When the Arab Spring Revolutions captured the attention of the world, there was great hope for peace through democracy as well as great hesitation thanks to all that could go wrong. Unfortunately, the refusal of entrenched governments and hardliners to transition to more democratic states, such as in Libya and Syria, resulted in armed conflict and power vacuums that allowed extremists to take root while hastily arranged elections that lead to the empowerment of those who only serve special interests, as in the case of Egypt, has created unnecessary civil stifle. As this writer has long asserted, the democratization process is not quick nor is it free of failures.
A strong and stable society is build on the balancing of a population’s interests, thus the nature of democracy helps ensure those interests are expressed and addressed in the long run, yet the reliance on diverging public perceptions and perspectives can make democracy dysfunctional in the short-term. This is particularly a problem when political leaders are short-sighted, self-serving, and/or so self-righteous they belief they are the only ones capable of ruling their nation. Despite all the setbacks for democracy and failures of emerging leadership around the globe to properly govern, a vast number of countries are democratization. In fact, the International Community is itself democratization, i.e. we no longer live in a mono- or bipolar world dominated by the agendas of superpowers enjoying the only true sovereignty as all nations are more and more expressing their interests on the world stage, e.g. Ukraine. What is driving this democratization of our International Community of democratizing nations is a shift in thinking. Governments are not simply struggling to become democratic; in reality, most societies are not necessarily even seeking democracy, but the many Peoples of the world have been learning to think democratically. The Americanization of the globe over the past half-century or so has not simply spread rock’n’roll, blue jeans, and Coca Cola around the world. From its birth to its rise as the world’s superpower, the United States shifted the notion of government itself. Instead of governments existing to be served by their populations, legitimate governments now exist solely to serve their populations. Under this paradigm shift, people start considering their needs and wants above government agendas, henceforth, massive civil unrest and outright uprisings against dysfunctional, self-serving, and oppressive governments around the world. Because this capitalist-themed means of pursuing one’s personal interests is only the driving force behind revolution, the building of stable, effective governments cannot be complete until the most powerful factions within a population are willing to forgo some of their interests in order to balance the interests of their entire population. To democratize and maintain stability over time, however, leaders must be willing to give up power and recognize they cannot suppress the freedoms of individuals, particularly speech and voting rights, out of convenience. Looking at the democracies of India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, and Brazil, which together boast nearly 2 billion people, there are many problems, yet there also many positives. Despite the reality that Brazil faces massive poverty and great wealth disparity, it is becoming a global economic power while democracy could help soon empower the increasingly boisterous poor. Pakistan and Turkey may continuously struggle with public corruption, as well as terrorism, but efforts of peaceful protestors to confront findings of a stolen election by Prime Minister Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif and a decisive election showing that swept former Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan into the Presidency are both strong democratic actions. Meanwhile, the fairly recent elections of India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Indonesian President Joko Widodo, who both ran on platforms dedicated to serving all the Peoples of their lands, are truly encouraging. That said, these leaders and countries are starting to experience the same sort of disentanglement felt by US President Obama and his supporter when the need to govern during an onslaught of crises slapped America with a reality check. Like the Obama Presidency, all of these administrations face major challenges that hinge on the support and solutions of their Peoples. Looking at the economies of these countries, which is where these leaders will be most harshly criticized and have the least amount of control due to economic realities, the distribution and production of national wealth needs to be developed before all the needs of these populations can be met, which is a particular problem for India, Pakistan, and Brazil. In fierce competition with each other, as well as 1.3 billion Chinese, for natural resources and goods from around the world that cannot be produced at home, scarcity could create massive unrest and strife, yet listening to the grievances and thoughts of their populations can help channel such unrest into solutions, thus democracy can help stop mass violence in even more populous countries outside of the Middle East.
Comments
The gruesome beheading of American journalist James Foley is yet another tragedy that adds to the staggering number of lives claimed by globalized terrorism. While Foley’s murder was intended to “punish” America for airstrikes against Islamic State fighters in Iraq, the release of the video documenting the savage murder and threat to the life of kidnapped journalist Steven Sotloff was also meant to discourage US military intervention against the Islamic State, which represents a thorough misunderstanding of America’s emotional character, as exemplified by our impulse to strike back in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Using a British national to carry out the killing, the apparent attempt of the Islamic State to demonstrate it has a global reach and global support only intensifies the blunder as this fact guilt the British government into action and reminds the world global terrorism is a threat to everyone.
Just as the downing of Malaysia flight MH17 over Ukrainian territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists was a call to action for Europeans, the release of the video tape has sparked a similar outcry and can easily lead to a similar response against the Islamic State. The West experiences its share of violent crime, so the murder of James Foley, no matter how gruesome, would have never been enough to deter American military intervention in Iraq. After all, Americans are thoroughly accustomed to the notion that we do not negotiate with terrorist, which would include ending our involvement in a conflict to save a civilian. If anything, the release of the video should have been expected to provoke greater US intervention. Given Foley’s murder likely took place in Syria, which is where he was working when he was kidnapped, and the reality that the killing of a fellow American brings home the threat of violence, i.e. Americans can now better relate with Iraqi and Syrian People, the Islamic State has only managed to help justify expanding US military intervention into Syria. Despite growing support for airstrikes in Iraq, the US is, truthfully, very hesitant to take on such a heavy burden considering how much blood and treasure America has already spent on the failing Iraq state. With the airstrike option affording the American People an “easy” option to support security forces, which can be armed by the US and European partners, and militias that are capable of pushing back Islamic State fighters, arguments against US intervention in Iraq and Syria are growing less valid. Because America truly cannot afford to send legions of ground troops and play the role of global policeman, increasing European support, coupled with a shifting narrative, which vilifies, versus glorifies, extremist violence and drives a call to arms for nations throughout the region, sets up a situation where America’s failure to provide air and intelligence support against the Islamic State would be a thorough failure of the US to respond to a national/international security threat. With this dynamic playing out in the background, the Islamic State’s brutal murder of a civilian only help solidify it as a terrorist group, which is a stigma it tried to dispel by trying to governor the territory it captured, while the release of the video tape was a clear strategic mistake as the Islamic State has shocked the conscious of the world. Myanmar, a.k.a. Burma, is struggling with a great number of challenges as its transitions from a socially oppressive dictatorship to a democracy. Like many democratizing cultures defined by strong ethnic identities, such as those in the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere, Myanmar is experiencing violence against a minority, yet appears to have found a solution by silencing the victims of racism in ways that are even support by international aid organizations and the Administration of America’s first black president. Not only does the Myanmar Constitution refuse to grant citizen rights to anyone whose ancestors’ did not live in Myanmar prior to 1823, i.e. the beginning of British colonial rule, the Myanmar government bans the use of the Rohingya Muslim ethnicity's name.
Facing brutal attacks at the hands of violent Buddhist supremacists, 1.3 million Rohingya Muslims are taking a back seat to Myanmar’s greater challenges in the name of stability. Although the simple act of not recognizing someone’s name and/or assigning them a new destination seems little more than a sign of immaturity to be indulged when trying protect the welfare of such a group as the Rohingya, there is an argument to be made that such behavior is actually a Human Rights violation as stripping someone of their identity is a means of dehumanizing them. In turn, dehumanization a person, and/or a group of persons, is one of the first steps toward genocide. Despite strong opposition to illegal immigration, the American view that a person born and raised in the United States, or the child of American citizen, is an America citizen, thoroughly contradicts Myanmar’s view that only the descendants of individuals living in Myanmar prior to 1823 are full citizens. Even though democracies can have different qualifications for citizenship, the use of partial citizenships and the national Constitution by governments to legitimize discrimination against minorities undermines the need of a sustainable democracy to protect minorities from majorities. That said, the United States was able to address the bulk of our state sponsored issues with racism during a time of relative stability, so setting the name issue aside, as John Kerry suggested, does reflect a certain degree of wisdom. On the other hand, ignoring the root cause of any problem means dealing with the symptoms instead of the actual problem. Clearly, humanitarian groups face a real conundrum, because their mission usually hinges on an apolitical mission that requires aid workers to respect the laws and customs of the nations they serve. The United States, international governmental organizations like the UN, and other governments are far from apolitical, thus they have no excuse for submitting to and supporting policies that threaten the long-term physical and broader social wellbeing of the Rohingya. Quite frankly, If uttering the name of People ends in mass violence then mass violence is on its way. The only solution is, therefore, for the Myanmar government to either face racialist inspired violence by public statements/policy or risk losing the support of the International Community in their broader democratization efforts. Moreover, the lesson of Myanmar is that governments cannot avoid racism and ethnic violence by suppressing even the name of a group. Stable societies are built by sufficiently balancing the interests of all Peoples. Suppressing a People only leads to festering violence as seen in the Iraq Sunni-Shiite conflict, Syria, Egypt, apartheid Africa, and so many others. With US airstrikes, Kurdish forces, and the Iraqi military pushing back the Islamic State, it is important to look ahead at what challenges Iraq will be facing as the Sunni extremists are subdued. Although the Iraqi military and Kurdish forces are learning to cooperate in their fight against the Islamic State, the thoroughly necessary arming of the Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, after the failures of the Iraqi military and the political system to initially prevent the rise of the Islamic State inside Iraq, means there is a major power shift in Iraq underway. Unfortunately, the unwillingness of those already in power to respect and embrace such a change often leads to power struggles, i.e. conflicts that are likely to turn violent in a war torn region. That said, violence and division are not the only possible outcomes, especially if all Iraqis are given a chance to voice their opinions on what Iraq should look like.
Saddam Hussein’s Sunni Ba'ath party brutally abused Iraq’s Shiite majority and the Kurds then the Shiites disenfranchised the Sunnis and the Kurds, to a lesser degree, once they took control of Iraq. As the US and France are arming the Kurds and the Shiites, it is necessary to ask how the Kurds will break this vicious cycle, especially if the Shiite majority expects Iraq to return to the status quo. Simply because the Islamic States has been eliminated as a threat does mean Iraq will even be capable of continuing on as a single country. Looking at the dynamics of the Iraqi military and the Kurdish forces, the relationship appears to be more akin to two partner militaries of two separate nations with shared security interests. Taking their cues from the military, the politicians need to recognize cooperation with the Kurds, as well as the Sunnis, is more necessary than guarding against the potential breakup of the Iraq state. Consequently, all influencers in Iraq need to help shape a future for Iraq rooted in a power arrangement that serves the new realities on the ground and avoids catastrophic conflicts by balancing the interests of all Iraqis. Watching to see if a Russian humanitarian aid convey destined for Ukraine would mark the beginning of the end for the Ukraine Crisis, or Russia’s opening move in a much larger military campaign, crescendoing tensions are only being driven by uncertainty. At the moment, the true purpose of the humanitarian aid convey and why Russia resisted submitting the convoy to the full authority of the Ukrainian government is the largest source of that uncertainty and the focus of the conflict. On the one hand, several Russian leaders of the pro-Russian separatist movement have been resigning from their posts while Putin himself has been toning down his rhetoric. On the other hand, claims on behalf of Ukrainian and NATO officials that a column of Russian military vehicles were spotted and targeted by Ukrainian forces have once again elevated the likelihood of a Russian invasion and far more punitive sanctions against Russia by the West.
As such, it is important to look at how Putin might value Russia’s membership in the International Community. If Putin views the benefits of a globalized economy and stable, well-integrated International Community to be greater than Russian dominance over the economies of the world, he will eventually seek to end the Ukrainian Crisis and heal relations with the West. If Putin’ pride and arrogance, which are traits he likes to associate with the more influential US and the rest of the West, drive him to reclaim Russia’s Cold War status as the world’s other super power, he will seek to divide the world and attempt to isolate the West. Because China and the Putin government share a mutual philosophical base thanks to Communism, the provocative actions of Russia generate greater scrutiny of Chinese policies and the treatment of its neighbors. Chinese dominance, where Chinese interests are pursued at the expense of the interests of other nations and the many Peoples of the world, is one of our greatest fears. Validating these fears is China’s rapid emergence as a global power, its increasing willingness to exert its influence, ongoing territorial disputes with countries like Vietnam and Japan, and increased ties with Russia. One long running concern of the Chinese-Russian relationship, which this writer has previously discussed, centers on a potential alliance where China and Russia would seek to create their own sub-global economy with nations shunned and/or neglected by the West. Such a dynamic would create massive shifts in global power toward China and Russia, which have far less regard for personal freedom and other individual interests. China’s long standing view that it needs to manage the decline of the United States only fuels Western fears over a potential resurgence of a Cold War world defined by communism and capitalism. That said, China has also continually expressed its desire to maintain stability throughout the globe in order to achieve its short-term and long-term interests. This, of course, hinges on the de-escalation of international conflicts, the continual recalibration of economic and diplomatic ties, strong demand for Chinese goods and investments, and sufficient, well-priced resources to feed China’s industrial complex. This means China cannot afford to isolate the West. Looking at the price of commodities, for example, a loss of access to natural resources, goods, and capital from the West would mean far higher prices for China, which would help drive increasing civil unrest within its boundaries at a time when the world is inspired by the Arab Spring revolutions. Meanwhile, China generally acts as a capitalist state would, e.g. pursuing its economic interests with shunned countries, as well as Western powers, despite criticism. Consequently, Russia’s attempt to divide the world is bad for China and supporting such efforts would be even worse for China. Furthermore, it is important to recall a very important lesson learned from World War II. The Nazis were seeking to dominate the world for themselves, but they needed allies and they needed complacency. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Hitler lost the complacency of the American People, which was a particular problem given Germany had just strategically broken the Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact of 1939. While Hitler needed the support of Italy and Japan, he would have eventually needed to eliminate these two inferior races in order to secure German dominance of the world. Russia may need China today, but it will eventually see China as an adversary to be eliminated. Given China’s increasing reliance on Russian crude and natural gas, Putin may well have the means to subdue China should it be pursued to go along with Russian plans and help weaken the West by isolating itself from the rest of the world. Recognizing the United States views its often adversarial relationship with China as part of the need to compete on a global scale and American dominance is more about maintaining our ability to suppress domineering powers in a potential conflict than an actual attempt to dominate other nations, China should see the International Community fostered by the United States, which China has greatly benefited from in recent decades, is far more conducive to all Chinese interests than Russia’s global order, which would be more akin to a technologically advanced version of the Nineteenth Century. In other words, the US wants to see the Chinese People succeed, as well as all the Peoples of the world, despite America’s pursuit of its national interest to maintain its superpower status. As such, it would be wise for China to distance itself from Russia’s divisive behavior in tangible ways in order to avoid increased anti-Chinese sentiments/actions and seek to curb Putin’s drive for Russian dominance. |
Read old posts
April 2020
|