Sympathy for "Fence Sitters"

I had something of a revelation today.

A question World English Literature final exam today asked me what I thought "should" be done about the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. Attached to the essay was a brief editorial written by John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In it, Bolton argued (correctly, as far as I understand international law) that action through the International Criminal Court is an tremendously poor way to bring Sudanese President Bashir to justice and to save the Darfuris, because such action is outside the scope of it's mandate. Suffice it to say that the I.C.C. does not have to power to indite members who are not signatory to its treaty, and rather than violate international law and state sovereignty, the world should seek to empower the Sudanese themselves to deal with Bashir.

This seemed to me, as I first started writing my response, to be a somewhat callous solution to the problem. Anyone who has heard or seen anything of the brutal, mass killing of the Darfuris in the west of Sudan know that nothing short of full-scale military intervention can prevent the janjeweed - backed by the Sudanese army - from slaughtering every single indigenous African darfuri down to the last burned village. To "respect state sovereignty" in this matter essentially amounts to sacrificing the Darfuris to their fate... another genocide in Africa to hang around the world community's shoulders.

But as I weighed the alternative option of armed intervention, I realized that the alternative that it represented casts shadows equally as dark. Violating international law, even to bring an evil man to justice and save a desperate people, sets a dangerous precedent in international law. Wasn't this how President Bush justified the Iraq war after it had been made clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found? Doesn't the continual disregard for international codes of conduct and state sovereignty weaken and destroy central pillar supporting our world institutions in the first place? If they fail, the undeniable truth is that many more people whom the U.N. protects and helps will also suffer, the Darfuris not the least of all.

It looks as though the crisis in Darfur is one of the "dirty hands" scenarios that my philosophy professor warned me about - one in which those in power must make a decision that invariably lays some sort of moral responsibility at their feet.

Is justice truly justice if adherence to law means that bad men go free and good people die? Is breaking the law justified if the protection granted by the rule of law is dissipated? To say that international law is flawed doesn't do much to help find an answer to the problem. The law has already failed - it must be revised, but that is a question for tomorrow. Today's question must be answered first.

As I wrote in my paper, the daily struggle of a government major is to avoid becoming one of Ayn Rand's hated "Fence Sitters" - people who are unable to make a bad decision and end up paralyzed, unable to make any meaningful choice whatsoever. Seeing all sides of an issue is one thing. Making a decision at the end of the day is quite another. Ultimately we must choose, because apathy is a choice far worse than either alternative. I feel more sympathy for Bush now, and really, for any government figure that is forced to make such a terrible decision. Perhaps that is the fundamental aspect of international relations - Obama certainly says that few decisions that make it to his desk are easy ones.

I penned in my conclusion that, since we must choose, perhaps we choose the answer that seems to help the most people, the soonest. If only to sleep better at night, we should make the choice that allows these poor victims of atrocity to survive the day. I think I might rest easier with my humanity intact, knowing that I had made a decision to help real people, now, in front of me, rather than theoretical people over the next hill.

Indie Games meet Global Politics

I'm always surprised when my two biggest interests, international conflict resolution and video games, collide. Usually the result is some sort of World War 2 first-person-shooter, which is fun but generally fails to actually, you know, promote international conflict resolution.

I've just ran across an independent game that seems to take a different take on the idea. It's called Storytron: Balance of Power in the 21st century. In it, you play an American leader following 9-11 trying to set the world right.

Being a hippie who hates America and who bathes in flowers, I immediately set about trying to improve America's relations with the Middle East. As a first step, I humbly asked Israel to recognize Palestine and to remove its settlements in the West Bank. Imagine my shock when Israel refused, even after I went and brought the EU to the table, and India. Even after I offered some trade agreements and some moderate political prodding, my efforts to promote a just world were rebuffed.

So, just to see what would happen, I clicked the "nuke Israel" button.

I quickly learned that it is a bad idea to nuke Israel. My international standing dropped like a rock. I was uniformly condemned by my European allies, who rallied behind - get this - Kim Jung Il of North Korea to pass a censure vote against America in the United Nations. On the plus side, however, what was left of Israel did end up recognizing Palestine. I decided to retire in infamy and lick my wounds on the political sidelines. To the right is my ending scorecard, with American power in the world ultimately dropping slightly, and American credibility in the world non-existent. I wonder if this is how Bush felt leaving office...

I had a bit of fun with this game putting my political ideology to the test. If anything this game has definitely illustrated that the non-violent course of action is a very difficult one. I plan to try a few more times and see if I can't do it all right.

In all seriousness - I would never accept a nuclear option in real life - I think this game presents some interesting opportunities to challenge our beloved mindsets. Everyone who has an opinion about how we should have handled the world following 9/11, please check out the link above.

On a side note, I can't help but underline how important it is that it was a game that caused me to think about my own ideology. Games aren't just Super Mario Brothers, folks... they sometimes present complex and difficult themes, in ways that simple stories or movies can't. I've been mining the Indie Game scene, and I can say for absolute certain that games like these are not uncommon phenomena. They're out there, and they deserve recognition.

Iran and the US - On the Path to Renewed Relations?

Despite yesterday's New York Times article declaring that "Iran's Supreme Leader Rebuffs Obama", I think there are some encouraging signs that relations between Iran and the US are going to get better.

Throughout his campaign for the Presidency, Barack Obama maintained a unique perspective on what the United State's relations with Iran should be. While many disagreed with President Bush's decision to dub Iran a member of "The Axis of Evil," there were few mainstream politicians who openly advocated the renewal of direct diplomatic negotiations with Iran, which had been terminated after the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979. As a result, Obama's statement that as President he would be open to direct talks with Iranian leaders, without pre-conditions, became debate point during the primary and general campaigns. It was one of the reasons I first became attracted to him as a candidate.

The shift in White House diplomatic rhetoric became apparent not long after his inauguration. Most of the news world was surprised when Obama selected Al Arabiya, an Arabic news station, to conduct his first video interview after the inauguration. When asked about Iran, he maintained the stance of the previous administration in that the United States did not look favorably upon a nuclear weapon-armed Iran, but he also injected a note of conciliatory dialogue.

"Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us."

Al Arabiya interview - 26/01/09
A full transcript of the interview can be found here.

This week the White House released a video on the beginning the Iranian holiday of Nowruz, which marks the beginning of spring and the new year. The message heavily emphasized a language of respect for the Iranian history and culture.

Of course, a rhetoric of respect on one side does not mean that the diplomatic issues that have divided the US and Iran are going to somehow resolve themselves. For one thing, Iranian leaders themselves have been fairly reticent in their response to the message. President Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Khamenei both pointed out in this week that US and US engineered sanctions against Iran remain in place, preventing the trade of many goods that would be extremely beneficial to Iran's economy. Khamenei, before a crowd of ten thousand in the city of Mashaad, declared that “They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice,” and, unless you count the American invitation of Iran to a panel on Afghanistan, he's right. While its rhetoric has shifted substantially, White House policy towards is essentially unchanged in these first few weeks of the Obama Administration.

Then again, this is how things get started.

In his speech Khamenei also addressed the American nation saying, “should you change, our behavior will change, too.” One way to look at this situation is to see it as a mirror of the last 30 years of policy in which each side refused to budge until the other backed down. But I choose to emphasize, with the coming of a new regime, the possibility that United States is on the verge of a paradigm shift. Obama's foreign policy has always projected itself as much more conciliatory than its predecessor's - a magnanimous gesture such as reducing sanctions, or suggesting the establishment of embassies, is very much in keeping with the political image Obama has generated for himself thus far.

Ultimately, I am aware that Obama has yet to radically evolve the way the United States and Iran interact, and I'm conscious that he probably will be unable make a significant change until after the economic crisis at home has been resolved. But, in seeing all the political groundwork-laying work that the Obama administration has performed, I am fairly "hopeful" that there will be an evolution in the way the White House does international relations. Obama has talked the talk - now let's see the "change" he intends to bring to American Foreign Policy.