Iranian protests and Obama

The ayatollahs bringing Iran to ruin are the enemies of the Iranian people just as much as they are our enemies. And the Iranians demonstrating in the streets, with no protection of the 2nd Amendment, nor support from Europe, which is heavily financially invested in the murderous, expansionist regime, deserve the same freedom that we have learned to take for granted. Time to debunk the myths that the Iranian nuclear deal or the previous administration cared about security or freedom for anybody. If they did, they would have denounced the bellicose regime, instead of supporting it.

This Is How You Lose Big League on Foreign Policy

https://en.dailymail24.com/2017/11/03/this-is-how-you-lose/

Imagine a small country with an insecure government that the past administrations have been supporting, and which has issues that you don't particularly like.

Imagine that this country is a possible ally against a much bigger threat in the region.

What do you do when the bigger threat is courting this country and is promising all sorts of boons with no strings attached?

What's your leverage? Do you engage? Do you give up? Do you continue to stand on principle?

Well, whatever the choices are in this situation, the one thing that is guaranteed not to be helpful is doing absolutely nothing and leaving it up to others to decide how things are going to work.

And that's, of course, precisely what the Trump administration did with Cambodia.

A few months ago, in the wake of the new administration's early forays into foreign policy, regional experts warned about Cambodia moving away from the West towards China, in the run up to the upcoming elections.

Cambodia was worried about losing the elections, and China was offering condition-free loan and political support. Donald Trump, not as interested in pressing for human rights and democracy as some of his predecessors, was, at that point, still an unknown quantity, and could have utilized this opportunity to woo away Cambodia from China by gauging it on other issues. 

For the new administration, it would have been a mistake to rely on the passive continuation of existing foreign relations with even relatively small countries when other countries are actively moving towards engagement in whatever manner.

In bipolar or multipolar circumstances, the smaller countries will engage in maneuvering and play off the superpowers against one another to get the most benefit and influence for themselves. It's a classic Cold War tactic. The mistake the United States was making during the Cold War proxy tensions (and perhaps there were few options at the time) was to be reactive in its approach and merely throw resources as a response. But of course, the Soviet Union would then provide more goodies without any preconditions or expectations of democratization, and so forth.

The better position would have been to a better approach would be to reevaluate various pressure points of Cambodia's foreign policy and to use those pressure points as a more nuanced engagement approach to steer them towards the United States but also make clear that increased engagement with China will not come without a cost. In other words, reverse the position and cause the weak country in question to have to do the cost-benefit analysis of having to choose its allies - or else making the wiser choice, of not being played by China and engaging with both.

That approach very well may have failed. China has no scruples about backing the governments that are loyal and helpful.  And interfering directly in another country's elections is also problematic. But non-interference has not helped us one bit.

Incumbent PM Hun Sen distanced himself from the US, and disregarding all international norms, threw his political opponent in prison.  Earlier engagement may not have stopped this development, but perhaps it could have prevented a complete deterioration of the relationship, and would have allowed us to figure out the leverage for promoting human rights and fair elections. At the very least, we could have taken a more principled stand on this issue before Hun Sen had gone so far in the direction of authoritarianism.

And even after the fact, it is not the President of the United States who has taken an active role in countering this violation of human rights and international norms, but Senator Ted Cruz, who essentially stated that he would work on utilizing the Global Magnitsky Act to deny Cambodian human rights violators entry to the United States. That would, of course, require Congressional pressure on the administration, which has yet to designate human rights violators under that law. At this point, the White House has been put on very public notice, and has no excuse not to take decisive action, including, potentially, sanctions - which is arguably as embarrassing for us, after all the investments we have made into Cambodia, as it is for the Cambodian Prime Minister, who is impolitic reaction to Sen. Cruz's letter was very telling.

However, if US is to be taken seriously, it has no choice but to play an active role in its own relationship, particularly with countries which have been significant recipients of the US taxpayers' money. The US should not have to support corrupt regimes, which have no regard for democracy or freedom, and who are also empowering other dictatorships in order to protect their leadership - but  not their people. And the US should certainly position itself in such a way that other countries should want to do business with it, because an honest relationship with a strong, fair-minded, country respectful of its partners and obligations, and expecting the same should be seen far more reliable and a far better investment than an utterly corrupt and morally bankrupt party leaders, which have been known to renege on its financial promises and will just as easily throw you to the wolves when they no longer have use for you as they back you in time of need.  China has a history of dubious financial investments, which have done little for Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and other countries. It has left projects in Latin America left unmanaged, and has become infamous for the corrupt quality of its project and "investment support"/development, amounting to little more than colonial practices, all over Africa.

Choosing to work with the US should be a no-brainer.  But not if we let China do all the leadership and all the talking, and not if we show we have no interest in strong relationship with clear and coherent rules. I hope this situation wakes President Trump and the State Department to the fact that putting America first means putting in the work needed to forge relationships with our allies, partners, and beneficiaries of our investment that are based on the pursuit of mutual interests and respect. Signalling that we just don't care enough to bother with diplomacy will position us in a very weak place down the road, and one day, we may find that those who do care have taken all initiative and all leverage out of our hand. And that day, who we partner with and on what grounds will no longer be up to us.

US has an interest in justice, freedom, and accountability around the world

We frequently criticize our leadership for failing to take leadership on human rights, particularly on countries that do not come to mind as issues of top priority "strategic importance".

First of all, defending democratic principles and freedom is always of strategic importance. The question only is what is the proper way to do that.

Second, I would sincerely like to commend Senator Ted Cruz for taking a very vocal and assertive stand on behalf of an opposition leader imprisoned for his participation in the election process in Cambodia. Not only did he condemn his act, but he clearly promised to take very specific measures should justice not prevail, in holding the Cambodian government accountable and blacklisting them from coming to the US, an embarrassing and effective step outlined in the Global Magnitsky Act to protect human rights defenders.

Also, kudos on guaranteeing that he would work with other members of Congress and administration - and thus holding our own government accountable on doing the right thing.

I hope to see that this example will start a new foreign policy - one where the US places its interests in justice, freedom, and accountability first.

The Story of Kurdistan: When the Moral and the Necessary Converge

Kurds don't have a big lobby in the United States. And the total Kurdish population here is about 50,000 people. Europe boasts of much higher numbers. KRG and several parties from Iran, Syria, and Turkey largely make their own case, helped along by a few vocal sympathizers, and an open mind from much of Congress. If you are looking to make big bucks off pushing a cause, you should probably go elsewhere.

However, if you are looking to help achieve something that's both right and necessary, the case for an independent Kurdish state is one you should adopt. I've written in the past that for US, supporting a Kurdish state would mean having another stable, pro-Western, democratic, and increasingly liberalizing ally in the Middle East, which could be an effective buffer against Iran, Turkey, and various terrorist organizations, while taking the Middle East in a new direction through education, technological development, and more pluralistic and inclusive aspirations. It is also one of the world's oldest indigenous nations without a state. And just like any other nation, Kurds have a right to self-determination, a right which they peacefully but vocally asserted in the recent independence referendum.

I could go on and on and post plenty of articles supporting my case, but instead I'll just post two items that are striking me personally, and which have been noted elsewhere by many more eloquent writers and analysts than me.

I can identify with the Kurdish aspirations on a deeply personal level.

First, in some of the countries where they have resided, Kurds haven't been allowed to study their own language or engage with their own identity in any way. Turkey has been particularly brutal and oppressive, and only has its own fascist conformism to blame for the rise of the PKK and violent clashes with Kurdish separatists over the span of several decades. Kurdish culture has been brutally suppressed. Kurds who have dared to stand up for their national identity have been imprisoned and on many occasions brutally tortured. They are a significant percentage of Turkey, and yet, are increasingly dehumanized, where physical attacks on civilians are excused, and first signs of genocide are slowly becoming acceptable to Erdogan's most ardent grassroots followers. Where have we heard this story before? It's the story that the Jewish nation has itself relieved many times over, in my family's case in the former Soviet Union, where Jews were not allowed to study Hebrew, and for many decades, to study or practice Judaism and cultural traditions. It is only with the break up of the Soviet Union, that Jewish community started reestablishing its own identity with a lot of help from abroad, and I was blessed to be able to attend the first Jewish day school in Ukraine since the 1930s.

When I first heard these stories, I trembled inside, because it was like listening to my own history. It was the feeling of the keen awareness of own identity, but also the remembrance of having to hide, of having to always be careful not to draw attention to one's Jewishness, not to sing beautiful Jewish songs in public, of the fact that my family has had to change their Jewish names to Russian ones to avoid harassment. The same was true for many of the Kurds who deliberately named their children with Turkish names to ensure a greater likelihood that they could attend better schools. Just like in the Soviet Union, where Jews faced the infamous "fifth paragraph" in their passport - indication of their ethnic background that could forever doom their career aspirations - Kurds faced official discrimination in Turkey. And in Iran, a short-lived Kurdish state was brutally suppressed, and Kurds have been hanged at disproportionate rates to their own population. With the coming of the Islamic Republic, persecution of minorities intensified.

 At times, Kurds and others would be allowed to study their languages in the universities to keep down the pressure and to avoid disruptive attacks by the rebels. But overall, anti-minority sentiment and open discrimination have been rampant, visible, and well documented, with Iranian forces frequently raping women,  disrupting daily life, trying to ruin the population with drugs, and then executing Kurds in absurd numbers for the very crimes the regime spread throughout their areas. The Jewish history in the countries where they were suppressed is almost never bloody on their end, with the exception being the Russian revolution that was supposed to make life better, but of course, brought about anti-Semitic communism. I haven't lived through any of these events, but was keenly aware of the Jews' "special status" in the Soviet Union through all the family conversations and all the reading I have done from a very young age. I absorbed it culturally and naturally, and so have the young Kurds growing up in the sad reality of not having their own place under the sun. "Kurds have no friends but the mountains" goes a common saying, referring to the fact that the nation has faced numerous betrayals from their allies, including, shamefully from the West, over the past century.

And there is another historical parallel - the circumstances surrounding the creation of the State of Israel. Once again, by the time I was born and achieved sentience, Israel had already existed for many decades, and yet, to me, since I first knew of its existence, it was an awe-inspiring miracle. Israel came about not because Jews were so united (they fought over everything and nearly killed each other in the process), or because the world recognized that it was time (don't make me laugh - that was absolutely not the case, and even the US was very split and reluctant on this issue). or because their neighbors gave in to reason and accepted the Jewish presence in the region - Zionists were harassed for decades leading up to the creation of the State of Israel, and the war broke out immediately upon the signing of independence. Israel was born when Jews stopped listening to what everyone else was saying and decided that it was time to reclaim their own land and chart out our own destiny - whether anyone liked it or not. They fought off multiple Arab forces that sought to destroy the nascent state with poor weapons procured through the black market from Czechoslovakia. Many of those who were fighting were liberated Holocaust survivors, who were still traumatized from the war horrors. There was no mercy, no vocal advocates for their case. The United States, only a few years prior, turned away a ship full of Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi horror from its shores. The friends of the Jews and the new found state were few and far between, and it took the finality of its existence and willingness to physically fight for its future and refuse to take no for an answer to finally win a grudging respect from the international community - a respect that could be yanked away at any moment.

When I am observing the birth pangs of the Kurdish state, something inside me flutters with excitement, because it's as if I get to relive the birth of the State of Israel, not with the memories that come from storytellers and history books, but with my own eyes. It is one of the most exciting developments one could witness - the fulfillment of a national destiny, the rising of millions of people ready to build and create and grow and dream and act on those dreams.  Some part of my soul must have been there in the ranks of those who were fighting for Israel, because to this day the excitement of reliving mentally the events that led up to the creation of the State of Israel fill me with breathless wonder. And I experience intensely the same stirring of deep-seated emotion when I think of the Kurds finally gathering the strength, the will, and the courage to build their own home from the ashes of past suffering and persecution by their neighbors.  I see the people dancing and singing, wealthy and poor, speaking different languages,  coming from different traditions, mercurial, used to having to smuggle people and things over imaginary borders, intellectual and poorly educated, of different religions and of no religions at all, arguing over every little item, but all sharing in one dream, in one goal. These people may be broken up, may be scattered, may be disunited by tribal interests, different experiences, politics, infiltrated by enemies - but at the end of the day, they are one nation, with one heart and one soul. I could not live with myself if I remained on the sidelines, when a nation of friends and brothers is rising up to embrace their own path and make their way forward towards creating a country, building a home.

I cannot leave my friends, those who have fought side by side with American forces against ISIS, those who have the same enemies - cruel, heartless, illegitimate regimes that know only how to divide and persecute and suppress, which are destructive, greedy, and expansionist - surrounded by  hostile forces with nothing but cold, calculating condemnation of their national aspiration, of their long suffered dream by the international community which wanted and got their help when it was needed the most. For the first time, Iraq openly invited Iran to enter its territory for the sole sake of conducting exercises by the Iraqi Kurdish borders, threatening to invade. It is punishing the Kurds for holding a peaceful referendum in favor of independence by cruelly shutting down airports and forbidding anyone from getting in and out of the region. Iraq, our ally, supported by the United States, is threatening to deny these people access to their own oil, effectively depriving them of a valuable resource and livelihood. It is seeking to isolate Kurds, and to make them into international pariahs - all for daring to dream, and to act on those dreams.

And it is backed by Erdogan and Assad, who perhaps, may never dare to do much but to bark, but who have effectively vetoed Kurdish aspirations, and who are supporting the isolation of the would-be new country. The Kurds had placed their hopes in the United States, and in the new leadership of President Trump, only to be spurned, shoved aside, out of the consideration for the feelings of their enemies, and alleged, non-existent stability in the region which to whatever extent still exists they helped wrench away from the hands of ISIS and other regional thugs. President Trump, by denying the legitimacy of the referendum, is not only throwing our allies to the wolves, not only empowering the enemies of the US and placing foundation for decades of havoc and expansionism by Iran, Turkey and other bad actors, but he is stripping away from the US its role as a moral leader and the kind of country that everyone wants to live in or even be. He is, ultimately, betraying the American essence, that recognizes national sovereignty of others, and bases itself on a foundation of mutual respect and non-interference, except in defense of our own interests. Our interests are not served by arming thugs and appeasing bullies. Our interests are best served in supporting and strengthening loyal allies, who, in turn, will promote and defend the principles and values we share.

I am asking both President Trump and Congress to do what is both necessary and moral, and to announce our unequivocal support for Kurdish independence, and willingness to stand by our allies at a difficult time when they are threatened by hostile forces. I am asking them not to make a monumental mistake in denying our help to those who are looking up at us at this moment. I am asking the United States to return to its core and its roots and to lead by example, at a time when true leadership in the world is in short supply. I am asking our government to show vision, courage, strength, and dedication to truth - a tall order, I know, given the political climate of today's day and age - but an order worthy of America's greatness. Being great means showing leadership, choosing one's battles carefully, and defending what is necessary for one's own security but also, what is moral and right.