A few days later, however, there appeared an editorial in The Crimson criticizing Army ROTC’s return from an angle different from that of the usual anti-ROTC crowd. William Ryan, rather than falling back on the discrimination argument, argues that ROTC’s status as an academic department controlled by the military makes it unsuitable for a university such as Harvard. The presence of ROTC on campus is necessary to bridge the gap between academia and students and the military and studies of military history. Most importantly, the notion that ROTC’s “pre-professional aspect” is an “anathema to the idea of Harvard as a liberal arts college” are far smaller issues than the consequences of excluding ROTC from Harvard.

Ryan’s argument of ROTC rudely violating the sacred halls of academia fits well within the general decline of military study in academia. Victor David Hansen, in The Father of Us All, notes that after the 1960s, the study of military history fell out of vogue after the general anti-war sentiment, to the great detriment of academia.  Hanson, in an earlier blog post on the same subject, notes that the military historian Edward Coffman could only identify twenty-one professors out of over a thousand that identified war as a field of focus. While the effects of war on cultures and political decisions are well-studied, these remain meaningless abstracts without a solid understand of the battles which drive these consequences. The pilot program of offering some courses on Harvard’s campus in Fall 2012 bodes well for a greater exposure of Harvard students to military history.

To address one of Ryan’s concerns, ROTC indeed contains much coursework of a “pre-professional” nature. ROTC, however is simply a plan of coursework and not an entire concentration. Certainly, cadets and midshipmen gain instruction in military-specific courses; but, they still benefit from the broader liberal arts curriculum at Harvard. If we are to follow to the pre-professional argument against ROTC, wouldn’t engineering students also be violating the liberal arts spirit at Harvard by pursuing courses in a school of “Applied Sciences?” Harvard certainly should be a liberal arts university first, but this status is hardly shaken by the presence of a very specific department which offers some courses of a “pre-professional” character. Furthermore, the question of whether this violates the “idea of Harvard as a liberal arts college” means little compared to the question of how well Harvard is living up to its duty to serve the United States.

The greater problem is that Ryan characterizes the classes of ROTC as if they were just any “pre-professional” course selection. As he says, “neither the military nor anyone else should be allowed to compromise the fact [that Harvard students are not here for the pursuit of a job].” This sentiment underscores the great disconnect that so many at Harvard have with the military and emphasizes the necessity of a ROTC department at Harvard. How far has Harvard fallen from its history that the military is considered just another job? Harvard may not have the catchy slogans of “For God, For Country, and For Yale” or “Princeton in the Nation’s Service,” but the concept of public service certainly carries great weight at Harvard. What should be recognized is that throughout Harvard’s history, “public service” has included fighting, and dying, for the United States. Harvard in fact was a pioneer in Army ROTC in 1916, hosting one of the first units established. Phillip A. Keith, author of Crimson Valor, notes that Harvard University has produced the most Medal of Honor recipients, seventeen, of any civilian university in the United States. Any visitor to Sanders Theater has surely seen the grand nave of Memorial Hall, with its stone tablets of Harvard men who died to preserve the United States in its most vulnerable time.

Members of Harvard ROTC practice bayonet drills at Harvard Stadium (Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

With due respect to our international students, and recognizing the importance of a global outlook, the fact that Harvard has served the American military must be especially noted. After all, a memorial at Harvard exists for its alumni who died for the Union, not the Confederacy. This university, as a reminder, lies within the United States, and the academic freedom of its liberal arts character has been secured by its alumni and all others who have served in the United States military. In light of the Crimson blood spilled to defend this university and this nation, calling ROTC instruction “trade school” coursework is an insulting understatement. If Harvard has reached the level of moral relativism to the point that it cannot recognize the military’s special role in society, it not only disgraces its long history of heroes, but shamefully fails to recognize such a vital aspect of public service.

For the rest of the student body, the presence of ROTC on campus will provide a vital exposure to the military. Already, half of Harvard’s incoming classes come from regions of the country greatly underrepresented in today’s military. If this gap widens, it will only further hinder military-civilian relations and reinforce the pernicious stereotype of the ivory tower. Even if one considers the presence of any “pre-professional program” a blow to Harvard’s liberal arts character, this is a necessary price to pay. Likewise, Ryan’s argument against surrendering academic administration must been viewed in this light. As a concession, he posits that ROTC could exist on campus if Harvard had full control over it. To have an independent ROTC battalion would completely undermine the structure of the military, and it is clear this proposal is made with the knowledge that the military would reject it. Ryan seems to consider the return of ROTC as a dispensation to a certain group outside the rules of Harvard. Rather, it  is a recognition of the military’s unique place within American society and an honoring of Harvard’s long history of service to the United States military.

As China Announces Bold New Plans for its Space Program, the United States Considers the Possible Militarism of the Space Race

In contrast to a United States that continues to scale back its space program, China last week unveiled an ambitious plan to become a major extraterrestrial power.  This plan includes launching freighters and manned-vessels within the next half-decade, conducting major research on black holes, forecasting environmental disasters, and drafting up plans for future space operations.

This announcement is part of the “rising global power” narrative that the nation’s government is attempting to promote.  Indeed, the bold next steps of China’s space program are not unlike the other major initiatives that the government has already undertaken, such as its massive expenditures on infrastructure projects.  And, this latest announcement out of China has got America worried about the strengthening of China and the possible militarism of space in the future.

Is this a Surprise?

China’s potential ascendency as a major player in space should not come as a surprise given the nation’s booming economy and past accomplishments with regard to its space program.  China, after all, is only the third nation after the United States and Russia to have put a human in space.

Furthermore, China completed a successful space walk in 2008.  In October, China’s first space laboratory module Tiangong-1 was successfully launched.  A month later, in November, the Chinese unmanned spacecraft Shenzhou-8 successfully completed an automated docking and safe return to Earth.  It is believed that during this flurry of activity the seeds of a future Chinese space laboratory were planted.

What is the Danger?

Some have become quite concerned by China’s ambitious goals given that the nation’s space program is run by its military.  Yet, the Chinese military insists that the space program will be used only for peaceful purposes.  After it shot down one of its own dead satellites in 2007, concerns arose regarding possible intentions to militarize space.  While we can only speculate at this point,  recent Chinese military policies and actions have raised questions about whether or not China’s military leaders will attempt to utilize space innovations for military purposes.

China- The Leader or Playing Catch-Up?

Some lament China’s space aspirations, fearing the possibility of China surpassing the United States on this front.  Naturally, this ought to be an important concern for the US, and it would not be unreasonable to suggest that China will eventually  become the a powerful presence in space.

However, China, in a sense, is playing catch-up with the nations that started their space programs back in the 1960s.  And although funding for NASA is not as robust as many might hope for looking into the future, the American space program is already building on the solid foundation of decades of previous work.

What the Future Holds

In the long term, China is hoping to put a man on the moon.  Few doubt that such a feat would be possible for China, given its current economic rise.  However, because China does have a relatively long path to tread with respect to developing its space technology, the future situation in space will largely be a function of how effectively China can execute on its plans.

As China garners this more prominent position in space, it will be strategically important for the United States to bridge the gap in relations with China with respect to their space programs, much in the manner that Washington developed strong space relations with Moscow during the Cold War.  In any case, as China’s space program grows and develops, fostering these space relations between the two powers may be necessary to maintain the peace and security that has characterized space since the dawn of the Space Age.

Photos Credit: Commons.Wikimedia.org

The clash between Iqbal and Jinnah resonates in Pakistan today. Western democracy, with its stated commitment to liberty, equality and representation has long seemed at odds with Islamic governments in the East. Pakistan in particular, was created on the basis of religion, but its founder hoped to establish a secular democratic state. In practice, Pakistan has vacillated between Islam and more secular forms of government, democracy and military rule. As a state at odds with its own identity, Pakistan has struggled to find a brand of democracy to fit the Pakistani context.

The Young and the Restless

In its initial years, Pakistan struggled to unite its two separate wings—East (now Bangladesh) and West Pakistan—under a democratic framework. According to Christophe Jaffrelot, visiting professor at Princeton and former director of the Center for International Studies and Research, the Muslim League was the only party in existence in Pakistan, but lacked the clout and civil society support of India’s Congress Party. As a result, initial power remained in the hands of a few landlords and muhajirs, immigrants of West Pakistan. Yet the clear majority of Pakistan’s population resided in East Pakistan, separated by India. Any democracy meant that power would devolve to East, something the original Muslim League, largely made up of West Pakistanis, found unacceptable.

Jinnah died in 1948, leaving behind a country struggling with seemingly divergent ideologies, and separate wings. The instability of the new state, coupled with fear of India next door, led the Pakistani government to emphasize short-term goals, designed to keep themselves in power and immediate threats at bay. For the first ten years of its existence, then, Pakistan tried and failed to instill a democracy, largely because political parties were discouraged and the ethnic identity divided the land so strongly from the start.

Enlightened Moderation—and the Military

In addition to the ethnic struggle within the country, an existential threat from India and the dispute over Kashmir increased the role of security in public policy, establishing the military’s presence in Pakistani public life from the start. “It created the mindset of liberty afterwards, security before. Ayub Khan used this line when he took over in 1958,” says Jaffrelot. Further, Pakistan inherited two highly militarized and underdeveloped provinces. The North West Frontier Province (now Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa) and Balochistan comprised fiercely independent tribes that had evaded British influence and resisted efforts for development. They remain hotbeds of resistance movements today. After alternating between two prime ministers in the 1990s, both of whom were ousted on charges of corruption, Pakistan embarked on its longest period of military rule under Pervez Musharraf. Musharraf remained popular despite his controversial takeover and appealed to many moderate Pakistanis. In 2004, Musharraf began his mantra of “enlightened moderation,” stating, “We must adopt a path of moderation and a conciliatory approach to fight the common belief that Islam is a religion of militancy in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism.” Attempting to achieve this moderation as a military dictator seemed unlikely, yet his policies encouraging free media and open criticism seemed to support Musharraf’s benign image as a democratic reformer.

Coming Into its Own

Musharraf’s efforts, however, were complicated by societal structure. According to Anatol Lievin’s book, Pakistan: A Hard Country, a culture of patronage rules all institutions in Pakistan. Political parties, tribes, courts, civil services and police all function according to a system of patronage between individuals and loyalists, reducing the appeal of large scale democratic voting.

Some experts, however, view the systems of patronage as a contextualized adaptation to democratic processes. Ayesha Jalal, a historian and professor at Tufts University described to the HPR the traditional tribal Jirga: a council that normally resolves disputes within a village. Jalal argues that while jirga has its flaws, it can be adapted to the demands of a modern democratic state. As Jalal claims, the system’s existence as an informal alternative to the judiciary has produced a sense of ownership amongst the people.

The potential of systems like the jirga suggests that democracies must be allowed to grow out of their flaws. Jalal explained the described the interrupted flow of democracy in Pakistan, “We have always voted a government in, but never voted one out.” Democratically elected governments in Pakistan have been plagued by corruption and inefficiency, prompting takeovers by military rulers at every juncture. The consistent interruptions prevent accountability mechanisms from running the full cycle. In Jalal’s opinion, Pakistanis know what they want, but have not been given the forum to express themselves.

A New Era?

After Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in 2007, Pakistanis heralded a new government with the largest election turnout in the country’s history. Today, rising prices, a refugee problem in the wake of military operations and natural disasters and growing suspicion between the United States and Pakistan after Bin Laden’s controversial capture, place this democratically elected government at yet another crucial juncture. The army seems to be stepping back from interfering, yet the intelligence agencies still influence public policy, especially in the wake of Bin Laden’s death.

In 2013, if there are no interruptions, Pakistan will have its next major election. Choosing between the existing political parties will be a challenge, since most have been tried, tested, and struggled. Yet, if history is any indicator, muddling through remains the best possible route. Even in Pakistan’s case where democracy is dysfunctional and manifests itself through unconventional means, the universal principles of participatory governance and rule according to the will of the people should be emphasized. According to Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate and professor of economics at Harvard University, people will mold the word “democracy” to their own ends unless the universal values of democracy need to be applied.

Pictured: Joseph Kony, leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, a guerrilla organization in Uganda indicted on Human Rights abuses.

Beyond the debt, the rallies, and the latest Republican remarks, one may have noticed two quieter developments in Eastern Africa recently.  In the course of the past week, two military interventions have emerged in this region.  One originates in the United States, where 100 military advisers were just deployed to Uganda for the purpose of training Ugandan forces in their fight against the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Northern Uganda. The LRA is a guerrilla organization under ICC-indicted war criminal Joseph Kony, infamous for its humanitarian abuses and use of child soldiers. In the east, we saw another intervention, this time out of Kenya.  Following several high-profile kidnappings of Westerners in recent weeks by Al-Shabaab, the Al Qaeda-associated Islamic Fundamentalist group in Southern Somalia, Kenyan troops have invaded Somalia.

Both of these interventions possess highly symbolic qualities: for the United States, memories of military action in East Africa reignite paradoxical but sobering images of both American engagement and American apathy in Mogadishu and Rwanda respectively.  In addition, the use of military advisers already has some worried about the potential of escalation into a greater conflict, conjuring up images of Vietnam, another conflict initiated by the deployment of non-combat personnel.  Meanwhile, Kenya’s recent intervention is arguably even more emblematic.  The recent invasion of Somalia is the first Kenyan military deployment into a foreign country since it first became independent in 1963.

This is the tale of two very different interventions.  One appears humanitarian, looking at addressing a concern beyond its borders, only providing military advisers.  The other is in the name of self-defense, providing boots on the ground to address the issue.  However, both are actually, beneath all the polish and the rhetoric, two military commitments to which domestic populations possess strong negative stigmas, justified as a response to even more galvanizing symbols on the ground.

In Uganda, this symbol is obvious.  Joseph Kony and the LRA have become emblems of the unrest and humanitarian crises in central Africa.  However, to say that this gesture of the United States is purely humanitarian would be extremely myopic.  The reality is that Uganda is not as clear a dichotomy between good and bad as much as we imagine, given the heinousness of Kony.  Yoweri Museveni, the leader of Uganda for the past 25 years, is no Joseph Kony, but he likewise possesses a greatly tainted record.  Grasping onto his power with an iron fist since coming to power in a 1986 coup, Museveni has fielded a long list of accusations, from the indictment of Museveni by the International Court of Justice for war crimes and the massacre of civilians to the continual use of child soldiers to the obstruction of democracy in Ugandan elections.

While many in the United States viewed the decision to commit advisers to Uganda as sudden, this is perfect timing in Museveni’s eyes.  The publicity boost that would result from a stronger offensive against the LRA would be an opportune distraction from the riots around the country protesting food prices and corruption as well as a chance to pacify Uganda as he prepares to take advantage of recently discovered oil reserves. Rather than seeing a US-Uganda partnership as purely humanitarian, it is useful to note the interests and roles that both possess in the larger theater of East Africa.

Within this environment, Uganda has taken a strong presence in Somalia, supplying over 3000 troops to support Somalia’s UN-backed Transitional Federal Government (TFG).  This has resulted in retaliatory attacks from Islamic fundamentalist groups in Somalia, including several bombings in Kampala during the World Cup last year.  Considering the interests of the US in the region of supporting the TFG against Islamic fundamentalist organizations in Somalia, Ugandan involvement could be considered as a channel for the United States to challenge groups such as Al-Shabaab in Somalia without using American manpower.  Even if it is radical to suggest that the deployment of advisers as a pre-discussed exchange for Ugandan troops in Somalia, it cannot be ignored that these interests play into the overall relationship between the two countries, therefore making it difficult to completely divorce the justification of the two policies.

In Kenya, the deployment of troops must be viewed through a similar filter.  The immediate justification of the invasion was the abduction of foreigners in the past month, seen as a threat to Kenya’s invaluable tourism industry.  However, one must note the decisiveness of Kenyan action despite the existence of doubts regarding the culpability of Al-Shabaab, who has consistently denied involvement in the kidnappings.  The reality is that this justification can be easily dismissed as the utilization, or at worst, fabrication, of an act of aggression worthy of breaking with the Kenyan aversion to foreign military involvement, the recent invasion being the first since Kenya’s inception in 1963.

A look in Kenya’s history will reveal that Kenya has put its army on standby to invade Somalia in the past, including notable examples in 2009 and 2006.  It would not be an illogical suggestion that the recent developments are not a shift in policy, but simply the manifestation of existing interests as a result of the caliber of the latest accusations against Al-Shabaab.  After all, the unrest in Somalia puts a tremendous toll upon Kenya, with 380,000 residing in the Dadaab refugee camp in Kenya, the largest refugee camp in the world and a problem exacerbated by the mass exodus of Somalis as a result of the 2011 droughts in Somalia.  This assertion is only corroborated by reports of collaboration between Kenya and the TFG, who possess interests far more suited to Western, and Kenyan, interests.  The abductees are used as symbols for the realization of long-standing interests of Kenya within Somalia, interests that are not publicly discussed as justification for its actions.

However, assuming that these operations succeed, it’s very hard to ignore the potential spillover benefits of the recent Kenyan and United States military actions.  Joseph Kony has been an indefensible monster in Uganda, ravaging the helpless population for the last 25 years.  Likewise, Al-Shabaab has also committed an array of human rights abuses, prolonging the gruesome anarchy that now exists in Somalia.  If either of these actors can be eliminated, it is hard to imagine how these developments do not improve the overall welfare of the world.  However, considering the underlying narratives that are forgotten in the discussion of these two interventions, we are once again reminded that if we seek to achieve these humanitarian goals, perhaps a certain measure of transparency may have to be sacrificed.

Often, democracy precludes a government’s ability to do otherwise.  With that said, these interventions are no guarantees.  Al-Shabaab has proven highly resilient to foreign incursions, including in response to the Ethiopian invasions of Somalia in 2006, and will pose a challenge to a Kenyan force strong in technology but often viewed as inexperienced.  Meanwhile, Joseph Kony has become adept at navigating the dense forests and porous borders around Uganda’s northern region, foiling a US effort in 2006, with many suggesting that he may no longer, in fact, be in Uganda at all.  If these actions truly improve the welfare of this region, it’s still probably worth a shot, although with caution.  After all, humanitarian groups may applaud the recent developments, but should we turn a blind eye to the concealed layer of justification, it may all come down to a simple reality, a simple question we must now pose:

If we trust our governments to unilaterally decide foreign affairs in their interests, can we trust these decisions to consistently align with the common good?

If the answer to that is not yes, then perhaps with the recent East African interventions of the US and Kenya, we’ve just gotten lucky.

==

Photo Credit

In contrast, while it wouldn’t be unexpected to hear a candidate pledge to reduce poverty or to cut carbon emissions, it would be highly unorthodox and even politically unacceptable to set as a goal an increase in welfare payments or environmental enforcement by an arbitrary percentage of GDP. These programs, like most government expenditures in the contemporary political climate, are seen as necessary evils, whose increasing size would be nothing to brag about. Military spending not only breaks this mold, but apparently inverts it.

There’s something ideologically implicit about the modern stance on defense spending: as chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Buck McKeon asserts, “A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline.” Thus, from the viewpoint of the Republican establishment, the inverse is true as well. In this way, cuts in defense spending have transformed from a component of policy aimed at reining in the government’s mushrooming expenditures to a concession of America’s fallibility and a blow to the doctrine of exceptionalism.

That said, perceived necessity, in addition to pure ideology, may be promoting the idea of inherent military virtue. As noted by republican senator Tom Coburn, “the Pentagon is one of the few agencies in the federal government that cannot produce auditable financial statements in accordance with the law.” Thus, legislators’ knowledge of where government outlays on defense are specifically being allocated is fuzzy at best. The inability or ambivalence of the Department of Defense to perform these audits on its own expenses caused another member of the House Armed Services Committee, Randy Forbes, to denounce the Department as unqualified to comment on its own efficiency.

Left to mill about in a state of ambiguity, any legislators with a touch of hawkishness or paranoia can rely on nothing for analysis but the apocalyptic claims of military officials. As an example, when confronted with the possibility of $450 billion in cuts over the next ten years, the Army’s chief of staff, General Raymond Odierno claimed that the military would not be able to

fight two wars simultaneously. I’ll try not to make any subjective claims on the validity of this comment, but will state some facts: the US army currently has several thousand more active-duty soldiers stationed in Germany than it does in Iraq, more soldiers stationed in Alaska and Hawaii than in Afghanistan, and currently composes over 40% of the world’s defense forces. Thus, what amounts to about a 7% cut likely won’t lead to a national security Armageddon. Such asymmetry of information reminds us of why we don’t write the Department of Transportation or the Department of Agriculture blank checks, taking their secretaries’ word for when a vital public good is at a breaking point.

Many legislators see past this funding façade created by armed forces officials, but in the modern era, when most politicians see the military as a values-based topic rather than a policy-based topic, lawmakers are predisposed to accepting the words of military leaders. Thus, as the words of Romney implicitly illustrate, it is this military-ideological fusion that keeps defense spending from being scathed, analyzed, and combed as finely as it must be in an era of American austerity.

To be sure, elements of this fusion are not new: Captain America never dabbled in social work; the acronym in GI Joe doesn’t refer to Greenpeace International. Still, the rhetoric and actions of our politicians are not helping to bring the defense sector of the government back into the realm of policy. Only if our legislators are once again able to examine military expenditures in a context of analytic realism rather than ideological romance can we hope to economize our government in an efficient and just fashion.

Establishing trust.

A constant refrain from critics in the United States is that Pakistan has not been using all of its aid effectively. US aid to Pakistan totaled nearly 4.5 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2010, but 800 million dollars of security assistance was frozen in August in response to Pakistan’s refusal to admit American military personnel and trainers who process the items that fall under the US performance checklist. After the bin Laden raid, there was even more suspicion about whether or not Pakistan truly deserves this aid for, after all, where was all the money going? Recently, a U.S. Senate committee voted to give conditional aid to Pakistan, based on Islamabad’s cooperation in fighting the militant Haqqani network, responsible for most of the attacks in Afghanistan.

For Pakistanis, the situation is going from bad to worse.  Only 1.5 percent of the Gross Domestic Product goes into education. According to the Pakistan Education Task Force one in every ten children in the world not in primary school is Pakistani. The health care system is in shambles: Pakistan ranks 125^th out of 169 countries in the 2010 Human Development Index. The floods that affected over 20 million people last year and that continue to devastate southern Pakistan this year have received a lackluster response from donors and aid agencies.

But Pakistan’s civil society has created alternative systems that have held up communities for decades. The Edhi Foundation, established in 1951, is the largest welfare organization in Pakistan and through the efforts of its founder Abdul Sattar Edhi, a man with little formal education, it initiated Pakistan’s first and most widespread ambulance service. The Citizens’ Foundation (TCF), formed in 1995 by a group of businessmen, is one of Pakistan’s largest non-profit school systems—educating 102,000 students and operating around 730 schools in the past year. Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Center, opened in 1994 and  set up by Pakistan’s most famous cricket captain, has financially supported 75% of its patients since it began.  And there are many others.

These organizations have been operating successfully on the generosity of local and foreign donors, expatriates and non-Pakistanis alike. However, in recent years instability in the country has affected their operations. For example, 60 TCF schools were affected after the floods in 2010 and donations have fallen since the recession. Regardless of these problems, the value of local philanthropy in Pakistan is 1.6 billion dollars, exceeding the yearly amounts promised in the Kerry Lugar Bill. Locally, people are willing to donate generously, yet abroad, according to Dr. Adil Najam, Vice Chancellor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, in 2005 Pakistani Americans only gave 40 percent of their donations to local organizations due to lack of knowledge of where to give and mistrust over where their money would go. Clearly, support is needed and generous funds are available, but there is a deficit of knowledge abroad about where this money should go.

If aid is to be channeled into Pakistan, it must be sent to the right places where the need exists and where it can be effectively and efficiently utilized. In order to do that, trust must be established between donors and results must be observed and documented and shown in public forums for discussion.

This summer, I walked the bridge between an organization and its donors, creating material for Opportunity International, a microfinance initiative in Ghana. I attended a ten week long program with Students of the World (SOW) a non-profit media production company that creates promotional material for non-profits around the world. We spent one month working with Opportunity International, a microfinance initiative that serves farmers, small business owners and school proprietors. “We” were a group of seven students from universities around Boston with roles consisting of filmmakers, a graphic designer, photographer, producer, development coordinator and journalist. As journalist, I interviewed clients and updated our blog regularly.

Our program sent similar teams of students to Haiti, Uganda and the West Bank to work with different organizations. After a month, we all converged in Austin, Texas for postproduction. We created short video clips stating each organization’s commitment to the Clinton Global Initiative; these were screened this week at the Clinton Global Initiative Meeting in New York. We also made short videos for the organizations, for their websites and to be shown to possible donors.

Opportunity International, through its Banking on Education program, provides loans to private schools in rural areas that need money to improve their facilities. These schools are generally of high quality and serve low-income families. In Ghana, the private school sector is flourishing as more and more people choose to send their children to such schools, despite the free public sector education. This is largely due to the poor quality of education and lack of facilities in the government sector. Taking advantage of this, Opportunity International served 233 private schools in rural areas in 2010.

Preparing for interviews in Ghana. Photo credit: Alex Osherow

We interviewed women like Mercy Senyegah who was forced by threats from her husband’s creditors to leave her old village. She managed to start up a school that serves over 200 children. We met cocoa farmers like Amma Amponsah who lifted herself and her four children out of poverty and now owns two small houses as well as a farm that has increased its yield from 1 to 48 bags since she joined Opportunity.

There are many more stories to be told. On our return to the United States, my team and I found ample opportunities for screenings and discussions in our respective colleges and cities. In Pakistan there are perhaps many more stories that are worthy of such coverage. Partnering with established, well reputed organizations and telling their stories on an international platform is necessary to develop transparency and understanding about how money is being spent. It is not just about sending money to the right places, it is helping people understand where to send their money and why it is important to support these areas in the first place. Encouraging such endeavors serves two purposes.

First, we make development efforts more relatable for audiences and donors. We need to prove to American taxpayers that US-Pakistan relations are more than just pumping money into corrupt institutions and funding military programs. True, the government makes the decisions about where aid money goes but to reduce suspicion between two important allies, it is imperative to have greater participation by students and the civil society of the respective countries. Encouraging documentary filmmaking and sending young filmmakers and students from the United States to partner with Pakistani students is a way to do it.

Second, by showing more films about local Pakistani non-profits to audiences in the United States we can ensure that donations go to the right places and governments are pressured into supporting the right organizations. The Kerry Lugar Bill states: “The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan, including through host country contracts, and to work with local leaders to provide assistance under this section.” The USA cannot determine on its own where the aid is to be allocated. Both governments must engage experts to pinpoint areas. Partnering local NGOs, with documentary filmmakers who present development efforts in an international sphere is an effective way to build awareness of where the funding should be going and thus influence both the Pakistani and US governments to support the right organizations.

After we finished editing and screened our first film about Opportunity International’s Banking on Education program, I realized the power of visual marketing to a donor audience. In the film, Mercy discusses her efforts to build a school, over a shot of her teaching a class. Capturing students’ reactions, recording all the sounds and presenting an authentic experience inside a Ghanaian classroom rang powerfully with viewers at our screening. In an environment where the media is inundated with negativity and an ever-popular focus on conflict zones it is highly unlikely that Pakistan could have any popular support for its development efforts. Visual tools can either impact the audience for the few minutes they are watching, or they can resonate with them long after the films are over. If our movies stick with audiences, and Opportunity International receives a boost in its donations then our work is done. We have influenced contributions by appealing to people’s generosity, we have also made them aware of what they are giving to. There are many Mercy Senyegahs in Pakistan who deserve to tell their stories. Focusing on the positives of aid relief through documentation doesn’t just promote  a good cause–it changes mindsets.

And that is, after all, what US-Pakistan relations so desperately needs.

Nur Nasreen Ibrahim ’13 recently traveled to Ghana in June 2011 as a member of a filmmaking team with Students of the World, a non-profit media production company that works with university students to produce and leverage documentary media in order to garner support for innovative non-profits working around the world. She is a journalist for the Boston Team and has created promotional material for Opportunity International, a micro-finance initiative in Ghana.

However, this gathering was unlike any I had seen before.  Around the John Harvard statute in the middle of Harvard Yard were more than a hundred students, both Republicans and Democrats.  This moved me more than anything.  In an era of polarization and partisanship, the death of a symbol brought together more than a hundred students of different beliefs and backgrounds; more importantly, it brought together thousands of Americans across the country in a way we have not seen for years.

The death of a symbol is, after all, what Americans celebrated.  Contrary to the backlash of stories eluding that these rallies stemmed from some visceral hatred of a single man, the hundreds of Harvard students running, jumping, and chanting, were not celebrating the death of a man.  They came together to rejoice in the death of a symbol.

After two passenger jets crashed into two of the largest buildings in New York City on September 11, 2001, the name Osama Bin Ladin was heard around the world.  Over the next 10 years, he would come to be the symbol of the war in Afghanistan, the war against Al- Qaeida, and the war on terrorism as a whole.  He, the mastermind behind the attacks, represents everything the American people fight-repression, terrorism, and religious extremism.

When news of his death reached the public, we had every reason to celebrate.  After more than seven years of war, not only had a major military operation finally ended, but also a major symbol of the movement we fight today was defeated.

Sandra Korn ’14 writes, “In truth, our excessively patriotic celebrations undoubtedly confirm that Americans are unfeeling and inconsiderate. “

In contrast, I believe that our demonstrations have only confirmed our deeply considerate nature and our deep-seated love for justice.  We celebrated the justice brought to a man who organized an attack that killed thousands of American citizens.  We rejoice for those families who, while they may never find solace, may at least know that the symbol that took away their loved ones has been brought to justice.  However, I sympathize and concede to Sandra’s point in some respect.  When celebrations cease to be a positive expression of patriotism and turn into expressions of hatred and violence, they must be condemned.  While the feelings of terrorists need not be respected, we ought to hold ourselves to a high standard- after all, the standard a man holds himself to separates the just from the unjust.

However, Sandra Korn writes in her post, “Yes, Osama bin Laden had an important role in multiple horrifying events. Maybe he was indeed a “horrible person,” although I hesitate to label humans as “evil.”

I am not afraid to say that Osama Bin Ladin was evil, and I am not afraid to say that his movement was evil. It is important as Americans, and as citizens of the world, that we stand up for our values, that we are not afraid to confront evil for what it is, and that we do come together and rejoice when there is due cause.  Like President Obama said,  “We are one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all”.

I am proud of America for coming together, I stand still in reverence with the people of New York, and I hope that we have reason to rejoice again in the near future.  And if that means dancing the Mexican Hat Dance, then so be it.

Photo credit:  http://globalhiphopbattles.com/tag/americans-celebrate-osama-bin-laden-being-murdered/

This weekend's defining events may shape the historical perspective on President Obama's administration.

Today, a variety of student perspectives were published in the Harvard Crimson on the death of the world’s most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden.

I will always vividly remember the events of September 2001, watching my 4^th grade teacher in Missouri receive a phone call and deliver the news that the Pentagon had just been bombed.  As President Obama visits Ground Zero tomorrow, let us never forget those who died on 9/11 at the hands of this indefensible terrorist’s despicable actions, and let us never feel compelled to make excuses for our patriotic spontaneity.  Three days after 9/11, President Bush gave his spontaneous Ground Zero bullhorn speech, which I will never forget.  “I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you!  And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!”

Bin Laden has heard all of us now.  This is not the end of terrorism, but it is the end of bin Laden.  Blind patriotism is indeed dangerous, but those who celebrated in Harvard Yard and across the world Monday morning were not being shortsighted at all.  Just as I will never forget 9/11, I will never forget rejoicing at the news of bin Laden’s death with my classmates, draping an American flag over John Harvard, and chanting “U-S-A!” with elation.  The celebrations were sparked by the death of a man, yes, but they were conducted in the name of something greater.  The long, uninterrupted moment of silence for the 9/11 victims and our troops during Monday’s chaotic Harvard Yard rally goes sorely unmentioned by the critics of the celebration, but was one of the most powerful moments I have experienced in college thus far.

Amidst the commotion, the most significant moment of the night for me was meeting an American veteran just to the right of the John Harvard statue.  He was wearing a hat and glasses, was in his 50s, and came to the rally upon hearing the U-S-A cheers.  Many thanked him for his service, and he wholeheartedly joined in the cheering and singing.  Seeing his emotional reaction to the Harvard Yard celebrations is why Monday’s rally was one of the unforgettable memories I will take away from this place and look back upon with dignity and pride.

Kennedy School Professor David Gergen (Law ’67) is correct in contending that the news of bin Laden’s death “not only electrified Americans but brought us together as a people in a way we haven’t seen since 9/11.”  As Americans, we should all be proud of our country.  We should certainly question our government and take our leaders’ words with a grain of salt and healthy skepticism.  But for those who love our great nation, pride in country necessitates celebrating the end of an evil enemy who strove to terrorize the world.  In this case, Presidents Bush and Obama should be applauded for their courageous moral leadership, decisive pursuit of justice, and for showing the world that America stands against what is evil in the name of what is good.

Osama bin Laden’s death represents more than the end of a human life.  It represents the demise of the ideals he embodied and the end of his hatred towards America.  It is one of the most important events of our lives, and it helps bring closure to those who lost loved ones to his terror.  Muslims rightfully reject the notion that bin Laden or al Qaeda represent Muslims or Islam.  Those who condemn celebrations of bin Laden’s death are quick to offer a line from Proverbs 24:17, “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles.”  Families of victims of the 9/11 attacks, however, find solace in Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

Those around the world should know we are celebrating the symbolic end of an era.  For a few short hours in Harvard Yard Monday night, and on college campuses and public squares across the nation, we were united as one American people.  There are those who say this milestone will not change anything: let us prove them wrong.  Let us heed our President’s call for enduring national unity.  Alleging that Americans are “unfeeling and inconsiderate” is false and does not achieve that end.  Using religion, hate, or manipulation to further one’s cause is dangerous, and is precisely what bin Laden did.  But the celebration of a just and good victory should never be muted.  With humility at the forefront of American foreign policy and the strength of conviction to support it, we can demonstrate to the world – especially to those who terrorize – that freedom and justice, in the end, will always prevail.

Photo Credit: CBS News

Sen. McCain, a strong proponent for the Libyan intervention, warned of possible Al Qaeda takeover of an unstable Libya in the event of a "stalemate." Are our leaders doing everything to ensure that a stalemate in Libya doesn't occur?

On the Sunday morning talk shows this week, Sen. John McCain offered a grim outlook on what the Libyan conflict may look like in weeks to come.

Senator John McCain warned on Sunday that he feared the conflict in Libya was heading toward a “stalemate” and threatened to create a vacuum that could result in Al Qaeda gaining control of the North African country. Speaking from Cairo, Mr. McCain, a strong advocate of intervention in Libya, also said that Al Qaeda could take advantage of an encroaching stalemate as a tenacious Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi continued to cling to power.

“I really fear a stalemate,” said Mr. McCain, Republican of Arizona, speaking on CNN television’s “State of the Union” program after visiting the rebel strongholds in Libya. He said the rebel fighters were “badly outgunned in armor, in equipment, in training” against forces loyal to Col. Qaddafi.

The predictions of Mr. McCain, a seasoned statesman with years of accumulated foreign policy experience, are not to be taken lightly.   If there is no significant policy change on the part of NATO or the United States, Libya will become another failed state – with great likelihood that the emergent regime will be hostile to the national security and foreign policy interests of the US.  McCain’s assertions can be easily substantiated – Al Qaeda will seek to take advantage of chaos and instability in Libya, as experts believe they have close ties to Libyan rebels; their North African affiliate has already endorsed the rebels’ cause and they clearly have interests in the region.

As the old adage goes, the enemy of our enemy is supposedly our friend.  So why aren’t we acting like it?  Simply put, we have no way of knowing whether the rebels are going to support democratic governance once Gaddhafi has been overthrown.  In any situation like this, there is no way of knowing what will happen when the power dynamic shifts so significantly.  In an ideal world, U.S. aid to the rebels in Libya would go far beyond a mere $25 million in non-lethal military surplus and half-hearted statements of support for the rebels’ military cause qualified with a reluctance to supply real military power to the rebels and a passing of the buck, saying “somebody else should do that.”

As we know, however, our world is far from ideal.  Now that the Obama Administration has made the idealistic error of engaging in the Libyan intervention, the United States must not be embarrassed by the North African state’s potential devolution into chaos and instability.  We cannot profess to fight a global war on terror while enabling Al Qaeda and other entities hostile to U.S. interests to take advantage of situations we have created as a result of our failure to follow through on our actions.  So, what to do now?  Given the nuances of the domestic political situation, the fiscal, social, and moral imperatives against putting troops on the ground, and the international restrictions on going beyond the enforcement of a no-fly zone, there are two options.

First, the United States can step back, hold our European allies responsible for resolving the situation in Libya in our best interest, continue to refuse arming the rebels, and continue to pretend that Gaddhafi’s ouster is not the ultimate objective.  This option would be fatal to United States interests and contrary to President Obama’s five stated foreign policy goals of ending the war in Iraq responsibly, finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban, securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states, achieving true energy security, and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Or we could take a stand and act like the United States again.  Not only does the President contradict himself when he pretends Gaddhafi’s ouster is not the ultimate objective,

Our duty and our mandate under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 is to protect civilians, and we are doing that. It is not to remove Qaddafi by force. But it is impossible to imagine a future for Libya with Qaddafi in power...It is unthinkable that someone who has tried to massacre his own people can play a part in their future government.

but harboring the illusion that the United States is playing only a supporting role in Libya is preposterous.  The U.S. and NATO need to drop the political pretenses and embrace the challenge that winning in Libya entails; if this doesn’t happen, it will only contribute to a muddling of the ultimate objective and increased international confusion.

We shouldn’t be in Libya in the first place; we’re not the world police and there was no vital U.S. national security interest being threatened by Col. Gaddhafi’s actions, nor were his abominable actions an “emerging threat” to our nation.  While many made the argument that a moral obligation existed to intervene for humanitarian reasons, this is an arbitrary standard – why did we not intervene in southern Sudan, or Rwanda, or the countless other potential humanitarian crises around the globe?  However, regardless of the motivations behind our behavior, now that Mr. Obama has made the decision to intervene, we need to see a definitive resolution of the Libyan intervention in favor of the United States.  It’s been a month, and we have almost nothing to show for the enormous amount of military resources expended and time committed to the Libyan effort.  So let’s fight this war to win – even in our idealism-free world and without using ground troops, the rebels can be armed, the U.N. mandate can be broken, and Gaddhafi and his administration can be strategically targeted.  Though we don’t know whether offering military support to the rebels will come back to haunt us in the future, we have no choice but to take our chances and monitor arms distribution exceptionally carefully in order to defeat the Gaddhafi regime.  As Gen. Colin Powell would assert, while we shouldn’t be fighting in Libya, now that we’re at war, we need to use every resource and tool to exert decisive force against the enemy.  Even when we’re operating within the political and practical confines of “no ground troops,” there is much more that we should be doing.

Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Senator McCain, a strong proponent for the Libyan intervention, warned of possible Al Qaeda takeover of an unstable Libya in the event of a “stalemate,” which raises the question: are our leaders doing everything to ensure that a stalemate in Libya doesn’t occur?  Clearly, the answer is no.  Our leaders need to take an active role in ensuring that the U.S. intervention in Libya achieves its objectives and that we follow through on it completely.  We have historical experience in arming rebels, and we know what works and what doesn’t.  Let’s see this through to the end; yes, it will be a costly investment, but the outcome will certainly be better than the potential alternative of an Al Qaeda-controlled Libya.  It will be politically costly for members of Congress, and especially so for the Obama Administration – which may be the unfortunate reason we won’t see a successful resolution to this conflict at all.  In this case, the pathway to peace is paved with bricks of war.  That is the price we pay when we engage in an only half-justifiable foreign military intervention motivated by idealism.  Now that we’re involved in Libya, let’s put aside narrow domestic political considerations and act like we know how to win.  If we don’t, the specter of stalemate Mr. McCain has raised might just become real – and that is utterly unacceptable.

Photo Credit: AFP/Getty Images

Note from Rajiv – Check out my colleagues’ insightful posts on the Libyan intervention:

Paul Schied on Libya and American Leadership

Naji Filali on American Interventionism

For supporters of democracy around the world, there was something inspiring about the sight of protestors gathered around Tahrir Square at Cairo. In his 1994 book, The End of History, Francis Fukuyama posited that liberal democracy would be the final destination for all states around the world; and while the ongoing experiences of countries like China still suggest otherwise, Egypt’s revolution seemed to confirm that we are, somehow, on the inexorable march towards democracy as a standard for the modern world.

With its military still entrenched, are celebrations too premature?

Unfortunately, I fear that Egypt’s revolution hardly counts as a victory for Fukuyama’s thesis. The removal of Murbarak from power does not guarantee a transition to a properly functioning democracy, and many have been guilty of romanticizing the recent events in Egypt. In his op-ed for Project Syndicate, Chris Patten called it “a glorious example of the indefatigable courage of the human spirit”– an example of  lofty rhetoric that ignores Egypt’s fundamental problems.

The basic fact is this: Egypt’s military still commands too much power for the revolution to effect any genuine or significant changes. For a democracy to function effectively, there needs to be a formal separation in civil-military relations. If this does not happen, the institutions of a country will become inherently instable, as the country’s reins will ultimately be in the hands of the military, not its civilians.

Currently, the relationship between Egypt’s military and the state can best be described as a parasitic one. While Egypt’s military provides the country stability, it undermines the state’s long-term interests by refusing privatization of the economy, and withholding political power from its citizens.

Egypt’s military currently remains deeply embedded, but it was not always intended to be this way. Writing for Political Science Quarterly, Georgetown’s Mehran Kamrava outlines the genesis of “ideological military states” like Egypt, tracing their historical roots:

Beginning with Iraq’s 1936 coup and lasting through the 1960s, the middle classes and other educated groups in the Middle East considered it almost natural for the military to take over the reins of power in order to start the process of political development… Apart from Algeria, where the movement for national liberation started from below and had a truly national component, all of the other early revolutions in the Middle East – excluding Iran’s – started from above and were led and orchestrated by highly ideological officers.

To consolidate power, many of these militaries relied on ideological platforms to gain popular legitimacy, casting their promises in nationalistic overtones. Nasser, for instance, was one such example of an officer-turned-visionary, renowned for standing up to the colonialists powers and inventing his own brand of Arab nationalism.

However, this movement was not sustainable. Politicization of the military also meant increasing its political aspirations, and with no common ideological ground, many militaries were soon embroiled in internal power struggles. Instead of  fulfilling their promises for enacting change, these militaries came to resemble the autocratic regimes they once deposed. “Gone are the days of lofty promises and impending victories against global enemies,” Kamrava writes. “Today’s goal is simply to hang on to power.”

Thus, the political instability in many countries in the Middle East can be attributed to unresolved tensions in state-military relations, and Egypt is no exception. While posing as Egypt’s benign guardian, I would argue that Egypt’s military is the true culprit behind the situation. Overthrowing Murbarak may be a step in that direction, but as long as its military remains entrenched, Egypt will be trapped in a state of arrested development. For any meaningful change to occur, the military will have to be subordinated its citizens’ control.

For now, this outcome seems to be a remote possibility. Domestically, the military wields too much power, and short of an outbreak of violence, it is unlikely that civilians will successfully wrest it from them. Internationally, because the U.S. will prioritize its own interests in the region first, it will prefer a stable military ally (take Pakistan, for example) than risking resources to facilitate a proper democratic transition.

For these reasons, I believe the impact of Egypt’s revolution may ultimately prove to be limited. Unless state-military relations can be reconfigured, this may sadly be remembered as another episode in the country’s tumultuous history: a bright spark in a long passage of darkness.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons