The last few weeks have proven the old adage that one spark can kindle a great fire. Starting in Tunisia, where a twenty-six year-old lit himself on fire to protest rising prices and unemployment in the face of a callous and corrupt regime, the winds of discontent have spread the flame of protest across the Arab world. Dozens of self-immolations have taken place in Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria, rattling autocratic dictators throughout the region.

The sacrifices have already overturned the Tunisian government and now stand to destabilize the Egyptian regime, as hundreds of thousands assembled in Tahrir square on Tuesday to give voice to years of pent-up frustration.

The turn of events suggest it is only a matter of time before the Egyptian president is forced to concede power. The facts speak for themselves: Hosni Mubarak is an eighty-two year autocrat entering his thirtieth year in power in a country where the median age is twenty-four. More than half of Egypt’s eighty million residents are under the age of twenty-six and have never witnessed a free or fair election. Factor in the reality that the country is suffering from one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the world, that prices for basic commodities like bread have nearly quadrupled, that little to no political recourse has been available for decades, and one starts to wonder why it took the Egyptian people this long to rise up.

Of course, one reason is that the Egyptian government is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance, receiving an annual average of close to $2 billion since 1979. Over 80 percent of that aid is in the form of military assistance, putting America in the unfortunate position of indirectly supporting Mubarak’s ongoing efforts to threaten protesters with force, if not outright subsidizing his hold on power for the last three decades.

The ‘better the devil you know’ position of American foreign policy has turned a blind eye to the undemocratic regime for decades, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton initially declaring Mubarak’s regime “stable” last week, despite the signs showing anything but. The US administration has since withdrawn its support for Mubarak, much like the French apologized for their initial support of ousted Tunisian President Ben-Ali.

And yet, while American diplomats have wavered between supporting immediate democratic reform and preserving the status quo, American technologies of YouTube, Wikipedia, and Facebook have equipped the people with tools actually capable of holding their leaders accountable.

As throughout most of the Arab world, radio and newspapers are firmly state-controlled; outspoken journalists are routinely imprisoned; and criticism of the ruling party is all but quashed. The last refuge of free speech has, until now, been found online. These back-alleys have protected citizens with a level of virtual anonymity and a space to vent their frustration. The recent advent of social media tools like Facebook and Twitter have provided further opportunities for expressing dissent.

Indeed, the last two years have given rise to an unprecedented wave of online activism in the country and region at large – the 2009 revolts in Iran, the recent overthrow of the Tunisian government, and now the Egyptian uprisings have all been organized from computers. More than 90,000 people signed up for the first Cairo protest last week, on just one Facebook page. The movement’s momentum has been stoked via Twitter, with tech-savvy Egyptians uploading news, photos and videos of the protests in real-time. Even mainstream journalists from outside of Egypt rely on the steady flow of online information to drive their coverage of the still-unfolding situation.

There is no doubt that Web 2.0 technologies are being used to shape a new era in Egyptian politics, with the revelation not at all lost on the Mubarak regime.

Not surprisingly, Twitter and Facebook were immediately blocked by the government. But time has shown that nearly all attempts to obstruct the Internet have largely failed; for every government-concocted filter, there exist hundreds of online proxies to out-maneuver it. So the government took extreme measures by cutting off the entire Internet last Thursday, ahead of the then-largest day of protests. It was a clear sign that Mubarak is terrified of the empowering ability of social media to mobilize his downfall. It was also a desperate, last-ditch effort to cling to power.

Today, the Internet was switched back on. And yet, like most of Mubarak’s recent decisions, it is a matter of too little, too late. Shutting off the communications grid certainly seemed like a good idea, but social media – for all its value – was not the driving force for the current protests.

The seeds of unrest were sown years ago, compounded with each passing year; Facebook and Twitter simply provided a critical tipping point. Now, instead of mobilizing their actions online, Egyptians are relying on the most effective means of communication: word-of-mouth. Instead of sitting idly behind computers, the angry masses are courageously ignoring the curfews and boldly demonstrating in the streets.

The movement is now self-aware, with the youth awake to the fresh possibility that their voice does in fact hold political sway. The psychological barrier of fear has fallen, and Egyptians need not look further than Tunisia to see that a people united can bring about great change. At this point there is little that Mubarak can do to quell public anger, save fully comply with demands that he step down.

In the following weeks, and for the first time in decades, it will be up to the Egyptian people to determine their government. Mubarak might be able to silence their tweets but the roar that remains is heard loud and clear.

This article was first published in the New Atlanticist. Photo by Robert Angelopoulos.

Euphoria over the announcement that Alpha Conde is Guinea’s first democratically elected president melted into apprehension as rival candidate Cellou Dalein Diallo also proclaimed himself winner – setting the stage for a tense showdown in the days ahead.

Mr. Conde won the Nov. 7 runoff election with 52.52 percent of the vote to Mr. Diallo’s 47.48 percent, according to final results released late Monday night by the Independent National Electoral Commission (CENI). Pre-election violence saw numerous car and store windows smashed with rocks, resulting in clashes with the military that claimed the lives of at least three residents, in addition to another civilian reportedly killed Monday night.

Immediately following the announcement, the massive conference hall Palais du Peuple erupted into applause. People of all ages took to the capital’s streets singing and dancing in celebration for Conde’s party, the Rally of Guinean People (RPG). Speaking from his private residence in Conakry, Conde vowed to be “the president for all” and extended his hand toward “his brother” Diallo for the reconciliation of the country.

But hours before the announcement was even made, former Prime Minister Diallo had already proclaimed himself winner. On Sunday, he suspended his participation in the CENI verification process and promised to “not accept any results” until complaints of voter fraud had been “fully examined and addressed.”

Fraud allegations

Diallo’s party, the ethnic-Peul-led Union for the Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFDG), have alleged voter fraud at several polling stations where voting totals were greater than registered voters. Diallo specifically vowed to contest “the inclusion of any results from Siguiri,” where hundreds of ethnic Peuls were chased from their homes in the lead-up to elections.

Although the displaced Peuls eventually were granted the right to vote in a protocol agreed upon by both parties, Diallo claims his party observers were denied access during voting and could not therefore certify its transparency.

His refusal to recognize the region of Siguiri is of critical importance: either party’s victory hinges on it.

The United Nations on Monday urged all parties to accept the election results. CENI President Siaka Toumani Sangare expressed disbelief that UFDG complaints have not been taken seriously. “We have worked hard to verify these sources,” he responded. “I don’t understand how [Diallo] can say we have refused to treat them.” The matter is now headed for the Supreme Court sometime next week, when the final decision election outcome will be confirmed.

Monday’s results came five days later than expected, with apprehensions rising and accusations swirling as each deadline passed.

Tumultuous two years

Storefronts have been closed across the country since last week, with the capital’s main shopping center resembling a ghost town. Some UFDG supporters have already congregated across the capital to protest what they view as a stolen election. Several buildings were set ablaze in the neighborhood of Amadac on Monday, and nearly all circulation has been cut off in the suburb of Bambeto, where the unrest is most palpable.

Despite the sporadic outbreaks of violence, Guineans appear optimistic and eager to start building a stable government after more than 50 years of little to no tangible economic development.

The election follows a tumultuous two years in which President Lansana Conte died in December 2008 after ruling for 24 years; Army Captain Moussa Dadis Camara seized power and was then shot in December 2009; and General Sekouba Konate became interim president and began plans for a democratic election with a first round vote in June.

“The violence Guinea has suffered, even up to this point, is not stronger than the courage of the people,” said local journalist Kouyate Abdoulaye. “It took unity of purpose to get to this point – with many giving their very lives. It will take the same attitude to make this important transition to a stronger, democratic Guinea.”

This article was first published in the Christian Science Monitor.

Results from Guinea’s long-awaited election are still trickling in. The vote, the West African country’s first free democratic election since it gained independence from France more than fifty years ago, went smoothly, and despite swirling political and ethnic tensions in the run-up to the vote, the streets are calm.

The outstanding question, however, remains: Will Guineans respect the results?

The presidential candidates hail from different communities, fueling the impression that many voters chose based on ethnicity, rather than political platform.

The Union for the Democratic Forces of Guinea (UFDG), led and dominated by the majority Peul ethnic group, has yet to hold presidential power, fostering a longstanding sense of marginalization and a belief that it’s now their turn at the helm. Their candidate, Cellou Dallein Diallo, secured a majority in the first round of elections, convincing many that his victory is all but inevitable.

The Malinke-led opposition, Rally of Guinean People (RPG), includes all other communities who do not wish to see a Peul in power. The movement is united against Mr. Diallo and embittered that the Peul people seem solely fixated on nominating one of their own. Peuls who have defected from Diallo’s camp have been labeled as traitors within the Peul political leadership, further aggravating ethnic tensions.

The fear is that if the UFDG loses – completely plausible given the growing alliance against it – Diallo supporters will be convinced the vote was rigged.

Already, UFDG supporters maintain economic control over the country and have not hesitated to shut down their businesses when defending their political cause. If such retaliation were to occur, it could easily set off ethnic clashes across the country and into neighboring countries, turning the promise of a new democratic era into a tragedy.

A lot at stake

The issues at stake in this election are no small matter.

Guinea, although blessed by having the world’s largest reserves of bauxite, is also near the bottom of most development indexes. The country is prone to corruption, bad governance, and extreme poverty. Voters expect the next president to reallocate resource revenue, attract greater foreign investment, and reform the judicial branch.

Until now, the lack of proper state infrastructure has meant an over-reliance on armed forces for maintaining order. Restructuring the army and returning it to its traditional domain – away from political decision-making and toward defense of the country’s territorial integrity – has been one of the top priorities imposed on the current military-led government by the current push for full democratization.

The military – the not-so-functioning seat of power for over 50 years now – will likely face a bumpy transition in the reduction of its sphere of influence.

In September 2009, armed forces squashed a political uprising in the nation’s stadium, killing over a hundred protesters and allegedly raping many of the women present. The public quickly decried the act as a flagrant abuse of power and a call to action against the military’s over-reach. The international community, also noting the gravity of the situation, assigned sanctions against the heads of government, placing even more pressure on them to follow through with the people’s demand for full and fair elections.

Lessons from last year’s violence?

Ironically, however, it seems September’s outbreak of violence coupled with the initial postponements, have prepared Guineans for the trials facing them. Voters are hyper-sensitive to any escalation and the military has been flexing their muscle across the country to discourage any uprising. The capital and border crossings remain under tight control.

There have been numerous non-governmental and international organizations who have pleaded for calm. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) convened a civil exchange between the wives of the two candidates, UNICEF has worked to sensitize the younger generation for the election period, and the international conflict resolution organization, Search for Common Ground (SFCG) has led a process of uniting all private radio stations to broadcast the same, impartial reporting of the electoral coverage in order to avoid the political hijacking of the news cycle.

Also, Guinea has thus far avoided the protracted civil wars of their neighbors, a fact not lost on people here.

Still, how Guineans handle the election results in the next few days will ultimately test whether the country is indeed ready for inclusive democracy.

This article was first published in the Christian Science Monitor. Photo credit: Andrew Kessinger.

On January 24th the U.N. Security Council – with backing from the Obama administration – decided to remove five former high-ranking Taliban leaders from its global terrorist blacklist.

The move was controversial for a reason: it was the first time sanctions had ever been lifted for Taliban members and signaled that the international community was taking steps toward direct negotiations with the group ahead of the upcoming London peace conference.

The decision, as well as the conference itself, was meant to jumpstart a new policy to convince moderate Taliban members to renounce violence in exchange for financial incentives and eventual reintegration into the Afghan government. In other words, the prospect of reconciliation between the war-torn elements of Afghan society and a departure from the international policies accustomed to simply killing off the opposition.

Just two weeks later, barely enough time for the message to take root, Pakistani intelligence forces (ISI) miraculously captured the top Taliban commander Mullah Baradar. In the days to follow, the ISI detained 22 other leaders. The arrests sent a message that cooperation with the United States would result in punishment and naturally curtailed any momentum toward fruitful negotiations within an already skeptical Taliban hierarchy.

Today, seven months later, Pakistan officials have admitted that spoiling the peace process, or at least hijacking its tempo in order to maintain control of events, was exactly their intent.

The resulting irony is that American security interests in the region – despite the billions of tax dollars already spent and the thousands of lives already lost – are being sabotaged by agencies (ISI) that the United States itself funds. Such twisted logic is like buying the bullet used to shoot oneself in the foot.

The fresh revelation that our government has been outmaneuvered serves as a healthy warning in light of President Obama’s recent decision to restart direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations next week.

Needless to say, the Arab-Israeli conflict remains rife with spoilers on all sides, each one desperate to see its interest prevail over the common good. Past attempts to derail a final solution have ranged from the oft-repeated Hamas-fired rocket attacks to the outright Jewish assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Rabin.

Just as damaging to the progress toward peace are shortsighted measures of bad faith – like the announcement of new settlements in disputed territories – meant to distract from the mostly agreed-upon final status of a two-state solution. Over the last sixty years, politicians have already defined what peace will resemble: two states with agreed-upon borders, Jerusalem as a shared capital, the renunciation of violence as a political tool and some sort of refugee resettlement. What is missing is the courage from our elected officials – from all participating countries – to make the tough land-for-peace trade-offs necessary to arrive at a final agreement.

While Special Envoy for Middle East Peace George Mitchell has stressed that the United State’s role in the forthcoming talks is of a facilitatory and neutral nature, the reality is that the United States does have a stake in the outcome.

As Gen. David Petraeus boldly testified before Congress, the continuing conflict is a key driver of instability and anti-Americanism in the broader Middle East, and as such, directly impacts matters of U.S. national security.

Heading into negotiations, the Obama team should make its positions forthright and not be tricked into changing its course, as occurred with the Baradar capture.

The administration, let alone the American people, cannot afford to continue to send billions in aid to any government that would deliberately manipulate its support and endanger its security.

This article was first published in the New Atlanticist. Photo by Jayel Aheram.

The Supreme Court’s much-awaited decision to define the limits of American engagement with foreign terrorist-designated groups is, like much of our policy toward our enemies, shortsighted.

The case in question, Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project (HLP), centers on the interpretation of providing “material support” – traditionally understood as funds, arms and travel – to groups listed by the State Department as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs).

The Court’s ruling, however, criminalizes any attempt by human rights advocates to provide advice aimed at helping terrorists to settle their disputes peacefully and within the framework of international law and order. Otherwise put, our government has decided to punish any American citizen who seeks to help a foreign group resolve its grievances using legitimate and nonviolent means rather than force.

Such counterproductive logic reflects an even greater problem facing U.S. foreign policy: the knee-jerk aversion to engage, apart from lethal military force, with those who wish to do us harm.

This ruling discourages non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from confronting national security challenges, and it curtails the right to free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Most importantly, however, the HLP case is a bold reminder of our government’s ongoing inability to constructively engage with non-state terrorist-designated actors.

Even the State Department, tasked with finding diplomatic ways to solve our nation’s conflicts, does not fully use the tools at its disposal. The FTO designation process itself functions more as a mechanism to block resources for terrorist activities and allow for the eventual prosecution of terrorists with the Justice Department. Like the Supreme Court ruling, however, these activities do little to steer our enemies away from violence and terrorism itself. Granted, freezing a group’s assets and sentencing its leaders does send a strong message that acts of terrorism will be punished. But if little to nothing is done to provide our enemies with an alternative to resolving their political grievances, such measures simply postpone future outbreaks of violence.

Instead, the pressures resulting from terrorist designation should be leveraged to encourage our enemies to come to the negotiating table: the reward of international acceptance and the removal of sanctions should incentivize a change in behavior. Success should therefore be defined as a normalization of relations with our enemies and not as a permanent isolation from them. Consequently, any outreach that facilitates a group’s shift toward adherence to international norms and the non-violent resolution of conflict – as was the case with the Humanitarian Law Project – should be thus encouraged, not punished.

Chief Justice Roberts, in stating the majority opinion, warned that working with FTOs will surely “legitimize and further their terrorist means.” What he and other policymakers ignore however is that, more often than not, many FTOs (Hamas, Hezbollah) already control territory and command popular support regardless of our recognition. In certain areas of Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Lebanon, groups have secured legitimacy by maintaining a monopoly on violence and by providing services where the state government is unable or failing miserably to do so. For these quasi-state actors, little to no extra legitimacy is gained in the eyes of their constituents when the United States opens the channels of engagement. A word of caution: groups like al Qaeda, with no international legitimacy or popular support and violent, apocalyptic aims, offer no potential for dialogue.

Beneath the surface of the HLP ruling is an all-too-pervasive trend of self-defeating pessimism, namely that diplomacy is useless because our enemies cannot and will not change. Or that an enemy’s overtures toward peace should be automatically mistrusted and rejected. “It is wholly foreseeable,” the Court found, “that directly training [a FTO] on how to use international law to resolve disputes would provide that group with information and techniques that it could use as part of a broader strategy to promote terrorism, and to threaten, manipulate, and disrupt.” Citing Congress’ own FTO legislation in 1996, the Court further upholds the view that “foreign organizations that engage in terrorist activity are so tainted by their criminal conduct that any contribution to such an organization facilitates that conduct.” (italics added)

Thankfully, not everyone on the Court sees the world in black and white. Justice Breyer, in pronouncing the dissenting opinion, asked how one could reasonably justify a ruling

that would deny First Amendment protection to the peaceful teaching of international human rights law on the grounds that a little knowledge about “the international legal system” is too dangerous a thing; that an opponent’s subsequent willingness to negotiate might be faked, so let’s not teach him how to try? What might be said of these claims by those who live, as we do, in a Nation committed to the resolution of disputes through “deliberative forces”?

Justice Breyer went on to note that:

All the activities [on trial] involve the communication and advocacy of political ideas and lawful means of achieving political ends … precisely how does application of the ["material support"] statute to the activities before us help achieve that important security-related end?

The HLP decision errs by assuming the worst (that our enemies will always stay our enemies) and curtailing the best (that perhaps we can convince them to change). Such a mindset locks our foreign relations into an over-simplified, zero-sum game of good vs. evil.

Our enemies can change their behavior; terrorism is, after all, better understood as a means to an end rather than an end in of itself. Shifts in behavior will not happen overnight; neither will they occur by simply ignoring or marginalizing groups through no-contact policies.

While the U.S. government has experience using a variety of military options to kill and deter terrorist-designated non-state actors, greater emphasis should be placed on changing their behavior through the use of non-lethal policies of engagement. Both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton have recently acknowledged as much: “You don’t make peace with your friends…you have to be able to [both talk and] engage with your enemies.” Now that the Supreme Court has outlawed NGOs from “mak[ing] principled distinctions between activities that will further terrorist conduct and those that will not,” ruling that the task instead belongs “uniquely” to Congress and the State Department, it is imperative our government to pick up where HLP left off.

Image by Foxhall Gallery.

German Chancellor Merkel touted the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall as a “day of celebration for all of Europe.” But not everyone is elated.

Representatives of the four powers that occupied Germany after WWII, including British Prime Minister Brown, French President Sarkozy, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and U.S. Secretary of State Clinton, gathered with Merkel in front of Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate for a night of international solidarity.

The festivities included an outdoor concert led by famed conductor Daniel Barenboim and the symbolic knocking down of a painted piece of wall which in turn knocked over 999 other pieces – ala domino effect – along a mile-long stretch of the former Wall’s path.

Where were you on the night of November 9th, 1989?

Beyond such pageantry, however, it is clear that not everyone present recalls the historic moment with the same collective memory – or even remembers where they were on that fateful night.

Accused of re-writing history, President Sarkozy pretended to have been in Berlin the night of November 9th 1989, posting a Facebook photo of himself helping tear down the wall. The problem was, of course, that there was little probability he could have taken a flight that morning given that the rapid unfolding of events took even Germans by surprise. His stretching of the truth has but chipped away at French trust.

Chancellor Merkel, for her part, was in fact there – albeit in a local sauna. For such a pragmatic politician, it seems no weekly tradition was worth breaking – ‘end of history’ or not. To be fair though, she did hop over to West Germany for a beer after her spa session.

As for Obama, he was busy finishing up his first year of Harvard Law School in 1989. No one faults him for not taking the flight as a student, but some are wondering why he chose not to go as president. Citing scheduling difficulties, Obama sent Secretary Clinton to represent him at the 20th anniversary. American conservatives – no doubt still angry over his election win and ongoing healthcare reform – claimed Germany suited Obama as a campaign backdrop in 2008 but that the fall of communism was too sensitive a subject for him to acknowledge, let alone celebrate.

Speculations and gossip aside, President Medvedev did attend the festivities but without the rose-tinted retrospection of his colleagues. His thoughts are on candid display thanks to an interview with Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, you are commemorating the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall with other world leaders in Berlin. Where were you on Nov. 9, 1989?

Dmitry Medvedev: I don’t remember, but I still recall very precisely how suddenly our lives changed. I was a teaching assistant at the University of St. Petersburg at the time, and I realized that this development would affect not only the Germans, but all of Europe and, ultimately, also the destiny of our country. The Berlin Wall was a symbol of the division of the continent, and the fall of the Wall united us again. Some of our hopes from back then have been fulfilled, others have not.

SPIEGEL: The fall of the Wall made former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev a respected figure in Germany and throughout the West. How would you judge his historical accomplishments?

Medvedev: As the head of state, it is not my place to pass judgment on my predecessors. Germany and other European countries give Gorbachev credit for the fall of the Iron Curtain. There are differences in opinion about his accomplishments for our country. The collapse of the Soviet Union occurred during his term in office. A great many Russians have the feeling that they lost their country back then, and they hold him responsible for this. Whether or not this is justifiable is something for historians to decide.

SPIEGEL: Your predecessor Vladimir Putin was not so reserved in his remarks. He called the collapse of the USSR “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century.

Medvedev: He didn’t connect this with the name Gorbachev, so in that sense he was as reserved as I am. The collapse shocked everyone who lived in the Soviet Union, regardless of whether they perceived the disintegration of the state as a personal catastrophe or as a consequence of the rule of the Bolsheviks. And it was really very dramatic: A people who had been united for decades — and in some cases for centuries — suddenly found itself in different countries again. Contacts with family and relatives were cut off.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, you said that since the fall of the Wall, many of your hopes and those of your fellow countrymen have been fulfilled, others have not. Which ones were you referring to?

Medvedev: I have already mentioned the positive things. But it has not been possible to redefine Russia’s place in Europe. After the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact, we were hoping for a higher degree of integration. But what have we received? None of the things that we were assured, namely that NATO would not expand endlessly eastwards and our interests would be continuously taken into consideration. NATO remains a military bloc whose missiles are pointed towards Russian territory. By contrast, we would like to see a new European security order.

He’s not alone in expressing disappointment with the lack of economic and geo-political unity that German reunification seemed to promise.

Gorbachev – also present at Monday’s ceremony in Berlin – warned of conflating the fall of Communism with the idea that unfettered economic liberalism is somehow superior. From the Guardian:

[After the fall of Communism] it was soon very clear that western capitalism, too, deprived of its old adversary and imagining itself the undisputed victor and incarnation of global progress, is at risk of leading western society and the rest of the world down another historical blind alley.

Today’s global economic crisis was needed to reveal the organic defects of the present model of western development that was imposed on the rest of the world as the only one possible; it also revealed that not only bureaucratic socialism but also ultra-liberal capitalism are in need of profound democratic reform – their own kind of perestroika.

Poland’s Adam Michnik, one of the leaders of the Solidarity social movement that contributed to fall of communism, is grateful for the last twenty years but had hoped for more.

It was in Poland that the Berlin Wall began to crumble.

For Poland, the last two decades [since] have been the best in the last 300 years. And yet so many Poles today are deeply dissatisfied. Why?

Post-communist transformation creates not just winners, but many losers: those who are unemployed, rejected, pushed into poverty. The often brutally greedy new elites are slow to learn democratic habits, respect for the law of the land, pluralism or tolerance.

Poland today – 20 years on – is a normal, democratic European country. It’s the kind of country I wanted my generation to bequeath to our children. Although, to tell the truth, I wish that it was a rather better one.

Perhaps the same can be said of Germany itself. Despite an estimated $2 trillion in money transfers from West Germany to East Germany, the latter still suffers from a twice-as-high unemployment rate, to mention but one malaise. West Germans are just as dissatisfied about the lack of progress, with some viewing the East as a social welfare state holding back the country from full development. A recent poll by Leipziger Volkszeitung daily went so far as to demonstrate that one in eight Germans want the Wall rebuilt.

On the whole, there is no mistaking that the vast majority of Europeans are celebrating the end of Communism this month, but the East still needs a few more decades of growth before the real party begins.

This article was first published in the New Atlanticist. Photo by Daylife.

When President Obama signed the Hate Crimes Prevention Act into law Wednesday, human rights advocates across the country won a decent, but insufficient, victory.

At face value, the bill is but a reluctant acknowledgment that Americans assaulted because of their sexual orientation are indeed victims of bigotry. Adding insult to injury, the measure had to be attached to a defense spending bill just to pass.

Is this the best Congress can muster when it comes to advancing gay rights?

Such legislation will not bring back to life Matthew Shepard or James Byrd Jr., the slain men for whom the act is named. Nor will it make Jack Price — the gay New Yorker beaten nearly to death this month — any less battered. The law morbidly protects gays only after they have been attacked; any consideration for their safety and human rights before such an occurrence still seems a congressional afterthought.

Put another way, our nation’s dead and hospitalized homosexuals, bisexuals and transgendered people are receiving after-the-fact sympathies, while the healthy gays and lesbians among us are expected to suffer from the same root discrimination. Are rights advocates expected to remain patient, even happy, about such progress?

The proverbial plate is too full, pooh-poohs our political elite. The rationale underlying such sentiments is that reforming our nation’s health-care system, improving our economy and winning the war in Afghanistan must of course take priority over gay rights.

Such logic is meaningless to Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who after 18 years of exemplary service is facing dismissal for “damaging” the Air Force’s “good order and discipline.” Obama has pledged to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” ban on openly gay service members, but he has yet to set a timetable. Meanwhile, Fehrenbach is one of many whose sexual orientation unfairly compromises their jobs, health benefits, retirement — and, ultimately, our nation’s war efforts. Political side-stepping of the issue also suggests that more sacrifice is required of a man who has already devoted much of his life to serving our country.

I come from a different generation — the one that showed up in unprecedented numbers to vote last November and by doing so helped elect a president who just happens to be the first minority to hold that office. It was noble — even hip — to fight against the bigotry and discrimination that the Obama campaign faced. Wasn’t our country in an economic crisis, debating health-care reform and fighting two wars at that time, too?

Recall the widespread dismay when Sen. John McCain suspended his campaign last fall to focus solely on the bailout plan. “Part of the president’s job is to deal with more than one thing at once,” Obama said in response. “In my mind it’s more important than ever.”

Obama was right then, and the point is still important. America needs the same multitasking attitude from all our elected officials.

It is wrong to ask gay Americans to wait until every future war is won, every societal ill is treated and every business is booming before being granted equal protection under law; it is equally disturbing to think that today, one must be a victim of a hate crime before receiving such consideration.

Is it too much to ask for more, sooner rather than later?

This article was first published in the Washington Post. Photo by Stanford University.

Update October 29, 2009

Both Slate and the Atlantic have referenced my article!  Even more exciting, the free-style investigative journalist William Wolfrum turned it into satire, giving the ideas a second (and I admit, even more scathing) life.  Now, both Benjamin Franklin and John Adams have weighed in!

Also, I’ve taken the liberty to include some of the best comments below — from all sides of the aisle — from the Washington Post’s online debate.

I also would like to post this email (with the author’s name removed) that I received.  It’s touching, humbling, and reminds me why I write:

Dear Andrew,

I’m a 56-year-old lesbian (and an attorney) and writing to thank you for your recent op-ed in the Washington Post, which expressed the same frustration that I feel with the powers that be in Washington and, to a certain extent, in our own movement, who want us to be content with what are, relatively speaking, legislative crumbs.

I’ve been working for gay rights since 1972 when, as a junior at Princeton, I helped found the Gay Alliance of Princeton, the school’s first gay student organization.  As a gay person in this country, I long ago reached my Fannie Lou Hamer moment – I’m sick and tired of being sick and tired.   I’m tired of the fact that gay people who want to serve our country are still losing their jobs in the armed services.  I’m tired of the fact that my partner of 31 years and I are treated like legal strangers.  I’m tired of the fact that in so many places in this country, people can be fired just because they are gay.

I was heartened to see so many young people at the March here in D.C. on October 11 who will not accept this status quo, and heartened by your op-ed.  Thanks again.

France’s most beloved children’s story, Le Petit Prince, leapt to life this week in what is surely a case of life imitating art.

“Once upon a time,” begins the familiar tale, “was a little prince who lived on a planet scarcely any bigger than himself.” Unsatisfied with such a limited existence, he set out on a journey to expand his possibilities.

The prince begins his quest, innocently enough, in consultation with a king:

“Sire — over what do you rule?”

“Over everything,” said the king, with magnificent simplicity.

“I should like to see a sunset [then]… Order the sun to set,” the prince asked.

“You shall have your sunset. I shall command it. But, according to my science of government, I shall wait until conditions are favorable.”

“When will that be?” inquired the little prince.

“Hum! Hum!” replied the king. “That will be about — about — that will be this evening about twenty minutes to eight. And you will see how well I am obeyed!”

The little prince yawned. He was regretting his lost sunset. And then, too, he was already beginning to be a little bored.

“I have nothing more to do here,” he said to the king. “So I shall set out on my way again.”

“Do not go,” said the king. “Do not go. I will make you a Minister!”

If the storyline sounds familiar, you are not alone. The latest developments in France suggest the same script, different cast. Today’s prince reincarnate turns out to be Jean Sarkozy, the twenty-three-year-old who abandoned his studies for the allure of politic promise.

The move seemed to pay off last year when, in a last minute shuffling of candidates, he managed to gain a political foothold in one of France’s richest districts. But Jean, like our inquisitive prince, became quickly dissatisfied.

His awaited ‘sunset’ was the powerful presidency of EPAD, the administration of one of Europe’s largest, multi-million dollar business districts.

The king seems to have commanded nothing less. Sarkozy père is, after all, the country’s president and  conveniently president of EPAD before that. The petit prince, following in his father’s footsteps, was well on his way to similar political ascendancy.

That is, until the public outcry of nepotism proved too loud to ignore. Amid growing protests and an unrest that threatened his family’s nascent dynasty, the prince withdrew his nomination, rewriting what was supposed to be a fairy-tale ending.

Like the original Antoine de Saint-Exupéry storyline, our protagonist has wisely made one last trip: planet Earth. Welcome to the real world, again!

Is the Pentagon starting to reverse its support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? In a telling article in this month’s Joint Force Quarterly, Air Force Colonel Om Prakash asserts, “after a careful examination, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that unit cohesion will be negatively affected if homosexuals serve openly.”

The article, The Efficacy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, was published after winning the 2009 Secretary of Defense National Security Essay competition and approval by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen.

While Mullen’s spokesperson cautioned “there was no intention… to send any subliminal message to the force or the country,” some civil-military researchers are already claiming the move reflects a “seismic shift in military opinion on the gay troops issue…. that even people inside the Pentagon are increasingly critical of the policy and are willing to air [it] publicly.”

The debate is surely making fresh waves given the whirlwind of publicity the article attracted – with features in the Boston Globe, NYTimes, Salon, NPR, CBS, and WashPost.

Last week the BBC aired the story of Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach, who is currently being discharged from the Air Force under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) after nearly twenty years of service. He is fighting the decision in the hope that President Obama will overturn the policy before he’s officially fired.

He’s not the only one asking when Obama intends to fulfill his campaign promises. On Sunday, former Atlantic Council Chairman and National Security Advisor General James Jones fielded the same question on CNN. “[The President] intends to [work towards repealing DADT] at the appropriate time and has already signaled that to the Defense Department,” Jones confirmed. “They are doing the things they have to do to prepare.”

Meanwhile in Congress – the only venue where the matter can legally be determined – both the Senate and the House have been preparing for the issue. A hearing by Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin is being scheduled in the Senate this month, ahead of an expected bill meant to overturn the ban.

On Tuesday, Congressman Patrick Murphy held a special order to discuss the House version of the bill, the Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2009, which currently has more than 175 co-sponsors (albeit one sole Republican, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen). He’s no stranger to the fight. The only Iraq War veteran in Congress, Murphy famously rebutted concerns that homosexuals distract from military morale in last year’s hearing before the House Armed Services Committee. “How is it,” he rhetorically asked conservative lobbyists, “that American servicemen and women are less professional and less mission capable than service members of other foreign militaries?”

The foreign militaries he’s referring to are, of course, our NATO allies who have for the most part removed such discriminatory polices from their forces. More than 20 of the 26 NATO nations – including Great Britain, France, Australia, Canada and Israel – already allow open service by gays and lesbians. Of these, nine nations have fought alongside American troops in Operation Iraqi Freedom and twelve have done so in Operation Enduring Freedom.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when DADT itself was adopted, John Shalikashvili, confirmed as much in 2007:

24 foreign nations, including Israel, Britain and other allies in the fight against terrorism, let gays serve openly, with none reporting morale or recruitment problems. I now believe that if gay men and lesbians served openly in the United States military, they would not undermine the efficacy of the armed forces. Our military has been stretched thin by our deployments in the Middle East, and we must welcome the service of any American who is willing and able to do the job.

Prakash’s Joint Force Quarterly article clarifies further:

There are potential lessons to learn from other countries that have lifted the ban on homosexuals serving openly. There was no mass exodus of heterosexuals, and there was also no mass “coming-out” of homosexuals. Prior to lifting their bans, in Canada 62 percent of servicemen stated that they would refuse to share showers with a gay soldier, and in the United Kingdom, two-thirds of males stated that they would not willingly serve in the military if gays were allowed. In both cases, after lifting their bans, the result was “no-effect.” In a survey of over 100 experts from Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, it was found that all agreed the decision to lift the ban on homosexuals had no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion, or ability to recruit or retain.

While NATO armies are coping just fine with diversity in their ranks, the Department of Defense has discharged over 12,500 trained soldiers, including 58 much-needed Arabic linguists, with an estimated cost of $363 million over the last ten years.

The latest signs that the US government is finally ready to debate the issue are welcome indeed. At a time of two wars, our country needs the best and brightest service members possible – regardless of their professed sexual orientation.

This article was first published in the New Atlanticist. Photo by Deutschesheer.

Very rarely are mere students afforded the chance to meet with heads of state, so when invited to dine with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this week, I accepted.

It was not until there, however, that I started having second thoughts. Does my attendance somehow suggest compliance with his twisted worldview? How could I share a meal with a man who is responsible for persecuting students, like me, who happen to disagree with his politics? After all, it was just three months ago that I was anxiously awaiting the Iranian elections, having circled the date on my calendar.

Like millions worldwide, I understood how consequential the day was. As tensions between Iran and the U.S. had been simmering for decades, the prospect of a change in leadership seemed like one of the few remaining hedges against another four years of confrontational posturing and mounting antagonism.  Chances were high that the Iranian people – the young majority – would have their “Obama moment” and vote a more progressive leader into office.

On June 12^th, however, when Ahmadinejad was declared winner before the polls had even closed or the votes had been counted, that hope died.

The following day, armed with a collective outrage over the rigged election, I attended the first of many protests in Paris. Over the next few weeks, I remained glued to the television, the blogs, Youtube, Facebook, Twitter…  anything to stay connected to what was happening in Iran. I was afraid that if the world stopped watching, we would start forgetting.

So I watched.  I watched as hundreds of thousands of young people collected in the streets of Tehran to demand their votes be counted, putting their very lives at risk for a say in their country’s direction.  Like millions others, I prayed for their safety when the massive crackdowns began, when even elderly women were being beaten in the streets, when universities were being ransacked and students arrested and tortured. I cried over the tragic footage of Neda, the young woman shot in broad daylight.

After experiencing all that, how could I now sit with the very man whose corruption helped ignite those protests, whose cruelty did little to stop such brutality?

I told myself I would stay, if only to ask Ahmadinejad why students were still being held in prison and when, if ever, they would be released. I would stay for them, the students, to prove that the world has not forgotten.

Of course, while waiting for that opportunity, I had to first endure a barrage of mindless propaganda and questions from Ahmadinejad himself.

He started his diatribe by asking those present to ponder the deeper meaning of life: who we were and why we were placed on Earth. He urged humanity to “find consensus on what unites us” so that we might establish a peace built on “justice and purity.” It was at that moment my head started pounding – the world feels strangely upside-down when Ahmadinejad is lecturing you on purity.

After a few more sermons on the grandeur of Iran, the unshakeable unity of its people, and the unquestionable protection of its minorities, he started fielding questions from the guests.

When asked about the Holocaust, he doubted its existence.  “If the Holocaust is such a fact,” he purred, “why are no scientists allowed to investigate?” When asked about the mistreatment of Afghan refugees in Iran, he denied any such thing. When pressed about the release of Clotilde Reiss, a young French teacher awaiting release for her role in last June’s protests, he feigned an inability to interfere with the legal system.

By 10 p.m., it was clear the session was over, though many questions remained.  As Ahmadinejad formally thanked the room, a young man interrupted his pleasantries, shouting, “Why have you only taken questions from Americans? Why are you ignoring us, the Iranians? Why are you so afraid to let us ask our questions?” Louder and louder the young man’s cries became, until security guards stepped forward to throw him out.

Looking out over the startled crowd, however, Ahmadinejad put on a smile and beckoned him to come forward.  With the cameras still rolling, he agreed to take this Iranian’s question in private, fully aware this was the stuff good PR was made of – the reason he invited us to dinner in the first place.

As I proceeded to make my way out, I wondered what that defiant young Iranian had to ask.

I might never know the question that compelled that student, like me, to dine with Ahmadinejad. But I am convinced that we both, like the rest of the world, are still waiting for answers.

This article was first published in the Jerusalem Post, the International Herald Tribune and the New Atlanticist. Photo by Getty Images.