4A - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, October 24, 2001 OP/ED 0 (Tbr iriuu ?&ziInl 420 MAYNARD STREET ANN ARBOR, MI 48109 daily. letters@umich.edu NOTABLE QUOTABLE r (0 I I e3e ferrUda Triange". EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890. GEOFFREY GAGNON Editor in Chief MICHAEL GRASS NICHOLAS WOOMER Editorial Page Editors ( ( The media are doing their 'W'w usual number - stoking Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. fear with nonstop coverage while criticizing people for being afraid - and the pundit posture of choice is to narrow the eyes like a sailor in a Camels ad and go into Greatest Generation mode. In the new culture of war without end, anxiety is the mark of a sissy. If you're scared, you better keep it to yourself." -Richard Goldstein in this week's Village Voice, on being afraid of anthrax. i / i . Y -Gauil'k. .. dir 1 -,y---- 4- WE c i Q N 4 -allolbl. qo somp- I 0 I Whore does 'Eke. EM o . ... T Foreign policy and the uninfonned American MANISH RAIJI NOTHING CATCHY merican foreign policy is taking quite a beating right now. The self-loathing of liberals has turned from limited foci - such as the inherent racism of white people - to a much broad- er one: America is the new public enemy number one for the so-called progressive. It is certainly unfortunate that the liberal mindset has to be per- verted by those radicals who assume the role of martyr at every turn. In this instance, "progressives" blame Amer- ica completely for the terrorist attacks, thereby apologizing for, or even negating, the role of Osama bin Laden and fundamentalist Islam in the equation. I will avoid sinking to an argumen- tum ad absurdum on this count; suffice it to say that fundamentalism is more responsible for ter- rorism than any actions that America has. ever done. If bin Laden and those who share his fun- damentalist views are still angered about the Moors being kicked out of Spain in the 15th cen- tury (neglecting to mention the fact that the Moors invaded Spain and slaughtered Spaniards in the first place), then it's reasonable to say that his demands are ludicrous and cannot - indeed, should not - be entertained. But that's not to say that a reasonable look at American foreign policy is not justified. Ameri- can foreign policy has its share of horror stories, but violent retaliation against the American big dog has been centered in the Middle East. What factors about sectors of the Middle East promote such violence, such radicalism? In this case, America does play a role, but the role isn't the obvious one that "progressives" like to point to. This isn't an issue of sanctions on Iraq -- we have sanctions on Cuba, but Cubans aren't manning flights aimed at our buildings. This isn't about supporting Israel dur- ing the civil strife against Palestinians - we implicitly support China against Tibet, but Tibetans aren't threatening a holy war against us. No, the role of American foreign policy, especially in regards to the Middle East, is a vit- riolic mixture of fundamentalist Islam and an insecure, wavering American foreign policy. It's not that our policies are bad per se, it's that they seek immediate results while neglecting long- terrp stability. This lack of follow-through has everything to do with a shifting series of Ameri- can presidents coming in contact with an unchanging roster of non-democratic monarchs and theocrats in the Middle East. Saddam Hus- sein has been around for 22 years; we've changed presidents and cabinets five times since then. Yasser Arafat has been funding suicide bombing for 32 years - seven different presi- dents have dealt with him. Saudi Arabia's King al-Aziz Al Saud - 19 years, four presidents; Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak - 20 years, four presidents; Libya's Colonial al-Qadhafi - 32 years, seven presidents. All of these nations have some form of Shari'a - Islamic law of varying degrees of oppressiveness. The U.S. clearly suffers greatly from the shifting face of foreign diplomacy, especially in regards to a stagnant leadership in the Middle East. Monarchies are not exclusive to the Middle East, but Shari'a certainly is. Islamic leaders have little concern for their citizens, and are capable of extending national benefits at the expense of citi- zens -- indeed, the use of Islam as the backbone of government gives theocrats a moral righteous- ness for their actions, regardless of how amoral they truly are, American presidents have their hands tied, at least to some extent, by the vague notion of "public opinion." Because of this tie to democra- tic elections, presidents must do what is politically popular instead of what is politically right. It was politically popular to support a less extreme Lebanese government - until 241 Marines were killed by a car bomber. After that, the tide of opin- ion turned and what was politically popular was to pull out of Lebanon and leave their government in tatters and open to attack by Shi'ite funda- mentalists. It was politically popular Perhapsi to reco whethi Ame popul should, arbiter o polic to aid Afghanistan against the Soviets, but it was not politically popular to remain in the region and aid in the development of a representative government. It was politically popular to bomb Baghdad, but not to continue the real diplomatic battle by overthrowing Hussein and allowing Iraqi citizens a representative government. Only a few examples of an unfinished job done by American presidents who were explicit- ly tied to popular support. Perhaps it's time to rethink these ties. Per- haps it's time to reconsider whether the Ameri- can populace - with an attention span that can barely handle commercial breaks and an ethno- centrism that gives it the scope of a grade schooler - should be the arbiter of foreign poli- cy, especially in an increasingly global society. The U.S. has implemented safeguards against raucous and uninformed public opinion. The Electoral College and the Supreme Court are examples of this; on one hand, the American public is not fully trusted with the decision on who leads the country, while on the other hand, the process of Judicial Review is divorced from popular politics. Both of these institutions are explicit statements regarding public opinion: The American public cannot be trusted fully. It certainly wasn't necessary in the isolation- ist days of America's birth to safeguard foreign policy in a similar manner. But the U.S. has become an increasingly powerful world player - indeed, the end of the Cold War brought about a global situation in which the U.S. is the major international player. In times like this, for- eign policy must be safe-guarded against the whims of the American public. Why not set up a body - similar to the Supreme Court - that is in charge of the focus of foreign policy? This body would be com- posed of people with life terms, who set the agenda for American foreign policy without hav- ing to be concerned about issues of election. The .Supreme Court is an evolving body that is tied to precedent; the executive branch is a wildly shift- ing position that changes ideology in tune with the election cycle. Four- or eight-year presidents cannot properly make headway on the foreign circuit when faced with dictators who have been in power for decades, and who will be in power for decades to come. Make the president a puppet for this foreign policy body; make the president it's time accountable to and responsible for 2nsider the opinions of that body. If American foreign policy is a slow- er the ly evolving set of standards - rican much like our Judicial Review is ace ... - we as a nation could go a long be the way toward maintaining some sta- bility in the foreign field. of foreign President George W. Bush has y ..., hinted at this need to ignore the American public. He said that, even if the American public tires of this war, he will not. That's the right idea, except Bush obvi- ously won't take this war to the level that is required - it's not enough to "smoke (Osama bin Laden) out of his hole"; American foreign policy must follow through in its efforts to spread democracy. This means that, once the Taliban is removed from power (and yes, it should be removed from power), America must stick around and create a fair government (and no, a fair government has nothing to do with the Northern Alliance). At the same time, Bush has hinted that he is tied to public opinion and is being forced to suc- cumb to it. Bin Laden says that his rage is fueled by the plight of the Palestinians, which makes the American population question our ties with Israel. The U.S. should not back down on its peace efforts, and it must be willing to remain involved as long as it takes, to ensure that the emerging Palestinian state is a democratic one. American foreign policy is worth criticizing, but not necessarily for its goals. The established goal of American foreign policy - the exten- sion of democracy - is laudable, but the lack of follow-through is not. In a world where the U.S. is demonized by so many, we require a strong, constant set of policies that do not waver with the fancies of the population. Manish Rani can be reached via e-mail at mraii@umich.edu 0 Y LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Trotsky's legacy tarnished on Daily's editorial page To THE DAILY: Jim Secreto's Viewpoint in Friday's Daily ("What does Jesse know about BAMN?" 10/19/01) was the latest in a series of editorials, articles and letters to the editor that have been published in the Daily over the past month attacking Trot- skyism and its supposed organizational representative on campus, BAMN. In none of these has there been a serious attempt to explain what Trotskyism is or how it is related to BAMN. Instead, vague refer- ences are made to "BAMN's Trotskyite tendencies" and this somehow suggests the necessity of isolating, or better yet expelling, the organization. Secreto's views, and those of the Daily's editorial board ("Sectarian Sojourn," 9/28/01), are only a more moder- ate version of those presented in a letter to the Daily earlier this month by Justin Shubow ("Trotskyism leaves nothing but, 'death,' 'suffering' in its wake; campus should beware," 10/1/01), in which Trotsky was likened to Hitler and the suggestion was made that Trotskyist organizations Bush's dubious legitimacy still worth discussing TO THE DAILY: The Sydney Morning Herald reported yesterday that The New York Times, Wash- ington Post, Wall Street Journal and CNN consortium investigating last year's presiden- tial election results in Florida has postponed the final stage of this analysis. Catherine Mathis, a spokeswoman for The New York Times, cited the war as one reason for this decision. I did not vote for George W. Bush, I do not agree that a "war" is the best way to make us more secure, and I want to know whether Bush is really the pres- ident we elected. The faci that he is waging a war that does not have unanimous support in this country is all the more reason to deter- mine whether he indeed has the right to do so. Defending democracy should never be a sec- ond priority for our nation, even in these strange times. Democracy implies responsibility. Let us have the courage to examine the most diffi- cult questions we face - including, what to do if the president should not have been the AP PHOTO Headlines from the Orlando Sentinel during the contested Florida recount. president. Otherwise, we ourselves endanger our political system more than foreign aggressors are capable of. KIRSTEN SCHWIND SNRE graduate student intellectual, political and moral giants of the 20th Century, and was assassinated by the Jackson that proves the organization has nothing in common with Marxism or Trot- Aak