Why Can't They All Just Get Along?

Today there is a deep divide between the Arab states, which are predominantly Sunni Muslim, and the Shiite Muslims, who are more numerous, but are generally politically underrepresented. We know the conflicting powers in the region and understand their animosity through their divergent brands of Islam. The Arab kingdoms on the Arabian peninsula stick together on international issues. The general consensus is that their main threat is Shia Iran. First and foremost, they see Iran as a dangerous example for their own restive Shiite populations. This is especially true for countries such as Saudi Arabia, where the state aids a hardline version of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, and the Shiite population is historically located atop the countries lucrative oil reserves. Secondly, the Arab states are wary of Iran's geopolitical ability to stack the Middle East in its favor. Iran has already proved adept at reaching out to its neighbors in ways that directly appeal to the people. In Lebanon, Iranian funded Hezbollah garnered support not only from their sympathetic Shiite constituents, but also from many Sunni and Christian Lebanese. Iran's policy towards Israel has also engendered admiration from the masses. Most importantly, Iran has the legitimacy that most Arab countries lack. It was founded on a popular revolution, and while it is still fundamentally an authoritarian theocracy, the Iranian regime has slowly been exhibiting a growing willingness to expand popular participation in the government. Predictably, the nascent liberalizing movement in Iran was deferred by blundering U.S. foreign policy following 9/11, but the fact that it was allowed to come into existence in the first place and that the liberal sentiments are still alive, well, and free to speak out - to an extent - shows that popular will can move the Ayatollah. 

Iran looks back at its neighbors with the same sort of icy skepticism that it receives, especially the countries that choose to align themselves with the United States. The ideology of the Iranian revolution is set upon empowering Shitte Muslims the world over. When it comes to Shiite neighbors, such as the large Shia Iraqi population, it is only natural that they would lend a helping hand. This is especially true since Iraq is home to some of the holiest Shia sights - one of which, the Al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, was destroyed in two separate bombing attacks in 2006 and 2007. Iran is also deeply aware of recent history. It remembers Arab backing of Saddam Hussein during his brutal "imposed war". It also remembers the Pan-Arabist movement, and especially the Baathist incarnation of Pan-Arabism that took root in Syria, and most infamously, in Iraq. Lastly, Iran recognizes who supports who in the Arab world. The Arab states get their backing from the United States, a sworn enemy of the Iranian revolution, and a regional irritator that has tried on numerous occasions to depose the Iranian government.  

It is very hard to imagine a scenario where relations between Shia and Sunni could be placated. Yet there are numerous examples of equanimity between the sects that give hope for the future. 

It is not written in stone that Sunni and Shiite can not get along. Iran and Syria have had friendly relations for a long time now, created by both countries realistic approach to foreign relations. Iran and Syria are motivated towards friendship because both countries realize that the relationship is mutually beneficial, especially as the specter of U.S. military action grew. Similarly in Lebanon, where we are accustomed to hearing of perpetual ethnic and religious strife, Hezbollah, a Shia organization backed by Iran and Syria, is viewed as a heroic national organization for its war against Israel which culminated in Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and its successful humanitarian intervention following the 2006 Lebanon war. Recently, with the release of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear ambitions, Iran and Saudi Arabia have been warming up to each other. There is still a long way to go, but the Saudi King Abdullah's invitation to Iranian President Ahmadinejad to participate in the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, the first invitation of its kind to an Iranian President, shows that relations are becoming friendlier. 

The question now becomes what will it take for a real and pronounced break from past hostility, and is such a change possible? Currently change seems very unlikely. In terms of Saudi-Iranian relations, the fact that the Saudi Shia population is restive and sitting upon all the countries oil reserves means that it will take a dramatic change of events to see the two countries reconcile in any meaningful way. 

Such a dramatic event has occurred on Saudi Arabia's doorstep, unwittingly of course, because of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. What once was a strongly Sunni country has been transformed into a predominantly Shia country, and while its international stature is anemic its border still encompasses the largest oil reserves in the entire world, giving it immense power. This change of events has resulted in giving Iran considerable regional power, an unexpected gift, and especially ironic since, in the run up to the Iraq invasion, Iran was incredibly fearful of what it saw as inevitable U.S. encirclement. As was made clear in Iraq, it is the autocratic nature of most Middle East governments that keeps Sunni-Shia relations chilly. Until some sort of participatory democracy is instituted in the currently dynastic and autocratic Middle Eastern countries, leaders will find it more beneficial to play the people off against each other and outside forces than make peace.

U.S. power plays a key role in keeping the current conflict ridden system well-oiled and malignantly efficient. A waning of U.S. power in the region, while possibly internationally destabilizing, could work wonders for Middle Eastern self-determination. By the way that most U.S. Presidential wannabes talk about their Iraq policy it seems that the U.S. will be in the region indefinitely, so the end of U.S. meddling is far from over. 

The most hopeful aspect of the current situation in the Levant, Arabia, and Persia, is that it appears that the major regional actors are reasonable. History has shown that all of the countries act in very predictable ways to guarantee very predictable outcomes. They care, first and foremost, about preserving their regimes, usually built on very unstable, but remarkably resilient, foundations. Because reasonableness reigns supreme in relations between Sunni and Shia powerhouses it seems that the most dangerous scenarios in Eastern Asia right now do not involve Iran, which is relatively stable and, as was made clear by the N.I.E. report, completely rational, but instead could involve chaotic countries such as Lebanon, Iraq, and Pakistan. In those countries there are numerous situations that could be explosive and cause real damage domestically and internationally. Those situations do not necessarily involve the Sunni-Shiite factions. What these urgent threats involve is the loss of order. The devolution of order may be rooted in an ethnic or religious divide, but such divides need not be the cause of conflict. If there is order and the government is functional, conflicts can be stymied through diplomacy, an option not available to the chaotic countries. 

This brings us back to the divide between Sunni countries and Shiite countries - country really: Iran. Because a majority of these countries have the order necessary for meaningful diplomacy there is a real opportunity for the countries to bring their concerns to the table and develop a system - necessarily different from the current one - for peaceful relations. Peaceful relations can, I believe, be forged through diplomacy. If disorder grows in countries such as Iraq, Lebanon and Pakistan, the appeal of finding solid security guarantees between more stable Sunni-Shiite countries will grow. Out of such a situation we could begin to see the sun shine over Sunni-Shiite relations. 

Benazir Bhutto

The impact of the assassination of former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto will not be small. 

Pakistan, one of the most underdeveloped countries around, was in a particularly precarious situation before today's assassination. Militant Islam is on the rise in Pakistan, made clear by the July siege of the Red Mosque in Islamabad and the resurgent Taliban in the Northern provinces. Poverty is rampant, amplified by the 2005 Earthquake centered around the contested Kashmir region straddling India and Pakistan. Tribalism threatens to splinter the country into warring regions. The specter of nuclear war looms, as well as the fear that Pakistan's nuclear weapons could slip into the hands of a dangerous sovereign or rogue militant.   

Ms. Bhutto, while not without her flaws, was the voice of the opposition, the voice for democratization and secularization. She was the spokeswomen for millions of Pakistani's who feared for their countries future, who wanted to take power from the dictators and the military that had been in charge for so long, and give it back to the people. Any assassination, no matter who it may be, is dreadful. But when the fate of a country, of neighboring countries, and even the world, is threatened by an assassination than such an act is made even more horrendous. The assassination of the President of the U.S., while a shock and a national tragedy, does not have the same force as the assassination that occurred today. In the U.S., popular democracy in its U.S. incarnation, roles on, because the path of democracy is clear and nonnegotiable. In Pakistan the situation is different. The future is filled with uncertainty. There is little past history to give hope. Instead the past is full of dark memories of inchoate democracy thwarted, of strong-men and power grabs, of turmoil and killing. Today was another bleak chapter in that sorrowful history, and with Ms. Bhutto gone it seems the worst is yet to come.  

$647 Billion

There has been much debate since the end of the Cold War as to how America can best protect itself and its interests. Actually, there may have been debate, but it certainly has not stalled any action on the issue. Far from it. While academia, the media, and the people discuss new threats, old threats, and whether something is or is not a threat at all, the U.S. Congress, with the blessing of every President, has been appropriating tax dollars to an approach that is both uncontroversial and unoriginal: They have been handing money to the U.S. military. In his essay in the November/December issue of "Foreign Affairs," Richard K. Betts explains how much money has been syphoned off to the military, the historical precedence of such spending, and whether such spending is warranted in this day and age, where U.S. military spending is not only preeminent, but almost equal to the whole world's military spending combined. The article is a stark reminder of how out of whack our spending priorities have become. With no major threat to U.S. military power in the short term, let alone the long term, spending at levels "25% higher, in real terms," than during the "height of combat in Vietnam" ("A Disciplined Defense") is outrageous. 

What struck me in Mr. Betts' essay were the political overtones. We all know the famous Eisenhower warning about the military industrial complex, about how we ought to mind the powerful forces that manipulate congress to keep their profits pilling in. George Orwell was also apt to refer to the inclination towards perpetual war. The essay shows, without mentioning any sinister motives, that U.S. military spending has gone up in "nine f the past ten years at... a record unmatched in any other decade since World War II" without the equivalent of a Hitler or Stalin as a threat. This shows that there is something more going on than a fair assessment by Congress and the President of the dangers at hand. Maybe it's democracy that's doing it, where candidates run on the easy platform of strengthening the military. Maybe it's the military industrial complex, an amorphous gaggle of CEO's and industry barons who swoon congressmen and women into appropriating huge sums of money into needless projects (think Duke Cunningham). Or maybe it's sinister foreign policy motives (you know what I'm talking about). Whatever it is we need to begin to focus our foreign policy objectives so that we know exactly what our military is for. Is it for preemptive striking? Not in the near future, that is for sure. Is it for self-defense? I wish. Is it for international "peacekeeping"? Maybe when there is a geopolitical reason to get involved. America needs to focus. What exactly are we prepared to use our military for? That is the question that needs to be asked. Very few Presidential candidates have addressed this question. Ron Paul is the only one who has been clear and succinct - he wants the U.S. military to be exclusively for self-defense - and hasn't gone off message. That is the sort of vision we need if we are going to grapple down our half a trillion dollar defense budget. Stay posted for more on the military. Next: Should the U.S. employ its military unilaterally or through NATO for peacekeeping? I say no. 

Never Mind the Words, Just Sing!

Spain has had a rough time establishing a national identity. From early on its international image was tarnished by accounts of its conquest and exploitation of the America's and the excesses of the Spanish Catholic Church.  Later, after Spain sank to the rank of a second-rate power, there was the brutal Spanish Civil War, with the eventual rousting of the left-wing contingents in the country and the elevation of Francisco Franco to the role of Fascist dictator. The country is also a hodgepodge of cultural and ethnic identities, many unwilling to be consolidated into even the semblance of a coherent kingdom - later, nation state - and some (Jews and Muslims in particular) forced to convert or leave Iberia.Today, the effects of this tumultuous history are clearly apparent in the fractured federal government, domestic terrorism, and most conspicuously, in the lack of lyrics for the Spanish national anthem. 

There once were lyrics to the Spanish anthem "La Marcha Real" (The Royal March). The problem is that the lyrics that most Spaniards know come from Franco Spain, and as such are not appropriate. So instead of singing the old lyrics, Spaniards improvise by doing something like this:

It is no surprise then that ahead of Spain's bid for the 2016 Olympics, the President of the Spanish Olympic Committee, Alejandro Blanco, has created a competition to create new lyrics for the old anthem. The problem still remains that many parts of Spain do not consider themselves Spanish, and do not wish to sing or support any national anthem. The anthem has thus become a political third rail. Politicians are wary of mentioning the competition for fear of upsetting the already tenuous federal arrangement. It remains to be seen whether a unifying anthem will ever be agreed on. For now a lot can be learned about modern Spain in the quiet contemplation of "La Marcha Royal". 

The Falling Dollar

A grim tale of what could happen if our current monetary policy continues. This video is from Al-Jazeera's program "People & Power". 

Awkward Silence

I have been real busy as of late, and I have not had the time to keep the blogging up. Next week I am done with finals, and once I get those out of the way I look forward to writing some more stuff. I miss reading the stuff I want to read - i.e. political and social news. 

Also... I was thinking it would be cool if I could get more contributors to this project. I would love to talk to anyone who would enjoy contributing whenever they have a great idea for a story. There are a few things I would expect for an article posted on this blog - it has to be about some sort of news event or it has to be historical, and it has to be accurate - but other than those modest stipulation I am open to anything. 

I hope to hear from those who visit this modest corner of cyberspace.

-Brett

The Trials of Henry Kissinger

Enjoy this full documentry on the life and war crimes of Dr. Henry Kissinger. Click the google video link on the bottom right of the video to watch it full screen.

Iraq Casualties

Another outstanding report by Al-Jazeera English on casualties in Iraq and the U.S. media's unwillingness to report them truthfully. 

If you want to see more of Al-Jazeera English, subscribe to their YouTube feed here. 

Bush Responds As Expected

A day after the N.I.E. report was released on the suspended Iranian nuclear development program, Bush has responded as we all knew he would. In a press-conference today he said that the report does not mean Iran is not a threat, and that the U.S. should continue to move aggressively to stop Iran getting a nuclear bomb. What his statements effectively add up to is an attempt to shift the debate away from the N.I.E. report and onto Bush administration terms. The Deputy Director of the N.I.E. specifically said, in so many words, that the agency decided to go public with the report so as not to allow these sort of deceitful political maneuverings. Now at least the general public, or anyone skeptical of Israeli and U.S. goals in regards to Iran, can blatantly see that stopping Iran getting weapons is not the real issue. The question becomes then, what is the real issue? I won't try and answer that now because there is homework to be done. 

Politics, Transparency, and Iran

The National Intelligence Estimate (N.I.E.) has just released a new report on Iran's nuclear program stating that Iran has put a hold on their nuclear weapons development since 2003. There are a number of reasons why this is a very interesting development, in terms of foreign and domestic policy. 

In the United States there has been a push in the last couple years to deal with an alleged Iranian nuclear program. The rhetoric used by those inside the Bush administration as well as other hawkish politicos - Joe Lieberman  comes to mind - has been harsh, unrelenting, and familiar. We were all party to such fear-mongering in the lead-up to the Iraq war. What hasn't materialized, much like in the run-up to the Iraq war, has been evidence to back up the claims of an immanently nuclear Iran. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been ambivalent about Iranian nuclear progress, mostly stating that Iran, while not fully cooperating, is not about to "go nuclear". 

The Mitt Romney ad I posted on this blog is another example of what the Iranian boogyman can do for a campaign. I am sure most intelligent people who watch that ad will find it ridiculous. We all know that Romney's case is exaggerated. What happens though, especially in a country dominated by sound-bites and shallow political punditry, is that eventually, when "nuclear Iran" is repeated enough, false assumptions begin to propagate, and priority shifts from real issues to specters. 

Now we are getting to why this new N.I.E. report is so remarkable. Firstly, it goes a long way in demystifying the Iranian nuclear agenda: instead of framing Iran as a maniacal weapons developer, determined to get weapons of mass-destruction and then use them, the report concludes that Iran is "guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs" (report). Secondly, the report reaffirms what the IAEA has been saying for a while now, that there is no evidence that Iran is developing weapons at the breakneck speeds alleged by those with seemingly nefarious motives. Lastly, and most importantly, this report was released to the public. As the New York Times reports, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, Donald M. Kerr, said that the assesment should be released to the public "to ensure that an accurate presentation is available." Now that this information is out there it will make it much harder, although far from impossible, for the Bush administration to make a case for an assault on Iran. I only hope that people pay attention and begin to put the "Iranian threat" in context.