Lead by Example

On Saturday I happened to stumble upon a protest against intervention in Syria. Seeing as how I disagree with that position I took it upon myself to insert myself into the conversation in the hopes of furthering debate and learning as much as I could. I ended up having some really good conversations and also finding myself on the receiving end of a few too many taunts. If you're interested you can watch me in action between 34:20-43 minute mark of this clip.

But Saturday's debate and a follow up conversation on Sunday compel me now to sit down and further clarify my views. I was challenged Sunday to explain how it was in the national interest of the United States to intervene in Syria. While I think that we have an obligation to stick up for human rights regardless, I believe I am up to the challenge, and so I want here to elaborate on why I believe it is in our national interest to do so.

I'll start by saying that I acknowledge the difficulties inherent in the position I will shortly outline. For starters, the world is complex place, and as the Syrian situation (among many others) illustrates, there are rarely situations in which we can easily paint a black and white picture of what is right and what is wrong. Even as I advocated intervening in Syria at the protest on Saturday a man followed me around holding a copy of the NYTimes above my head while I spoke. The headline story which I had read the day before was about atrocities committed by the Syrian rebels. In fact there aren't even two sides in Syria, there are more than that, exactly how many I can't say for sure. The fractious rebel groups are lumped together in the media as though a monolith, but they are no single entity.

Despite this caveat, I still think we can and should re-imagine foreign policy, and I believe that if we made human rights the foundation upon which to build this policy and then treated each situation in context trying to determine how to best further our goal of supporting human rights then ultimately the world becomes a safer, more stable place for everyone, including us. It is therefor in our national interest to invest in the promotion and protection of human rights.

The threats we face will morph in their nature as the world changes, but in a world in which it is increasingly easy for individuals or small groups of non-state actors to inflict vast suffering, I believe we must do our best to prevent the development of such individuals. This seems even to me to be an almost outrageously unattainable goal, but belief that the world can be a better place is a prerequisite to making it one. When the United States chooses to promote and protect the rights of others I believe we increase the likelihood that people from elsewhere will respect those rights at home and abroad. In the debate I had yesterday, my worthy opponent advocated - perhaps due to his experience living through the Cold War - for dangerous stability. The idea of peace preserved through the threat of danger. I certainly believe there is something to be said for mutually assured destruction, but that's why I don't fear an attack from Iran. In a world in which individuals can kill thousands, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. The leader of a country may choose not to push the button for fear of losing his country, but the individual who does not fear death has shown himself to be more than willing to blow himself up in a public bazar, train, or other crowded venue in which he can inflict terrible harm. It is just the kind of dangerous stability promoted by the Cold War that led to the circumstances in which the newest threats are bred. For years prior to the Arab Spring, the Middle East was a dangerously stable place. Strongmen ruled most countries with an iron fist, and while we have avoided a regional war our support for some of the Middle Eastern regimes and our refusal to stand up for human rights even in those places in which we did not support the rulers has helped create a new breed of enemy. Dangerous stability was maintained through suppression, fear, and torture, and whether through passive or active ignorance we did nothing to stand up for the people being abused. I for one am not surprised that the 9/11 bombers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are nominally our allies and whose leaders we support(ed), but whose gross violations of human rights have helped shape the scariest threat to peace in our world, and whose repression fostered a hatred and fear that I think is less likely to be found in an open society, the kind we are lucky to have, and the kind we should help shape elsewhere.

What if, rather than supporting or ignoring human rights violations we proactively worked to promote human rights? Of course, this a job that the State Department is already tasked with, but maybe instead of guns and bombs our foreign aid could come in the form of infrastructure investments. Perhaps we could consistently advocate for human rights, even when it is our allies who uncomfortably deny them. More programs to encourage abroad the values we espouse and cherish here would certainly help instill in others the mentality that the atrocities we see in Syria are unacceptable. Of course, we can and should strive to promote civil rights in America as well. I do not maintain that this will be quick or easy. In fact, it will be difficult and take decades if not longer, but if the alternative is ongoing death and destruction that makes the world more dangerous for Americans and others alike, it's an investment I'm willing to make.

In addition to promoting human rights, we must protect them when the time arises. Right now the most fundamental of human rights in being violated in Syria on a grand scale. Our inability to act diminishes our standing in the world, undermines our supposed commitment to human rights, and ultimately makes it more likely that the world 10 year from now will be a more dangerous rather than a safer place. Peace, opportunity, and stability lay the foundation for the world for which we should be striving. Investing in human rights and stopping the violation of human rights when we can promotes peace and stability. I believe we have a moral obligation to stop the bloodshed in Syria, but even if you reject that argument, do you believe the United States will be safer in the future if we do nothing? How many of the 2 million and counting refugees may have lost the opportunity for a stable life and harbor a grudge because we did nothing to stop their plight? What about the young sons of dead fathers, how will they feel and what will they do in the future? What if the bad guys win in Syria whether that means the current regime or the rebel factions who are Islamic extremists? Is our nation safer then?

Advocating for and defending human rights may not always be a successful endeavor, and I do not believe we can or will prevent every future atrocity, although I believe that if we consistently stood up for human rights we will significantly decrease the possibility of such atrocities in the future. Even when our attempts to do good are unsuccessful the intent is still better than the refusal to stand up for what is right. For all of America's flaws, we are still the biggest force for good in the world, and we must lead by example if we hope to make the world and our own country safer. It's hard to lead by example when we actively choose not to participate. Doing nothing is tacit acceptance of atrocious violence. It encourages more violence in the future.

Crafting a better world is no small task, and I don't imagine I will live to see the world I'm imagining as I write this, but I know for certain I won't see that world if my country, the world's leader, will not invest itself in making the lives of others better and enhancing our own national security at the same time.