First Days in Oakland/Berkeley

It has only been a few days since I’ve arrived in Berkeley to work on my friend’s documentary, Redemption, but I sincerely feel as though I’ve made the right decision to come here.  Not for any monetary reason (were it not for the generosity of my hosts, I would barely make enough money to scrape by here) but more fundamentally for the purpose of a good challenge, and a good story to be discovered.

Redemption tells the story of Oakland’s recyclers: members of an economic underclass who survive by redeeming countless bottles, cans, bits of metal, and other goods at local recycling facilities.  In our case, the facility in question is Alliance Metals.  If you didn’t know what you were looking for, you probably wouldn’t even notice it if you drove by its location in Dogtown.  Were it not for the ever-ubiquitous amounts of stolen shopping carts rolling to its gates, it probably would never be noticed.  

Amir noticed.  He’s the kind of guy who notices everything.  Every story, every person has something special to offer.  And he doesn’t just say stuff like that, he genuinely lives it.  Yesterday, we visited the recycling center for what was only my second time.  By happenstance, we arrived just as Miss K, a friend of Amir’s was finishing up her route for the day and trading in the recyclables she had collected.  Covered in filth, and with the general air of poverty around her, most people would brush off types like Miss K, but not Amir.  He gave her a big hug, and summarily introduced me to her.

He invited her to lunch, and we resolved to eat at a small Korean restaurant on Telegraph Avenue (she is originally from Seoul).  Miss K and I stepped out of the car a bit earlier than Amir, who was fumbling around with his keys and wallet in the car.  As Miss K walked into the restaurant and asked for a seat, the greeter told her she would have to wait.  Only moments later, as Amir and I stepped in, we were immediately offered a seat that was clearly vacant.  

The poor are invisible to us, because we do not want to see them.

Is it fear that leads us to stick our noses up at people in such a way?  Is it shame?  Or is it something else?  Does Miss K have the air of a bum or a drunkard about her, which leads us to refuse her service or our time?

When you get to know Miss K, she really is as personable as anyone else.  She makes small talk and asks questions about you just like any stranger would.  The only stark and obvious difference is her extreme poverty.  Miss K is old (nearing 60) but she has a certain resilience about her, a certain dignity, a certain beauty.  She is a sweetheart.  She is diminutive, but strong.  She has a cute smile.  

But would you have seen her?

Regrettably, I must admit to myself that, were it not for this experience, I wouldn’t have.  I would have passed her on the streets.  I would have never known anything about her story.  It’s hard to hear every story, or to make time for everyone, but perhaps even a smile and a “good morning” would have meant something.

I’m beginning to notice things out here I never could have possibly noticed had I stayed at home.  As an outsider to Oakland and Berkeley, I can’t say that I understand it yet, let alone that I know how to fix it or even address it.  This place is fraught with urban blight, cycles of poverty and injustice, and countless other issues to be sure.  Yet, at the same time, there is a wealth of spirit and energy just waiting to be cultivated.  Sometimes it hides, and other times it emerges from the ether, in the form of Miss K’s contagious smile.  I am beginning to sense this spirit.  I hope to embrace it and define it, at least a piece of it.

I am where I am meant to be, and I look forward to the new adventure each day brings.

Follow @zstickney

A Strange Crossroads

I seem to be at some sort of really strange crossroads.  In parts of my day, I feel gripped by a state of intense apathy, searching for anything to escape the monotony of what I've been doing for ages.  In other parts, though, I am ensconced in an even more intense passion for everything around me; every sound, taste, touch, and sensation is amplified, and I feel as though a muse has put the very light of the Gods into my soul, and that my every action and utterance will produce seeds that edify and flower as I walk through the garden of my life.

These sensations are, to understate, fairly distinct.  And, strangely, they seem to originate from the same place: my collegiate experience over the last 4 years.

On the side of apathy, I feel tired of doing some of the same routines over and over.  I have written pages of meaningless work for many different professors, proving that I have the ability to write coherently and that I understand the material I've just read.  I have sat in on lectures concerning the same theories, the same ideologies, the same general difficulties of the years ahead.  I have poured through the busywork and have re-proven the basic competencies I thought I had shown mastery of in high school.  Yet, here I am, in my final semester, proving many of these same basic skills again.

Yet, on the opposite end of this spectrum, I have discovered incredible things about myself.  I found a love of international politics, and a desire to leave the world a better place than I found it.  I discovered student activism, which has been the hallmark of my time at university.  I found philosophy, and with it the treasure of a million unique ideas I'm only beginning to understand.  I found physics and chemistry, the sciences trying to understand the complex machinery of our world, and I found that the knowledge I thought I had is miniscule and in need of deep expansion.  I found poetry.  I even found love, real love, in the strangest of places and the furthest distance, but learned that such barriers are meaningless when surmounted by intense conviction, longing, mutual trust and purity of heart.

These final few months, despite my strange relationship with apathy and passion, I feel no ambivalence about moving on.  This chapter, as glorious as it was, is merely a prelude to the next story, which I intend to make as special, as unique, and as sincere in its passions as was my previous one, if not more so.  I indeed feel apathy for many of my tasks, but I also still feel the hunger for further knowledge, and the confidence in myself that I can bring big plans to fruition.

So, as this chapter closes, I'd like to pay tribute to everything that it was for me, and to offer a sincere hope that my actions here were for the better, and that any damage I may have caused along this path may in time be healed and overgrown with new joys.  I won't forget this time, and I won't forget those who sacrificed for me, or believed in me, and on the non-believers I wish no ill fortune, because I know that theirs is a part of the larger story as well.  The story that knows of no difference, and holds not to degrees or measures, but rather to the fullness and beauty of itself, which is eternal and unrelenting. 

Thank you, everyone, for allowing me to play my part.

Whisper in a Gale

My life may be a whisper
in a gale, but those same
winds that silence me will
carry my message farther
than any shout ever could.

-Zach Stickney

Bad Science

Political Scientists often get a bad rap from the “hard” sciences of the physical world – chemists, physicists, geologists, or what have you – who deal in sciences where measurements and units of analysis are fairly consistent and well defined.  They say there is nothing scientific about what we do because we deal primarily in seemingly unscientific variables which are heavily value-based and inconsistent.  Whereas something like the mineral compounds of a certain rock or metal will always be objective and constant, something like the approval ratings of a president or what to do over a hot topic like abortion will always be subjective, conflicting and value-laden.  In this light, why would we even call political science a science at all?

Though political science is certainly incompatible with the natural sciences in many ways, the truth is that political science is an incredibly useful tool for understanding the most unpredictable variable we as a species have yet encountered – ourselves.  Political science gives us a means to qualify and quantify a myriad of issues that concern the day-to-day lives of a great deal of people.  It helps us find the policies that work and don’t work.  It helps us identify the core problems in our communities.  It helps us prescribe, rather than simply describe, means to build strong institutions, fight corruption, and provide for stable governance.  And, believe it or not, political science even has its own “scientific method” when dealing with issues that are prescriptive in nature.

The problem with political science, then, lies not in the science itself.  Rather, the problem with political science lies in the “Bad Science” approaches many would-be political scientists take.  It is important to note that, when I mention political scientists in this instance, I am not restricting my view only to professional political scientists and politicians.  Instead, I am referring to any individual who is involved in a political system, which may very well include every person in the world.  The reason I refer to political scientists in this way is by virtue of the sheer pervasiveness of the field of political science.  Even individuals who have never voted, never intend to vote, and know literally nothing about their own government and political system are indeed actors in their respective political spheres, and ergo can be considered political scientists of sorts (albeit horrible ones).

These “bad scientists,” which I fear may constitute a very large number, are those who have made very little or no effort at all to examining their political beliefs and what they entail.  These individuals, trapped in a strange and esoteric view of the world, subscribe to an extremely narrow-minded view of the political climate around them and indeed may only be concerned with things such as their day-to-day dealings and well being.  When confronted with a political issue, they tend to follow an extremely faulty scientific method.  They have their pre-conceived notion of what they see as correct, and then try to find data, whether quantitative or anecdotal, to support their conclusion.

As any “hard” scientist would tell you, this is a completely backward way of solving a problem.  While I will admit that personal biases are virtually impossible to do away with entirely in this field, the fact remains that, when trying to solve a problem, every effort should be made to see to it that the end result in itself is not biased.  Proceeding in such a matter is not only possible in political science, but is actually fairly easy.  One example would be the Student Ethics Committee I am a part of at Weber State University.  This group is currently attempting to tackle the issue of campaign finance reform in the State of Utah.  This is an extremely sensitive topic, but we have developed a basic route to understanding the problem.  We will be studying lobbyists, representatives to the legislature, the amount of funding in campaigns, and a number of other topics.  Once we have gathered this data, we will piece it together and compare it with other data from other models which are perceived as working well.  After this comparison, we will generate our recommendations for the State of Utah.

Notice that the recommendations are the very last part of the report – not the first.  Though we have an idea of where our research might lead, we have not yet created any recommendations, as we don’t know exactly where the data will point us.  Though when our recommendations are created there is certainly the possibility that our results will be disputed, the fact remains that we will have followed an empirical research model and will have produced information that is useful and for the most part free of bias.

But even in the hard sciences results are often disputed.  Part of being a good scientist is realizing that your work may not have been without flaw.  You must detail your method and leave it open to replication by other parties, who may or may not get the same results as you did.  Accepting that you may be wrong is, again, part of being a good scientist.  Letting yourself subscribe merely to dogma is antithetical to good political science and is antithetical to the development of strong communities and political systems.

I encourage you, then, to instead be good political scientists.  Starting this process is not at all difficult, and can begin by doing something as simple as reading a newspaper or comparing views online.  Many websites are available, in fact, that can help streamline this process for you.  Two I would suggest are www.factcheck.org and www.politifact.com.  These sites can help you sort through the dogma and find the heart of the issues most important to you.

Reflections on September 11

Ten years ago on this now infamous day, I myself was ten years old, a sixth grader at Whitesides Elementary school.  I remember walking to the entrance of the school and hearing my friend Andrew tell me that “Terrorists blew up the World Trade Center.”  I had no idea what he was talking about.  The words “terrorists” and “World Trade Center” were new to me, so I gave a rather nonchalant reply, saying something like “Oh yeah?  Wow.  That’s crazy.”

In the classroom, however, I finally began to grasp exactly what was going on.  It turned out that these terrorists were people who were angry with the United States for some reason, and that this World Trade Center was a large complex of buildings in New York.  A small television screen, normally reserved for educational films or children’s shows, became our gateway to hell on earth.  Broken hearts and burning cities flashed in front of our eyes, and those of us who hadn’t yet met death and tragedy had our innocence tarnished.

Ten years later, I wonder what lessons we best learned from that day.  Most of us who were so small had to learn the details of the attacks secondhand through our parents or other adults.  Given that even most of the adults didn’t understand the specific details, it seems that the picture of the tragedy itself was further tarnished by a failure to grasp the intricacies of a conflict that may very well define our generation.  Instead of attempting to understand this strange and specific enemy, we instead accepted a broad generalization, one which encompassed the entirety of Islam as enemies of the United States.  A faith which produced the light and love of poets like Hafiz and Rumi, and the incredible scholarship of academics like Averroes and Avicenna, overnight became our nemesis, and the face of Islam in the United States came not from its prophet or one of its many renowned children, but from Islam’s greatest thief, Osama Bin Laden.

As these years have passed, I am grateful that I have had the opportunity to learn the truth about Islam and its adherents, and to have learned much more about myself along the way.  I have learned that the messages worth holding on to are those which come from love, and those which were made to build upon that love.  Branding a faith with more than a billion adherents as an enemy of the world isn’t only wrong in a logical sense, but is also wrong morally, as it demonizes brothers and sisters and perpetuates a violent circle between them.

I believe the United States and its people as well as the world’s Muslims are, for the most part, on the right track in building bridges between our not-so-different cultures.  I can’t say for certain which lessons even my own friends and family have chosen, the path of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation, or the path of revenge which fortifies a circle of death, but I do hope that my own story might help others find what is best in them, and what is best in the people around them.  But for me at least, the lessons of these past ten years are best summed up by the words of Hafiz Shirazi:

Plant the tree of friendship for it brings boundless joy,
uproot the sapling of enmity, for it breeds countless sorrows.

The Missing Silhouette

The Missing Silhouette

Walking alone,
I noticed a couple walking
Hand in hand at dusk.
I caught the woman’s eye, and
glanced down, not wanting
to corrupt their moment
with my presence.

A streetlight over my shoulder
projected my shadow on
the pavement, illuminating
the missing silhouette,
casting a reminder of
the shadow I spent my own
loving moments with.

Casting a reminder of you.
You, who made mere summer
nights become poetry in motion.
You, who simultaneously
fill my heart to bursting
and leave me as lonesome
as a dove.

I’m not saddened or angry because
of this reminder, and I don’t
feel used or betrayed.
No, this reminder is a kind much too
heavy, this reminder is the kind
that makes my heart heave
and sigh.

-Zachary Stickney

The Problems of Lasting Peace

A few days ago, while wandering in Weber State's library, I managed to stumble on an awesome book.  I was in the library for no particular reason, trying to kill time before a meeting of some kind, and somehow I walked right into the peace studies section of our library.

There, in one of those old, ragged book covers, slightly covered in dust and smelling like all old books do, was a book entitled "The Problems of Lasting Peace" by former President Herbert Hoover and his aide, Hugh Gibson.

The book was written in the midst of the second World War.  The allies had begun pushing Hitler's Germany back in the European theater, and countless epic naval battles were no doubt taking place in the Pacific.  In the midst of all this combat and chaos, Hoover and Gibson noticed a pattern; endless cycles of violence in war, followed by brief periods of peace and development, followed again by violence.  This was true even in the case of World War I, the "war to end all wars," which, within 20 years, collapsed into yet another global bloodshed. 

Hoover and Gibson identify 7 "Dynamic Forces" which contribute to war and peace, listed as follows:

1.  Ideologies
2.  Economic Pressures
3.  Nationalism
4.  Militarism
5.  Imperialism
6.  The complexes of fear, hate, and revenge
7.  The will to peace

These forces are not arranged in order of importance, but they all have some varying degree of importance depending on which war is being examined.  It is important to note, however, that the first 6 forces typically act against the 7th; that is to say, the will to peace is broken when the emotions and actions prompted by the first 6 overpower it.

One of my favorite quotes from the book, paraphrased, is "Nations can blunder into war, but they cannot blunder into peace."  This, I think, is a key point which isn't given enough thought much of the time.  We tend to view things in black and white: a friend of mine recently said, "all the world's problems could easily be solved if everyone would just be good."  At face value, this is perhaps true.  But issues arise when the phrase is examined further.  Depending on your culture, your socioeconomic status, your race, your religion, your geographic location, your government, your education, and a myriad of other features, what would you define as "the world's problems?"  More important, what would you define as "good?"

Viewing the world through such a black and white, almost esoteric lens is what causes individuals, families, tribes, and finally nations to blunder out of peace.  Narrow definitions which fail to take into account the literally billions of possible viewpoints are destined to collapse.  They allow no structure or instrumentality for reconciliation, for the promotion of peace, or fundamental problem-solving.

This, in effect, is the key problem to lasting peace: a feeling that expedience, that black and white, are more effective than a structured method of peacemaking.  Expedience destroyed loose-knit peaces like the League of Nations and Kellogg-Briand, and expedience continues to threaten global peace today.

Global problems, however defined, are not so black and white as to be solved immediately.  Consensus must be achieved through arduous and often painstaking dialogue, taking into account a vast array of voices and concerns.  As such, lasting peace can only be achieved through the development of mechanisms capable of almost constant change, reinventing the status quo to meet new demands and changing environments.  The development of - and adherence to - global liberal institutions is, thus far, the greatest success the world has had in this experiment.

This, I feel, is a good enough afternoon rant.  That said, I would strongly recommend this book to any student of international law, or, better yet, any citizen of the world.

U.S. Must Work to Solve its Middle Eastern Crisis of Legitimacy

Note:  This is something I wrote a few weeks ago but decided not to do anything with.  It was an attempt at an Op-Ed, so the content is anything but exhaustive, as anyone who has ever attempted to write an Op-Ed should know.  If you have any questions, please post them and I'd be happy to discuss.

President Obama has received a lot criticism for his recent statement that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both sides.”  Both Israeli leadership and U.S. Congressmen alike have decried the statement, saying that it is “inconceivable” that Israel could possibly return to such “indefensible” borders.  Despite this criticism, Obama’s call for constructive dialogue may be Israel’s — and the United States’ — last chance to choose between taking the initiative or becoming a pariah on the issue of Middle East peace.

Earlier this year, the Palestinian Authority announced that it would seek United Nations membership if a peace treaty with Israel couldn’t be reached by September.  This may not seem particularly dire due to the fact that the United States holds permanent membership in the U.N. Security Council, a body which holds veto power over membership requests.  But the fact is that the legal basis for denying Palestinian statehood is actually quite weak.  According to the Montevideo Convention, the article of international law which defines statehood, the state of Palestine meets the requirements already.  Palestine has a permanent population, territory (currently defined as “occupied Palestinian territory”), a government, and recognition by other states.  Palestine is currently recognized by over 130 nations, a solid two-thirds majority of the 192 nations represented in the U.N.

Despite this, it’s highly likely that the United States will nonetheless veto the request should it come to a vote.  If it does so, the decision will solidify the United States’ Middle East policy as merely Israeli-centric.  This serves well for our relationship with Israel, true, but it simultaneously crumbles the much more broad American interests in the Middle East and beyond, exacerbating an already severe U.S. crisis of legitimacy among those nations.  Many Muslim nations will seek to diminish their ties with the United States or even perhaps find a counterbalance to American power.  Without a true regional power to fill the void, most nations will turn instead to a rising power in world politics — the People’s Republic of China.

Examples of this shift to an Eastern orientation can already be seen.  Iran, already an international pariah and the target of multilateral sanctions, has been able to circumvent punishment to a high degree by shifting its trade contracts to China.  In recent years, trade between the two nations has been as high as $30 billion annually.  There has even been evidence that China supplied crowd control weapons and vehicles to Iran during its 2009 protests — a precursor to the Arab Spring — and that China is possibly supporting Iran’s nuclear program behind the scenes.  More recently, China was represented by 144 companies at Iran’s annual Oil Show this April, despite the “crippling” sanctions the United States and its allies hoped to employ.

China has also been at work elsewhere in the Muslim world.  Earlier this week, an article in the Financial Times reported that Pakistani Defense Minister Chaudhary Ahmed Mukhtar has asked the Chinese to build a naval base at the port city of Gwadar.  If built, the naval base would allow China to have a permanent military presence near the Strait of Hormuz, achieving overnight what Russia was denied throughout the Cold War.  Though China doesn’t appear to be directly challenging the United States in either of these instances, these actions nonetheless illustrate an attempt to counterbalance U.S. interests.  Any loss of U.S. legitimacy among Middle Eastern nations will drastically increase the likelihood of conflict in the region, costing an unknown amount of American lives and treasure.

The United States must move beyond an Israeli-centric Middle East policy and instead embrace its broader interests in the region.  This does not mean abandoning Israel.  It means getting Israel back to the negotiating table and convincing the Palestinians that pursuing statehood without Israeli consent is against their interests and will undermine prospects for a lasting peace.  The stakes are high, and the status quo is unsustainable.  A change is necessary, and the future of Israeli security and American leadership depends on it.

Follow @zstickney

2 Year Anniversary of Iranian Protests

This Sunday, June 12, marks the 2-year anniversary of Iran’s fraudulent 2009 elections — a precursor to the current wave of protests known collectively as the Arab Spring. Though the 2009 protests didn’t lead to any substantive change in government in Iran, they nonetheless gave the world its first glimpse at a Middle Eastern energy source far more important than oil: a nascent people power asking only for dignity and solidarity among the fraternity of nations. The movements in Iran, Tunisia, Egypt and elsewhere have proven that Islam and democracy are not at all incompatible, as some would suggest.

Though the struggle for justice in the Middle East is far from over, these protests nevertheless signify a watershed moment for the future of U.S. policy with the Muslim world. In the past, political expedience for the sake of energy security allowed the United States to side with dictators and demagogues instead of democrats. The tides have clearly begun to turn, and the United States must turn with them. The new U.S. policy toward the Middle East must place principled leadership over expediency regardless of the short-term cost.

UPDATE:  This letter to the editor was published in Ogden's Standard Examiner

Follow @zstickney

The Political Compass

Being a political science major has made me realize a rather interesting fact:

People typically have no idea where they stand politically.

If you ask them their feelings on a handful of key issues, they can usually answer with something fairly straightforward.  They may even be able to talk at length on a few of them.  But by and large, when it comes to defining a specific and consistent ideology they don't really seem to know what they're talking about.

Well now, THEY CAN!

Introducing "The Political Compass."

The political compass is a quick and free test which asks a few questions regarding typical political issues, both social and economic.  When finished, the test then gives you a visual representation of your political beliefs, placed on a quadrant according to your answers.  You can even compare your own answers to where famous political figures ended up, from more modern political figures like Barack Obama and Angela Merkel to people like Adolf Hitler and Gandhi.

So where did you land?  Were you surprised by what you found?

Follow @zstickney

North Korea: Apparently a Great Place to Live

This week, North Korea's state run Chosun Central Television organization released a "global happiness index" that reported some not-so-surprising results.  The report allegedly polled citizens worldwide in a survey to measure their feelings toward their nation and standard of living.  This in spite of the fact that anyone who knows anything about the regime in Pyongyang knows that it is easily one of the most isolationist and repressive regimes in the history of the world.

But hey, why not humor the Dear Leader?  Here's some of the results from the survey:

1.  China (100 happiness points)
2.  North Korea (98 happiness points)
3.  Cuba  (93 happiness points)
4.  Iran  (88 happiness points)
5.  Venezuela  (85 happiness points)
203.  The American Empire  (2 happiness points)

That's right, "The American Empire."

Frankly I've enjoyed living in this awful place, being able to freely post blogs without fear of being arrested, being able to vote for my leaders, and being able to protest or advocate the causes I please without being arrested, beaten or killed.

So friends, what's your favorite part of living in the dreadful American Empire?  Do you wish you could move to North Korea?

Follow @zstickney

Urgent Iran Action Needed!

Read this link on Dalian Eagle Sky Company's actions in regard to Iran

This report is as of yet unconfirmed in the mainstream media, but the pictures of these anti-riot vehicles and equipment have been circulating from Tehran for a few weeks now.  The trucks are equipped with two high-powered water cannons which are controlled from inside the vehicle and are capable of firing teargas and other chemicals great distances.  From the reports I've read, Iran has been amassing these trucks and other anti-riot equipment, likely in preparation for February 11th, which is the anniversary of the collapse of the Shah's rule, which was essentially the beginning of Iran's shift to an Islamic Republic.  Presumably, the street protests and civil disobedience which began last year on June 12th will continue in full force on this important date.

With the Iranian regime spending so much on these vehicles and equipment (the trucks alone are said to cost $650,000- mainly due from their rush order from China) it is clear that those in power are afraid- afraid of the power of justice, liberty, and freedom which has awakened the Iranian citizens.  This in a way is good news, because it shows that Khamenei and his puppets are losing their grip around Iran's throat.  However, this is also bad news because Khamenei is no where near prepared to back off without a fight.  And if we've learned anything from the brutal crackdowns of the past half a year, any continued protest will likely result in the injury, imprisonment, and death of many Iranian citizens.  February 11th may become Iran's version of what June 4th is for the Chinese- this could very well be a Tienanmen square-like disaster.

Though success in Iran will ultimately be won through the Iranian citizens themselves, we should not feel helpless and apathetic everywhere else in the world.  We need to let Iran know that the whole world is watching, and that we believe the Iranian people are fighting the good fight for justice and freedom.  We must support them through solidarity- through sending our letters and calls and dissent to Iran's current despots, and by sending our love and support and kindness to those in Iran who fight for the truths we hold to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.  The Islamic Republic of Iran has failed to protect the rights of its citizens in any way, shape, or form.  It is therefore time for the severance of the bonds between them.

Videos From Iran

Here are just a few videos I found while researching Iran at work.  These are often sad and distressing, but overall I think they convey a message of hope for the brave citizens of Iran.  Watch these videos, think about what you see, and then please act in solidarity for the people of Iran!  They deserve no less.

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.

Taking the Reins

This semester's volunteer work with Weber State STAND has been exceptional.  I've lobbied twice, participated in a hunger strike, and spoken at a banquet.  I've helped with movie screenings, Amnesty International events, and gone to a national conference in Washington D.C.

This semester has been a very successful one, but it also has a sad note.  Cameron Morgan, the student activist and great friend who started Weber State STAND from the ground up, has stepped down from his Presidential position.  He is stepping down because he has a lot of other work to move on to, and a lot of work to do in order to finish his degree.  His energy, passion, and optimism is what has made STAND what it is today- and that in my opinion is the most active volunteer group on campus.  He is passing on the Presidency to me, and now it is up to me to attempt to fill the void his absence will make.

I'm not going to pretend this isn't a difficult task- the work that Weber State STAND does is arduous and difficult.  It will put a lot of pressure on me to balance the job with my classes, work, and social life, but I believe I am ready for this task.  Cameron has set an excellent precedent and tradition for hard work and determination.  I fully intend to take those same qualities with me into my Presidency.  I would like to promise here that though I certainly won't be a flawless leader the one thing I can give with all my heart is my knowledge, dedication, and passion to this organization.  Cameron never gave it any less, and it deserves no less.

With this in mind, I would like to mention a few things for the future of STAND.  Next semester's events are not set in stone, but I do have an idea that I need to flesh out with Cameron, because it requires his help and information from his December trip to Kenya.  In addition to this, I would like to continue the STAND "Art of Peace" exhibit as well.  Beyond these ideas, I am going to try to organize events with organizations with interests and goals similar to STAND, so we can form a sort of group coalition to raise money together and double our manpower.  These are a few of my basic ideas, but I am definitely open to any other ideas, comments, or criticism, provided they are honest and constructive.

I am looking forward to the coming semester and all the ones ahead.  I know STAND will continue to be a powerful tool of advocacy and volunteerism at Weber State for a long time and I hope that throughout the course of my Presidency I will be able to help and inspire fellow activists as much as Cameron did.  If I can do these two things, I will consider my time as President extremely successful.

Again, I look forward to working with all of you and making some noise at Weber State!  Let's keep the momentum rolling!

Solidarity, Not Sanctions

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that the United States would pursue “crippling” sanctions against Iran if diplomacy over Iran’s nuclear program fails. The only crippling that will occur should the United States pursue these sanctions is the crippling of the Iranian people and the crippling of the United States’ standing among them. Despite the hype surrounding the idea of sanctions, the civic strategy of solidarity with the Iranian people is the only strategy which will result in positive concessions from the Islamic Republic.


Since the hostage crisis of 1979 the United States has imposed multiple sanctions against Iran. The goal of these sanctions was to create dire economic conditions to pressure Iran’s fundamentalist leaders. But economic pressures do not always result in political changes. The ultimate goal of the sanctions- undermining support for Iran’s theocratic regime- has failed. In fact, the sanctions backfired and gave Iran’s ayatollahs more ammunition to justify their monopoly on Iranian politics and power. They also allowed the Iranian regime to fuel the Islamic Republic’s greatest myth- the myth that depicts the United States as the “Great Satan” and the American people as enemies of Islam.

Despite these past failings, many of our government officials are convinced that sanctions will prevail this time around. During a hearing of the Senate committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Senator Charles Schumer described economic sanctions as “the preferred method of choking Iran’s nukes.” This myth of sanctions as a demoralizing agent needs to be debunked. Sanctions will choke ordinary people in Iran, not nuclear ambitions.

Regardless, the United States is in the process of developing multilateral sanctions against Iran. Two powerful allies, the United Kingdom and France, have voiced their support for the strategy if Tehran does not make acceptable concessions on its nuclear program. Yet two equally powerful countries, Russia and China, are much less enthusiastic. Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin recently stated that sanctions “would not be creating favorable conditions” for resolving the nuclear issue. Similarly Jiang Yu, a Chinese foreign policy spokesperson, has voiced Chinese opposition as well: “We believe that sanctions and exerting pressure are not the way to solve problems and are not conducive to the current diplomatic efforts on the Iran issue.” With both China and Russia holding veto power in the United Nations Security Council, it seems unlikely that sanctions will work. But suppose we do come to an agreement and Russia and China back the sanctions fully. Wouldn’t that make the plan successful?

Successful sanctions, though uncommon, are not outside the realm of possibility. But the result that is more likely is a continuation of failures that could potentially escalate into something nobody desires: a war with Iran. As with the “Oil for Food” sanctions against Iraq a decade ago, sanctions against Iran will reward smugglers, enrich those in power, and stifle civil society. With the Revolutionary Guard already in control of the majority of the Iranian economy, small businesses will be undercut and the average Iranian will suffer. With these conditions in place, Iran’s hard-liners will frame the sanctions as “proof” that Americans are using the hardship of the Iranian people for the furtherance of their own interests. Uncontested control over Iran means Ahmadinejad will remain the Middle East’s provocateur and could feasibly trigger a war with the United States or Israel. It is precisely this endgame that we should try to avoid.

Instead of playing its regular tough guy role, the United States should pursue a different strategy. America shouldn’t feel the need to de-legitimize Ahmadinejad even further- he can take care of that himself. America should instead use a power that has always been its major advantage over dictatorial regimes everywhere. This isn’t our power to kill or cause harm- this is our power to offer a brighter future to the Iranian people. President Obama has already extended the hand of friendship to Iran and promised that changes in our relationship will be “grounded in mutual respect” –not threats. Promoting human rights in Iran isn’t just doing what is best for the Iranian people; it is also the best security strategy the United States can invest in.

A Few Thoughts on Women's Rights

A recurring theme that has been on my mind lately has been the status of women worldwide.  This is particularly due to a few things I have read, including Nicholas Kristoff and Sheryl WuDunn's book "Half the Sky" and a short article I read entitled "Veiled Threat."  Half the Sky shares the stories of women in various cultures- particularly women from Southeast Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa.  Most of the women were victims of various crimes- sex trafficking, rape, slavery, and other things.  There were even accounts of women who had been killed in "honor" killings- the killing of a woman who has been raped to preserve the "honor" of a family.  The book's main purpose is to outline the opportunities for women rather than focus on the atrocities, but they are nonetheless present.

Veiled Threat, on the other hand, talks about the mass presence of women in Iran's post-election protests.  It states that in prior revolutionary movements in Iran women have been, for the most part, entirely absent from the process.  However, starting in June this year women took to the streets just as much as men and stood side by side with them in open protests.  This is a difference that cannot be exaggerated.  Women have been held down in countries like Iran (and even in the United States) for centuries.  Any open challenge from women to those in power generally resulted in one of the horrific crimes mentioned above.  Just recently women in Sudan were whipped for wearing jeans.  Women in Afghanistan are splashed with acid for trying to go to school.  Women in Southeast Asia are sold into sex slavery while trying to find a decent job.

The odds against women in much of the world are very high, including in Iran, yet they fought and continue to fight against them.  These women do not accept the status quo- they believe they should have equal rights and equal opportunities.  We should stand with them.