Day 5 - Mark (Reflecting on other international conflicts)

I explained earlier why I consider political oppression in Bahrain to be particularly relevant to U.S. foreign policy, which is also why I feel compelled to pressure our government on this issue. However, there are of course many other places in the world that are facing far more dire circumstances. More often than not, it's unclear to me what our government or non-governmental agencies should do.

For example, Somalia is still facing a famine, but the resistance group al-Shabaab has been blocking aid workers from delivering aid to certain regions. Is it almost impossible for aid workers to deliver food without foreign military intervention? Nikki could certainly comment on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where she has lived, but it seems clear that Congolese people are too concerned with basic health and safety issues to organize politically. In other Arab countries, the government oppression has been so fatal that protestors are afraid to be outside in large groups, which requires new forms of civil disobedience. In Syria, for example, someone has organized people to shut their shops as a form of resistance, which does not require anyone to be on the street for protests.

All of these issues have divisive political dimensions, but at the most basic level people are unified around the need for food and basic health services. Nikki discussed this in a previous post, and I think it's a great way to start a discussion about what we have to offer.

I also think it's worth distinguishing between the responsibility of the U.S. government on the one hand, and our responsibility as citizens. Our government often makes "diplomatic choices," such as Secretary Clinton's visit to Myanmar. Some people might argue that real change in Bahrain will be more likely if our government maintains diplomatic relations and is thus able to pressure them diplomatically. However, that's not a choice the typical American citizen has to make. Politicians are limited by what's "politically possible," while the role that social movements, protests and hunger strikes play is to change the discourse of what is possible.

That's why I think that pressure from U.S. citizens should not be limited by what is "diplomatic" or possible in the realm of real politics. The international solidarity movement is stronger now than it has ever been, in my opinion, and people notice when the American people criticize the hypocrisy of their own government. I often heard people in Egypt and Yemen tell me that they "love the American people, but hate the American government." It's worth thinking about what that really means. I used to use "we" when talking about U.S. foreign policy choices, as in "should we intervene in such and such country," but I've started to talk about what the U.S. government does apart from what "we" as Americans can do.