AFP October 2011 Issue by American Foreign Policy Magazine

american foreign policy May 2011

Volume X, Issue VI

AFP

Staff

From the Editor-in-Chief

Editor-in-Chief Taman Narayan ‘13

Cover Story

Dear Readers,

Publisher Matthew Arons ‘13

After a year of radical shifts in the foreign policy landscape, the summer proved a time of consolidation and building on existing trends. In Libya, Muammar Gadhafi was dislodged from his central base of support in Tripoli, completing a rebel victory that appeared to build gradually over the course of the last few months. In Europe, the debt crisis continued unabated with Spain and Italy joining the list of imperiled economies, though the European Central Bank, Germany, and France have successfully kept Greece and the Euro itself alive. And at home here in the U.S., partisan sniping reached its natural zenith with the entire nation nearly defaulting and losing its AAA rating from Standard and Poor’s. Our cover story, written by Kerry Brodie, explores an issue that has reasserted its global preeminence in this time of relative predictability: Israel-Palestine. Building on her experience in the region this past summer, Brodie looks at the effects of the coming vote on Palestinian statehood in the United Nations and sees only bad news ahead. The back of the magazine, meanwhile, offers two perspectives on another troubling occurrence: the London riots. Daniel Toker sees an inexcusable breakdown of law and order and advises the United States on how to prevent similar outbreaks, while Seongcheol Kim sees the riots as emblematic of a general breakdown in British societal bonds. In between are articles on the Syrian uprisings, corruption in India, Chinese military ambition, and the Norway shootings, all of which offer an illuminating perspective on the world around us. On a different note, I want to invite all of our readers who enjoy the print magazine to follow us online at afpprinceton.com. We have a blog going and plan to post more exclusive online content as the year progresses, in addition to the articles from each issue. You won’t want to miss it.

Managing Editors Rachel Webb ‘14 Rohan Bhargava ‘14 Editors Yun Chung Sweta Haldar Jim Hao Natalie Kim Jay Parikh Peter Wang Matt Arons Kristie Liao

‘12 ‘12 ‘12 ‘12 ‘12 ‘12 ‘13 ‘13

Jonathan Lin Andres Perez-Benzo Christiana Renfro Daniel Toker Emily VanderLinden Audrye Wong Sunny Jeon Adam Safadi

‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘13 ‘14 ‘14

Layout

Emily VanderLinden ‘13 Production Manager Kimberly Hopewell ‘13 Adam Safadi Grace Ma ‘14 Jenna Weinstein

‘14 ‘14

Copy Editors Christina Henricks ‘13 Ben Kotopka ‘13 Editors-in-Chief Emeriti Ben Cogan ‘12

Sincerely, Taman Narayan Editor-in-Chief

Business Staff

Kimberly Hopewell ‘13

Zara Mannan ‘13

AFP Advisory Board

American Foreign Policy is a student-written, student-run publication based at Princeton University. It was founded in the wake of September 11th to provide Princeton students with a forum to discuss the difficult problems and choices facing the United States in the world. American Foreign Policy magazine is sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. No part of this publication should be construed to promote any pending legislation or to support any candidate for office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Woodrow Wilson School, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, the James Madison Program, Princeton University, or American Foreign Policy. AFP gladly accepts letters to the editor, article proposals, and donations, which are fully tax-deductible.

Wolfgang Danspeckgruber: Director, Liechtenstein Institute for Self-Determination Robert P. George: Director, James Madison Program G. John Ikenberry: Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs Christina Paxson: Dean, Woodrow Wilson School

All correspondence may be directed to: American Foreign Policy, 5406 Frist Center, Princeton, NJ 08544 afp@princeton.edu www.afpprinceton.com

American Foreign Policy

Photo Credits: Creative Commons images from Flickr

A merican F oreign P olicy September 2011,Volume XI, Issue I

ta b l e o f co n t e n ts

The Ides of September Palestine Takes its Case Abroad Kerry Brodie‘12

Turmoil in Syria Why Iran is Feeling the Heat George Mahila ‘13

A Time for Leaders, Not Heros The Concilatory Approach to China Collin Berger ‘14

AFP Quiz

Global Update

Hungry for Change HowAnna Hazare is Cleaning Up Indian Politics Neelay Patil ‘14

Europe’s Botched Secularization Religious Diversity in the Wake of Tragedy Michael Becker ‘14

In Context

Civil Unrest in England Far from the Arab Spring Daniel Toker ‘13

Society Matters How the “Big Society” Has Made it Worse Seongcheol Kim ‘14

Taman Narayan ‘13

Rachel Webb ‘14

Rohan Bhargava ‘14

September 2011

Cover Image by MYSYSSYS-

Middle East

President Mahmoud Abbas (L) and Prime Minister Benjamin Netayanhu. Photo from Wikimedia Commons

The Ides of September Palestine takes its Case Abroad

on’t forget, September is coming” reads the reminder message about a meeting from the volunteer security guards on Kibbutz Shluchot. “I am supposed to have leave, but it will be September” laments a friend in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) Golani Brigade. In many ways, September has become a euphemism for discontent in Israel. Social protesters in Israel know that come September, they will be pushed from the spotlight amid increased safety precautions and the ever possible iteration of a third Intifada. While much of the international dialogue has been supportive of the looming Palestinian statehood vote in the United Nations, Israel has viewed the unilateral bid as a serious security concern, and with good reason. With the vote destined to fail and diplomatic tensions boiling high, the post-vote environment is ripe for possible violence which could undo many recent

Kerry Brodie ‘12

gains in Israeli-Palestinian relations. By taking unilateral action instead of engaging in dialogue with Israel and its few allies in the UN, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has undermined the future of peace negotiations. Though the resolution will most likely pass in the General Assembly, it will not create a Palestinian state. This is not simply because the U.S. will likely veto any attempt to make the Palestinian State a full member of the UN in the Security Council. The UN cannot solve the fragmentation within Palestinian politics. Moreover, it cannot bridge the ideological divides between Gaza and the West Bank and cannot impose any sort of an agreement on the Israelis. The current situation will not end as a result of the vote to take place in September and will continue until Israel and a unified Palestinian government reach an agreement. Avi Gil, Israel’s former Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs com-

American Foreign Policy

mented that, “In 100 years the historians may say this was one of the steps leading to a Palestinian state… but I do not think this is a crucial one or that a Palestinian state could not be established without it.” At best it seems like the September vote will be a side note, much like the Algiers Declaration in 1988, but with more countries involved. This vote is not a sudden decision on the part of the Palestinian leadership. The PA has spent the last two years trying to strengthen its political power and governance in the West Bank. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and

“After decades of unrest and poor leadership, many Palestinians are relieved to see a strong and functioning governmental bureaucracy.”

along with the support of President Mahmoud Abbas, the PA has undergone significant change. It has taken efforts to promote institution building and state infrastructure. This initiative has led to improvements in its own people’s trust in their government and security forces. Further improvements have been achieved in the trust Israel has in the security forces and the standards of living that are recovering towards where they were before the Second Intifada. American-trained Palestinian security forces are a visible part of everyday life in the West Bank, evidence of a step towards formal self-governance. A senior Western official involved in the training commented that that the simple observation that parents in the West Bank can send their children to the movies and the presence of Palestinian security officers instead of Israeli soldiers reveals the renewed feelings of safety and security in the West Bank. After decades of unrest and poor leadership, many Palestinians are relieved to see a strong and functioning governmental bureaucracy. This initiative has allowed the PA to gain legitimacy and perhaps make a stronger case for self-rule. For Palestinians, the September vote is seen as a moment of opportunity and has garnered support among workers, activists, and residents of the West Bank . This support is tempered by several realities, however. Those who support the vote are not so naïve as to believe that the September vote will be the end of the struggle for statehood. It is merely another step in that process. The PA, nevertheless, has made a conscious effort to paint the picture that this is the only option that they have. This in and of itself is presents a danger. That the PA is positioning itself for unilateral action leads the Palestinian public to believe that peaceful negotiations are no longer the answer. One resident of the West Bank town of Beit-Sahur commented that at this point it would be extremely dangerous for the PA’s legitimacy if they were to back down. Moroever, while the PA has gained legitimacy in the international community through its state building and infrastructure

Middle East

development, its popular support at home is strongly susceptible to any indication that the PA has lost sight of the Palestinian people’s best interest. The security forces already are not overwhelmingly popular due to their cooperation with the Israelis. Unless the collaboration is seen as a necessary step towards the creation of a Palestinian state, it could cause the PA’s popularity to erode. In a conversation about this conundrum in East Jerusalem, Al-Quds newspaper correspondent Zaki Abu Al-Halaweh commented that the September vote will lead to marches in some form or another and awaken more activists. Marches are a symbol of peaceful protests, and a trend we have seen throughout the Arab world, as well as historically in Israel and the occupied territories. The problem is not marches. The problem is that marches can easily turn violent. All it takes is a nervous Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier feeling threatened at a check point, or an inf lux of Hamas participation in these marches for the situation to turn into a violent confrontation. A single violent protest may set off an uncontrolled series of events. This summer already has not been quiet. September looms but August has simmered. On August 18, terrorists killed eight Israelis in Southern Israel. Daily rockets from Gaza strikes at the heart of Israeli cities in the South, provoked the IDF to take immediate and severe action. The rollercoaster of cease-fires that were broken within hours only led to an increase of violence. For the first time since the 2008 war in Gaza, Israeli media began discussing what it would take to have another similar operation. There is little security in the Israeli Iron Dome missile defense shield. Israelis living in the South live with the stress of not being able to perform daily actions or attend school for fear of a rocket threat. A recent immigrant from the United States stated, “Everyone here was thinking September would be violent- not now. Can you imagine a whole country only being surprised at the timing, not at the actual violence?” Israelis are frustrated by the con-

September 2011

“The UN cannot solve the fragmentation within Palestinian politics. Moreover, it cannot bridge the ideological divides between Gaza and the West Bank...” tinuing attacks on their Southern towns, the failure of peace negotiations, and by their perception that the media and international community seem stacked against them. No one in Israel is surprised that the September vote will most likely isolate Israel and its few allies. In anticipation of the September vote, the “ifs” are numerous, and predominantly negative for those who advocate Palestinian-Israeli peace. If Fatah and Hamas reach a unity agreement without Hamas accepting the quartet’s terms, the foreign aid that the PA depends on could be cut. It will not be able to pay its employees, and Fayyad’s state building successes will disappear into the annals of history. If Palestinian marches lead to violent confrontation at check points another Intifada could break out, demolishing the already scant sense of security felt in Israel and the willingness of either party to negotiate. The peace process is further complicated by the potential for the Palestinian youth movement, the refugee community, women, the elderly, or any other disenfranchised component of Palestinian society to gain momentum. All these factors point to the clear sign the Israelis have good reason to be worried about the upcoming Palestinian push for statehood and that Palestinians should heed such a warning. Afp Kerry may be reached at kbrodie@princeton.edu

Middle East

Turmoil in Syria Why Iran is Feeling the Heat

yria is a relative newcomer to the pivotal movements of the Arab Spring. The unrest that started in Tunisia and spread to Egypt, Yemen, and Libya had shattered the political status quo throughout the region, but the Syrian government’s iron grip convinced many that it would be able to hold on to power. Now, however, with protests of unprecedented size and scope continuing despite the deaths of over 2,000 dissidents and imprisonment of more than 30,000 others, the Assad regime and its signature foreign policy has never looked more in doubt In addition to providing the Syrian people with a chance for freedom after decades of oppression, the uprising directly challenges Iranian influence and interests in the region—threatening to drag Tehran into a diplomatic quagmire to support their client state in Damascus.

George Maliha ‘13 The United States, because of interests in Israel, Iraq, and the region, desires stability above all else. Syria, unlike its counterparts in the Arab Spring, appears to be entering a period of prolonged civil war as the Assad regime fights to retain control. American policymakers must tread carefully as the fall of the Syrian regime has the potential to unleash sectarian violence, a regional war, or the rise of a more hostile regime aligned firmly against the United States, Israel, and other allies. However, if executed properly, the removal of Bashar Al-Assad and his cadre will help bring freedom to one Arab nation and make the region much friendlier to American, Israeli, and European interests. For the past four decades, the Assads have used Syria’s geopolitical position to play a role in regional affairs that its limited resources and

economic strength would normally preclude. Alarmingly, the regime has forged an extremely close relationship with Iran: Syria has become a funnel for vast quantities of arms and financial support to terrorist organizations throughout the Levant—notably Hamas in Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon. Indeed, Syria represents the only Mediterranean nation that has granted mooring rights to the Iranian navy, and Israel has intercepted numerous Iranian shipments to Syria intended for transfer to Lebanon or Gaza. In addition to distributing Iranian resources, the Syrian regime has benefited from Iranian support with billions in “gifts,” arms transfers, and nuclear assistance. This relationship is what makes the current revolt against Assad potentially beneficial to the region as a whole. Under the intense pressure of sanctions and monitoring, Iran cannot directly support terrorist groups in the region for any prolonged period without an ally in Syria. Without this continued support, Hezbollah and Hamas’s power will be dramatically weakened. For instance, Hezbollah maintains the support of a contingent of Lebanese Shiite-Muslims through

Protestors demand ouster of President Bashir al-Assad in Syria. Photo from flickr.com

American Foreign Policy

grants, patronage, and infrastructure projects in South Lebanon. Without this base, the political gains the group has made in Beirut—as well as its capacity to launch attacks at Israel— might be curtailed. Hamas would face a similar position in Gaza. In essence, a post-Assad Syria will limit Iran’s ability to project power in the Levant and allow the United States, Israel, Turkey, and others to more strongly influence this vital region. Tellingly, Iran has signaled its commitment to preserving the Syrian regime through its Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. While Iran has gone through the motions of discussing reforms, Tehran has provided immense support to Damascus in recent months. Moreover, Iran has trained security forces in monitoring the Internet and has transferred jamming equipment to prevent radio or satellite communications. International intelligence reports that Tehran has detached units of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force and has deployed snipers. This degree of assistance underscores Syria’s value to Iran and represents only a fraction of the resources that Tehran would be willing to commit to stabilize its anchor in the region. Unintentionally, then, the Syrian revolt will force Iran to commit a great deal of resources to maintaining a regime that appears more likely to fold. At the same time, Iran is reeling from sanctions and requires its resources to shore up its flailing economy and confront its restive population. This geopolitical coup, nonetheless, is far from assured. Damascus can still count on the support of the minority Alawite sect from which Assad hails as well as Syria’s wealthy, influential merchant class. Furthermore, despite defections, Syrian security forces have been well supplied and trained by the regime and remain loyal to Damascus. However, this support might evaporate as sanctions begin to take hold: the most recent embargo on Syrian oil promises to deprive the regime of much of its revenue. In addition, Western companies are delaying credit extension and are avoiding commercial deals in Syria. Moreover, the recall of the Ambassadors of Tur-

“...the fall of the Syrian regime has the potential to unleash sectarian violence, a regional war, or the rise of a more hostile regime... ” key, Saudi Arabia, and other European nations signals the increasing isolation of the regime. While the leaders of the revolt have proven to be tech-savvy, effective in coordinating protests, moving between safe houses, and skillful in dodging security forces, there remain a number of unanswered questions as to their future plans. How would a new regime view Israel? Although Assad made no secret of his views when he launched an anti-Semitic rant during John Paul II visit to Syria in 2001, many rebels are diehard Islamists who also do not harbor favorable views towards Israel. As a state of war still exists between Israel and Syria and the dispute over the Golan Heights remains unresolved, care must be taken to ensure that a regime hostile to America or its allies’ interests does not take Assad’s place. Any post-Assad government must commit to democratic, pluralistic principles and renounce terrorism and interference in neighbors. Moreover, Syria is not a homogenous country, and as the memory of Iraq’s recent sectarian strife remains fresh, a poorly executed transition could trigger a surge of violence. Minority Alawites and Christians are entrenched in important positions within the government and fear the consequences to their communities if the Sunni majority does take political power. The United States and its allies, then, must maintain the sanctions and pressures on Syria until an appropriate regime takes Assad’s place. Once such a regime has emerged, it is essential that the United States remove Syria from the list of State Sponsors of

September 2011

Terror, lift sanctions, unfreeze assets abroad, and encourage allies to support the recovery. Although this transition will most likely represent a difficult road, persistence against the regime and facilitating the establishment of more rational governance in Syria will pay immense dividends. Turkey’s recent break with Syria might signal a return to a more pro-American foreign policy. Israel would be relieved of some military pressure from extremist groups in Gaza and Lebanon as well as the Golan Heights. Both the United States and Israel would benefit from the further isolation of Iran, and American forces could complete their missions in Afghanistan and Iraq with a severely weakened insurgency. To get to that point though, the United States and its allies must maintain pressure against one of the most brutal regimes in the region and support an alternative committed to freedom. The rebels should be aided by advanced-encrypted telecommunications equipment that can dodge Syrian-Iranian tracking (the Saudis have already reportedly supplied thousands of satellite phones and other devices to the rebels), the establishment of wireless internet capabilities that can be projected from Turkey or Lebanon, and the creation of alternate cell and Internet networks not subject to censorship or monitoring. In addition, as workers continue to forgo employment in order to demonstrate, the United States and its allies must set up a system to transport food and medical supplies to besieged rebels through Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, or Jordan. The fall of the House of Assad will change the dynamics of the Middle East. To simply accept the first nonAssad to gain power would be to condemn the people of Syria to further sectarian bloodshed and repression as well as potentially maintain an antiAmerican and anti-Israeli regime. Like all great opportunities, it must not be squandered. Afp George may be reached at gmaliha@princeton.edu

US Foreign Policy

A Time for Leaders, Not Heroes The Conciliatory Approach to China

n a recent New York Times editorial, William Deresiewicz pondered how frequently 21st century Americans idolize a type of heroism that is “triumphant… [and] morally unambiguous action.” One of Deresiewicz’s conclusions is that the U.S. needs leaders “who marshal us to the muddle” of the real world’s moral ambiguity and choose imperfect progress over quixotic grandstanding. This same logic can, should, and does apply often to American foreign policy, yet there remain cases where bolder leadership should replace heroics. Chief among these is the U.S.’s relationship with Asia’s rising power: China. It is easy for American officials to play the hero and attack China on every matter on which Chinese ideas differ from American ones, but the approach that is most advantageous for the U.S. is the politically dangerous maneuver of choosing only a few contentious points worth pursuing and building overall Sino-American cooperation. Reaching this long-term goal will require the U.S. to cede more diplomatic ground to China in the short-term. Ideally, of course, such sacrifices would be unnecessary and the U.S. would do everything that it considers just and right, but that is the world of the hero and not of the leader. By pushing for compromise rather than diplomatic logjam, American policymakers would boost the U.S. (and Chinese) economy and reduce the threat of political or even military conflict with China. A key area where the U.S. can launch this pragmatic leadership is the U.S.’s official position toward China’s domestic policies, such as civil rights. American officials from both parties have routinely criticized China on its domestic policies, yet this has achieved little or no progress. In fact, Chinese officials see American criticism as unjustified meddling that aims to constrain Chinese economic development, and this has heightened tension and limited progress on other Sino-American initiatives.

Collin Berger ‘14

When President Obma, against China’s repeated requests, met with the Dalai Lama once in 2010 and again in 2011, he hurt Sino-American relations while failing to aid the Chinese people. While the President of the United States should not have snapped to obey China’s demand, it was unwise to schedule these meetings when they would obviously harm diplomacy. Regardless of how much voters support such meetings and how laudable the Dalai Lama is, the best way to encourage the expansion of civil rights for all Chinese in the long-run is by respecting and cooperating with China in the short-term. Without the strong and cooperative relationship that would incline China to value the U.S.’s opinion, the U.S. does not have the means to better the average Chinese citizen. Rather than waste the time and energy now in doomed heroics, it is wiser for the U.S. to avoid confrontations on China’s purely domestic issues until a future point in time. The same cannot be said for China’s international stance, since the U.S. must respond to China’s role as a rising regional power. Unlike China’s domestic issues, the ever-changing international scene affects the immediate interests of the U.S. and

is well within the U.S.’s power to change. Over the past couple years, China has reasserted its disputed territorial claims on various islands and seas, which sparked conflict with South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam, among others. The State Department’s involvement in some of these incidents in opposition to China tightened bonds between the U.S. and some of these East Asian countries, but they riled Chinese officials who view the U.S. as constraining their country. All the while, China has continued to expand its military budget year after year. Even if China’s official state figures are accurate and not, as news sources and Western government officials believe, underestimations, military spending has increased by double-digit percentages for most of the past several years. This spending is generating results; just this year, the People’s Liberation Army (P.L.A.) unveiled both its first stealth fighter and its first aircraft carrier. In response to the official policy that these recent military expansions are “purely defensive,” Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated, “neither the skills they [the P.L.A] were perfecting nor their investments seemed to support that argument.” This requires the U.S. to fulfill its international obligations while avoiding confrontation. Despite the sensitive situation, the U.S. cannot renege on its existing agreements in place with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and others or it would lose credibility as a trustworthy ally and partner. It is worth noting, though, that the U.S. does not have far-reaching treaties with nations like Vietnam and has

President Barack Obama (L) and President Hu Jintao at a summit. Photo from flickr.com

American Foreign Policy

limited justification of its own dominance in areas like the South China Sea. Therefore, the U.S. should back away from such territorial disputes when possible so that its input has greater significance when action becomes necessary. The American response to the Russian invasion of Georgia is a fitting precedent: since the U.S. limited its criticism to statements rather than intervention, Russo-American relations were strong enough for both nations to sign 2010’s New Start arms reduction pact. Ceding some international issues to China is essential because the status quo allows for neither healthier relations nor the accomplishment of the U.S.’s central goals. Amidst this growing assertiveness, the Chinese military has shown an increasingly antagonistic approach toward the U.S.. One New York Times article reports that, since the fall of the Soviet Union and Tiananmen Square, the rising generation of Chinese soldiers perceives the U.S. as its enemy. This explains several developments, such as a planned antiship ballistic missile base to survey the South China Sea. Meanwhile, the American military’s overarching doctrine is a two-war strategy, meaning that the U.S. would be capable of fighting two conventional wars simultaneously. Although military budget cuts might revise or replace this thinking, the status quo would increase American military resources in East Asia in response to China’s growing military capability, potentially triggering Cold-War-style escalation. Although both Admiral Mullen and Vice President Biden have independently visited China to open new channels of communication and support China and the U.S.’s shared interests and responsibilities, both visits avoided any serious effort to resolve the existing disagreements and so did little to counteract any building tension. There are also intractable economic issues that will stress Sino-American relations in the decades to come and require the U.S. to act now to avoid future calamity. One such issue will be China’s growing demand for resources. As China’s booming economy allows more and more of its 1.3 billion citizens to buy a wide range of goods, global demand for everything from oil to cotton will continue to grow and grow. This will likely cause disputes as the U.S. and China chase after the same finite resources. In a best case scenario, the two nations will both give ground and find a

US Foreign Policy

way for both to access sufficient resources. If such a contest were to happen now, when American policymakers pursue antagonistic heroism and China resents American interference, a dispute could easily spiral into disaster. This could be purely economic; China owns most of the world’s supply of essential resources like rare earth metals. When a territorial dispute with Japan led China to stop Japan-bound shipments of rare earths, China demonstrated that it was more than willing to pressure other nations with its resources. A disruption in China’s resource shipments would deliver a serious blow to the American economy. However unlikely, there is also the even worse scenario in which tension sparks a military conflict between the world’s two largest armies. Here, then, is where compromise is key. Vice President Biden’s recent visit to China showed how far American policymakers are from cooperation and wise investment in long-term American interests. When the Vice President said that he “fully understand[s]” the controversial One-Child policy, critics interpreted this as tacit support. Consequently, both the White House and GOP presidential candidates reacted by condemning China. As noble as those statements were, they did nothing to change the policy while they undid some of the progress the Vice President’s visit accomplished. This is why the U.S. needs policymakers who are leaders and not heroes. An uncompromising, morally unambiguous heroism will not produce the cooperation and long-term results that down-and-dirty leadership would. Such leadership will be unpopular and will take time, but it is worth the cost of avoiding disaster. When Senator Daniel Webster faced political death for supporting the controversial Compromise of 1850, he stated “necessity compels me to speak true rather than pleasing things...I should indeed like to please you; but I prefer to save you.” The same applies now. The unpleasant truth is that American policymakers should leave heroics to the comic books and become exemplary leaders. Afp

Collin may be reached at cmberger@princeton.edu

September 2011

AFP Quiz Multiple Choice Monthly Taman Narayan ‘13 1. Vice President Biden was criticized for appearing to endorse which Chinese policy? a. Detaining rights activists b. One-Child Policy c. Great Leap Forward d. Selling arms to Sudan

2. A photo album of whom was found in Muammar Gadhafi’s compound? a. Condoleezza Rice b. Hillary Clinton c. Queen Rania d. Vladimir Putin 3. German Chancellor Angela Merkel has a doctorate in which field? a. Sociology b. Economics c. Slavic Literature d. Quantum Chemistry 4. Hugo Chavez recently vowed to stay in power until when? a. 2017 b. 2045 c. 2031 d. 2013 5. Which nation recently launched a Truth-and-Reconciliation committee with the blessing of Archbishop Desmond Tutu? a. Democratic Republic of Congo b. Ivory Coast c. Senegal d. Canada

Answers on page 13

A: After two years in IRAN,

American hikers Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer returned to the US. The two hikers had been held in solitary confinement in Tehran’s Evin prison with limited communication with their families after being accused of espionage.

A delighted crowd of thousands greeted Mahmoud Abbas in PALESTINE upon his from the UN General Assembly. Abbas emphasized that negotiations cannot commence until the halting of Israeli settlement building.

In RUSSIA, current President Dmitri Medvedev announced his support of former president Vladmir Putin’s candidacy for the position of prime minister. If elected, Putin would legally be able to hold the position until 2024.

Women in SAUDI ARABIA were granted the right to vote and run for office in the next set of municipal elections. This set of elections has yet to be scheduled.

A drone strike resulted in the death of three militants in PAKISTAN, adding to the death of Taliban associate Abu Hafs AlShahri.

H: An attack on part of the

I: Former president of ZAMBIA

J: LIBYA’s National Transitional

US Embassy complex in Kabul, AFGHANISTAN did not result in any casualties. Secretary of Defense Panetta contended that such attacks represent a change of strategy by the Taliban.

American Foreign Policy

Rupiah Banda conceded recent elections to opposition leader Michael Sata. Sata is known as “King Cobra” for his fiery rhetoric against Chinese abuse of Zambian miners.

Council announced plans to create an interim government and expand after the liberation of key cities. Senior member Elamin Belhaj denied reports of division within the NTC.

E: The Kurdistan Workers Party

(PKK) apologized for the deaths of civilians in an attack aimed at police in TURKEY. Four civilian women died and two were injured.

Prime Minister Najib Rizak of MALAYSIA pledges to revamp censorship laws and emergency legislation that have been on the books since 1969, promising to transform the country into a “mature, progressive democracy.”

September 2011

Eleven bodies were found after the discovery of thirty-five corpses in Veracruz, MEXICO. Mexican authorities say that all the victims had criminal backgrounds and died in a drug-related dispute.

Protests intensified over a proposed hydroelectric dam in the Patagonia region of CHILE. Government officials are struggling to build the nation’s limited energy supply without harming the area’s pristine environment.

Asia

Hungry For Change How Anna Hazare Is Cleaning Up Indian poltics

n the face of alarming government corruption, millions in India have hope in a new hero. Known by the affectionate title of respect, “Anna”, Kisan Baburao Hazare has ignited a controversial anti-corruption movement, winning support from a wide coalition of Indians, including youths, celebrities, and government officials. Despite his humble appearance, the 74-year-old social activist has coupled bombastic rhetoric with relentless hunger strikes in order to fight the culture of corruption in Indian government. Public outcry reached its zenith this year, but government corruption has been ingrained into the India’s political system since its independence in 1947. In the years following its independence, the young nation was hampered by excessive government control of the economy. The intricate system of red tape and business regulation, known as “License Raj,” stifled economic growth for several decades and gave the government inordinate power to dole out favors. Even since economic liberalization, corruption has continued, and direct criminal allegations have been leveled against various members of Parliament, chief ministers, and even former Prime Minister Narasimha Rao. In addition to persistent scandals on a national level, Indians must deal with the corruption that has trickled down to many public employees. The Indian government is primarily characterized by a lack of accountability, and citizens know that offering money to officials can solve most legal problems. According to a 2005 study by the organization Transparency International, nearly 80% of Indians who had interacted with the police that year paid a bribe. Public discontent with government seemed to reach its peak following the “2G Spectrum Scam” of November 2010. The scandal involved government officials illegally undercharging favored telecom companies for radio frequencies. After the collusion was uncovered, several well-known bureaucrats, corporation executives, and media personalities were found respon-

Neelay Patil ‘14 sible. Andimuthu Raja was forced to resign from his position as Minister of Communications and Information Technology. Early this year, millions of Indians yearning for change found a leader in the controversial yet charismatic Anna Hazare. He was raised in a rural village and went to school until seventh grade, when he forced to work as a flower-seller to support his family. After a near-death experience as a driver in the Indian army, Hazare immersed himself in

“...Hazare has been able to get every person in India talking about a problem that had been tolerated for far too long: corruption. He has captured the imaginations of countless Indians who hope for a future without the constant plague of corruption. .”

religious works and the biographies of social activists for guidance. He became dedicated to improving the conditions of his own squalid village, Ralegaon Siddhi. By renovating the local temple, repairing the water tank, building a school, and discouraging caste-based discrimination, Hazare became a transformative leader for the village. At the same time, Hazare was criticized for his extreme methods of discipline; he once tied three drunkards to the temple pillars and walloped them with his own belt. Hazare defended his actions with a statement that seemingly sums up his guiding philosophy: “Rural India is a harsh society; if you want change, it’s some-

American Foreign Policy

times necessary to be tough.” Hazare then dedicated his life to social activism and the fight against corruption in Indian politics. In April, Hazare gained nationwide fame by channeling citizens’ collective anger into the passage of the “Jan Lokpal Bill”, or Citizens’ Ombudsman Bill. The bill, which was originally drafted by well-known former Supreme Court Judge Santosh Hegde and Supreme Court Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, would create an independent authority responsible for monitoring government corruption cases and completing timely, thorough investigations. Though the regulation seemingly adds one more layer of bureaucracy to Indian politics, the bill mandates that the members of the regulating body be appointed by judges and citizens in a transparent fashion. The bill also provides crucial protection for whistleblowers who report government wrongdoing, an aspect of transparency that Hazare feels has been overlooked thus far. Hazare’s activism has always been characterized by fiery rhetoric and uncompromising stances, but the 2011 anti-corruption movement intensified this summer due to a series of hunger strikes. On April 5th, Hazare began a “fast-unto-death” that he promised to continue until the Jan Lokpal Bill was given fair consideration by government officials. Over the following days, thousands of Indians from every region of the country initiated their own protest marches, government boycotts, and hunger strikes to show their support for Hazare’s movement. As the government scrambled to manage the agitated masses, Hazare won endorsements from various corporate officials, intellectuals, and even Bollywood film stars. However, Hazare refused to allow any politicians to visit his fast site in order to protect the movement from any attempts at politicization. By April 9th, the Indian government had acceded to Hazare’s demands and promised to have a draft of the Jan Lokpal Bill by the following monsoon session of Parliament. This initial success gave Hazare’s anti-corruption movement a boost in publicity and influence by the middle of the summer. When the government produced a watered-down version of the Jan Lokpal Bill, Hazare threatened to begin a new fast until a stronger version of the Bill was drafted. On August 16, Indian police arrested Hazare near the Indian capital of New Delhi for disturbing the peace immediately before he began fasting. The move infuriated Indians across the country, and intense media coverage quickly turned the incarceration into a

public relations disaster for the government. Officials offered to release Hazare from Tihar Jail, only to find him refusing to leave until he was granted unconditional permission to hold his fast. Furthermore, he called on his supporters to fill local jails across the country in protest of the government’s actions. Hazare finally started his fast on August 16 with renewed grassroots support. Various politicians pleaded with him to end the fast, including Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Over the next twelve days, Hazare garnered the support of even more government officials and celebrities, and the size of some independent rallies exceeded 50,000 people. On August 27, both houses of Parliament passed a resolution of Hazare’s strengthened form of the Jan Lokpal Bill, and the next day Hazare ended his fast at a gathering of thousands of supporters. These adamant hunger strikes, reminiscent of Mohandas Gandhi’s legendary fasts during India’s fight for independence, garnered a wave of support from millions of Indians. At the same time, some in India and across the world are worried by Hazare’s swift rise in power. To them, Hazare’s inflexible methods are akin to blackmail, and the results have been destructive

Asia

rather than constructive. However, these critics are attempting to use civilized logic in a political atmosphere of unbridled chaos. Despite his extreme methods, Hazare has been able to get every person in India talking about a problem that had been tolerated for far too long: corruption. He has captured the imaginations of countless Indians who hope for a future without the constant plague of corruption. Although some of his methods are radical, Hazare’s movement is justified because Indian politics need an enormous change. His call for transparency and accountability in Indian government has brought the nation to the brink of a breakthrough. Since Indian independence, the systemic corruption in government has had serious consequences for the country’s economic growth and its international standing. With Hazare’s symbolic victory and the increased focus of the national media on the issue of corruption, many Indians are cautiously hopeful for reform. This victory for Indians is positive news for the United States. As the world’s largest democracy, India remains a close ally to the United States, and Prime Minister Singh has made significant steps to strengthen American-Indian relations during his ten-

ure. As India reforms government corruption and fixes structural domestic problems, many expect this bond to strengthen. Furthermore, Hazare’s movement should serve as a valuable model for all international civilian spectators. In a relatively short time period, one man has used nonviolent methods to generate a remarkable amount of involvement and media coverage. He has sparked a populist movement that has thus far never been seen in India, and the world has witnessed the force of the world’s largest democracy in action. Although the future of Indian politics is still uncertain, the degree to which Indians have become involved in their political system is a victory they should appreciate. Afp

Neelay may be reached at npatil@princeton.edu

Anna Hazare’s Hunger Strike in India. Photo from connect.in.com

September 2011

Europe

Europe’s Botched Secularization Religious Diversity In the Wake of Tragedy

Michael Becker ‘14

n August 21st, musician Susanne Sundfør performed a haunting rendition of Mitt Lille Land – My Little Country – for a somber crowd of 6,700 at the Oslo memorial service to honor the 77 innocent Norwegians killed in Anders Behring Breivik’s July terror attacks. The traditional folk song evoked the stereotypical image of a Scandinavian state: a quiet society that places utmost emphasis on peace and progress. It was that same sense of serenity that was shattered on July 22nd when Anders Behring Breivik, an ultra-conservative fanatic, detonated a car bomb outside the government office of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg in Oslo. Not even two hours later, he donned a police uniform on the nearby island of Utøya and gunned down another 69 people after discovering his intended target, former Prime Minister Gro Brundtland, had left the island earlier that day. Such violence may seem senseless, but Breivik had developed his own warped logic to fuel the attacks on his countrymen. The

blonde-haired and blue-eyed native Norwegian had long been fiercely opposed to Norway’s lax immigration laws and more recently, the huge influx of Muslim immigrants. Before the attack, he uploaded a 1,500-page manifesto to his blog, in which he vilified the Marxist and multicultural ideals of the far left as providing the impetus for the eventual destruction of Europe. Breivik’s attacks indicate an alarming social and political trend that has been making its way throughout Europe and necessitate the consideration of a new political rhetoric towards religious minorities: one of pluralism rather than strictly of tolerance. The massacre certainly demonstrates a NeoNazi influence in the European Islamophobia that has become so prevalent in recent years. In November of 2009, 57.5% of Swiss voters chose in a popular referendum to ban the construction of minarets on mosques built in the country – and this despite the fact that there has been virtually no friction between Muslim immigrants and native Swiss. Then, on April 11th of this year, two Parisian women were arrested for wearing burkas in a protest outside Notre Dame

Memorial march in Oslo. Photo from thedailyrecord.co.uk.

American Foreign Policy

Cathedral. The scarves, meant to cover a Muslim woman’s head, face, and body in modesty, were declared illegal for supposedly violating the secularized and egalitarian ideology of the French state. Besides heavy fines, court appearances, and incarceration, violators are also forced to attend classes in order to learn to publicly demonstrate the modern ideals of the French Republic. Belgium and the Netherlands are also in various stages of enacting such bans. Although such laws flagrantly restrict inalienable religious rights, they are nearly invincible to popular criticism under the guise of progressive state-sponsored secularization. Ultimately though, it does not matter whether such legislation is indeed part of an effort to secularize the public face of Europe or a disguised attack from the far right on the new wave of Muslim immigrants; regardless, psychopaths like Breivik will exploit them as legitimization for anti-Islamic violence. Thus, Prime Minister Stoltenberg, King Harald, and the Norwegian government’s announcement that they would not forsake their Muslim citizens was a dramatic departure from the current trend. Influential European governments – the French, Dutch, Belgian, Swiss, etc. – have adopted a compulsive drive to secularize any and every citizen regardless of his or her origin. The result of which is a bizarre brainwashing and an ironic deprivation of the basic religious rights that true secularization seeks to protect. Thus, rather than simply eradicate religious bias from official government proceedings, these states have trespassed their own limitations and seek to rid the masses of what they consider to be archaic religious traditions. However, they neglect to recognize that the racially and religiously homogeneous continent idealized in Mitt Lille Land no longer exists. A vast array of foreign religious traditions now calls Europe home. The largest of which is Islam, whose minarets, burkas, and daily prayer requirements cannot be hidden as easily as Europe’s native Judeo-Christian religious traditions. This current European model of secularism hypocritically persecutes those faiths that require the most evident outward declarations, such as Islam and Sikhism. Thus, the free world must therefore take appropriate steps to internalize religious and ethnic minorities, rather than to just tolerate them. This is indeed an incredibly fine line to tread. The religious rights of the minority must not be irresponsibly decided by the whims of the majority; otherwise minarets

and burkas will be banned in places besides Switzerland. And yet, the moral and legal traditions of religious minorities must not be placed on a pedestal above secular universal law; the United Kingdom’s Arbitration Act of 1996 has sloppily permitted Imams in Shari’a courts to violate conventional British rule of law. Both ends of the spectrum – oppressive and permissive alike – will inevitably incite antagonism amongst the native majorities in Europe. In short, the governments of Europe must learn to address the rights of their new Muslim inhabitants with moderation. Rather than strip Muslims of their identity or worship their differences, governments must embrace every religious creed as its own. Pluralism must replace secularism. Even the secular state must realize that religion is inseparable from mankind; it ought not affect legislation, but also ought not be legislated. This is the only way in which Muslim immigrants can be naturalized into the traditionally homogenous European society; by doing so, politicians will be able to steer their general public to tolerate their new neighbors rather than despise them like Breivik did. It therefore seemed fitting that after Prime Minister Stoltenberg and King Harald shared their condolences, the Norwegian musicians Magdi Abdelmaguid and Chirag Patel of the rap duo “Karpe Diem” closed the service. Abdelmaguid, of Egyptian and Norwegian heritage, proudly proclaimed, “I am a Muslim, Chirag is a Hindu…but we have never felt as Norwegian and we have not felt as much togetherness before as we do now, after July 22nd.” Their deliberate inclusion in the memorial service was a poignant statement of defiance against the growing xenophobia in Norway and the rest of Europe. The government’s symbolic decision to begin the service with the traditional Susanne Sundfør – a blonde-haired and blue-eyed woman – and to close it with the politically aggressive rap duo “Karpe Diem” – native Norwegian citizens despite their outspoken and unconventional creeds – was a brilliant one. To do so was a mockery of Breivik’s cause and a step towards a Europe of pluralistic solidarity rather than its current aloof and segregated tolerance. Afp

Michael may be reached at mjbecker@princeton.edu

Europe

In Context

Compiled by Rohan Bhargava ‘14 “We refuse to marginalize the role of women in Saudi society, in all fields of work according to the guidelines of Islamic law.”

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, on the decision to grant women the right to vote and run in municipal elections.

“Israel won’t give up. This land will not be free except through war. What was taken by force can only be retrieved by force.”

-Abdullah Hawaja, a West Bank resident, on the ongoing Israel-Palestinian conflict.

“Membership in the transitional national council and the new government is a right guaranteed to all of us.”

-Mustafa Abdel Jalil, President of Libya’s National Transitional

Council, on the plan to reserve equal representation, regardless of previous loyalty.

“Relations are headed towards a breakdown if the U.S. continues its coercive approach of threats and public accusations.”

- Maleeha Lodhi, former Pakistani ambassador to the United States, on the Obama administration’s public criticism of Pakistani intelligence.

“I want to say directly: An agreement over what to do in the future was reached between us several years ago.”

-Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin, commenting on

current President Dmitri Medvedev’s decision to step down after his term is over.

“We are in a precarious situation, and contributing to that is a problem of lack of confidence, in particular lack of confidence in the credibility of policy actions to arrest the crisis.”

-Singapore’s finance minister, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, talking about the European debt crisis. Sources: New York Times, Time, Reuters, Al-Jazeera, Associated Press.

September 2011

Europe

Burnt bus in central London. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Civil Unrest in England Far from the Arab Spring

n early August, masses of thugs took to the streets of England, looting shops and burning buildings. This affair, which lasted from August 6 to August 10, was not an act of political or even social protest. Rather, the riots were an outburst of brute anti-establishmentarianism on the part of young adults, a group that, unlike those in generations past, could easily mobilize using modern social media. The rioters waved no signs and were indiscriminating in their vandalism. They beat non-rioters, looted shops, and burned buildings and cars because they could. This sort of baseless rioting has happened before; the interesting question is therefore not why the riots broke out, but rather how they got so horribly out of hand and what implications they have for US domestic policy. The riots first broke out in Tottenham,

Daniel Toker ‘13

an area of London’s Haringey Borough. In the following days, they spread throughout London and to nearby cities, and by August 8, the rioting swept across the country to the north of England before the commotion finally calmed down on August 10. News sources largely hold that the riots grew out of a peaceful gathering of about 200 protesters who demanded that the police explain why they shot and killed a 29year old named Mark Duggan. The shooting occurred during an attempted arrest of Duggan, who was an alleged drug dealer and gang leader. While the exact circumstances of his death are unclear, the shooting prompted Duggan’s family to lead a protest demanding information regarding his death. Following what began as a peaceful protest, nearby parked patrol cars were set on fire, homemade bombs were thrown

American Foreign Policy

through the windows of a double-decker bus, and nearby shops were set on fire. As the disorder spread across London and then all over England, it became increasingly clear that the riots had very little to do with the killing of Mark Duggan, as rioters were stealing flat-screen televisions and blowing up cars rather than making clear their objections to the shooting. The seemingly anti-establishment sentiments surrounding the riots were passionately expressed on a televised BBC interview with Darcus Howe, a West Indian writer, broadcaster, civil rights activist, and former member of the Black Panther Party. When asked whether he was shocked by the riots, Howe said, “What I was certain about, listening to my grandson and my son, was that something very, very serious was going to take place in this country. Our political leaders had no idea. The police had no idea. But if you looked at young blacks – and young whites – with a discerning eye, and careful hearing, they have been telling us, and we would not listen, about what is happening in this country to them.” Earlier in the interview, Howe points to Duggan’s killing as a matter of concern for him, though he does not explicitly point to the shooting as directly

causing, or justifying, the riots. Rather, he suggests that the chaos that swept through England was a manifestation of something larger: “I don’t call it rioting. I call it an insurrection of the masses of the people. It is happening in Syria, it is happening in Clapham, it is happening in Liverpool, it’s happening in Port of Spain, Trinidad, and that is the nature of the historical moment.” Howe’s comment about what is happening to the youth in Britain and his comparison between the riots in England and riots elsewhere in the world suggests the riots were a form of self-assertion by youths who have been disadvantaged by the state. Though there are aspects of the state that may indeed be undermining these youth, these considerations do not justify their reckless actions. It is true that Britain has undertaken extensive spending cuts, promulgated closed-circuit television cameras, and in the opinion of some, engaged in racial profiling (as Howe suggests). And while it is also true that the rioters were largely members of the lower class, the United Kingdom is very generous in its support for the poor: 17% of the United Kingdom’s population receives public housing as opposed to 2% in the United States, the British are offered free public medical care, and the U.K. offers substantial unemployment benefits. Furthermore, the rioters were generally of school age, so the rioting could not have been about the lack of jobs. Nor did the riots start because of a lack of police presence – the rioting began with the burning of a police car, and police involvement increased immediately thereafter. Finally, most civilians – even those who condemned the Mark Duggan shooting – condemned the rioting as baseless. In short, it truly seems that those who participated in the riots did so because they thought that they could get away with looting shops if enough people caused enough upheaval. Though Howe may be wrong about the England riots as being about anything other than vandalism, he makes a good point in saying that this sort of rioting is “the nature of the historical moment.” The most notable example of contemporaneous rioting is, of course, the Arab Spring. The crucial difference is that while extensive looting did occur in the Middle East, those who participated in the protests were seeking to enact comprehensive state reforms or overthrow tyrannical regimes. The Eng-

Europe

land riots, on the other hand, were carried out by brutes using theft for personal gain and vandalism as a means of retaliation against the general establishment rather than as a protest against the English government in particular. What the England riots and the Arab Spring have in common, however, is that they were both greatly aided by modern social media, which allowed for massive and swift coordination. Because cell phones and the Internet rendered geographic distance irrelevant, the idea of rioting was not contained to any one city. That is the nature of the historical moment, and this fact should be a matter of concern to American policy, as it puts

“...the United States does have a plan in place should widespread riots strike the country... which entail[s] military action to be undertaken in the case of massive riots like those in England.” the United States at risk for such upheaval. This possibility is particularly frightening because it is impossible to predict an outbreak – after all, who would have expected that a peaceful protest demanding information about a death in Tottenham would lead to nation-wide vandalism? Given the technological aspect unique to the British riots, the first and most crucial step to prevent a future outbreak of rioting is to quell upheaval before it spreads. Had the rioting been stopped in Tottenham before word of it spread, the whole affair may have been prevented. But if a state finds itself facing cross-country upheaval, then perhaps the only way to stop the spread of rioting is to disable that which enables its proliferation. More specifically, a state might need to cut off cellular and Internet communication. Indeed, some leaders in England called for the Blackberry Messenger service to be disabled be-

September 2011

tween 6 PM and 6 AM on the nights of the rioting, and monitoring Blackberry messages led to the arrest of at least one riot coordinator. This prescription may sound totalitarian – after all, it is exactly what some corrupt regimes seized by protests in other parts of the world have tried to do – but should England, the United States, or any country come to such straits, perhaps a governmental takeover of communication systems is the only way to restore order. Indeed, many British civilians even called for such a takeover, as Britons on all parts of the political spectrum disapproved of the rioting. Had the government temporarily disabled cell phone communication, the rioters would have been cut off from one another, thus hindering their ability to gather and riot. The United States does have a plan in place should widespread riots strike the country, in the form of CONPLAN 3501 and CONPLAN 3502, which entail military actions to be undertaken in the case of massive riots like those in England. The plans draw on Congress’s constitutional power to enact martial law; this sort of military intervention has been invoked as recently as 1965 in Los Angeles, but with most riots, Congress has not officially invoked martial law, even when marines and the national guard have been called upon to help the police reestablish order.. It is unknown whether these plans include any measures to take over communication systems, but the United States would be better off if they did. The swift mobilization of people enabled by social media has created a new kind of rioting; a kind of rioting that is not likely to die out in England. With an economically frustrated group of citizens who have access to new tools of communication, such rioting is indeed a very real possibility in the United States. It is a possibility anywhere where people have access to cell phones and computers. And such rioting need not have a cause. Indeed, what may seem at first like a small incident can set off a maelstrom. Afp

Daniel may be reached at dtoker@princeton.edu

Europe

Margaret Thatcher preparing to go make a speech. Photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Society Matters How

the “Big Society” has Made it Worse

he August riots that shook London, Manchester, and other areas of England truly defy the simple knee-jerk reactions from both sides of the spectrum. Melanie Phillips of the Daily Mail was characteristically quick to place the blame on everything from breakdown of the family and single mothers to multiculturalism and welfare, while figures within the Labour Party have opportunistically chimed in to blame the riots on “cuts” and “poverty”. Yet even a slightly closer examination of the nature of the riots presents a muddled picture and suggests deep-rooted causes – far deeperrooted than the factor of immediate “cuts”. The riots are remarkable, in particular, for the diversity of the complicit. The Sun offered a sampling of “the accused”: “Lifeguard, postman, hairdresser, teacher, millionaire’s daughter, chef, and schoolboy, 11.” It is clear that whatever combination of factors was behind the riots, they were endemic to a wide swathe of British society – far wider than both extremes of explana-

Seongcheol Kim ‘14 tion offered would like to admit – and were not confined to some underclass or ethnic minority that many commentators find increasingly fashionable to think in terms of. What is warranted is a closer look at the societal framework – or even the lack of a proper one – within which this catastrophe unfolded. A proper explanation of any kind of societal rupture like the August riots must take account of the immediate environment of three decades of Thatcherite development, and the ways in which Thatcherism consciously and conspicuously sought to transform the relationship between society and the individual. Margaret Thatcher famously posited that “there is no society, only individuals and families.” For three decades, as Thatcher’s political successors happily professed along the way, British “society” has developed under the shadow of Thatcherism. The effects of this legacy on those who grew up under it, including most of the August rioters, are surely significant, not only in terms of economic conditions

American Foreign Policy

but, equally importantly, on the level of consciousness and attitude formation. For Thatcher was a preacher of values who, seeing a malaise-ridden society and possessing definitive ideas of her own, consciously sought to remold societal attitudes and assumptions, as much through rhetoric as through policy. Thatcher, in all likelihood, was conscious of the radical break from the past that her policies were initiating, and just as consciously took on the role of rhetorically guiding the country in this new direction on the level of attitudes and assumptions. In practice, however, the message of Thatcherism that reached Britain’s “individuals and families” was one riddled with disorienting contradictions: it preached family values but pursued economic policies that generated the highest child poverty rates in Europe; it stressed individual responsibility but its negation of “society” amounted to, as Raymond Geuss points out, a negation of societal responsibility. The negation of society also implied the removal of social support mechanisms, even with the wholesale uprooting of Britain’s industrial base and the communities built around it. The latter, it was promised, would be remedied by across-the-board economic growth driven by the private sector; characteristic was Thatcher’s claim – one she repeated up to her last speech in

the House of Commons – that rising inequality was justifiable by rising incomes for the poor as well as for the rich. Yet the old industrial centers of Scotland, Wales, and northern England have never recovered; as John Harris points out, these areas – which are now being punished with cuts for being public-sector-dependent – are dependent on the public sector in the first place because market forces have not stepped in to fill the void left by deindustrialization. If the intention was to engineer greater prosperity for all in exchange for abolishing society, this promise has not been kept for today’s poor urban youth for as long as they have been alive. In such a context, in which societal responsibility has already been jettisoned by the first ideological precept of Thatcherism, the rise of youth criminality and “anti-social behavior” does not come as a surprise. Such expressions of material discontent have long surfaced among poor urban youth and, it was previously thought, were largely confined to it. Poor urban youth, one preferred to think, was the only visible source of anti-social behavior, even if multiple social groups had been materially disadvantaged by Thatcherite policies. This line of analysis had, consciously or not, the effect of making the problem of societal breakdown easily identifiable and compartmentalized. Yet the real problem of Thatcherism was one that became clear only with the August riots: an across-theboard jettisoning of societal responsibility, working in combination with acute material discontent in the case of poor urban youth. The utter lack of a sense of societal responsibility among an alarming number of Britons became evident in the paradox of the looting “lifeguard, postman … millionaire’s daughter, chef, and schoolboy, 11.” This image brings to life Thatcher’s vision of a nation of atomized “individuals and families,” devoid of feeling for a collective whole. It warrants the question: while one prefers to think that visible “anti-social behavior” was previously a problem only of poor urban youth, how many Britons have been guilty all along of “antisocial behavior” of the mind, and eagerly let this spirit loose when the opportunity presented itself on an August day? Nick Clegg, in denouncing the looters as “opportunistic” for taking advantage of the shooting of Mark Duggan and the ensuing disorder, essentially summed up the outcome without acknowledging the causes.

Middle East

If the causes of the August riots are ultimately grounded in the theory and praxis of Thatcherism, it is quite possible that the program of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government was the more immediate catalyst. While David Cameron’s “Big Society” concept appears, on the surface, as a post-Thatcherite attempt to resurrect the notion of “society,” it has in fact given renewed expression to Thatcherite contradictions: the rhetoric of “society,” in practice, has translated into cuts to community services and police, while the ex-industrial

“Margaret Thatcher famously posited that ‘there is no society, only individuals and families.’ For three decades...British society has developed under the shadow of Thatcherism. The effects of this legacy...are surely significant, not only in terms of economic conditions...but on the level of consciousness and attitude formation.” areas of Scotland, Wales, and northern England are projected to suffer the greatest drops in income from the cuts, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown. These are, it should be recalled, the same areas that were hit hardest by deindustrialization under Thatcher and have been languishing since, with corresponding societal effects. At the same time, Cameron’s premise that the private sector would “step in” to generate economic growth for all in the wake of public spending cuts sounds eerily familiar. Even in areas in which the

September 2011

palpable effects of the Coalition’s cuts have not been felt, the political context of devastating cuts accompanied by Thatcherite doublespeak could only work to intensify discontent among poor urban youth already brought up in a context of jettisoned societal responsibility. Perhaps the greatest innovation of the British “postwar consensus” rested in the understanding that the interests of social peace necessitate an active, cohesive society grounded in common economic welfare. Harmony and solidarity were elevated as societal values above what Nick Clegg once derided as “sink-or-swim economics” – arguments to the macroeconomic bottom line aside. Today, this “social peace” paradigm enjoys little acceptance, and even struggles to stimulate serious discussion; it continues to be associated with perceptions of 1970s “class warfare” and bankrupt welfare states, as reflected by Matthew D’Ancona’s condemnation of the 50p tax rate as the “politics of envy”. Yet if there ever was an occasion to fundamentally rethink prevailing paradigms, it is now. The Britain of 1979 need not be copied and resurrected, but, at a minimum, openness to alternative routes for alleviating rampant poverty and social marginalization is necessary. The bankruptcy of Thatcher’s conception of society, under which Britain has developed for the last three decades, manifested itself with trumpets blazing in the streets of London and Manchester. There is, whatever George Osborne might insist, surely an alternative to this one. Afp

Seongcheol may be reached at seongche@princeton.edu

AFP Quiz Answers Multiple Choice Monthly 1. B 2. A 3. D 4. C 5. B

Want to get Back on Top?

Write for AFP! www.afpprinceton.com