“The Most Interesting Place in the World Is Where You Are Right Now” – A Talk with Stephen Kinzer

By Olivia O’Sullivan

Stephen Kinzer did not like the lectern. Occasionally he would lean against it, casually, as if relating a story among friends, but mostly he walked around, away from, to the side of it – anywhere but neatly in front of it. Similarly, his hands didn’t want to stay still either, gesturing to the sunny outside world as part of a point about journalism, miming gun-shots while telling an anecdote from his time as a foreign correspondent, twirling near his head to demonstrate American policymakers’ mental cogs slowly turning. Instead of delivering a prepared speech, he spoke energetically and extemporaneously to the assembled Oxy students as part of an engaging addition to this semester’s Diplomacy and World Affairslecture series.

In contrast to the lively, staccato nature of his delivery, though, his arguments and stories counselled, above all, patience and thoughtfulness. Threaded through tales from his career was an emphasis on the need to take the long, historical view of world events, viewing and engaging other countries with empathy, commitment and honest interest. Kinzer related what he had learned from his professor, Howard Zinn as a student – history is not static, but an ever-changing narrative, as much about who we are now as what was happening then.

He took this engaged and questioning approach into his career as an aspirant foreign correspondent, seeking the untold story by travelling to Central America before Sandinistas, civil wars and the policies of Ronald Reagan made that region front-page material. His genuine interest paid off – soon the New York Times recruited him as one of only two journalists in the country with the requisite familiarity, for their new Central American bureau.

He advised the audience to act along these lines when thinking about their futures – find a gap where people aren’t telling the interesting story. Never believe the newspaper you’re reading has a monopoly on what’s important or useful – go out and find it. Posted to Europe after Central America, he ultimately decided the Times needed an Istanbul bureau. Rather than accepting the current list, and he duly pushed to get one opened. From this vantage point he related covering the ex-Soviet states such as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan, and even reaching beyond his remit to develop an interest in Iran, about which he would eventually write All the Shah’s Men, on the American and British sponsored-coup of 1953.

In explaining how he covered all these places, Kinzer emphasised his passion for taking the historical view – his favourite question always being “how did this country get this way?”. Answering questions both on policy and getting to understand Iran and other countries, he returned time and again to the theme of context and empathy – highlighting the importance of Pakistan’s historical anxiety about India in answering today’s policy questions and explaining the links between Iran’s nuclear ambitions and their thwarted bid to nationalise the oil industry in 1953. On today’s major policy dilemmas, he was optimistic about the democracy movement in Iran, suggesting Iran as a future major American ally, and insistent that American policy could and should be thoughtful and historically informed.

Tellingly, he explained that he avoided trying to learn about countries he visited from US diplomats – America, he said, always has an agenda for the country its in – a script to stick to.  This kind of short-term strategic thinking about the rest of the world clearly isn’t Kinzer’s style. As well as pointing out the problems this approach has caused us over the years, he explained that it’s no fun, either. The talk, and discussion afterwards, was a welcome and passionate argument for considering other peoples not merely in relation to their value for American interests, but as ends in themselves – for viewing other countries with the novel and the conversation as guiding constellations, not the CIA World fact book.

The talk was an invigorating survey as well as something of a gift to the anxious senior. Kinzer called for asking questions, getting interested – for sincere curiosity and simple questions. One sensed a man who views the world as not a scary place awaiting the graduating student, but somewhere filled with interest and detail and surprise.

Stephen Kinzer is a veteran New York Times foreign correspondent who has written extensively on foreign policy and history, covering US-sponsored coups in Guatemala and elsewhere, the rebuilding of Rwanda after the genocide, the Iranian coup in 1953, and the war in Nicaragua. His forthcoming book is ‘Reset: Iran, Turkey, and America’s Future’.

Olivia O’Sullivan is a recent graduate of Cambridge University. She is currently studying at Occidental College through a scholarship Pembroke College at Cambridge University. She can be contacted at osullivan@oxy.edu.

First Tuesday Speaker: Reza Aslan

Oxy hosts few speakers in Thorne Hall like Reza Aslan, and that isn’t without reason. There are few speakers out there who are regulars on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show (let alone six appearances), few speakers who might call on a member of the audience using the epithet “that dude” (and keep a straight face), and few speakers with titles and publications as varied and extensive as his (degrees from Santa Clara to Harvard, two books, and numerous articles published online and in print). Perhaps it is simpler and more appropriate to say that there are few people out there like Reza Aslan, period.

Aslan made a return visit to Occidental’s campus on October 6 as part of the First Tuesday Speaker Series. With his two books—No God but God and more recently, How to Win a Cosmic War—as a backdrop, the journalist, professor, and scholar spoke about the perils of generalizing in the Middle East, the decisions to be made in Afghanistan, and how Oxy’s most famous alumnus, President Obama, is faring as commander-in-chief.

Perhaps Aslan’s most crucial take-home message for concerned citizens and decision makers alike was the oft-neglected choice to distinguish the truly incorrigible enemy in the Middle Ease from those who simply don’t like us around. Central to his argument was the difference between Islamism and Jihadism and the willingness to see the vast gulf between the two ideologies. Islamism, on the one hand, is a form of ethnic nationalism—an effort to instill in the state the spirit and law of Islam. For those reasons, Islamism is not unlike the Zionism that resulted in the creation of the state of Israel, though the two are rarely compared. An Islamist’s interest in politically concrete goals—that is, an Islamic state—makes him a candidate for dialogue, said Aslan. The proof is in the pudding, he went on, as historically, when Islamist groups like Hamas have been invited to the “marketplace of ideas,” they have inevitably moderated.

Aslan’s contrasting category includes the Jihadists, those for whom a state is “anathema” and the goal, as opposed to that of the Islamists, is a utopian, Islamic world without borders or limits. According to Reza Aslan, these groups “want nothing and cannot be dealt with.” For that reason, he suggested, they must only be destroyed.

With that clear distinction in mind as a “necessary prelude,” Aslan turned to Afghanistan. Like with his previous topic, Aslan asserted that the discussion of Afghanistan requires the establishment of some basic facts. For one, the Taliban is not a uniform entity: its original followers were, as the translated name implies, students. Today these Taliban are present in Afghanistan and ultra-conservative. They are not, however, interested in fighting, as Aslan might call it, a “cosmic war” with the West. Instead, “thugs, crooks, and thieves” have brandished weapons all over Afghanistan calling themselves Taliban. The distinction, muddled as it is, is one we have to see. Only five percent of Taliban have gone the way of Jihadism. That sliver, while dominating American television, is the minority. The question then becomes what to do with the Islamist majority.

The simple answer is, don’t make them jihadists.

And how do we do that? Albeit hard for an American to digest, Aslan’s response: don’t “trample” on Islamist aspirations; invite them to a place in Afghani government. Our victory in Afghanistan might look as feeble as a stable Kabul with modest clout beyond its city limits.

These very difficult policy decisions face Obama squarely, and Aslan didn’t shy away from levying judgment on the President’s record so far. There were, no doubt, moments when Aslan’s support seemed unabashed. But he did not leave his enthusiasm unsubstantiated. Aslan praised the President for his speeches in Cairo and Istanbul; he lauded Obama’s choice to eliminate the phrase “War on Terror” from his rhetorical vocabulary and to describe Israeli settlement action as “occupation;” he even went so far as saying that Obama has already begun to “change the fabric of the relationship” between the United States and the Islamic world.

But that’s not to say Aslan’s comments fit to a T the usual pattern of left- and right-wing criticism. In fact, amid the bits of disapproval of the President’s choices was—albeit finite—some commendation of the second Bush administration. Aslan asserted that Bush’s call for democracy in the Middle East, while implemented incorrectly, was praiseworthy. The people on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere, the scholar said, do in fact want a voice through democracy.

So Aslan’s talk was not always conventional. Above all, it was clear that he is not an archetypical scholar. For having written two books, he is not bookish. For having appeared with Jon Stewart, he is no clown. Aslan seemed, by and large, both pragmatic in policy and relaxed in manner. There was a sense of urgency and action in his prescriptions, of passion and dedication. But beside that devotion to study was the bigger-picture, laid-back demeanor that made him a Californian. And perhaps that facility in both dimensions is what makes Aslan unique and emblematic for the liberal arts aspirations espoused by Occidental College.

Kjell Bondevik, Former Prime Minister of Norway, Visits Occidental

It could be said that in 2002, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Scandinavian country of Norway had one very unlikely characteristic in common: they were both led by clergymen. Or at least so went the humor of then President Mohammad Khatami of Iran and Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik of Norway. On October 1, Prime Minister Bondevik visited Occidental College as the second speaker in the Diplomacy and World Affairs Brown Bag Series.

* * *

Since the departure of one Mr. Obama three decades ago, the Oxy community has welcomed to its campus its fair share of world leaders. Kjell Magne Bondevik, former Prime Minister of Norway, president and founder of the Oslo Center for Peace and Human rights, was its most recent. He and a small entourage converged on Johnson Hall on the first day of October where he discussed, among other things, Norway as a model country, his time in office, the Oslo Center and its work, and perhaps the most crucial conflict resolution stone so often left unturned, dialogue.

After leaving a long career in government in 2005, Prime Minister Bondevik founded his Oslo Center. In order to achieve the goals it sets, the organization groups its action into three “core pillars.” To deal with situations like those in Burma and North Korea, the Oslo Center employs its Human Rights division. When faced with issues of young nations, the Democracy arm of the Oslo Center works with an eye for coalition building. But of particular note for Bondevik is the third “pillar” into which his organization is involved, Dialogue, with considerable investment in interreligious discourse.

For the context in which interreligious dialogue plays a central part is a contemporary global political climate marked by religiopolitical tensions and the effort to combat extremism. However unpredicted the renewed focus on religion in national and international politics may be, the potential conflict resulting from a conflict between the Western and Islamic worlds does, as Bondevik firmly asserted, compel those involved to choose the path of dialogue, not division.

The Prime Minister’s emphasis on religion is not altogether surprising; he is an ordained minister in the Lutheran Church. And his philosophy is astoundingly simple, the sort of synthesis only a clergyman-politician could make without hesitation. One on hand, religion and politics, he says, must remain distinct; they should not bleed together. Yet on the other, said the Prime Minister, we “cannot leave behind religion when going to work.”

With the topic of religion forming the background to much of his discussion, Kjell Bondevik covered issues from Islamic immigration into Europe to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the cartoon of Mohammad that set tempers and Danish flags aflame across the Muslim world. His comments were refreshing and genuine, realized both in study and in practice. The level of investment in his cause was clear.

* * *

Prime Minister Bondevik is only the most recent featured speaker in the Brown Bag Series. Among those previously hosted are prominent journalists, scholars, and politicians. The next Brown Bag event will take place on October 12, featuring the chief foreign affairs correspondent of the Wall Street Journal, Jay Solomon.

Author and Journalist David Wessel Visits Oxy

In September of 2008, the already palatial halls of the Federal Reserve Building in New York City were undergoing renovation. The building that stood as a monument to the nation’s wealth and financial power had literal roots leagues beneath its floors: in vaults deep below lay hundreds of billions of dollars in gold—much not our own—a not-so-subtle reminder of the building’s significance. The Fed, though, isn’t alone in its prominence. Add this structure to the dozens of skyscrapers of lower Manhattan, and it becomes clear that the American financial system in September of 2008 wasn’t just dawdling along. It wasn’t simply making ends meet. No, the American financial system was the best in the world.

“Not!” said David Wessel, economic editor of the Wall Street Journal, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and author of the new book, In Fed We Trust: Ben Bernanke’s War on the Great Panic. The crowded Fowler classroom chuckled. One can say retrospectively that the above assertion of the strength of the American financial system should, at the very least, carry a prominent asterisk. More appropriate, though, would be Wessel’s thorough explanation to the eager group. In much the same way that his book makes the events of September 2008 more accessible, David Wessel, the first speaker this year in the DWA department’s Brown Bag series, visited Oxy and shed light on some of the characters and characteristics of the greatest economic crisis in decades.

Wessel’s brisk negation was not a simple statement of disapproval or cynicism, or even just a clever way to garner laughs. Rather, it was a legitimate reflection of the speed at which the highest tiers of American banking, government, and media came to know the shadowy vulnerabilities of the financial sector. The failure of Lehman Brothers in mid-September 2008 shook to the core those who believed in eternal American prosperity (at least on Wall Street). The “too big to fail” paradigm suddenly held no water. But instead of some torrent as a result, the stream of credit dried up, and the so-called Great Panic ensued.

The subtitle of Wessel’s book, “Ben Bernanke’s War on the Great Panic,” captures the work’s more lengthy analysis of the Fed chairman’s attempts to open those frozen valves once again and return life to the struggling economy. Among his journalistic critiques, there is genuine admiration for the work of the academic who ran the Fed through trying times under the mantra of “whatever it takes,” and who today remains at the helm of one of the most controversial arms of American government thanks to, in Wessel’s words to the Oxy community, an “innovative and gutsy” style.

Those who attended the Brown Bag event also heard Mr. Wessel’s take on what is sometimes referred to as the “fourth branch of government,” the Federal Reserve. Key to the controversy is the very nature of the Fed: run by very few unelected individuals, many of whom share a common company background, the Fed handles vast sums of American taxpayer money in an arguably extrademocratic way. The American president, even, has far greater barriers to the same actions taken by Bernanke in 2008. But regardless of the institution’s political repute, Wessel insisted that Bernanke’s use of the Fed’s tools prevented a crisis that might have rivaled or exceeded the legacy of the Great Depression.

But the journalist cautioned the audience against imagining the Fed’s work to be over. In fact, Wessel outlined three major challenges Ben Bernanke will face in the coming months. Casting a shadow over any actual monetary policy to be made, the widespread public suspicion of the Fed will prove an obstacle to any Bernanke action. That action, though, will be crucial, and its timing both delicate and pivotal. The Fed chairman will have to make two serious policy decisions. He will first have to decide when to raise interest rates from their near zero level. Then, he faces the question of when to begin pulling back some of the more than $2 trillion in credit the Fed has currently lent. According to David Wessel, either decision has potentially grave consequences. Perhaps his next book will serve as a conclusion to a particularly critical period in American history.

* * *

David Wessel represents the kind of thoughtful and articulate guest speaker characteristic of the Brown Bag series, a guest who brings pertinent and practical analysis to the Occidental College campus. In addition to writers studying contemporary issues, the Brown Bag series has hosted writers and non-writers alike, each of whom shares work that is relevant, distinguished, and applicable to Oxy’s DWA department and the Oxy community as a whole. The next Brown Bag event will take place on October 1, featuring the former Prime Minister of Norway and founder of the Oslo Center for Peace and Human Rights, Kjell Magne Bondevik.

Obama, Oxy, The Global Poverty Act and DWA 201

The Global Poverty Act (S. 2433) was a bill sponsored by Senator Barack Obama. It passed the House and in the Senate garnered 30 co-sponsors. Despite being reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee (chaired at the time by future Vice President Biden), Senate Republicans put a ‘hold’ on the bill that blocked a Senate vote during 2008. Nonetheless, the bill gives a clear blueprint regarding Obama’s positions on international economic development and working with international organizations, positions he will presumably pursue during his presidency.

Obama’s election coincided with drafting the final exam for my DWA 201/International Organizations class. Students in this class had, in part, been covering approaches to economic development pioneered by international organizations such as UNDP (human rights-based approaches to development, etc). The imprint of such unorthodox approaches and an emphasis on cooperation with international organizations is clear in the broad contours as well as in many of the details of Obama’s The Global Poverty Act. Hence it was natural in one of our final exam questions to combine reference to The Global Poverty Act with our course materials’ focus on alternative modes of global economic development. The four memos Oxy Worldwide is publishing here are from students in this class; each respond to the following prompt on the final exam:

As sponsor of The Global Poverty Act when he was in the Senate, President-elect Obama will presumably support similar principles once he assumes office. Simulate that you are an aide to President Obama. You know that the Global Poverty Act was not adopted while Obama was in the Senate. Write a memo-style brief to President Obama and his economic advisers in which you do two things:

·        Suggest and justify changes in the substance of The Global Poverty Act before President Obama sends a revised version of the bill to Congress.

·        Suggest how this bill, assuming the revisions you suggest, can best be justified to Congress and the American people as in their interest.

The text of the final version of Obama’s The Global Poverty Act can be found here:

·        http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2433

·        http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s2433/show

The in-depth and insightful memos you’ll find from Kristin Beck, Kyle Owens, Rebekah Stewart, and Elizabeth Titus-Yokum are a wonderful introduction to the possibilities Occidental students bring to the world — whether they are now in the Oval Office or still in courses such as DWA 201!

Click here to read the memos: final20version1

Cheers,

Associate Professor Anthony Chase

Chair, Department of Diplomacy & World Affairs

Occidental College

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Stephen Kinzer Discusses US-Iranian Relations

Foreign Correspondent and author Stephen Kinzer visited Occidental College on February 7 as the first stop in his “The Folly of Attacking Iran” nationwide speaking tour. Sponsored by Americans for Informed Democracy, Kinzer is one of two authors speaking on college campuses and other venues around the country to resolve misconceptions surrounding America’s relationship with Iran. The author warned against military confrontation with the Islamic Republic.

In his speech, which was recorded for radio and television, Kinzer outlined the Bush Administration’s “rhetoric of confrontation” against Iran, including the threat of military force without United Nations or even Congressional authorization. These claims that Iran is a threat echo claims used to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq and rest on similarly dubious evidence, Kinzer said.

Kinzer, author of such books as Overthrown and All the Shah’s Men, outlined America’s historic relationship with Iran, giving context to our current diplomatic relationship. The United States has played an active role in Iran for decades, often in ways resented by Iranians, Kinzer said. In 1953, the United States organized a coup against the popular and democratically elected Prime Minister
Mohammad Mossadegh. After the coup, the autocratic rule of the Shah was reinstated and supported by the United States. Later, the United States supported Iraq in its invasion of Iran. The formative image for many Americans of Iran was created when 52 U.S. diplomats were taken hostage by militant Iranian students in 1979. Kinzer concluded that this history has led many Iranians to perceive the United States as a superpower that regularly seeks intrusion on Iranian sovereignty, and countless Americans to recognize Iran as a rogue state that unceasingly threatens world peace.

The recent history of U.S.-Iranian relations has been marked by misunderstanding and mistrust, notably shaped by both countries’ unjust use of violence and threats of violence. Violent conflict has not served the interests of either country. Military threats tend to deepen hostilities and resentment, thus making future conflict more likely. Serious diplomacy between our two countries is needed, Kinzer said.

Many in the audience felt that the threat of military confrontation with Iran was deflated by the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which revealed the consensus of U.S. intelligence agencies in finding Iran had abandoned nuclear weapons research in 2003 and had not restarted it. The NIE revealed that European diplomatic efforts were successful in convincing Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons research. Now that we know this, Kinzer said, it is time for the U.S. to engage in real dialogue with Iran. Since we know there is little risk Iran will develop a nuclear weapon soon, we know there is time to talk. However, Kinzer cautioned, despite the release of the NIE, the White House continues to hype the “danger” from Iran. Bush Administration officials continue to reject calls for real diplomacy with the Islamic Republic.

Kinzer stressed that the purpose of this tour is to call on Americans to push for real diplomacy. Negotiations are needed to address both the security concerns of the United States and the security concerns of Iran. “A U.S. attack on Iran would be foolish and dangerous,” Kinzer said. “It would risk causing another disaster like Iraq that will cost many lives, American and Iranian. Furthermore, though, Iran now appears not to have a nuclear weapons program; a U.S. attack might convince Iran it needs nuclear weapons to defend itself.”

To conclude, Kinzer summed the purpose of his tour. Kinzer and Americans for Informed Democracy believe that a military confrontation between the U.S. and Iran is unfortunately still possible and Congress needs to act to prevent this from happening and to promote real diplomacy. Kinzer urged the audience and all Americans to put pressure on their elected officials to compel them to act.

Rebranding America: The Occidental Strategy

How to Win Friends Abroad and Influence Nations

Occidental College has a long tradition of excellent teaching in international affairs. For over two decades, we have offered an interdisciplinary major in Diplomacy and World Affairs. Many of the college’s graduates have gone on to lead accomplished careers as diplomats, journalists, academics, managers and even candidates for President of the United States.

Since my return to campus from service as an ambassador in the Clinton administration, I have taught analytical courses on US foreign policy. I endeavor to teach my students to understand how and why decisions are made in the US government and how foreign policy is developed and implemented. I stress the importance of critical thinking and a clear-headed understanding of reality above ideological outlooks and biases. I try not to tell the students what policy ought to be; I leave that to them as informed citizens to decide for themselves.

However, at the urging of many students, I agreed to offer a prescriptive course in the spring term of 2008—“American Grand Strategy.” The course’s purview was the future—what ought to be US foreign policy for the new administration that will come to power in January 2009. Students first looked at national and global public opinion and concluded that in the years after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush and his administration had squandered an enormous amount of international goodwill, lost considerable moral authority for the country, and approached the world with an Us vs Them mentality. Such a divisive attitude rather than a levelheaded strategy did not make for successful foreign policy.

The students decided that it is vital for the next Presidential administration—whether headed by a Democrat or Republican—to regain the moral high ground and take strategic initiative: to lead rather than to dominate, to be a beacon more than a bull horn. In essence, the students want the US to be the good guys and to be smart about how we make this transition.

After surveying global public opinion, the students divided up recent books on American foreign policy by authors from the left, right and center. Each student took a book and presented the seminar with a critical summary of the author’s proposed grand strategy. Students then debated and agreed upon a Top Ten list of key challenges that the next President will face in the world.

Breaking into teams, the students produced an analysis of the key issues in each category, a definition of US strategic interest, and then proposed actions that the next President might take in his or her first month in office, first six months, and first year and beyond. Writing teams also produced an overall strategy statement, as well as a new Mission Statement for the US, designed to be printed on a card that could go in the wallet of every American working in the State Department, the Pentagon, the CIA and other branches of government.

The result of the students’ work is the report Rebranding America. As a former diplomat and government official, I am impressed with the quality of the students’ work and the breadth of their creativity in proposing policy actions for the next President. Copies of this report have been sent to the foreign policy advisors for Senators McCain, Clinton and Obama, and to the chiefs of staff of the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committees. It has also gone out to the distinguished members of Occidental’s Global Affairs Advisory Board—and it is posted online at www.OxyWorldwide.com, our student-run international website for all interested US and global citizens to read.

I commend it to you for study and for action.

Ambassador Derek Shearer 
Chevalier Professor of Diplomacy