The Enduring Leader

Democracy and unfettered market capitalism have transformed international politics. With the strengthening of international institutions facilitating norms in the global political system, each state, no matter its political ideology, is susceptible to domestic political pressures. Citizens of nations are asserting their right to fair governance, freedom, and survival. While democracy is still an experimental project, it proves to be the most utilitarian option this world has to offer.

Myanmar is the latest example of a nation’s people rising together to fight governmental tyranny and oppression. September’s display of protests, led by thousands of Buddhist monks, are strong signs of revolutionary tendencies to overthrow the military junta that has controlled this nation-state for over four decades.

The pro-democracy movement has been alive in Burma for quite some time. The only problem is the military’s ruthless suppression of its own people and the spread of ideas has limited the influence of democratic principles. But, if we have learned anything from the far-reaching social revolutions in both Latin America and Eastern Europe, it is that ideals not only matter, but are crucial. With strong centralized leadership able to mobilize grassroots sectors toward popular rebellion, the political apparatus can be systematically dismantled and replaced with a newfound republic that serve the interests of its citizens while maintaining social order.

In the early 1990’s it looked as if Myanmar achieved the hopes of its people. Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, daughter of Aung San, the revolutionary hero during Burma’s break from colonialism and imperialism with Britain, won the democratic parliamentary elections to become Prime Minister, a true watershed moment for this impoverished Southeast Asian nation. But, almost as swift as the victory for the democratic movement came the nullification of its ruling mandate and the re-institutionalization of the military coup.

A dramatic turn of events occurred this past August. A decision by the military government to sharply raise fuel prices led to rounds of street protests in the capital, Yangon. The situation turned very serious when large number’s of the countries monks, who are widely revered, joined in.

Some of the monks have chanted “Release Suu Kyi” as they have demonstrated in the streets. On Sept. 23d over 100,000 joined in processions led by monks, according to an estimate by The Associated Press. About 500 of the monks marched to the gate of Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi’s home where she greeted them -- the first time she had been seen in public for four years. The government responded the next day by warning senior Buddhist clerics of a crackdown if the monks were not reined in.

Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, has been under house arrest for most of the time since then. Nevertheless she remains a martyr and rallying symbol for the population. It is precisely this aspect that fuels and strengthens the possibility for a successful popular uprising. Even in detention, with her words virtually silenced, she is still the symbol for consciousness, egalitarianism, and nonviolent resistance. Like Gandhi and Mandela before her, she has suffered greatly, but her calls for democracy have not gone unheard. In one of her landmark speeches entitled “Freedom from Fear”, she notes, “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

The intellectual underpinnings of her adapted philosophy of nonviolent resistance have garnered international attention and acclaim. Following her acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, she donated the $1.3 million award to developing her nation’s ability to educate and provide adequate health care services for its people. In sharp contrast to the military junta, who see the subversion of the Burmese people as necessary and sufficient for maintaining its grip on power, Suu Kyi sees the empowerment of all social groups in a participatory democratic process as integral to her nation’s survival.

The international outcry for her release in recent years has been nothing short of spectacular. Democratic leaders, intellectuals, and institutions from every part of the globe have voiced their dismay and pursued initiatives to secure her release, but to little avail. This is why the recent domestic events may be the best opportunity for Burma to secure its peaceful future.

The string of milestones in Pakistan is a testament to the power of a social revolution from the inside, and we may very well see similar events in Myanmar. In Pakistan, massive protests and civilian riots in the major cities such as Karachi have forced the military government to loosen its grip on the nation.

According to Josef Silverstein, an expert on Myanmar at Rutgers University, "She has become the only leader that the Burmese people have acknowledged since the death of her father in 1947. I would add that she has in every way possible emulated what her father stood for, which was for the right of the people to govern themselves and to have a free and democratic country."

In order for the Burmese revolution to maintain its levels of citizen mobilization and survive, it is critical to facilitate the release of Suu Kyi. To overthrow the military government, the revolutionary actors must be potent and strategically well organized. Vertical integration may prove to be a key factor. In this situation, all sectors of society work together in an attempt to co-opt the nation and eventually cause the demise of the illegitimate leadership. Suu Kyi serves as the symbolic glue, binding her deprived peoples together with an overarching purpose: to achieve freedom for themselves and posterity.

Pressure from the domestic arena can only go so far. The United States, the European Union and other nations have responded to repression in Myanmar with economic penalties that have done little to affect its leadership. Myanmar's giant neighbors, China and India, with several other Asian nations, offer it an economic lifeline. President Bush’s significant speech denouncing the military junta at the UN General Assembly last week is a significant step in the right direction. Convincing other Asian leaders on the importance to allow the Burmese people assert their right to self-determination will effectively weaken the brutal and chaotic rule of the military dictatorship.

More and more, the democratic opposition to military rule in Myanmar is personified by one isolated and determined woman. This woman will not bend and will not break.

A Domestic Solution for Iraq

These past two weeks have marked a new stage in the Iraqi war. First, the Independent Commission on Iraqi Security Forces published its report. Chaired by retired General James Jones, the panel offered a bleak view of the readiness of Iraq’s army and police in taking over security obligations. The Commission estimates that it will take at least a year before American-led forces can scale back its critical leadership role. Second, and most significant, are the testimonies given last week by Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus. While not surprising to everyone involved, their speeches nonetheless let all Americans know that our military presence in Iraq will be prolonged for well after President Bush leaves office. While American forces are likely to be depleted to 130,000 by next July (pre-surge levels), our military’s cemented role remains very unclear. According to Petraeus, “Our experience in Iraq has repeatedly shown that projecting too far into the future is not just difficult, it can be misleading and even hazardous.”

With such high anticipation for these testimonies, is it justifiable that not even the most eminent generals and civilian leaders involved in the conflict have any answers? The existence of this ambivalence is a testament to just how chaotic this conflict has become.

Despite marginal military progress being made through the targeted surge in some of the most violent regions like Diyala and Anbar provinces, there is zero success in forming a functional Iraqi government. Expedient political and military solutions are not mutually exclusive. If anything, strengthening this loose coalition of militias, led by a seemingly disorganized Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, will breathe fresh air into achieving sectarian reconciliation and political progress.

Maliki, once heralded by Bush as “the right guy for Iraq”, has been consistently disappointing in previous weeks. Recent cabinet defections and the withdrawal of the Allawi-led secular political alliance, Iraqiya, are huge blows to the Iraqi government’s credibility. Even more depressing, this internal factionalism is serving to sever any prospects for compromise. Allawi is now working to establish a civil opposition force, telling Wolf Blitzer on CNN’s Late Edition that he has ''lost faith in the capability of the current government in salvaging the country and moving forward.''

Maliki’s work in Iraq should not come with a blank check. Only when he realizes his expendability will we see a reduction in ethnic factionalism amongst his country and his dislocated cabinet. Bush must start making some smart moves and fast. Deposing Maliki will inch us closer to establishing a stable political solution. Bush’s national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, recently wrote in a private memo, “The reality on the streets suggests Maliki is either ignorant of what’s going on, misrepresenting his intentions or that his capabilities are not yet sufficient.” Regardless of Maliki’s misgivings, Bush’s open criticism of the current Iraqi regime may just be a strategic maneuver to push the White House firmly back into the center of the Iraq debate.

With Maliki’s ouster unlikely to occur, we need to focus on other options at hand. The prospect for an American military solution in the region is possible, but will only occur with Sunni reconciliation. Anbar is a good example of these benefits: tribal leaders and Sunni militia fighters have joined U.S. forces to rid their respective territories of terrorist threats.

But, this is not even close to enough, especially when considering that while Al Qaeda may be unpopular in Anbar, Americans fair just as bad. Gary Langer of ABC News Polling writes in The New York Times, “Withdrawal timetable aside, every Anbar respondent in our survey opposed the presence of American forces in Iraq — 69 percent ‘strongly’ so. Every Anbar respondent called attacks on coalition forces ‘acceptable,’ far more than anywhere else in the country. All called the United States-led invasion wrong, including 68 percent who called it ‘absolutely wrong.’ No wonder: Anbar, in western Iraq, is almost entirely populated by Sunni Arabs, long protected by Saddam Hussein and dispossessed by his overthrow.”

Unitary American involvement is not the solution. It’s time to give the Iraqis back their land, their freedom, and their ideals. This can still be accomplished with U.S. ground forces playing auxiliary roles wherever possible. Petraeus and his subordinates must start finding ways to prop up tribal leaders and make them responsive to their own peoples. Reengaging strong provincial leadership within the periphery will establish and strengthen Iraqi confidence in the democratic process.

The American military and Iraqi leaders are best served by continuing the training protocols of the ISF. Anthony Cordesman, one of the leading experts on the Iraq war and senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a DC-based foreign policy think-tank, remains positive, noting that “ISF development can succeed in many areas if the US is patient, willing to put in years of further effort, and realistic in its goals and efforts.” Everyone must understand that providing stability in Iraq is contingent on effectively dealing with the strong nationalist overtones and religious underpinnings of its people. The ISF is no different. Cordesman notes that there are “truly national elements in virtually every part of the Iraqi security structure, many that act with great courage and integrity. Many, particularly in the Iraqi Army, are promising if -- and only if -- Iraq can achieve the level of political accommodation/conciliation that can hold the various sectarian and mixed areas together.”

To give the ISF the ability to command security obligations, the coalition must address two overriding factors: the sectarian power struggle within the ISF itself, and the lack of a cohesive U.S. plan for equipping the Iraqi military with the vision to pursue its work independently. First, a balance must be struck within the already pro Shiite character of the security forces. If Shiite and Kurdish power are to develop at the expense of the Sunnis, increasingly potent sectarian and ethnic power struggles can erupt. Second, the U.S. must strategically look beyond counterinsurgency operations to create forces capable of defending the country without the aid of coalition forces. One of the most pronounced flaws in current military strategy is the lack of foresight in creating an affordable and realistic plan for replacing U.S. military capabilities, intelligence, and sustainability.

The U.S. has strong ethical and moral obligations to the Iraqi people. This includes adequately getting its government and its citizens on their feet with the ability to autonomously rule as a sovereign nation-state. The failure to enact contingency plans for nation-building and stability operations following Saddam’s removal coupled with the ineffective organization of Iraqi security forces are only two badly incurred mistakes.

Looking to the future, the U.S. must first continue its efforts to push Iraq’s leaders toward political compromise and conciliation and second, force United Nations sanctioned talks that bring all of the regional powers to the negotiating table. Iraq is but a reflection of the wider Middle East dilemma we face today.

While President Bush and General Petraeus may see “bottom-up progress”, there is no illusion as to how far away we actually are from leaving Iraq with dignity.

The Last Chance

Last month, sitting at a café in Freetown, Sierra Leone, I had an interesting conversation with a former Oxford professor of African politics. While discussing the historic importance of the Sierra Leone presidential elections, the professor made a striking, desultory remark: "The symbol of America is no longer the Statue of Liberty. It is Guantanamo." At the time I didn't know what to make of the comment, choosing not to reply. Being an American and having travelled to so many places in the past few years, I make a concerted effort never to engage in talks about the Bush presidency’s foreign policy. I garnered from previous experiences that expressing your mind on this subject, at least internationally, can get you in some dangerous situations, especially at unforgiving watering holes.

Upon returning to the States, I gave his view some real thought. I tried to justify to myself that our misadventure in Iraq is not the be all and end all for America; tangible progress, military or political, could reverse this trend. My conscience told me otherwise. Still today, I question whether hubris has shattered America's global image so extensively that it is beyond repair.

A recent study published by The Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) attests to this notion. The question asked whether the U.S. is having a positive or negative influence on the world. The results were quite astonishing: of the 26 countries polled, 20 believe the U.S. is having a negative effect on global affairs. The United States comes only second to North Korea in the ratings list. According to Dr. Steven Kull, Director of PIPA, “This reaction cannot simply be dismissed as something necessarily engendered by a powerful and rich country. The numbers we are seeing today are the lowest numbers that have ever been recorded.”

We cannot know what the future has in store. The increasing role of public opinion in international affairs, especially in regards to the sustainability of democracy, holds major salience in today’s evolving societies. But, our government can start right now by making concerted efforts to rectify our current ignominious global standing, paving the way for the next president to pursue amiable policies that foster international partnerships rather than destroying them. A new American leadership must speak to a higher moral value and emphasize international consensus. Effective solutions to our current global emergencies are imperative and America has the resources and the leadership potential to address them. If we reengage with our allies, our traditions, and most importantly, our own people, we can reengage with humanity and the liberal democratic ideal.

First, Washington politicians must stop with their partisan squabbling. The time for that is over. It is time to mobilize and join international actors on solving crises that threaten our very survival. Iraq must remain on the agenda, that is a given. But, it is not prudent, nor logical to believe that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a viable option. Doing so would push the country into further upheaval. With no functioning central government in Iraq, nor conciliation amongst warring Sunni factions, the prospects for peace in the Middle East would be disastrous.

In this case, we must also focus on a wider Middle East solution with special attention paid to the Iranians. They may hold a key to stabilizing Iraq. Emphasizing a quid-pro-quo approach on the nuclear dilemma while pursuing a cohesive diplomatic strategy to contain Islamic fascism in the greater region may provide favorable results. We must let Tehran know that meddling in Iraqi affairs is unacceptable.

Second, to President Bush’s credit, he has made some monumental strides in the area of foreign and humanitarian assistance, most notably in regards to Africa. Being the neoconservative that he is, it is positive to see that he has a genuine care for the plight of Africa’s people. Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times notes three areas of action. The first is Pepfar, the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief that was created earlier this year. This ambitious project seeks to save over 12 million lives. The second foreign aid program is the Millennium Challenge Account, which will reward states practicing good governance with priority loans. It would be smart to emphasize World Bank initiatives on this one. Now that Robert Zoellick heads the institution, idealism can give way to strong management and efficiency. Finally, Mr. Kristof notes that “President Bush has begun to focus attention and funds on malaria, which kills more than 1 million people a year in poor countries and imposes a huge economic burden on Africa in particular.” Continued humanitarian intervention in Africa is not a choice, it’s a necessity.

Darfur is also a pressing issue. While the president was initially slow to react, recent actions directed at al-Bashir’s Khartoum government illustrate that the United States will no longer tolerate actions of genocide. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon’s recent visit to Sudan and other African states has yielded some powerful prospects towards the cessation of the conflict. But, we have seen similar scenarios in the past: negotiations begin and then wither before any substantive dialogue can occur.

China is a contributor to the conflict, providing much of the revenue (through oil sales) that arm the janjaweed (state-sponsored death squads). Secretary Rice must be forceful in her use of aggressive diplomacy with the Chinese government and insist it cease its trading relations with Sudan, no matter how lucrative, for the sake of global peace.

Finally, to restore American credibility and legitimacy in the world, we must actively work towards convincing other states to act tough in battling global warming and climate change. Working together with the French and the Germans in conjunction with the U.N., we can pursue alternative policies that work to reduce our global dependence on oil and emphasize the use of nuclear energy. In effect, we also diminish the strategic power autocratic regimes such as Iran, Venezuela, and to an extent Russia, have on global politics and dictating international commodity markets. With decreased oil revenues, these nations have no choice but to adhere to international norms.

This may be our last chance. President Bush has the opportunity to alter his legacy and America’s future in his waning months in office. Whether he will take advantage of this is a different story.