From "Foreign Policy" July/August 2007

"Europeans Are Good Global Citizens" False.
"On occasion, the maintenance of global order requires a willingness to use military power, which in turn requires a prior investment in military hardware...The entire EU spends about hal fas much on defense as the United States. That's just as well because, when it comes to projecting force, the task can be left to those deplorable, unilateralist, gun-toting Americans. As a rule, they will come to the rescue."

Comments?

S. 1348: Ding Dong the Witch is Dead

Maybe the constituents will stop calling to voice their opinion against this thing

Presidential Debates

I'm disappointed to have missed the first round of Presidential debates with the Democratic candidates. And as I searched online for a video clip, I discovered video clips were unavailable...apparently a move by MSNBC to retain rights to the broadcast. Like many bloggers, I think this is a load of crap and that voters should be able to access primary resources like presidential debates on the internet. I had to rely on the media analysis of the debates; my weapon of choice was the ever popular Daily Show. Hell if I was going to read through the transcript but I guess I have no choice if I want the raw data...

The second round, however, is tonight featuring Republican candidates. The Ronald Reagan Library as the choosen venue is certainly powerful...a call for Republicans to revert their party to its previous glory and popularity, something that has been utterly destroyed in the six years of the Bush Administration.

Learning From the Past: Cultural Imperialism and the West

Although Western imperialism was on the decline in the late 18^th century, Europe and the United States continued to enlarge their spheres of influence through technology and industry provided by the Industrial Revolution. The rush for resource-rich land affected tiny parcels of land, like the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific, and huge regions across continents, like Northern Africa and the Middle East. In both cases, political changes were implemented by Western forces that would forever change the course of history for the conquered and divided territories. While the political and economic forces within the context of each political development seemed, at the time, to validate Western political action, the disregard for cultural identity would yield long term effects that proved, in some cases, insurmountable. There are instances where the effects of imperialism on culture can be thwarted, even reversed. In Hawaii a resurgence of Hawaiian language and music led to political support of a unique people and their heritage. Unfortunately, in the case of the perpetual instability of the Middle East since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, these long term effects have serious implications for the global community today. Hawaii remains an example for colonial powers of imperialism that does not compromise cultural identity, something that was largely ignored in the colonialism of the Ottoman Empire and led the region to radicalization and terrorism.

The beautiful Hawaiian Islands, said to be first discovered by Captain James Cook in 1778, were and remain strategically vital territory for any country hoping to be considered a world power. It is an excellent territory for ship refueling as they travel from the United States to the Asia. The Hawaiian Historical society writes,

Through the 19^th century, Hawaii continued as a fledging kingdom, maintaining its sovereignty despite designs by the British, Russians, French and Americans to win control of the islands. Hawaii’s monarchs successfully played American and British interests off each other, depending on one than the other for military support

This status quo, however, would not remain for Hawaii. In 1843, years before the overthrow, a British commander named George Paulet attempted to annex the kingdom to the British Crown. Hawaiian sovereignty was restored only five months later, followed by a declaration by France and England that the Islands would be considered “an independent state, and never to take possession, neither directly under the title of protectorate, nor under any other form, of any part of the territory of which they are composed” (Morgan Report). The United States, although invited to sign the document, declined. Ultimately, Manifest Destiny compelled the United States to pull the Hawaiian Islands into its sphere of influence, with intentions to annex the territory when the opportunity presented itself. The United States succeeded when the Hawaiian monarchy, under leadership of Queen Liliuokalani, was overthrown supposedly in retaliation for the Queen’s attempt to nullify the Constitution of 1887, which significantly decreased monarchial power. On January 17, 1893, a Provisional Government was established and Liliuokalani was put under house arrest. Four years later Hawaii would be annexed to the United States and the 50^th state of the union in 1959.

The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire was a slower and less direct process than the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. After the Tanzimat Reforms, established by Ottoman Sultan Mahmud II in 1839, threatened to centralize Ottoman power over the various minority groups of the Empire, European countries were able to take advantage of Ottoman dissatisfaction and increase its influence. Their goal, however, was a weak not a collapsed Ottoman Empire. Domestic political turmoil would erupt throughout these years, culminating in the rise to power of the Young Turks in 1908, followed by a serious of disasters, including the 1912-1913 Balkan Wars and the Armenian genocide and uprisings. Finally, the Ottoman Empire dug its own grave when they allied with Germany in World War I, assuming the military might of Germany would remain the safest shield from Russia. The Allies claimed victory in 1918 and one of the first things discussed in peace treaty talks was the status of the crumbling Empire and the importance for European countries, particularly Britain and France to protect their interests in the region. Thus, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned completely by the 1920 Treaty of Sevres, which divided the Middle East between Britain and France based on the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916. Four zones were drafted, two under direct French or British control, the other two under French or British influence. These zoning decisions were solidified by the ratification of the mandate boundaries by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922.

The effect of the United States, Britain and France exercising their power on Hawaii and the Middle East had not only political and economic implications but more importantly, cultural implications on the colonized peoples. The long term effects of cultural imperialism, when the weaker state adopts the language, manners and lifestyle of the stronger state, has undermined the Hawaiian and Arab minorities. In the hundred plus years since the Hawaiian overthrow and Ottoman partition, evidence of the cultural impact of the West has manifested itself. The lesson we learn from such case studies is that cultural identity, a set of characteristics inherent in certain societies and cultures that individuals within those cultures choose to identify with, are essential to the survival of a people. Colonized people struggle to survive when cultural imperialism forces a loss of cultural identity.

Thankfully, cultural imperialism is not irreversible. The resurgence of Hawaiian culture in Hawaii which took place during Hawaii’s statehood is a testament to the perseverance of cultural identity. Immediately following the overthrow in 1893, policies and programs were implemented by the Provisional Government that sought to curb uprising by the Hawaiian population. Native speakers were targeted in the classroom, forbidden from speaking their native tongue and punished for disobedience. Because Hawaiian language was at the heart of the culture, important forms of art and expression such as the hula, Hawaiian music and chant were compromised and replaced by a stereotypical image of Hawaiian culture based primarily on the image created by the tourism industry. In the 1970s, Hawaiian music, language, dance and culture saw a surge in popularity and exposure. This period of time, known as the Hawaiian Renaissance, is characterized by its marked divergence from the artificially created Hawaiian culture following the overthrow. At the peak of Hawaiian culture’s revival in 1983, a few Hawaiian educators formed an immersion program, boosting the number of children who spoke fluent Hawaiian from 50 in 1983 to 2,000 today. In addition to language, music played a major role in encouraging engagement in Hawaiian culture. The Renaissance made a political impact and revived movements for Hawaiian sovereignty and recognition. All of this culminated in the Apology Resolution of 1993, a joint resolution from the United States congress apologizing for the role of the United States in the overthrow of Liliuokalani.

There are three interdependent factors that limited the permanence of cultural imperialism in Hawaii. First, the maintenance of culturally authentic political boundaries facilitated a cohesive and identifiable culture. The Hawaiian ethnicity and its Protestant history defined a target group who could generate specific grievances to the colonizing power. This allows for the second factor, the creation of political mechanisms that foster the cultural identity. The most significant political body is the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) added to the Hawaii State Constitution in 1978 during a Constitutional convention of the same year. This semiautonomous government bureau allows its trustees, usually of Hawaiian descent and voted on by the people of Hawaii, to invest ceded lands originally belonging to the Kingdom of Hawaii and collect revenue for state-sponsored Hawaiian programs. Private companies like the Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate similarly use landholdings as investment to raise funds for programs, in this case for three major Hawaiian-preference sch0ols spanning from pre to high school. These programs highlight “two-way assimilation,” where the colonial power and the native history not only coexisted but were influenced by one another. Without this phenomenon, the colonizing government would be less inclined to support the nurture of cultural identity. Finally, political mechanisms facilitate a broader political movement that allows for not only regaining cultural identity but also advancing cultural identity through the colonial power. Native Hawaiians achieved this with the Apology Resolution in 1993 and may achieve even greater federal recognition if the Akaka Bill, currently pending in the U.S. Senate, is passed.

When examining the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent colonization of the region, it is clear that neither of these critical factors materialized. The division of the Ottoman Empire and necessity on the part of Britain and France to reconstruct new borders catapulted the Middle East into a more tumultuous situation that the Hawaiian Islands were ever in. Within the vast territory of the Empire was a multitude of cultures and religious sects that lived peacefully. The Ottoman Turk culture is the closest to a unitary culture the Empire got, and even this influence did not halt the flourishing of other cultures and religious sects within the Empire. Nonetheless, the Empire drew its power from its ability to govern multicultural and multi-religious citizens through culturally sensitive empirical policies. This multiculturalism was ruptured in the aftermath of World War I. From the four mandates previously mentioned, modern day Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine/ Israel and Jordan were formed. These permanent boundaries were not drawn with the population’s discretion in mind; rather, they were drawn for British and French convenience. Major cultural groups were divided by the arbitrary borders, setting the stage for the internal opposition within these nations and backlash against the Western colonial powers.

The lack of politically sensitive borders significantly hinders the possibility of political bodies that foster cultural awareness as evidenced in the nations of the Middle East. Although political independence from Western colonialism has been established in the Middle East, the disruption in cultural function and awareness continues to destabilize the region. Because of the poorly drawn borders, nationalism within these artificial states was a slow process. Cultural identity was never cultivated within these states in the same way as it was in Hawaii. The closest the region came to unity is the Pan Arab movement, a secular call for Arab nationalism, which reached a high point with the leadership and rhetoric of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. The biggest gain of the region through the Pan Arab movement was its encouragement of independence for colonial rule. In the face of opposition, Britain was forced to grant Iraqi independence in 1921. British Mandate Palestine would become the state of Israel in 1948. Syria and Lebanon were both only granted independence from French rule in 1943 as the power after German occupation and a recommendation by revered General Charles de Gaulle to recognize independence for the sake of French survival. The Pan Arab movement, however, failed to create any substantial international recognition or concessions, and radicalized into the Islamist movement visible in the violence and terrorism that has overtaken the Middle East. For a political mechanism like OHA in Hawaii to establish in the Middle East, there must be a noticeable cultural force unified enough to create a disturbance and clear enough to outline attainable goals. The radicalization of the Pan Arab movement guarantees this movement will not yield a meaningful political body in which to support the movement. Secular governments are reluctant to support a political group fueled by religious motives and Western powers are all but reluctant to generalize any political group as a radicalized religious movement engaging in terrorist behavior.

Without the culturally authentic borders and political bodies that uphold cultural identity, federal recognition of cultural identity or colonial apology are unattainable. In the Middle East, borders do no reflect a nation’s cultural composition and no political autonomy of cultural sects within that state. The Palestinian Authority is an internationally recognized political mechanism that fosters cultural identity and has gained support by its former colonial power, Britain, in gaining monetary and political support for its people. But the Palestinian Authority only has jurisdictions over parts of Israel and lacks a legitimate state. The Kurds have a distinct cultural identity but neither a political government nor a state. Instead they are spread out amongst the territories of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. These states are in turmoil because of poor Western foreign policies that failed to establish the means for cultural identity to flourish. Not surprisingly, violence not only consumes the region but has spread to the West, the instigators of the turmoil on the eyes of the many frustrated Arabs. In the Hawaii model, the island’s borders incorporated one cultural identity that successfully united and gained political recognition. Granted the Hawaiian Renaissance also saw a rise in popularity of the radical sovereign movement, whose followers believe Hawaii should be restored to a constitutional monarchy, U.S. efforts such as the 1993 Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill, a level of contentment and even patriotism towards the United States is not in the least bit far fetched in Hawaii. In Syria or Palestine, however, British and French patriotism is absurd.

Iraq is a prime example of Western failure in foreign policy. Its Western-drawn borders incorporate feuding Sunni, Shiite and Kurds. Only under stringent and murderous regimes, such as the Baath Party’s rule from 1968 through 2003, did these minorities feign cooperative living within the state. The Baath Party’s secular-style of ruling made it perfect for Pan Arab leadership. However the military defeat of the Arab nations in the Six Days War brought the Pan Arab movement down and left the region destabilized. Once the United States invaded and occupied Iraq and put the new democratic Iraqi government in power, the three dissident groups turned to violence against each other and the coalition troops. Separatist movements amongst all three minorities have emerged after years of suppression and have radicalized around extreme Islamic causes. Unlike the people of Hawaii, violence is the main venue of frustration and opposition in Iraq. Only in the wake of such violence and disruption has the West discussed a three-state solution, where Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds would be granted their own political authority over territories consisting of one religious or ethnic sect. This realization by the West has come way too late and may cause more problems than it solves.

The mitigated disaster that Iraq has become highlights the faults of U.S. foreign policy in addressing cultural concerns as well as military, economic and political concerns. Through the example set by Britain and France in the colonization of the Middle East, the U.S. must realize that the lack of cultural awareness of the weak state by the strong state is a costly flaw that opens the door to great unrest, radicalization and eventually global threats to security and stability. Policy makers should, instead, look at the positives brought about by the Hawaiian Renaissance. By encouraging the blossoming of Hawaiian culture and language, satisfaction with the United States and overall acceptance of the overthrow (indeed the Islands were to be colonized by one Western power or another, thankfully it was the United States which remains today a dominant world power) is a realistic goal. U.S. foreign policy must aim to create a similar attitude in Iraq as well as other countries in the Middle East, even if it means admitting wrong and encouraging minority groups to embrace their cultural and religious differences. Only then can we hope to see a stabilized Middle East and overall greater sense of security and stability in the global theatre.

A New Years Resolution

The burden and stress of this semester has manifested itself into a no-holds barred freak out session that has lasted since the beginning of April. I am about to enter my last year of undergraduate study with no real plans after graduation.

The young man I'm seeing seems to think this means all I want to do is follow him, marry him and pop out a few of his kids. This is not the case but with no real plans of my own, I can see how he'd worry that he is holding me back. But from what? Not even I know. That's the problem.

When a problem roots itself in your school, professional and social life, it must be significant. I needed a change.

So I made a resolution to immerse myself in something that matters to me. I'm starting small...I picked up Foreign Policy and The Economist today and have decided to invest in a subscription. Thumbing through the pages reading about the world's problems not only makes my own seem miniscule but also encourages me to work towards solving those meaningful and substantial issues.

I'd like to keep this up. Maybe I'll even spend some of my day in silence reflecting on things like The Colonic. Whatever the case, I hope this little change can help make bigger ones...

Will the Real Foreign Diplomat Please Stand Up?

Condoleezza Rice has quietly discovered the difference between being a loyal, order-following Bushie and being loyal but maintaining personal character—something Alberto Gonzalez apparently hasn’t learned yet. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi flagrantly defies the Executive branch and attempts engagement with rogue nations, Rice is stretching her diplomatic wings in an attempt to engage diplomatically in the Middle East the right way.

Rice met with Palestinian Authority Finance Minister, Dr. Salaam Fayyad on Wednesday April 18. The Palestinian Authority is led by democratically-elected Hamas, whom the United States has refused to recognize. In doing so, she has showed U.S. commitment to the ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict without compromising the U.S. stance on working with Hamas and other terrorist organizations and state sponsors.

Rice’s commitment to the economic crisis of Palestine ensures stability and long-term benefits for Palestinians. Palestinians argue that their immediate need, a Palestinian state and a right of return for refugees into Israeli, are more urgent than economic stability. However, Rice realizes that in tackling smaller issues, chances of a settlement and concrete improvements are higher. With the trust and hope achieved with these initiatives, the involved parties will be more optimistic in discussing the more emotional and pressing issues.

Rice’s diplomatic efforts are not overly ambitious. Some, including both Palestinians and Israelis, say the efforts will yield nothing at all. But the fact is these talks have been in place for decades and cannot all be immediately fixed. The 34-Day War between Israel and Hezbollah in the summer of 2006 ensured any blossoming relations between Arabs and Israelis were cut short. Rice is realistically trying to recover that ground and hopefully gain more in the process. With Rice’s help, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to biweekly talks, the second of which will take place in Jericho, the first ever negotiations in a Palestinian town.

Rice managed to dodge direct talks with members of Hamas by meeting Palestinian Finance Minster Fayyad, an independent. At the same time she is engaging in the unity party of Palestine. Though this political circumvention of Hamas cannot go on forever, for the time being Rice has maintained the U.S. policy of non-engagement with Hamas. Loyalty to the Bush Administration on this issue will give credibility to the Administration while softening hardliner objections and giving Rice more discretion in future negotiations.

Probably the biggest contrast to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Syria, Secretary Rice has not turned her trips to the Middle East into a political debacle on display for the media. High-level meetings are not photo-ops or ceremonial dialogues, rather, closed-door negotiations. In fact her several visits in the past few month have been low key and generated relatively low buzz in the news.
Sure Speaker Pelosi’s trip to Syria increased awareness of a possible U.S. approach of Syria-Iran in stabilizing neighbor Iraq. But the political ploy only sensationalized U.S.-Syrian relations and gave the Syrian government unnecessary legitimacy. By meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad she insinuates a U.S. willingness to soften its diplomatic shunning of Syria, a state-sponsor of terror since 1979.

Pelosi had good intentions and perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised with the good her visit did to restoring diplomatic civility between the U.S. and Syria. But I’m not holding my breath.

The entire Pelosi-Syria visit, however, did gesture to the international community that the entire U.S. concurred with Bush Administration policies. Countries adamantly opposed to Bush’s foreign policy should be more open to relations because of this. Rice should take advantage of this, bite the bullet and attempt to work with all regional players, including Syria to stabilize the new Iraq regime. Choosing to exclude Iran, I can understand. But only working with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the UAE on the Arab-Israeli conflict only perpetuates the misconception that the United States has only its oil-greedy interests in mind.

Another significant gesture of U.S. commitment would be Rice convincing its ally Israel to give something in the negotiations. Not only does this demonstrate non-biased towards Israel, an accusation made time and again by Arab countries, it also encourages goodwill between Arab countries and the U.S. This would have positive implications in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Rice attempting to establish dialogue with Syria after the Pelosi visit may indicate Bush Administration vulnerability. But that’s nothing new. At this point this Administration has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from making a solid, no B.S. attempt at dialogue and constructive relationship building amongst all countries in the region. Secretary of State Rice is doing her best to make sure that happens.

A Dangerous Duo

Never really thought of how dangerous an Iran-Syria coalition could be until you see it all inked out in one article...