"The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. ... All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." - GW Bush, 2nd inaugural address, Jan 2005
What words of hope he spoke back then. Standing with the oppressed. Of course, he was referring to our imminent success in Iraq, our "mission accomplished" in helping the Iraqis stand against their oppressor Saddam Hussein. However, these days our stance seems more like the Texas two-step than a strong mission statement.
A lot of words has been exchanged about the recent turmoil in Pakistan. For those who might not know yet what is going on, I'll give you a quick recap: Faced with a promise he made of giving up his military post, and of Presidential elections in which most polls declared he'd be wiped out by opposition parties, "President" Pervez Musharraf has couped against his own presidency, declaring marshal law, dissolving the Constitution, placing several members of the Supreme Court under house arrest when they refused to go along with him, and jailing thousands of lawyers and other protesters for demonstrating against him. Oh, and he is silencing major independent news organizations.
The worst part of all this is the international community is doing nothing than muttering under its breath about the situation. Especially in the United States, where this administration has made a world-wide campaign against those who might use tyranny to further injustice and terror. We have invoked sanctions or traded harsh words with several nations who we consider to be conducting activities we deem anti-democratic. For examples, see Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, and Iran. In all those places, we have tried to bring our pro-democracy rhetoric to bear with some force, usually economic, to try and effect changes in how they do business with their own people.
However, now, when one of our "most important non-NATO" allies goes and shreds any hope of democratic reform, we sit idly by. We have even made excuses for General Musharraf's actions (as he is acting more a general than a president). "Oh, he has the bomb... we don't want to antagonize him" ... "Well, he's still fighting the war on terror for us, we don't want to disrupt him" ... "if he goes, Pakistan will only have anarchy and could fall into the hands of extremists." All of these are practically bullshit.
** Bomb - yes, Pakistan has the bomb. However, we have not shrunk from admonishing other nations with fully-fledged nuclear capabilities (China, North Korea). It is even more dangerous because Pakistan's nuclear engineers were responsible for helping North Korea develop it's own arsenal. This should be even more of a reason why the army should not be in control all the time ... they clearly do not have the mental or moral capacity to determine when to hold onto to their state secrets.
**Terror - Pakistan has made few contributions to the war on terror recently, and indeed seems to be taking some steps backwards. The same day he swept democratic precepts aside, Musharraf also released 28 Taliban prisoners in a prisoner-soldier swap with militants on his border. Some of those included bomb makers and transporters. Where are they headed now? Not to protest with the lawyers; they're most likely headed over the border into Afghanistan, where the Taliban is on a rebound and has posted several new leads this year, pushing close to Khandahar and other cities as they struggle to regain their grip on the country. And Pakistan's army is not fighting them. Not to mention how thousands have been called from the front line to fight and arrest the protesters, as if these people are the most dangerous threat to the country's future.
**Anarchy - This whole charade was well-timed to offset the elections and Supreme Court decisions, all of which were suspected to go against Musharraf. In a poll by Terror Free Tomorrow, Musharraf has a lower approval rating than recently-returned oppsition leader Benazir Bhutto (38% to 63%). It is widely believed that her party would sweep Musharraf from office in the elections (which have now been postponed indefinitely), and she has signaled support for the United States as a part of her moderate stance.
None of the arguments hold water. The end result is that we are supporting some modicum of short-term stability for democracy, lending credence to a dictator who is actively oppressing his people rather than step in and try to aid the people of Pakistan, in some way, with their struggle. It seems strange, as we have taken much effort to try to establish democracy in other portions of the world. Indeed, with hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into Iraq, trying to prop up a democracy and create a "model state" in the Middle East. If we value stability over democracy, why depose Saddam in the first place? He was very stable, we were keeping an eye on him so he was pretty pinned down (still no WMDs found), and was not in league with the Taliban, Iran, or other terrorist groups. Yet we brought him down to promote democracy. Cuba has been stable to the rest of the world for decades. Yet just last month President Bush stood beside Cuban exiles and railed against Cuba's denying of freedom to its people.
I am not urging we march into Pakistan as we did Baghdad. For one, we do not have the military means or public support to initiate such an endeavor. Also, perhaps Iraq has taught us that military force is not always the best way to effect "regime change" in a country. However, to let Pakistan stumble down this road without demonstrating that we will not stand for this type of behavior, even from our allies, is unconscionable. When 53% of Pakistanis believe that one of their top priorities as a nation is "Free elections, free press, and an independent judiciary" we should pay attention. When only 18% approve of suicide bombings, we should realize this is a society not filled with radicals, yet, but rational people who desire the means and ways to make their life better in the future, for them and their children. However, our image is tarnished there, whether beyond hope is debatable. How might things change if we were to help promote democracy in a peaceful way? One that is not seen as militaristic, or anti-Islamic, but moderate, accepting, progressive yet understanding? It is a tall order, but don't we owe it to our credibility in the region, nay across the world as a country whose defining purpose is to promote democracy, as it is the surest way to repeal terror and oppression around the world?
Consider also this hypothetical future: 53% of people disapproved of Musharraf even before this weekend's shenanigans. If he retains power, under the auspices of fighting terror and keeping stability, it is altogether possible that those young people who he claims to be protecting will only be further marginalized by his draconian measures. When free press and free courts do not offer people a legitimate avenue to redress their concerns with the government and each other, where will they turn? Madrassas, sharia law, militants, tribal organizations that can help give them what the "stable" government of Pakistan can not. Do you doubt this? Consider what happened when the Shah of Iran lost touch with his people, and used all means necessary to stay in power after he was returned to office in 1953. Where did the people turn, but to a small religious leader named Ruhulla Khomeini? And how did that example turn out, and how did it effect our world in terms of security, human rights, terrorism? Would we really want to sandwich Afghanistan between two of the same? Do we really want another Iran, this time with already developed nuclear capabilities?
To end this, I'll leave with another quote, used by GW Bush in his inaugural address, but also resonating into this conflict:
"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." --Abraham Lincoln, from the April 6, 1859 letter to Henry Pierce
After those who deny freedom are no longer in power, how will what we have done (or not done) while they were in control affect what happens when they no longer retain it?
It was slow in coming, very slow. The solution to the Iraq, problem, as I have stated previously, was in the partition of the country into various slices, mostly likely upon ethnic/sectarian lines. It is unfortunate that it should come to this, but keep in mind that the country borders of Iraq and much of the Middle East was constructed not by their own people, but by the colonial powers that contained power over the area at the early point of the 20th century. France and England were the principal participants, and when they were forced to give up power and return the land to the people of the region after WWI, they drew arbitrary lines and left it at that. They have a reputation of this, for the colonial powers did the same thing in Africa, which was one reason that led to the genocide in Rwanda so recently.
And, as it has been proven time and time again in the news and reports on the ground, the majority of the violence has been intra-sect homicide. These are three sets of people, with apparent intractable differences which prohibits them living together in one nation. There is nothing wrong with that; there are incompatible people all across the world. However, when forced to live under one flag, one border, conflicts can arise quickly. Can they ever get over this hatred? The optimist in me wants to say yes, but that is not easy or quick to achieve, and cannot be looked upon as a solution in the near future.
So, why divvy up the country? Well, the partition method also has some historical success. In Bosnia, when faced with factions that were at constant war and genocide, was broken into partitions in the 1990s, and has had considerable success since then. It may not be the popular thing to do right away, but it certainly can separate the factions into their respective corners, so to speak.
With the U.S. so bogged down here, with the troop surge generating mild if any successes, it is wise to look to a new direction. Senator Joseph Biden, D-Del, has been the chief sponsor of a plan to start a power-sharing partition plan in Iraq. It would de-centralize the government, putting more power in regional centers controlled by Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd forces. What is even more impressive is that the U.S. Senate approved the non-binding resolution. This is a powerful statement that the direction must change with respect to our plan in Iraq, even more than just removing troops, as senators have repeatedly suggested. I'm glad that someone is finally looking forward and in a "outside-the-box" fashion. Well done Senator Biden.
Of course, there are those who oppose it. The Iraqi central government condemned the resolution, with prominent Iraqis calling it a "flagrant interference in Iraq's internal affairs." This is to be expected; even though historical inequalities led to the government being formed, the people at its stead have the desire to keep the status quo going, even if it is not the best thing for its people. They do not want to see their own power diminished, so they will fight this plan however they can. The United States Embassy, which is beholden to the executive branch, also decried the resolution. However, partition for them, and our President, would only look like some sort of "defeat" in their eyes, even if it might be a more proactive, stabilizing direction to move. They also have things to lose: prestige, votes, finances, party loyalty. All that petty politics seems to drive men to do great or horrid things.
I urge you all to read that resolution, and think honestly about the implications it has for the country, for our country, and for the future of stability in the Middle East. For isn't it better to have three smaller, stable countries operating and peaceful, than one larger quagmire of destruction and misery?
It never ceases to amaze me how people can behave like Neanderthals sometimes. This story out of Maryland demonstrates that principle clearly. A man, deciding to protest a Muslim candidate to the state’s House of Delegates, has staged a one-man “protest” outside of the candidate’s home, wearing a shirt that says, “Islam Sucks.” His reasoning for his protest? “I had heard that Muslims were generally intolerant of views other than their own, and so I thought I would put it to the test.” By insulting the person? By insulting his personal religion? Who would not be tempted to strike back, talk back, against such statements? The man has been warned of being prosecuted for trespassing. However, if this man were to happen to have a sign saying “Judaism Sucks” in front of a Jewish candidate’s house, you had better believe he’d be slapped with more than just trespassing. Hate crimes, bigotry, all sorts of labels would be associated with him. But since it is a Muslim candidate, then he’s only trespassing. To his credit, the candidate has not dignified the man with a response, saying there is nothing constructive about his dialogue. What true words!
The double-standard that is appearing, and the whole culture which resides behind this single man’s attitude is sickening. What sweeping ignorance has paved his path to arrive at this candidate’s front door. Such wide, blunt brushes he paints other cultures with. We paint cultures with. I thought as a nation we had progressed beyond such thing. We should be ashamed that this happens here in our country of the free. And do not bring to me the argument that it is free speech. The man himself defends his actions, saying they are not hateful, merely expressing an opinion. But the cultural connotations of his words transcend mere opinions into the realm of hate-driven expressions.
If I had chose a person I’d want as a neighbor, a fellow citizen, my decision would rest solely with the Muslim, rather than allow such a blunt-minded hypocrite to share my country with. This man repulses me to my core.
I know I am going to catch hell for this, but oh well. I found some quotes the other day tucked in a report authored by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt and released by the John F. Kennedy School of Government, of Harvard University. The report, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, takes aim at a lot of the issues brought about by the United States’ seemingly unconditional support of Israel, since its inception. They also go further, looking at the pro-Israeli lobby that helps to foster such support within our government. It is a fascinating article, a real eye-opener to some of the positions we have taken, and the political power that this lobby wields over our Congress and President. But the quotes I mentioned are interesting, in my humble opinion, regarding the perception of Israelis towards the Palestinian movements. It is more interesting to note that they arise from prominent Israeli politicians, some of whom were the most Zionist in their approach to a Jewish state. The quotes seem to indicate an understanding of the Palestinian cause and root of the conflict. It also implicates the Israeli people as being complicit, even accepting, of terrorism as a means to get what a group wants (this is no new news; the Zionist movement used terrorism extensively in their fight against colonial Britain). Thus, how can the state of Israel as a whole denounce the Palestinians’ motives and methods, when they are rooted in the Israeli’s own history and collective psyche? Seems a bit hypocritical to me, but I will leave you with these things to ponder on a Friday afternoon.David Ben-Gurion: “If I were an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country…. We come from Israel, but two thousand years ago, and that is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They only see one thing: we have come here and stolen their country. Why should they accept that?”[1] Ehud Barak: “[had I been born a Palestinian, I] would have joined a terrorist organization.”[2] Yitzhak Shamir: “Neither Jewish ethics nor Jewish tradition can disqualify terrorism as a means of combat.”[3] 1 - Nahum Goldmann, The Jewish Paradox, trans. Steve Cox (NY: Grosset and Dunlap, 1978), p.99.
2 - Bill Maxwell, “U.S. Should Reconsider Aid to Israel,” St. Petersburg Times, December 16, 2001.3 - Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1999), pp.485-486.
The biggest part of the news coming from the Near East in recent weeks has not been from Iraq. That some other piece of news would eclipse the ongoing trauma that that country is enduring is somewhat surprising, and definitely depressing. The last thing that region of the world needs is more drama, more aggression and sadness. The Near East is a truly remarkable place; the so-called birth place of civilization, it has seen empires from the Greeks to the Persians to the British cross its sands, and at one point harbored the greatest wealth of knowledge and scientific advancement on the globe. But the news today is about Iran. Specifically it is their continued nuclear development program, the end result of which is the spark behind the current news. Some think it will be nuclear weapons, bent on exterminating the Israeli people and re-introducing a nuclear-enforced Persian Empire. Iran claims it is for domestic energy production. Yet the constant vitriol put forth by the president of Iran makes this claim, to say the least, suspect. And, interjecting itself into the politics of the region is the United States. There is wide-spread debate on what should be done about Iran, be it economic sanctions or military action. No option seems to be extremely enticing. However, quite lost amongst all of the clamor over what to do now that Iran has the potential to join the elite group of nuclear-capable nations, is the lesson we learned 50 years ago about meddling in Near East politics. A lesson we should have very much taken to heart. A lesson that seems to have fallen from view, and should be remembered, as it has grave consequences for how we came to be in this current situation. The British controlled Iran for a long time. They were there for colonial purposes, until the first decade of the 20th century, when oil was discovered under Persian soil. This began a long string of unjust agreements and corrupted officials that kept Iranian oil flowing for British business interests. In the meantime, democracy stagnated in the country, and public ire grew. People had long protested these abuses, these neglects, but they mostly fell on deaf ears. In the late 1910s the Iranian people wanted freedom from Britain. After WWI their chance came, and they were supported by the United States in the form of Woodrow Wilson. He went against our allies’ desires and gave his support to the Iranian people. America was supporting democracy in the simplest way; to allow a people to decide their fate on their own terms, without foreign threats or influence. We were loved as a country there. Britain did not follow suit, and continued to keep a ring of bribed officials to maintain their now-substantial business interests – oil. They were very effective at keeping Iranians as workers, while bleeding the country of their oil resources. There was thought to be no hope, as the Shah was kept isolated from the anger of his people by the relative comfort brought in by the oil. (In fact, Iran was going bankrupt from the Shah’s policies… he kept borrowing money to furnish homes, vacations, and the lot… all gladly loaned by British banks and persons.) No hope, at least, until Mossadegh came. This simple man was fiery in his approach, and his love, of his native country. He worked his way up the political ladder until he reached prime minister of Iran in 1951. Then came the unthinkable. He had the power to put his ideas into place. Mossadegh demanded Britain release their oil interests in the country; he wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Britain balked at the offer, turning again to America to mediate. This time it was Harry Truman who again sided with the Iranians, refusing to back Britain’s claims to the oil fields. Britain took its case to the World Court and the United Nations, where Mossadegh repeatedly came through the victor. He became wildly popular at home, championing leftist policies of land redistribution and poverty reduction. He was named Time’s Man of the Year in 1951. Mossadegh even had the support of the more moderate mullahs in the country. Democracy was moving forward. Dawn was on the horizon for Iran. Britain attempted to plan a coup, but Mossadegh found out and threw all British diplomats out of the country. Britain needed help. Their help came in the form of Eisenhower’s ascension to the presidency of the United States. Churchill and Eisenhower both held that a military coup would be the only way to oust Mossadegh and keep Iran under control. As well as grant Britain its oil fields once again. For 8 months they worked on this plan, the CIA being majorly involved (since the Brits were exiled from Iran). And then in August 1953 the plan was sprung. Uprisings, military occupation, the whole works. Mossadegh was placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life, and the Shah was ushered back in as the main political authority in Iran. Concessions were made to the British, and life seemingly resumed. But it hadn’t. People in Iran knew the US was behind the coup. With the Shah returned, he resumed his despotic ways, bringing Iran further into debt and poverty. He retaliated against anyone who had supported Mossadegh, including the clergy. A young Ayatollah Khomeini was among those ostracized. His later role in Iranian history is well documented, and the revolution in 1979 had Anti-American rallying points focused on Mossadegh. Even now, Mossadegh’s importance in Iran is officially mild (as he was against creating an Iranian theocracy), but his importance, and the importance of American infiltration into the politics of the region, remains very current. In March 2000, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright stated her reflection upon the ousting of Mossadegh: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."After all of this, there are many conclusions that can be drawn. The most glaring to me is one of missed opportunities. America in the 1920s was well-loved by the Iranian people, as much as they hated the British. We were seen as champions of democracy, harbingers of good futures, justice and the triumph of people over aggressors. In less than 30 years we had reversed that position in the minds of the Iranians 180 degrees. Now we were the suppressors; we were the greedy people aiding the colonial ambitions of Britain. It was a hard lesson for the Iranian people, one they have never forgotten. Now all of our actions regarding Iran are skewed by this instance. We even re-enforced this opinion when the US supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Another missed chance to help be the true spreaders of peace and democracy. Then in 2003 with the final deposing of Hussein from Iraq’s throne. Still no democracy. And now this saber-rattling from Iran in the face of American opposition to its policies? Is it any wonder Iran questions our motives and our abilities in the region? Is it any surprise that they feel the need to stand up against us now, as they once stood against Britain? Is it a shock to find them still angry by this betrayal, inflamed by the theocratic rhetoric of the current leaders? But this time it is not oil that is the dividing issue, it is something much more terrifying. I am not debating whether a nuclear Iran is a good or bad option for the world. Rather, I would like to counsel how we once had the influence in the region for good, and we threw it away for short-termed gains. How we squandered the opportunity to be the guiding light in this region that has brought so much trouble to modern times. It is the aim to gain a bit of perspective as to the current thought trends in that troubled country, and to hopefully remind Americans we once stood for positive ideals which won us admiration and respect the world over, two attributes we are sorely lacking as a nation right now.
