Palestinian militant group that is hiding in a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon (which makes it clear why right of return is such a huge issue for everyone in the region). I almost feel like I can't leave the country anymore. I am not trying to be funny. It truly breaks my heart when I see more violence in Lebanon. And now I have an association between news reports of violence in Lebanon and airports.

Alright, now to Zambia. I hardly know where to start. We visited as the guests of a family my girlfriend knew while she was teaching in DC. The mother of the family works for the World Bank, and they live in the bush outside of Lusaka (the capital of Zambia). The family is great, and staying with them allowed us some amazing insights we wouldn't have gotten otherwise.

I think development issues have been on my mind for a few years now. And to be honest, I think my next job will be more in that direction if possible. Up until my trip, all the issues were very academic to me. I read as much as I could, and tried to form educated opinions. The trip though completely overwhelmed me. When I thought about development in the past, it seemed easy to me. Get rid of our domestic agriculture subsidies, be more aggressive with authoritarian governments, and use the UN as a tool for good not another weapon to promote American interests and everything would work itself out. I thought I understood the basic problems and could see the solutions.

Going to Zambia didn't really change my mind on any of the issues I mentioned above. But I realize now that there are so many problems and complicating issues. Funding for education is inadequate by far, infrastructure is very limited, the economy is very weak and there is a lack of skilled workers. And these are just a few that I thought of (and they are very general too).

When seeing all of that, I realized that development is going to be a very long process - as indeed it was with us. My belief then is for us to focus on the big things, like money for basic health care, food and nutrients to prevent starvation and malnutrition, and protection of basic human rights. Outside of that, I think that our goal should be a form of empowerment mixed with reasonable expectations. The last part is important. We expect corruption can end as long as we insist on it loud enough. This ignores our long history with corruption, which only ended with the grass roots Progressive Movement at the turn of the century (I don't have it in me to discuss the differences between that movement, and the wing of the Democratic Party that uses the same title).

I want to stress that my theory of reasonable expectations isn't based on any sort of belief that there is a differences in the races. It is merely my understanding that change and improvement in any culture is slow. On top of that, I think there is much resistance to positive changes merely because pressure from the west feels like paternalism. Realizing this, groups like the World Bank sometimes try to do more work behind the scenes, allowing others to take the credit. In the end, growth will only occur from the inside. We should definitely help, but we should step back and let them find their way as well.

Now, while I think that we need to step back a bit and allow governments to work things out on their own, I do think that charity should increase. There is tremendous need in Zambia, and likewise in the rest of the developing countries. What they need while they grow and figure out how to protect their people is our compassion. This is even easier for me to say after having been there, because Zambia is an incredibly beautiful country, and after having been there I want to do all I can for it. Which, as a final note, is why tourism is so important. It helps promote cross-cultural understanding, and can help show foreigners why the country is so amazing.

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.

Friedman for President

I have to say, one of my favorite formats that Thomas Friedman uses for his columns is when he writes a speech President Bush should give. If you have TimesSelect, definitely read this. If you don't, here is a highlight:

I want to take this opportunity to speak to the Arab and Muslim nations gathered here today and to the world at large. I begin with a simple message: I’m sorry. I’m sorry that I rushed into the invasion of Iraq. I honestly believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. I was wrong, and I now realize that in unilaterally launching the war the way I did, you all feel that I breached a bond of trust between America and the world. Not only did that alienate you from us, it made us less effective in Iraq. We had too few allies and too little legitimacy. I apologize — sincerely.

I’m most sorry, though, because my bungling of the war has prompted all of us to take our eye off the ball. I messed up the treatment so badly that people have forgotten the patient really does have a disease. Now that I’ve apologized, I hope you will stop fixating on me and look closely at what is happening in your backyard: the forces and pathologies that brought us 9/11 are still there and multiplying.

If only Bush really had the humility to give this speech.

Bad Gore

Gore has been getting some criticism for his high energy usage. My first thought was that people were just using it to attack global warming. While I think that is the case, his critics still have valid points.

Gore's defense has been that he buys carbon credits to compensate for his energy usage. But the question is whether this is enough. This article in the NY Times looks into that. Basically, the article says that while it helps that money is being invested in alternate energy sources and plants that soak up carbon, overall it is a consumer-based solution that makes people feel better without having to change their behavior. (The article also says that there isn't yet a way to ensure that the carbon credits are offsetting as much as they say.)

I think this is a key point. People like Al Gore tell the world we need to change our behavior, but yet they aren't leading by example. Carbon credits aren't going to get us where we need to go to decrease carbon emissions. In the end, we are going to have to do a lot to change our behavior. This means that we can't just spend a little more money to feel better about our consumption habits; we will need to make real sacrifices. I think the loudest talkers should lead the way.

Olive Branch From Iran?

Summary:
There is evidence that Iran wanted normal relations with the US in 2003. How did we go so wrong? Would Iran have lived up to its promises?

So Nicholas Kristof wrote a column about an attempt by Iran in May 2003 to establish more normal relations with the US. Before I launch into a rant about how poorly the Bush administration's policy with Iran has been, we should recognize that Iran probably wouldn't have lived up to all of their promises. At the same time though, our isolation of them has made the hard liners in their country stronger, which makes the government more willing to stand against us publicly.

One of the worst things we did was create this "Axis of Evil" label. Instead of making the countries try harder to be good, it has made them want to behave worse. Bush doesn't realize this because he wants to see the world in a good versus evil dichotomy, and to do this he needed to create enemies - ones that would be on par with the former Soviet Union. This isn't to say that Iran was benevolent, but they were mostly harmless instead of a grand power we needed to rally against.

I want to stress again that when dealing with rogue states and potentially threatening governments, there are smart ways of dealing with them that makes them weaker instead of stronger. We need a leader that understands this.

Turkish Politics

This article about Turkish politics shows that sometimes religious groups can support modernization and promote a middle class. It also shows that Muslim countries have to deal with the role of religion in government just like we do. In fact, it seems to play out in similar ways with similar arguments.

Update:
Much more has happened since I last wrote. The story so far: a political Muslim was elected president by the Parliament (note: Turkey is constitutionally a secular country and is very serious about it). This lead to threats of a coup from the military (which was chastised by the EU but not the US) and a judicial ruling that the religious president cannot serve.

I think this situation points out two major hypocrisies of American conservative foreign policy. First, we have a policy of tolerating democracy only when it elects governments that we favor. I hate this more than anything, and we have a long history of it (see Iran pre-Shah). Secondly, conservative Americans don't like separation of church and state when it is a Christian government, but think it is crucial when it is a Muslim government. This I think hints at a bias against Muslims even if it is a moderate and pro-middle class version of Islam.

We should be able to support the new president and speak out against the military threat and the court's political decision. This is especially true since as far as I know we have nothing to fear of this candidate or his non-sectarian political party.