Dial R for Radicalism: the Case for Mubarak

It's become commonplace for the West to enjoy jumping up to side with revolutionary forces in nations without much grasp of the target nation's histories or its importance as a stable diplomatic and commercial acquaintance. As should be expected, a great number of Americans have seized unto the protests in Egypt as a positive sign of the country's progress while at the same time disregarding the usefulness of its current leadership to both Middle Eastern stability and their own personal lives. Americans and other westerners are on the brink of igniting a radical movement in Egypt which promises to provide the region with added strife both politically and militarily in the time yet to come.

Hosni Mubarak's concession of his power which may even devolve into resignation was welcomed with open arms by much of the West in the last 24 hours, including statements of favoring by leaders like former U.S. Governor Mitt Romney, who is readying for a presidential campaign. Unfortunately, his exit also leaves the country weakened and at the mercy of a perhaps worse force: the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohammed ElBaradei.

The latter has poised his movement as a democratic change ideological concentration attune to those prevalent across African states, yet his true intentions are veiled by a sketchy record of divided commitment to the West and his own ideological foundations. Best known for his work as an international nuclear power inspector, ElBaradei certainly has made a career for himself--though regrettably through means contrary to the good of the Egyptian people and Americans. When a missions directed him to Iran, he gave a vague report which seemed almost sympathetic to the Shiite power and its executive of questionable mental capacity. This activism has certainly ennobled him to minorities in the Middle East, yet it poses a threat if he becomes president and allies with the Persian nation to destroy Israel.

Perhaps this implication is in poor taste, but with the strictly fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood standing tall behind him, one must proposition to understand how a fiercely anti-West organization will refrain from implementing its own ideologies if immersed in the pools of government at the heart of Cairo.

Americans must consider the negatives of a non-Mubarak government as well. With control of the Suez Canal so critical to our shipping, one can only speculate at the severe cost should a fundamentalist government choose to restrict passage and play American companies off of our country's support for the State of Israel. ElBaradei by his own accord is hardly a pro-Jewish figurehead, and there is little reason to expect him to remain neutral should a conflict arise.

Possibly more unnerving is the coalition of theocracies which might very well form should Egypt fall to ElBaradei and his allies. Lebanon's Saad Hariri's government left office weeks ago and was replaced by Hezbollah-backed ministers of state, Jordan's government recently resigned, and Iran has been dominated by the Ayatollah for the better section of 31 years. Adding Egypt to that coalition is hardly wise, even if the prospects seem endearing from afar.

Countries like Egypt need change, but as the world witnessed back in 1979 with the Iranian Shah's defeat, revolutions have consequences which can remain for years on end. Progress must be gradual and wise, or it will likely turn into a new possessive and unrelenting nation of directorial government, albeit with a new flag.




Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Cultural Issues

Fulfilling the Democratic Mission

In an age of streaming rhetoric, it is common for elected officials to attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground on the issues of democracy and human rights. Few can hardly begin to forget the winning ticket of 2008, which was led by two politicians pledging to the take military action in Darfur, which thus far has not come close to fruition. But while Africa maybe the one most frequently reported bodies of land in conflict, there are countless around the world which continue to undergo such difficulties with freedom, and still are overlooked by even the most stalwart of American politicians.

Most evident is the country of Burma, and more pointedly, Aung San Suu Kyi's extended house arrest while the world stands by preaching values which they have not acted upon. Kyi, the all but official prime minister-elect of the nation, has been waiting for more than 14 years for her release; yet now it appears she may in actuality be detained for even longer. While Burma remains under the imperialistic army junta rule, it can hardly be called an imposing country, and one wonders why no members of the United Nations have chosen to deploy security forces to remove and replace the present government.

Beyond its outset, the situation in Burma grouped with those around the world reveal a sad pattern of inaction on democratic values and principles, which seem largely based off of the costs of pursuing such policies. The ill-fated War in Iraq might be viewed in such a way, despite its overall success in reducing human rights violations in the Middle East. Politicians become too concerned with the home front, neglecting to foster freedom and new allies in countries were the seeds of democracy are just waiting to grow, if with some international encouragement. A small detachment of troops would be enough, together with the UN's label, to alter the course of history in so many places were they given the authority to actively combat and eliminate threats to individual and societal free enterprise.

The card may be played that in the current financial crisis, such actions are imprudent, but a disagreement must be had. When the United States won a hard fought victory over Japan in th 1940s, a new pro-business country was established, leading to the dramatic benefit of free market upswing which was witnessed later in the 20th Century. In the same way, elected leaders must look at the countries not as financial burdens, but as tickets to market power. Loosening the hold of fascism over Burma would allow the nation's companies to expand and grow, defeating unemployment and giving the West another lucrative trading partner to do business with.

However, more important is that this attempt would free people and  remain in the basking grace of the best interests of human and civil rights. For one who had been awarded the grandeur of the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama should realize this better than most. Standing by when action may and should be taken is not a sign of intelligence, but of weakness. Of course leaders like Kyi may eventually be released, yet their potential during that time of imprisonment is worth noting. How might this brave woman, who has endured so much, have managed to help the world had the administrations of George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton been more anxious to spread human rights and universal freedom? The facts suggest quite a great deal.

Costs are always keen facts that must be dealt with, yet they should never override duty. If Winston Churchill had worried about the monetary loss of World War II, the world might today be a unified German state. Leadership and true creation of good history is seizing up the moment and taking a chance, always with the best intentions in mind.

No one can begin to predict how democracy will affect areas like Burma and Darfur, but the sooner that they are allowed to experience the wonderful gift, the sooner we can reap the largely positive results of its presence.


Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Inexcusable Neglect

It's really self depreciating to listen to Barack Obama--or even his deputy of questionable intellectual prowess, Joe Biden, railing on endlessly about America's commitment to ending human rights violations around the world. In spite of Biden's forward attitude, which went as far as to naively endorse the use of American soldiers to end the crisis in Darfur during the 2007 Youtube/CNN debates for Democratic candidates, neither elected official has actually moved towards deploying soldiers, whether they be from the home soil or out of the barracks of the United Nations.



But Darfur is only a small fraction of the larger scaled problem. Genocide exists, all but ignored by the international community in Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Botswana, and South Africa. Heads of state in these nations, once applauded as the harbingers of democracy, have now crossed over to the very depravity which they formerly decried, committing unspeakable acts while still diplomatically cordial with the modern world. Spitting in the face of the United Nations and the international forces which supply their nations with relieving monetary aid, leaders like Robert Mugabe, Paul Kagame, and Sharif Amhed are all presently allowing criminal acts to occur under their tenures.

It might be viable for the Administration to argue against involvement based on funds available, but it still fails to explain why none of its pro-UN rhetoric has actually foreshadowed firm military action against any of these nations. Nothing can be made of the point that these miniature powers would be difficult to overrun; in fact, their militia groups could be made short work of by advanced foreign troops. Most analysts--including the generally less astute Joe Biden have noted that a small brigade of special forces would be enough, at least in the case of Darfur, to incapacitate Omar Sharif and neutralize his radicalized government institutions.

We as a nation can try to propel ourselves into a depth of reason and philosophy to oppose any course of action which is not strictly based on national interest, but the question still must be raised; how are any of these countries not in our best future outcome for foreign conflict and trade? Any of these entities, charged by a force of capitalist government and renewed through democratic process could easily become meaningful trading partners with the United States, and possibly, valuable allies in the War on Terror.

The issue at stake in recent years has been the government's refusal to create new allies in more secure areas of the world. Africa in particular is not a dramatic ally today, but its strengthening by the Western World could   monumentally restructure the focus of international disputes which are ongoing today in a positive manner. If one looks at the populations of many of these nations, documented within the CIA's World Factbook, they rise considerably and offer large forces of able bodied men in the present time, giving an entirely feasible channel of soldiers to bolster coalition forces around the world today. Were only a few sections of these bodies of force to stand alongside the United States and fully fledged allies, the wars in Afghanistan and other potential conflicts would be less costly to solely the manpower of America and Great Britain.

Combating extremism about the globe should not be as narrow sighted as to require the use of the only the largest nations and their military forces. With a supplemental help from smaller countries, which would benefit by receiving economic ascensions through their participations, the burden of any conflicts would rest not only on the United States, but more evenly on the remainder of the free world, a goal which we must all strive for.

Michael Veramendi

National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues

Addressing Madness

As each day passes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's radical expressions are becoming a massive trove of critical danger to the international community. Despite his obvious desire not only to eradicate Israel but furthermore to install a universal Islamic republic across the Middle East, the leaders of many superpowers and democracies appear to be taking a one handed approach to pacifying the president, rather than forcefully taking action against him.

True, the use of force goes hand in hand with distrust and violent actions, yet those are not excuses  to use in  withholding  due action against the extremist executive. Our failures with Iran go back to the days of Jimmy Carter, when the Democrat's government failed to prevent an upheaval in the country which helped create the rise of the Ayatollahs and their twisted rhetoric for jihadist dominance over the republic. Before Carter's hesitance, America had enjoyed strong diplomatic ties with the Shah, Iran's pro-western monarch who decried Muslim extremism.

Under the new spiritual leader rule of the Ayatollahs and now the joint leadership of President Ahmadinejad, Iran's government has turned into a bastion for regulation of free speech and enterprise. No longer is their desire  to only speak out--they have embraced a position in the world, together with their grasp of nuclear weapons, that threatens Middle East stability like few other power blocs have accomplished before.

In keeping with basic sensibilities, I am hesitant to endorse military action against the Muslim state, yet we must begin to accept that Iran is not a small player in the race for spiritual authority in the world anymore. With the backing of a more industrialized nation such as Turkey, it could easily transform into a more formidable--and unwavering, force. All Iran which Iran truly requires however is an opportunity to strike, something which countless examples of gerrymandering by world leaders in the present day are creating.

President Obama must cease his coy strategy with the Iranian government and instead breach the walls of extremist dialog to make way for a more moderate state. Doing so would be as simple as offering support and sympathy to the Green Path of Hope, a movement which has managed to shift the fundamentals of political power in Iran and force at least some action from its leaders.

This issue cannot be treated as an off the table topic for the Whitehouse. Freedom is at stake because of fear which is rooted deeply in the hearts of political leaders. But its foundations are wholly unjustified, as a decisive move would be more than accepted by even the United Nations, which has noted the threat posed by the conservative president in Iran today. It need not be a bloodbath, but it must be an agenda item; else we shall reap the consequences of inaction.

Ayla Samadi

National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs