The Final Stages

My degree is in its final stages. I just talked with a professor who will work with me on my big final degree ending (and hopefully passsing) paper. The topic, broadly, is about Russia's energy hegemony in Eurasia/Central Asia and how it will affect regional and international security. I'm just in the beginning stages of looking up books, conferences and other materials before I take the plunge into outlining and writing a 50 to 70 page paper. That's far more than I've ever written for any one paper, but I take heart from the fact that last semester that's about how much I wrote throughout. Since this fall semester is solely focused on my substantial research paper (or SRP, as they call it at AU), it's definitely possible. It will be a challenge and I will succeed.

If only it was that easy

Thankfully the U.S. and France have been able to get a draft resolution together for the U.N. Why this has not happened sooner is probably something I don't want to know. Unfortunately, Lebanon does not think the resolution is sufficient/satisfactory. They, in turn, propose their seven point plan, which is as follows (from Reuters):

"Lebanon wants any U.N. resolution to stick to the terms of a seven-point peace plan endorsed by its cabinet, which includes one Hizbollah minister.

The Lebanese plan calls for an immediate ceasefire, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon, the return home of displaced Lebanese, the deployment of U.N. and Lebanese forces in the south and the disarmament of Hizbollah."

In a perfect world, that would have been what the U.S. and France could've agreed to. And the proposal almost seems enforceable.

TAGS: Lebanon, Middle East

Problems with the "them" label

I've been reading The Economist and Imperial Hubris lately and it seems that the West really needs to re-examine how it is classifying, treating and fighting terrorism. Michael Scheuer's whole argument is essentially that al Qaeda has very clearly articulated goals and threats that do not include killing Americans because of who they are. To be sure, al Qaeda is a mortal enemy to the liberal democratic West and it must be eliminated, but, like Israel's fight with Hizbollah and Hamas, the threat is being generalized and conflated.

Some of this threat conflation comes from defensive paranoia and a natural reaction to very traumatic violence. Yet more of it comes from "us and them" rationalizing after the attack and probably the most of it comes from misinformation to lend credibility to those in power fighting terrorist groups. If terrorist groups are classified like "those godless commies" during the Cold War (only concerned with killing good, Christian, red-blooded Americans), then those fighting terrorism can hide behind a McCarthy-esque screen of fear and paranoia. I'm not so naive to suggest that we can talk with all of these terrorist groups and keep them from killing people, but I do think more normalized relations with the cultures in which the terrorists exist will go a long way toward breaking down the "us and them" mentality on both sides.

In Israel and Lebanon, if the average Lebanese and Israeli had greater contact with each other (whether face-to-face or through wonderous other media), I think Lebanese would be less likely to support Hizbollah acting on their behalf and Israelis would hold their armed forces to greater account on civilian and U.N. monitor deaths. This wouldn't have necessarily averted the current conflict, but it might have made it more careful and less difficult to break away from.

Who am I kidding? Careful war?! Well, I know the results won't look careful, but maybe we can be more careful in the how and why of waging the war in the first place.

TAGS: Lebanon, Middle East, terrorism

Not Killing People Not a Priority?

Bush just reaffirmed Condoleezza and her magic satchel's message that the US has been touting throughout the world lately. This time, however, he doesn't want a "fake peace" that others are calling for which will only delay fighting. I guess getting humanitarian aid in to people who need it during a temporary ceasefire isn't worth the effort.

The United States' reluctance to clamor for an immediate ceasefire is disheartening. Yes, Hizbollah is a threat, but right now, Israel is doing far more damage to Lebanese civilians than Hizbollah is to Israeli civilians. It's really too bad that current world military engagements preclude the option of having an internationl force pacify southern Lebanon and insulate it from Syrian and Iranian machinations. What we are left with are impotent cries from the international community and US appeasement of Israeli recklessness. I can only hope that better US leadership is elected this year in Congress and later in 2008.

TAGS: Lebanon, Middle East

A visit to the fish market in DC

A visit to the fish market in DC
Originally uploaded by ClassicPep.

We went to the DC fishmarket to supply our 4th of July celebrations. I love the fishmarket because it's one of the last places that truly feels like a market. I guess my time with Turkish Bazaars spoiled me. The markets here in the U.S. just start looking a little too homogenized for my taste. Maybe Wegman's is different, but it's still got much of the same atmosphere.

Anyway, the DC fishmarket, with its close quarters, sounds, smells and sights really makes me think of the nature of what this country has always been about - opportunity bringing people from vastly different walks of life together under one classically liberal framework. Seeing the fishmarket decked out with Independence Day regalia along with its typical charm reminded me that the United States' greatest strength is the mixing and exchange. We ARE an international community and cannot forget that.

Plus, if you're ever there, go to Clarence for live blue crabs. His section is pictured. Trust me, they're fresh and tasty. I steamed them myself.

Новая Россия (New Russia)

Streets of Moscow
Originally uploaded by fuego_de_la_cabeza.

Moscow's new main shopping street is shown in this picture. Compare it with the picture in the previous post.

Everything about Russia seems to retain an honesty about the past that one would not think possible given the Russian experience of totalitarian regimes. In St. Petersburg, they maintain their pride in Lenin and his largest statue stills stands where it was erected in the '70s. In fact, the common name for the statue is "Lenin pointing out the metro station," for he does indeed point out the closest metro stop. They also respect Peter the Great for his reforms, while at the same time mourning the fact that the city is built on the bones of the millions of people who died while working on it.

In a souvenir shop, there was a matryoshky doll of Russian leaders. The first one was Putin, of course, but he was holding a massive KGB shield in front of him. He is both respected and reviled for that past. Ivan the Terrible (whose title would be better translated from the Russian as "Thunderous") was feared, but also respected for his strong leadership.

Старая Россия (Old Russia)

Streets of Moscow
Originally uploaded by fuego_de_la_cabeza.

I recently visited my parents in Russia this winter (yes, I'm a foreign service brat). This was the first time I had ever seen Russia and was really impressed. This is a nation not afraid of its history. Where many other nations with similarly dramatic revolutions and regimes tend to downplay elements of their past, Russia shows all, from the beautifully exhibited Tsarist palaces to Stalin's tomb with fresh flowers, one feels an honest continuity throughout the place.

This picture of the old market street in Moscow and the one of the new one in a later post illustrates this as well. The old street is about one block away and runs parallel to the new and dramatically different market street.

Universal Political Frameworks

I've been thinking about liberal democracy both during and after the Cold War. We had a competing framework in Communism. Ever since the end of the Cold War we've had a lot of assertions about the new global order from the "End of History" where it is stated that liberal democracy has "won" to more focus on civilizational and cultural conflict. Political Islam, especially the wave of Salafism that is growing popular, is usually cited as a cultural conflict. Why is this? It is a religion, yes, but it is pretty independent of many regional cultures, just like liberal democracy and it ends up steering culture in certain ways, just as liberal democracy does. Why then isn't political Islam looked at as a competing universal framework to liberal democracy for analysis reasons? It is used by many groups to write and evaluate constitutions. I'm not saying I'd prefer it to liberal democracy, not in the least, but empirically speaking, it does seem to be appropriate. This is just a thought I had while writing on political Islam for one of my papers, so it's just a nugget at the moment. I think I will develop it for something more substantial later on though. It may be more useful when comparing Islamic separatism in differing cultural regions.