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...

Privitization of War

According to Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Arm, 48,000 privately-contracted troops, aka "mercenaries" are currently serving in Iraq.

Blackwater USA is one of a hundred private companies who are contracted to do basic jobs, such as clean for our troops, to critical security initiatives, including protecting State Department officials and Iraqi officials.

Through such companies, President Bush has been able to persue an offensive program in Iraq without consent from Congress. These mercenaries are also not included in the casualt

Check out Jeremy Scahill on the Daily Show.

Condi Rice Upping Diplomacy in Middle East

Great op-ed by David Ignatius discussing some of the diplomatic efforts of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the Middle East. Very hopeful and optimistic about her diplomacy skills and getting the United States back on the positive side of the international community.

Gonzalez in the Hot Seat

Highlights from the NY Times article on Gonzalez's visit to the Senate today....

“I think anyone who’s watched this would say we could do better for attorney general,” Senator Charles Schumer (D), New York, said during a break. “He seems to be far less qualified than the U.S. attorneys that he’s fired.”

“I don’t believe that you’re involved in a conspiracy to fire somebody because they wouldn’t prosecute a particular enemy of a politician or a friend of a politician,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina. “But at the end of the day, you said something that struck me: that sometimes it just came down to these were not the right people at the right time. If I applied that standard to you, what would you say?”

One word. Ouch.

Read the whole piece here

Finally, Some Success in Darfur

If you look at the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, 4 of the 5 countries (Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Syria) are clearly ideological and political foes of the United States. And then there is Sudan, placed on the list more than 10 years ago.

Why only now are UN troops finally gaining access to Darfur by the Sudanese government? It seems other foreign policies engaged by the Bush Administration (ie Iraq, Afghanistan) have detracted our resources, legislative effort and domestic political opinion from the genocide in Darfur.

Thankfully, the U.S. through the UN was able to put political pressure on the Sudanese government. This is an achievement that should give both disheartened American citizens international community some faith in international organizations and their success.

Political Strength Key to Iraqi Stability

There’s a catch-22 in the Iraqi cabinet. While six Shiite cabinet members have resigned in an attempt to put political pressure on Prime Minister Maliki, their actions will destabilize the Iraqi political body. Doing so will only emphasize the instability of Iraq and encourage pro-Iraq War policymakers in the U.S. to remain in the country.

If Moqtada al-Sadr and his Shiite followers want the U.S. to leave their country, they must work within the political body of the Iraqi government to support the delicate country.

The fact that the six cabinet members are following a radical Shiite cleric puts an important emphasis on religious factions. These religious affiliations also have political implications in the nation. The link between religious affiliations and political parties is critical in Middle East politics- Iraq is no different.

The sectarian violence that pushes Iraq on the brink of civil war is a result of political oppression against Shiite and Kurdish factions under the Saddam regime. If Iraq is to develop, it cannot plunge itself back into a single-party government system. Shiite cabinet members should remain in the cabinet a work with PM Maliki to create meaningful coalitions amongst Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

The desire to see U.S. troops, of course, is important to keeping Iraq an independent state. A March 2007 poll suggests 4 in 5 Iraqis oppose U.S. presence in their country. However, the domestic heat on President Bush to withdrawal troops is very apparent and should serve as a reminder to Iraq that a majority of the Americando not wish to overstay their welcome in Iraq.

First, the Democrats took Congress in the midterm elections. Then, Donald Rumsfeld, architect of the current Iraq war policy, resigned from his post as Secretary of Defense. Most recently, Congress, empowered by its election mandate, has threatened to withhold defense funding if withdrawal timetables are not established by the Bush administration. This defiance of the Bush administration as well as Bush’s position as a “lame duck” president culminates to suggest a turn in U.S. policy towards Iraq in the near future.

It is ultimately up to the Iraqi government, however, to determine U.S. withdrawal. Even anti-Iraq War proponents should understand that Iraqi instability will not recover on its own. Iraqis themselves understand this. In the same March 2007 poll, only 1 in 3 Iraqis wanted the U.S. to withdrawal immediately.

If U.S. is to make this war worth the thousands of sacrificed men and women, we must encourage the Iraq government to establish itself for the long run. This includes allowing the Iraqi government to establishe itself in the international community independently from U.S. influence. Iraq’s decision to reestablish diplomatic relations with neighboring Syria in November of 2006, for example, illustrates the Iraq political resolve to stabilize the new nation and legitimize the vulnerable administration. The U.S. may not interact with Syria, but must and has to some degree accepted that Iraq must do so.

More efforts like this should be attempted by the Iraq government regardless of the U.S.’s position on the matter. Iraqis must think for themselves cohesively and decisively. Doing so will legitimize the body in the eyes of the international community and facilitate the withdrawal of American forces.

This recent Shiite withdrawal from political participation only works counter to strengthening Iraq politics and delays U.S. withdrawal--the very thing al-Sadr and his followers are hoping to achieve.

Bye Bye Conservatism

Anyone worried the neoconservative movement was here to stay is clearly mistaken. Little by little, Republicans are losing legitimacy and clout in Washington and it all comes down to the current administration, unfortunately.

The scandal of missing tapes in the investigation into the firing of 8 US Attorneys is being compared to "Nixon's famous '18-minute gap' in the White House tape recordings."

So Bush will resign/ live out his term, a Democrat will be elected into office, fail in foreign policy and lose his incumbency to a true conservative calling for a return to normalcy?

Maybe not. Conservatives can dream though, can't we?

US-Syrian Relations

Pelosi's visit to Syria sparked an interest in Syria for me. Came across this blog which featured an article written by US Ambassador to Syria Imad Moustapha. Check out his personal blog here as well.

Will Someone Get This Guy a Muzzle?

After his several appearances in the past few weeks for analysis of the British-Iran hostage crisis, I think I prefer Former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in New York City than on TV. Not only has he been irrationally critical of Tony Blair’s handling of the hostages, calling Europeans the “weak link in this” but he has also issued stinging criticism of virtually every aspect of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.

It’s numbing how only two years ago, President Bush fought vigorously with Congress to get Bolton’s confirmation as US Ambassador to the UN. Bush chipped away at his presidential legitimacy by appointing Bolton while Congress was at recess. In doing so, Bush facilitated the demise of alliances made with Republican House and Senate leaders.

So this is how Washington works. An estranged former UN Ambassador uses his former title to get around the talk-show circuit. At every chance, the former Ambassador bashes the choices made by his former employer and our current leader----Bolton’s speech at his current dwelling, the American Enterprise Institute, “I think [the North Korean deal] will inevitable fail. That day cannot come too soon in my view.”

He criticizes ally governments and their foreign policy decisions and explicitly points out success of foreign adversaries----in his article, “How Iran probed, found weakness and won a triumph,” in the Financial Times, UK published yesterday “Iran, sensing weakness, has every incentive to ratchet up its nuclear program, increase its support to Hamas, Hezbollah and others and even perpetrate even more serious terrorism in Iraq.”

And NOWHERE does he mention the work of himself as US Ambassador to the UN or his colleagues through the UN Security Council with both the nuclear programs of North Korea and Iran. This just says to me that he did not take his post as US Ambassador to the UN seriously, that he is NOT interested in diplomacy. Period. Thank God he is no longer our representative in the United Nations.

I agree with Huffington Post’s paralleling Bolton with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, who took the high road despite ideological differences with the administration. Even former Secretary of Defense, who some say was used as a scapegoat for the Administration’s unpopular foreign policy decisions in Iraq, has remained silent and respectful of the Administration.

Bolton has decided that it is much more profitable to join in the Bush bashing in American media than it is to bite your tongue and let the administration’s failures (or successes) speak for itself. Had his decision to be so vocal and critical of an administration he has intimate knowledge of been made only to expose the faults of the administration, than I would celebrate his frankness. However, I really don’t think Bolton is doing this for anyone else’s sake but his own. And quite frankly, he’s only rewarding President Ahmadenijad by giving Iran much more credibility, power and international prestige than it really does have.

John Bolton, please just shut up.

British Soldiers in Iran...Why No One Cares

The Iranian hostage “crisis” -if it could be called that compared to the Iranian hostage (real) crisis of 1979 involving American soldiers- has important implications for the international community. It is an important chance to see the political prowess of the Iranian regime as they interact with one of the West’s most prominent powers. How Ahmadenijad choose to engage or not engage in negotiations with Britain can give the United States unequivocal data into the psyche of the Iranian President.

Apparently not everyone sees the importance. I was disappointed not only at how little attention was paid to the situation but most importantly, the level of analysis applied when the crisis was covered. It seems American media is infatuated with the millions fundraised by Presidential candidates more than the international implications of a British-Iran diplomatic showdown.

BBC remains my preferred news source because of its analysis and unbiased presentation of important international news. Case in point…quotes from both Iranian and Middle Eastern newspapers were collected by BBC and offer a broader perspective on the circumstances and the global implications of the release.

After some searching, I did find some substantive engagements in the crisis and its implications in the American media. I disagree somewhat with Slate’s view of the crisis as a total Tony Blair/ British failure. Clearly the situation had an international impact and using Blair or the British government as a scapegoat is ignorant.

The Moderate Voice is entertaining on the matter, but not necessarily analytical.

I greatly appreciated Charles Krauthammer’s op-ed in the Washington Post which explored other institutional failures. He was disappointed in the failure of the European Union, who prefers soft power diplomacy to “the brute military force those Neanderthal Americans resort to all the time” as well as the United Nations.

It is very evident that Ahmadenijad attempted to use the hostages as political leverage. Specifically coining the release “a gift to the British people,” and awarding the Iranian Revolutionary Guard members who captured the British naval men. The moderate Iranian news, Kargozaran, states, “Iran’s withdrawal of all its legal demands has surprised the people because we did not see any obvious flexibility from the UK.” Reformist news, Aftab-E Yazd, said, “The release of the British sailors just a day after Tony Blair’s empty threat did not arouse any sense of pride among Iranians but possibly even a sort of repulsion.”

As news of Iranian soldiers in Iraq being released and the treatment of the British sailors are uncovered, this issue is not over and done with. I’m looking forward to finding more pieces of the puzzle and hopefully uncovering support for my belief that the crisis was not a complete Iranian victory.

Gingrich Video

Thank you Huffington Post, for the nice piece about Gingrich's "ghetto fab" slip up and the ever-so-entertaining Spanish apology on You Tube.

Gingrich Eats His Words (and Presidential Nomination)

Funny of the Day: White, rich Republican candidate apologizing for using "ghetto" to describe low income, uneducated, non-English language. In a speech denouncing bilingual education, Gingrich supported teaching English, "the language of prosperity," and hoped to get rid of "the language of the ghetto" in American schools.

I'm trying to find a video online of his apology in......oh dear God.....Spanish......

Humans are Just Naturally Evil Assholes...

I remember hearing about Dr. Philip G. Zimbardo's controversial but extremely enlightening prison experiements at Stanford that had to end early because of the psychological damage inflicted on subjects. Now he's written a book discussing his experiment and comparing results to the atrocities of Abu Ghraib prison at the hands of US military. The New York Times sits down the the psychology professor to discuss his new book and his ideas on the myth of inherently good human beings.

Expanding the US Missile Defense System: A Little More Skywalker, A Little Less Solo

Apparently Star Wars groupies in Washington are preparing for May’s Star Wars Celebration IV in Los Angeles a little early. The convention pays homage to the release of the first Star Wars film, released 30 years ago. Officials from the Missile Defense Agency, MDA, think what better way to channel the Jedi force, than to go back in time and expand the “Star Wars” missile defense system to Central and Eastern Europe. Their attempts to divide the world into the light side and dark side, however, is just as outdated as watching “The Empire Strikes Back” on VHS. Expanding the missile defense system into Europe while ignoring international concern only further encourages U.S. isolation in the international community.

U.S. and U.K. officials seem united in believing missile interceptor sites in Europe will protect both countries and their European allies. Potential host countries Poland and the Czech Republic are interested as well. The emerging Iranian threat, headed by dark and deceptive Emperor Ahmadinejad, remains the single uniting reason to support the MDA. And belief that Iran may emerge as a nuclear threat is legitimate. So is the North Korean threat.

The world is different than it was when “Star Wars,” the movie and the missile defense system were introduced. Iran and North Korea are not the evil empires the United States alone must combat to save the world. Instead, the international community is vastly complex with many members vying for respect, authority and cooperation. It isn’t as simple as the U.S. protecting its allies and itself.

Point in case: Russia’s ominous response to U.S. proposals. The original evil empire at the onset of “Star Wars” missile defense system has made itself quite clear. U.S. interceptor satellites in Poland and Czech Republic will be interpreted as an aggressive act on Russia and will incur an equal and opposite “force” - yes that is another Star Wars reference- in response.

Although stemming from what is post-Cold War paranoia, Russia has every right to object to U.S. missile interceptors next to its borders. The U.S. cannot hope to gain momentum in their plan without aggressively and persuasively engaging Russia in their missile defense expansion plan. Failure to do so indicates U.S. indifference, which is counterproductive to dismantling the Cold War mentality that to this day still rears its ugly head.

Meanwhile, in Europe…German Chancellor Angela Merkel has been the system’s most vocal critic next to Russian President Vladimir Putin. She echoes Putin’s concern that U.S. actions will provoke an arms race, and destabilize NATO, the EU or both. Yet her criticism has been subdued as of late- probably a result of U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s Jedi abilities when she met with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier Monday, March 26.

And the U.S. goodwill tour continued throughout the European galaxy. The Czech Republic agreed on Wednesday, March 28 to open official negotiations for hosting U.S. interceptor satellites in its territory. MDA’s goal is to have the half a billion dollar radars up and running in the Czech Republic within four years. On that same day, Brigadier General Patrick O’Reilly, Deputy Director of the MDA, met with Hungarian Defense and Foreign affairs officials in an attempt to charm European hearts.

What is most disturbing is O’Reilly’s attempts to use fear as leverage for the system expansion. “Twenty years ago eight countries had ballistic missiles. Today 24 have them and we are very concerned that that number continues to grow,” O’Reilly said, going on to cite North Korea, Iran and terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah as possible threats. As aspiring Jedis, the MDA must remember Master Yoda’s wise words: fear leads to anger, hate and suffering. This rhetoric blatantly echoes the Cold War mentality Merkel and others fear could return to the international community if the expansion succeeds.

You would think the MDA would get a clue judging by the response it is receiving in Europe. Officials in the Czech Republic were met with intense protests and anti-American rallies. A stinging op-ed was published in the Washington Post by former secretary of defense and Polish senator, Radek Sikorski, that warns an arrogant United States to not take Polish and Czech governments for granted. Despite attempts to downplay Chancellor Merkel’s disapproval, Germans are weary as well. Germany’s position as President of the EU signifies the country’s importance in the matter. And of course, there is good old Vladimir Putin, taking satellite receptors as a sign that the U.S. is out to get him and his country.

The truth is the U.S. lacks the respect in the international community to pursue this issue unilaterally. It also, unfortunately, lacks the credibility to manipulate European governments to aid without significant compromise.

The consequences of expanding the “Star Wars” system promote deeper Russian skepticism and destabilize a fragile European Union expansion. Doing so will illustrate a flagrant disregard for international wishes on the part of the United States.

If the United States is bullheaded in pursuing this policy (as Western machismo suggests they are), using international institutions, particularly NATO is the best way to do so. Working through this defense alliance assures Central and Eastern host countries that the U.S. is not simply trying to protect itself from domestic threats, but that is resolved to protect European allies as well. While attempts to compromise with Russia may fail, they must be attempted and convincingly. When they do expand, the U.S. must also provide defensive aid to the Czech Republic and Poland against Russian missile threats.

In summary, the United States has got to be a little more Luke Skywalker- positive and influential- and a little less Han Solo- heroic but reckless.