An Open Letter to Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,

I write this letter to you out of frustration and disappointment; but, I also write it out of hope. You have an opportunity, Mr. President. You have an opportunity to bring about the change that you so passionately defend as characteristically American, the same change that you championed and promised before your election as President of the United States.

I have lived in this country my entire life and I have seen and experienced the chaos that has become so ingrained in the American political system. I have heard my grandparents speak of times when politics and , more specifically, politicking were conducted with more honor… with more deference to the values that this country was founded upon – a time when the everyday American was more than just an afterthought in the mind of a recently elected government official. The reelection rat-race has torn our politicians away from the voices of the American public and towards interests groups, exploratory committees, and corporate fundraisers. You, too, Mr. President have fallen into this way of conducting reelection campaigns. Recently, you announced your bid for reelection as President of the United States. This announcement also carried with it an intended goal of $1 billion in campaign funds. I know that reports have set that number a bit lower, and some reports have set that number ever higher still. The amount is inconsequential. Do you realize that such an amount of money is incomprehensible to the majority of Americans? There are roughly 400 billionaires in the United States – that’s less than a fraction of 1% of all Americans. $1 billion dollars could house 2,857 American families and build 77 3-story hospitals. So, my question, Mr. President, is why do you need $1 billion dollars to run a reelection campaign?

I am angry with you Mr. President, very angry. But, the only thing I am more conscious of is my disappointment. I believed in you and your message of change… not that I necessarily no longer do. You simply need to understand that my faith in you as our President has been shaken and my understanding of your message and its meaning is changing in very profound, fundamental ways. The thought of you spending 1$ billion on television, radio, internet, and print advertising sickens me, especially considering the financial difficulties that most Americans continue to feel as they are trying to dig themselves out of the “Great Recession” of the last several years. I understand that reelection campaigns cost money, Mr. President, I do. But, why does it have to cost $1 billion? To me, your announcement of this intended fundraising goal is indicative of the severe lack of attention that Americans – and that is an all-inclusive term – pay to how much money is spent on political campaigns. Americans have become complacent about politics, and so have American politicians. The simple fact is this: Too much money is spent on political campaigns, and your finance goal is indicative of this.

I am aware that major campaign finance reform has been taking place in this country since the 1970s. I ask, then, why is it that every election cycle more money is being spent on campaigns than in the previous cycle? It seems major campaign finance reform has been ineffective. Or has it? Perhaps these reforms do not seek to limit the amount of money that is spent on campaigns; but, instead, make it easier for money to be drawn in and retained. That is a mistake and an affront to the everyday American because it assumes that if you simply throw a bunch of advertisements at the American public they will see the carefully designed layout, the painstakingly thought-out slogan and march to the poles, ultimately putting a little black check mark next to your name. The sad thing is, that this is true; but, that doesn’t make it right Mr. President.

We, as a country and a people, so often assume that simply because the world looks to us to set certain international norms, we do not need to be introspective about the values we espouse or the methods we condone. This assumption has led us to give ourselves a “free pass.” What I mean is that we believe our morals cannot be judged, that our way of doing things is not open to question. Do you realize, Mr. President, that we are the only democracy in the world that spends so much money on political campaigns? Do you realize that our democracy has one of the most unregulated campaign systems in the world? We could learn a thing or two from European systems of campaign finance and campaign finance reform.

This brings me to the opportunity that I spoke of earlier. You have an opportunity to change the way campaign financing is done in this country… and not only the way it is done but also the way it is thought about. Your opportunity comes in the form of a challenge from me, a lowly ol’ college student in North Dakota: I challenge you to make campaign finance reform a priority should you be reelected, and I also challenge you to cap your intended campaign fundraising goal at $250 million (which I still believe to be quite high; but, it is a start). This is an opportunity that I hope you take, Mr. President. You’ve made me think that change is possible… now make me believe it’s possible.

Sincerely,

Jonathan S. Hamlin

The Responsibility to Protect: An Incomplete Thought

The question of conflict intervention has played out within many different contexts. But, it is always a rather heated discussion that surrounds the topic of conflict intervention; for, within the discourse of conflict intervention there is to be found the ever precarious notion of morality and moral judgments. Prior to 1994, the debate on conflict intervention was largely framed around the idea of the “right to intervene.” The R2I doctrine argues that some states in the international community, because of their military and economic power and established, stable political infrastructure, have the right to intervene in conflicts around the world. This, then, begs the question: Why do states intervene under the R2I doctrine? Taken at face-value, most would answer this question by saying, “Because they can.” However, the explanation has more depth to it than that. Under the R2I doctrine, states often intervene to protect their own interests, whether they be – as they often are – economic, political or even geopolitical. The R2I doctrine often focuses on choosing sides and it is those same economic, political and geopolitical interests that dictate whose side the intervene state will take.

But, during the time period from 1994 to 1996, in the midsts of the Rwandan and Bosnian Civil Wars, a new, controversial doctrine emerged – the “responsibility to protect” doctrine. Pioneered by Evans, Gareth and Mohamed Sahnoun, the R2P doctrine was the result of a collaboration between many humanist international conflict resolution specialists. It seems the reluctance of the international community to get involved in the Rwandan and Bosnian conflicts spurred Evans, Gareth and Mohamed Sahnoun – and their collaborators – to action. The R2P doctrine received its first official endorsement in December, 2001 when the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty included the term in their report to then Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. Since that time the R2P document has been worked into the founding charter of the African Union, the Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit and various United Nations General Assembly Resolutions. However, the first United Nations General Assembly Resolution dealing directly with the R2P doctrine was not produced until 14 September, 2009. But, what exactly does the R2P doctrine entail and what does it mean for the international community when intervention is the proverbial “order of the day?” The R2P doctrine can be better understood in three general principles:

1.) A State has the responsibility to guard its citizens from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing.

2.) If a State does not have the capacity to guard its citizens from stated criteria, the international community has the responsibility to provide the State with the means or resources necessary to guard its citizens from stated criteria.

3.) If a State is failing from guarding its citizens from stated criteria the international community has the responsibility to intervene diplomatically or militarily.

Now that I have provided background on the R2P doctrine I can move on to the purpose of this blog post in the first place – to air my issues with the R2P doctrine. The first among many issues that I have with the R2P doctrine is that it takes the issue of state sovereignty out of the State’s hands. The United Nations being used as an organization that can determine the status of a State’s sovereignty is not an idea that I liken to in the least. The issue of a State’s sovereignty can then be used to justify a military intervention by the United Nations. Now, before you explode in anger and call me a cold, pessimistic, cynic, please allow me to state this: The basic principles of the R2P doctrine I am more than willing to sign on for. Intervening in international civil wars when innocent lives are being destroyed is something that I think is a good idea. I am also even more than willing to sign on to the argument that if a State cannot meet its responsibilities to protect its citizens than said State forfeits its sovereignty and the international then may enact its responsibility to protect. However, where I begin to become worried is that there is currently no mechanism to determine who makes the decision as to when a State has failed to protect its citizens… does the international community make the decision through various diplomatic channels, does the U.N make the decision, does a country uni- or bi-laterally make the decision? None of this is outlined in the U.N. R2P Resolution passed in 2009. Who is making this decision is important, even though it may not appear so at first. It is important to make sure that a sort of international “power” hierarchy is not created as a result of the U.N Resolution’s failure to explain who decides when a State has failed to adequately protect its citizens from atrocities. That power – to make the decision – should not rest with the few powerful Western nations that are used to strong-arm diplomacy. Any mechanism that is implemented must make sure that the decision is as inclusive as possible when the question of determining a States failure to adequately protect its citizens from atrocities is at hand. The second issue that I take with the R2P doctrine is that it largely ignores causal aspects of civil wars where atrocities occur. Under the R2P doctrine, nations are only intervening because innocent lives are being lost to atrocities. So, what, then, happens when the international community intervenes, ends the conflict, and is then left without the slightest idea as to why the civil war was being fought in the first place. This is where conflict resolution and conflict negotiation specialists could lend the conflict intervention specialists a hand. Currently, the R2P doctrine has no mechanism in place that outlines what happens once the conflict ends. Do the intervening countries simply leave… or do they stay and see to the end of the conflict by bringing the two warring sides to the table to negotiate? I think the the R2P doctrine needs more development when the question of “what happens when the conflict is over?” is being asked. Thirdly, I ask this: What happens if a State does not wish for the international community to intervene, regardless of whether or not their efforts to protect their population from atrocities have been declared failed? Of course, proponents of the R2P doctrine would say, “Too bad, so sad. You knew the rules and you failed, therefore we have the right to intervene.” This is all well; however, is does not erase the sentiments of a recalcitrant State. After the conflicts ends, the international community would have to deal with a State that is still a bit upset, perhaps even raged, about the fact that the international community did not respect its wishes, and some would say still further, its sovereignty. What then? Do you punish the State that failed to protect its people? Do you do nothing to them? Do you welcome them back into the General Assembly when the session begins as if nothing at all had taken place?

I suppose the simple explanation is this: The R2P doctrine addresses why and when the international community gets involved in another State’s internal conflict, but does not address what happens in the time succeeding the intervention. To me, the R2P doctrine is a wonderful idea; but, it is lacking further development that would make the doctrine whole and complete. As it stands now, the R2P doctrine is not fully realized. Also, a note: the above explanation of the R2P doctrine and its inception and subsequent implementation is, for the sake of brevity, over-simplified… as are my issues with the R2P doctrine. If you would like a greater and broader discussion, I invite you to leave a comment with your email address in the comment section and I would be more than happy to engage in deeper discussion with you about the R2P doctrine.

But, thank you, dear reader, for taking time out of your day to read my incessant babbling. I appreciate it greatly.

Having a Tea Party…

It was the late evening during election night and it didn’t take long for my phone to start ringing once a good number of the races had been called and it became apparent that the Tea Party would indeed have a number candidates taking public office. What did these people calling me want? Well, I fielded questions about the future of the Tea Party. Many of my friends who called me wanted to know exactly where the Tea Party would go from here… would they fizzle out and die the slow painful death that most non-party political movements do? Or, would they find a home in Congress and speak with a legitimate voice?

The answer to that question is difficult because it depends on several things. First of all, I’d like to say this: If the Tea Party forms a Congressional Caucus – as some of its members aim to do – than the question of the Tea Party as a third party is answered. At that point there would be no question as to whether the Tea Party is an official third party or not. Now, the question of the Tea Party as a third party that will continue to exist for more than election cycle depends largely on the Tea Party’s efforts to build up a political structure around itself and Republican efforts to absorb the Tea Party Congressmen/women into their existing leadership rings and Congressional Caucus. The fact of the matter is that if the Tea Party fails to build up a political structure around itself, if they fail in getting out their political messages to the public, than they will fade away after one – possibly two – election cycles. Right now, the Tea Party does not have the resources in place to be able to build this political infrastructure… and only time will tell if they start to move in that direction.  The Republicans are currently in the process of trying to absorb the Tea Party candidates into their Republican Congressional Caucus. Viewed through the lens of the Republican leadership in Congress, the Tea Party is a sort of separatist movement. Their success in incorporating Tea Party members into their caucus largely depends on what kind of deals they are willing to make with Tea Party members on certain fiscal policies. Their success is also largely dependent on how well they do at incorporating Tea Party members into the existing power/leadership structure that is already in place. If they seek to absorb the Tea Party, the Republicans are going to have to be willing to share power with Tea Party members in Congress.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I certainly do not like the Tea Party, what they stand for, or the candidates that they supported. However, there is a positive to be found within the Tea Party movement, I believe. Thus far, I hardly think that one could call the Tea Party movement a failure; no, it has largely been a success. The fact that they fielded candidates in the 2010 mid-term elections and that a number of their candidates won seats in Congress certainly makes their efforts as a political movement – and possibly even a political party – a success. The fact that they have enjoyed such success is evidence enough that it is possible for there to be a third party in the United States party system; or, it at least legitimizes the possibility of there being a third party. For too long has the two-party system been the bane of political and even social progress in this country. I believe – while I do not like the Tea Party – that their success thus far is a great spring-board for other political movements to break into the political system, field candidates, and win seats. However, as the old adage goes, only time will tell.