The Way of the Bodhisattva

I recently came across these verses and found them inspiring. So I thought I would share them:

For all those ailing in the world,
Until their every sickness is healed,
May I myself become for them
The doctor, the nurse, the medicine itself.

Raining down a flood of food and drink,
May I dispel the ills of thirst and famine.
And in the ages marked by scarcity and want,
May I myself appear as drink and sustenance.

For sentient beings, poor and destitute,
May I become a treasure ever-plentiful,
And lie before them closely in their reach,
A varied source of all that they might need.

My body, thus, and all my goods besides,
And all my merits gained and to be gained,
I give them all away withholding nothing
To bring about the benefit of beings.

Like the earth and the pervading elements,
Enduring like the sky itself endures,
For boundless multitudes of living beings,
May I be their ground and sustenance.

Thus for everything that lives,
As far as are the limits of the sky,
May I provide their livelihood and nourishment
Until they pass beyond the bonds of suffering.

- Shantivadea, The Way of the Bodhisattva
(quoted in Joseph Goldstein, One Dharma)

'The Green Thing': A Response

I have now received the same email (posted at the bottom of this post) several times. In a way, it is sort of cute, just as so many of the ones are that make their way around that essentially should all begin with "Why in my day..."Aside from the cute aspect, I always have the same internal reaction to it, and this time decided to reply. Here are my thoughts:

This is an interesting look back at the ways that society used to make reusing and recycling the norm. The current 'green thing' is a reaction to the tragedy of many wasteful and damaging practices that have been accelerating since the advent of the industrial revolution and the triumph of hyper-consumerism - particularly within American culture, which has accelerated since the 1950s. Quite right on all of the observations that are made.

The unfortunate part of it (as well as the pleasure and vindication that it gives to those who repeatedly circulate this email) is that it is entirely beside the point. Sure, one might be able to find the 'clerk' who makes this sort of comment (which is counterproductive), and then fixate on why 'it wasn't our fault'. But defensiveness about what was done 50 years ago is absolutely useless for moving forward with 'the green thing' today.

What are you doing now? Our planet is in peril. Our society and economy are in serious jeopardy because our patterns of consumption are both unsustainable and self-destructive. This sort of defensiveness as well as the denial of the problem and the absolute necessity of the solution that is perpetuated by those who stand to financially lose to social and environmental responsibility contributes nothing constructive. And what we need is constructive contribution. We need personal responsibility.

So bring your own grocery bags to the grocery store, instead of relying on petroleum-made plastic bags that are thrown on top of our overflowing landfills.

Recycle, your bottles, cans, etc. when you use them, and think about ways to reduce your reliance on them.

Walk up the damn stairs. They're still there.

Dry your clothes on a drying line when it is reasonable to do so. They are still there.

Use cloth diapers. They are still there (and made even better than they used to be).

Give clothes and other items that you are done with to friends, family, Goodwill or some other resale location, so that they can be reused.

Get clothes and other items that you need and that can be used from friends, family, Goodwill or some other resale location, so that you are reusing.

Don't put a TV in every room. It is not only bad for the environment, it is bad for your mind and your family's relationships.

Pack fragile things in newspaper. It is a great way to reuse it, and to avoid styrofoam, bubble wrap, etc. Used newspaper and other other forms of paper are still there.

Use a push mower. They are still there.

Walk or ride a bike when you can.

Exercise outside if you can.

Be a part of your community. Get out there. Take responsibility. Not only will you figure out on your own where the nearest pizza joint is, you will develop relationships that TV and the Internet don't replace.

More than this, figure out what else you can do to make your community and our planet more healthy. The time is now. Get over who is at fault and your gut impulse to pretend that the problem doesn't exist. Sure. It seems really inconvenient and painful to change your habits. But once you make these sorts of changes, they don't seem so overwhelming.

Don't expect that it will all happen immediately. Treat it as an ongoing process of becoming more socially and environmentally responsible. God knows that none of us are perfect. We are all working on bettering ourselves.

BUT DO IT! Our children and grandchildren are depending on us. If for nothing else, do it for them.

And here is the email to which this is responding:

THE GREEN THING!!!

In the line at the store, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to him and explained, "We didn't have the 'green thing' back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."

He was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But they didn't have the green thing back in that customer's day.

In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn't have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they washed the baby's diapers because they didn't have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in an energy gobbling machine burning up 220 volts - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right, they didn't have the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house - not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of the state of Montana. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn't have electric machines to do everything for you. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.

Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They exercised by working so they didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right, they didn't have the green thing back then.

They drank from a fountain when they were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn't have the green thing back then?

Let It Be

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is in the midst of a set of rapidly unfolding events that are both inspiring and unsettling. After decades of corrupt and repressive rule by most of the dictators and monarchs of the region, the populations are standing up and calling for change.

They want what everyone wants. That is, they want work. They want to be able to afford to provide their families with a decent standard of living rather than to be excluded from the vast wealth that is accumulated and hoarded by the autocrats of virtually every country in the region. They want the ability to express themselves without the fear of prison, torture, or disappearance. They want a role in the decisions that are made that affect their lives. They want ownership of their own countries, rather than their long experience of subjugation to the selfish motives of autocrats and external powers. They want hope that their children will have an even better life than they do - that things are going to get better. Most of all, they want to be afforded the dignity that they so deserve and that they so feel has been disallowed for so long.

At least, that is how I read it as an outsider who shares in their hopefullness as a fellow human being and as one who has been inspired by so many of the young and bright men and women who live here in Sharjah, UAE and who are from all around the region.

This is at once NOT America's moment and the moment that America has hoped for. To explain, this is not for Americans or by Americans. It is a set of social movements that are internal to the MENA states. That is as it should be, if they stand a chance of truly achieving the outcome that they hope for (something that is far from certain). One of the problems that the US has faced in this region and beyond is its tendency to think that it can direct events in the way that it wants. It not only has an extraordinarily poor record of doing so, but this also has contributed significantly to the situation that many of these countries find themselves in today. Part of the challenge for the US now is to let go. It must stop trying to determine who rules within the states of the Middle East. It is only by doing so that it can hope over the long term to reconstruct its relationships with this region in a manner that actually serves its and their interests.

On the other hand, America and particularly President Obama do have a possible role to play. The ideas of freedom and opportunity that the US was founded upon are those that are being sought by the people of the Middle East. The power of the United States and the inspiring potential that President Obama had in the wake of his historic election and his speech in Cairo combine with these ideas to provide a unique platform from which America can express its support for these movements. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has flailed about in its various responses to the events of the past couple of months. It has come across as tone deaf, lacking in vision, and distinctly un-courageous. Dropping bombs on Libya doesn't compensate for this.

It was slow to respond to the will of the Egyptian people to rid themselves of the corrupt tyrant that the US had propped up for decades due to his malleability on the Israel issue. It has been less than assertive in criticizing the sectarian massacres by its 'allies' (Saudi Arabia and Bahrain) against unarmed Shia protesters. It has been less than impressive in its opposition to the massacres by the Yemeni government against innocent protesters as well. Nevertheless, it has entered as a participant into a civil war in Libya. As I will comment on further in another blog, this is not likely to end well.

What a missed opportunity to be on the right side of history at a moment when the spokesperson could be such an inspiration. But he is paralyzed by trying to figure out, what if Islamist groups come to power if they actually do get democracy? What will Israel think? What will the Saudis think? What will happen to oil prices? What is Iran's role in all of this? Of course, these are all strategically reasonable questions to ask. The problem is that the analysis of these questions seems always to be done with an eye toward the very short-term. While it is far too soon to see which of these states will emerge from these events as more free, prosperous, and perhaps democratic, such an outcome would go a long way toward providing answers to these questions that are conducive to US interests - even if there is a bumpy ride to get there.

The bottom line is that the US must find a delicate balance between keeping its fingers out of the actual internal processes that are going on but using its 'bully pulpit' to stand up for those who seek dignity and freedom and against those who would brutally deny it. Such an approach takes patience, courage, and a little bit of faith to be sure. I am convinced however, that it is the only way that the US can be a help rather than a hindrence and can achieve what it has never been able to - that is in building a positive and mutually respectful set of relationships with the societies of the MENA region that are conducive to America's strategic interests over the long term.

There is still time to get this right. In the end, that will be what is remembered, even if it took the US a bit too long to catch on. I do see signs that the comments coming out from the Obama administration point in that direction. The delicate balance and consistency though, will be the key.

Political speak – whats being said when its not said : DubaiEye103.8

Political speak – whats being said when its not said : DubaiEye103.8

I was interviewed on DubaiEye 103.8 on Thursday, March 3 about political discourse surrounding the ongoing violence in Libya. Here is the podcast of the interview.

Egypt Isn't Ours to 'Lose'

These are exciting times indeed. The demonstration of success in Tunisia of bringing down the Ben Ali regime of 23 years has given hope and confidence to people throughout much of the region to voice their frustrations, which has so long been repressed. Indeed, Egypt appears to be the next in line to see the 30-year authoritarian rule of Hosni Mubarrak to fall.

I, like many people, am engrossed in watching these events unfold; and am giving thought to the implications of whatever changes arise. There are so many directions that I could take a blog on this subject. Nevertheless, I will start with this because the following status update by one of my 'friends' on facebook has been bugging me since I first read it. It stated,

"I am seeing some real anti-Semitic pressure groups at work in Egypt. The Communists and Muslim extremist groups are far too happy about the riots. Can't say I am happy about the status quo. I give a new Egyptian government less than a year before it's toppled by terrorists already entering the country."

A number of people commented on this post - all in agreement. One person posted an article by Pat Robertson's CBN News, profiling the Muslim Brotherhood in an utterly skewed and dishonest fashion. Another said, "Really?? They're called the Muslim Brotherhood...whatever gave you the impression they were anti-Semitic?"

Such comments are ignorant and bigoted on a number of levels. To begin, the conflation of anti-Semitism with anti-Israeli sentiment is both erroneous and strategic. For one, Arabs are also Semitic. Thus, the accusation of anti-Semitism is conceptually flawed. Aside from the rhetorical point, criticism of Israel is not necessarily grounded in animosity toward Jews (though surely in some cases it is). To remove the basis of Arab grievance against the taking of Palestinian land as well as the behavior of the Israeli state since its formation by attributing all opposition to anti-Semitism allows for pro-Israeli individuals to escape real discussion and introspection.

Beyond this, the assertion that all Islam-based political groups are 'terrorists' reflects a lack of knowledge of what one is talking about. Many people within the Middle East believe that society should be guided by a system that is based upon a strict and conservative reading of Islamic law. In this way, they are quite similar to Pat Robertson's own followers in the United States as well as the broader 'Christian right'. While I do not share in the worldview of Islamic fundamentalists any more than I do Christian fundamentalists, I do believe that they should both be allowed to participate in the political process. It is a fundamental basis of a free society that they should.

I watched Pat Buchanan on MSNBC last night echo the basis of this negative sentiment toward regime change, explaining that there would be a price to pay for President Obama 'losing Egypt' to such groups and allowing the majority of the populations throughout the Middle East to have democracy because they 'hate America'.

First of all, 'they' do not hate America. 'They' (at least the majority of 'them') resent American foreign policy in the region and the fact that it has suppressed self-determination for years in favor of brutally repressive regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel. While the opening of democracy might mean less favorable regimes in the short-term (a la the election of Hamas in Palestinian elections in 2006), it would mean the removal of one major grievance against the U.S. in the region. Over the longer-term, this would be a positive strategy for the United States. We simply have to have the imagination and courage to move beyond a foreign policy orientation that has become rigidly and thoughtlessly clinged to by so many.

Second, the very idea that Egypt is ours to lose is reflective of the condescending position that 'they' resent. That the United States would think that it could place a pro-Israeli pre-requisite upon Arab self-determination is utterly absurd and damaging. Not only does it fly in the face of American principles, but it also diminishes Washington's ability to bring about any sort of settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Whether such a settlement is possible or that the U.S. will be the central player in bring it about, I do not know. What I can say is that this attitude undermines American legitimacy as an honest broker.

Third, I would argue that much of the appeal of Islamist groups in the region is that they have provided the only venue through which anger can be expressed. Mainstream political criticism has been utterly suppressed for so long in Egypt and beyond. This has driven many into such groups as a result. Moreover, the reactive repression of Islamist groups has served to increase their legitimacy. If people were allowed to express their views freely, over time there would likely be a moderating trend over time.

President Obama is not losing Egypt. It is not his or anyone's (aside from President Mubarrak) to lose. The Egyptian people are hopefully claiming Egypt as their own at long last. We should support this, whatever party wins in the near future. If anything, the Obama administration should play a much less overt role in negotiating whatever transition comes about. The Egyptians must have ownership of this.

Fear and Loathing in the USA

I received this piece via email yesterday, and thought that Rabbi Warshal's comments were worth sharing. Make no mistake about what this movement is, regardless of the legitimacy it has been granted by the "mainstream media." The people who are arguing against this community center are not being good Christians or Jews. They are not being patriotic. They are not using "common sense," unless that refers specifically to the lowest common denominator of society.

They are succumbing to politically motivated fear mongering. This is not a new practice. We know what it is, and how effective it can be. We can see it in some of the most horrendous events of the last century, from Rwanda to Bosnia, and from Germany to Argentina. We can see it in the opportunistic use of anti-Americanism in places like Iran and North Korea. We can see it in many many places in which political entrepreneurs use fear and loathing of an "other" in order to whip their population into a frenzy such that the power of said political operatives is increased. That is it. Nothing more.

In this case, Americans with political motivations, who whether sincere in their loathing of Islam or not, understand fully the power of promoting fear and a sense of insecurity amongst the wider population. Most people who are selling and buying this line of argument have very little understanding of either Islam or transnational terrorism. Yet they either are scared or benefit from people being so. It is, as the Rabbi says, shameful. It is disgusting. And it is dangerous.

Here is Rabbi Warshal's piece, which originally appeared in the Florida Jewish Journal:

Shame on America , Jews & the ADL

By Rabbi Bruce Warshal*

To begin, the mosque controversy does not involve a mosque. It is planned as a 13-story community center encompassing a swimming pool, 500-seat performing arts center, gym, culinary school, restaurant and, yes, a prayer space for Muslims, which already exists in the current building. A formal mosque would forbid eating or the playing of music on the premises. I guess that we are now at the point in America where Jews can have our JCC’s and Christians their YMCA’s, but Muslims are not wanted.

There is also the controversy over the proposed name, Cordoba House. The hate-mongers have described this as a reference to Muslim designs to attack western culture, hearkening back to the Muslim-Christian wars of domination in medieval Spain . The name was chosen for precisely the opposite reason. In the tenth century Cordoba was the center of the most liberal and sophisticated Caliphate in the Islamic world. All religions were not merely tolerated but respected.

The caliph, Abd al-Rahman III, had a Jew as his foreign minister and a Greek bishop in his diplomatic corps. He also had a library of 400,000 volumes at a time when the largest library in Christian Europe numbered merely 400 manuscripts. There were also 70 other smaller libraries in Cordoba . The very reference to Cordoba reflects the sophistication and liberality of the Muslims behind this project. They have changed the name of the center to the address of the building, Park 51, to deflect criticism. This was unfortunate, since nothing will quiet a hate-monger.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, the Imam behind the proposed community center, has been attacked as an Islamic terrorist, even though he is a practitioner of Sufi Islam, which reaches out to all other religions as manifestations of the Divine. My God, the conservative Bush administration utilized Rauf as part of an outreach to the Muslim world. You can bet your life that he was thoroughly vetted by our government. He is currently being used by the Clinton State Department as well in the same capacity. Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek and CNN succinctly put it, “His vision of Islam is bin Laden’s nightmare.”

And what is Rauf’s sin? He will build a Muslim community center two blocks away from Ground Zero, variously described as a “hallowed battlefield,” “holy ground,” and a “war memorial.” Even President Obama in his defense of religious freedom commented that, “Ground zero is, indeed, hallowed ground.” I beg to differ.

If Ground Zero is holy ground, then the railroad station in Madrid , the Underground in London , the federal building in Oklahoma City , the Pentagon (where there is presently a prayer space for Muslims – yes, patriotic, religious Muslim Americans work at the Pentagon) and every other physical location that has been the object of terrorism is holy ground. If Ground Zero is holy space why plan for it to be developed with office buildings (in which the object will be to amass money – obviously a holy pursuit), a shopping center (in which consumer goods will be peddled to continue to gorge the American appetite for material possessions), and with a theater for modern dance (a project to which I personally look forward as a devotee of the Joyce, the modern dance Mecca of New York)? I’m sorry, but someone has to tell America that this designation of holy space is merely part of a mass hysteria that really scares me.

The question which must be asked is why this hysteria? The impetus comes from a triumvirate of right-wing Christians, Jews and politicians. Fundamentalist Christians are still fighting the crusades, still vying to convert the world to their truths. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, to the distress of these Christian proselytizers. What better way to win this battle than to brand all Muslims as terrorists?

Right-wing Jews think that they are doing Israel a favor by painting Islam as a terrorist religion thereby proving that Israel need not negotiate with the Palestinians. The idea is to project the concept that we are civilized and they are not. This theme is picked up in the right-wing press of Israel . Commenting on the New York proposed “mosque,” a columnist in the Jerusalem Post declares that “Islamism is a modern political tendency which arose in a spirit of fraternal harmony with the fascists of Europe in the 1930’s and ‘40’s.” Ground Zero isn’t Israel ’s “holy ground.” Why would he be involved with this discussion? Simply because right-wing Jews in Israel as well as the United States believe that demonizing the religion of 1.3 billion people is good for Israel . God help us.

Right-wing politicians join the fray. On Fox News Newt Gingrich compares a mosque at Ground Zero to Nazis protesting at the United States Holocaust Memorial. The Democrats are cowed by the American outpouring of hate and even Harry Reid voices disapproval of the Park 51 site. It’s a perfect storm of hate.

Periodically we go through this in America . The anti-Catholic No-Nothing party ran ex-President Millard Fillmore in the presidential election of 1856 and garnered 27 percent of the votes. We deported over 10,000 people during the First World War because they opposed our entry into that war and we incarcerated loyal Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Now during this “war on terror” I shudder to think where we are headed.

The tool used in this hate campaign is the concept of collective guilt. Based on that, all Jews are traitors since Ethel and Julius Rosenberg sold out this country. All Christians are terrorists sinceTimothy McVeigh attacked the federal building in Oklahoma City . Neither are all Muslims traitors nor terrorists. Islam is not monolithic. Its forms are as varied as Judaism or Christianity. I do not practice Judaism the same as a Satmar Hasidic Jew. A Catholic does not practice Christianity the same as a Jehovah Witness. Imam Rauf does not share the same Islamic beliefs as bin Laden.

Of all people Jews should beware of collective guilt since we have suffered from it for millennia. Yet the organization that started this hysteria is headed by a right-wing Jewish supporter of Israel by the name of Pam Geller. She is quoted in the mainstream media (including the Jewish Journal) as if she is a legitimate political voice. Yet on her blog, Atlas Shrugs, she has declared that “Obama is the illegitimate son of Malcom X.” She has written that we have “an American-hater for president.” She has proposed that devout Muslims should be prohibited from military service. She asks, “Would Patton have recruited Nazis into his army?” To all of the rabbis quoted in the Jewish Journal urging that the “mosque” be moved, know who is pulling your strings.

Finally, to the role of the Anti-Defamation League and its director, Abe Foxman. The world was literally “shocked,” that’s the word used by the Associated Press, by ADL’s call for the mosque to be moved. Fareed Zakaria called it a “bizarre decision.” Foxman, a Holocaust survivor, said, “Survivors of the Holocaust are entitled to feelings that are irrational.” Referring to loved ones of the September 11 victims, he continued: “Their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.”

How dare Foxman use the Holocaust to justify prejudice. He does blasphemy to the memory of Jews and other oppressed minorities whose lives were sacrificed on the altar of bigotry. Zakaria responds: “Does Foxman believe that bigotry is OK if people think they’re victims? Does the anguish of Palestinians, then, entitle them to be anti-Semitic?”

Five years ago the ADL honored Zakaria with the Hubert H. Humphrey First Amendment Freedoms Prize. Incensed over ADL’s succumbing to bigotry, he has returned the award with the $10,000 honorarium that came with it.

The last word was recently written by Daniel Luban, a doctoral student at the University of Chicago , in Tablet Magazine: “While activists like Pam Geller have led the anti-mosque campaign and the broader demonization of Muslims that has accompanied it, leaders like Abe Foxman have acquiesced in it. In doing so they risk providing an ugly and ironic illustration of the extent of Jewish assimilation in 21^st-century America . We know that Jews can grow up to be senators and Supreme Court justices. Let’s not also discover that they can grow up to incite a pogrom.”

Race and Political Subtext

There has been a lot of talk this week about the issue of race in American politics. It is not necessary to run through the political hack job that Andrew Breitbart and FOX News did on Shirley Sherod, and the follow-on rush to judgment (cowardice) by the White House, the N.A.A.C.P., and the Department of Agriculture.

This all followed on to an N.A.A.C.P. condemnation of racist elements within the Tea Party movement. This was greeted with shock and dismay by spokespeople like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Later, the movement had to jettison Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express given his clear demonstration of outright racism in the form of his self-authored 'note from N.A.A.C.P. head Ben Jealous to President Lincoln'.

Whether or not or to what extent the Tea Party movement is inclusive of a racist element is really not the central issue, in my mind. The problem with such an angle is that it avoids the broader issue. That is that there is clearly a significant segment of the population that is disposed toward a pretty high level of racial animosity - a level that most Americans are uncomfortable discussing. The Tea Party and much of the concern that is being expressed over growing government programs, spending, and debt relates to an important discussion too. But the visceral nature of the language and the response by too many people, as well as the lack of reason that is demonstrated in their accusations and conspiratorial ideas about the Obama administration bespeaks troubling levels of fear and disdain.

One could chalk up the vitriol to concerns about socialism, or oppressive government, or too little attention to the border, etc. if it were not for two uncomfortable things: (1) the level of hatred that is being spewed by this movement is not consistent with its response to the same sorts of policy orientations by the previous administration, and (2) the issue of race just keeps emerging in overt as well as more subtle ways in the opposition's narrative.

I found Professor Harris-Lacewell's comments in the Hardball segment posted below to be particularly thought-provoking. While I think that it is going too far to say that reverse racism is a complete myth, I do think that a couple of her points are right on the mark. First, the fact that the story got the initial reaction and coverage that it did reflects the reality that a sizable portion of American society operates at a steady simmer about what it believes to be double-standards when it comes to race. These double-standards relate to both opportunities and standards.

The opportunities narrative is displayed clearly in the clip from the movie, Crash. The narrative is in many ways a reaction to and resentment over affirmative action programs. It is one that I frequently hear in public and private discourse. It comes in many forms, some of which I genuinely believe are quite reasonable. It also often comes in the form of personal experience in which one strongly feels that he/she was 'passed over' because he/she was up against a minority (perhaps even one who is viewed by the offendee as less qualified). The core perception is that minorities get jobs and promotions unfairly. The resulting common assumption is that black people in high positions got there because of race, not ability. Such was part of the context, I think, with Shirley Sherrod. The lens through which many people saw the small segment of her speech was one that held that she did not belong in the job she was in in the first place.

The other part of the opportunities narrative that people are less open about is the perceived exploitation of public programs by minorities. This view is typically bolstered by anecdotes about black mothers (in particular) with multiple children who are abusing the social welfare system, and is generalized as a systemic reality. One can see this demonstrated in Mark Williams' letter mentioned above.

But is the opportunities narrative really valid in broad terms? I don't mean do you know someone or were you personally 'passed over' by an affirmative action hire or promotion. I mean in the broad terms that relies upon such individual stories and generalizes them into a more systemic truth.

Look at outcomes and overall experience. Don't limit yourself to before the Civil War. Don't stop at the Civil Rights Movement. Don't even stop when you find out that the U.S. elected a black president. Look at in terms of socio-economic, health, educational, criminal justice, or whatever other data you want to. Once you have done that, in all honesty answer the following question. Do 'they' really have it so easy, and get all the breaks?

The standards narrative is even more relevant to the Sherrod story. The subtext was that she was an angry black woman who operated out of spite for white people. It is easy to jump to such a conclusion when you are already operating from the assumption that this 'reverse racism' permeates black society in America, and the clip that 'we' saw was a window into how 'they' talk about us when we're not there. As Harris-Lacewell argues, this was the reason for the resonance among the same group when Michelle Obama said that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country."

Second, the assertion that such expressions of criticism and even anger by black people reflects racism rather than a justifiable resentment about one's experience as a minority - and particularly a black minority - in the United States, is as ridiculous as it is widespread. To argue that there are not both historic and contemporary reasons for such a perspective is to stand in the face of facts and say, "but I heard on (name your favorite pundit's show) that this one black woman was totally doing (choose your favorite stereotypical tendency), and that this is part of a big trend." As Harris-Lacewell points out, the utitlity of this belief is that it justifies one's own racist feelings by working on the assumption that everyone really is kind of racist.

I heard someone say once that slavery is America's original sin. The racial division that was borne out of this historic wrong has permeated American society since that time. It is an issue that we have not for a long time had open and honest conversations about. Many of us like to tell ourselves that it is a problem that has gone away. It seems to me that the Sherrod story and its underlying subtext is evidence that it has not.

I intend to post another blog soon relating to the parallel story that is being ginned up by FOX News and the standard sources about the Obama administration's dual treatment of civil rights offenses, as displayed by the Justice Department's decision not to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation. Needless to say, I think that the very same subtexts can be seen underlying the accusations that are being made. I began this blog thinking it was going to be short and to the point. It is clearly not, and there is more to be said. I will continue to do in coming blogs.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

What's in a Name?

My recent travels brought me back to the U.S. with a group of 20 AUS students. I and two other faculty members in the International Studies Department accompanied these students to Boston, where they participated in the Harvard Model United Nations. What an adventure it was for us all, and quite a learning experience for our students.

To begin, we were all booked as a group on a flight from Dubai to Washington, and then from Washington to Boston. But this was during the blizzards that hit D.C. and the east coast during February. So we woke up on our day of departure to find out that the flight from Dubai to Washington had been canceled, and that we all had been broken up into separate flights. Given that the three of us faculty members were responsible for accompanying the students, this was clearly not going to work. So I spent that day getting us all booked onto the same Swiss Air flight to Zurich and then to Boston. Great!

Well, after a series of additional mishaps between that point and Zurich that I won't go into, we did in fact arrive in Switzerland at approximately 5 in the morning. Our departure for Boston was at 9 that night. Great! A free day in Zurich right? Wrong. Because of where most of our students are from (around the Middle East and South Asia), they needed a Schengen Visa to get into Zurich. And of course, given that we did not ever plan on being in Europe, we had not gotten those. No problem. We could just hang out at the airport, wander around the shops, and eat at the restaurants for the day, right? Wrong. The students needed a Schengen Visa to enter the main part of the airport as well.

So we all remained in a lame corner area of the airport for the day, watching as flight after flight to the U.S. was canceled, awaiting our ultimate notification that ours was too. Without going into the grueling details of what transpired once our flight was canceled, the bottom line is that we got booked on the same flight out at 9 pm the next night and were placed in the political asylum dorm with other refugees. That's right. We stayed in the asylum. I had the pleasure of sharing a bunk bed with a Serbian refugee from Kosovo. I shudder to imagine what this guy was running away from. But there we were...

Eventually we did make it to Boston though. Of course, there was not a flake of snow on the ground. Thanks to the mayor for the unnecessary state of emergency having heard that there might be a snow storm.

Once there, the students really did have a great experience. I think that the most rewarding thing to see was the transition from a high level of anxiety among our students as they were preparing for their first session. They were clearly intimidated by the idea that they were going to go in and engage in debates with these kids from Harvard and other Ivy League schools. We told them not to worry, just to go and do their thing. And when they returned from that first session, the transformation was amazing. They came to us excitedly describing how they were so much more prepared than those other students. "The don't know what they're talking about." We told them to let that be a lesson never to be intimidated just because of a name. I think that this alone was worth the trip.

The final thing that I will say is that these kids are truly amazing. They dealt with the difficulties and disappointments (and trust me, some of them are not accustomed to slumming it like we did) with fantastic attitudes. I was so proud to take them to the program, and hope that we are able to again next year.

Making Another Go At This Thing

So here goes nothing. My last post was in September, and came just as I was getting settled in Sharjah. It was my intent to post somewhat regularly to provide an ongoing glimpse into the experience here in UAE and the many things that I am learning. It also was meant to provide a forum to work through some of the issues that I am thinking about and working on with respect to world politics. As I said, that was around 5 months ago.

So being prone to over-analysis (and unwilling to admit to slacking), I have decided that the big sticking point is feeling too much pressure to post something extensive and profound every time. Given that I am not always feeling so profound and energetic in the later evenings (when I usually have time to do this), I have generally opted not to blog as a result.

I have determined though that such depth is not necessary in every blog. After all, it is just a blog, right? That being said, I am going to make an effort to try to do this more regularly. And just maybe there will be a gem every now and then.

I feel motivated, as I often do when I return from ISA. Something about being around lots of people who are working on interesting stuff gets me motivated myself. And aside from the normal energy I get from this, I am again reminded about the value and timeliness of the Regional Powers and Security Framework. I will be writing more about each of these things, as well as the experience of taking a group of 20 AUS students to the Model UN program in Harvard in the coming days.

Getting Started in Sharjah

I have been avoiding writing my initial blog from Sharjah, as it has seemed from the beginning that there is simply too much happening to try to condense into any sort of reasonable blog. And beyond that (and in spite of the fact that no one but myself will likely read this one), I have been hampered by the thought that I ought to have some extra poignant things to say in my initial blog from such a new and fascinating place.

The truth is that the whole experience is profound and poignant, and there is not one story to start with that could capture that experience. In fact, it is--and I suspect is likely to become even more so as time evolves--the overall experience of being here that is what I want to convey to people when they ask "So how is it over there?". I'm not sure if it is just me. But I find that this is a particularly difficult question to do justice to. I tend to retreat back to answers like "it is really great!" - which of course says very little.

So here goes nothing. I am going to make a valiant effort to regularly update this thing in order to try to remember and get a sense for myself (and for anyone who wants to keep up on my experiences) how this experience is shaping my perspective.

I guess the place to start is to say that being here in UAE is really great! I have been here for about 2 1/2 weeks, and am beginning to settle in a bit. It takes a lot to do that in any new job and location. But all of that is compounded by the fact that this is also a new country and culture, with many added administrative things to take care of and interesting quirks to adapt to. For instance, things do get done here. They just don't in the manner or in the time-frame that one from the States might anticipate. I was told before I came that a key here is to keep a sense of humor. So far, so good.

I managed to do so through my journey here, in spite of the fact that my initial flight got canceled right before it took off. I mean the plane literally came to a screeching halt as it was turning the corner to start take off. The steering mechanism had broken down. That set in motion a series of issues that resulted in my not leaving Bloomington for another 3 days.

I eventually did get to Sharjah though, though I missed orientation. It has been suggested that this might have been a blessing in disguise, given the excessive fun that orientations typically are. Of course, I would never admit the truth in that - at least not in such a public forum. The downside of missing orientation was that I missed the fast-tracking of residency visas. This led to a two week delay in getting mine.

But I am officially a resident of Sharjah now. Next step - my UAE driver's license...

In the next couple of blogs, I will play a bit of catch up on my initial stories from the first couple of weeks here.

On Security - Part I: Establishing the Inquiry

One of the subjects that I find particularly fascinating and pertinent to one's practical understanding of world politics, as well as critically important to our understanding of how the reality of our political world and its discourse are shaped, is how we conceptualize security. This is a subject about which my thinking continues to evolve, and which will likely be an issue that is returned to with some regularity in this blog.

Realists like Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer tell us that security is the central interest of the state. Others like Hans Morgenthau tell us that the central interest of the state is power. But even though this derives from human nature for Morgenthau, one finds in the different variations on realism the clear function that power serves - increasing the state's security. While the discussion about what is actually the central interest of the state is an interesting one, it is not the one that I focus on here. Rather, my focus is on what security is, and whose security this concept refers to.

Given realism's long-standing position as the dominant theoretical approach to international security, the answer to this question is fairly straight-forward. Security refers to National Security, or the physical safety of the state from military attack by another state (or perhaps non-state actors in the contemporary context). One can see the practical implications of this foundational conceptualization in the recent discourse about human rights practices within the context of the Global War on Terrorism. The idea that human rights standards must be waived or circumvented in the interest of national security reflects a value-ordering and an assumption about what security is and whose is most important.

Setting aside for the time being the claims about the tactical effectiveness of torture as a means for eliciting useful information in the so-called "ticking time bomb scenario" (a dubious argument, which distorts the evidence of the effectiveness of this technique as well as obscures its real purpose), the importance here is that the argument is based upon the assumption that the security of the state is of greater importance than that of the individual.

Perhaps this is true. But this is a position that merits debate, rather than one that can be assumed. Additionally, if one is to accept this proposition, one should also understand that this conclusion is the result of a successful process of what Barry Buzan, Ole Waever, and Jaap de Wilde refer to in Security: A New Framework for Analysis as securitization. Securitization is the process through which something or someone is framed as an existential threat, which justifies extraordinary measures by the threatened party.

If you are interested, you can view some commentary by Barry Buzan on the concept of securitization in an interview that he recently gave.

That the security of the state is paramount, and that it is defined in terms of traditional military threats would seem to make sense too, given that one can look over the course of history and find loss of life on a grand scale within the context of interstate warfare. Consider for instance, the tens (even hundreds) of millions of lives lost during the Twentieth Century in wars between states. Given that predatory states exist in the world, and seek to expand their power at the expense of others, we may in fact need to reify the security of the state over our own as a means of achieving our own individual security. After all, we cannot protect ourselves from such threats. The state is the only actor with such capacity.

But what if the state is the single largest threat to our individual security? Then what happens to the justification for reifying national security over our own? In fact, R. J. Rummel finds in Death by Government that four times as many people were killed during the Twentieth Century in cases of what he calls democide by their own states than in organized warfare between states. And this figure actually under-estimates the deaths at the hands of one's own government to a significant degree, given that it is restricted to only one type of state violence. It therefore misses many people killed by their governments, but outside of the context of systematic mass murders.

It seems to me then, that we have at least two reasons to consider the basic assumption that state security must be prioritized over that of the individual suspect. First, the justification above is actually based upon a philosophical premise that the importance of state security rests on its duty and ability to protect that of individuals. Thus, it is actually individual security that should be considered supreme, and state security considered to be a means toward achieving that end. Second, there is empirical evidence that the state - in many cases - does not in fact satisfy this duty (or perhaps in cases of failed states, cannot). In fact, it appears to be the single largest threat to the security of its people. Therefore, one is compelled to question the validity of assuming up front that the security of the state should always be considered ahead of the security of other actors.

The purpose here is not to provide an exhaustive argument against the importance of state security. In fact, I would not even agree with such an general argument. Rather, it is to suggest that our understanding of security should be much broader than it traditionally has been. At very least, the points made above provide a starting point for a parallel concern with the value of individual, or human security. Arguments that are premised upon the unquestioned supremacy of state security should be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

Nor do I claim that these ideas are entirely novel. They are shaped by a number of important scholars. Particularly prominant here are those that have already been mentioned as well as my recent reading of Bill McSweeney's Security, Identity, and Interests: A Sociology of International Relations.

American University of Sharjah Information

(Photograph found at http://www.america.gov/)

One of the functions of this blog will be to write about my experiences with life in the United Arab Emirates. I will be joining the Department of International Studies at the American University of Sharjah in August of this year.

The move is an exciting one - both professionally and personally. I know that the perspective that I will gain from living in the UAE will assist me in better understanding the subjects that I am researching and teaching about. It will also be a real opportunity for my family and me, which will introduce us to a society with which we do not have extensive experience, and will open our minds to ways of life and thinking that will make us all more informed and well-rounded people.

I am posting some links here for those who are interested in finding out more about where we will be located.

Here is a link to a couple of promotional videos that AUS has created:

http://www.aus.edu/video/

Here is the main link to the university's web site:

http://www.aus.edu/

Here is the link to the Department of International Studies:

http://www.aus.edu/cas/is/

Contemporary Slavery

There is a common perception that slavery is a thing of the past. The word conjures images of the antebellum American South - a stain on the American conscience, and its "original sin." But this is what the American Civil War was fought to end. And numerous international treaties have banned the practice in very clear terms. Thus, it is something to study as a historical phenomenon.

Most students and others with whom I speak find it exceedingly surprising then, that there are an estimated 27 million people living in bondage around the world today. Between 700,000 and 2 million people are trafficked each year and slavery is the third largest illicit market in the world, bringing in an an annual $8-10 billion. This means that the slave market is larger, and there are more slaves in the world today than ever before. This is partly because of how inexpensive slaves are. While the average slave in the American South in 1850 cost around $40,000 (in today's terms), today a slave can be purchased for an average of $90.

These data and much more information come from the organization Free the Slaves! It seeks to raise awareness of and put an end to the practice of slavery. You can find out more information on their website:

http://www.freetheslaves.net/

I have also posted a series of videos (some also from Free the Slaves) on modern slavery on my MySpace page. You can view them through the following link:

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=57920981&blogId=306126010

Shared via AddThis

Reconciling Turkish Identity at a Transitional Moment

Published in Global Connections (Winter 2009)

I had the opportunity to travel to Turkey over the summer to participate in the Council on International Educational Exchange’s (CIEE) faculty development seminar, “Identity, Community, and Culture in Contemporary Turkey.” I went knowing that Turkey is experiencing significant changes, both in terms of its place within the international community and its political dynamics at the domestic level. As someone interested in the roles that regional powers play within their neighborhoods and the processes that lead to alterations in human rights behavior within states, I viewed the visit to Turkey as a tremendous opportunity to get an on-the-ground view of a country that represents both. What I found was that in addition to (and partially because of) these dynamics, Turkey is being forced to reconcile a number of conflictual points about its identity.

Perhaps no single moment captured my entire experience better than one that occurred during the evening that my friends and I sat in a hotel lobby watching the Turkish national football team play in the semi-final game of the European Cup. It was the furthest that Turkey had ever gone in this revered event. And now, Turkey was confronting the powerful German team. We were about a block away from Taksim Square (a central hub in Istanbul), where there was a massive crowd watching the match on enormous screens that were erected for the event. As we wandered around the square earlier, the excitement about this moment was unlike just about any other sporting experience I have had. The fact that Turkey had come this far held a real significance for the throngs that were flooding the area.

The “a-ha moment” came in the middle of the game though, when Turkey scored a goal. The crowd in the square absolutely erupted, and the cheers lasted for quite a while. But just as they finally died down, they were replaced by the call to prayer coming from the nearest mosque. This sacred melody was something that I had become accustomed to over the course of my stay. But this time was a bit different. It was just one of those moments in which everything that had been running around in my mind during this trip seemed to coalesce. The countervailing forces of secular and religious, modern and traditional, European and Islamic identities just seemed to blend together in a way that was harmonious and comfortable.

Throughout my experience, I was struck again and again by how much Turkey finds itself at a crossroads. Given its geographical placement at the intersection between “East and West” as well as “North and South,” this has always been the case, to some extent. But there is a tangible sense that one has in being there, that this is a country that is itself facing a crucial moment. Turkey seems to be filled with a sense of its own potential, but cognizant of its past failures to attain it. It is confronted with serious questions about how best to formulate policy to succeed in becoming an increasingly stable, prosperous, and influential state in the coming years. But along with these questions, something deeper is at stake. As the name of the seminar implied, there seems to be an important reflection period going on in which the very identity of Turkey is being evaluated. And this reflection is occurring in at least three important and interwoven areas: its modern-secular vs. traditional-Islamic orientation, its Middle Eastern vs. European regional placement, and its military-statist vs. liberal democratic operating political philosophy.

The first of these areas of introspection falls along a set of deep and sometimes conflicting identities. On the one hand, since its founding in 1923 under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Republic of Turkey has been devoutly secular and committed to its inclusion within the community of modern states. There is no doubt that Ataturk wished to break the Turkish nation away from what he perceived as the backwardness of the Ottoman Empire, which included its being the standard bearer of the Islamic Caliphate. The reverence that Turks everywhere genuinely feel for their founding father and their commitment to his vision for their country is obvious. Ataturk’s face is ubiquitous in Turkey. We saw him in the form of his statues, portraits, and his face superimposed over the Turkish flag, just about anywhere we turned.

On the other hand, Turkey is the heart of what was the Ottoman Empire, and a society which is very much rooted in the Islamic faith. There is both a significance to the place and a sense of traditional identification that coexists along with its modern side. I felt this each time I visited a mosque, shrine, or a building that marked the legacy of Ottoman times. I heard this when we spoke to people about the important place that Dervish orders hold in traditional Turkish society. I saw this in the wide range of styles of clothing that I saw particularly women wearing on the streets. Finally, I understood the scope of this identification of Turks by the election of the AKP (an Islamic party) as the governing party of Turkey.

While it is an all-too-common perception in the West that these identities are in pure conflict, it is not entirely clear that they are in Turkey. Is there a tenuous balance between its modern-secular and its traditional-Islamic side? Absolutely. It is this delicate balance that makes the ongoing debate that many of us have heard about over whether or not women should be allowed to wear head scarves on university campuses so volatile. It is this fear that drives many committed to a modern Turkey to vehemently oppose the reintroduction of such symbols of the past. But I must admit that a balance does seem possible when one views it first hand. In fact, it is this delicate balancing act that could prove to be a positive model for other states in which Islamic resurgence is occurring.

This was clear when we met with Haluk Ozdalga, a Minister of Parliament, the Chairman of the Turkish Parliament’s Environment Commission, and a member of the AKP. While a common assumption here might be that an Islamic party would shun the “West” and attempt to cordon off Turkey from Europe, the opposite is true. MP Ozdalga insisted that the environmental improvements that he is leading, and the numerous other changes that Turkey is attempting to make to achieve membership in the European Union are absolutely essential. He believes that EU membership is critical to ensuring that democracy is protected from future returns to the military’s practice of cracking down when it seems to be losing its firm grip on the state, it is essential for the long-term economic and political stability of the Republic, and it is important for Turkey’s maintenance of its critical position within the Transatlantic Community. We asked him how his party reconciled this pro-European position with the accusations that have been made that it was attempting to press an Islamist agenda upon Turkey. His response was quick and firm. “It is an absurd idea that Turkey could ever be a religious state. It has never been in history, and it will never be.”

His words and tone seemed to echo those of so many individuals with whom I came into contact with there. And the thought that I kept coming back to was this. Is this so different from what many democratic societies like our own deal with? The idea that religious identification of individuals is somehow sufficient to be a direct challenge to democracy does not ring true in the United States. Why should it necessarily in Turkey? That Turkey is struggling to find the delicate balance between this set of identities is clear, but so is the fact that such a balance can in fact be struck. Further, the appreciation of the importance of such a balance is a positive sign.

One of the central areas of promise for Turkey in the coming years is its potential for an increasingly prominent role within its several neighboring regions. This issue gives rise to the second key area of Turkey’s introspection. The question of where one should classify Turkey’s geographical and cultural placement is one that dates back over a long period of history. It is also one that is taking on an entirely new resonance as international security dynamics seem to be playing out more and more along regional lines, where certain states (regional powers) have an increasing level of influence. Turkey is a regional power in the Middle East already. It is one of the largest military and economic powers in the region, and it plays a critical function in the management of security issues there. This can be seen recently in its mediation of negotiations between Israel and Syria. It was also apparent in its denial of U.S. forces access to Turkish territory on their way to invade Iraq. But its potential as a regional power does not end with the Middle East. Rather, it holds just such a position within at least two other regions: Central Asia and Europe. Whether or not it provides a sort of push back to the increasing power of Russia within Central Asia is a matter that will determined over a longer period, and will depend on many different factors.

Europe, on the other hand, is very much the focus of some of the most important discussions in Turkey today. Turkey began formal discussions with the European Union on accession as a new member in 2005. It may be common in the U.S. and Western Europe to view Turkey as being situated inside or on the border of the Middle East. But Professor Sevilay Kahraman of the Middle East Technical University told us, “We perceive ourselves as part of the European society - at least since the 19th Century.” She pointed out that at least since it joined NATO, it has been a part of the European security community. The bid for EU membership then, is a way of formalizing its more complete membership within the community that it perceives itself to be a part of. Rather than erasing its identification with other regions though, this is yet another example of the complexity of the Turkish identity.

The Turkish government has taken concerted steps to bring various practices and policies in line with the requirements for EU membership. While it has made significant strides, it clearly has much further to go. Its long-standing conflict over the status of Cyprus (already an EU member), its legacy of human rights abuses, and the powerful role of the military in its government are some of the key stumbling blocks that Turkey has some level of control over. The necessary transformations for EU membership require that Turkey reconcile its geographical place as a European or Middle Eastern state, or some combination thereof. They also necessitate a confrontation with the third area of reflection that it is currently undergoing - that is, what sort of operating political philosophy guides its government. Is it a liberal democracy that values liberty and human rights in the interest of the individual Turkish citizen; or is it a semi-democratic system whose military holds the real power and imposes order when and how it sees fit in the interest of the state? The answer to this question is an essential step toward the EU.

While one cannot possibly underestimate the critical importance of the Cyprus issue, this topic occupied less attention in my discussions in Turkey than others. The role of the military within the government however, was at the forefront of many people’s minds. The AKP was facing the judicial branch this summer on charges that it had violated the Constitution’s establishment of a secular Turkey by moving to allow headscarves on university campuses. This was widely perceived as what was commonly referred to as a “judicial coup.” Instead of overthrowing the government with force, the military was attempting to remove the AKP through legal means.

What was striking was the nearly uniform opposition that we heard to this move, even from those not generally in support of the AKP. It was viewed as threatening to the democratic future of the country. Most of the speculation that was occurring while I was in Turkey was over what the AKP would do if the court ruled against it, or whether the military would accept a ruling in favor of the governing party. The military after all, has a long legacy of overthrowing governments it opposes. But as Professor Elisabeth Ozdalga of the Middle East Technical University told us, there is a sense that the Turkish economy is too integrated with the international community for the military to resort to its old practices. In the end, the AKP was fined but not banned, and the military has indeed not taken any overt action against the government. One could view this as a source of optimism for Turkey’s accession hopes, as well as for the political future of Turkey more generally.

Aside from the military’s general role in government, long-standing human rights practices stand in the way of Turkey being a liberal-democratic, European state. Thus, past and present human rights were the subject of many conversations we had. We met with Dr. Levent Korkut, Director of Amnesty International, Turkey, who cited significant improvements in recent years. The Kurds have been afforded more freedom of cultural and linguistic expression, most heavy forms of torture have been banned, Turkey has ratified all international human rights treaties, and submitted itself to being subject to the European Court of Human Rights. On the other hand, he points out that a number of minorities continue to lack protections against curtailments of their freedoms, laws continue to exist and are enforced that grossly limit freedom of expression, and the Kurds specifically continue to be repressed. Dr. Korkut argues that the Turkish people have never had the opportunity to participate in the construction or selection of a national constitution, and believes that such an exercise, which includes the development of minority protections, is a critical step for the political development of Turkey.

It is likely that such a process would force Turkey to confront not only its contemporary human rights problems, but also those of the past. From the killing of over 200,000 Greeks and the forced displacement of around 1.25 million more from Turkey, to the systematic extermination of as many as 2 million Armenians, Turkey’s early history is stained with violence on a massive scale. Given the fact that people can be prosecuted and have their livelihoods wrecked for insulting “Turkishness”, these are topics that are very difficult to discuss with Turks. And yet, such an honest confrontation with its past would seem to be critical to Turkey’s internal as well as external reconciliation. This step has not happened yet. But we heard indications that it is beginning, including particular attention to the atrocities that were committed against Greeks in the 1922 Smyrna (now Izmir) Massacre. That Turkey’s human rights record and practices require further reconciliation and that this necessitates a confrontation with exactly who the Turkish state is is undeniable. So is the fact that it is gradually doing so in a fairly profound way.

Turkey stands at a unique moment of transition in which there is a great deal of promise. It is emerging upon the international stage with a potential level of influence that it has not enjoyed in centuries. It is engaged in a process that could lead to its finally being recognized as a European peer at a level that has eluded Ottoman and Turkish leaders for a very long time. Such recognition would confirm an important part of the Turks’ self-identity. It would provide validation for the potential coexistence of Islamic society and the modern, secular state. And it would mean the attainment of the democratic promise that has been made to the Turkish people for roughly a century. It is an exciting moment. With continued Turkish perseverance, and openness on the part of Europe, Turkey may just find a balance to its complex and rich set of identities and as a result, attain its tremendous potential.

Ridiculing Restraint: A Dangerous Approach to US Foreign Policy Toward Russia and Other States Category: News and Politics

In the first debate between the contending nominees for the U.S. presidency, Senator John McCain repeatedly chided Senator Barack Obama for immediately urging restraint between both Russia and Georgia during the August military conflict. That Senator Obama also criticized the Kremlin's heavy handed treatment of Georgia in this crisis seemed to be irrelevant given that he had made the cardinal error of calling for a tamping down of violence on both sides. This condemnation of such a plea has motivated me to write this response for two reasons.

First, the fact that we have reached a point at which calls for restraint are met with ridicule is indicative of the twilight zone-like perspective that the U.S. leadership and much of our society has come to accept as reasonable. It is one that lacks understanding or empathy for any perspective than its own. It is one that views the world in sharp dichotomies that automatically place the whims of the U.S. in the category of right, and all others as wrong, or even evil. It is one that forgets that other states (much like the United States) have their own national interests, which they pursue in ways that sometimes conflict with the immediate interests of the U.S. Mainly, it is a perspective that is extreme in its orientation, and is quite dangerous.

Second, it is specifically representative of an alarming downward trajectory in U.S.-Russian relations that result in many respects from the lack of respect that has been shown to Russia as a fellow Great Power over the past two American administrations. This trend is both predictable and manageable. But the United States must begin to come to terms with the fact that Russia is a Great Power, with interests of its own. Some of these interests will provide convenient overlaps with those of the U.S. and its Western allies. In such cases, cooperation should be cultivated. When such overlaps do not exist, the U.S. and its allies should be both resolute and respectful. These two positions are not mutually exclusive - though they seem to be framed as such by hardline elements within the U.S. government. They are rather, diplomacy.

This essay then, seeks to make several points. First, the recent actions of Russia are regrettable, but predictable. They represent what one should expect of a Great Power, given the contemporary strength and behavior of other Great Powers (and particularly that of the United States). They also reflect what one should expect of a Regional Power who has no real regional rival and a history of regional dominance. Second, the post-Cold War and recent policies toward Russia have contributed substantially to Russia's desire to reassert itself within the "near abroad." Third, this is a relationship that can still be managed successfully. However, we must recognize that there will be differences of interest, that in cases that do not threaten core American interests, we will need to give Russia some latitude for action, that we are not entering into a new Cold War, and that there will remain opportunities for cooperation. Finally, the general orientation that is reflected in these points should also guide U.S. policies toward other states, and particularly Great and Regional Powers.

With respect to the first point, the treatment of Georgia by the Russian military in the recent past is certainly to be criticized. Russia was, in its typical fashion, too heavy handed. There was not a need for this, and the rationale used by the Kremlin that claimed an ongoing "cultural genocide" was quite frankly, absurd. That being said, the general actions themselves should not be surprising. Essentially, they reflect two simultaneous and overlapping games that are being played. First, they represent the ongoing reassertion of a Great Power into the global system, given its own recent growth in relative power, the shrinking of (or at least the over-burdened pressures upon) that of United States, and the long-term dynamics between these and other Great Power states. Second, they reflect the assertion of a Regional Power into the unipolar post-Soviet space in a manner that is historically normal, that is consistent with the behavior of other (though not all) Regional Powers within similar contexts, and which was in response to a direct challenge to its commanding position within its region.

Buoyed by petrodollars and the political and economic stabilization that for a time eluded Russia after the end of the Cold War, the Russian government is in a position to once again exert itself back onto the global stage on its own terms. Driven by a resurgence of nationalism and confidence under the leadership of Prime Minister Putin, Russia is in a position that is more reflective of its international role over the past several centuries than either its Superpower status during the Cold War or its subservient position after have been. At the same time, the power and credibility of the United States appears to be in dramatic recession. Its military capacity is stretched to the point at which it lacks a commanding global position to assertively address secondary interests. Its credibility as a leader of a liberal international order has been crippled by its brazen disregard for many of the rules that it has been central in creating: from its unilateral and preventive invasion of Iraq, to its disregard and disdain for the international human rights regime, to its unwillingness to actively address shared international problems such as global climate change. This is combined with the ongoing lack of a willingness by the European powers to take a real politico-military leadership role in international affairs, and the lack of core interests on the part of other Great Powers (China and Japan) in this particular geographical area. It is unsurprising that Russia would take Georgia's bid for the imposition of military control over the autonomous regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia (areas in which Russia has serious interests, large numbers of citizens, and peacekeeping troops) as an opportunity to flex its muscles.

As a Regional Power within a geographic space that lacks any competitor, it is also unsurprising that Russia would assert its command over other states. Since the recession of the power of the Ottoman Empire within this region, Russia has not been confronted with a peer competitor for leadership in the region. While the formal Soviet Empire may have disappeared, one should not anticipate that so will substantial Russian influence. Nor should one interpret this commanding presence as the reformulation of the Russian or Soviet Empire. This is a behavioral pattern that is consistent with other Regional Powers who lack geographic peers. Through the assertion of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 and the Roosevelt Corollary addendum in 1904, the U.S. has claimed the Western Hemisphere as its domain to actively impose its interests. In states that include Colombia, Guatemala, Chile, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Mexico, Haiti, Grenada, and Cuba, the U.S. has intervened with force (covertly or through the overt use of its military) to ensure that its interests are not severely undercut. The North/Central American region in fact, is the most clear-cut case of single state domination that exists in the world today. That Russia would opt to pursue similar methods in regions that represent her core national interests is not simply unsurprising - it is fairly "normal."

The second general point that should be made is that the reassertion of Russian power within its own region is the logical result of the disregard that its interests have been treated with since the end of the Cold War. As Dmitri Simes argues, the American mythology that Ronald Reagan single-handedly (or even primarily) won the Cold War is not only a mischaracterization of this momentous historical event. It is also the root of the U.S. and allies' treatment of Russia as a vanquished enemy since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It is not the point of this essay to go into the wrong-headedness of this common American belief. My concern here is the result, which has been the alienation and humiliation of Russia during the period in which its relative power reached a low point.

In pressing for a radical "shock treatment" to Russia's economy during the 1990s, targeted at bringing it in line with a more pure free market system, the Clinton Administration and its Western partners took a condescending posture toward a state that has been and would again be its peer. The effect of these economic reforms were severe, created a great deal of hardship, and were policies that the Western powers never have and never would adhere to themselves. The expansion of NATO membership (even extending its promise to former Soviet states in the Baltics), the unauthorized military intervention into Kosovo, the beginning of the ongoing push to promote an oil pipeline from the Caspian Sea that avoids Russian territory, and the general impression of eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Community's membership and interests with less than sincere concern for what this meant for Russia all demonstrated a high level of disrespect.

Under the Bush administration, this perception of insult has only been compounded. Immediately upon entering office, President Bush unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, calling it a relic (which in no way characterized the Russian view of this agreement). The current administration has pushed for the further expansion of NATO to include the accession of Ukraine and Georgia. It has actively supported the Georgian government's oppositional posture toward Moscow under questionable assertions of its democratic character. It has unwaveringly determined that its National Missile Defense system will be partially based in Poland and the Czech Republic. It disregarded Russia's and the international community's more broadly, opposition to its unilateral invasion of Iraq. It has dragged out negotiations on the inclusion of Russia in the WTO to the point at which such promises seem disingenuous. And it actively supported Kosovar independence from Serbia. That some of these post-Cold War policies may be defended on the grounds that they further U.S. national interests and/or international stability is plausible. What is important for the purposes of the argument here is that each of them has further alienated and insulted Russia as a fellow Great Power.

Both administrations, in other words, consistently demonstrated a lack of restraint in their treatment of a Russia with diminished power. Thus, it is unsurprising that given the opportunity, Russia would assert itself in its own region. Other powers are both incapable and unwilling to deter it. While the West can cry foul all it wants, Russia is not going to be deterred by threats of punitive actions that involve a lack of incorporation into Western institutions. It is already convinced that it is not a real partner with the West. And this is partly thanks to the consistent signals that the West has sent to Russia that have supported such a view. The die is, as they say, cast.

The way to handle this relationship now is not to completely bow to Russia's will. When Russian actions are too extreme or conflict with the interests of the Western alliance, it should be dealt with firmly and with clarity. It should be made clear to Russia which interests are core to the Western allies, and cannot be transgressed. The United States is still the dominant military power in the world, and it stands atop a set of alliances and an international order that does not allow for complete degrees of freedom for Russian actions. Nor would it be in Russia's interest to completely alienate itself from this order or from these states. This must be done though, with a demonstration of respect to Russia as a peer, in a manner that considers its own perspective as one to be negotiated with rather than consistently condemned or disregarded, to demonstrate moderation, and yes - restraint.

Nor must the U.S. and allies sacrifice their interests in promoting democratic governance and increased economic openness throughout Eurasia and beyond. These interests increase the security of not only alliance members, but also the international community more broadly. The way to do this though, is through engagement rather than alienation, inducement rather than insult, and most certainly, example rather than decree. Additionally, this sort of enlargement of the liberal order strategy must be done in a measured way that takes into consideration the perceptions of states like Russia, who interpret such moves as strategies of encirclement and neo-containment. Wild, from-the-gut rhetoric that is derisive of restraint is a catalyst, not a remedy for Russian belligerent nationalism. One could in fact argue that it represents a dangerous appeal to American belligerent nationalism.

In addition to dealing with Russia and its neighbors with a heightened degree of prudence, the United States must make concerted efforts to rectify the untold damage to the relationships that have been the bedrock of American foreign policy in the post-World War II era as well as to its legitimacy as a global leader of a liberal order. While these are subjects for a whole separate essay, they are critical to the future of relations between Russia and the West. It is NATO that will be the most important bulwark against Russian hostility in the future. The United States must act proactively to nurture the all-important relationships that make up this alliance. It cannot simply expect that the European powers will simply fall into line when Washington demands. The time to remedy this situation is now, and the means through which to do so are through a less militaristic and hawkish tone. European powers, like Russia, should be accorded the respect that they deserve as partners, not subordinates. Additionally, the U.S. needs to practice what it preaches. If it wishes to continue to utilize the liberal order that it has actively expanded since the Second World War, and which has widened international security, it must begin to play by its own rules. It is for instance, laughable to hear Vice-President Cheney go to Ukraine and criticize Russia's increasingly repressive regime. He is in no position. And this fact is not lost on the rest of the world.

Finally, the contours of the revised approach that I propose here for U.S. relations with Russia are applicable beyond. The United States must begin to treat other Great Powers with the respect that they deserve if it hopes to elicit their cooperation in dealing with many of the common problems that we face: from international terrorism to nuclear proliferation to global climate change. It must also recognize that the world is now structured in a way that requires increasingly cooperative relationships with Regional Powers who often have a greater interest in and influence upon addressing economic and security problems that arise within their neighborhoods. Even when dealing with smaller states, over whom Washington has a greater degree of leverage, it would do well to be more measured than it has become. Rather than ridiculing calls for restraint, the United States should encourage others to show it. More than this, the U.S. must incorporate a higher degree of restraint in its own behavior if it hopes to pursue its national interests successfully.