Peace Power

This morning started off rather rough.  At about 8:20 I made the novel discovery that my car wouldn't start- and I had to give a presentation in my Honors "Great Ideas of the East" class at 9.  The presentation is 10% of my grade, and since this is a Tuesday-Thursday class today was the last day of class, meaning I could in no way postpone the presentation.  Fortunately I have a wonderful girlfriend who can pick me up and drive me to school even on her day off- thanks again Jo Anne!

The presentation went in many ways like most my presentations go, meaning I belatedly prepared for it the day and morning before, which has its advantages and disadvantages.  The main advantage is that the material I have prepared is fresh in my head- the disadvantage being that I don't have much material.  Fortunately the topic was on a paper I had written about Iran, which is something I have become mildly knowledgeable in over the past few months on account of my internship at Omid for Iran.  I would never say I'm an "expert" at anything I talk about though- at best I'm a relatively-well informed person with what I hope are helpful insights, but I'll let you be the judge of that.

So anyway- the paper was about U.S.-Iran relations and how they have built up to the sort of odd relationship we have with Iran today.  The essay documents Iran's Constitutional Revolution, the CIA overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq, and of course the Islamic Revolution.  I won't go into detail on these three, but the point of their reference is how they relate to the current climate of our relationship with Iran and the strategies we should pursue in light of the current protests going on in Iran, which many have dubbed "The Green Revolution."  My argument was that the United States needs to frame its policy with Iran in a way that human rights of the Iranian people takes precedence, instead of overbearing fear of the nuclear program which only leads to negative uses of power, which in turn leads to an ideological strengthening of Iran's regime.

Following my presentation, I basically got laughed at by a Chinese girl in our class who asked me, "Why do you Americans think you need to get involved in these sorts of things?  What do they have to do with you?"

This is a difficult question which has no simple answer.  How do these things relate to us?  Political movements in Iran, genocide in Darfur, war in the Congo, ethnic cleansing in Burma, or almost any other event or problem always seem so isolated to us in the United States.  Why should they matter to us, and do we have a responsibility to act?

The answer to these questions depends, primarily, on your foreign policy view and understanding of the role of the United States globally.  Isolationists would say no, we have no dire interest in these nations and have no reason to get involved.  Neo-conservatives would say yes, and that the best way to solve these problems is to project our military might: the most powerful in history and clearly the current hegemon- utilizing roughly half of the world's military spending.  Staunch liberals would advocate the furtherance of complex interdependence- the creation of global institutions for organization and peace, and multi-lateral fronts to condemn acts such as these, but with minimal military intervention.

As a fairly liberal person, I'll say right now I have a clear bias towards the institutional end of things, but my worldview has a slight twist.  I would say that yes, as the unipolar power in the world the United States has a responsibility to shape the world in a positive image, which means we do have a responsibility to people living under oppressive governments.  That said, the United States by no means has the resources to go on a global crusade to "bring democracy" to these people or to deploy combat forces in dozens of countries.  The United States has seen the consequences of imperium in Iraq and Afghanistan- two bleeding wounds in the Leviathan. 

But the United States does have the resources to globally pursue a very effective strategy- Peace.

Peaceful movements in the 20th and 21st centuries are an interesting phenomenon unparalleled in history.  In addition to Gandhi's movement in India, in the past 23 years 8 brutal governments from every corner of the world have fallen to peaceful movements.  That's an average of 1 government every 3 years taken down by people with no tanks, no guns, no bombs, and no bullets, just peace power.

But how does peaceful power work?  I can't describe an exact formula because every situation is different, but I do notice a basic relative pattern.  These movements begin internally- first on a small, grassroots type scale, but gain momentum over time.  Once a certain threshold for internal momentum is reached, the movement begins getting noticed internationally, and foreign nations join in the fray, albeit in a mostly symbolic role- of solidarity.  Once a certain threshold of solidarity is reached, the internal movement amasses a deal of legitimacy, and ultimately becomes a popular, peaceful, "revolution." 

To name a few examples- in India, Gandhi's movement was at first a minority affair, but grew to a size and scope that had even British nationals on the side of his people.  Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for years in South Africa, but solidarity movements worldwide helped end apartheid, and South Africa became a model democracy on the African continent.  I'm sure there could be found some exceptions, but I do believe that as a basic rule this pattern holds true.  Democratic changes begin as minor movements, but are solidified with global consent and solidarity.

I believe this role- a supporting role rather than outright leadership- is the role America should take in some (but not all) crises, particularly with internal national movements.  In regards to brutal governments that have no such political upheaval, the United States should take a more firm stance, depending on the situation, but for the most part the United States should work multilaterally.  Working from the outside in a supporting role, gathering support from other nations, and so on and so forth.  Allowing other nations to take the lead (or other peoples, as is the case in Iran) will show the world that the United States isn't the "bully" who abuses power, as it is often made out to be.  Taking a supporting role will allow the United States to utilize its soft power- the ability to gather strength through the popularity of our ideals, rather than the brute force of military might.  Utilizing soft power in our foreign policy will be key for developing U.S. legitimacy in the future.

I don't advocate a complete freeze on our military power- there are certainly times where it is necessary and appropriate.  But soft power- taking a supportive role and backing up national movements with solidarity- is an under appreciated use of power which I believe has a great deal of merit.  We must couple our power with a generosity of spirit- the world deserves no less.