Elliott Abrams, in this National Review article, highlights a strategy for transitioning Middle East societies marching towards democracy to limit the powers of monarchs (especially those friendly to US interests) and autocrats in the region through legal and constitutional means.
To St. Thomas Aquinas, a monarchy is the best regime. For the rule of an enlightened monarch ruling in the interest of all, guided by wisdom and compassion, without meeting any opposition from the less enlightened ones, is perfect. But it’s rare to find such a being. Plato says that the best regime happens by chance, when politics and philosophy meet, best embodied in a powerful yet wise and compassionate monarch.
Modernity, having indeed given way to institutions and technological inventions that are mass-based (hence, egalitarian, hence, great equalizers), cannot afford to be ruled by a monarch. The individual has become the source of sovereign power, but whose power he equally shares with his fellowmen through a representative government that he and the others empower to represent his and their interests. But that individual together with the rest must be wise, enlightened, and just. And insofar as he and they are ruled sometimes by unruly passion and prejudices, a representative government provides the mechanisms with which to check such excesses. This is the meaning of genuine republicanism.
But in the absence of the above conditions, of a people who is habituated in the ways of self-rule, the next best thing for countries ruled by monarchs and autocrats is constitutional monarchy.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Finding a Strategy for Libya
In today's WP op-ed piece, David Ignatius' search for clarity in President Obama's Libya policy leads him to wonder if indeed a formula has been found, which is that ". . . The United States should use military force unilaterally only when it involves core U.S. national interests; in other cases, such as Libya, the United States should act militarily only with the support of its allies."
He adds, "Obama appears to be evolving a hybrid strategy, blending 'realist' and 'humanitarian interventionist' themes. Several weeks ago the administration seemed almost to be allying with Shiite protesters in Bahrain against the minority Sunni monarchy. But Obama has recognized that America has an abiding interest in the stability of neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees Bahrain as its 51st state and won’t tolerate the overthrow of its ruling family."
He concludes, "Obama’s speech Monday was a lesson in how presidencies are a matter of trial and error."
Putting aside terms and labels that one learns in an International Relations class, determining a strategy for the Middle East phenomenon should be shaped and formed by the nature of the phenomenon. In other words, the nature of a conflict should determine strategy, and not the other way around. To come up with a formula before the facts is to engage in theorizing, a mental exercise in abstraction.
I like to think that the strategy that is evolving, even though slow, is being shaped by a reasonable understanding of ME realities as they unfold.
He adds, "Obama appears to be evolving a hybrid strategy, blending 'realist' and 'humanitarian interventionist' themes. Several weeks ago the administration seemed almost to be allying with Shiite protesters in Bahrain against the minority Sunni monarchy. But Obama has recognized that America has an abiding interest in the stability of neighboring Saudi Arabia, which sees Bahrain as its 51st state and won’t tolerate the overthrow of its ruling family."
He concludes, "Obama’s speech Monday was a lesson in how presidencies are a matter of trial and error."
Putting aside terms and labels that one learns in an International Relations class, determining a strategy for the Middle East phenomenon should be shaped and formed by the nature of the phenomenon. In other words, the nature of a conflict should determine strategy, and not the other way around. To come up with a formula before the facts is to engage in theorizing, a mental exercise in abstraction.
I like to think that the strategy that is evolving, even though slow, is being shaped by a reasonable understanding of ME realities as they unfold.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Stifling Creativity and Capitalism in Afghanistan
A promising program involving mineral wealth exploration and job-creation in Afghanistan, being underwritten by a Pentagon task force, is now an object of a bureaucratic turf war between USAID and State Department on one side and the Pentagon on the other. That’s just too bad. When a government agency would rather be territorial than support the good work of its neighbor, public service loses its meaning.
At issue is the US Congress’s cutting off of funding for this DOD task force -- composed largely of folks who have worked in the private sector and are now engaged in business development projects in Afghanistan -- and transfer their functions to USAID. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Brinkley, director of the program, has quit in protest. Key members of his group have done the same.
USAID and State want more accountability from these projects and the people that run them. They complain about the group’s sense of independence and the secretiveness behind their work, just going about doing things their ways.
But such is the virtue of capitalism! It thrives when it is not restricted!
As Brinkley puts it, “We do capitalism. We’re about helping companies make money,” and ‘shifting his group’s work to USAID will smother an entrepreneurial organization in a risk-averse agency that is more oriented toward providing development assistance than brokering business deals.’ Indeed. Let the market flourish in Afghanistan. To the folks who make this happen, let’s leave them alone and let them do their work!
A good test of whether a US agency is contributing towards achieving results in places like Afghanistan is for it to ask itself this question: am I part of the problem or part of the solution?
At issue is the US Congress’s cutting off of funding for this DOD task force -- composed largely of folks who have worked in the private sector and are now engaged in business development projects in Afghanistan -- and transfer their functions to USAID. Deputy Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Brinkley, director of the program, has quit in protest. Key members of his group have done the same.
USAID and State want more accountability from these projects and the people that run them. They complain about the group’s sense of independence and the secretiveness behind their work, just going about doing things their ways.
But such is the virtue of capitalism! It thrives when it is not restricted!
As Brinkley puts it, “We do capitalism. We’re about helping companies make money,” and ‘shifting his group’s work to USAID will smother an entrepreneurial organization in a risk-averse agency that is more oriented toward providing development assistance than brokering business deals.’ Indeed. Let the market flourish in Afghanistan. To the folks who make this happen, let’s leave them alone and let them do their work!
A good test of whether a US agency is contributing towards achieving results in places like Afghanistan is for it to ask itself this question: am I part of the problem or part of the solution?
An Example of Muslim Moderation
This short letter to the Editors of the Washington Post ("Why a Muslim Teacher is Misguided," March 27, 2011) says it all:
As a practicing Muslim — and a manager with decades of experience in countries around the world — I am disturbed by teacher Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit over her school district’s denial of time off for a pilgrimage to Mecca [“Justice Dept. backs Muslim teacher,” front page, March 23].
While every Muslim who can afford it is obligated to make the pilgrimage in his or her lifetime, there is no requirement that it be done as soon as possible. I have never before heard that “it is a sin to delay”; that is clearly Ms. Khan’s belief. The overwhelming majority of pilgrims are in their 40s or 50s, or older. At age 60, Ms. Khan might be justified in wishing to avoid a delay; but at 29, why can’t she wait for the pilgrimage to fall during her summer school holidays?
Any manager (myself included) would expect a first-year employee such as Ms. Khan to consider the pupils (or co-workers) relying on her — an equally critical Islamic duty.
With our community facing blatant misunderstanding and discrimination every day, no Muslim should fight for special privileges that reflect personal choices rather than religious duty. Had she been denied the right to pray on Fridays or to take off on the holy days of Eid or to fast during Ramadan, she would be justified in filing a lawsuit.
But it is a stretch for anyone — especially the Justice Department — to support a personal desire that may reinforce negative perceptions at a time when we should be building bridges.
Robert J. Marro, Great Falls
The writer is a trustee of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society.
As a practicing Muslim — and a manager with decades of experience in countries around the world — I am disturbed by teacher Safoorah Khan’s lawsuit over her school district’s denial of time off for a pilgrimage to Mecca [“Justice Dept. backs Muslim teacher,” front page, March 23].
While every Muslim who can afford it is obligated to make the pilgrimage in his or her lifetime, there is no requirement that it be done as soon as possible. I have never before heard that “it is a sin to delay”; that is clearly Ms. Khan’s belief. The overwhelming majority of pilgrims are in their 40s or 50s, or older. At age 60, Ms. Khan might be justified in wishing to avoid a delay; but at 29, why can’t she wait for the pilgrimage to fall during her summer school holidays?
Any manager (myself included) would expect a first-year employee such as Ms. Khan to consider the pupils (or co-workers) relying on her — an equally critical Islamic duty.
With our community facing blatant misunderstanding and discrimination every day, no Muslim should fight for special privileges that reflect personal choices rather than religious duty. Had she been denied the right to pray on Fridays or to take off on the holy days of Eid or to fast during Ramadan, she would be justified in filing a lawsuit.
But it is a stretch for anyone — especially the Justice Department — to support a personal desire that may reinforce negative perceptions at a time when we should be building bridges.
Robert J. Marro, Great Falls
The writer is a trustee of the All Dulles Area Muslim Society.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Egypt’s Transition
The WSJ ran an editorial today, criticizing Egyptian generals for hastening the process of democratic transition in the country. Today’s referendum was held to adopt constitutional amendments that would lay down the foundations of a functioning democracy, hoping to put the reins of power in the hands of civilians through free elections as early as this summer. But by rushing things up, the military is perhaps unconsciously handing power to the most organized group in the country: the Muslim Brotherhood, an extremist political group that has a stake in the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Some analysts say that this is a good thing, however. A restrictive democracy that excludes the Muslim Brotherhood is bound to fail. Marginalizing the group will lead to all kinds of complications, they say, including giving them ammunitions, intellectual and otherwise, to engage in terror-related activities.
But this thinking is premised on the assumption that Egypt’s liberal culture is strong and stable, and, therefore, is able to withstand conflicting interests among competing groups. But it isn’t so. Its liberal culture is still weak. It cannot afford to hand its democratic space to extremist elements that may sooner or later undermine its very existence.
I say this in light of the Philippine society’s experience with the Filipino communist movement, an underground movement that continues to exist despite decades of persecution by the Philippine government. What is the secret of its longevity? It created an aboveground faction from within itself that would assume an identity of a legitimate political organization, a regular player with a legitimate role on the country’s political stage. Calling themselves mainstream parliamentarians, this group of Filipino communists has been successful in pursuing its ideological agenda by fielding its members to positions of power in the Philippine government. From the kinds of policies they espouse, they’ve never had it so good! And so easy! For at their disposal is nothing less than legitimate political power.
Legitimizing extremist groups in the name of democracy has a way of legitimizing the existence of the enemies of democracy. Democracy is not a free-for-all enterprise. It has political and moral limits.
Some analysts say that this is a good thing, however. A restrictive democracy that excludes the Muslim Brotherhood is bound to fail. Marginalizing the group will lead to all kinds of complications, they say, including giving them ammunitions, intellectual and otherwise, to engage in terror-related activities.
But this thinking is premised on the assumption that Egypt’s liberal culture is strong and stable, and, therefore, is able to withstand conflicting interests among competing groups. But it isn’t so. Its liberal culture is still weak. It cannot afford to hand its democratic space to extremist elements that may sooner or later undermine its very existence.
I say this in light of the Philippine society’s experience with the Filipino communist movement, an underground movement that continues to exist despite decades of persecution by the Philippine government. What is the secret of its longevity? It created an aboveground faction from within itself that would assume an identity of a legitimate political organization, a regular player with a legitimate role on the country’s political stage. Calling themselves mainstream parliamentarians, this group of Filipino communists has been successful in pursuing its ideological agenda by fielding its members to positions of power in the Philippine government. From the kinds of policies they espouse, they’ve never had it so good! And so easy! For at their disposal is nothing less than legitimate political power.
Legitimizing extremist groups in the name of democracy has a way of legitimizing the existence of the enemies of democracy. Democracy is not a free-for-all enterprise. It has political and moral limits.
Frameworks for Middle East Strategies
This piece by former Prime Minister Tony Blair, laying down “a framework for shaping the democratic revolution” in the Middle East is worth reading and pondering about. So is this piece by Zalmay Khalilzad, describing the different challenges America confronts in the region and arguing for strategies on transitions, without which, he says, countries in the region risk increased instability.
I thought it interesting that both mentioned constitutional monarchy as a transitory solution to rapid and emerging democratic demands in these countries long ruled by monarchs and autocrats. It limits the powers of kings even as it prepares a people not yet habituated in the ways of self-rule to begin to understand and exercise the duties and obligations of a free people.
I thought it interesting that both mentioned constitutional monarchy as a transitory solution to rapid and emerging democratic demands in these countries long ruled by monarchs and autocrats. It limits the powers of kings even as it prepares a people not yet habituated in the ways of self-rule to begin to understand and exercise the duties and obligations of a free people.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
Anti-blasphemy Law in Pakistan
Mr. Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistan's Minister for Minorities Affairs (and the only Christian minister in the Pakistani Cabinet), was assassinated last week for his condemnation of the country’s anti-blasphemy law, which sanctions death for those who speak against Islam. This tragic event took place in the aftermath of another assassination of a public official, Salman Taseer, former governor of Punjab, who wanted that law repealed.
In a Letter to the Editor of the WP, Sameena Ahmed, responding to Mr. Bhatti’s assassination, wrote
The killing of PakistanMinoritiesMinister Shahbaz Bhatti by extremists [news story, March 3] is a loss for those of all faiths and countries, not just for Pakistan’s Christians and those trying to change Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws. Frequently, fear is used by those who wish to silence others, because they cannot win others over with reason, facts or logic.
Muslims everywhere, as well as all believers in peace and tolerance, must speak up against this crime and others like it — even if a perpetrator belongs to one’s “own group.” We must support and defend acts of peace and tolerance for all; otherwise one day it’s possible that your own group or cause will be violently targeted, too— an all-too-often-forgotten principle. -- Sameena Ahmed, Potomac Falls
While her call for Muslims everywhere to speak up against this crime is commendable, her argument for religious liberty as a group right is only half right. Religious liberty is an individual right, exercised intimately by a person based on the dictates of his or her conscience. It is a right that he can freely exercise even outside of and despite his ethnic affiliations. It is a right that is guaranteed by the principle of separation of church and state. As I have cited Prof. Harry Jaffa’s argument many times before, “By removing theological differences from the political arena, people could worship freely according to the dictates of their consciences, thereby promoting confidence and even friendship among citizens” (Harry Jaffa, “The American Founding as the Best Regime.”
There is a moral issue at stake here, too, that is perhaps deeper than the political argument above. While the Becket Fund (a nonprofit organization in DC that protects religious liberty of all faiths) argues that “blasphemy laws empower states against their citizens, protect ideas rather than individuals, and engender violence by condemning peaceful speech,” what the assassinations in Pakistan represent is a certain kind of moral indignation, of self-righteousness that moves its religious followers to kill or murder those who don’t share their beliefs, convinced that their action as morally justified. Jealous guardians of the tenets of their faith that they are, they believe that their faith is superior over those of the infidels. To them, murdering a nonbeliever is morally equivalent to defending the faith.
But what kind of god would approve such moral equivalence?
In a Letter to the Editor of the WP, Sameena Ahmed, responding to Mr. Bhatti’s assassination, wrote
The killing of PakistanMinoritiesMinister Shahbaz Bhatti by extremists [news story, March 3] is a loss for those of all faiths and countries, not just for Pakistan’s Christians and those trying to change Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws. Frequently, fear is used by those who wish to silence others, because they cannot win others over with reason, facts or logic.
Muslims everywhere, as well as all believers in peace and tolerance, must speak up against this crime and others like it — even if a perpetrator belongs to one’s “own group.” We must support and defend acts of peace and tolerance for all; otherwise one day it’s possible that your own group or cause will be violently targeted, too— an all-too-often-forgotten principle. -- Sameena Ahmed, Potomac Falls
While her call for Muslims everywhere to speak up against this crime is commendable, her argument for religious liberty as a group right is only half right. Religious liberty is an individual right, exercised intimately by a person based on the dictates of his or her conscience. It is a right that he can freely exercise even outside of and despite his ethnic affiliations. It is a right that is guaranteed by the principle of separation of church and state. As I have cited Prof. Harry Jaffa’s argument many times before, “By removing theological differences from the political arena, people could worship freely according to the dictates of their consciences, thereby promoting confidence and even friendship among citizens” (Harry Jaffa, “The American Founding as the Best Regime.”
There is a moral issue at stake here, too, that is perhaps deeper than the political argument above. While the Becket Fund (a nonprofit organization in DC that protects religious liberty of all faiths) argues that “blasphemy laws empower states against their citizens, protect ideas rather than individuals, and engender violence by condemning peaceful speech,” what the assassinations in Pakistan represent is a certain kind of moral indignation, of self-righteousness that moves its religious followers to kill or murder those who don’t share their beliefs, convinced that their action as morally justified. Jealous guardians of the tenets of their faith that they are, they believe that their faith is superior over those of the infidels. To them, murdering a nonbeliever is morally equivalent to defending the faith.
But what kind of god would approve such moral equivalence?
Mexico’s Calderon Says U.S. Policy Is Incoherent
Fred Hiatt’s Washington Post piece, “Promises to Keep,” and a follow-up editorial piece, “Mexico’s Bad Neighbor” (subtitled, As President Calderon points out, that would be the United States), published by the same paper the following day, describe President Felipe Calderon’s frustrations over inconsistencies in the US policy towards Mexico as both countries try to combat the scourge of a drug war that is alarmingly reaching a critical stage. Calderon enumerates the following inconsistencies: whether or not the US is going to legalize marijuana as Mexican drug production is driven by US demand; whether or not the US will do something to stop the flow of arms and ammunitions that bolster the cartels’ security forces; whether the package of assistance promised during the time of the Bush Administration will be fully disbursed.
I wonder what would come out of this visit. Will President Obama work on Calderon’s demands by immediately mobilizing divisions in various agencies of the government that deal with Mexico to work on these issues? It seems that the only government agency that is taking Mexico seriously is the DEA. Will the US military contemplate establishing some presence there, if security conditions warrant it? Will Obama mobilize the private sector to come up with alternatives that they can use to lure the drug cartels away from illegal drugs to products and services that could be equally profitable? Or will things revert back to the status quo?
I attended a short talk last week about the growing presence of the Chinese in Latin America. Whatever their intentions are, the Chinese and their Latin American overreach should serve as a good reminder to the US government that we do need to practice the virtue of neighborliness, especially with our neighbors down south. But Mexico, in particular, should be on the radar screen of our policy-makers. It is quite strategically important to the peace and stability of the United States. For our sake, Mexico cannot become a failed state.
I wonder what would come out of this visit. Will President Obama work on Calderon’s demands by immediately mobilizing divisions in various agencies of the government that deal with Mexico to work on these issues? It seems that the only government agency that is taking Mexico seriously is the DEA. Will the US military contemplate establishing some presence there, if security conditions warrant it? Will Obama mobilize the private sector to come up with alternatives that they can use to lure the drug cartels away from illegal drugs to products and services that could be equally profitable? Or will things revert back to the status quo?
I attended a short talk last week about the growing presence of the Chinese in Latin America. Whatever their intentions are, the Chinese and their Latin American overreach should serve as a good reminder to the US government that we do need to practice the virtue of neighborliness, especially with our neighbors down south. But Mexico, in particular, should be on the radar screen of our policy-makers. It is quite strategically important to the peace and stability of the United States. For our sake, Mexico cannot become a failed state.
The World’s Poor, the Good Life, and the Market
Socrates was not exactly referring to refrigerators and microwave ovens when he talked about the good life. But he would have approved of the great inventions that our civilization has produced, especially in science and technology. Human beings now have great tools with which to conquer the harsh forces of nature. Human living has been made a lot easier. And once the basic functions of human living are attended to, the life of the mind can then be nourished.
But this blog is not about political philosophy. It’s about economics.
When a poor farmer living in a remote village in India was interviewed by a market researcher about what new products he wanted to buy in the next six months, he said, “I want to buy a refrigerator, and my wife wants a microwave oven.” Imagine the implications!
In this article, “Marketers’ Next Frontier: Rural India,” market researchers have discovered a new frontier for the market. As they combed through the countryside to study “the consumption habits and aspirations of villagers,” their findings, collected over the past three years, “promise a new frontier that could transform the way domestic and foreign businesses look at the Indian market and could offer them hundreds of millions of potential consumers.”
If two-thirds of the world’s population are below poverty line, that’s 2/3 of the world’s untapped market. Talks about recession and overproduction of goods these days seem out of place in the context of these infinite possibilities. We just need good ideas, good rules informed by the rule of law, and honest enforcers of those rules to make this world a better place for everyone.
But this blog is not about political philosophy. It’s about economics.
When a poor farmer living in a remote village in India was interviewed by a market researcher about what new products he wanted to buy in the next six months, he said, “I want to buy a refrigerator, and my wife wants a microwave oven.” Imagine the implications!
In this article, “Marketers’ Next Frontier: Rural India,” market researchers have discovered a new frontier for the market. As they combed through the countryside to study “the consumption habits and aspirations of villagers,” their findings, collected over the past three years, “promise a new frontier that could transform the way domestic and foreign businesses look at the Indian market and could offer them hundreds of millions of potential consumers.”
If two-thirds of the world’s population are below poverty line, that’s 2/3 of the world’s untapped market. Talks about recession and overproduction of goods these days seem out of place in the context of these infinite possibilities. We just need good ideas, good rules informed by the rule of law, and honest enforcers of those rules to make this world a better place for everyone.
Libya's Civil War
It looks like there is a full-blown civil war unfolding in Libya, which is cause for both despair and elation. Weekend headlines indicate that the rebels are having being setbacks from Qaddafi’s powerful arsenals. To date, the opposition-held city of Zawiya, where Libya’s largest oil refineries are located, suffered the fiercest attack. But it is also a hopeful moment when a people find their voice and demand for their rights and liberties.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that this civil war might turn out to be a long and protracted war, which is to be expected inasmuch as the security forces surrounding Qaddafi have remained loyal to him. But to put things in perspective, two weeks ago, Qaddafi was still deeply entrenched in power. Two weeks later, his regime has been put on notice and is merely surviving. As an opposition spokesman said after the fierce attack on the city of Zawiya, “We are still in the square . . . Zawiya has not fallen.”
The US and the rest of the international community must find a way to get to Libya’s freedom fighters the urgent support that will help put to an end the excesses of a tyrannical regime. Their cause is just, and they deserve the kind of freedom that we living in a free society enjoy.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that this civil war might turn out to be a long and protracted war, which is to be expected inasmuch as the security forces surrounding Qaddafi have remained loyal to him. But to put things in perspective, two weeks ago, Qaddafi was still deeply entrenched in power. Two weeks later, his regime has been put on notice and is merely surviving. As an opposition spokesman said after the fierce attack on the city of Zawiya, “We are still in the square . . . Zawiya has not fallen.”
The US and the rest of the international community must find a way to get to Libya’s freedom fighters the urgent support that will help put to an end the excesses of a tyrannical regime. Their cause is just, and they deserve the kind of freedom that we living in a free society enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)