The Egypt situation is difficult for the US from a foreign relations perspective. If the US supports the protesters, it will be seen as an unworthy ally who betrays her friends at opportune moments - a reputation which obviously bodes ill for future US alliances.
On the other hand, if she support Mubarak, she is seen as not supporting freedom and democracy - an especially hypocritical decision given her history, as well as her long military experiment with "bringing democracy to Iraq". America will be seen as supporting a dictatorial tyrant simply for her own convenience (Mubarak is a definite US ally, but who knows what a new government would look like, especially if the Muslim Brotherhood is involved...). If the US actively gets involved, not only will it be seen as meddling to prevent democracy and as supporting a tyrant, but it will also be seen as an imperialist state that uses its power to meddle in world affairs, and will probably gain the anger of the Arab world, since this will only confirm suspicions that the US is ready, willing, and able to use it military and economic force to shape the Middle East to its wishes, thereby denying Middle Easterners the freedom to choose by whom and how they wish to be governed, and, by extension, how they wish to live. This will also harm Mubarak, who will be seen as a US puppet government - This is already a critique by Al Queda of many governments in the Middle East, and making it seem true could be detrimental to US security. Of course, the US can not let "not pissing Al Queda off" be the guiding force of its foreign policy, since that would involve pretty much folding ourselves into a hole and letting the whole world overtake us, since it is America's very existence that it is Al Queda's source of discontent. In this case however, there is a widespread Arab fear that the US wants to rule the Middle East indirectly by installing puppet governments or controlling pre-existing governments through economic incentives (ie bribes in the form of aid), and it seems unwise to play into that.
Meanwhile, as the US wisely refuses to take sides, though it would be better if it were not so obvious that it was biding its time. Meanwhile, it is said that private jets are flying out of Egypt. Presumably, this is because Egyptian higher-ups anticipate a revolution, and want to get out of harm's way before the new regime kicks in. I wonder if Hosni Mubarak was on one of those planes. If so, it would be catastrophic for Egypt, since chaos would ensue, and traditionally, chaos plays to survival of the fittest, with the most brutish thug literally clubbing (or shooting) his way to the top, and taking power. In Egypt, there is an additional concern that this thug could be anti-Western, or perhaps even associated with terrorist groups, thereby threatening the balance in the whole Middle East, and implying anti-Western takeovers throughout the region. This threat is very acute given the Muslim Brotherhood's increasing role in the action on Egyptian streets.
Mubarak still has time to save himself, but not much. In order to do so, he must a) stop trying to pass his reign over to his son, though his son can be put up as a candidate by his party in a truly democratic election, which leads to b) Mubarak must institute true democratic reforms, including (but not limited to) freedom of speech and press, as well as truly democratic elections. In taking away access to social media and imposing curfews, Mubarak can only increase anger and exacerbate the foment by feeding the very causes that led to it in the first place.
Mubarak should learn from King Louis of France, who could have kept his head if he would have acquiesced to the demmands of the National Assembly - instead, every time he tried clamping down on the revolution, he radicalized it by increasing discontent with the government. Interestingly, in France, as in Egypt, one of the major issues was a stagnant economy and high food prices. Egypt has high unemployment rates, and a lack of economic infrastructure - which is part of why Mubarak is so terrified of democracy: It may mean an end to his reign, since his regime has failed to provide the Egypt with prosperity. In general, having a democracy means that governments have to respond to the people's needs to stay in power - and it is Mubarak's unresponsiveness that is causing the foment in the streets, and that is why Mubarak fears a democratic election. Of course, part of his fear is a legitimate fear for Egypt's safety if the Muslim Brotherhood takes power - which is part of why the US has supported his regime.
No matter what happens in Egypt, taken together the revolutions in Tunis and Lebanon, it shows that a new moment has started in Middle Eastern history, where people who are fed up literally taking matters into their own hands - could it be that true democracy is coming to the Middle East? I hope so. However, as Fareed Zakaria points out in his book, "The Future of Freedom", democratic elections can often lead to despotic governments taking power by democratic means - especially in countries that are already unstable. I hope that will not happen here -hopefully, any governments that take power by democratic means will know that the people of the Middle East are too thirsty for freedom to allow a democratic government to not stay that way, and will fear that a turn towards despotism would result in them meeting the same downfall as their predecessors.
Here's to the day when all the world's people live in freedom - as FDR put it, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Political or Social? Thoughts on the Tucson Tragedy
I have not been writing much about events lately. There has been a lot going on in the world (there always is), but at a certain point, I became too disenchanted to engage in analysis.
It seems that the media is obsessed with political problems and their solutions. Of course, both the left and the right have been excited to spin the Gabrielle Giffords incident for political gain. Ultimately however, the shooting was a result of societal, not political, problems.
It is very likely that loose gun-control laws played a role in the shooting: Arizona's loose gun-laws meant that Loughner did not need a permit to carry a weapon in public, while loose enforcement of license-requirements meant that he could get a gun license and obtain a gun legally despite mental health and agression issues that should have been red flags and prevented him from doing so, while the new laws allowing 30-round ammunition means he fired that many more rounds (10-15 more, to be exact) before he had to reload - and it was the act of reloading that allowed him to be apprehended. Even Dick Cheney is saying that it may be time to go back to 10-15 round limits for civilians.
These loose gun-control laws however, would not have been an issue, were it not for the societal issues that led for Loughner to take advantage of them - whether those social issues are lack of adequate care for mentally ill, a violent society, or a society that takes political invective literally.
To put it another way: As a democracy, perhaps our loose gun-laws are merely a political manifestation of the state of our society - certainly it is the attachment of a loud and powerful group of Americans to their guns, and the lobbying they do, that prevents meaningful gun-law reform from getting passed in Congress.
There are two basic ways of looking at the tragedy, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive: 1. This was the work of a madman 2. This was due to violent political rhetoric. Both are social issues.
1. If this was the work of a madman, then we as a society must ask ourselves three questions:1. Does America have a higher rate of mental ilness and if so, why? 2. Did this man have proper access to mental healthcare/are we providing such access to mentally ill people? 3. How could this man have been allowed to be free if he was dangerous?
The last two questions are not identical. In the wake of the attack, people have been asking why this man was not institutionalized. The answer is very simple: In America, we have the concept of "least restrictive alternative" - one can only be locked up if a) they pose a definite danger to themself and/or others b) a less restrictive alternative would not prevent them from being a danger to themselves or others. Often, out-patient treatment and medication are enough to make the patient safe for her/himself and others. This makes the more salient question 2: Why are we as a society not providing adequate mental healthcare? Often, patients lack access to outpatient care, which can lead to a revolving door situation: The patient deteriorates to the point where they require hospitalization, is released the minute they don't, does not receive proper care outside the institution, so they detiriorate and are re-hospitalized, starting the cycle all over again. Loughner may have not required institutionalization - but he did require mental health services that he was not getting.
2. Loughner most likely had some mental problems - the question is to what extent. Did those problems prevent him from distinguishing right from wrong - an essential component of an Not Criminally Responsible mental health defense? It is possible that, though he had some problems, he still was enough in control of himself and in contact with reality to be responsible for his actions.
In any event, even a madman does not operate in a vaacum and may be influenced by the political and social climate around him - which is why Loughner's potential mental ilness and the violence of recent political rhetoric are not mutually exclusive.
The issue with the violence of political rhetoric however, is that ultimately, it is a social, not political, problem. It basically means that we as a society frame our politics in terms of violence, which must indicate an underlying tendency towards violence or desire for violence in our society - if not, then the violent rhetoric would be unsuccesful - it would not resonate with voters, and politicians would stop using it. Instead, it has been succesful, which is why it has increased - politicians have responded to voter attitude as much as voters have responded to politicians' invective.
True, the line between politics and society in a democracy is murky. Our media both shapes and is shaped by political rhetoric, and our society is both shaped by and shapes the media. But I find that the recent trend of pinning responsibility on politicians and governments, is disempowering, as well as inaccurate - surely no objective analyst can disregard the role of society, even though they may argue over the extent of that role.
This trend has also appeared in media and government analysis of two global conflict zones: Sudan and Israel.
Sudan recently had peaceful elections. The world is holding its breath, as Western governments and NGOs give themselves pats on the backs. The simple truth is however, these elections were successful in a large part thanks to Sudanese society, which was desperate to avoid war, precisely because their country has been ravaged by it for so many years. The true pat on the back should go to the Sudanese people.
Western governments also view events in Israel through a political lens: There are countless efforts to engage in political negotiations and come up with political treaties. There are very few efforts however, to change society, even though society is the place where peace starts. Western governments would be much better off supporting grassroots peace-efforts on the ground, and NGOs that work with Israelis and Palestinians to promote peace, then trying to impose a peace-deal neither side is ready for. Indeed, in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority has engaged in real efforts to improve the economy and people's standard of living, violence has tapered off naturally, because the society is now concerned with its economic growth, and violence is bad for the economy.
Some of the most succesful NGOs, such as KIVA and Iqbal Quadir's efforts to provide individual Bangladeshis with cellphones, are so succesful precisely because they empower inviduals to change the society around them, rather than imposing change from the top. Often, the change each individual makes may seem infintisimal - one family, one community, one village - but it all adds up, and somehow, in its gestalt, the whole of the change made by these individuals is more than just the some of its parts.
In a democracy, changing politics means changing society. It is time to turn to NGOs like KIVA and the Grameen Bank, which won a Nobel Prize, to learn how to do so - and to understand that such change might happen gradually, one person at a time.
It seems that the media is obsessed with political problems and their solutions. Of course, both the left and the right have been excited to spin the Gabrielle Giffords incident for political gain. Ultimately however, the shooting was a result of societal, not political, problems.
It is very likely that loose gun-control laws played a role in the shooting: Arizona's loose gun-laws meant that Loughner did not need a permit to carry a weapon in public, while loose enforcement of license-requirements meant that he could get a gun license and obtain a gun legally despite mental health and agression issues that should have been red flags and prevented him from doing so, while the new laws allowing 30-round ammunition means he fired that many more rounds (10-15 more, to be exact) before he had to reload - and it was the act of reloading that allowed him to be apprehended. Even Dick Cheney is saying that it may be time to go back to 10-15 round limits for civilians.
These loose gun-control laws however, would not have been an issue, were it not for the societal issues that led for Loughner to take advantage of them - whether those social issues are lack of adequate care for mentally ill, a violent society, or a society that takes political invective literally.
To put it another way: As a democracy, perhaps our loose gun-laws are merely a political manifestation of the state of our society - certainly it is the attachment of a loud and powerful group of Americans to their guns, and the lobbying they do, that prevents meaningful gun-law reform from getting passed in Congress.
There are two basic ways of looking at the tragedy, and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive: 1. This was the work of a madman 2. This was due to violent political rhetoric. Both are social issues.
1. If this was the work of a madman, then we as a society must ask ourselves three questions:1. Does America have a higher rate of mental ilness and if so, why? 2. Did this man have proper access to mental healthcare/are we providing such access to mentally ill people? 3. How could this man have been allowed to be free if he was dangerous?
The last two questions are not identical. In the wake of the attack, people have been asking why this man was not institutionalized. The answer is very simple: In America, we have the concept of "least restrictive alternative" - one can only be locked up if a) they pose a definite danger to themself and/or others b) a less restrictive alternative would not prevent them from being a danger to themselves or others. Often, out-patient treatment and medication are enough to make the patient safe for her/himself and others. This makes the more salient question 2: Why are we as a society not providing adequate mental healthcare? Often, patients lack access to outpatient care, which can lead to a revolving door situation: The patient deteriorates to the point where they require hospitalization, is released the minute they don't, does not receive proper care outside the institution, so they detiriorate and are re-hospitalized, starting the cycle all over again. Loughner may have not required institutionalization - but he did require mental health services that he was not getting.
2. Loughner most likely had some mental problems - the question is to what extent. Did those problems prevent him from distinguishing right from wrong - an essential component of an Not Criminally Responsible mental health defense? It is possible that, though he had some problems, he still was enough in control of himself and in contact with reality to be responsible for his actions.
In any event, even a madman does not operate in a vaacum and may be influenced by the political and social climate around him - which is why Loughner's potential mental ilness and the violence of recent political rhetoric are not mutually exclusive.
The issue with the violence of political rhetoric however, is that ultimately, it is a social, not political, problem. It basically means that we as a society frame our politics in terms of violence, which must indicate an underlying tendency towards violence or desire for violence in our society - if not, then the violent rhetoric would be unsuccesful - it would not resonate with voters, and politicians would stop using it. Instead, it has been succesful, which is why it has increased - politicians have responded to voter attitude as much as voters have responded to politicians' invective.
True, the line between politics and society in a democracy is murky. Our media both shapes and is shaped by political rhetoric, and our society is both shaped by and shapes the media. But I find that the recent trend of pinning responsibility on politicians and governments, is disempowering, as well as inaccurate - surely no objective analyst can disregard the role of society, even though they may argue over the extent of that role.
This trend has also appeared in media and government analysis of two global conflict zones: Sudan and Israel.
Sudan recently had peaceful elections. The world is holding its breath, as Western governments and NGOs give themselves pats on the backs. The simple truth is however, these elections were successful in a large part thanks to Sudanese society, which was desperate to avoid war, precisely because their country has been ravaged by it for so many years. The true pat on the back should go to the Sudanese people.
Western governments also view events in Israel through a political lens: There are countless efforts to engage in political negotiations and come up with political treaties. There are very few efforts however, to change society, even though society is the place where peace starts. Western governments would be much better off supporting grassroots peace-efforts on the ground, and NGOs that work with Israelis and Palestinians to promote peace, then trying to impose a peace-deal neither side is ready for. Indeed, in the West Bank, where the Palestinian Authority has engaged in real efforts to improve the economy and people's standard of living, violence has tapered off naturally, because the society is now concerned with its economic growth, and violence is bad for the economy.
Some of the most succesful NGOs, such as KIVA and Iqbal Quadir's efforts to provide individual Bangladeshis with cellphones, are so succesful precisely because they empower inviduals to change the society around them, rather than imposing change from the top. Often, the change each individual makes may seem infintisimal - one family, one community, one village - but it all adds up, and somehow, in its gestalt, the whole of the change made by these individuals is more than just the some of its parts.
In a democracy, changing politics means changing society. It is time to turn to NGOs like KIVA and the Grameen Bank, which won a Nobel Prize, to learn how to do so - and to understand that such change might happen gradually, one person at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)