Seriously, it was 'malarkey': on the need for intelligent diplomacy

I am not watching the US debates. They come on too late here in the UK and I already know whose values I really actually believe in, so I don't feel the need to watch.  But, Joe Biden's getting a lot of attention for saying Paul Ryan's answer to a question on foreign policy was "malarkey."

(Tellingly, the CNN video doesn't carry Biden's full answer because why would CNN actually feel the need to show an *exchange* from the debate when they can just show soundbites? It's not like the *exchange* is newsworthy, right? It's just the soundbite... that's what news is, isn't it?)

Ryan criticized President Obama's response to the Iranian Green Revolution in 2009.  He said that the Obama administration should've been out front criticizing Iran.  For me, this is personal.  I have friends who were part of that revolution and I know human rights defenders whose lives are threatened by the Iranian regime.  During 2009, I followed the unfolding news from Iran more closely than any other event since 9/11.  I was consumed with it, and with the hope that with each new news story I would learn the fate of friends who could not communicate with the outside world.

During that time, I wrote on facebook that I felt Obama was handling the Iranian issue in the right way. And three years later, I just want to be even more clear: there is no question.  Obama handled it exactly right.  Here's what I wrote in 2009, and with only a few modern updates and grammatical corrections it still stands:

Sometimes US foreign policy is based on our egos, rather than on what’s right and wrong, and it shouldn’t be. We need to stop making ego-based decisions and start making brain-based ones.

Too often, we in the US make every international event about us. Sometimes it's a good thing. If you’re Kosovar, you might appreciate US-led interference a decade ago. If you’re Kuwaiti, you are likely relieved we nosed around in 1991. If you’re Kurdish, you’re probably like the guy in the Kebab shop in town who thanked me for what my country had done for his people (you know, after ignoring the gassing by Hussein). And if you’re South Korean or Japanese, you might resent the presence of certain troops who rape young girls and ignore your laws and cultures, but you probably appreciate the fact that we’ve been willing to stand on the 38th parallel for over 50 years. These were times when our “it’s all about me”-ness benefited not just us but the rights of those we sought to protect.

And when the American people believe a situation is about them – that they need to make a difference or that they have a primary duty to provide relief – amazing acts of goodness and kindness can happen. The US people's response to the 2004 tsunami, the calls for involvement on Darfur, or responses to cyclones in Burma and earthquakes in Haiti, nuclear crises in Japan and floods in India are good examples of what calling on US egos can do.

But, sometimes it's important for us to remember that not *every* event is about us and not every democracy/freedom initiative would benefit from our involvement. Sometimes it’s good for us to have a little ego check and make sure that we’re not just getting involved in a situation because we want to remind everyone of how powerful we are, or we want to make sure everyone knows which side we’re on. For starters, the US doesn't always have the best track record of standing on the right side of things. Pinochet (Chile). Cambodia. Nicaragua, Guatemala, Rhodesia, South Africa and Iraq's Hussein are all prime examples of when the US has kind of (or majorly) screwed up. And when we do get it right, we don’t always have the best follow-through so the international community may doubt our commitment (Afghanistan circa 2008, anyone?).

When we're confronted with a new international situation, it would be good if our leadership stepped back and ask intelligently: what will our involvement accomplish, both for us and for them? We should be like doctors and "do no harm" in the international arena (or, at least, do as little harm as is needed, which is actually a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law). If it turns out that our involvement is just about making sure our voice is heard – regardless the consequences – or an attempt to stretch our egos by being the loudest and most frequent orator on the international stage, we should stop ourselves. If on the whole it stacks up that our involvement may benefit goodness, democracy and freedom, it might be worth putting our two-cents on the international table. It is the former situation we found ourselves in in 2009. It’s the ego-stroking that Paul Ryan wants the US to engage in, not the beneficial freedom-loving work that we should limit ourselves to.

Before I continue, I want to take a moment and address Iran and the Iranian people generally. No one in the world doubts now - or doubted then - how the US feels about the current Iranian leadership. If you do, you've been watching FOX News for too long and need to change the channel. Because outside of Glenn Beck no one really doubts this (oh, and that crazy lady on Morning Joe but I’m convinced that's just because she's stupid and makes things up on air... no one who is really smart really doubts this). Yes, there are some benefits to the US having Ahmadinejad in office - the man's batshit crazy so we look sane and measured when we tell him no nukes, and his resistance to Obama's willingness to talk only isolates him further and makes us look strong, confident and engaged. But, even with those benefits, the US - and the Obama administration - stood with the protesters and the international community does not doubt that. The Iranian people did not doubt that. Additionally, no one doubts the US position on the legitimacy of the election. There's no one in the *world* - sans ardent Ahmadinejad supporters in Iran and a few people who don't know anything about the election outside of Iran - who can look at this election and honestly say it's credible. Just because Barack isn't speaking out doesn't mean anyone thinks he's confused about this issue.

Now the Iranian people are a proud people. They have a right to be. If you’ve studied Persian art (it’s more than just rugs) or history, you know that Persia and Iran have a long and deep history of standing for human rights, of engaging with the Western state, of education, and of strength. They aren’t a nation to be bullied. And, for the most part, Iranians love their Islamic Republic. Our two countries have very different versions of what went down in ’79, so let me clarify what I’ve heard and read from the Iranian side so that we Americans can understand what we’re looking at: the ’79 Revolution proved to the Iranians that an unarmed but united people with truth and freedom on their side can defeat an armed oppressive regime. Their Shah, a brutal regime if ever there was one, was supported by the military and economic might of the US, which is how we earned out beloved nickname, the Great Statan. When they wanted him out, they were able to do it despite being over-matched in size and might. This was the Arab Spring before the Arab Spring ever came to be.  That's how the Iranians viewed '79.

Just like we have pride in our crazy state-federal divisions and our non-democratic electoral college (that makes us a Republic, just like a certain other country is a Republic), the Iranians feel pride in the structure they have. They believe the religious clerics are to act for justice and protect the people, while the democratic process allows people to vote for the President. Not everyone agrees with this regime or structure, but on the whole, mainstream Iranians have been satisfied with this. Attempts within Iran to undermine the structure and foundation of the Islamic Republic would be viewed as treason, just as would attempts to undermine the structure of the US government would be viewed here. They also have a general resistance to international interference, even to international aid. Iranians are sceptical and resistant to seeking non-Persian aid. It’s a lot like the US, as our government refused international aid and assistance following Hurricane Katrina.

With this background, let’s consider Barack’s options: (1) do what McCain attempted to bully him to do in 2009 - and what Ryan's telling us a Romney administration would do - and yell at the world about the corrupt election, call for new elections and greater freedom in the world, and insert ourselves into a tense situation for the benefit of our collective ego; or (2) decry the violence without intervening on the issue of the legitimacy of the elections at this time, letting Iran work its position out and then confronting the issue later after protesters are no longer on the street.

For the protesters, the first option would be disastrous. The Iranian regime is already making it sound like the protesters are puppets in the hands of western governments. For once, it's not *our* Western government - it's the British who were blamed for this one (for that fact alone, you have to know Barack is doing something right because if he *could* blame the US for the protests, he would. How often do you hear reports of Iranians shouting "Death to Britain?" If it happens, it's not nearly as frequent as the much more common chants "Death to America.")

But if Barack had taken the Romney / Ryan stance and called for nullifying the election, suddenly those accusations would shift from British interference to US interference. Iranian state television would continuously run clips of Barack calling for the nullification, pointing out that this is exactly what the opposition leaders have said. The proud Iranian people would pull back from any internal attempts to challenge the legitimacy of the election. The patriotism of the demonstrators would be called into question, and shouts of "Death to America" would thoroughly replace the current cries of "Death to the Dictator."

We can scream and shout all we want about how we just came in after the fact, but history would be on their side: the US has often intervened in the internal affairs of other states and it’s not far-fetched to imagine the US funding opposition campaigns. Identical calls from US leadership and the opposition forces would undermine the latter's credibility and suggest the Supreme Leader and Ahmadinejad were right. The protesters would be easily blamed and dismissed as people who want to undermine the Islamic Republic, giving in to the demands and will of the Great Satan. Those arrested and beaten would face far worse treatment than they are already being subjected to. The "Green Revolution" would die out quickly and the government would point to US involvement as justification for its actions this past week. A semblance of legitimacy would be restored to a thoroughly illegitimate government, if not internationally than domestically. This prediction is not mine alone, but one consistent with those expressed by Iranian opposition leaders and those “in the know.” The son of one of the leading mullahs in the opposition was on the Daily Show and said that the best course of action would be for the American people to write and demonstrate but for the American administration to stay out of it.

If Obama sticks to the current course – calling on the government to honour the human rights of the protesters while not addressing the issue of the election until after this whole series of events is concluded – who we are or what we’ve done in the past is a non-issue. We would allow the demonstrators to retain their rightful place in the dialogue. They are the ones who stand for Iran. They are the ones fighting for its reality and its protection against corruption and impunity. They are the ones relying on centuries of great Persian values of democracy and human rights and they represent the very embodiment of the spirit of the Revolution of '79. They have legitimacy in their efforts right now and should be allowed to handle the post-election process the way they see fit. And from what I’ve heard, the opposition may want the world to watch, but they don't want the world to *act.* Quite honestly, in addition to undermining the opposition, US interference through too harsh or loud a stand may actually alienate the opposition. They do not want to be perceived as a puppet administration, and they want the respect of legitimacy that comes from within their country - not from having an outside force declare their legitimacy.

So, if Barack followed the Romney / Ryan policy, we would have undermined the legitimacy of the “Green Revolution” and we would likely have alienated the very people we say we want to stand with. All for the sake of our egos. I'm not suggesting the US should sit by and say nothing.

But, “doing no harm”  in 2009 meant watching and keeping focus on the activities in Iran, decrying the violence and calling on Iran to abide by human rights, and waiting out the ongoing internal process. Once this was done, we could (and did) denounce the election as a fraud publicly and repeatedly. No one doubts we knew this and felt this from the start, but by waiting we weren't endangering the Green Revolution or the people of Iran. I know it's a hard feat for American egos - we like to be right and we like everyone to know we're right long before they have to admit it out loud - but on this occasion, our egos would be writing checks the bodies of Green Revolutionaries shouldn't have to cash.

Those sentiments remain today. If the Ryan position was around in 2009, we would be in a much worse position than we are now - as would the Iranian people.  Ryan's position reminds me of the young 20-something Western human rights activists who often go in and lecture local victims about what they should want and what they need to demand and how the Western human rights activist is going to save them. But in doing so, they drown out the voices of the people who actually know what's going on.  They start from a position of telling and never get around to listening, and in doing so they seriously harm the very people they proclaim they are going to save. Standing for democracy and human rights doesn't always require you to be the loudest protestor; sometimes it requires you to sit quietly but resolutely and ensure the voices of those who should be speaking are heard.  That's intelligent diplomacy.  And that's exactly what Ryan railed against last night because he is, in fact, full of malarkey.